A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States should not support the February 20, 2004, elections in Iran and that the United States should advocate democratic government in Iran that will restore freedom to the Iranian people and will abandon terrorism.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, with the Senator's permission--and I know he has the floor--I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think we are headed in the right direction. I wanted to state to my friend that Senator Dodd is offering his amendment. He is going to speak for a while. We have Senator Dayton coming at 1 o'clock. We hope we will get permission then to set aside the Dodd amendment so we can consider the Dayton amendment, which is on corporate expatriation. He should not take too long.

I hope the majority will give us consideration to set aside the Dodd amendment then because, if we are going to work through all of these amendments, we are going to have to have cooperation on both sides. I have no objection to the unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to this important amendment.

I say to my friend from Connecticut, his speech said it all. In addition to the speech he gave today, he has been a vocal advocate for change for many years. He is to be complimented and applauded for his work.

I hope this amendment passes. Every amendment we have offered on this side has been very important. We have not done very well with the amendments because they have been straight party-line votes. In this instance, I hope the children Senator Dodd has talked about would be taken into consideration.

As indicated, it would be so important to the State of Nevada. It is a modest increase but it would certainly take care of a lot of problems that the school districts have in Nevada.

Again, I congratulate my friend from Connecticut and hope very much this amendment will pass.

Will the Senator yield?

It is my understanding you will offer an amendment in a different form than the Dodd amendment, and there would be two side-by- side amendments; is that right?

We are working on that. I spoke to Senator Dodd and he feels we would have 30 minutes equally divided prior to the vote.

The two leaders have to work out what the sequence of votes is going to be. We have the Dodd amendment which has been laid down. We have the Edwards amendment which is pending. We have Senator Reed of Rhode Island offering an amendment on LIHEAP, cosponsored with Senator Collins. We have Senator Dayton coming in a few minutes to offer one on corporate expatriation. They have to figure out the sequencing of votes. We are trying to do as we have been told--to offer as many amendments as possible. I suggest this can be worked out between the Senators from New Hampshire and Connecticut, but we would like to get to this.

If my friend will withhold, my only point is that we have been trying to do as your leader wants us to do and line up a bunch of amendments. We have Senator Dayton coming at 1 o'clock, and I have announced that previously. He is not going to take too long. But I am happy to go along with what the Senator suggested. We will get the Reed amendment laid down and come back to the Dodd amendment.

I think the Senator's original suggestion is the better of the two. I ask unanimous consent the Dodd amendment be set aside and Senator Reed be recognized to offer his amendment, speak up to 15 minutes, and then we will return to the Dodd amendment and try to work out something.

There will be ample time later for her to do that.

Yes.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we know the Senator is acting in good faith. We don't have a copy of this amendment. We have a pretty good idea of what it is. We are confident that we have a general understanding of the amendment. We believe this would be appropriate.

We hope, when this debate is completed, that Senator Dayton will have an opportunity to offer his amendment. He is scheduled to be here at 1 o'clock. Senator Inhofe is also here. But let us take one step at a time. Therefore, we have no objection. Let me also say that debate on this may not all be completed this afternoon. Senator Dodd would reserve whatever time is left of his 30 minutes.

Mr. President, this has been cleared with the majority. I ask unanimous consent that the consent request with respect to the Edwards amendment be modified to the Senate resuming consideration of the amendment at 2:15 p.m., with the previous provision still applicable.

Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut has reserved his time, as has the Senator from New Hampshire. I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum and, shortly thereafter, call it off with hopes we can move to the Dayton amendment and set aside the pending amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time that Senator Gregg and Senator Dodd have remaining be preserved and the quorum call, which I will make immediately, not be charged to their time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, my friend from Wyoming is here and wishes to speak on the Edwards amendment. Under the order we just entered, that is not to recur until 2:15 p.m. If the Senator wishes to speak, we can take him out of order, if Senator Dayton is willing to wait 10 minutes while the Senator from Wyoming speaks.

Mr. President, I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside; that Senator Dayton be recognized to offer an amendment on corporate expatriation; and that following his recognition, Senator Thomas be recognized for 10 minutes to speak on the Edwards amendment.

Mr. President, I say to my friend, if he will simply seek recognition and send his amendment to the desk, then Senator Thomas will be recognized to speak for 10 minutes.

Amendment No. 80

I would like to ask the Senator a question. I personally appreciate the Senator stepping forward. It should come from the State of Minnesota. Senator Wellstone believed in this strongly.

I remember the Senator advocating this. When I think of our friend Paul and his untimely death in the terrible airplane crash, I feel badly. I feel good about your moving forward with this amendment that Paul and I worked on together in the Senate. It is a modest amendment.

The Senator recognizes, does he not, that this amendment does not apply to nonhomeland security or defense contracts? Maybe we will do something about these companies later. I don't believe they should be able to have a contract with Health and Human Services, with the Department of the Interior, or any of the Federal agencies. However, we have limited this amendment to homeland security and defense. Does the Senator acknowledge that?

The Senator would also acknowledge, would he not, that this is not a permanent ban. All they have to do is say let me do what I should have done in the first place, just pay American taxes.

There are all kinds of reincorporations that take place every day in corporate America. They could simply reincorporate in Delaware or Nevada or Minnesota or any place they felt appropriate and they would be right back, being able to get all the contracts they want.

My third inquiry to the Senator from Minnesota: I know some of our friends who are lobbyists, as you have indicated, public relations representatives--I think, with a straight face they really would have trouble advocating for this. Would the Senator acknowledge that?

I appreciate the Senator's attention.

Mr. President, tax loopholes allow dozens of U.S. corporations to move their headquarters, but they move them on paper only, to tax haven countries to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. It was just a short time ago that Senator Wellstone and I offered an amendment to bar the Department of Homeland Security from awarding Government contracts to these corporate tax runaways. The Senate adopted that amendment unanimously. But in the homeland security bill that passed the last little bit that we were here last year, they cut this amendment.

It is a sad reality that these corporate expatriations are technically legal under current law. But legal or not, there is no reason U.S. Government contracts should be awarded to these tax runaways. These are lucrative Government contracts and we should not reward these companies for doing what they have done.

Senator Wellstone and I believed these corporations, if they want Federal contracts so badly, they should simply come home, come back to the United States and be eligible to bid on homeland security contracts. If they didn't want to do that, then they should go lobby, for example, the Government of Canada or Bermuda or the Cayman Islands for contracts there.

Some of these companies have indicated: We have been in business in America for a long time. They should stay in business in America. These corporations are shams. We have companies that file paperwork, set up not one but sometimes more than one corporation. One company has three British employees in a little office in Hamilton, Bermuda, but by having these three individuals in Hamilton, Bermuda, they can avoid paying up to $40 million every year in U.S. income taxes.

This bill would forbid foreign corporations involved in these transactions from holding Government contracts with the Defense Department and Department of Homeland Security. It would not restrict major corporations operating in the United States

from winning millions of dollars from the Government in contracts.

I am not going to pinpoint companies. I have read on the Senate floor just a few months ago the names of these companies that are doing these things. This amendment will finally correct the record and accomplish what Senator Wellstone worked for last year. It should have been a priority in the legislation to guarantee the Department of Homeland Security booked its business with corporations that do their share of bearing the burdens of protecting this country. What they have done is they are bearing the burden to protect their own companies, not their own country. The homeland security law is more concerned with window dressing on this issue because what is in the homeland security bill still allows these companies to have huge Government contracts, homeland security contracts.

One contract I have here, $144,844,000 is what they are getting, even though they have incorporated in Bermuda.

Another company, not as large as the first, but almost $5 million. We have another company, $6 million; $17 million; another company, $249 million; another company, $2 million; $248 million--it is on and on with these what I would think would be embarrassing to them. Apparently it is not embarrassing enough that they pay corporate taxes in the United States like other companies.

I again extend my appreciation to the Senator from Minnesota for this amendment and I hope the many people who are in favor of this legislation will speak in favor of the legislation and we can have a resounding vote like we did when it passed unanimously last year. This would be one way to honor the dignity of Paul Wellstone.

I would answer my friend by saying Senator Wellstone, as we know, stood for the small guy. He was concerned about those people who did not have the large lobbying contracts. I think the Senator from Minnesota is absolutely right. The senior Senator from Minnesota is right in that this amendment would help a lot of the small people-- small in stature, big in character, like Paul Wellstone--the people Paul Wellstone would try to protect. That is because people who are not paying these taxes prevent us from providing more money for LIHEAP, for which he advocated all the time. It would allow us to provide more money for education, which he talked about, and he could do that because he was a college professor. It would allow more money for the global AIDS epidemic that he talked about.

This money that these corporations are not paying is more money that other taxpayers have to come up with. We have expenses that have to be met. We have programs that have to be funded. This amendment would force some of these unpatriotic companies into being more patriotic. They would be more patriotic because they would be forced to be more patriotic. If they want to have Government contracts with the Homeland Security Department and Homeland Defense Department, they would have to be patriotic.

So I answer the question with a resounding yes. This would mean a lot to Paul Wellstone, that his legacy is not forgotten, nor the things for which he fought.

A lot of these things he fought for alone. I can remember this issue that he was beaten up on pretty good on the Senate floor--until he was able to talk and explain. Like many of the things that Paul Wellstone brought out of the dark into the light, in the light of day it all looked better. I hope we all support this the way we did before.

This is an important amendment and I repeat, it would honor one of the most courageous people I have ever known--physically and intellectually--Paul Wellstone.

If I could respond to my colleague through the Chair, let me say the defense of this previously was that these are just good lawyers, good tax men. This is the way the law is written so why shouldn't they take advantage of it?

What the Senator from Minnesota and I are trying to do is change the law so that this is not this tax loophole. We know and people know that there are lots of tax loopholes. They are hard to plug because of the huge lobby which they have. We try to plug them. The ones that benefit are some of the largest corporations in America--I am sorry to say-- avoiding billions of dollars in taxes. It is not fair. They reply by saying, well, these people have good lawyers and good accountants. That doesn't justify what they are doing. In fact, it even signifies that we need to do this as quickly as possible to stop these people from doing this and make it easier for the rest of the people in America who are paying their fair share.

Mr. President, we are waiting now until 2:30 when Senator Inhofe is to appear. We understand he will close with the Edwards amendment.

We want the Record to be spread with the fact that we have done everything we can to move this legislation along. We were ready to go early this morning. We had to wait until the other side was ready to move on the bill. We have done our best to plug all the timeslots that have been in existence this morning. I want the Record to reflect that we are doing nothing to slow this down.

I see Senator Inhofe is here now. If he is ready to speak, we could move the 2:30 time up to whatever time is appropriate for the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The Senator was scheduled for 2:30. We are ready now.

I am to be corrected. I was told by the floor staff that I was wrong and the Senator is right. It is 2:15. We don't need to change anything. We ask unanimous consent to return to the Edwards amendment. I think that is the order.

Mr. President, if my friend will withhold, I have a couple comments I would like to make.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the second-degree amendment of my friend, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The amendment offered by Senator Edwards, and cosponsored by Senators Lieberman, Jeffords, Daschle, and Senator Reid of Nevada, really is a very modest amendment.

This administration has gone ahead with the most radical rewriting of the clean air rules in 30 years. Let me repeat that. The administration, administratively, has caused the most radical rewriting of the clean air rules in 30 years. They have not studied what the effects of these rules will be for people's health and the environment. I think Senators on both sides of the gaisle have asked for this study. They have refused to do it.

This amendment simply says, let's wait 6 months--just 6 months--and get a real study of how this amendment will affect people. Our amendment says, because these rules have the potential to be harmful, we should study them first to make sure we know how they will affect people's health. The amendment says, let's wait until we get that settled--6 months, a half a year--before letting the rules become final.

The second-degree amendment says: Yes, we need to study those rules, but let's have the study after the rules go into effect; that is, let the rules go into effect first; and, second, we will study the effects. That means you are rolling the dice with people's health.

What this second-degree amendment says is, we will take our chances with the health of your children, with the health of your parents. What we say is, let the amendment go into effect after we have studied the issue.

What are we going to do a year from now if this study shows--and I am confident it will--that these radical changes will have made people's health worse? What are we going to say to senior citizens who are suffering from respiratory illnesses, as a great deal do?

It was less than a year ago that one of the weekly magazines--I believe it was Newsweek; ran a front-page article that talked about the asthma epidemic sweeping this country afflicting our children. Although they do not determinatively know why, one of the conclusions they arrive at is because of the bad air. However, I don't think we need scientific studies to show that.

By allowing the administration to go forward with this rule, what we are really saying is we do not care. We want these companies to go ahead and be able to continue their polluting--yet we only studied two companies.

We hear that the Environmental Protection Agency today has actually

done the environmental analysis and it shows that these radical rule changes would protect the environment. That is foolishness. It is not true.

The EPA gave us hundreds of pages of old, irrelevant reports.

They said their assessment was qualitative and not quantitative. That is a buzzword for ``we have done nothing.'' It means they didn't do real hard research in how these changes would affect people, children with asthma, and seniors with respiratory illness.

One group did the real hard research. The Environmental Integrity Project looked at two factories and found that just with these two factories, the administration rules would increase pollution by more than 120 tons a year. One of these EPA studies done by the current Environmental Protection Agency points to Delaware as a model. Companies in Delaware have taken some good measures to reduce pollution. That is true. But as industries in Delaware have pointed out and as Senator Biden has pointed out, this administration is not following the Delaware model. They are following a different and anti- environmental model.

The amendment of the Senator from North Carolina does not discourage energy efficiency. All of us support more energy efficiency. We support reform of the New Source Review. We want to reduce pollution at the same time as we reform. We don't want reform being an excuse to increase pollution. The new rules would increase pollution.

Again, the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina is a modest amendment. It says: Look before you leap. However, what we are being told to do with the second-degree amendment is look after you leap. That is not the same.

Look before you leap; that is what we should do. The second-degree amendment is misguided, misdirected. It takes away from the importance and the dignity of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina which simply says, the President wants to move forward with radical changes in the Clean Air Act, an act which has been in effect for some 30 years, so before we do this, let's first wait 6 months to see if the changes the administration suggested will hurt the environment.

I certainly hope the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina passes in its form before the Senate and that the second-degree amendment does not pass. I say that because if you look at the track record of the administration, you are looking at a track record that is not good.

We know the administration came out initially with an effort to change the arsenic standards in water. We were able to turn that back. We know the administration has worked very hard to make sure that the rules relating to testing children to find out if lead in their environment is bad--they tried to eliminate that. We were able to stop that.

Clean water: The administration proposed earlier this month changes for managing waterways under the Clean Water Act. The proposed rules would affect enforcement of the Clean Water Act by defining protected and unprotected lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. This rule would remove 20 million acres of wetlands from protection.

On January 3--just a few weeks ago--the administration issued categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act for certain timber projects. As a result, the agency will be able to approve logging in burned, diseased, and insect-infested forests without completing individual environmental reviews.

On December 31, the administration proposed regulations that would allow tuna caught by encircling dolphins to be labeled ``dolphin safe.'' For the last 5 years, tuna caught using dolphins as targets were barred from bearing the ``dolphin safe'' label.

Two days after Christmas, the administration came up with a Christmas present when they issued new guidelines that would allow more development of wetlands and additional mitigation. However, the existence of wetlands is important because they filter drinking water, retain flood waters, and support wildlife.

The administration on December 23--2 days before Christmas--issued a final rule that would allow States to claim ownership of roads in national parks, forests, wilderness areas, and other public lands. Under this rule, States could assert claims to thousands of miles of dirt roads, trails, and wagon tracks--many of which are in wilderness areas and other public lands.

On December 19, the administration issued a cost-benefit report calling for more than 300 rules to be revised and eliminated, or expanded. These changes affect food safety standards, arsenic in drinking water, energy conservation standards, and logging in national forests.

Again dealing with clean water, on December 16 they issued final regulations under a court-ordered deadline that would weaken clean water protections concerning concentrated animal feeding operations. The new rule will affect 15,000 large and medium size U.S. corporate farms.

On salmon protection, the administration proposed new regulations to weaken salmon protections and to allow increased logging in the Pacific.

On November 22 of last year, the administration issued final regulations that would weaken the Clean Air Act's New Source Review program. The administration has issued standards relating to drilling in national parks. They approved natural gas drilling in Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, the Nation's longest stretch of undeveloped beach. They are going to take care of that and allow drilling there.

On climate change, on November 20 the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality said: ``Climate change is a technology issue.'' He believes technological innovations, not curbs on emissions of greenhouse gases, are the solution to global climate change.

Snowmobiles, something on which I have worked hard: The administration proposed to increase the number of snowmobiles allowed in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks by more than 35 percent, even though the rangers there must use respirators and masks because the air is so bad because of the snowmobiles.

Should we not, with a record like this, take 6 months to see if the rules are going to be bad? I didn't read all of them, but you get the idea why I am a little suspect about the rules and why we should not leap before we look. Let's look, have a study done to find out if the rules are as bad as the environmental community says they are.

I hope the second-degree amendment of my friend from Oklahoma is defeated and we have an up-or-down vote on the amendment to call for a study before we enact the very extreme radical rule changes with the Clean Air Act.

The Senator from Rhode Island will offer a very important amendment on unemployment insurance. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from North Dakota be recognized to speak for 15 minutes; following that, the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized to offer an amendment.

I have spoken to the manager of the bill and have indicated to him that we were going to offer this amendment. I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that when Senator Reed offers his amendment the pending amendment be set aside. If there is a problem with that, that would give time to someone on the other side to be available to object having that set aside.

My friend, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, has come to this Chamber on other occasions with his chart and talked about the Democratic amendments. What he has not talked about is the fact that a year ago, we had a huge surplus. There are estimates that it was as much as $7.2 trillion--some say it was only $6 trillion--over a 10-year period. As a result of what has taken place with this administration, that is gone. We are now spending in the red and using Social Security surpluses to pay for the Bush economic plan.

I was on a TV program with Senator Nickles, who was my counterpart. The person doing the interviewing showed Senator Nickles a chart. From the time that Harry Truman was President until today, going through every President, every President of the United

States has created jobs, without exception, except the current President Bush. In fact, he has done so poorly in job creation that he has lost over 2 million jobs.

I hope the American people understand we are offering these amendments because we believe the American people deserve more than tax cuts for the rich.

The present administration's tax cut plan will increase the deficit by almost $1 trillion over 10 years. I hope my friend from Pennsylvania would vote against that if he is concerned about deficits, because that is a huge deficit builder.

Every time my friend, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, comes to the Chamber with his chart, we are going to also talk about what this administration has done that has adversely affected the American people.

The amendments offered by the Democrats--which are said to be ``outrageous things''--fund school districts around America to take care of handicapped children. I know that is somewhat radical that we want to pay for handicapped children to be educated, but that is what we have decided we would like to do, that we would fully fund the IDEA program. There is not a school district in America that opposes that.

Some of the other amendments funded the unfunded mandates that have taken place with our passing the homeland security bill. I know the State of Nevada badly needs that money because we have been forced to do things that the Federal Government has passed on to us that we cannot afford to do. The State of Nevada needs help. That is why today States have deficits of about $100 billion.

The deficit of the State of California alone is $35 or $40 billion, but of course it has 15 percent of the population of this country.

So they can bring out all the charts they want to talk about these amendments the Democrats are offering. The reason we have voted nearly unanimously for every one of these amendments is because it is the right thing to do for the people who are not represented by the Gucci shoe crowd, the big limousine crowd.

My friend from Rhode Island is going to offer an amendment to take care of about a million people who have no unemployment insurance. The unemployment rate has increased by millions under this President. It has gone from 4 percent to 6 percent. Job losses, as I have indicated, are over 2 million. The private sector has lost 2.4 million jobs since President Bush took office. Unemployment is staggering. A total of almost 9 million people were unemployed in December. The length of unemployment, which is more than 26 weeks, increased by 122,000 in December alone, the biggest 1-month increase in a long time.

There are a great deal of problems with this economy. We believe there should be a tax plan to stimulate the economy. What we believe should take place is an immediate tax cut. It should be directed toward the middle class. It should have no long-term impact on the deficit in this country.

I talked earlier about the Bush economic record. It is the only administration to lose private jobs in more than 50 years. We have had no other administration that has not created jobs. His dad came close. He almost was in the negative. He was the lowest we had since Eisenhower. But it is topped by this President. Eisenhower created increased employment by one-half of 1 percent, Kennedy by 2 percent, Johnson by 3.6 percent, Nixon by 2.1 percent, Ford by .18 percent, Carter by 3.3 percent, Reagan by 2.3 percent, George H.W. Bush by .4 percent, Clinton by 2.6 percent; George W. Bush has lost jobs. He is the only president whose job creation is in the negative.

We do not need people to lecture us on how bad the Democratic amendments are. Our amendments are targeted toward American people, not targeted toward the rich.

I am happy to maintain the floor and yield to my friend from Delaware.

If I could respond to my friend, the distinguished Senator, formally chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Foreign Relations Committee, the only place the Senator has misspoken is that the tax cut will be near $1 trillion when interest is included, near $1 trillion.

And I say to my friend, the Senator is absolutely right.

We have to have a secure nation. The amendments we have supported and were offered by Senator Byrd are amendments that would give the State of Delaware, the State of North Dakota, and the State of Nevada, a little bit of relief from the unfunded mandates we passed on.

I also remind my friend from Pennsylvania who was talking about how bad the amendments were; he talked a lot about the deficit. We are not talking as ``pie in the sky.'' We, as Democrats, have a ledger you can look to of success. For the first time in modern history, during the Clinton years, we were spending less money than we were taking in. The last year of the Clinton administration, they were coming to us saying: Better not retire that debt so quickly because you could have an adverse effect on the economy. I guess someone in the Bush administration heard that because they listened clearly. Instead of having a surplus, as we had, they have gone gang busters.

I have a unanimous consent request, if my friend will yield.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Reed of Rhode Island, Clinton, Bingaman, Johnson, and Schumer be added as cosponsors to the Dodd amendment No. 71.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have spoken to the floor staff. Following the statement of Senator Voinovich, Senator Durbin wishes to speak on the amendment that Senator Reed is going to offer.

I think that will be just fine. We will have no objection.

I have spoken to the majority. They recognize that the next amendment we want to offer is by the Senator from Florida. We understand that Senator Inhofe will be ready to go also. I am sure we will get that consent as soon as the debate on unemployment insurance is completed.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, would it not be better, rather than having the rule going into effect and having all the people, from our perspective, start polluting while the study is taking place, to find out which side is right? We are saying to have the NAS study the issue, hold this off for 6 months, and then there should be a determination made as to whether the rule as proposed by the administration affects people.

I don't see--and I ask my friend from Ohio, the distinguished junior Senator--what harm can be done in holding off for 6 months this rule going into effect when, if we don't hold off, our reasoning would be, as indicated in the study I talked about earlier today, where just 2 months--2 plans would put into the environment 120 tons of bad things every year.

Would it not be better to wait and see what the study of the National Academy of Sciences comes up with before the rule went into effect?

Mr. President, I will respond simply to my friend that the environmental community has a different view. They believe this radical rule change would simply allow pollution to take place that is not allowed now.

We hear that the rules the administration has made are the same as rules made in the Clinton administration. This simply isn't true. Here is what Carol Browner has said:

Some have suggested that the administration's announced

changes are changes the Clinton administration supported.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Fundamental to

everything we did was a commitment to ongoing air quality

improvements. There is no guarantee, and more importantly, no

evidence or disclosure demonstrating that the

administration's announced final or proposed changes will

make the air cleaner. In fact, they will allow the air to

become dirtier.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I renew my request to vitiate the quorum call.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Kennedy, Mikulski, Jeffords, Murray, Edwards, Dayton, Corzine, and Kerry, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, this amendment will add $1.5 billion to the appropriations omnibus bill for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, commonly known as IDEA. This is a matter with which all of my colleagues are very familiar. We have debated this matter on numerous occasions over the years. A brief history about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act may be in order.

It has been almost 30 years--28 years--since Congress passed this legislation in 1975. The promise made in 1975 was that we would provide the States with 40 percent of the funding to educate children with special education needs. We started out with a far lower commitment, and over the years the States have assumed the lion's share of this responsibility. But over the years, we have failed to meet the commitment we made to the States almost 30 years ago.

As a result of efforts by this body in the previous Congress, we came very close to achieving the full funding promise that was made many years ago. In fact, our distinguished colleagues and friends, Senator Jeffords, Senator Hagel, and Senator Harkin, offered an amendment in the previous Congress, which enjoyed unanimous support, to increase the funding over a series of years, that would reach the full funding level as required by the agreement reached in 1975.

Unfortunately, the President and the Republican leadership of the other body refused to agree to the Senate unanimous vote on full funding for special education. As a result of that opposition by the President and by the leadership of the other body, the bipartisan efforts of the Senate and the good work of Senator Hagel, Senator Jeffords, Senator Harkin, and many of us who have worked on this issue over the years failed. In fact, I recall some 15 years ago when I was a member of the Budget Committee and offered in the committee the language which required full funding of special education needs. My friend and colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, was on that committee that year. I remember because he cast a vote with me in the Budget Committee, but we failed on a tie vote in the Budget Committee to get the increased funding.

Over the years, we have had good bipartisan support to do everything we could to fully fund IDEA, and every year, for one reason or another, Congress finds a way to avoid its responsibility.

I do not lay that on the shoulders of the Senate because recently we have met the promise we made. My colleagues here understand and know well how strongly the Governors, mayors, and county executives across this country feel about this issue. This is one of their major issues. When we ask them what are the important areas in which we can assist them, inevitably over the years they have listed special education as one of the most important areas in which we can assist them by meeting our obligations we made some 30 years ago.

When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, it promised to help States meet their constitutional obligation to provide

children with disabilities a free appropriate education by paying for 40 percent of those costs.

The States came to us in 1975 and said: We need your help on this issue. As I said, some 30 years ago, we said we would step in and help, just as we have done with title I for children who have different kinds of needs. Those needs are economic because of the levels of poverty across the country. We said this also is an area where we think the Federal Government ought to step up and provide help to the States.

The cost of special education--and again, I am preaching to the choir when I talk to my colleagues about this issue because they know these issues as well as, if not better than, I do. Talk to any mayor, county executive, Governor, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, and they will tell you that the cost of special education is very high. In fact, in some small towns--I know in my State and I am confident in the State of the Presiding Officer and the States of my good friends from Vermont or Rhode Island--two or three children with special education needs can so distort a local budget with the tremendous increase in cost that it becomes almost prohibitive for those smaller communities to meet the obligations. That is why we have heard so many loud voices over so many years calling on us to step up and meet our obligation.

We made a promise. In 1975, we said: As representatives of the Federal Government, we will come up with 40 percent of the cost of this program. That is our obligation. We will do that. Here we are almost 30 years later, and we have reached a 15-percent level. We are still short by some 25 percent of the costs of special education.

We have made great strides in going from zero to 15 percent, particularly in the last 4 or 5 years, but we are still way short.

The amendment I offer this afternoon provides for an additional $1.5 billion in this omnibus appropriations bill for an additional 1 year. This is not a full-funding amendment. I am not asking in this amendment for full funding over the next several years. Since this bill only deals with 1 fiscal year, I am merely trying to add these additional dollars which will get us closer to the obligations.

Two years ago, a bipartisan group of 31 Members of this body introduced S. 466 to direct the appropriations of funds, to fully fund IDEA by 2007. That bill was the foundation of the Harkin-Hagel amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. The amendment passed by the Senate on a unanimous vote would have increased Federal support for special education by $2.5 billion per year until we reach full funding. Unfortunately, as I mentioned a few moments ago, because of strong opposition from the President of the United States and the Republican House leadership, the provision adopted unanimously by this body was not included in the final No Child Left Behind Act. It made an oxymoron of the title of that bill, No Child Left Behind, when, in fact, we excluded the kids with special education needs from the legislation. So it was No Child Left Behind unless you have special education needs and disabilities.

Today's amendment will enable us once again as a bipartisan Senate to take the first step that we recommitted ourselves to in 2001 by increasing the funding for special education by $2.5 billion for fiscal year 2002 to 2003. We are calling upon our colleagues to do just that.

In my State of Connecticut, in spite of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund special education programs, our school districts--as is true in almost every other State in the country--are struggling to meet the needs of their students with disabilities.

The costs borne by local communities and school districts are rising dramatically. From 1992 through 1997, for example, special education costs in Connecticut rose half again as much as did regular education costs. Our schools need our help, and this amendment is an opportunity, as we begin this 108th Congress, to do just that.

Of course, no one in my State--or any other State, for that matter, in our great Nation--questions the value of making sure the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which is both a landmark education law and a landmark civil rights law, be fully implemented. The only question is how best to do that, and a large part of the answer lies in this amendment.

This amendment will demonstrate that we intend to match our commitment to universal access to education with a commitment to do everything we can to help our States and schools provide that access. This amendment, further, will help not only our children in schools, but it will also help entire communities by easing their tax burden.

Our failure to fully fund IDEA does not make the issue go away. When we do not meet our obligation, then a mayor or county executive at the local level has no alternative; they have to, under their constitutions, meet these responsibilities. So when we duck our responsibility, we only increase the burdens locally. They can slash their budgets locally in other vitally needed areas or they can increase taxes.

As all of us know, there are not many options left at the local level. At the local level, that is where the rubber hits the road, where people need and require that certain obligations be met. Unfortunately, when we do not step to the plate and fulfill our promises on the national level, then we only increase tremendously the burden on our Governors, mayors, and county executives all across this great country.

Homeowners and businesspeople end up paying higher taxes or watch services they depend upon be slashed, not only in my own State, but all around this country, because so much of education is paid for through local property taxes.

Again, I do not need to recite to my colleagues the tremendous burdens that are being felt by local and State budgets all across this country. The estimates are now that deficits running at the State level may hover around $100 billion this year and only get worse next year and the year after. In my State alone, it is about half a billion this year. My Governor tells me it is going to be about $1.3 billion next year. I do not know what it is in the State of Alabama, but I presume it might be like what Connecticut is. I think California is around $34 billion.

I heard some of my colleagues say the other day, in Michigan it is $4 billion or $5 billion. I think someone said in Minnesota it was like $4 billion or $5 billion.

We have these mounting deficits at the State and local level. There is a need in special education. There was a promise made some 30 years ago by the Federal Government. What I am asking for in this amendment on the omnibus bill is that we take out the $1.5 billion, if we could, and see if we cannot step in and provide some real relief for our States and localities in their hour of need and the need of families who have a child with special needs.

The President recently proposed another plan to cut taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars for some of the wealthiest Americans. I represent one of the most affluent States in the country. I probably have a higher percentage of my population who would benefit very directly as a result of the President's tax proposals. Without equivocation or hesitation, the overwhelming majority of the people in my State, including the most affluent, honestly believe the best use of resources is things such as special education. While they, as everyone else, would love to have a tax cut--there is nothing new about that-- when asked to balance the priorities and needs of a nation, they understand providing tax relief for people in the top 1, 2 or 3 percent of income earners in the country at a moment such as this is not a wise or prudent use of the resources of this Nation when there are so many other demands that must be met.

I understand the Federal Government faces the same budget challenges in today's slumping economy as do our States and towns, but we cannot accept the argument that because our economy is faltering we cannot provide our children and their families with critical educational resources and otherwise help average Americans. We would and should not accept that argument if our homeland security or national defense were at stake, and we certainly cannot afford to do it here, either.

Investment in education is no less important now than it was when our economy was more healthy. It is essential to our long-term national economic security. So I ask my colleagues

to seize this opportunity and choose to help our schools but, more importantly, our families and young children who need these resources in order to maximize their potential.

I do not know of anyone, regardless of to which party they belong, Conservative, Liberal or moderate, whatever label one wants to put on themselves politically, that when they look in the eyes of a child who has special needs, can say, I am sorry right now but we cannot provide the resources to their town, county, local, or our State government because we have these other priorities that are making too many demands on us. That is not my America.

My America says, when there is a child with disabilities in need we step to the plate and provide them the kind of help they ought to have so they have a chance to become independent and maximize their potential to see to it that they can be productive citizens and add to the great strength and wealth of our Nation.

I can go down the list of the various States and what they will lose or gain. At the end of my statement, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter written on January 16, 2003, to the majority leader, Senator Frist, and the minority leader, Senator Daschle, in which they specifically go down and list the importance of this amendment and the funding I am asking for, the $1.5 billion, as one of their top priorities. In fact, they list it as the top priority.

There are a whole list of organizations that support full funding for IDEA. I ask unanimous consent to have that list printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

I am not asking for full funding with this amendment. I am asking for the $1.5 billion in this omnibus appropriations bill. I am confident every one of these organizations would support this amendment, even though it is not full funding, but rather the additional amounts this year when we consider the pressures on our States.

Lastly, in looking at the differences in our States--the top State on the list is that of the Presiding Officer--the difference right away where there is a gap between what I am offering and the omnibus bill, it is a little less than $30 million in the State of Alabama, and this amendment would make up the difference. Going down further, in my own State of Connecticut, the difference would be about $18 million. In the State of Vermont, the difference would be about $3 million. In the State of Rhode Island, the difference would be about $5 million in this amendment. What a difference it would make.

I saw my colleague from Missouri in the Chamber recently. In the State of Missouri, the difference would be about $30 million.

I have all 50 States listed and the difference that this $1.5 billion could make. That may not sound like much when a State is facing billions of dollars in deficits, but the fact that we might step up to the plate in Nevada--I apologize to my friend of Nevada, who is sitting right in front of me, but I did not see him--it is about $10 million in his State.

I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record at the end of my statement. It is printed on both sides of one sheet of paper. Members can then have an idea of what the benefit of this small amendment could mean to them and their States.

There are other Members who want to be heard on this issue. As we begin this debate in this Congress, this is one area on which we ought to find common ground. We will have our differences on other issues but every one of our States, Governors, mayors, and families with children with disabilities are asking us to step up and do what we can for them. As we start out in the year 2003, this modest amendment could make such a difference to people across this country and is something we ought to be able to join forces together on and adopt.

Exhibit 1

National Governors Association,

Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.

Hon. Bill Frist,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Tom Daschle,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Frist and Senator Daschle: On behalf of the

nation's Governors, we are writing to express our support for

several key provisions of the (FY) 2003 omnibus

appropriations bill affecting state programs. First, we

appreciate that the bill would maintain the FY 2003 highway

program investment level at $31.8 billion. With a sluggish

economy and many states facing budgetary difficulties, now is

not the time to cut federal highway investment. In addition,

Governors strongly support the $1.5 billion provided in the

bill to implement the new election reform law. We also

appreciate that the bill includes an extension of the

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant

and related programs through September 30, 2003. It is

critical that states have reliability of funds in order to

continue operating their welfare reform programs while

Congress considers TANF reauthorization.

We would also like to express our support for the following

amendments:

Dodd Amendment. The Governors support Senator Dodd's

amendment calling for a $1.5 billion increase in state grants

for special education. We are committed to continuously

improving the academic performance of all students, including

students with disabilities. The nation's Governors support

this amendment and urge Congress to continue to work toward

enacting legislation that makes the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding a mandatory

expenditure with incremental increases towards meeting the 40

percent federal requirement.

Murray amendment. The Governors support providing the

necessary funding for Amtrak to support the continuation of a

national passenger rail system as proposed by Senator Murray.

Amtrak must be provided a sufficient level of funding to

guarantee there will be no break or threat of a break in

service. We must be certain that Amtrak will not encounter

the rolling financial crises it experienced during the past

year.

Chafee-Rockefeller amendment. The nation's Governors urge

your support for quick action on a bipartisan compromise to

protect resources in the State Children's Health Insurance

Program (S-CHIP). Preserving the S-CHIP funds that have

reverted to the federal treasury would keep $1.2 billion of

the FY 1998 and FY 1999 allocations within the program until

2004.

Harkin amendment. The Governors urge support for restoring

current funding levels to the Edward Byrne block grant

program for state and local law enforcement activities.

Finally, while Governors appreciate the inclusion of $2

billion for first responder grants, we urge support for the

President's original request of providing $3.5 billion

coordinated through the states. Just as Congress and the

President have responded by acting on a far-reaching

reorganization and consolidation of federal agencies, so too

the President recognized the critical role of states--the

first line of defense and the first line of coordination of

response to any attack. Thus, this should be meaningful, new

resources that respect the diversity, responsibilities, and

capabilities of states and the immediate need for resources

for national defense. Therefore, we encourage you to add an

additional $1.5 billion in first responder grant funds to the

$2 billion, so that we meet the President's recognition of

the need to be prepared to respond to and recover from any

terrorist attacks.

We greatly appreciate your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Governor Paul E. Patton,

Chairman.

Governor Dirk Kempthorne,

Vice Chairman.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

If the minority whip will yield, my intention was to make a few additional comments, but I have spoken on the amendment. I would like some idea of when we might do this. I know the Senator from Rhode Island has an amendment.

That is fine. We have a couple of other Members, I have just been informed, who would like to speak on the special education amendment. They are not here yet because of the conditions outside. In order to accommodate our colleague from Rhode Island, who is here--and Senator Dayton from Minnesota is on his way--we could work up a proposal and come back later in the afternoon when the other Members are here and finish up the debate on that and allow these other amendments to be debated, since those Senators are here.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield whatever time the Senator from Maryland needs.

Mr. President, how much time remains under the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut?

Mr. President, I will take 10 minutes. Will the Senator notify me when that is up?

Mr. President, I want to express some thoughts. I thank my colleagues for, once again, reconfirming support for the special education program. That is heartening. As the Senator from Maryland pointed out, of course, if we follow the plan of the present occupant of the White House, we will be talking about three decades more--we will have to wait a longer time than we have waited to complete the 40- percent requirement that we have already endured.

So if you are a mayor or a county executive or a Governor, you can take real heart in the fact that for about the next three decades we will be at this debate on getting full funding--if we rely on the administration's plans.

I will remind my colleagues once again that this body and the previous Congress voted unanimously for a full funding program over the next 6 years for special education. It was the administration--the present administration--and the leadership of the other body--the Republican leadership--that killed the proposal the Senate unanimously supported. That is where we are. Those are the facts as we find them today. We can go back and revisit history if you want, but the fact is that the Governors and mayors out there may find a history lesson interesting, but they want to know what we are going to do. What is this administration going to do? What has this administration done? What is the Republican leadership in the Senate and House going to have to do if we are going to meet the obligations we talk about?

So what we have here--as the Senator from New Hampshire suggests he will support--is the $1.5 billion. He is going to do so by adding further to the across-the-board cuts in domestic spending--adding to the impact of the already 2.9 percent across-the-board cuts. I will share with my colleagues what this means.

Now, $1.5 billion is not a huge amount as a percentage--whatever it is, four-tenths of 1 percent. Add that, if you will, to the 2.9. The WIC Program will be cut by $137 million as a result of the 2.9-percent cut. The Food Safety Inspection Service will be cut by $22 million. The Food and Drug Administration will be cut by $40 million under these proposals. State-Justice-Commerce will be cut by $113 million in spending.

Go down to Head Start. This analysis shows what the 2.9-percent cut means in energy and water issues--there it is, a $239 million cut; environmental management, $203 million. There is a whole list of programs, including the Bureau of Reclamation and the Mississippi River Tributaries Program. If you look at Head Start, $63 million will be cut. Air traffic control--that ought to be good news for those who worry about domestic terrorism; transportation security, Coast Guard will be cut by $72 million. The VA-HUD--veterans take note--has $903 million in cuts; VA medical care, $692 million in cuts. So go ahead and add four-tenths of 1 percent to the already 2.9.

I don't hear anybody talking about a slight cut in the $670 billion tax cut in all we are proposing here. Then my colleagues say we will take your $1.5 billion, but we are going to give a ``haircut'' to every other domestic spending program except the tax cut, which goes to the top 1 or 2 percent of income earners. I represent a State that has probably a greater percentage of those income earners than almost any other State in the country. I can say with certainty that my constituents--those included, by the way--who would be the beneficiaries of this tax cut would tell you that at this particular juncture that kind of a tax cut, given the fiscal needs of this country, is unwise.

When my colleagues say we are going to make everybody pay a price, we are going to make that haircut of 2.9 percent, including the budget cuts I have suggested, and add this to it, just make sure you understand what we are talking about. We are not talking about a tax cut which taxes revenues over the table--I am not suggesting there isn't room for a tax cut. But how about including that in the proposal? Why is that particular area always left out and all we talk about are the domestic programs that affect families so strongly?

I guarantee you, by the way, as you start looking at Head Start, the WIC Program, food safety programs, while you are providing $1.5 billion in special education needs and simultaneously cutting back on these other programs, it is not uncommon for the same family and the same child to be the recipient on one hand of the 1.5, and simultaneously getting food in the WIC Program, food safety programs, and the Head Start programs.

Again, I don't know how you can sit here and look at a child who has autism or is suffering from juvenile diabetes, Down's Syndrome, or other special education needs and say: I am sorry we cannot touch the tax cuts, but you are going to have to take this cut in other areas. When my colleagues offer their side-by-side amendment and suggest yet further cuts, I think that is cruel. I think it is unnecessary. I think there are ways of doing this without going after some of these very issues that are so critically important to the well-being of our Nation. They have a lot to do with the economic security of our country as well.

We need to have a balanced approach. So, Mr. President, we will have a debate further along in this year on full funding again. I only hope the administration changes its view from the last Congress. I will reiterate what I said earlier. Governors and mayors list this as their top priority. Mr. Governor or Mr. Mayor, when the first amendment is voted on and we are telling you, by the way, we are going to help you out in special education, hold your breath because we are simultaneously reaching into your other pocket and causing you to raise taxes or cut other vital spending needs you may have because we are reaching in to rob you of the necessary resources you need as well to run your States and your communities. It is a cruel hoax, in a way, we are laying out before people.

I am not opposed to looking at reform efforts. We had a fine effort in 1997--some of my colleagues have forgotten this already--to look at the special education programs. Again, with the reauthorization, I presume we will look at them again. I certainly welcome that. Anytime we have a program such as IDEA, close examination of how well it is working, whether or not the intended beneficiaries are receiving the resources they need, is something we ought to do. It is the only responsible thing to do.

Let's not simultaneously suggest that we are going to have to wait for examination before we provide the resources to the States and communities. They do not have a chance of waiting. They have to provide for these children under existing law. Congress mandated it 28 years ago, and we have only gotten to 15, 16 percent of that 40-percent commitment.

The $1.5 billion in this amendment gets us a little closer to the 40- percent commitment. It raises and provides the resources to these communities for the fiscal year we are in already. We will come back again later in this Congress to see if we can get full funding set up in a way which we did a year and a half ago.

When the vote occurs on this amendment, there are two options: One, to provide the $1.5 billion while going after domestic spending programs, along the lines I mentioned already or, second, we can say we can do it and find the means of doing it, and one of the means is to reduce by a small amount the tax cut the President intends to provide for people in the country. The point being that most of the recipients of this tax cut are people who have incomes in excess of $250,000.

Tell that to a family with an autistic child. Tell that to a family with a child who has Down syndrome or serious learning disabilities: Sorry, we would like to provide that kind of help you need, but, you see, we have an obligation to provide a tax break to someone making $300,000, $400,000 a year. We cannot just quite meet the obligation

to you. I know we made a promise to do it. We said 28 years ago we would do it. We are up to 15 percent of that obligation. By the way, if you wait another 33 years, we will complete that obligation, 60 years after we made the promise. Then we will get you your resources because we cannot afford to give you the help you need without cutting everything else in the domestic area. Of course, we cannot touch the tax cut for the most affluent Americans.

I do not know of anyone outside the people in this town who believe in the logic of that argument. Nonetheless, watch and see what happens when we vote on this amendment. That is exactly what will happen. Go home and explain why we have to cut into these other areas to serve needy kids in this country.

Mr. President, I will take 1 additional minute. I repeat what I said earlier, this is not the America of which people think. We are blessed with great resources. We ought to have the common sense to find a balance, to see to it we meet our obligations when we make them; that we try to help those who are least able to help themselves and their families.

I underscore the point the Senator from Maryland made a few moments ago. Families of children with special needs face incredible pressures, especially those making $25,000, $30,000, $35,000, $40,000, $45,000, $60,000. There are incredible pressures within that family. Why is it we cannot find the resources to help our States, our Governors, our county executives to do more to help these children?

Reforming the process, I am all for that. But the only way we can help is to go after the WIC Program, the Head Start Program, food safety programs, and the like? That I do not understand, and I defy my colleagues to ask an average American to explain it as well. They do not understand it when they hear that argument or we are going to wait another 33 years to meet the obligations under this program.

I feel passionately about this issue; I care deeply about this issue because it is the role that Government ought to play. When I look at families in my State and across the country--and I know the pressures they are feeling and what a small amount it is to offer some relief-- just some relief--to the families feeling this heat and pressure, the anxiety it causes--I do not understand that we cannot step up and meet the obligation because we cannot touch a tax cut that goes to the most affluent citizens of this country. I do not understand that situation. I hope my colleagues do not either. When the vote occurs tomorrow, I hope we will support the amendment that provides assistance but does not do so off the backs of people who can least afford it in the country.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II.

Our Filipino veterans fought side by side and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great nation that we are today.

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

Mr. President, in our efforts to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our Nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research.

Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect.

The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information about basic and clinical social work research, and training, with an emphasis on service to underserved and rural populations.

While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral and mental health care outcomes for our nation's children, families, the elderly, and others.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost- effective, research-based, quality health care to all Americans, we must recognize the important contributions of social work researchers to health care delivery and the central role that the Center for Social Work can provide in facilitating their work.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act in order to provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs.

Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much-needed infusion of behavioral science expertise into our community of public health providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution being made by psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most distressing problems.

The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the provision of critical services to minority populations because often they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community settings where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health care services to underserved communities.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on the Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act of 2003, a bill that responds to the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and disease prevention programs.

Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are without access to a primary care provider. Even in areas where providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as geographical barriers lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural populations, language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to medical care.

Compound these problems with limited financial resources, and the result is that many Americans living in rural communities go without vital health care, especially preventive care. Children fail to receive immunizations and routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries occur needlessly, and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early symptoms of emotional problems and substance abuse go undetected, and often develop into full-blown disorders.

An Institute of Medicine, IOM, report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive

Intervention Research,'' highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. The training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural health care providers lack preventive care training opportunities.

Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers must be encouraged. Through such training programs, rural health care providers can build a strong educational foundation in the behavioral, biological, and psychological sciences. Interdisciplinary team prevention training will also facilitate operations at sites with both health and mental health clinics by facilitating routine consultation between groups. Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their services as part of the health care team will contribute to the overall health of rural communities.

The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act of 2003 would implement the risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific interventions for those risk factors.

The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places a huge financial burden on communities, families, and individuals. By implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the potential overall health and financial savings are enormous.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of our Nation's clinical social workers, I am introducing legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act. This legislation would: 1. establish a new social work training program, 2. ensure that social work students are eligible for support under the Health Careers Opportunity Program, 3. provide social work schools with eligibility for support under the Minority Centers of Excellence programs, 4. permit schools offering degrees in social work to obtain grants for training projects in geriatrics, and 5. ensure that social work is recognized as a profession under the Public Health Maintenance Organization Act.

Despite the impressive range of services social workers provide to people of this Nation, few Federal programs exist to provide opportunities for social work training in health and mental health care.

Social workers have long provided quality mental health services to our citizens and continue to be at the forefront of establishing innovative programs to serve our disadvantaged populations. I believe it is important to ensure that the special expertise social workers possess continues to be available to the citizens of this Nation. This bill, by providing financial assistance to schools of social work and social work students, acknowledges the long history and critical importance of the services provided by social work professionals. I believe it is time to provide them with the recognition the deserve.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend Chapter 74 of Title 38, United States Code, to revise certain provisions relating to the appointment of clinical and professional psychologists in the Veterans Health Administration, VHA. The VHA has a long history of maintaining a staff of the very best health care professionals to provide care to those men and women who have served our country in the Armed Forces.

Recently, a distressing situation regarding the care of our veterans has come to my attention: the recruitment and retention of psychologists in the VHA of the Department of Veterans Affairs has become a significant problem.

The Congress has recognized the important contribution of the behavioral sciences in the treatment of several conditions afflicting a significant portion of our veterans. Programs related to homelessness, substance abuse, and post traumatic stress disorder have received funding from the Congress in recent years.

Psychologists, as behavioral science experts, are essential to the successful implementation of these programs. Consequently, the high vacancy and turnover rates for psychologists in the VHA might seriously jeopardize these programs and will negatively impact overall patient care in the VHA.

Recruitment of psychologists by the VHA is hindered by a number of factors including a pay scale that is not commensurate with private sector rates together with a low number of clinical and professional psychologists appearing on the register of the Office of Personnel Management, OPM. Most new hires have no post-doctoral experience, and are hired immediately after a VHA internship. Recruitment, when successful, takes up to six months or longer.

Retention of psychologists in the VHA system poses an even more significant problem. I have been informed that almost 40 percent of VHA psychologists have five years or less of post-doctoral experience. Psychologists leave the VHA system after five years because they have almost reached peak levels for salary and professional advancement. Under the present system, psychologists cannot be recognized, or appropriately compensated, for excellence or for taking on additional responsibilities such as running treatment programs.

In effect, the current system for hiring psychologists in the VHA supports mediocrity, not excellence and mastery. Our veterans with behavioral and mental health disorders deserve better psychological care from more experienced professionals than they are now receiving.

Currently, psychologists are the only doctoral level health care providers in the VHA who are not included in Title 38. This is without question a significant factor in the recruitment and retention difficulties that I have mentioned.

Title 38 appointment authority for psychologists would help ameliorate the recruitment and retention problems. The length of time needed to recruit psychologists could be shortened by eliminating the requirement for applicants to be rated by the OPM. This would also encourage the recruitment of applicants who are not recent VHA interns by reducing the amount of time between identifying a desirable applicant and being able to offer that applicant a position.

It is expected that problems in retention will be greatly alleviated by the implementation of a Title 38 system that offers financial incentives for psychologists to pursue professional development. Achievements that would merit salary increases include such activities as assuming supervisory responsibilities for clinical programs, implementing innovative clinical treatments that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of patient care, making significant contributions to the science of psychology, and becoming a Fellow of the American Psychological Association.

The addition of psychologists to Title 38, as proposed by this amendment, would provide relief for the retention and recruitment issues and enhance the quality of care for our veterans and their families.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our Nation's clinical social workers to use their mental health expertise on behalf of the Federal judiciary by conducting psychological and psychiatric exams.

I feel that the time has come to allow our Nation's judicial system to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would be very much in our Nation's best interest.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would provide a Federal charter for the National Academies of Practice. This organization represents outstanding medical professionals who have made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology, medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, osteopathy, podiatry, social work, veterinary medicine, and pharmacy. When fully established, each of the ten academies will possess 100 distinguished practitioners selected by their peers. These academics will be able to provide the Congress of the United States and the executive branch with considerable health policy expertise, especially from the perspective of those individuals who are in the forefront of actually providing health care.

As we continue to grapple with the many complex issues surrounding the delivery of health care services, it is clearly in our best interest to ensure that the Congress has direct and immediate access to the recommendations of an interdisciplinary body of health care practitioners.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Clinical Social Workers' Recognition Act of 2003 to correct a continuing problem in the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also provide clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as independent providers of quality mental health care services.

Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance plans across the nation. However, Title V of the United States Code, does not permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by clinical social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' compensation claims brought by federal employees. The bill I am introducing corrects this problem.

It is a sad irony that federal employees may select a clinical social worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, but may not go to this same professional for workers' compensation evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits Federal employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation mental health evaluations. Lack of this recognition may well impose an undue burden on Federal employees where clinical social workers are the only available providers of mental health care.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would exempt from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes on air transportation by helicopters of individuals and cargo for the purpose of conducting removal and environmental restoration activities relating to unexploded ordnance on the Island of Kahoolawe.

The Kahoolawe Island Unexploded Ordnance Clearance and Environmental Restoration Project is authorized under Title X of the Fiscal Year 1994 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The Island of Kahoolawe is uninhabited, and it served as a bombing range for the Department of Defense until 1990. The Department of Defense is currently in the process of cleaning up and restoring Kahoolawe for its eventual return to the State of Hawaii.

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes help support our nation's air traffic systems and airport infrastructures. However, there are no airports or landing zones on Kahoolawe that receive benefits from the Trust Fund. In addition, the taxes place an undue burden on the air transportation services provided to the Kahoolawe Clearance Project. Compared to a normal airline whose aircraft make fewer trips per day over much longer distances, the services provided to the project are very frequent, with many trips over very short distances. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the existing debt-financed property rules that apply to tax-exempt educational organizations, pension funds, and investment consortia of qualified schools and funds.

In a June 21, 2002, article, the New York Times describes the financial straits that nonprofit hospitals now face. More and more people in our weakened economy are seeking medical care from nonprofit hospitals. As a condition for Federal tax exemption, nonprofit hospitals must provide significant charitable services. Fees from other patients, especially in orthopedics, cardiology, and oncology, have in the past, allowed nonprofit hospitals to cover the expense of caring for the poor.

For-profit entrepreneurs, however, are better positioned to win away these specialty care patients because they are not burdened by the same requirement to provide indigent care. Consequently, investors and lenders have readily funded for-profit health care ventures. This available capital allows profit-making companies to build the most up- to-date facilities in competing for the high-margin patient.

No doubt, for-profit operations do offer charity care, but their profit orientation limits the amount they will provide. For example, residency and fellowship programs to train our doctors are not profitable, and, therefore, as the New York Times points out, nearly all the postgraduate medical education in the United States is provided by the nonprofit hospitals.

Of course, rising costs, such as for wages, supplies, and insurance, further compound the problem of nonprofit hospitals of stretching their income to cover significant charitable services. In addition, many of these nonprofit hospitals cannot raise or borrow the capital to modernize. They cover operating costs by postponing hospital maintenance and deferring the purchase of new technology, exacerbating an already bad situation. Eventually, as the New York Times article documents, more and more nonprofit hospitals will be forced to sell their facilities to for-profit enterprises.

The Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu faces these very same financial difficulties. This 143-year-old nonprofit hospital system maintains the largest private, nonprofit hospital in my state. It is a teaching hospital that provides residency training in a number of areas, and it treated 18,000 inpatients and 200,000 outpatients in 2001. With the only accredited trauma center in Hawaii, it served over 40,000 individuals without regard to their ability to pay. Medicaid and Medicare patients comprise nearly 60 percent of all its admissions.

In addition, the Center directly, or through its affiliates, operates community clinics throughout the state, conducts professional training programs, offers home health services, maintains a medical library, in addition to running a rural hospital on the rural, economically depressed Island of Molokai. Like other nonprofit hospitals, the Center provides significant charitable care, with nearly $23 million in uncompensated services in 2002.

Further, like other nonprofit hospitals, it has grave problems raising the funds needed to support all these uncompensated services while at the same time renovating and expanding its treatment facilities. A recent report from the Healthcare Association of Hawaii estimated that the hospitals in my state, similar to hospitals nationwide, will face additional, major losses this year due to reduced reimbursements, higher costs, and greater demand for services.

In the past, Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, universities, and pension funds to invest in real estate development so as to help meet these institutions' financial needs. Under the tax code these organizations can incur debt to develop their real estate holdings without triggering the tax on unrelated business activities. Our nonprofit teaching hospitals have equal if not more pressing needs and should have the same opportunity. Unless Congress wishes to assume responsibility for charitable health care, we must help our nonprofit hospitals, especially the teaching hospitals. My bill, which is identical to an amendment that the Senate had previously

adopted during the debate of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, would allow support organizations for qualified nonprofit teaching hospital to engage in limited real estate activities. These nonprofit hospitals would thereby be able to supplement their investment income in order to meet the growing demand placed on them for more community service.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and ask for immediate consideration of amendment No. 27, which is at the desk.

I yield.

Around 10 or 15 minutes. No longer.

Reserving my right to object, Senator Collins of Maine, also a cosponsor, wants to speak on this amendment.

So her rights will be protected.

Mr. President, I am offering an amendment today to increase funding for the LIHEAP program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, to $2 billion for this fiscal year. I am offering this amendment with my colleague and friend from Maine, Senator Susan Collins. Senator Collins wanted to be here to offer the amendment with me, but she is traveling from Maine in very difficult weather circumstances today, and when she arrives this afternoon she will take the floor to speak on behalf of this amendment.

I also thank my colleagues, Senator Dayton, Senator Snowe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, Senator DeWine, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Cantwell, Senator Stabenow, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry, Senator Levin, Senator Corzine, Senator Leahy, and Senator Durbin, who are all cosponsors of this amendment.

At this juncture I ask unanimous consent that Senators Chafee, Schumer, Harkin, Fitzgerald, Murray, Bingaman, and Lautenberg be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

As you can see, this amendment enjoys widespread and bipartisan support. I think it is clear, particularly given the weather today, that support is not unmerited.

Let me begin by offering a weather report, if you will. It is today, in Washington, around 30 degrees. But if you are outside, it feels much colder. The low will be somewhere around 14 degrees.

As you go along the country: Albany, NY, today, 17 degrees the high; Baltimore, 29 degrees; Chicago, 18 degrees; Cleveland, 15 degrees; Des Moines, IA, 12 degrees; Detroit, MI, 18 degrees; Milwaukee, 14 degrees; Omaha, 12 degrees; and my State, Rhode Island, they list the high as 23, but this morning when I left at 5 a.m. it was 5 degrees, but with the wind chill factor it was below zero.

This amendment is important because there are Americans who are suffering because of the cold. But it is not just about cold weather in certain parts of the country at this time of the year; the LIHEAP program is also important since it covers those hot stretches in the summertime when energy bills in the Southwest and the Southeast are astronomical and impact adversely low-income Americans.

We need this program throughout the year. We particularly need it today to protect people from the cold, but, as I said, those individuals who live in Alabama or Arkansas or Texas or southern California need LIHEAP in the summertime and it should be there for them, as it should be for those people who struggle today with the cold weather in the Northeast and Midwest.

In fact, yesterday the coldest place in America was Embarras, MN, minus 26 degrees. It is one thing to be in Embarras, but it is also something else to be freezing in Embarras. So I think we have to do something to ensure that we can protect low-income Americans from the cold that is affecting them today.

Twenty-five years ago Congress passed the LIHEAP program. They knew that people struggling with all sorts of expenses--raising a family, providing food to put on the table--they needed help in these cold months in the Northeast and those hot spells in the Southeast, to provide for assistance so they could afford the energy they needed.

During his campaign, President Bush promised to fully fund LIHEAP to help these low-income families meet their needs for heat in the winter and cooling in the summer. If he stood by his promise, the President would demand the $2 billion for which we are asking; rather, he has proposed cutting that money. This year, despite rising energy prices, colder weather, and increased unemployment, the President's budget has proposed to cut LIHEAP by $300 million. This cut would deny assistance to literally hundreds of thousands of Americans. The appropriations bill that we are considering today does restore part of this funding. I commend and thank Senators Stevens and Byrd and Specter and Harkin and their staffs for their hard work to maintain this funding, but we want to restore an additional $300 million to bring it up to the $2 billion level that will just be, in terms of purchasing power, equal to last year. We want to do that and I hope we can do that today through this amendment process.

As I said, we could add this $300 million, but we are not requesting new funding. This amendment simply requires the administration to give the States the $300 million the Congress provided in the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act. Congress provided $300 million in LIHEAP funding 2 years ago to help these families meet their needs when energy costs increase, when there are significant disconnections of utilities because if you can't pay the gas bill or electric bill, eventually you will be disconnected and you will be without any type of energy.

All of these efforts in terms of funding LIHEAP have been urged on the present administration by the Governors. They understand because they are right there in the trenches, if you will, dealing with the issue of people literally freezing today and sweltering in the summertime.

Cutting heating assistance for seniors and low-income Americans is not the way to go, particularly when it is juxtaposed against proposed significant tax cuts. If we can't at least provide people with a warm shelter in the winter and a cool shelter in the summer when thinking about large-scale tax cuts, to me, seems somewhat inappropriate.

LIHEAP, even with our amendment, will be seriously underfunded. Providing this $2 billion in regular funding to the program will just equal the purchasing power of last year. What it does not recognize is that energy prices are soaring. Today, on the front page of the Providence Journal, there is an article about the cold wave that is sweeping our region of the country, but also the fact that in order to keep up with the demand for oil, which is our principal fuel, because the demand is so huge, our Governor had to suspend regulations to allow delivery drivers to work through periods of time when they are normally required to rest. What is also happening is the prices are jumping up because of uncertainty in Venezuela and uncertainty in the gulf.

This combination of increased prices, cold temperatures, and also an economy that sees more and more people unemployed, is the perfect storm, if you will, when it comes to requiring assistance for heating throughout the Northeast in particular.

There is something else that happens when people are challenged for energy, when they do without. They take their own improvisational means to keep warm. They turn the electric stove on and open up the oven. They go out and buy portable heaters. It is more than coincidence that the number of house fires shows a sharp increase in the months of cold weather in the Northeast because people are improvising. So this is another danger that must be recognized.

This amendment simply allows people to stay warm in the winter and to escape scorching heat in the summertime. It is something that is basic. It is something I believe we should support extensively. I am pleased and proud that so many of my colleagues have joined Senator Collins and me on a bipartisan basis. I hope this is one amendment we can quickly adopt and include in this omnibus appropriations bill. I hope, also, we can at least signal to those people who are looking for some modest assistance in these cold days that we have heard their calls, we are responding to our political leaders at the State level, the Governors, and we are giving them the resources to at least keep people from freezing in a very difficult time.

I asked in my initial statement that we call up amendment No. 27. I ask now it be called up.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Rockefeller be added to the amendment as a cosponsor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER Mr. (Ensign) Without objection, it is so ordered.

I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I have no objection. I think I can assure the Senator that I will be finished before 4 o'clock.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent, I call up amendment No. 40.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Durbin and several other of my colleagues in calling for an extension of Federal unemployment benefits for the 1 million long-term unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits and were not aided by the legislation that we passed on January 8.

On January 8, we passed a bill that extended benefits to unemployed workers who were cut off from receiving their benefits on December 28. With the December 28th deadline, approximately 800,000 workers were cut off from receiving their benefits. We essentially gave them 13 weeks of extended benefits, but in doing so we neglected to provide additional benefits for a million Americans who lost their unemployment benefits-- first, their State benefits of 26 weeks, and then their extended Federal unemployment benefits.

In recent recessions, Congress always acted to respond to the plight of these unemployed Americans who are searching for work, trying to maintain their households, and trying to maintain their families. In the early 1990s, Congress extended benefits five different times--three of those times during the Presidency of President George Herbert Walker Bush.

In contrast to the 1990s, the situation is even greater today. At the end of December 2002, an estimated 2.2 million workers exhausted their Federal benefits; whereas, in the recession of the 1990s, approximately 1.4 million Americans had exhausted those benefits.

Where is this crisis affecting Americans? It is everywhere. It is estimated that of these 1 million jobless Americans, about 56,800 are from Texas; 44,000 are from Pennsylvania; 43,500 are from Ohio; 37,600 are from North Carolina; 53,000 are from Illinois; 20,000 are from Indiana; 27,000 are from Tennessee; 18,000 are from South Carolina; and 84,000 are from New York. And the list goes on and on.

This is not a rollcall to be proud of because it represents the fact that the economy is not working. These are not small numbers. We overlooked a lot of those Americans when we took partial action on January 8.

This is not just about numbers. This is about people.

I think there is an erroneous perception that somehow these people are not looking hard enough for work; that they are really the hard- core unemployed, transient workers; that somehow they just don't deserve our help. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I will share some stories that have appeared in the press about people who are struggling with this dilemma of unemployment. I think you will find these people are very similar to people in your neighborhoods, in your families. They are Americans who want to work but in this economy cannot find work.

And there is something else that is going on here, too. This economic dilemma has some characteristics of a cyclical unemployment cycle, but many economists believe there are structural issues at work. You see, this is the situation where, for the first time in recent memory, many of these unemployed Americans are highly skilled, highly educated, and highly motivated. Yet they cannot find work.

For example, Laura Carson of Easton, MA, lost her job in July of 2001. She was a human resources executive. She worked for approximately 17 years,

since she graduated from Suffolk University. She has applied for unemployment insurance. She exhausted her State benefits, and then she exhausted her extended benefits. She is still looking. She tried to get a job this holiday season in a retail shop, but she could not find work. She is still looking. Just to survive, she has gone ahead and refinanced her house and taken out a home equity loan. But that is only putting off the inevitable, as bills keep crashing in upon her.

These are the types of people we are trying to help: Susan Brown of Chappaqua, NY, lost her job as a consultant 18 months ago. She used to be a principal in a firm that specialized in Web design. She is one of the victims of this technological bubble that burst. Her company went belly-up in 2001.

This is a woman who has worked for 18 years since she got out of college. She worked through high school and put herself through college. This is exactly what we like to reward in America: hard work, discipline, and dedication. She got remarried over the summer and, ironically--but in this market, not surprisingly--her husband lost his job, also. She has had to dip into her 401(k) plan to make ends meet. She is still looking but still very frustrated about finding work. She said:

There are just no jobs. I can't even tell you how hard it

is.

And prior to her loss of employment, she was making $200,000 a year. This is an example of this new phenomenon where highly skilled, highly motivated, highly educated people just can't find comparable employment in this recession.

Jules Berman of Queens was laid off from his job. He worked for almost 30 years for a New York candy company. He filed for unemployment insurance in December 2001, and he has seen his benefits exhausted. He has never been out of work before in his entire work life.

What you are seeing, again, if you do the math: after 30 years, seeing middle-aged men and women, who are losing their jobs for the first time in their work history, who thought--as we all did, our contemporaries--if you worked hard, got a good education, got in with a good company and strived and struggled each day, you certainly could work until you retired on your pension and your Social Security. That is not the case. And now, at the age of 50, with mortgages, with children who are going to college, with health care bills and health care concerns, they are looking for a job.

That is the reality, and it is not just in the Northeast. Eric Strubble lives in Newcastle, CA. He was laid off from Hewlett-Packard-- another example of the huge downturn in technology companies that has taken place in the last few years. He has filled the gap with these unemployment benefits, but, as he said:

Obviously, if we had to live off it, there would be no way,

but it helps stretch things out a bit.

People don't get unemployment insurance because they don't want to work. It is a fraction of what you make in your salary check each week. The average unemployment benefit is about $256. It does not make up for your lost wages. It allows you, as Mr. Strubble says, to ``stretch things out a bit'' until you get on your feet.

Joyce Smith, 52, of Ardmore, TN, exhausted her $190-a-week benefit in August. She was a factory worker. As she said:

There's not much out there. They don't want people my age.

It's been a panic and a struggle, and you just go into a

depression.

Gary Hineman of Morgantown, PA, an unemployed steelworker who is 48 years old, has worked his whole life. In fact, he fibbed about his age at 16 just to get in the Steelworkers Union. He worked all his life, worked hard, and yet he is looking desperately for work. He said:

If I could speak to Members of Congress, I would tell them

to see how we live and how we feel. They want the economy to

pick up, but there are no jobs to pick it up with.

That is Mr. Hineman. His wife Michelle works as a grocery clerk. They are getting by on her $15-an-hour job.

Mr. Hineman said: ``That is the only thing I've got going for me.'' These are examples. These are the realities. These are the people we are trying to help and we should help: hard-working Americans. Yet we neglected 1 million of them.

Now, as the comments of these individuals suggest, this is a reflection of an economy that is not working. For the first time in 8 years, family incomes have fallen; poverty is increasing; families at all income levels are losing their health insurance; gross domestic product is growing, but it is not growing fast enough to make up the jobs that are necessary so these people can get back to work.

Indeed, the reality for most Americans today is, they live on their paychecks not their portfolios. When the paycheck stops, they are in very difficult circumstances. Our proposal is very simple: Let's give these individuals some more extended unemployment benefits so they can stretch it out a bit longer, find that job, make decisions that are going to get them back in the workforce.

Let me point out that our economy has lost over 2.2 million private payroll jobs since President Bush took office. The unemployment rate is currently 6 percent--nearly 2 percentage points higher than when President Bush took office. Long-term unemployment is very high, and that is the issue we are dealing with in this amendment: giving some support to these long-term unemployed.

By the way, I cannot think of a more efficient stimulus program than giving people looking for work unemployment benefits to tide them over until they find work. The money goes directly to them and directly into the economy. So from the standpoint of economic policy, that makes sense. Certainly from the standpoint of helping citizens of this country, it makes a great deal of sense.

The unemployment insurance trust fund has a $24 billion surplus. The funds are there. We should access them and allow these individuals additional benefits. We have to do more to help working Americans to make sure they make it through a very difficult, very challenging economic situation.

We have done it before, and I hope we can do it again. I hope we will do it again in this bill. This is an issue of great concern for our economy, but, as I have tried to illustrate with these individual stories, this is about our neighbors, people we live with back in our home States, the people we represent, the people who have worked all their lives; and all they want is a chance to keep their heads above water until they can find that job, as they look for that job day in and day out.

I think it is the least we can do for them. I hope we will do it. I am pleased and proud to be joined by Senator Durbin as a cosponsor. I know he will return a bit later to make his comments.

I hope we can, in fact, take up this amendment, adopt it on a strong bipartisan basis, and make sure that all long-term unemployed, not just those who were satisfied in the last legislation--but all the long-term unemployed--get a chance for extended benefits.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, a comprehensive, seven-point plan that builds on the strengths of our current public programs and private health care system to make quality, affordable health care available to millions more Americans.

One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to affordable health care for all Americans. There are still far too many Americans without health insurance or with woefully inadequate coverage. More than 41 million Americans do not have health care coverage, including more than 150,000 in Maine.

Health insurance matters. The simple fact is that people with health insurance are healthier than those who are uninsured. People without health insurance are less likely to seek care when they need it, and to forgo services such as periodic check-ups and preventive services. As a consequence, they are more likely to be hospitalized or require costly medical attention for conditions that could have been prevented or treated at a curable stage. Not only does this put the health of these individuals at greater risk, but it also puts additional pressure on our hospitals and emergency rooms, many of them already financially challenged.

Compared with people who have health coverage, uninsured adults are four times, and uninsured children five times, more likely to use the emergency rooms. The costs of care for these individuals are often absorbed by providers and passed on to the covered population through increased fees and insurance premiums.

Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis, with insurance premiums rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self-employed fisherman, the owner of a struggling small businesses, or the human resource manager of a large company, the soaring costs of health insurance is a common concern.

Maine's employers are currently facing premium increases of as much as 40 percent a year. These premium increases have been particularly burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of the Maine economy. Many small business owners are caught in a cost squeeze: they know that if they pass on the premium increases to their employees, more of them will decline coverage. Yet, these small businesses simply cannot afford to absorb double-digit increases of 20, 30 or 40 percent, year after year.

The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Monthly insurance premiums often exceed a family's mortgage payment. Clearly, we must do more to make health insurance more available and affordable.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which we are introducing today, it a seven-point plan that combines a variety of public and private approaches to make quality health care coverage more affordable and available. The legislation's seven goals are: One, to expand access to affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net for those without coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural and underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term care; six, to promote healthier lifestyles; and seven, to provide more equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare shortfall, which has forced hospitals, physicians and other providers to shift costs onto other payers in the form of higher charges, which, in turn drives up health care premiums.

Let me discuss each of these seven points in more detail.

First, our legislation will help small employers cope with rising health care costs.

Since most Americans get their health insurance through the workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that most uninsured Americans are members of families with at least one full- time worker. As many as 82 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance are in a family with a worker.

Uninsured working Americans are most often employees of small businesses. In fact, some 60 percent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their employees, but the cost is often just too high.

The legislation we are introducing today will help small employers cope with rising costs, by providing new tax credits for small businesses to help make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small businesses that do not currently offer health insurance to do so and will help employers that do offer insurance to continue coverage for their employees even in the face of rising costs.

Our legislation will also help increase the clout of small businesses in negotiating with insurers. Premiums are generally higher for small businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large companies, which limits their ability to bargain for lower rates. They also have higher administrative costs because they have fewer employees among whom to spread the fixed cost of a health benefits plan. Moreover, they are not as able to spread the risks of medical claims over as many employees as large firms.

Our legislation will help address these problems by authorizing federal grants to provide start-up funding to States to assist them with the planning, development, and operation of small employer purchasing cooperatives. These cooperatives will help to reduce health care costs for small employers by allowing them to band together to purchase health insurance jointly. Group purchasing cooperatives have a number of advantages for small employers. For example, the increased numbers of participants in the group help to lower the premium costs for all. Moreover, they decrease the risk of adverse selection and spread the cost of health care over a broader group.

The legislation would also authorize a Small Business Administration grant program for States, local governments and non-profit organizations to provide information about the benefits of health insurance to small employers, including tax benefits, increased productivity of employees, and decreased turnover. These grants would also be used to make employers aware of their current rights under State and Federal laws. While costs are clearly a problem, many small employers are not fully aware of the laws that have already been enacted by both States and the Federal Government to make health insurance more affordable. For example, in one survey, 57 percent of small employers did not know that they could deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums as a business expense.

The legislation would also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 states conducting innovative coverage expansions, such as alternative group purchasing or pooling arrangements, individual or small group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals purchasing coverage. The States have long been laboratories for reform, and they should be encouraged in the development of innovative programs that can serve as models for the nation.

The Access of Affordable Health Care Act will also expand access to affordable health are for individuals and families.

One of the first bills I cosponsored as a Senator was legislation to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP, which provides insurance for the children of low-income

parents who cannot afford health insurance, yet make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. This important program has provided affordable health insurance coverage to over four million children nationwide, including over 12,000 who are currently enrolled in the MaineCare program. Even so, nationwide, hundreds of thousands of qualified children have yet to be enrolled in this program, many because their parents simply don't know that they are eligible for the assistance.

Our legislation builds on the success of this program and gives States a number of new tools to increase participation. For example, the bill gives States the option of covering the parents of the children who are enrolled in programs like MaineCare. States could also use funds provided through this program to help eligible working families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In short, the legislation will help ensure that the entire family receives the health care they need.

The legislation will also allow States to expand coverage to eligible legal immigrants through Medicaid and SCHIP. Maine is one of a number of states that is currently covering eligible legal immigrant pregnant women and children under Medicaid using 100 percent state dollars. Giving States the option of covering these children and families under Medicaid will enable them to receive matching federal funds, and will help relieve the pressure that most a State budgets are currently experiencing due to the economic downturn and rising Medicaid costs.

Many people with serious health problems encounter difficulties in finding a company that is willing to insure them. To address this problem, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act authorizes Federal grants to provide money for states to create high-risk pools through which individuals who have pre-existing health conditions can obtain affordable health can obtain affordable health insurance.

And finally, to help make health coverage more affordable for low and middle-income individuals and families who do not have employer- provided coverage and who are not eligible for the expanded public programs, our legislation would provide an advanceable, refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals earning up to $30,000 and up to $3,000 for families earning up to $60,000. This could provide coverage for up to 6 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured for one or more months, and will help many more working lower-income families who currently purchase private health insurance with little or no government help.

The Access to Affordable Health Insurance Act will also help to strengthen our nation's health care safety net by doubling funding over five years for the Consolidated Health Centers program, which includes community, migrant, public housing and homeless health centers. These centers, which operate in underserved rural and urban communities, provide critical primaary care services to millions of Americans regardless of their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients treated at Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage and many more have inadequate coverage, so these centers are a critical part of our Nation's health care safety net.

The problem of access to affordable health care services is not limited to the uninsured, but it also shared by many Americans living in rural and underserved areas where there is a serious shortage of health care providers. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act therefore includes a number of provisions to strengthen the National Health Service Corps, which supports doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in rural and inner city areas.

For example, taxing students adversely affects their financial incentive to participate in the National Health Services Corps and provide health care services in underserved communities. The tax bill passed by the last Congress provided a tax deduction for National Health Service Corps scholarship recipients to deduct all tuition, fees and related educational expenses from their income taxes. The deduction did not extend to loan repayment recipients however, so loan repayment amounts are still taxed as income. Participants in the loan repayment program are actually given extra payment amounts to help them cover their tax liability which, frankly, is a little ridiculous. It makes much more sense to simply exempt them from taxation in the first place.

In addition, the legislation will allow National Health Service Corps participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve full time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some sites may not need a particular type of provider, for example, a dentist, on a full-time basis. Some practitioners may also find part- time service more attractive, which, in turn, could improve recruitment and retention. Our bill will therefore give the program additional flexibility to meet community needs.

Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by older Americans today, and these costs will only increase with the aging of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or their private health insurance policies will cover the costs of long-term care should they develop a chronic illness or cognitive impairment like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover that they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent or spouse in long-term care and facing the shocking realization that they will have to cover the costs themselves.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase private long-term care insurance.

Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy behaviors, smoking, lack of regular exercise and poor diet. These three major risk factors alone have made Maine the state with the fourth highest death rate due to four largely preventable diseases: cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. These four chronic diseases are responsible for 70 percent of the health care problems in Maine.

Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to promote health lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows that these kinds of investments in health promotion and prevention offer returns not only in reduced health care bills, but in longer life and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Franklin County, to promote healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, healthy food service selections and programs that promote a healthy and safe school environment.

And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system rewards rather than punishes states like Maine that deliver high- quality, cost effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens.

According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Maine ranks third in the nation when it comes to the quality of care delivered to our Medicare beneficiaries. Yet we are 11th from the bottom when it comes to per-beneficiary Medicare spending.

The fact is that Maine's Medicare dollars are being used to subsidize higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. This simply is not fair. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to favor urban

areas and failed to take the special needs of rural states into account. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result of its long history of providing high-quality, cost-effective care. In the early 1980s, Maine's lower than average costs were used to justify lower payment rates. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only served to widen the gap between low and high-cost states.

As a consequence, Maine's hospitals, physicians and other providers have experienced a serious Medicare shortfall, which has forced them to shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. The Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons that Maine has among the highest health insurance premiums in the nation. The provisions in the Access to Affordable Health Care Act provide a complement to legislation that I introduced in the last Congress with Senator Russ Feingold to promote greater fairness in Medicare payments to physicians and other health professionals by eliminating outdated geographic adjustment factors that discriminate against rural areas.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for reform based upon principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the goal of universal health care coverage by bringing millions more Americans into the insurance system, by strengthening the health care safety net, and by addressing the inequities in the Medicare system.