Health Care Choice Act of 2005

Mr. President, it is time for a new effort in Congress to enact the Patients' Bill of Rights. The Senate has approved major bipartisan legislation to end the abuses of managed care and HMOs before, but final enactment of this important measure was blocked by the HMOs and the vested interests of the corporate world that deny working Americans their basic rights and a needed voice in challenging decisions that deny them basic medical care. It was blocked too by an administration that professes to support patients' rights, but does all it can to block legislation to guarantee those rights.

Despite our outstanding researchers and professionals, families across the country are overwhelmingly and justifiably concerned that medical decisions are too often made by insurance industry accountants, and not their doctors. HMO profits too often take priority over patient needs. It is time for Congress to end the abuses of patients and physicians by HMOs and the insurance industry. Too often, managed care is mismanaged care. No amount of distortions or smokescreens by insurance companies can change the facts.

The Patients' Bill of Rights can stop these abuses. For millions of Americans who rely on health insurance to protect them when serious illness strikes, the Patients' Bill of Rights is literally a matter of life and death.

It's important to remember what this debate is really about. It's not about lawyers. It's not about insurance companies. It's about patients--mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, sisters and brothers. It's about families around the country who will someday face the challenge of serious illness and deserve the best in health care-- the same care that all members of the Senate want for ourselves and our loved ones. But too many families are denied the care they need and deserve because of abuses by HMOs and other insurance companies.

The legislation we are introducing today will end those abuses. Several of its provisions are especially important--specialty care, clinical trials, and prescription drugs.

In each of these areas, care is too often delayed or denied by insurance companies more interested in profits than patients. Access to specialty care for serious and complex illnesses is a critical element of good health care. Yet denial of needed specialists is one of the most common abuses in the current system.

Patients with cancer and other serious illnesses need specialty care. Often, their best hope for a cure or for precious extra years of life is participation in a clinical trial. But too often, both are lacking. Patients with cancer or other serious illnesses and their physicians must fight HMOs to take advantage of this opportunity.

Traditionally, insurance companies have paid for the routine costs of doctors and hospitals in clinical trials. But HMOs frequently refuse to do so, with devastating effects on patients and research alike. Our legislation will end this abuse.

Another abuse that will be ended by our plan is the denial of medically necessary drugs not on an HMO plan's list. One group that suffers from this denial is the mentally ill. Some of the most dramatic advances in medicine in recent years have been the development of effective drugs to treat persons with serious mental illness. Too often, however, they're told to settle for older, cheaper, less effective drugs with harmful side effects, because an HMO refuses to pay for the best standard of care.

Our legislation guarantees that patients can get medically necessary drugs, even if they are not on the HMO's list. Equally important, our bill guarantees that these drugs will be provided at a cost no greater than the normal cost-sharing for other medications. Access to needed drugs is a concern for every family, particularly when new cures are increasingly based on new drugs today.

The list of abuses goes on and on. People across the country know these abuses are wrong. Managed care practices that cause these tragedies cost lives, and ending these abuses is a matter of simple justice and common decency.

The Patients' Bill of Rights will protect families from insurance company bureaucracies that rob them of their peace of mind, their health, or even their lives. The bill is a guarantee that medical decisions will be made by doctors and patients, not managed care accountants. It is actively supported by doctors, nurses, patients, small businesses, religious organizations, and working families. The support is impressive in its breadth, its depth and its diversity.

It is time to guarantee these basic rights for patients. It is time for Congress to pass this bill. Every doctor knows it. Every nurse knows it. Every patient knows it. And every Senator knows it too.

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

Mr. President, It is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act and increase the opportunities for workers to obtain the services and training they need to hold good jobs in the years ahead.

This bill strengthens the current One-Stop system we established in 1998, so that many more people can be served. The bill creates stronger partnerships with businesses to recruit new workers, collaborate in training current workers, improve career ladder opportunities, and work with local leaders to meet the changing needs of their community.

The One-Stop system is needed more than ever now, to serve hard- working Americans who have lost their jobs

through no fault of their own as we struggle to rebuild our economy and adjust to the new century and the globalization forces that are transforming our society and our workforce. Current employees, especially the growing number of manufacturing workers, need effective training to be eligible for the available jobs in their area.

We have also worked to remove the sequencing of services for persons entering the workforce who face barriers to employment. Providers can move adults directly to skills training, or create training programs that include literacy and language skills as well, so that job training is not delayed.

The bill also encourages local providers to continue the training programs until employees can be self-sufficient. For those who start on the minimum wage, the support system should be there to help them qualify for the better-paying jobs that will enable them to support their families. Some men and women may obtain their first job through the system, and continue to participate as they move up their career ladders.

The bill will also help young people. Last summer, the youth unemployment rate rose to 17 percent and we were all acutely aware of the special challenges that young workers face in this economy. The youth program will continue to work with both in-school and out-of- school young men and women to help them obtain the education and the real job experience they need to be competitive.

The bill pays particular attention to the needs of people with disabilities. Their access to the program is essential if the system is to be truly universal. It's unacceptable today that hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities are unable to find employment. Workforce training programs must coordinate with vocational rehabilitation programs to provide many more opportunities for those with physical and mental challenges.

For over thirty years, since the Vocational Rehabilitation Act was first enacted in 1973, state vocational rehabilitation programs have brought new hope to individuals with disabilities throughout the country, so that they can reach their full potential and actively participate in their communities.

Through vocational rehabilitation, individuals with disabilities can obtain the training, counseling, support and job opportunities they need in order to have independent, productive, and fulfilling lives. For millions of these Americans, vocational rehabilitation is the difference between dependence and independence, between lost potential and a productive career.

In 1998, vocational rehabilitation became part of the state-wide workforce system in each state. This reauthorization will strengthen that partnership, so that many more working-age individuals with disabilities, even those with the most significant challenges, have realistic opportunities to obtain the services and support they need to reach their employment goals.

The legislation also strengthens other aspects of independent living, so that students and adults with disabilities can receive the services and support they need for community-based living.

Our goal in this reauthorization is to see that the talents and strengths of all individuals with disabilities are recognized, enhanced, and fairly rewarded in communities and workplaces across the nation.

The bill also contains the Adult Literacy Act, which funds critical programs for states to assist adults in obtaining the basic reading, writing, numeracy and English language skills that they need to be full participants in the workplace and in society.

We all know that education is the great equalizer. Improving basic literacy is a key component of job training. Large numbers of persons are on waiting lists across the country to be served under this program--25,000 people in Massachusetts alone--and we need to do more to serve adults who recognize their need to improve these skills in order to improve their lives.

I commend my colleagues and the many organizations representing governors, mayors, county officials, youth, women, and low-income persons who were so actively involved in preparing this legislation. We have tried to listen carefully to the many leaders who have practical experience in implementing these laws.

I look forward to continuing this bipartisan effort and to the early enactment of this needed legislation.

Mr. President, it's an honor to join Senator McCain and Congressmen Gutierrez, Kolbe, and Flake in introducing our bipartisan legislation to reform the Nation's immigration laws. The status quo is unacceptable, and legislation is urgently needed to deal with all the inadequacies in our current law, to end the suffering of long-separated families imposed by the broken system, and to do so in a way that reflects current realities.

We must modernize our broken immigration system to meet the challenges of the 21st century. And we need policies that continue to reflect our best values as a nation--fairness, equal opportunity, and respect for the rule of law.

One of the mistakes of the past is to assume that we can control illegal immigration on our own. A realistic immigration policy must be a two-way street. Under our plan, America will do its part, but we expect Mexico and other nations to do their part, too, to replace an illegal immigration flow with regulated, legal immigration.

Our bill will make our immigration policies more realistic and enforceable,

restore legality as the prevailing norm, and make it easier for immigrants to cooperate with local authorities. It will protect the labor rights of all workers, and create an even playing field for employers. It will strengthen our economy, restore control of our borders, and improve national security.

Much of the Nation's economy today depends on the hard work and the many contributions of immigrants. Many industries depend heavily on immigrant labor. These men and women enrich our Nation and improve the quality of our lives. Yet, millions of today's immigrant workers are not here legally. They and their families live shadow lives in constant fear of deportation, and easy targets for abuse and exploitation by unscrupulous employers and criminals as well. Many risk great danger, and even death, to cross our borders.

Our bill offers practical solutions to deal with these basic problems. It contains an earned legalization program for immigrants who have been working in the United States for at least 6 years, a way to reduce the enormous backlog of petitions to unify immigrant families, and a revised temporary worker program. The bill also contains strict border security and enforcement provisions, and measures to ensure that other countries do their part by requiring them to help control the flow of their citizens to jobs in the United States.

We feel the bill is a realistic and practical solution to the complex immigration challenges facing the Nation for so long, and we've worked closely with as many interested groups as possible to make it fair to all.

Despite our compromises and bipartisan solutions, there are some who oppose these reforms. They misleadingly categorize our efforts as ``immigrant amnesty.'' They refuse to accept that these reforms simply create a legalization program for U.S. workers who have already been residing and working in the U.S. It is not a guarantee of citizenship, but an opportunity to continue working hard, start playing by the rules, and earn permanent residency.

And by bringing immigrants out of the shadows so they can earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, we are protecting American workers' rights and wages, too.

The legal status must be earned by proving past work contributions, making a substantial future work commitment, and paying of $2,000 in penalties.

First, workers will receive temporary resident status, based on their past work contributions. To earn permanent residence, they must work 6 more years. Otherwise, they will be dropped from the program and required to leave the country.

It's not an amnesty for them, because they have to earn it. We offer a fair deal: if they are willing to work hard for us openly, then we're willing to do something fair for them. It is the only realistic solution.

If there's any amnesty involved, it's what they have today--an acquiescence in their presence, because countless businesses could not function without them since no American workers can be found to fill their jobs. To be eligible for legal status, applicants must have no criminal or national security problems. All will be required to undergo rigorous security clearances. Their names will be checked against the government's criminal and terrorist databases, and the applicant's fingerprints will be sent to the FBI for a thorough background check.

It's long past time to put the underground economy above ground, and recognize the reality of immigrants in our workforce. It's the only way to achieve effective enforcement rules to protect and strengthen our labor system, and to stabilize our workforce for employers.

Our bill allows long-term, tax-paying immigrant workers to apply for earned adjustment of status. Studies show that there are now millions of illegal immigrants working in the U.S., and it would be irresponsible to continue to ignore this hidden past of our economic landscape.

Our bill is also about fairness. It ensures that the rights of all workers are protected--that the rights to organize, to change jobs between employers, and to have fair wages, fair hours, and fair working conditions--cannot be denied. Through this legislation, America can be proud again that our Nation protects the safety and rights of all our workers.

Our legislation is also about protecting families. Family unity has always been a fundamental cornerstone of America's immigration policy. Yet, millions of individuals today are waiting for immigrant visas to join with their families.

Our bill will allow these families to be reunited more quickly and humanely. It also removes and amends unnecessary obstacles in current law that separate families, such as the affidavit-of-support requirements and the rigid bars to admissibility. Our bill contains provisions that will expedite visas to reunite spouses and children of legal immigrants with their loved ones. It also provides measures to clear up the backlog of employment-based visas.

In addition, this bill recognizes the need for strong border protection and enforcement as part of immigration reform. It directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and implement a National Strategy for Border Security to coordinate the efforts of Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities on border management and security. The Strategy will identify the areas most in need of enforcement and propose cost-effective ways to defend the border, including better ways of technology, improved intelligence-sharing and coordination. It also includes plans to combat human smuggling.

To further improve border enforcement, the bill improves the security of Mexico's southern border and assesses the needs of Central American governments in securing their borders. It provides a framework for better management, communication, coordination, and immigration control for all our governments, and encourages other governments to control alien smuggling and trafficking, prevent the use and manufacture of fraudulent travel documents, and share relevant information.

The bill also encourages so-called circular migration patterns. It provides for unprecedented cooperation with the governments of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and other Central American countries on issues of migration. It asks foreign countries to enter into agreements with the U.S. to help control the flow of their citizens to jobs in the U.S., with emphasis on encouraging the re-integration of citizens returning home.

It also encourages the U.S. government to partner with Mexico to promote economic opportunity back home and reduce the pressure for its citizens to immigrate to the U.S. It encourages partnership between the U.S. and Mexico on health care, so that we are not unfairly burdened by the cost of administering health care to Mexican nationals.

Further, the bill mandates that immigration-related documents issued by DHS be biometric, machine-readable, and tamper-resistant. It creates an Employment Eligibility Confirmation System, so that employers can verify an employee's identity and employment authorization, and an improved system to collect entry and exit data to determine the status of aliens after their arrival to and departure from the U.S. It protects against immigration fraud by improving regulations on who may appear in immigration matters.

Another important component of our bill is its State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, to reimburse states for the direct and indirect costs of incarcerating illegal aliens.

We know that these reforms are long overdue. The illegal workers here today are not leaving, and new ones continue to come in. A significant part of the workforce in many sectors of the economy, especially agriculture, is undocumented. Massive deportations are unrealistic as policy, impractical to carry out, and unacceptable to businesses that rely heavily on their labor.

Americans want and deserve realistic solutions to the very real immigration problems we face. They don't want open borders, and they don't want closed borders. They want smart borders, which mean fair and realistic immigration laws that can actually be enforced, immigration laws that protect our security, respect our ideals, and honor our heritage as a Nation of immigrants.

America has been the Promised Land for generations of immigrants who

have found haven, hope, opportunity and freedom here. Immigrants have always been an indispensable part of our Nation. They have contributed immensely to our communities, created new jobs and whole new industries, served in our armed forces, paid their taxes, and help make America the continuing land of promise it is today.

It's obvious why the Nation's founders chose ``E Pluribus Unum''-- ``out of many, one'' as America's motto two centuries ago. These words, chosen by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, referred to their ideal that tiny quarreling colonies could be transformed into one Nation, with one destiny. That basic ideal applies to individuals as well. Our diversity is our greatest strength.

We are a Nation of immigrants, and we always will be, and our laws must be true to that proud heritage. Our bipartisan bill attempts to do that, and I look forward to working with the Administration and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact it into law.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Texas, Senator John Cornyn, as well as Senators Lautenberg, Hutchison, Boxer, Corzine, Schumer, Clinton and Senator Nelson of Florida.

It is time that Congress ensures that funding to bolster the security of our nation goes to where the threat is the greatest.

Unfortunately, billions of dollars in homeland security funds to states and local communities--including $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2005--are now being distributed to areas that are not at the greatest risk of terrorist attack.

To do this, we need to adopt risk-based analysis to determine where our homeland security funding goes, rather than continue with the present system of ad hoc determinations, ``small-state minimums'' and poorly understood decision-making, that leave some targets exposed to threats while sending resources to places where there is little chance of terrorist attack.

This legislation will ensure that priorities are set according to analysis of risk and threat. Specifically it directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate funding to homeland security grants based on risk analysis.

This is the core of the bill, and I believe it is so important that I will quote in full the operative language, which appears in the very first substantive section of the legislation: ``The Secretary shall ensure that homeland security grants are allocated based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent practicable.''

This direction covers the four major first-responder grant programs administered by Department of Homeland Security in addition to grants for seaport and airport security--called ``covered grants'' in the bill, including: 1. the State Homeland Security Grant Program; 2. the Urban Area Security Initiative; 3. the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program; and 4. the Citizens Corps Program.

Reduces the ``small state minimum'' to 25 percent per State. Current practice requires each state to get .75 percent of much of the grant funding. That means 37.5 percent of the funds are marked for distribution before any risk analysis.

Requires grants be designed to meet ``essential capabilities.'' Essential capabilities are what we get for the money spent--the ability to address the risk by reducing vulnerability to attack and by diminishing the consequences of such an attack by effective response.

Ensures that States quickly and effectively pass on Federal funds to where they are needed so that Federal funds are not held back.

The bottom line is this: if Federal funds are going to be distributed to improve our national ability to ``prevent, prepare for, respond to, or mitigate threatened or actual terrorist attacks,'' those funds should be distributed in accordance with a risk-based analysis.

In this post-Cold War world of asymmetric threat there are two fundamental principles we should apply to efforts to make our nation more secure against a terrorist attack: the first is that understanding and predicting what terrorists will do requires risk analysis.

It is an uncomfortable fact that, even with the best intelligence, we will never know exactly how, when and where terrorists will strike--the best we can do is try to assess risks and threats, and make predictions.

The second principle is that our defense resources are finite.

The total amount of money, time and personnel that can be devoted to homeland security is limited. That means tough choices have to be made by both the Congress, and by Executive Branch officials at the Federal, State and Local level.

Together these two principles define what we need to do for our Nation: accurately assess the risks of an array of possible terrorist attacks; measure the vulnerability of all of these possible targets, and then allocate our resources based on that assessment.

Three years ago, we created the Department of Homeland Security in an

effort to create an institution that could perform this task.

The core element of the new Department was to be the Information Assessment and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, which would ``merge under one roof the capability to identify and assess current and future threats to the homeland, map those threats against our vulnerabilities, issue timely warnings and take preventive and protective action.''

We are failing in this effort.

The 9/11 Commission agreed, finding that ``nothing has been harder for officials--executive or legislative than to set priorities, making hard choices in allocating limited resources.''

The Commission concluded, ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.''

This bill does just that.

The New York Times, an editorial published last month, titled ``Real Security, or Politics as Usual?'' agreed:

Any terrorist who has followed how domestic security money

is distributed in this country must be encouraged by the

government's ineptness . . . The current formula is based in

part on population, rather than risk, and contains state

minimums, so even sparsely populated states that hardly have

a plausible terrorism target are raking in money. This is the

formula that gave Wyoming seven times more domestic security

money per capita than New York . . . If there were a

successful attack on Wall Street or the ports of Los Angeles

and Long Beach, it would be a blow to the whole nation.

Defending places where the terrorist threat is greatest is

not parochialism; it is defending America.

Despite these recommendations, we find again and again that scarce resources are allocated based on factors unrelated to real security.

For instance, Congress has established a ``small State minimum'' designed to ensure that every State gets a substantial portion of scarce resources, regardless of the measure of risk or vulnerability.

As a result, in fiscal year 2004 Wyoming spent $37.52 per capita with homeland security grants, while California and Texas spent $8.75 and $6.93 respectively.

The problem is not just in Congress. For example, a recent Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's report found that in the critical area of port security, grants are ``not well coordinated with the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.''

The result is the ``funding of projects with low [risk and vulnerability] scores.''

A recently issued report from the Center for Security Studies and the Heritage Foundation found that there is:

no funding formula that is based on risk analysis and

divorced from politics . . . [w]ith only limited resources

available to achieve the almost limitless goal of protecting

the entire United States . . . it is critical that we set

priorities.

This bill is a first step to reducing threats of terrorist attack, but Congress can not do it alone.

The Department of Homeland Security must embrace not only the concept of risk-based allocation, but also the practical aspects of the discipline. That means improving the intelligence analysis and vulnerability assessment functions of the Department.

We also need to follow through on last year's intelligence reform efforts, since the product of the Intelligence Community--analysis of the plans, intentions and capabilities of terrorist groups--is the key element in an effective risk analysis.

This will not be easy. There are lots of vested interests who will oppose such efforts. But our nation's safety is at sake. It is time to put aside pork-barrel politics and a Cold War mentality and get to work.

Last year Representatives Cox and Turner, the Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the other body's Homeland Security Committee put forth similar legislation.

That effort passed the House of Representatives as part of the Intelligence Reform Bill, but was dropped at conference--that bill has been reintroduced, and is scheduled for consideration on the floor of the House this week.

This bill is based on Chairman Cox's efforts, and with a few exceptions tracks it closely.

However, unlike the House bill, this bill makes an across-the-board reduction of the small-State minimum to .25 percent--the House bill retains a sliding scale that I believe will have the effect of undercutting its risk-based approach.

In this body, Senators Collins and Lieberman have been working to craft risk-based legislation, which was recently reported favorably by the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

I hope that the bill introduced today will be accepted by Senators Collins and Lieberman in the spirit in which it was drafted--as a reasoned alternative to their approach, and as a starting point for further discussions.

It is my hope that Congress will act quickly to pass this legislation. We cannot afford to wait until it is too late.

Mr. President, today I introduce two bills to expand access to college. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Collins, Kennedy, and Murray.

We are slated to reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress, after being unable to do so in the 108th Congress. Over the course of this time, the discussions on higher education have not focused on proposals that would help the neediest students attend college. This is troubling, particularly as more and more students are being priced out of college, which shortchanges their future and that of our Nation.

An individual's climb up the economic ladder is directly related to the amount of education he or she receives. Given the strong correlation among educational attainment, employment, and wages, the cost of not going to college is just too high.

And yet, too many college students are underprepared, underfinanced, and overworked. Those who make it through are saddled by huge loans. But as reports such as Empty Promises by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance have shown, many more cannot afford the cost of college at all.

Even though there have been gains due to the Higher Education Act, the current approach to student aid is not working to close the gap in college attendance between our lowest and highest income students or the gap between the aid low-income students receive and the actual cost of attendance. Indeed, about seven times as many students from high- income families graduate from college by age 24 as students from low- income families. Low-income, college-qualified high school graduates have an annual ``unmet need'' of $4,000 and rising in college expenses.

A decline in real dollars spent on grants and sharp increases in the cost of college have been key causal factors of this unfortunate situation. Indeed, there has been a steep decline in the purchasing power of the Pell Grant, which was established by my predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell, to ensure higher education was not an ``unachievable dream.'' According to the State PIRGs' Higher Education Project, the maximum Pell Grant covered 84 percent of average four-year public tuition costs in 1976. Today, the maximum Pell Grant of $4,050 covers only about 39 percent.

Over the last 10 years, tuition and fees at public and private 4-year colleges rose 51 percent and 36 percent, respectively, (after adjusting for inflation), which is a more rapid growth rate than consumer prices. Students have felt the bite as states have drastically cut funding for public colleges.

In 2008, the largest number of students in our history will graduate from high school. Another demographic reality is that our nation will need to ensure a steady stream of replacement workers as college- educated baby boomers begin to retire in increasing numbers.

This crisis calls out for action. An educated citizenry and a world class workforce should be a national imperative. Our nation cannot afford to lose out on the countless returns from a robust education investment.

Today we introduce two bills to expand college access.

The first bill, the ACCESS--Accessing College through Comprehensive Early Outreach and State Partnerships--Act, focuses on a program I have long worked with Senator Collins and the other cosponsors to save, reinvigorate, and fund the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership or LEAP program. LEAP is the only program in which the federal and state governments are partners in extending higher education opportunities to financially needy students.

The ACCESS Act forges a new Federal incentive for States to do even more to help low-income students by creating within LEAP an access and persistence partnership program. States will be rewarded--via higher

levels of federal matching dollars--for creating vibrant partnerships with colleges, early intervention and mentoring programs, foundations, and businesses and providing cohesion and coordination among these entities. Access and persistence partnerships have three main goals: to provide low-income students with a grant that fills the gap of their unmet need; to increase participation of low-income students in early information, intervention, mentoring, and outreach programs; and to provide early notification to low-income students of their eligibility for financial aid. Research has shown that successful college access programs are those that offer early intervention and mentoring services coupled with early information about estimated financial aid awards and adequate grant funding to make the dream of higher education a reality. Students participating in such programs are more financially and academically prepared, and thus more likely to enroll in college and persist to degree completion.

The second bill we introduce today, the FAFSA--Financial Aid Form Simplification and Access Act--has several key components designed to make the college application process both simple and certain. As the advisory committee's recent report, The Student Aid Gauntlet, has shown, students today confront an overly burdensome and complex financial aid application process. Our legislation would simplify this process by allowing more students to qualify for an Automatic-Zero-- auto-zero--Expected Family Contribution by aligning its eligibility with the standards of other federal means-tested programs, like free school lunch, SSI, and Food Stamps. Students and families should not have to prove over and over again that they are low-income, and asking students to fill out lengthy forms when they already meet the eligibility level for Pell Grants is a burden we should ease.

In a similar vein, the legislation establishes a short, paper EZ- FAFSA application form for students qualifying for the auto-zero; phases out the printing of the long paper form and utilizes the savings to bridge the digital divide for students without web access; requires the utilization of smart technology to create a tailored web-based application form that ensures students answer only the questions needed to determine financial aid eligibility in the State in which they reside; and creates a free telefile system for students without Internet access. Additionally, the FAFSA Act requires the Secretary, in cooperation with states and colleges, to develop a system for students to get early estimates of aid from multiple sources, learn if they qualify to fill out an EZ FAFSA, and notify those participating in Federal means-tested programs of their potential eligibility for a maximum Pell Grant. Simplified forms and an early information system providing details on what filling out these forms means to students is critical, particularly given the American Council on Education's findings that one of every five dependent low-income students and one of every four independent low-income students failed to take advantage of financial aid programs because they did not submit a FAFSA.

The FAFSA Act also expands college access for low-income students, in part by simplifying the application process for students with special circumstances, including students in foster care and emancipated youth; ensuring the equitable treatment of prepaid tuition and college savings plans; and reducing the work penalty. The current income protection allowance levels are unrealistically low, creating a disincentive for students to work in order to pay college costs.

We must act on these bills and others to make sure that every student who works hard and plays by the rules gets the opportunity to live the American Dream.

I was pleased to work with the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance and a host of other higher education organizations and charitable foundations on these bills.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these bills and work for their inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act of 2005, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Mikulski and Warner. This bill will guarantee transit benefits to all Federal employees in the National Capital Area and will remove a restriction that currently forbids Federal agencies from providing employee shuttles to and from transit stations. This measure is an important step forward in our efforts to encourage transit ridership and improve the quality of life for federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region and throughout the Nation.

All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impact, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 2003 Americans in 85 urban areas spent 3.7 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $64.8 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. In response, Americans are turning to alternative transportation in record numbers. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that Americans now take over 9 billion trips on transit per year, the highest level in more than 40 years. The Texas Transportation Institute has estimated that without transit, the 85 urban areas they studied would have suffered an additional 1.1 billion hours of delay, a 27 percent increase, which would have added $18 billion to the national cost of congestion.

Transit benefit programs are playing a vital role in increasing transit ridership, which benefits both transit users and drivers. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century amended the tax code to allow financial incentives related to commuting costs for both employers and employees. These transit benefits allowed employers to offer a tax-free financial incentive toward the costs of transit commuting, starting at $65 per month and raised in 2005 to $105 per month.

Based upon the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are clear improvements to congestion, energy efficiency, and air quality from transit benefit programs. According to their findings, an employer with 1,000 employees that participates in a combination of transit benefits, carpool, and telecommuting programs can take credit for taking 175 cars off the road, saving 44,000 gallons of gasoline per year, and cutting global warming pollution by 420 tons per year on average.

In April 2000, an Executive Order was signed requiring all executive branch agencies in the National Capital Region to offer transit benefits to their employees. As a result, Federal employees commuting to Washington, D.C. from Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, several counties in Northern Virginia, and as far away as West Virginia, are encouraged to choose transit as their means to get to work.

According to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation, more than 150,000 employees-- more than one-third of all Federal employees in the National Capital Region--joined the Federal transit benefit program created by the Executive Order. These program participants alone have eliminated an estimated 12,500 single-occupancy vehicles from Washington, D.C. area roads, helping to reduce congestion and improve air quality for our region.

The Executive Order, however, is limited. It does not cover employees in the legislative and judicial branches, for example, or in dozens of independent agencies. While many of the employers in those organizations provide transit benefits to their employees, the implementation and level of benefit is up to the discretion of individual offices. As such, many of these organizations provide limited benefits or do not provide any benefits at all. Guaranteed transit benefits would give these employees more choice in their commuting options and provide an additional incentive to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit.

Of course, such incentives will be ineffective if employees lack access to transit services. In my own state of Maryland, the United States Food and Drug Administration planned to use its own resources to provide a shuttle service for its employees from its new White Oak facility to an area Metro station. When they investigated providing this service, FDA officials found that the current law does not allow federal agencies to use their own vehicles to shuttle employees to mass transit stations.

The potential impact of this restriction on regional congestion is not insignificant. By the middle of this year, FDA expects to have 1,850 employees located at the new White Oak facility, and plans have been made to eventually house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at the new facility. The lack of access from FDA's new campus to a transit station represents a lost opportunity for reducing congestion, improving our environment and elevating the quality of life for employees.

This type of lost opportunity occurs across the nation. Nationally, the Federal Government employs more than 2.6 million civilian workers at more than 3,000 Federal Government office buildings. At Federal offices throughout the country, transit use is often limited as a commuting option due to lack of employee access to a transit station or a bus stop.

The Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would address both of these issues faced by Federal employees. First, the bill would put into law the Executive Order's requirement that transit pass benefits be made available to all qualified Federal employees in the National Capital Region. The bill also extends the requirement beyond executive branch agencies to include the legislative and judicial branches and the independent agencies, providing guaranteed transit benefits to thousands of additional federal employees in the Washington, DC region.

Second, the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would remove the restriction that prohibits a Federal agency from operating a shuttle service to a public transit facility. With this legislation, any Federal agency, anywhere in the United States, can choose to provide a transit shuttle service for their employees. By providing access to commuting alternatives, Federal agencies will be able to provide a benefit to their employees that can make getting to work easier, more affordable, and more employee-friendly. It will also provide an opportunity to help reduce congestion and improve air quality across the Nation.

Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown 20 percent, but the time spent by commuters in traffic has grown by over 200 percent. Each year, traffic congestion wastes nine billion gallons of fuel. By encouraging federal employees to look to transit and by providing access to transit stations, we can help reduce congestion, improve the environment, and promote an improved quality of life.

I am introducing the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act because of the opportunities it will give federal agencies to support public transportation, both by providing employee access to transit facilities across the nation, and by providing transit benefits to federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by encouraging the use of transportation alternatives. This legislation is strongly supported by federal employees, transit providers, and local elected officials, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with letters of support, be printed in the Record. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help the United States compete in an increasingly global economy in order to keep and to grow good paying, high quality jobs here at home. I am very pleased to be joined by my very good friend and colleague, Senator Mark Pryor, who cares as deeply about these issues as I do.

In recent years much has been written about globalization--especially the ``outsourcing'' of American jobs overseas. In fact, my hometown paper, the St. Paul Pioneer Press recently ran an editorial highlighting a survey done by the Federal Reserve that shows despite all the talk of ``outscouring'' and ``lost jobs'', globalization has resulted in more jobs and more money for Minnesota's workers. I ask unanimous consent that this article be included in the record along with my statement. However, that same editorial warned that as China, India and the European Union work to expand their own market opportunities by modernizing their infrastructure and improving the skills of their workforce, there is no guarantee that the world's best companies will continue to invest here at home.

Yet, at the same time that the Labor Department has projected that new jobs requiring advanced science, engineering and technical training will increase four times faster than the average national job growth rate, only 36 percent of 9th-12th graders in Minnesota are taking upper level math courses, and only 22 percent of are taking upper level science. Moreover, in a high tech economy that values knowledge and ideas as much as the products they produce the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has reported that the time it takes someone to get a patent is exploding. The facts read loud and clear: in order to maintain our place as the leader in tomorrow's economy, America must act now to maintain our competitive advantage and remain ahead of the curve.

That is why we are introducing the Collaborative Opportunities to Mobilize and Promote Education, Technology, and Enterprise Act of 2005 or the COMPETE ACT of 2005. The COMPETE Act is based on three simple, fundamental ideas: 1. The U.S. needs to maintain its competitive advantage in robust technology and innovation; 2. We must continue to ``upskill'' our workforce to ensure they have the skills necessary to remain competitive in a global economy that is more reliant on technology than ever before; and 3. We must utilize private-public partnerships to help improve education in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

America's economic strength is rooted in its ability to innovate, and so the COMPETE Act strengthens and expands the R&D tax credit. Expanding the R&D tax credit will help American companies to stay on the forefront of the technological revolution. This credit helps fuel job creation here at home and enables companies to bring more products and services to market.

The COMPETE Act also reforms and improves the U.S. Patent Trademark Office (PTO). It is no secret that patents and trademarks are the currency that drives America's high-tech economy. Unfortunately, the PTO estimates that it will take an average of 49 months by 2009 for it to issue a patent. This is a lifetime when you are innovating, and discourages new ideas. Furthermore, the current backlog on patent applications now totals almost a half million--the highest ever. Fortunately, the PTO has come up with a solution to this problem. However, it does not have the money to implement it. The COMPETE Act provides the PTO with the crucial funding necessary to reform the patent and trademark process so that U.S. companies remain on the forefront of the technological revolution.

Today, our employers need more than just raw materials; they need a highly skilled workforce who adds that extra value to their product. That is

why the COMPETE Act establishes a tax credit that will help ``upskill'' America's workers so that they can compete in an economy increasingly more dependent on information, communication and technology (ICT) skills. Indeed, ICT skills are today's newest raw material and are the infrastructure America needs to be a leader in today's global market.

To help close the math and science gap, the COMPETE Act creates a public-partnership that will leverage the expertise and resources of the private sector and those in the university community to establish joint regional training and research centers. These centers will provide training and technical assistance to teachers so they will be better equipped to get students interested in math and science at an early age.

The COMPETE Act rewards high performing schools in math and science and at the same time provides an incentive for businesses to get more involved in helping high-need schools to improve in the areas of math and science. Finally, the COMPETE Act establishes a matching grant program where federal and private resources will be used to help graduate students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics meet the cost of getting a graduate degree. This grant program will also support outreach and mentoring activities to increase the participation of underrepresented groups in these fields at every level of education.

Today is the time to prepare for tomorrow and the COMPETE Act represents an important step in helping to prepare the U.S. to succeed in meeting the challenges of a rapidly changing world. The COMPETE Act will help the U.S. remain ahead of the curve when it comes to competing in today's global economy. That is why a number of diverse organizations, including the R&D Credit Coalition, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA), American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Association of State Universities & Land-Grant Universities, ASSE Engineering Deans Council, Council of Graduate Schools, American Society for Training & Development, Association of American Universities, and the Intellectual Property Owners Association support one or may of tile provisions of the COMPETE Act.

I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record.

Today our economy is both more vulnerable and more successful than it has ever been. To ensure that we are maximizing our chances for success, we need to help employees and individuals innovate. We need to have a workforce that has the skills necessary to compete in a worldwide economy that is increasingly dependent on technology. We need to focus on math and science education to ensure that America continues to produce the best engineers and scientists in the world. And above all, we need to do those things necessary to make the U.S. the best place to do business in the world. The bottom line is we all want America's moms and dads to enjoy good paying jobs here at home so they can do what every mom and dad wants to do and that is give our kids a better life than we had. That's what the COMPETE Act is all about.