ANTI-GANG Act

Mr. President, I am proud to reintroduce the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act or the IMPACT Act today with my colleagues Senators Frist, Bingaman, and Dodd. This legislation would take several important steps toward promoting healthy eating and physical activity and combating obesity and eating disorders. Eating disorders and obesity have become serious and 2 growing public health concerns in our country. Childhood obesity has emerged as an important issue in the public, as we have seen a significant increase in the number of Americans who are overweight or obese. Today, more than 15 percent of children and adolescents are considered seriously overweight. We know that obesity and the lack of exercise are directly linked with a broad array of health problems, including heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis-related disabilities, depression and some cancers.

In New York State alone, almost 60 percent of adults are overweight or obese, while 43 percent of the children in New York City's public elementary schools are overweight and a quarter qualify as obese. Obese adults incur significantly higher annual medical expenditures than those of normal weight adults. The cost now rivals that attributable to smoking. I believe that while nutrition education is one part of the solution to the obesity problem facing our youth, it is not enough to simply say that childhood obesity is caused by eating too much junk food. Instead, we must be aware of the complex environmental, genetic, and behavioral factors that have influenced the epidemic.

Included among the factors that affect children's eating habits and activity levels are increased hours in front of the TV or computer, working parents spending more hours at the office trying to make ends meet, deteriorating healthfulness or foods available in schools, reduced access to recess and physical education in schools, changes in the physical design of neighborhoods and communities, and low self esteem. And sadly, as the number of people battling obesity has increased, eating disorders have also reached epidemic proportions in the United States. It is estimated that between 8 and 10 million people experience an eating disorder, with millions of new cases being diagnosed each year. Eating disorders do not discriminate--they affect men and women or all ages, racial and ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic classes, and religions.

Eating disorders are linked to a variety of health problems including heart failure, kidney failure, osteoporosis, gastric ruptures, and death. Eating disorders are also often associated with a variety of mental health problems including depression, substance abuse, and suicide. The age of onset for these disorders is getting younger and younger. According to the Center for Mental Health Services, 90 percent of those who have an eating disorder are women between the ages of 12 and 25.

Research indicates that 50 percent of females between the ages of 11 and 13 see themselves as overweight, and by the age of 13, eighty percent have attempted to lose weight. We know that the most common behavior that will lead to an eating disorder is dieting. In fact, 51 percent of 9 and 10 year old

girls report feeling better about themselves when they are on a diet. It is estimated that currently as many as 17 percent of high school students have been diagnosed with an eating disorder. Our youth today are striving to reach an unrealistic body ideal. Fears of falling short of this ideal are leading to dire consequences. That is why I am proud to co-sponsor of the IMPACT Act.

This legislation would take several important steps toward promoting healthy eating and physical activity to combat obesity and eating disorders. This legislation addresses the growing public health problems of increasing rates of obesity and eating disorders by: training students and health professionals to diagnose, treat and prevent obesity, overweight, and eating disorders; funding demonstration programs that promote healthy eating behaviors and physical activity to prevent eating disorders, obesity and being overweight, and related serious and chronic medical conditions; directing the Center for Disease Control to collect information regarding fitness levels and energy expenditure among children; authorizing the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to review all research carried out under this act and include such information, where it is relevant, in its health disparities report; allowing states to use their Preventive Services Block Grant money to address and prevent overweight, obesity, and eating disorders; mandating a report on obesity and eating disorders research; authorizing a report on the effectiveness of a National Public Education Campaign on changing children's behaviors and reducing obesity.

Each of these steps is needed to address our country's growing problems of obesity and eating disorders. Any comprehensive approach to promote healthy lifestyles and prevent disordered eating in our youth must be multifaceted. It must include education about nutrition and physical activity, and most importantly, it must encourage open communication about body image and self esteem. Such an effort will require the leadership and resources of healthcare providers, local communities, advocacy organizations, parents and families, and schools.

It is time that we promote and celebrate healthy bodies and healthy lifestyles regardless of size, weight indexes, or arbitrary numbers on a scale. This is a delicate task and we must make sure not to let an unhealthy emphasis on thinness jeopardize the health of our children. I look forward to working with all of my Senate colleagues to promote healthy lifestyles across the lifespan.

Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues Senator Durbin, Senator Leahy, and Senator Feingold in introducing this important legislation, the ANTI-GANG Act.

Gang violence is a serious problem in many communities across the Nation, and it deserves a serious response by Congress. The keys to success include aggressive steps to take guns out of the hands of criminal gang members and other violent juvenile offenders, and effective prevention programs that discourage gang membership and provide realistic alternatives for at-risk youth.

As one example of what works, I urge my colleagues to consider the innovative, cooperative crime-fighting strategy developed in Boston. It engaged the entire community, including police and probation officers, clergy and community leaders, and even gang members in a united effort to reduce gang violence, strengthen after-school prevention programs, and take guns out of the hands of juvenile offenders.

The project also established new and effective channels of communication between the police and neighborhood leaders. This strategy was very successful--juvenile homicides dropped 80 percent from 1990 to 1995. It succeeded without prosecuting more juveniles as adults, without housing nonviolent juvenile offenders in adult facilities, and without spending large sums of money on new juvenile facilities.

The Massachusetts Legislature's Joint Committee on Public Safety issued a report last January which concluded unequivocally that successful anti-gang programs depend on a ``wide variety of solutions.'' Relying on recommendations by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the report noted that ``preventing youth from joining gangs is the most cost-effective long-term strategy.'' Reflecting the input from an investigative hearing and a working group of ten mayors in metropolitan Boston, the report recognized that there is ``no silver bullet for combating gang violence.''

It would be a mistake for Congress to ignore these successful efforts to stop gang violence. Since different communities may find different ways to combat these difficult issues, the bill does not adopt a one- size-fits-all approach that will only make the current problem of gang violence worse. Instead of ignoring the primary role of State and local governments in fighting violent gang crimes in their communities, our ANTI-GANG Act strengthens that role, by giving local law enforcement and prosecutors the resources they need by authorizing $862 million in grants over the next 5 years.

The provisions in the bill for witness relocation and protection are particularly important. Our bill meets this need by authorizing $60 million in assistance. The urgency of preventing witness intimidation in gang-related cases can not be overstated. Effective prosecution of such violence depends upon it.

In addition, our bill amends the current law on Federal witness relocation and protection to make clear that the Attorney General can use these provisions to protect witnesses in State gang, drug, and homicide cases. We also permit States to obtain the temporary protection of witnesses in gang cases, without any requirement of reimbursement. The current complex reimbursement procedures deter State and local prosecutors from obtaining assistance for witness protection from the Federal government, even in emergencies.

The ANTI-GANG Act respects the primary role of State and local governments in fighting street crime, but it

also recognizes that violent gangs can have a substantial impact on Federal interests. According to the most recent National Drug Threat Assessment, criminal street gangs are responsible for the distribution of much of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and other illegal drugs being distributed in communities throughout the United States. Such gang activity interferes with lawful commerce and undermines the freedom and security of entire communities.

The Act strengthens the ability of prosecutors at all levels-- Federal, State and local--to prosecute violent street gangs, and it does so without increasing mandatory minimum sentences or unnecessarily expanding the Federal death penalty to include State murder offenses.

Finally, the Act encourages the recruitment and retention of highly- qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled on the current program for Federal employees. According to the National District Attorneys Association, this provision ``would allow prosecutors to relieve the crushing burden of student loans that now cause so many young attorneys to abandon public service.'' The provision is also strongly supported by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and the American Council of Chief Defenders.

I commend my colleagues for their leadership in developing this important legislation to protect American communities from gang violence without undermining fundamental principles of fairness and Federal-State relations. I urge the Senate to adopt this approach, and resist any suggestion that we need to federalize the State and local juvenile justice systems in our country.

Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues Senator Durbin, Senator Leahy, and Senator Feingold in introducing this important legislation, the ANTI-GANG Act.

Gang violence is a serious problem in many communities across the Nation, and it deserves a serious response by Congress. The keys to success include aggressive steps to take guns out of the hands of criminal gang members and other violent juvenile offenders, and effective prevention programs that discourage gang membership and provide realistic alternatives for at-risk youth.

As one example of what works, I urge my colleagues to consider the innovative, cooperative crime-fighting strategy developed in Boston. It engaged the entire community, including police and probation officers, clergy and community leaders, and even gang members in a united effort to reduce gang violence, strengthen after-school prevention programs, and take guns out of the hands of juvenile offenders.

The project also established new and effective channels of communication between the police and neighborhood leaders. This strategy was very successful--juvenile homicides dropped 80 percent from 1990 to 1995. It succeeded without prosecuting more juveniles as adults, without housing nonviolent juvenile offenders in adult facilities, and without spending large sums of money on new juvenile facilities.

The Massachusetts Legislature's Joint Committee on Public Safety issued a report last January which concluded unequivocally that successful anti-gang programs depend on a ``wide variety of solutions.'' Relying on recommendations by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the report noted that ``preventing youth from joining gangs is the most cost-effective long-term strategy.'' Reflecting the input from an investigative hearing and a working group of ten mayors in metropolitan Boston, the report recognized that there is ``no silver bullet for combating gang violence.''

It would be a mistake for Congress to ignore these successful efforts to stop gang violence. Since different communities may find different ways to combat these difficult issues, the bill does not adopt a one- size-fits-all approach that will only make the current problem of gang violence worse. Instead of ignoring the primary role of State and local governments in fighting violent gang crimes in their communities, our ANTI-GANG Act strengthens that role, by giving local law enforcement and prosecutors the resources they need by authorizing $862 million in grants over the next 5 years.

The provisions in the bill for witness relocation and protection are particularly important. Our bill meets this need by authorizing $60 million in assistance. The urgency of preventing witness intimidation in gang-related cases can not be overstated. Effective prosecution of such violence depends upon it.

In addition, our bill amends the current law on Federal witness relocation and protection to make clear that the Attorney General can use these provisions to protect witnesses in State gang, drug, and homicide cases. We also permit States to obtain the temporary protection of witnesses in gang cases, without any requirement of reimbursement. The current complex reimbursement procedures deter State and local prosecutors from obtaining assistance for witness protection from the Federal government, even in emergencies.

The ANTI-GANG Act respects the primary role of State and local governments in fighting street crime, but it

also recognizes that violent gangs can have a substantial impact on Federal interests. According to the most recent National Drug Threat Assessment, criminal street gangs are responsible for the distribution of much of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and other illegal drugs being distributed in communities throughout the United States. Such gang activity interferes with lawful commerce and undermines the freedom and security of entire communities.

The Act strengthens the ability of prosecutors at all levels-- Federal, State and local--to prosecute violent street gangs, and it does so without increasing mandatory minimum sentences or unnecessarily expanding the Federal death penalty to include State murder offenses.

Finally, the Act encourages the recruitment and retention of highly- qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled on the current program for Federal employees. According to the National District Attorneys Association, this provision ``would allow prosecutors to relieve the crushing burden of student loans that now cause so many young attorneys to abandon public service.'' The provision is also strongly supported by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and the American Council of Chief Defenders.

I commend my colleagues for their leadership in developing this important legislation to protect American communities from gang violence without undermining fundamental principles of fairness and Federal-State relations. I urge the Senate to adopt this approach, and resist any suggestion that we need to federalize the State and local juvenile justice systems in our country.

Mr. President, across this country, on couches in front of televisions and video game consoles, a silent killer called obesity is stalking America's youngsters--in epidemic numbers. Today, Senator Frist and I are introducing a bipartisan bill, ``The Childhood Obesity Reduction Act'', to jump-start a nationwide, community-based campaign against this menace and help our children grow up healthy.

In my home State of Oregon, obesity may well become the number-two killer of our citizens--after tobacco, also the number-one killer nationally. According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, fully 22 percent of the adults in Oregon are obese and 60 percent are overweight. Even more tragic, and why we are here today, is that U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says at least 31 percent of low income children between two and five years of age in Oregon are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. A lot of those overweight kids are going to become overweight and obese adults if we just sit on our hands today. Our children are beginning to show signs of devastating diseases that will only lead to a life-long illnesses and increased health care costs. And no statistic can measure the emotional toll that illness takes on a child, their families and others who love them.

The Frist-Wyden legislation, ``The Childhood Obesity Reduction Act'', will work to turn the tide against childhood obesity in two ways. First, it will give teachers, parents and other community leaders a one-stop shop to fight obesity. The Congressional council created by this bill will launch a comprehensive website to help everyone from Physical Education teachers to scout leaders learn what's working in schools and public-private programs. It will also offer information about how to connect with those successful programs and how to adapt them in their own schools.

For example, when a teacher wants to see what can be done to help kids get 30 minutes of activity, something that studies have shown helps to combat childhood obesity, that teacher could go to the website and see what others in a similar situation have done. They would be able to see there are partners like Nike who are willing to step up to the plate and help with programs. But that teacher might also see that physical activity is only one part of the solution and they might find ways to bring in the nutritional aspect as well through other programs that have already proven successful.

The website will also offer help in establishing goals for cutting childhood obesity at that school or in that community--and all these plans will have been evaluated by outside experts for their effectiveness.

Second, after two years, the Congressional council turns the work over to a brand-new foundation. The foundation will keep the one-stop website up and running. But at the same time, they'll be able to raise money, and use it to reward programs that work and fund programs that are sorely needed where childhood obesity threatens most.

Here's an example of how the second component of our bill would work: say an urban school wants to work on getting kids to choose vegetables instead of French fries. When they visit the Web site, they may find a successful program about actually growing fresh vegetables--so they don't think vegetables just come from a freezer or a can. The Foundation will have the wherewithal to do more than just share that information--they may be able to provide the seed money, literally, for a school garden that will grow fresh produce, and change the way those children look at food.

It is not realistic to think that children won't be in a situation where unhealthy choices for foods and snacks are available. The goal ought to be to help them know what the healthy choices are, how to balance what they eat and drink and to know that they need exercise. And the Foundation can keep pursuing those goals for the long term.

I believe that our bipartisan bill is significant for two reasons. First, it emphasizes both sides of the equation--the need for proper nutrition and the need for physical activity. Second, it and because it will create an immediate, one-stop resource, in the form of a Web site, about what we know is working now so that individuals can begin to mobilize their communities and help their children. These are also important steps in assisting our children to become healthy adults.

All of us have the same, simple goal here: getting America's children healthy. There are a lot of folks competing for our kids' attention in this arena. A lot of the competition is pretty attractive: food that's not so nutritious but sure tastes good, and video games that don't burn any calories but can occupy you for an entire afternoon. It's tough for kids to make good choices on their own. That's why it's time to mobilize this nation--and particularly this Congress, by way of legislation--to beat the epidemic of obesity plaguing our children.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the ANTI-GANG Act, introduced today by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin. This critical legislation will provide State and Federal law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to successfully fight the expanding presence of violent gangs that bring drugs like methamphetamine into our communities.

Time and time again, we in Congress have heard the call of prosecutors and law enforcement for more resources to combat the problem of gang violence. The ANTI-GANG Act gives local prosecutors and law enforcement what they have asked Congress for most--targeted financial assistance. The bill will help combat the growth and proliferation of violent gangs by authorizing funds for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. In addition, grant money will be made available for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang violence. These funds will not be tied to restrictive formulas that would keep the majority of the assistance from reaching suburban and rural communities. This money will be able to go to the communities in Wisconsin and the rest of the country where rural and smaller law enforcement agencies are financially limited in their ability to deal with the exploding increase in gang violence associated with methamphetamines and other narcotics.

The ANTI-GANG Act also promotes hiring and long-term service of highly qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program. Prosecuting gangs is some of the most demanding and challenging work a prosecutor will tackle. Loan forgiveness will allow the recruitment of the very best Assistant District Attorneys and Assistant Attorneys General and allow them to remain in public service longer so they can use their wealth of experience to combat gang violence.

The ANTI-GANG Act also replaces the current Federal RICO statute, which was never intended to be used against violent street gangs, with a tough statute that not only criminalizes participation in criminal street gangs, but also addresses the serious problem of the recruitment and retention of gang members. The ANTI-GANG Act targets gang violence and gang crimes in a logical, straightforward manner. The bill also recognizes that the vast majority of gang investigations and prosecutions have been and will continue to be done at the State and local level. The bill requires that Federal prosecutors consult with State and local law enforcement and certify that a Federal prosecution is in the public interest

Finally, the ANTI-GANG Act will provide Congress with the data necessary to decide whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders by requiring a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on more juvenile cases and to house additional young prisoners. Some have proposed indicting and prosecuting more juveniles in Federal courts as a way of combating gang violence. It is very hard to know whether this will work, and what effect if might have on the criminal justice system. With the review required by the ANTI-GANG Act, Congress can intelligently consider whether to expand to Federal role in prosecuting juveniles.

We all know that the gang problem is a serious one, and that it is only getting worse. Other members of Congress have proposed different approaches to combating the gang problem, and the House of Representatives has passed its own gang bill. But the ANTI-GANG Act is the approach most responsive to the needs of State and local prosecutors who are on the ground fighting this problem, day in and day. Other approaches go down the wrong path.

State and Federal prosecutors have not demanded unchecked and increased Federal jurisdiction over State crimes that diminishes the States' historic and primary role in fighting violent street gangs. They did not come to us seeking new and expanded Federal death penalty crimes, but rather effective laws that focus on the recruitment and retention of gang members. They never mentioned needing a massive and unwarranted reworking of the Federal rules used to prosecute juveniles as adults, regardless of whether the juvenile is in a gang or not. And, to my knowledge, no prosecutors have put increased mandatory minimums targeted at first offenders on their wish list. All of these approaches sound tough, but they aren't what prosecutors and law enforcement have asked for and they won't solve the gang problem.

Our citizens should be able to send their children to school, use their parks, and walk their streets without fearing that gang violence will grow unfettered in their community. The ANTI-GANG Act is an important step towards making all of our neighborhoods safe. I am proud to cosponsor it and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the ANTI-GANG Act, introduced today by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin. This critical legislation will provide State and Federal law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to successfully fight the expanding presence of violent gangs that bring drugs like methamphetamine into our communities.

Time and time again, we in Congress have heard the call of prosecutors and law enforcement for more resources to combat the problem of gang violence. The ANTI-GANG Act gives local prosecutors and law enforcement what they have asked Congress for most--targeted financial assistance. The bill will help combat the growth and proliferation of violent gangs by authorizing funds for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. In addition, grant money will be made available for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang violence. These funds will not be tied to restrictive formulas that would keep the majority of the assistance from reaching suburban and rural communities. This money will be able to go to the communities in Wisconsin and the rest of the country where rural and smaller law enforcement agencies are financially limited in their ability to deal with the exploding increase in gang violence associated with methamphetamines and other narcotics.

The ANTI-GANG Act also promotes hiring and long-term service of highly qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program. Prosecuting gangs is some of the most demanding and challenging work a prosecutor will tackle. Loan forgiveness will allow the recruitment of the very best Assistant District Attorneys and Assistant Attorneys General and allow them to remain in public service longer so they can use their wealth of experience to combat gang violence.

The ANTI-GANG Act also replaces the current Federal RICO statute, which was never intended to be used against violent street gangs, with a tough statute that not only criminalizes participation in criminal street gangs, but also addresses the serious problem of the recruitment and retention of gang members. The ANTI-GANG Act targets gang violence and gang crimes in a logical, straightforward manner. The bill also recognizes that the vast majority of gang investigations and prosecutions have been and will continue to be done at the State and local level. The bill requires that Federal prosecutors consult with State and local law enforcement and certify that a Federal prosecution is in the public interest

Finally, the ANTI-GANG Act will provide Congress with the data necessary to decide whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders by requiring a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on more juvenile cases and to house additional young prisoners. Some have proposed indicting and prosecuting more juveniles in Federal courts as a way of combating gang violence. It is very hard to know whether this will work, and what effect if might have on the criminal justice system. With the review required by the ANTI-GANG Act, Congress can intelligently consider whether to expand to Federal role in prosecuting juveniles.

We all know that the gang problem is a serious one, and that it is only getting worse. Other members of Congress have proposed different approaches to combating the gang problem, and the House of Representatives has passed its own gang bill. But the ANTI-GANG Act is the approach most responsive to the needs of State and local prosecutors who are on the ground fighting this problem, day in and day. Other approaches go down the wrong path.

State and Federal prosecutors have not demanded unchecked and increased Federal jurisdiction over State crimes that diminishes the States' historic and primary role in fighting violent street gangs. They did not come to us seeking new and expanded Federal death penalty crimes, but rather effective laws that focus on the recruitment and retention of gang members. They never mentioned needing a massive and unwarranted reworking of the Federal rules used to prosecute juveniles as adults, regardless of whether the juvenile is in a gang or not. And, to my knowledge, no prosecutors have put increased mandatory minimums targeted at first offenders on their wish list. All of these approaches sound tough, but they aren't what prosecutors and law enforcement have asked for and they won't solve the gang problem.

Our citizens should be able to send their children to school, use their parks, and walk their streets without fearing that gang violence will grow unfettered in their community. The ANTI-GANG Act is an important step towards making all of our neighborhoods safe. I am proud to cosponsor it and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, in our search for ways to eliminate the crushing poverty that afflicts billions of people around the world, experience has taught us to be humble. There is no single policy or program that can deal with the underlying causes and symptoms of poverty.

But as the Hippocratic Oath reminds us, in the search for cures, ``First, do no harm.''

Right now, the burden of debt owed by the poorest nations of the world to the richest does harm not only to them, but to us.

In our new global environment, countries whose peoples live in abject poverty are not just a moral challenge to those of us who are blessed with affluence.

They can threaten the entire edifice of political and economic stability.

New technologies that have brought so much good to the world have shrunk the gaps in time and distance that once allowed us the luxury of inattention.

Now the very symbols of the technological superiority of our age, from the cell phone to the internet to jet airliners, have been transformed into weapons in the hands of those who are the declared enemies of our way of life.

They allow stateless actors to reach out from the shadows, from weak and failed states, to attack us here at home.

Poverty-stricken states are fertile ground for drug production and trafficking, feeding our own drug problems here.

With the scourge of AIDS and other diseases loose in the world, we cannot afford the existence of more states that cannot feed, house, educate, or innoculate their citizens.

For all of these reasons, we ignore the poverty that plagues other nations at our own peril.

That is why we need the legislation I am introducing today, with Senators DeWine, Feingold, Lugar, and Obama, the Multilateral Debt Relief Act of 2005.

This legislation takes a first step in addressing that poverty it relieves the poorest nations of the world, specifically those who qualify for the Heavily Indebted Poor Country initiative of over a billion dollars a year in debt service payments that they are obliged to send the World Bank, the IMF, and the African Development Bank.

Since I worked with the President Clinton on the Enhanced HIPC initiative in 1999, we have searched for a

workable definition of ``sustainable debt'' an amount that would not cripple a country's ability to take care of its own citizens and achieve economic growth.

In the end, it became clear that definition would continue to elude us. Whatever the best use of the limited resources of the poorest nation may be, sending checks to the multilateral banks established by the richest nations of the world is nowhere near the top of the list.

With the strong leadership of Prime Minister Blair, who will preside over the upcoming G8 Summit in July, we have cut the Gordian Knot of debt owed by the poorest nations of the world.

The announcement of the G8 Finance Ministers earlier this month on 100 percent debt relief cuts through years of debate and opens the way for a fresh start.

One hundred percent debt relief for those countries who meet the HIPC qualifications gets that debt out of the way of the many tasks before those countries in their search for economic growth.

None of our own foreign assistance programs will work to their best advantage if we send that assistance into nations who will turn around and send some of their money right back here to Washington, to the World Bank, to the IMF.

We must remember that this is indeed only the first step on a long path. With the funds this legislation will authorize, a burden of debt will be lifted, but we will still need to promote health, education, and other pillars of economic development.

We will need a more creative approach to trade with the poorest nations, who represent no economic threat, except for the threat that comes from their poverty itself. We have nothing to fear from a world in which fewer people wake up hungry, sick, and uneducated.

But with as much as $40 billion in outstanding debt stock owed by 18 countries to be removed from the books right away, our efforts in those areas have a greater chance to succeed. Up to $56 billion will be forgiven under this plan, once all 38 eligible countries are fully qualified.

I am pleased to note that this is a bipartisan initiative, one I share with Senators DeWine, Feingold, Lugar, and Obama, an effort that began with the Clinton Administration and has progressed to this historic agreement under President Bush.

This legislation authorizes the funds needed for our share of the debt relief. It provides for further relief for other countries as they become eligible.

It lifts not only a debt burden from poor countries, but a moral obligation from our shoulders.

The poverty reduction it will promote will help millions around the globe and contribute materially to a more stable and secure world.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2005, a bill that would abolish a tax that is severely outdated.

The telephone excise tax originated on long distance service under the Spanish American War Act of 1898. At that time, only the wealthy had telephones, the U.S. had no income tax, and the country relied on excise taxes to fund the war. However, you would not know the intent of this tax by looking at your phone bill. The charge on your phone bill doesn't say ``luxury tax'' or ``war tax.'' So why does this tax still exist?

Although created to cover war expenses in 1898, the revenue from the telephone excise tax goes into the general receipts of the U.S. Treasury and is not earmarked for any particular government function or service. From its inception, the federal telephone excise tax was repeatedly imposed on a temporary basis. However since 1932, the tax has continuously been imposed. This tax has been scheduled to expire-- partially or completely--at least 17 different times. In 1990, and just before the tax was set to expire, Congress made the tax permanent at 3 percent of local and long distance services.

The Joint Committee on Taxation stated in its January 2005 report ``there is no compelling policy argument for imposing taxes on communications services.'' The Congressional Budget Office took this a step further by stating in February 2005 that the tax ``has harmful effects on economic policy.''

Repeal of this tax provides consumers with two main benefits--removal of a regressive tax and elimination of an ``invisible tax.'' First, the tax is considered a regressive tax because lower-income individuals spend a higher percentage of their income on the taxed item than those with higher-incomes. A 1987 study by the CBO concluded that excise taxes on telephone service had a greater impact on low-income families than did excise taxes on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. Studies have shown that individuals and families with income less than $10,000 spend almost 10 percent of their income on telephone bills. Individuals and families earning $50,000 spend two percent of their income for telephone service.

Second, repeal eliminates this ``invisible'' tax that consumers pay through their telephone companies. Because phone companies collect the tax from their customers, the government is spared the expense. However, this convenience for the government makes the tax ``invisible'' to consumers by tying it to the payment of their phone bills. Additionally, any administrative costs associated with the collection of this tax are most likely passed forward to the consumers, artificially raising the cost of telecommunications with no benefit from the additional taxes.

Telephone service providers lose as well under the current tax, and its repeal would further reduce the cost of telecommunications for consumers. Providers carry the administrative costs of being the government's tax collector. Additionally, while providers do not bear this tax directly, the tax raises the cost of services for consumers and in turn reduces both the number of subscribers and the amount of services requested.

Common sense dictates that repeal of the telephone excise tax is long overdue. Communication is not a luxury. Rather, communications have become part of the basic fabric of our social and economic life. The growth of the technologies on which communications rides and the widespread use of communications in general should be encouraged and not taxed. The telephone tax is a regressive, inequitable, inefficient and unnecessary tax that Congressional policy makers have found to serve no rational policy purpose. I strongly urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting the repeal of the telephone excise tax.