Asbestos Claims Criteria and Compensation Act of 2003

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003. This bill will protect funding for the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund by simplifying administration and compliance with the excise tax by eliminating the assessment of the tax against custom gunsmiths.

The creation of the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund is one of the great success stories of cooperation among America's sportsmen and women, state fish and wildlife agencies, and the sporting goods industry. Working together with Congress, Americans who enjoy the outdoors volunteered to pay an excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition to be used for hunter education programs, wildlife restoration, and habitat conservation.

Under the tax code, all manufacturers of firearms must pay an excise tax of 10 percent or 11 percent of the retail price, depending on the type of firearm. For more than 25 years custom gunsmiths have sought to clarify that they were not intended to be subject to this tax. Many custom gunsmiths do not actually make new guns, rather they remodel or refurbish existing firearms. The proposal establishes an exemption from the excise tax for manufacturers of fewer than 50 firearms per year.

This issue is important to individuals in Montana. Steven Dodd Hughes, a custom gunmaker in Livingston, MT, pays this tax. He has a sole proprietorship, a one man shop. Steven's business is generated from outside of Montana and brings in much needed revenue to his community. He agrees with the tax as it was intended, on manufacturers. It was not intended to be applied to one man operations such as his. The American Custom Gunmakers Guild and the NRA agree with Mr. Hughes.

In summary, the Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003 would accomplish two worthy objectives. First, this proposal will eliminate the assessment of the excise tax on custom gunmakers, which is fair. Second it eliminates the significant administrative burden placed on small businesses, such as determining who the manufacturer is and who is going to assess and collect the tax. These custom gunmakers rebuild and update the firearms, they don't administer tax laws. Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the proposal will decrease revenues by less than $10 million over ten years, resulting in minimal reduction of the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill entitled ``The Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003'' be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Free Trade with Cuba Act of 2003. This legislation presents an important step toward normalizing United States economic relations with Cuba and opening a dialog between our two nations. Perhaps more importantly, the bill promotes human rights and democracy in a nation that has suffered under totalitarian rule for more than 4 decades, an objective central to the same democratic principles that have driven our foreign policy since the end of the Second World War.

The Free Trade with Cuba Act contains three essential components. First, it lifts the trade embargo against Cuba and eliminates the travel ban that accompanies the embargo. Second, it graduates Cuba from Jackson-Vanik and authorizes the President to extend nondiscriminatory trade treatment to Cuba. Finally, it removes the restrictions on travel between our two countries.

This legislation is similar to the legislation I introduced in the last Congress, S. 400 and S. 401. That legislation was referred to the Finance Committee. I am hopeful the committee can pass favorably on this legislation quickly so we can bring it to the floor and pass it.

This legislation is long overdue. In 1962, the United States embargoed virtually all trade with Cuba as a response to the rise of the totalitarian regime and seizure of American property. Over the years, U.S. sanctions against Cuba were further tightened, culminating with restrictions on the rights of Americans to visit Cuba.

Within the context of the cold war, many of these sanctions seemed to make sense. Yet throughout that time the embargo appeared to have little, if any, effect on the Castro regime. Forty years of the embargo, 4 decades of disengagement, have simply not worked. It is time to try a new approach. It is time for engagement.

Supporters of the embargo throw out many arguments against the legislation. First, they will say that private property of U.S. citizens that was taken in the early days of the Castro regime compels us to refuse trade with Cuba until we get the property back. They point out horrendous treatment of Cuban citizens by Castro and denial of the most basic human rights is also a reason. Let us be clear. These are problems and they must be resolved. Yet, the debate is not whether these problems exist. They do exist, of course, they exist. That is not the issue. We all know that.

The question, rather, is how to solve it. Forty years of embargo have done nothing to regain private assets taken so long ago by Castro and 40 years of embargo have done nothing to improve the living conditions and prospects for democratic reform in Cuba.

I have been to Cuba and visited Cuba. The people are in terrible shape. If anything, the embargo has lessened the prospects for reform by giving Castro someone else to blame for the terrible economic plight of his people. This embargo, frankly, is something Castro loves. It is a foil. He can blame the United States for some of the ills of his citizens. It is working in the opposite direction. In other words, while the problems may seem complicated, the one thing we can say we do know for certain is this: Current policy is not the answer; the current policy is a failure.

We must look to alternatives. How would this legislation resolve these problems? First, as to expropriation, the legislation I am proposing today calls for the President to undertake negotiations with the government of Cuba to settle this issue and make sure those harmed by this expropriation are fairly compensated. Second, as to the crucial issues of human rights and democratic reform, the legislation simply reflects the commonsense truth that engagement between the American and Cuban peoples will do much more to open Cuban society and help Cuban people, as it has around the world for 200 years, than silence and neglect--so similar to the question we had of China not too many years ago.

What did we do with China? The answer was very simple: We engaged. We

engaged without losing. China is a country. We are a country. Let's engage again. The same is true for Cuba: They are a country, we are a country, let's start talking and figure out how to solve things.

We should not delude ourselves. Embargo is a word for neglect. By not engaging the Cuban people and opening our world and tradition to them, we are neglecting them.

Last year we worked hard to further trade liberalization, passing the Trade Act of 2002. When the President signed that bill he said this:

Free trade is also a proven strategy for building global

prosperity and adding to the momentum of political freedom.

Greater freedom for commerce across the borders eventually

leads to greater freedom for citizens within the borders.

I agree. This statement is as true for Cuba as it is for any other country.

Third, on the economics of this, sure, we are in tough times. The economy is flat. Our farmers and workers are hurting, but there is a market worth up to $1 billion a year we are shutting ourselves out, denying ourselves. It makes no sense. The embargo against Cuba accomplishes nothing, and hurts our farmers and workers and companies by excluding them from a great potential market. Meanwhile, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Canada, dozens of other countries, are busy selling goods and building commercial relations in Cuba. We are not. They are. Ask me the rationale of that.

There is a final point regarding the basic rights of freedoms of the American people. It is a fundamental violation of the spirit of our democratic principles to tell the American people they cannot travel to Cuba. What a sad irony is trying to promote freedom and democracy in another country by restricting it in our own. It is time to get real about this. It is time to get real about promoting freedom and democracy, it is time to get real regarding economic expansion, and it is time to end the embargo.

Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce the Geriatric Care Act of 2003, a bill to increase the number of geriatricians in our country through training incentives and Medicare reimbursement for geriatric care. I am proud to be joined in this effort today by Senators Reid, Snowe, Breaux, Graham, Bingaman, Landrieu, Murray, Mikulski, Sarbanes, Reed, Kennedy, and Collins.

Our country teeters on the brink of revolutionary demographic change as baby boomers begin to retire and Medicare begins to care for them.

As a member of the Finance Committee and the Special Committee on Aging, I have a special interest in preparing health care providers and Medicare for the inevitable ``aging of America.'' By improving access to geriatric care, the Geriatric Care Act of 2003 takes an important first step in modernizing Medicare for the 21st century.

By the year 2030, 70 million Americans will be 65 and older. The elderly will soon represent one-fifth of the United States population, the largest proportion of older persons in our Nation's history. Our Nation's health care system will face an unprecedented strain as our population grows older. Our Nation is simply ill-prepared for what lies ahead.

Demand for quality care will increase, and we will need physicians who understand the complex health problems that aging inevitably brings. As seniors live longer, they face much greater risks of disease and disability. Conditions such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease occur more frequently as people age.

The complex problems associated with aging require a supply of physicians with special training in geriatrics. Geriatricians are physicians who are first board certified in family practice or internal medicine and then complete additional training in geriatrics.

Geriatric medicine provides the most comprehensive health care for our most vulnerable seniors. Geriatrics promotes wellness and preventive care, helping to improve patients' overall quality of life by allowing them greater independence and preventing unnecessary and costly trips to the hospital or other institutions.

Geriatricians also have a heightened awareness of the effects of prescription drugs. Given our seniors' growing dependence on prescriptions, it is increasingly important that physicians know how, when, and in what dosages to prescribe medicines for seniors. That's because frequently, older patients respond to medications in different ways than younger patients.

In fact, 35 percent of Americans 65 years and older experience adverse drug reactions each year. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, medication problems may be involved in as many as 17 percent of all hospitalizations of seniors annually.

Care management provided by a geriatrician will not only provide better health care for our seniors, but will also save costs to Medicare in the long term by eliminating more costly medical care in hospitals and nursing homes.

Quite clearly, geriatrics is a vital thread in the fabric of our health care system, especially in light of our looming demographic changes.

Yet today, there are fewer than 9,000 certified geriatricians in the United States. Of the approximately 98,000 medical residency and fellowship positions supported by Medicare in 1998, only 324 were in geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry. Only three medical schools in the country, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, UAMS, being one of them, has a Department of Geriatrics. This is incredible considering that all 125 medical schools in our country have departments of pediatrics.

As if that weren't alarming enough, the number of geriatricians is expected to decline dramatically in the next several years. In fact, most of these doctors will retire just as the Baby Boomer generation becomes eligible for Medicare. We must reverse this trend and provide incentives to increase the number of geriatricians in our country.

Unfortunately, there are barriers preventing physicians from entering geriatrics. These include insufficient Medicare reimbursements for the provision of geriatric care, inadequate training dollars, and too few positions for geriatricians.

Many practicing geriatricians find it increasingly difficult to focus their practice exclusively on older patients because of insufficient Medicare reimbursement. Unlike most other medical specialties, geriatricians depend almost entirely on Medicare revenues. A recent MedPAC report identified low Medicare reimbursement levels as a major stumbling block to recruiting new geriatricians.

Currently, the reimbursement rate for geriatricians is the same as it is for regular physicians. But the services geriatricians provide are fundamentally different.

Physicians who assess younger patients simply don't have to invest the same time that geriatricians must invest assessing the complex needs of elderly patients. Moreover, chronic illness and multiple medications make medical decision-making more complex and time consuming. Additionally, planning for health care needs becomes more complicated as geriatricians seek to include both patients and caregivers in the process.

We must modernize the Medicare fee schedule to acknowledge the importance of geriatric assessment and care coordination in providing health care for seniors. Geriatric practices cannot flourish and these trends will not improve until we adjust the system to reflect the realities of senior health care.

The Geriatric Care Act I am introducing today addresses these shortfalls. This bill provides Medicare coverage for the twin foundations of geriatric practice--geriatric assessment and care coordination.

The bill authorizes Medicare to cover these essential services for seniors, thereby allowing geriatricians to manage medications effectively, to work with other health care providers as a team, and to provide necessary support for caregivers.

The Geriatric Care Act also will remove the disincentive caused by the Graduate Medical Education cap established by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. As a result of this cap, many hospitals have eliminated or reduced their geriatric training programs.

The Geriatric Care Act corrects this problem by allowing for additional geriatric training slots in hospitals. By allowing hospitals to exceed the cap placed on their training slots, this bill will help increase the number of residents in geriatric training programs.

Finally, the Geriatric Care Act contains a new provision that ensures Graduate Medical Education payments for the second year of geriatric fellowship training. A one-year fellowship may be adequate for training clinical geriatricans but a two-year fellowship is essential for training academic geriatricans who will teach geriatrics to primary care and specialty physicians-in-training. Academic geriatricians are critical in preparing the next generation of doctors to care for our growing elderly population.

My home State of Arkansas ranks sixth in the Nation in percentage of population 65 years and older. In a decade, we will rank third. In many ways, our population in Arkansas is a snapshot of what the rest of the United States will look like in the near future.

We are blessed in Arkansas to have the Donald W. Reynolds Department of Geriatrics and the Center on Aging at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. It is my hope that the Geriatric Care Act will make it easier for our medical school and others across the country to train more physicians in geriatrics.

As our parents, grandparents, friends, and loved ones cope with the challenges that aging brings, we must ensure that physicians skilled in caring for their special needs are there to help them. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this effort to modernize Medicare to support crucial geriatric services for our Nation's seniors.

I ask unanimous consent that following my statement there be a printed list of organizations that support the Geriatric Care Act of 2003.

Madam President, over the last several years, I have tried to correct a long-standing injustice impacting our Nation's veterans. Under a law that is now over 110 years old, most veterans who retire with 20 years of honorable service, and who also have a service-related disability, cannot collect both their retirement and their disability pay.

In 2001, I was joined by 82 cosponsors in introducing S. 170, the ``Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001.'' Our bill sought to lift the restrictions to allow veterans the ``concurrent receipt'' of both retirement compensation and disability benefits. Although we were successful in getting the language approved in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2002, now codified at 10 U.S.C. 1414, the authorization was made contingent upon the passage of further appropriations. No funds were ever appropriated and concurrent receipt remained another unfulfilled promise to our veterans.

In 2002, I introduced S. 2051, the ``Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2002'' to repeal the contingency language and make concurrent receipt a reality. The Senate again overwhelmingly passed this measure. Unfortunately, the White House threatened a veto of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2003, and therefore, the Conference Committee conceded to a compromise proposal, see Section 636 of Conference Report 107-772. This compromise was a much scaled-back version of concurrent receipt. Senator Warner correctly referred to it as a ``beachhead'', but we all acknowledged there was much work remaining.

Under last year's compromise, only a small number of veterans-- estimated to be between 15 to 30 thousand--would stand to benefit. The compromise left the contingency language for full concurrent receipt in place, but created a new category of special compensation, now codified at 10 U.S.C. 1413(a). In this new category, retirees that had at least a 60 percent disability rating that was a direct result of armed conflict, hazardous service, performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war, would be eligible to collect both retirement compensation and disability benefits. Thus, the current law excludes approximately 500,000 disabled veterans who have served their country honorably. To exclude these veterans assumes that they are less deserving of fair compensation because they did not incur their injury in combat. The law also creates an unnecessary bureaucracy for the VA and the Department of Defense, which currently do not make distinctions based on the specific cause of a service- connected disability.

Therefore, I rise today with Mr. McCain, to introduce the ``Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003'', along with our colleagues Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Lincoln, Mr. Miller, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Snowe, to correct this inequity for veterans who have retired from our Armed Forces with a service-connected disability.

Our bill removes the contingency language for full concurrent receipt currently found at 10 U.S.C 1414(a) and (f), and repeals the Special Compensation programs codified at 10 U.S.C. 1413 and 1413(a). The effect would be to finally implement full concurrent receipt, thereby ending the 110 year inequity.

Passage and implementation of this bill is long overdue. I am sure many of my colleagues would be interested to learn that Congress imposed these restrictions on concurrent receipt just after the Civil War, when the standing army of the United States was extremely limited. At that time, only a small portion of our armed forces consisted of career soldiers.

Today, nearly one and a half million Americans dedicate their lives to the

defense of our Nation. The United States' military force is unmatched in terms of power, training and ability. Our Nation's status as the world's only superpower is largely due to the sacrifices our veterans made during the last century. Rather than honoring their commitment and bravery by fulfilling our obligations, the federal government has chosen instead to perpetuate a longstanding injustice. Quite simply, this is disgraceful, and we must correct it.

Once again our Nation is calling upon the members of the Armed Forces to defend democracy and freedom in Afghanistan, in the Persian Gulf and throughout the world. We must send a signal to the men and women currently in uniform that our government takes care of those that make sacrifices for our Nation. We must demonstrate to veterans that we are thankful for their dedicated service.

Military retirement pay and disability compensation are earned and awarded for entirely different purposes. Current law ignores the distinction between these two entitlements. Military retired pay is earned compensation for the extraordinary demands and sacrifices inherent in a military career. It is a reward promised for serving two decades or more under conditions that most Americans find intolerable. Veterans' disability compensation, on the other hand, is paid to recompense pain, suffering, and lost future earning power caused by a service-connected illness or injury. Few retirees can afford to live on their retired pay alone, and a severe disability only makes the problem worse by limiting or denying any post-service working life.

Career military retired veterans are the only group of Federal retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability benefits. All other Federal employees receive both their civil service retirement and VA disability with no offset. Simply put, the law discriminates against career military men and women. It assumes, in effect, that disabled military retirees neither need nor deserve the full compensation they earned for their 20 or more years served in uniform.

This inequity is absurd. How do we explain it to the men and women who sacrificed their own safety to protect this great nation? How do we explain this inequity to those members currently risking their lives to defeat terror?

We are currently losing over one thousand World War II veterans each day. Every day we delay acting on this legislation means continuing to deny fundamental fairness to thousands of men and women. They will never have the ability to enjoy their two well-deserved entitlements.

This bill represents an honest attempt to correct an injustice that has existed for far too long. Allowing disabled veterans to receive military retired pay and veterans disability compensation concurrently will restore fairness to Federal retirement policy.

This legislation is supported by numerous veterans' service organizations, including the Military Coalition, the National Military/ Veterans Alliance, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Fleet Reservists Association, the Military Officer's Association, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees.

Passing this bill will finally eliminate a grossly inequitable 19th century law and ensure fairness within the Federal retirement policy. Our veterans have heard enough excuses. Now it is time for them to hear our gratitude. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to finally end this disservice to our retired military men and women.

Our veterans have earned this and now is our chance to honor their service to our Nation.

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

Madam President, today I introduce the ``Campus Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act of 2003.''

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

The Campus Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act, which can also be referred to as the ``Campus CORT Act,'' directs the Department of Justice to establish a demonstration program to provide grants and training to help our Nation's universities and colleges establish new quasi-judicial systems. These systems aim at countering the serious drug and substance abuse related problems that are taking such a heavy toll on our institutions of higher learning and the students who attend them. The demonstration program, which would be administered by the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, would be based on the valuable lessons and successes we have garnered from our Nation's innovative and expanding drug court system.

Specifically, this demonstration program legislation would authorize the establishment of up to five Campus CORTs each year for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2007. The bill authorizes the Office of Justice Programs to provide $2,000,000 in Federal funding during each of those years to help get five Campus CORTs well trained, soundly established and up and running. This new program's approach should be similar to how the Office of Justice Programs currently runs the ongoing drug court grant- making program, including providing an Internet-based application process.

There are plenty of good reasons to take the next step and establish a Campus CORTs program based on the drug court model. Since they first appeared in 1989, drug courts have rapidly spread all across the Nation. Rather than simply locking-up nonviolent drug offenders in prison along side violent criminals, drug courts provide the alternative of court-supervised treatment. Instead of simply punishing, drug courts help get people clean.

Drug courts' many successes are underscored both by the bipartisan support they have received in Congress and by the Bush Administration. For example, during a national conference hosted this last April by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, both Office of National Drug Control Policy Director John Walters, our Nation's ``Drug Czar,'' and Drug Enforcement Agency Director Asa Hutchinson gave speeches in support of drug courts and the benefits they provide.

According to the latest statistics as reported by the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, as of November 2002, 946 Drug Courts are operating all across the United States. This is an impressive increase of approximately 250 Drug Courts over the past year. This 946 Drug Courts includes 547 Adult Drug Courts, 245 Juvenile Drug Courts, 59 Family Drug Courts and 14 Combination Courts. Over 400 additional new Drug Courts are in the planning process.

The report goes on to state that approximately 300,000 adults and 12,000 juveniles have been enrolled in the drug court system to date. Of those participants, 73,000 adults and 4,500 juveniles have successfully graduated from Drug Courts.

The merits of the drug court system are well documented. Nationwide, drug courts have been instrumental in enabling more than 1,000 children to be born drug free, more than 3,500 parents to regain custody of their children, and 4,500 parents to resume making their child-support payments. The retention rate is over 70 percent with 73 percent of the participants managing to keep their jobs or successfully find new work. These are encouraging statistics, and not just for the individuals involved, but for society as a whole.

While it is not as easy to measure, we know that Drug Courts play a beneficial role in reducing criminal behavior since so much crime these days is drug related.

Drug Courts also help save up money. It is estimated that every dollar spent on Drug Courts saves our country and communities approximately ten dollars in reduced prison and other criminal justice costs.

These are the kind of successes we should be able to see once the drug court model is customized and applied through Campus CORTs as we work together to respond to the alcohol, drug and other substance abuse challenges facing our Nation's colleges and universities.

Just as drugs are deeply interconnected with crime on our streets, drugs and serious substance abuse are also interconnected with much of the academic failure that damages so many of our Nation's institutions of higher learning and their aspiring students seeking college degrees.

Our Nation's drug courts use a carrot and stick approach where offenders can either live at home and remain free to work under court supervised treatment or face the very real threat of hard jail time. Similarly, Campus CORTs will give troubled students the chance to get supervised treatment and stay clean or get kicked out of school and watch their futures get squandered away.

Instead of simply booting students with substance abuse problems directly out of school, as is currently happening at many universities and colleges all across the country, I believe we should instead help provide institutions of higher learning with new tools they can use to help students get and stay clean. Of course, just like it is with the existing drug courts, there will be some students who simply do not respond to Campus CORTs. While those students will have to face the fact that they may well be expelled from school, at least we will have been able to give them the opportunity to clean-up their act.

Since the new Campus CORTs would be established at colleges and universities, the legislation calls on the Office of Justice Programs, or OJP, to establish new ``quasi-judicial standards and procedures for disciplinary cases'' for institutions of higher learning that wish to participate in the new Federal program.

Today, I am pleased to highlight that one of the leading institutions of higher learning in my home State, Colorado State University, CSU, has already broken new ground as the Nation's first university to apply the drug court concept in a campus setting. The ``Day IV'' program, as it is known at CSU, has racked-up a successful record in helping keep students clean and in school.

Our Drug Court system is making a difference all across our Nation. In fact, a 2002 report issued by Columbia University's prestigious National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse states that ``Drug Courts provide closer, more comprehensive supervision and much more frequent drug testing and monitoring during the program, than other forms of community supervision.'' The report underscores that ``drug use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are participating in drug court'' and that ``criminal behavior is lower after participation, especially for graduates.''

Our Nation's Drug Court system is a good example of a viable and productive partnership between the Federal Government our State governments and local jurisdictions. Their collaboration is making a positive impact all across our country. I want to take this moment to thank the people of the OJP, the experts at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and the state and local judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers and other officials who have done so much to establish, build upon and continually improve our Nation's drug court system.

I also want to take a moment to thank Judge Karen Freeman Wilson, Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals for her letter of support for the Campus CORT legislation I am introducing today. It is appreciated.

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

Mr. President, 194 years ago this week, a son was born to Nancy and Thomas Lincoln in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. That son, Abraham, would go on to become President of the United States at one of the most defining times in our Nation's history.

President Lincoln is still revered today for his leadership and vision of a country in which all citizens have the opportunity to succeed. In 1864, when the outcomes of the war and his re-election were in question, he asked soldiers from Ohio's 66th regiment to stop at the White House on their way home so he could express his appreciation. President Lincoln shared with them the following:

``I beg you to remember this . . . I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father's child has. It is in order that each of you may have through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspirations. It is for this the struggle would be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright . . . The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel.''

That jewel--the American dream that should be within reach of all who grasp for it--has been the hope of generations in this nation. This Nation that elected Abraham Lincoln--born in a one-room log cabin and once a farmhand . . . This Nation that harvests in its children a yearning to soar beyond the earth's atmosphere . . . This Nation that preaches that education, hard work, and family bring success.

Unfortunately, making a living, raising a family, and educating ourselves and our children is becoming more and more difficult in America. And it's the

leaders of this nation that have made the obstacles to success higher to get over and wider to get around.

Here in Washington, we've built a wall of obstacles with one tax burden after another. Our Founding Fathers outlined exactly the powers they wanted Congress to have in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Just because the first thing listed is the power to lay and collect taxes, doesn't mean it's the power we need to exercise the most.

Not only should we take the responsibility of stopping the building of this wall of tax burdens, we need to step up and start removing these burdens. We need to alleviate the tremendous stress that comes with having to work to pay so much of what we earn to the government.

Last year, the average taxpayer in my home State of Nevada did not finish paying taxes until April 27, which was also the average across the United States. Everything earned for the first 117 days of the year went to a government entity. In comparison, the average American spends only 106 days paying for food, clothing, and shelter combined.

That doesn't leave enough days to pay for a family vacation or to save for education or to pay medical bills or to save for retirement or to take a class to improve skills or to do whatever you want with your money--after all, it is your money.

In itself, our tax system is unfair because American families have to work harder to make more money only to pay greater taxes, and workers bear the burden of a government that continues to find ways to tax them into working even harder.

Whatever our individual thoughts are on tax relief, we must agree that, although being taxed has become a challenging part of life, the idea of being double taxed is truly the government stealing from working Americans. Double taxation is immoral. Think about it in terms of a parent teaching a child. I am a parent of three young children. Just as I would explain to my children that it is not all right to take a piece of candy that they have not paid for, I would also tell them it is absolutely not okay to charge someone for something they aren't getting. But that is exactly what our government is doing with the Social Security tax.

Time magazine recently called it ``The Really Unfair Tax.'' I call it the Social Security double dip. The take-home pay of 100 million Americans is fodder for this gutsy government scam. In very simple terms, this means that when a family pays income tax, the portion that is withheld for Social Security--money that they never see--is calculated into their personal income. The first dip is the tax that workers pay on wage income. The second dip is the icing on the cake for the government--taxing money that they are already taking anyway. Working Americans are forced to pay income tax on their Social Security tax. It is textbook double taxation, and if a business concocted such a scheme it would be shut down. How can we continue this policy if we would teach our children that it is wrong? This is only one reason why the tax is unfair.

Another example of the outrageousness of this tax is that while working families are double taxed, American businesses are not. You see, half the Social Security tax is paid by workers, but employers pay the other half. Businesses and corporations get to deduct what they pay in Social Security taxes--a savings that working families are not afforded. This tax discrimination is unacceptable.

We must eliminate this absolutely wrong tax policy that mocks our Constitution's goal to ``promote the general Welfare.'' I propose an above-the-line deduction for Social Security taxes so that an individual's Social Security taxes are not included in the calculation of income for income tax purposes. It's the right thing to do if we want to lead this Nation by example. Providing a Social Security tax deduction makes sense and will make a real difference to working families. About 100 million individuals and families would feel the savings--to the tune of around $2,000 each. Such savings translate into real growth and opportunity. Scholars predict that the Payroll Tax Deduction Act would mean 900,000 new jobs in this country, and it also means a Nation of workers who get to keep more of their hard-earned money.

When government takes money away from working families, it stifles growth and builds obstacles to success. Let's take this chance to provide relief to America's families, open the doors to opportunity, and let future generations know that the American dream--the jewel that inspired Abraham Lincoln--is well within the reach of all who truly desire it.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill and to speak about a litigation crisis affecting both the overall well-being of our nation and our ability to stimulate economic recovery. I'm speaking of the out-of-control explosion of asbestos litigation.

Asbestos litigation has become a disease in our economy. It threatens to drive scores of companies into bankruptcy. It discourages investment in companies under suit. It drives stock value down. It diverts funds away from expansion and growth. It results in job loss and, in short, it has become an obstacle to economic recovery.

The cost of asbestos litigation and burden on business has been devastating. Over 8,400 companies have been named as defendants in suits. At least $54 billion has been paid on more than 6000,000 claims. U.S. Insurers have paid over $22 billion. Insurers outside U.S. have paid $8-12. Defendant companies have already expended between $20-24 billion in claims and transaction costs associated with asbestos litigation.

The total cost of asbestos litigation could reach between $200-265 billion. This is revenue not invested in the economy, not invested in new jobs.

Some companies are hit with multiple suits involving thousands of plaintiffs. The weight of claims and settlements has resulted in an alarming increase in Chapter 11 bankruptcies. Over sixty companies have

filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to asbestos claims. This trend toward bankruptcy has had an alarming domino effect. As companies declare Chapter 11 reorganization, the litigation burden shifts to other defendant companies only encouraging them to declare bankruptcy as well.

At least 5 major companies have each spent more than $1 billion. Thirty-eight of the nations top 100 contractors to the DoD are now asbestos defendants. This crisis threatens to impact our national security industry at the worst possible time in our history. But it also prevents us from aggressively stimulating the economy. The bottom- line is: the cost of litigation and/or bankruptcy siphons away critical business revenue needed for growth and the creation of new jobs. What is frightening, is that only about half the number of potential claimants have come forward thus far. If left unchecked, we have only seen the tip of this crisis.

It's not only business that suffers. Employees of defendant companies suffer a great deal from a damaging ripple effect. The Rand Institute of Civil Justice estimates that 100,000 jobs were not created as a result of asbestos litigation. Bankruptcies related to asbestos litigation have led to 52,000-60,000 people losing their jobs, according to a SEBAGO study. It is estimated that each displaced worker will lose, on average, $25,000-$50,000 in wages before finding a job, or in reduced salary following finding a new job.

It does not stop there. Approximately 42 percent of displaced manufacturing workers participate in retraining programs, costing about $2,000-$3,000 per worker. Local communities also bear the brunt of job reductions due to asbestos-related lay-offs. It is estimated that there have been between $.6 and $2.1 billion in additional indirect local costs and loss. On average, there are eight additional jobs lost locally for every initial job lost. Additional multiplier effects include lowered property values, population decline and lost Federal and State tax revenue.

Those employees fortunate enough not to lose their jobs in asbestos- related cut-backs, also suffer due to the weakened position of their employer. Studies show that reduced stock value in defendant companies results in a 25 percent reduction in employees' 401(k) plan value. The average worker loses, on average $8,300 in pension devaluation.

This is a situation that has been exploited by the non-injured. Over 65 percent of plaintiffs, estimates as high as 90 percent, have no medical injury, but have filed suit on the basis that they ``may'' develop illness in the future. To date, most claims have been paid to non-injured claimants. Some plaintiffs' attorneys are signing up thousands of individual plaintiffs onto suits where there may be no evidence of injury or no evidence of exposure to asbestos products. The effect is that the largest portion of the claim pool is being paid to non-injured claimants. As a result, this adversely affects the ability of truly injured plaintiffs to collect damages. Claimants with malignant injuries are being lost in the stampede of those not injured. There is not only less money for those who really need it, the courts are swamped with a flood of questionable claims. It is not surprising that the U.S. Supreme Court has twice called out for Congress to find a solution.

Congress must indeed act. We must find a solution that both protects the economy and the legal rights of those truly injured by asbestos or who will develop asbestos-related injuries in the future. That is why today I introduce a bill that will not only introduce criteria to reassert some control over an out-of-control litigation process, but will come to the assistance of those truly injured and who need help. It is also intended to put a halt to the severe damage asbestos litigation has been wrecking on our economy, so that we can get on with the process of economic recovery.

My bill, entitled the Asbestos Claims Criteria and Compensation Act of 2003, establishes medical criteria that a claimant must meet prior to filing a suit. It will also toll the statute of limitations, so that those who develop an asbestos-related disease years down the road will still retain their right of legal action. It also will limit abusive venue shopping, but provides an exception of venue choice for those terminally-ill and facing a shortened life expectancy.

In conclusion, I believe this bill offers a reasonable approach to resolving this serious problem. I believe it offers a solid bipartisan approach that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come to support. If ever we hope to stimulate our economy into recovery and achieve sustained growth, we must also address and eliminate those factors that tend to drag the economy in the opposite direction. Asbestos litigation is one of those inhibitors of the economy, and this bill is a good step toward recovery. I encourage my colleagues to lend their support to this bill and I thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak about what is clearly a bipartisan issue. I would like to add to what my colleague from Minnesota said about the Fuels Security Act offered by Senators Daschle and Lugar on a bipartisan basis.

I am here today to support the Fuels Security Act of 2003. This important renewable fuels legislation is one of the pillars for economic development for rural--America one segment of the population that has lagged behind during the economic surge of the 1990's and is suffering under the combined effects of the current economic slowdown and a two-year devastating drought which I had the audacity to name ``Drought David.''

This legislation is important for rural America. Last year, we completed the farm bill--the first part of the economic revitalization plan for rural America. For the last several months, we have been struggling over the most important short-term economic stimulus plan for rural America--comprehensive drought assistance. Though I believe what the Senate passed and what we hear will be included in the omnibus is insufficient to adequately compensate for the drought, it might provide some initial assistance to farmers and ranchers.

In addition to the farm bill and disaster assistance, I believe we need to craft a comprehensive rural development plan that will spur investment in agri-business and promote economic activity in the agriculture center. We need to consider opening new markets like Cuba-- to ensure American products can be sold and farmers and ranchers can earn a living.

The Fuels Security Act of 2003, is the latest piece of the puzzle.

It is clear that use of ethanol, as part of a renewable fuels standard is a win-win-win situation: a win for farmers, a win for consumers, and a win for the environment. That is why I rise as an original co-sponsor and strong supporter this renewable fuels legislation.

If passed, the Fuels Security Act will establish a 2.3 billion gallon renewable fuels standard in 2004, growing every year until it reaches 5 billion gallons by 2012. There are many benefits to this legislation.

It will displace 1.6 billion barrels of oil over the next decade; reduce our trade deficit by $34.1 billion; increase new investment in rural communities by more than $5.3 billion; boost the demand for feed grains and soybeans by more than 1.5 billion bushels over the next decade; create more than 214,000 new jobs throughout the U.S. economy; and it will expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion over the next decade

It is quite apparent that increased use of ethanol will do much to boost a struggling U.S. agriculture economy, and will help establish a more sound national energy policy.

The greater production of ethanol will also be beneficial to the environment. Studies show ethanol reduces emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons by 20 percent and particulates by 40 percent in 1990 and newer vehicles. In 2001 ethanol reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 3.6 million tons, the equivalent of removing more than 520,000 vehicles from the road.

A choice for ethanol is a choice for America, and its energy consumers, its farmers, and its environment.

Enactment of the Fuel Security Act will help us to reverse our 100- year-old near total reliance on fossil fuels; a more pressing concern than ever given the possibility of military conflict in the Mid East and the continuing economic turmoil in Venezuela.

It was recently reported we are currently exporting about 80,000 gallons of fuel to Venezuela right now to help in their shortfall because of the turmoil in that part of our world.

I am unabashedly proud of what my home State has accomplished in this area. Within the State of Nebraska, during the period from 1991 to 2001, seven ethanol plants were constructed and several of these facilities were expanded more than once during the decade.

Specific benefits of the ethanol program in Nebraska include: $1.15 billion in new capital investment in ethanol processing plants. They include 1,005 permanent jobs at the ethanol facilities and 5,115 induced jobs directly related to plant construction, operation, and maintenance. The permanent jobs alone generate an annual payroll of $44 million. And more than 210 million bushels of corn and grain sorghum is processed at the plants annually. These economic benefits and others have increased each year during the past decade due to plant expansion, employment increases, and additional capital investment.

If each State produces 10 percent of its own domestic, renewable fuel, as Nebraska does, America will have turned the corner away from dependence on foreign sources of energy.

And it is possible because ethanol and biodiesel can be made from biomass from other than corn or sorghum or other row crops. It can be produced from garbage. It can be produced from switch grass and all kinds of other biomass.

When you take a hard look at the facts, you will see that this legislation is nothing but beneficial for America. The Fuels Security Act is balanced,

comprehensive, and is the result of the dedication of so many, especially Senator Daschle and Senator Lugar.

So now I ask my colleagues to join me in promoting new opportunities for the technologies that will put our Nation and the world's transportation fuels on solid, sustainable, and environmentally enhancing ground. We owe it to our country now--and to future generations--to pass this legislation without any further delay.

Madam President, headlines in daily papers all across the country underscore our economy's vulnerability to foreign oil.

Today, a new generation is learning what many Americans have known since the 1970s--our economic security and our national security depend on our energy security.

Today I, along with a number of my colleagues, am introducing the Fuels Security Act of 2003.

This bill responds directly to our Nation's unhealthy reliance on imported oil by establishing greater flexibility in our gasoline regulations, and by tripling the use of domestic, renewable fuels over the next 10 years.

This legislation is identical to the fuels agreement included in last year's Senate-passed energy bill.

Based on the experience we have gained over the last seven years with the reformulated gasoline program, the Fuel Security Act bill makes a number of important changes in Federal law.

It bans MTBE in 4 years, authorizes funding to cleanup MTBE contamination and fix leaking underground tanks, allows the most polluted states to opt into the reformulated gasoline program, and provides all States with additional authority under the Clean Air Act to address air quality concerns.

It eliminates the oxygen requirement from the RFG program, a change that is very important to states that are planning to remove MTBE from their gasoline supplies in the near future.

To preserve the hard-fought air quality gains that have resulted from the implementation of that requirement, the bill creates a renewable fuels standard that will nearly triple the use of renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel over the next 10 years.

Finally, the bill also provides special encouragement to biomass- based ethanol, which holds great promise for converting a variety of organic materials into useful fuel, while substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Ethanol comes from American farmers and producers, passes through American refiners, and fuels American energy needs. No soldier has to fight overseas to protect it. And no international cartel could turn off the spigot.

For years, we talked about those benefits with a sense of resignation. After all, these aren't new arguments, and yet there were a lot of people who still saw ethanol as a boutique fuel, not a real answer to our energy problems.

With this legislation, we intend to change that preception--and get America moving toward energy independence.

The renewable fuels standard will be a win-win-win. It will help the environment, it will help the rural economies which are hurting right now, and it will help reduce America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

I believe we can make it law. During consideration of the Energy Bill last summer, the Senate endorsed the Renewable Fuels Standard package by a vote of 69 to 30.

Overall, this legislation is a careful balance of often disparate and competing interests--and a compromise in the finest tradition of the U.S. Senate.

Just look at some of the organizations whose active support is helping to make this legislation possible: The Northeast States Coordinated Air Use Management Agency, the American Petroleum Institute, the Clean Fuels Development Coalition, the American Lung Association, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels Association, the Governor's Ethanol Coalition, the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau, the National Corn Growers Association, and the American Corn Growers Association.

That support across the political and ideological spectrum is reflected within the Senate as well.

I particularly want to thank Senator Lugar. The seeds for this comprehensive legislation were planted a few years ago when he and I first introduced legislation to establish a renewable fuels standard and provide flexibility in producing reformulated gasoline. Senator Lugar's enthusiastic support gave this idea needed momentum and helped lay the groundwork for agreement on this legislation last year.

In addition, Senators Tim Johnson and Chuck Hagel deserve enormous credit for legislation they introduced last year to establish a very ambitious renewable fuels standard, and for their work in promoting this concept.

And there are many others--Senators Ben Nelson, Tom Harkin, Chuck Grassley, Byron Dorgan, Mark Dayton, Dick Durbin, Max Baucus, Kit Bond, George Voinovich, and others--who all deserve recognition for the progress we have made on this issue.

Look at America's energy situation today: gasoline prices are high, farm income is low and America is importing close to 60 percent of the oil we use.

At the same time, our substantial appetite for energy continues to grow every year. Over the next ten years, the United States is expected to consume roughly 1.5 trillion gallons of gasoline. At the same time, we hold only three percent of the known world oil reserves.

It has been said that ``we are all continually faced with a series of great opportunities, brilliantly disguised as insolvable problems.''

Meeting our energy challenges is a difficult problem, but it is also a great opportunity to demonstrate American strength, and American ingenuity.

By increasing the use of renewable fuels, preserving clean air gains and moving us toward energy independence, that is what I believe this bill does.