Low-Cost Alternatives to Payday Loans Act

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will enhance and strengthen transition services that are provided to our military personnel.

As the Senate conducts its business today, thousands of our brave men and women in uniform are in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe. These men and women serve with distinction and honor, and we owe them our heartfelt gratitude.

We also owe them our best effort to ensure that they receive the benefits to which their service in our Armed Forces has entitled them. I have heard time and again from military personnel and veterans who are frustrated with the system by which they apply for benefits or appeal claims for benefits. I have long been concerned that

tens of thousands of our veterans are unaware of Federal health care and other benefits for which they may be eligible, and I have undertaken numerous legislative and oversight efforts to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs makes outreach to our veterans and their families a priority.

While we should do more to support our veterans, we must also ensure that the men and women who are currently serving in our Armed Forces receive adequate pay and benefits, as well as services that help them to make the transition from active duty to civilian life. I am concerned that we are not doing enough to support our men and women in uniform as they prepare to retire or otherwise separate from the service or, in the case of members of our National Guard and Reserve, to demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian lives while staying in the military or preparing to separate from the military. We must ensure that their service and sacrifice, which is much lauded during times of conflict, is not forgotten once the battles have ended and our troops have come home.

The bill that I am introducing today, the Veterans Enhanced Transition Services Act (VETS Act), will help to ensure that all military personnel have access to the same transition services as they prepare to leave the military to reenter civilian life, or, in the case of members of the National Guard and Reserve, as they prepare to demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian lives and jobs or education while remaining in the military.

I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites and members of military and veterans service organizations that our men and women in uniform do not all have access to the same transition counseling and medical services as they are demobilizing from service in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I have long been concerned about reports of uneven provision of services from base to base and from service to service. All of our men and women in uniform have pledged to serve our country, and all of them, at the very least, deserve to have access to the same services in return.

I introduced similar legislation during the 108th Congress, and I am pleased that a provision that I authored which was based on that bill was enacted as part of the fiscal year 2005 defense authorization bill.

In response to concerns I have heard from a number of my constituents, my amendment, in part, directed the Secretaries of Defense and Labor to jointly explore ways in which DoD training and certification standards could be coordinated with government and private sector training and certification standards for corresponding civilian occupations. Such coordination could help military personnel who wish to pursue civilian employment related to their military specialties to make the transition from the military to comparable civilian jobs. I look forward to reviewing this report.

In addition, this amendment required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to undertake a comprehensive analysis of existing transition services for our military personnel that are administered by the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor and to make recommendations to Congress on how these programs can be improved. My amendment required GAO to focus on two issues: how to achieve the uniform provision of appropriate transition services to all military personnel, and the role of post-deployment and pre-discharge health assessments as part of the larger transition program. GAO released its study ``Military and Veterans' Benefits: Enhanced Services Could Improve Transition Assistance for Reserves and National Guard'' in May 2005, and it plans to release its study on health assessments in the near future.

Just yesterday, GAO provided testimony on its transition services report to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. That hearing could not have been more timely. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to improve transition programs now as we continue to welcome home thousands of military personnel who are serving our country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. We should not miss an opportunity to help the men and women who are currently serving our country.

My bill, which is consistent with GAO's recommendations on transition assistance, will help to ensure that all military personnel receive the same services by making a number of improvements to the existing Transition Assistance Program/Disabled Transition Assistance Program (TAP/DTAP), by improving the process by which military personnel who are being demobilized or discharged receive medical examinations and mental health assessments, and by ensuring that military and veterans service organizations and state departments of veterans affairs are able to play an active role in assisting military personnel with the difficult decisions that are often involved in the process of discharging or demobilizing.

Under current law, the Department of Defense, together with the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Labor, provide pre-separation counseling for military personnel who are preparing to leave the Armed Forces. This counseling provides servicemembers with valuable information about benefits that they have earned through their service to our country such as education benefits through the GI Bill and health care and other benefits through the VA. Personnel also learn about programs such as Troops to Teachers and have access to employment assistance for themselves and, where appropriate, their spouses.

My bill would ensure that National Guard and Reserve personnel who are on active duty are able to participate in this important counseling prior to being demobilized. In addition, my bill would require state- based follow-up within 180 days of demobilization to give newly demobilized personnel the opportunity to follow up on any questions or concerns that they may have during a regular unit training period. Currently, most of the responsibility for getting information about benefits and programs falls on the military personnel. The Department of Defense should make every effort to ensure that all members participate in this important program, and that is what my bill would do.

In its recent report on transition services, GAO found that ``[d]uring their rapid demobilization, the Reserve and National Guard members may not receive all the information on possible benefits to which they are entitled. Notably, certain education benefits and medical coverage require servicemembers to apply while they are still on active duty. However, even after being briefed, some Reserve and National Guard members were not aware of the time frames within which they needed to act to secure certain benefits before returning home. In addition, most members of the Reserves and National Guard did not have the opportunity to attend an employment workshop during demobilization.''

In response to these findings, GAO recommended that ``DoD, in conjunction with DoL and the VA, determine what demobilizing Reserve and National Guard members need to make a smooth transition and explore options to enhance their participation in TAP.'' GAO also recommended that ``VA take steps to determine the level of participation in DTAP to ensure those who may have especially complex needs are being served.''

In addition to ensuring that all discharging and demobilizing military personnel are able to participate in TAP/DTAP, my bill would help to improve the uniformity of services provided to personnel by directing the Secretary of Defense to ensure that consistent transition briefings occur across the services and at all demobilization/discharge locations. In its report, GAO noted that ``[t]he delivery of TAP may vary in terms of the amount of personal attention participants receive, the length of the components, and the instructional methods used.'' We should make every effort to ensure that those who have put themselves in harm's way on our behalf have access to the same transition services no matter their discharge/demobilization location or the branch of the Armed Forces in which they serve.

My bill would also ensure, consistent with GAO's recommendation, that there are programs that are directed to the specific needs of active duty and National Guard and Reserve personnel. And my bill includes a provision to ensure that personnel who are on the temporary disability retired list and

who are being retired or discharged from alternate locations will have access to transition services at a location that is reasonably convenient to them.

In addition, my bill would enhance the information that is presented to members by requiring that pre-separation counseling include the provision of information regarding certification and licensing requirements in civilian occupations and information on identifying military occupations that have civilian counterparts, information concerning veterans small business ownership and entrepreneurship programs offered by the Federal Government, information concerning employment and reemployment rights and veterans preference in Federal employment and Federal procurement opportunities, information concerning homelessness and housing counseling assistance, and a description of the health care and other benefits to which the member may be entitled under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs including a referral (to be provided with the assistance of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) for a VA medical and pension examination, as appropriate.

Participation in pre-separation counseling through a TAP/DTAP program is a valuable tool for personnel as they transition back to civilian life. My bill is in no way intended to lengthen the time that military personnel spend away from their families or to provide them with information that is not relevant to their civilian lives or that they otherwise do not need. In order to ensure that this information remains a valuable tool and does not become a burden to demobilizing members of the National Guard and Reserve who experience multiple deployments for active duty assignments, my bill clarifies that participation in the Department of Labor's transitional services employment program will not be required if a member has previously participated in the program or if a member will be returning to school or to a position of employment.

My bill would also require the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to submit a plan to Congress for increasing access to the joint DoD-VA Benefits Delivery at Discharge program, which assists personnel in applying for VA disability benefits before they are discharged from the military. This very successful program has helped to cut the red tape and to speed the processing time for many veterans who are entitled to VA disability benefits.

In addition to the uneven provision of transition services, I have long been concerned about the immediate and long-term health effects that military deployments have on our men and women in uniform. I regret that, too often, the burden of responsibility for proving that a condition is related to military service falls on the personnel themselves. Our men and women in uniform deserve the benefit of the doubt, and should not have to fight the Department of Defense or the VA for benefits that they have earned through their service to our nation.

Since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have worked to focus attention on the health effects that are being experienced by military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War. More than ten years after the end of the Gulf War, we still don't know why so many veterans of that conflict are experiencing medical problems that have become known as Gulf War Syndrome. Military personnel who are currently deployed to the Persian Gulf region face many of the same conditions that existed in the early 1990s. I have repeatedly pressed the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to work to unlock the mystery of this illness and to study the role that exposure to depleted uranium may play in this condition. We owe it to these personnel to find these answers, and to ensure that those who are currently serving in the Persian Gulf region are adequately protected from the many possible causes of Gulf War Syndrome.

Part of the process of protecting the health of our men and women in uniform is to ensure that the Department of Defense carries out its responsibility to provide post-deployment physicals for military personnel. I am deeply concerned about stories of personnel who are experiencing long delays as they wait for their post-deployment physicals and who end up choosing not to have these important physicals in order to get home to their families that much sooner. I am equally concerned about reports that some personnel who did not receive such a physical--either by their own choice or because such a physical was not available--are now having trouble as they apply for benefits for a service-connected condition.

I firmly believe, as do the military and veterans groups that support my bill, that our men and women in uniform are entitled to a prompt, high quality physical examination as part of the demobilization process. These individuals have voluntarily put themselves into harm's way for our benefit. We should ensure that the Department of Defense makes every effort to determine whether they have experienced, or could experience, any health effects as a result of their service.

In light of concerns raised by many that each service and each installation uses a different process for demobilization physicals, my bill would require the Secretary of Defense to set minimum standards for these important medical examinations and to ensure that these standards are applied uniformly at all installations and by all branches of the Armed Forces. In addition, to ensure that all personnel receive these important exams, my bill stipulates that the exam may not be waived by the Department or by individual personnel.

My bill also would strengthen current law by ensuring that these medical examinations also include a mental health assessment. Our men and women in uniform serve in difficult circumstances far from home, and too many of them witness or experience violence and horrific situations that most of us cannot even begin to imagine. I have heard concerns that these brave men and women, many of whom are just out of high school or college when they sign up, may suffer long-term physical and mental fallout from their experiences and may feel reluctant to seek counseling or other assistance to deal with their experiences.

My bill would improve mental health services for demobilizing military personnel by requiring that the content and standards for the mental health screening and assessment that are developed by the Secretary include content and standards for screening acute and delayed onset post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and, specifically, questions to identify stressors experienced by military personnel that have the potential to lead to PTSD. These efforts should build on--not replace--the mental health questions that the Pentagon is already using as part of its post-deployment health screening process.

Some Wisconsinites have told me that they are concerned that the multiple deployments of our National Guard and Reserve could lead to chronic PTSD, which could have its roots in an experience from a previous deployment and which could come to the surface by a triggering event that is experienced on a current deployment. The same is true for full-time military personnel who have served in a variety of places over their careers.

We can and should do more to ensure that the mental health of our men and women in uniform is a top priority, and that the stigma that is too often attached to seeking assistance is ended. One step in this process is to ensure that personnel who have symptoms of PTSD and related illnesses have access to appropriate clinical services, through DoD, the VA, or a private sector health care provider. To that end, my bill would require that the health care professionals who are assessing demobilizing military personnel provide all personnel who may need follow-up care for a physical or psychological condition with information on appropriate resources through DoD or the VA and in the private sector that these personnel may use to access additional follow-up care if they so choose.

I commend the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs for issuing in March 2005 a memorandum to the Assistant Secretaries for the Army, Navy, and Air Force directing them to extend the Pentagon's current post-deployment health assessment process to include a reassessment of ``global health with a specific emphasis on mental health'' to occur three to six months post-deployment. At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee's Personnel Subcommittee earlier

this year, the Assistant Secretary stated that the services were in the process of implementing a program that would include a ``screening procedure with a questionnaire and a face-to-face interaction at about three months'' post-deployment. He also noted that the idea for this program came from ``front line people'' and that he ``asked them. . . `do you think we should make it mandatory?' and the answer was: yes.'' This sentiment makes it even more important that the initial post- deployment mental health assessment be strengthened and that it be mandatory as well so that health care professionals have a benchmark against which to measure the results of the follow-up screening process.

In order to gain a better understanding of existing programs, my bill requires the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to report to Congress on the services provided to current and former members of the Armed Forces who experience PTSD and related conditions. This report will include an analysis of the number of persons treated, the types of interventions, and the programs that are in place for each branch of the Armed Forces to identify and treat cases of PTSD and related conditions.

In addition, in order to ensure that all military personnel who are eligible for medical benefits from the VA learn about and receive these benefits, my bill would require that, as part of the demobilization process, assistance be provided to eligible members to enroll in the VA health care system.

My bill would also make improvements to the DoD demobilization and discharge processes by ensuring that members of military and veterans service organizations (MSOs and VSOs) are able to counsel personnel on options for benefits and other important questions. The demobilization and discharge process presents our servicemembers with a sometimes confusing and often overwhelming amount of information and paperwork that must be digested and sometimes signed in a very short period of time. My bill would authorize a ``veteran to veteran'' counseling program that will give military personnel the opportunity to speak with fellow veterans who have been through this process and who have been accredited to represent veterans in VA proceeding by the VA. These veterans can offer important advice about benefits and other choices that military personnel have to make as they are being discharged or demobilized.

Under current law, the Secretary of Defense may make use of the services provided by MSOs and VSOs as part of the transition process. But these groups tell me that they are not always allowed access to transition briefings that are conducted for our personnel. In order to help facilitate the new veteran-to-veteran program, my legislation would require the Secretary to ensure that representatives of MSOs, VSOs, and state departments of veterans affairs, are invited to participate in all transition and Benefits Delivery at Discharge programs. In addition, my legislation requires that these dedicated veterans, who give so much of their time and of themselves to serving their fellow veterans and their families, are able to gain access to military installations, military hospitals, and VA hospitals in order to provide this important service. By and large, these groups are able to speak with our military personnel at hospitals and other facilities. But I am disturbed by reports that representatives of some of these groups were having a hard time gaining access to these facilities in order to visit with our troops. For that reason, I have included this access requirement in my bill.

I want to stress that my bill in no way requires military personnel to speak with members of MSOs or VSOs if they do not wish to do so. It merely ensures that our men and women in uniform have this option.

I am pleased that this legislation is supported by a wide range of groups that are dedicated to serving our men and women in uniform and veterans and their families. These groups include: the American Legion; the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States; the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans; the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Reserve Officers Association; the Veterans of Foreign Wars; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin National Guard; the American Legion, Department of Wisconsin; Disabled American Veterans, Department of Wisconsin; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I am please to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.

Five years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs (WDVA) launched a Statewide program called ``I Owe You,'' which encourages veterans to apply, or to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service to our country in the Armed Forces.

As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored 20 events around Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Information about additional benefits through WDVA is also provided. These events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia, supplement the work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and veterans service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect with the VA and to learn more about services and benefits for which they may be eligible.

More than 18,650 veterans and their families have attended the supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies. I am proud to have had members of my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability claim, and pre-registration for internment in veterans cemeteries. According to WDVA, this program has helped Wisconsin to receive approximately $250 million in additional VA funding and benefits for our veterans each year.

The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American Government Award. The program was featured in the March/April 2003 issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine. And in August 2003, the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments named the program a finalist in its 2003 Innovations in American Government Awards Program.

The State of Wisconsin is performing a service that is clearly the obligation of the VA. These are federal benefits that we owe to our veterans and it is the federal government's responsibility to make sure that they receive them. The VA has a statutory obligation to perform outreach, and current budget pressures should not be used as an excuse to halt or reduce these efforts.

The legislation that I am introducing today was spurred by the overwhelming response to the WDVA's ``I Owe You'' program and the supermarkets of veterans benefits. If more than 18,000 Wisconsin veterans want to make sure they know about all the benefits that are owed to them, there must be many more veterans around our country who deserve to be told about the benefits they have earned. We can and should do better for our veterans, who selflessly served our country and protected the freedoms that we all cherish. And it is important to address gaps in the VA's outreach program as we welcome home and prepare to enroll into the VA system the tens of thousands of dedicated military personnel who are serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the globe.

In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would create a statutory definition of the term ``outreach.''

My bill also would help to improve outreach activities performed by the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line items for outreach activities within the budgets of the VA and its agencies (the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration). Currently funding for outreach is taken from the general operating expenses for these agencies. These important programs should have a dedicated funding source instead of being forced to compete for scarce funding with other crucial VA programs.

I have long supported efforts to adequately fund VA programs. We can and should do more to provide the funding necessary to ensure that our brave veterans are getting the health care and other benefits that they have earned in a timely manner and without having to travel long distances or wait more than a year to see a doctor or to have a claim processed.

Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of effort that could waste scarce funding.

Finally, the bill would ensure that the VA can enter into cooperative agreements with state departments of veterans affairs regarding outreach activities and would give the VA grant-making authority to award funds to State Departments of Veterans Affairs for outreach activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.'' Grants that are awarded to state departments under this program could be used to enhance outreach activities and to improve activities relating to veterans claims processing, which is a key component of the VA benefits process. State departments that receive grants

under this program may choose to award portions of their grants to local governments, other public entities, or private or non-profit organizations that engage in veterans outreach activities. I want to be clear that it is not my intention that the funding for these grants be taken from existing VA programs.

I am pleased that this bill has the support of a number of national and Wisconsin organizations that are committed to improving the lives of our nation's veterans, including: Disabled American Veterans; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America; the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the American Legion, Department of Wisconsin; the American Legion Auxiliary, Department of Wisconsin; Disabled American Veterans, Department of Wisconsin; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America.

I hope that my colleagues will support this effort to ensure that our veterans know about the benefits for which they may be eligible as a result of their service to our country. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Wartime Treatment Study Act. This bill would create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. This bill is long overdue.

I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Grassley, Kennedy, Lieberman, Corzine and Wyden, have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. I thank them for their support.

The victory of America and its allies in the Second World War was a triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of great pride for all Americans.

But, as so many brave Americans fought against enemies in Europe and the Pacific, the U.S. government was curtailing the freedom of people here at home. While, it is, of course, the right of every nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. government must respect the basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives to defend. War tests our principles and our values. And as our nation's recent experience has shown, it is during times of war and conflict, when our fears are high and our principles are tested most, that we must be even more vigilant to guard against violations of the Constitution or of basic freedoms.

Many Americans are aware of the fact that, during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066, our government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes into internment camps. Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods, and their communities and were held behind barbed wire and military guard by their own government. Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, created by Congress in 1980, this shameful event finally received the official acknowledgement and condemnation it deserved. Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, people of Japanese ancestry who were subjected to relocation or internment later received an apology and reparations on behalf of the people of the United States.

While I commend our government for finally recognizing and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II, I believe that it is time that the government also acknowledge the mistreatment experienced by many German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans, as well as Jewish refugees.

The Wartime Treatment Study Act would create two independent, fact- finding commissions to review this unfortunate history, so that Americans can understand why it happened and work to ensure that it never happens again. One commission will review the treatment by the U.S. government of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans, as well as European Latin Americans, during World War II.

I believe that most Americans are unaware that, as was the case with Japanese Americans, approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. We must learn from our history and explore why we turned on our fellow Americans and failed to protect basic freedoms.

A second commission created by this bill will review the treatment by the U.S. government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide. We must review the facts and determine how our restrictive immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. The United States turned away thousands of refugees, delivering many refugees to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime.

As I mentioned earlier, there has been a measure of justice for Japanese Americans who were denied their liberty and property. It is now time for the U.S. government to complete an accounting of this period in our nation's history. It is time to create independent, fact- finding commissions to conduct a full and through review of the treatment of all European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II.

Up to this point, there has been no justice for the thousands of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans who were branded ``enemy aliens'' and then taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps.

There has been no justice for Latin Americans of European descent who were shipped to the United States and sometimes repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often in exchange for Americans being held in those countries.

Finally, there has been no justice for the thousands of Jews, like those aboard the German vessel the St. Louis, who sought refuge from hostile Nazi treatment but were callously turned away at America's shores.

Although the injustices to European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees occurred fifty years ago, it is never too late for Americans to learn from these tragedies. We should never allow this part of our Nation's history to repeat itself. And, while we should be proud of our Nation's triumph in World War II, we should not let that justifiable pride blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own government.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment Study Act. It is time for a full accounting of this tragic chapter in our nation's history.

I ask that the full text of the Wartime Treatment Study Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Craig and Senator Inhofe, who cosponsored an earlier version of the bill in the 108th Congress, and who are original sponsors of this year's legislation. Our bill takes the lead in encouraging a culture of cooperation among all levels of immigration law enforcement--Federal, State, and local--it seeks to build an immigration law enforcement system that is inclusive of all law enforcement officers, has adequate detention bedspace, uses unified databases for information sharing from one level of law enforcement to another, and has adequate detention bedspace.

These elements are a necessary foundation for any future comprehensive immigration reform and I am pleased that the need for this foundation was recently recognized by Senators Kyl and Cornyn in the release of the enforcement principles of the immigration bill they are currently drafting. Changes in substantive immigration law are surely needed, but unless an effective enforcement mechanism is included, the new rules will also collapse under a rising tide of illegality.

More than 15 years of service as a U.S. Attorney in Alabama and then as Alabama's Attorney General--as well as my current role on the Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship Subcommittee--have taught me that the involvement of State and local law enforcement will be a critical part of any new and successful immigration enforcement scheme. Establishing an effective partnership between the 700,000 State and local law enforcement officers who patrol our streets every day and the small number of Federal immigration officers will be a test of our Nation's will to establish an effective and enforceable legal scheme for immigration.

I care very deeply about the ability of State and local law enforcement to voluntarily aid the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law. As a result, I also care very deeply about tearing down barriers to that voluntary assistance. The need for this voluntary assistance has only grown stronger over the last year and a half, since I first introduced this legislation in the Senate. Over the course of that time we have heard about the need to reform our immigration laws to create a system that is as enforceable as it is generous and workable. Creation of an enforceable immigration system will undoubtedly require increased manpower, streamlined information sharing, and bedspace to hold those we apprehend.

This legislation targets all three of these essential enforcement components, and will go a long way toward fixing our broken immigration enforcement system--the system that is currently allowing people to remain in the U.S. for indefinite time periods, regardless of how they came here.

Let me be clear, this bill is not about the commandeering of State and local police forces or about forcing them to dedicate resources toward immigration law enforcement when they have other priorities, it is simply about welcoming their assistance in the realm of immigration law enforcement if they choose to give it.

We know that Americans strongly value our heritage as a Nation of immigrants. Americans openly welcome legal immigrants and new citizens with character, ability, decency, and a strong work ethic. However, it is also clear that Americans do not feel the same way about illegal immigration. The fact is that a large majority of Americans feel that State and local governments should be aiding the Federal Government in stopping illegal immigration.

A RoperASW poll published in March of 2003 titled ``Americans Talk About Illegal Immigration'' found that 88 percent of Americans agree, and 68 percent ``strongly'' agree, that Congress should require state and local government agencies to notify the INS, now ICE, and their local law enforcement when they determine that a person is here illegally or has presented fraudulent documentation. Additionally, 85 percent of Americans agree, and 62 percent ``strongly'' agree that Congress should pass a law requiring State and local governments and law enforcement agencies, to apprehend and turn over to the INS illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact.

Those numbers speak volumes about the desires of the American population. It is important to note that these responses were collected in response to questions about requiring State and local immigration enforcement action. It is very likely that a poll on this bill, a bill that is about voluntary State and local action, would yield even stronger support.

America's strength is based on its commitment to the rule of law. Inscribed on the front of the Supreme Court Building just down the street are the words, ``Equal Justice Under Law.''

In the world of immigration laws, the current facade of enforcement that holds no real consequences for law breakers is both dangerous and irresponsible. If the only real consequence of coming to this country illegally is a social label, then our immigration laws are but a brightly painted sepulcher full of dead bones, for it is impossible to be a nation governed by the rule of law, if our laws have no real effect on the lives of the people they govern.

Our illegal alien population was at a record high two years ago and the numbers continue to climb. The lack of immigration enforcement in our country's interior has resulted in 8-12 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. with another estimated 800,000 illegal aliens joining them every year--that is on top of the more than 1 million that legally immigrate each year. These numbers make it easy for criminal aliens and absconders to disappear inside our borders.

Of the 8-10 million illegal aliens present today, the Department of Homeland Security has estimated that 450,000 are ``alien absconders''-- people that have been issued final deportation orders but have not shown up for their hearings. An estimated 40,000 absconders join that number every year.

An estimated 86,000 of them are criminal illegal aliens--people convicted of crimes they committed in the U.S. who should have been deported, but have slipped through the cracks and are still here.

The next number is perhaps the most concerning--3,000 of the ``alien absconders'' within our borders are from one of the countries that the State Department has designated to be a ``state sponsor of terrorism.''

The number of illegal aliens outweighs the number of federal agents whose job it is to find them within our borders by 5,000 to 1. The enforcement arm of the old INS, now called The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, has just over 2,000 interior agents inside the borders. Leaving the job of interior immigration enforcement solely to them will guarantee failure. If each interior agent investigated, arrested, prosecuted and deported an illegal alien every day, it would take almost 14 years to deport the current illegal alien population.

State and local police, a force 700,000 strong, are the eyes and ears of our communities. They are sworn to uphold the law. They police our streets and neighborhoods every day. Their role is absolutely critical to the success of our immigration system.

For that critical role to be effective, a few very important things need to happen: 1. State and local law enforcement officers need clear authority to voluntarily act; 2. the NCIC Immigration Violators File needs to contain all critical immigration information so that officers have quick roadside access to critical immigration information; 3. Federal immigration officials have to take custody of illegal aliens apprehended by State officers, they can not continue to ignore State and local requests for assistance; 4. the Institutional Removal Program has to be expanded so that all criminal aliens are detained after their State sentences until deportation, instead of being released back into the community just to be searched for by Federal officials at a later date; and 5. critically needed Federal bed space has to be given to DHS so that the practice of ``catch and release'' can be ended and effective removal can begin.

The Homeland Security Enhancement Act that Senator Craig, Senator Inhofe, and I are introducing today will do all of those things.

Let me tell you about a few of the problems in immigration enforcement that started my interest in this area and prompted me to author this bill, to push for the hearing on April 22 of 2004 in the Senate Judiciary Committee titled ``State and Local Authority to Enforce Immigration Law: Evaluating a Unified Approach for Stopping Terrorists'', and to author a law review article in the April 2005 issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review titled ``The Growing Role for State and Local Law Enforcement in the Real of Immigration Law.''

A few years ago, police chiefs and sheriffs in Alabama began to tell me that they had been shut out of the immigration enforcement system and that they felt powerless to do anything about Alabama's growing illegal immigrant population.

As I went to town hall meetings and conferences with police, I heard the same story-- ``When we come across illegal aliens in our normal course of duty, we have given up calling because the INS tells us we have to have 15 or more illegal aliens in custody or they will not even come pick them up.''

Even worse, Alabama police were routinely told that the aliens could not be detained until the INS could manage to send someone. They were told they had to just let them go! They were being told this, even though I believed that the legal authority of State and local officers to voluntarily act on violations of immigration law was pretty clear. If there is any doubt that State and local officers have this authority, Congress needs to remove that doubt which is exactly what this bill will do.

Only two U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have expressly ruled on State and local law enforcement authority to make an arrest on an immigration law violation. In 1983, the Ninth Circuit, while not mentioning a preexisting general authority, held that nothing in Federal law precludes the police form enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a ``state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.'' United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a ``preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of Federal law, including immigration laws.'' United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999).

Again, in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that ``state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions 'to investigate and make arrests for violations of Federal law, including immigration laws.''' United States v. Santana- Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295).

None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions of the INA that render an alien deportable. It appears that the Ninth Circuit started the confusion regarding the distinction between civil and criminal violations in Gonzales v. City of Peoria by asserting in dicta that the civil provisions of the INA are a persuasive regulatory scheme, and therefore only the Federal Government has the power to enforce civil violations. See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983).

This confusion was, to some extent, fostered by an erroneous 1996 opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel, OLC of the Department of Justice, the relevant part of which has since been withdrawn by OLC.

Why was the Federal agency responsible for interior immigration enforcement telling my police chiefs in Alabama to let illegal aliens go free?

To be fair, ICE still does not have the manpower or detention space to take custody and detain all illegal aliens. With less than 20,000 appropriated detention beds, ICE tells us over and over again that they do not have the bed space to detain all the illegal aliens that they apprehend; instead, they are forced to give first priority to detaining the worst of the worst individuals such as convicted felon aliens.

It is shocking to me that even though we know that detention is a key element of effective removal, we do not even detain all illegal aliens that have been convicted of crimes for removal. Last February, in a report titled ``The Immigration and Naturalization Service's Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders'' the Department of Justice Inspector General found that 87 percent of those not detained before removal never get deported. Even in high risk categories, the IG found that only fractions of non-detained violators are ever removed-- 35 percent of those with criminal records and 6 percent of those from ``state sponsors of terrorism.'' These percentages have not changed since 1996, when the last IG report issued on the ability to remove aliens found that 89 percent of aliens with final deportation orders that are not detained are never removed.

Just this month, during a joint hearing of the Judiciary Committee Immigration and Terrorism Subcommittees titled ``The Southern Border in Crisis: Resources and Strategies to Improve National Security'' we learned that in some jurisdictions such--as Harlingen Texas--`` no show'' rates for immigration hearings are as high as 98 percent. Those numbers speak for themselves about our efficiency in the realm of immigration enforcement. The American people deserve better, they deserve to know that our laws will be enforced instead of ignored without consequence.

But we can not lay all the blame on DHS--they can only detain illegal aliens that they have space to detain. We know that DHS is using all of the bed space that they have and that it is not enough they consistently tell us that they are releasing people that should be detained because there is no more room. The Homeland Security Enhancement Act would add critical bed space DHS needs to fulfill its mission of interior enforcement.

The third problem that was brought to my attention and motivated my desire to introduce this bill, is the inadequate way we share immigration information with State and local police. We have databases full of information on criminal aliens and aliens with final deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to State and local police. They have to make a special second inquiry to the immigration center in Vermont just to see if an illegal alien is a wanted by DHS.

The Hart Rhudman Report, ``America Still Unprepared--America Still In Danger,'' found that one problem America still confronts is ``700,000 local and State police officials continue to operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum, without access to terrorist

watchlists.'' The first recommendation of the report was to ``tap the eyes and ears of local and State law enforcement officers in preventing attacks.'' On page 19, the report specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with 700,000 local, county, and State law enforcement officers if they could be brought out of the information void.

Without easy access to immigration database information, and with ICE unwilling to come and identify every suspected illegal alien, State and local police can not quickly and accurately identify who they have detained and who they will be releasing back into the community if they follow ICE's instruction to ``just let them go.''

State and local police are accustomed to checking for criminal information in the NCIC, National Crime Information Center, database, which is maintained by the FBI. They can, and routinely do, access the NCIC on the roadside when they pull over a car or stop a suspect. An NCIC check, which takes just minutes, includes information about individuals with outstanding warrants. Even fugitives that use false identification can be identified on the roadside through use of the NCIC when, as is often the case, a police officer has access to an instant fingerprint scanner in his car.

Separate from the NCIC, ICE operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which makes immigration information available to State and local police, but requires a second additional check after NCIC that most State and local police either don't know about or don't have the time to perform.

The ability of the NCIC to convey immigration information to State and local police is not being fully utilized. To date, the Immigration Violators File of the NCIC contains just over 150,000 entries and only 39,000 of those are alien absconders. This file should be greatly and rapidly expanded. At the very least, the NCIC should contain information on all illegal aliens who have received final orders of departure, all illegal aliens who have signed voluntary departure agreements, and all aliens who have had their visas revoked. In truth, the NCIC should contain information on all violations of immigration law.

If State and local police are not accessing the immigration information we have worked hard to make available, we must find a way to get the information to them, through systems they are used to using. Our bill will get information to them through the system they are already using--the NCIC.

Our bill will ensure that when an NCIC roadside check is done on an individual pulled over for speeding, police will know immediately if the individual has already been ordered to leave the country, has signed a legal document promising to leave, has overstayed their visa, or has had their visa revoked.

Understanding the value of getting immigration information to State and local police comes from understanding that they are the ones who will come into contact with the dangerous illegal aliens on a day-to- day basis.

Three 9/11 hijackers were stopped by State and local police in the weeks proceeding 9/11. Hijacker Mohammad Atta, believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 77 into the World Trade Center's north tower, was stopped twice by police in Florida. Hijacker Ziad S. Jarrah was stopped for speeding by Maryland State Police two days before 9/11. And, Hani Hanjour, who was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, was stopped for speeding by police in Arlington, Virginia. Local police can be our most powerful tool in the war against terrorism.

The D.C. Snipers were caught because of the fingerprint collected by local police. John Lee Malvo was identified when the fingerprint collected from a magazine at the scene of the liquor store murder and robbery in Montgomery, Alabama matched with the fingerprints collected by INS agents in Washington State. Had both law enforcement entities not done their job by taking prints, it is possible that the identity of John Lee Malvo could have been a mystery for weeks longer.

In New York a 42-year-old woman sitting on a park bench with her boyfriend was dragged away and gang-raped by five deportable illegal immigrants. Although 4 of the 5 had State criminal convictions and 2 had served jail time, the INS claims they were never told about them-- thus, they were not deported as the law requires.

56 illegal aliens were caught by State and local police, and convicted of molestation and child abuse, long before ICE's ``Operation Predator'' found them living in New York and Northern New Jersey long after they should have been deported. Of the 56 arrested, one had raped his 10-year-old niece; another had sexually assaulted a 6-year-old boy; one had raped his 7-year-old niece; and another had sexually assaulted a 2-year-old.

The 9/11 hijacker cases, the D.C. sniper cases, and a multitude of criminal alien cases clearly illustrate that our State and local police are the front lines of combating alien crime. To leave them out of the enforcement system, as we do now, eliminates our most effective weapon against criminal and terrorist aliens.

Many advocacy groups have vocally opposed the idea of State and local immigration law enforcement over the course of the last year. They would prefer that Congress not clarify this enforcement authority and that we leave State and local officers in the dark.

Such groups contend that if immigration enforcement functions are performed by anyone other than Federal law enforcement officials, at least three negative consequences will ensue. First, they argue that State and local law enforcement entities will be handed an unfunded mandate and will be forced to enforce immigration law violations against their will and at their expense. Second, they argue that immigrant communities, and the victims and witnesses that live within them, will abandon their trust of, and cooperative partnership with, State and local law enforcement. And third, they argue that State and local law enforcement officers will abuse their inherent enforcement authority to engage in racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination.

By making these claims, advocacy groups seek to maintain the ineffective status quo for enforcement by local officers and thwart the possibility of an effective enforcement partnership between the Federal Government and the States.

The assertions of these advocacy groups are more myth than reality. The first assertion is that the Federal Government is trying to burden State and local governments with an unfunded mandate. Every police and sheriff's department across the country must make choices every day regarding their enforcement priorities and resources. Certainly, their legal authority and law enforcement goals are not served by being shut out of immigration law enforcement. It is a curious argument to say that local police are helped by being denied their lawful powers to voluntarily aid Federal immigration authorities. They should not be forced to ignore laws being broken in their presence and in their communities.

The second myth that anti-local enforcement advocates would have policymakers believe is twofold: that a current cooperative partnership exists between local police and immigrant communities, and that immigration enforcement will cause immigrant victims and witnesses of crimes to abandon these cooperative partnerships. One advocacy group, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, argues: ``These combined measures will ensure that more immigrants will avoid contact with law enforcement, putting entire communities at risk. For instance, immigrant victims of crime will hesitate to report the crimes to the police if they fear adverse immigration consequences from their contact with the officials.'' Again, the argument fails because State and local police retain their independent power to make prosecution choices. They are not required to report illegal alien victims or witnesses to Federal authorities or to investigate crimes they do not want to investigate. To make sure that this is understood, the authors of this bill have agreed to add language clarifying that nothing in the bill requires State and local officers to report crime victims or witnesses to Federal immigration authorities.

Perhaps the most egregious assertion made by opponents of effective enforcement is the allegation that State and local law enforcement officers will use their inherent enforcement authority as a license to engage in racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination. Specifically, the National Council of La Raza strongly opposes State and local law enforcement participation because it claims such involvement is ``likely to result in increased racial profiling, police misconduct, and civil rights violations.'' This argument is curious because it would effectively grant more protection to non-citizens here illegally than to citizens, who are subject to arrest by State and Federal law enforcement officers for violations of Federal law. It is curious logic to say that we trust our police to enforce laws against citizens but not against non-citizens here illegally. State and local police are trained to protect the civil rights of all types of suspects and defendants and they do so every day in this country. In Alabama, State troopers receive annual training on racial profiling. In New York, the NYC Police Department Operations Order #11 strictly prohibits racial profiling in law enforcement actions. If Alabama and New York are consistent in how they instruct and train their State and local police with regards to racial profiling, it is safe to assume that the rest of the Nation is as well.

Under this bill, State and local police will have to respect the civil rights of illegal aliens the same way they respect the civil rights of all people against whom they enforce the law. State and local police will continue to be held responsible for violations of civil rights; this bill does not change that fact.

The opposition will say that this bill is expensive; that it costs too much. It is always expensive to enforce the law. I do not think this bill is overly expensive. We have made it as cost affordable as we can by electing to use resources already available to us--facilities closed down under the Defense Base Closure Realignment Act of 1990 and law enforcement officers across America already out on our streets doing their jobs. Law enforcement is not an area where it pays to pinch pennies. In immigration enforcement, it costs us too much not to enforce the law. It is time that Congress take responsibility for providing DHS with the resources they need to do the job we have given them.

When it comes to immigration enforcement in America, the rule of law is not prevailing. If we are serious about securing the homeland, we simply must get serious about immigration enforcement.

It is time to talk about the big picture--time to be honest about what it will really take to fix our broken immigration system. In most cases, we don't need tougher immigration laws, we just need to utilize our existing resources and use some new resources to enforce the laws we already have.

If State and local police are confused about their authority to enforce immigration laws, that authority needs to be clarified. This bill will do that. If State and local police cannot access immigration background information on individuals quickly enough, we should change that. This bill makes that information more accessible through expanding use of the NCIC. If DHS is not taking custody of illegal aliens being apprehended by State and local police, we need to make it possible for them to do so. This bill will address the practice of ``catching and releasing'' illegal aliens. If we do not have enough detention space to hold people that break the law, then we need more detention space. This bill gives DHS 50 percent more bedspace for immigration enforcement. If illegal aliens are being released back into the community after their prison sentences instead of being deported, we need to fix the system that releases them. This bill will extend the Institutional Removal Program to ensure that custody is transferred from the State prison to Federal officials at the end of the alien's prison sentence.

Once again I would like to thank Senator Craig and Senator Inhofe for joining with me to introduce this legislation, and I would like to thank Congressman Norwood for introducing companion legislation in the House.

It is imperative that we take critical steps toward regaining control of our borders and that we lay the enforcement foundation for necessary immigration reforms. This bill is a critical step in the right direction. I encourage my colleagues to study this bill and join us in working to pass the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which will clarify certain National Park Service authorities for the Golden Gate

National Recreation Area and San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park.

I also want to thank Congresswoman Pelosi for introducing a similar bill in the house. As a San Francisco native and a former mayor, I know these parks are extremely popular tourist sites and I believe this bill will allow the National Park Service to restore and renovate these parks in order to maintain their status as top tourist destinations.

The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is one of the largest urban national parks in the world--home to such renowned sites as the Presidio of San Francisco and Alcatraz Island. Additionally, the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park, located at the west end of San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf, includes a fleet of landmark vessels and a maritime museum.

Presently, the revenue collected by these parks must be spent in the same fiscal year in which it is collected. Otherwise, any revenue that is not spent is deposited in the National Treasury. This current policy makes it difficult for these two parks to pursue long term, major restoration projects. This bill makes the necessary changes to allow these parks to undertake needed substantive restoration as opposed to smaller, less significant projects allowed under the current revenue system.

The bill also calls for a modest boundary adjustment between the two adjacent parks in order to be consistent with the current administration of San Francisco's Municipal Pier.

I am introducing this bill with the hope that it will allow these two parks to retain the revenue necessary for maintenance in order to continue to attract visitors from around the world to these historic sites of California.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that clarifies the meaning and scope of the Alien Tort Statute.

This 200-year-old law has spawned dozens of legal cases involving U.S. multinational companies, human rights groups, foreign plaintiffs, the State Department, and millions of dollars in litigation costs. Numerous companies in California are in the midst of these lawsuits as defendants and it is my view that legislation can help refine and improve the law.

Judges have grappled in interpreting and applying the statute for years now without a consensus view emerging. I think it would be fair to say that confusion reigns supreme when it comes to alien tort suits.

Given this opaque legal picture, last summer the Supreme Court ruled on a case, Sosa v. Alvarez Machain, in an attempt to reconcile conflicting decisions from judges across the country.

The Court's June 2004 ruling was notable, for embracing certain principles that will help guide the Judiciary branch on alien tort claim issues but for leaving many questions unanswered as well.

It held that a substantive, legal basis exists for foreigners to sue U.S. individuals and corporations over alleged human rights violations occurring in overseas locations. The Court essentially affirmed that a limited, implicit sanction for courts exists to decide certain alien tort claims.

At the same time, the opinion provided a wide berth for what the claims might actually be. The Court hedged on key issues, without clearly demarcating what suits ought to go forward under the statute and which ones should be summarily dismissed.

In particular the ruling did not address: which international law claims by foreigners should be heard in a U.S. district court, and the standard of liability for U.S. companies facing these human rights charges.

To clarify these areas, the Justices wrote that they would welcome ``any congressional guidance'' on the breadth of the statute. During oral arguments a number of the Justices appeared to concur that a legislative approach would make sense. One Justice even commented that ``I just wonder if it isn't wise to . . . let Congress have a look at this thing.''

Those views were echoed by a Washington Post editorial that followed soon after. The paper stated that the alien tort law has ``formed the basis for litigation against U.S. companies involved with nefarious regimes abroad. And while horrid conduct by an American company ought to be, where proven, grounds for action in American courts, the parameters of such litigation are surely a legislative question, not one for the freewheeling discretion of judges. . . . But the court left open the possibility that at least some of these suits can proceed in the absence of further congressional action.''

The Court's perspective, along with the Post commentary, indicates, at least to me, a sense of caution about imposing by judicial fiat action that is better left to consideration and refinement by the Congress.

The Court's hesitation to legislate from the bench shifts the responsibility to this body, I believe, to pass legislation that settles on a reasonable legal means that plaintiffs and defendants alike can rely on to litigate their differences.

I believe the measure we are introducing today accomplishes this basic and important goal.

Right now, courts are essentially adrift in terms of being able to pinpoint the underlying meaning, scope and intent of this 200-year-old statute. In its entirety, it reads: ``The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.''

The economy of words makes the law abstruse and subject to varying interpretation. And complex, lengthy and unnecessary litigation has burdened the courts as a result.

This new bill will establish a fair, legal basis for filing suit under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). And it will have the added benefit of explicating the law's dual jurisdictional and substantive nature.

The measure: specifies a legal standard convicting defendants of wrongdoing if they directly participate with specific intent to commit the alleged tort; codifies international claims under the Alien Tort law to include genocide, torture, slavery and slave trade, extrajudicial killing, and piracy; expands on existing statutory law, the Torture Victim Protection Act; states that Federal courts shall not proceed with tort claims when the President adequately certifies that such exercise of jurisdiction will have a negative impact on the foreign policy interests of the U.S.; maintains that every effort should be made to try these cases in the country of origin before granting jurisdiction in U.S. courts; invokes a 10-year statute of limitations on ATS charges filed against U.S. multinational companies; and disallows contingency fee arrangements for legal representatives of plaintiffs or defendants.

The Supreme Court's delineation that the Alien Tort law is jurisdictional in one sense, but recognizes a restricted category of substantive claims encompassed by the law of nations, leaves many unresolved questions.

The historical origins of the ATS, passed by the First Congress as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, suggest that certain offenses relevant to that period in American history--piracy, infringing the rights of ambassadors, and prevention of safe travel abroad--were meant to be prosecutable. But Justice Souter's Alvarez-Machain opinion notes that a slim legislative history of the statute makes it difficult to surmise the law's true intent.

At the same time, Justice Souter opined: ``Still, the history does tend to support two propositions. First, there is every reason to suppose that the First Congress did not pass the ATS as a jurisdictional convenience to be placed on the shelf for use by a future Congress or state legislature that might, some day, authorize the creation of causes of action or itself decide to make some element of the law of nations actionable for the benefit of foreigners. The anxieties of the preconstitutional period cannot be ignored easily enough to think that the statute was not meant to have a practical effect. . . . The second inference to be drawn from the history is that Congress intended the ATS to furnish jurisdiction for a relatively modest set of actions alleging violations of the law of nations.''

The opinion ranges further, that, such a ``modest set of actions'' indeed applies to current times, not merely offenses grounded in law two hundred

years ago. The critical portion reads: ``Accordingly, we think courts should require any claim based on the present-day law of nations to rest on a norm of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with specificity comparable to the features of the 18th century paradigms we have recognized.''

I am uncomfortable with such a nebulous, open-ended legal approach permitting courts to entertain suits based on a ``norm of international character'' and ``specificity'' consistent with crimes of early American history. Adjudicating cases based on these broad historical and legal precepts is admirable. In practical terms it remains very difficult.

The Congress ought to weigh in and play a constructive role. Without legislation, judges will continue to reach markedly different conclusions under the law, based on arbitrary interpretations of case- specific facts and other considerations.

Let's take the legal mystery out of the statute and what qualifies as an alien tort and replace it with something that is concrete and appropriate for the times.

At the heart of this legislation is codifying a class of violations of international law that will discourage defendant companies from consorting with human rights violators in any respect. They will be held liable if they do so by a specific standard that judges whether they intentionally and directly caused certain violations of human rights.

A plaintiff victim will be able to vindicate their rights by filing an express statutory cause of action based on a half dozen egregious wrongs. Regardless of the foreign policy and trade implications, defendant U.S. companies will be held fully accountable under the bill for bad corporate behavior in their overseas business operations.

That is as it should be. Certain alien torts in violation of the law of nations ought to be cognizable and this legislation ensures that result. Moreover, the fact that specific crimes are made actionable and enforceable will aid human rights organizations in their fight to strengthen the deterrent effect of the law for potential violators.

Regarding the defendant perspective, in one friend of the court brief submitted in the Alvarez Machain case, the argument was made that ``. . . companies face enormous uncertainty regarding the scope of potential claims under the statute. . . . Because ATS cases are based upon an implied cause of action without any clear standards of liability, there may be little companies can do to protect themselves against potential claims, short of simply ceasing to do business in the many nations whose human rights practices come up short against evolving Western ideals.''

The business community ought to embrace this legislation precisely because it wipes away this uncertainty. The best way to encourage U.S. multinationals to invest abroad is: 1. by specifying a universe of the most egregious human rights violations that they may be held liable for and 2. offering a clear, understandable legal standard that judges their actions accordingly. This legislative measure tackles both issues head on.

There are estimates that dozens of existing alien tort suits claim damages--collectively--in excess of $200 billion dollars. That's an extraordinary sum that rightly concerns the U.S. business community, particularly given numerous inconsistent federal courts verdicts handed down in the past two decades.

This legislation deters private plaintiffs from filing sweeping and specious claims simply because a corporation has a U.S. legal nexus and deep pockets. Yet, it expands the basis for foreign plaintiffs pursuing certain international law causes of action in federal court by codifying their rights in a judicious way.

While some in the U.S. business community would prefer that the Alien Tort statute be deleted from the U.S. Code altogether, I would respectfully disagree. A fair compromise that balances the interests of U.S. companies and human rights organizations is what this legislation seeks to accomplish.

The Congress has waded into this debate before, passing the Torture Victim Protection Act in 1991, and this new legislation contains many similar elements: a statute of limitations, a statutory exhaustion provision, and specifying torture and extrajudicial killing as within the adjudicatory discretion of a district court.

There is precedent, then, for the Legislative branch acting to provide civil redress for victims of torture. Asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction under the ATS, for torture and other jus cogen violations, has a firm footing in American jurisprudence.

The legislative history of the TVPA is important because it spells out the constitutional grounds justifying that statutory law and this new legislation as well.

The Senate Judiciary Committee report on the TVPA states as follows: ``Under article III of the Constitution, the Federal judiciary has the power to adjudicate cases `arising under' the `law of the United States.' The Supreme Court has held that the law of the United States includes international law. . . . Congress's ability to enact this legislation also derives from article I, section 8 of the Constitution which authorizes Congress `to define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.' ''

Existing case law confirms the point that Congress has given the federal courts the power to interpret and apply international human rights law. The notable Paquete Habana decision states, in part, that ``international law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. . . Congress, however, has not only expressed no disagreement with our view of the proper exercise of the judicial power, but has responded to its most notable instance by enacting legislation [the Torture Victim Protection Act] supplementing the judicial determination in some detail.''

The view expressed in the Alvarez Machain case last year was much the same, that no development in the last two centuries has ``categorically precluded federal courts from recognizing a claim under the law of nations as an element of common law.''

Different precedent, Tel Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, also posits that civil liability should ensue from certain violations of international law, suggesting that the ``limits of section 1350's [the ATS] reach'' be defined by ``a handful of heinous actions--each of which violates definable, universal and obligatory norms.''

This legislation fills that legal vessel with the most egregious crimes: genocide, torture, slavery and slave trading, extrajudicial killing, and piracy. These jus cogen offenses are singled out through 1. stare decisis, 2. the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, 3. academic writings, 4. official annual human rights assessments from the State Department and 5. among the writings and publications of many human rights and international law advocacy groups.

Congress is in the best position to make the determination of what falls within the ambit of the statute, not judges across America who lack expertise, time, and resources to assess what constitutes definable, specific, universal, and obligatory norms of international law. The bill, I would submit, represents a good faith effort in permitting these tortious acts, all firmly established and well defined in international law norms, to be prosecuted in U.S. district courts.

I was interested to read the views last year of the head of the National Foreign Trade Council, William Reinsch, that ``these cases are going to end up in the Supreme Court . . . and the Court will over time end up defining what in its judgment constitutes the law of nations and what does not. But that seems to us a fairly circuitous way of doing things.'' I would concur, particularly since the Supreme Court's decision last year in the Alvarez Machain case did not clear up the inherent vagaries in the law.

A significant provision in this legislation creates a standard of liability that requires plaintiffs to show that a defendant directly participated with specific intent in carrying out the alleged tort. In my view, we need to deter legal fishing expeditions, whereby plaintiffs come to the bar with flinty facts backing weak charges.

Their real intent, it seems, is to rely on an extensive legal discovery process to uncover matters that embarrass companies and delay their business plans.

In the groundbreaking 1980 Filartiga v. Pena-Irala case, for example, the threshold requirement laid out was that the offense needed to be ``clear and unambiguous'' to be viable under the statute. Succeeding cases have affirmed a standard essentially requiring proof of a defendant aiding and abetting the worst human rights violations. This bill replaces the current aiding and liability standard for good reason: these foreign-based claims demand a particularity of facts that is both strong and specific.

I would submit that the existing ambiguous grant of jurisdiction needs more refinement to provide judges legal bright lines for deciding these cases. My bill offers precise, and fair, treatment for which cases get standing in a U.S. court.

A common theme in dozens of cases alien tort cases is whether the facts and law combine to present a nonjusticiable political question. Each cause of action is obviously different, and whether the matter ought to be under the province of a different branch of government requires careful analysis.

I would certainly agree that certain prudential doctrines, act of state, political question, foreign sovereign immunity, forum non conveniens, and considerations of comity among nations, at times can be appropriately invoked to limit jurisdiction.

Part of that consideration can usefully come from statements of interest and certifications submitted by the Executive branch; for that reason, the legislation I'm offering preserves a suitable role for the Executive branch to weigh in. If a judge determines that a certification offered by the State Department adequately justifies that harm will come to U.S. foreign policy interests if an alien tort suit proceeds, then dismissal is warranted.

In regards to restricting the statute of limitations to ten years, equitable tolling considerations should be explicitly considered in interpreting provisions in the legislation. There are numerous factors that give rise to equitable tolling and long-established judge-made doctrine in this area is not inconsistent with the goals of my bill.

Complementary legislation which I raised earlier, the Torture Victim Protection Act, upholds the principle of equitable tolling. The Judiciary Committee report on that measure notes some common examples:

``The statute of limitation should be tolled during the time the defendant was absent from the United States or from any jurisdiction in which the same or a similar action arising from the same facts may be maintained by the plaintiff, provided that the remedy in that jurisdiction is adequate and available. Excluded also from calculation of the statute of limitations would be the period when a defendant has immunity from suit. The statute of limitations should also be tolled for the period of time in which the plaintiff is imprisoned or otherwise incapacitated.''

I would submit that all of these listed circumstances, and others, are sufficient to suspend the running of the time under my legislation.

Let me conclude by referring back to one of the Supreme Court's foundational points in the Alvarez-Machain case that ``despite considerable scholarly attention, it is fair to say that a consensus understanding of what Congress intended has proven elusive.''

The 33 words contained in the law remain a ``legal Lohengrin'' since ``no one seems to know whence it came'' added a judge hearing a different case some years ago. As a result, costly, complex litigation proceeds forward across the country.

Courts deserve guidance from Congress about how to treat and interpret the statute, particularly in light of the growing importance of international trade and commerce. In a major address Supreme Court Justice O'Connor recently observed that ``international law has emerged in ways that affect all courts, both here and abroad. The reason is globalization. Its importance should not be underestimated. Thirty percent or more of our gross domestic product is internationally derived.'' Yet these particular suits, brought by foreigners for massive monetary damages, threaten the international economic activities that are important to sustaining the American economy.

The suits should be able to go forward, but judges need better legal tools to make heads or tails of the cases that come before them hence the motivation for introducing the Alien Tort Statute Reform Act.

With full understanding of the Supreme Court's admonition to act with judicial caution in framing the alien tort statute, I believe it is time for Congress to bring clarity to the law and this proposed legislation does so.

I look forward to working with colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, through the hearing process and other means, to give this matter serious consideration by the Legislative branch.

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

Mr. President, I opposed the bankruptcy reform bill because it was an outdated bill that failed to include adequate consumer protections. We saw a record number of consumer bankruptcy filing prior to the October 17 implementation deadline for the harsh new bankruptcy. Not enough was included in the legislation to protect consumers from predatory lenders or to make credit counseling a viable alternative to bankruptcy or to better inform over extended consumers about the true costs of their debts. I was disappointed that the Senate failed to effectively address these issues in a meaningful way, and instead, passed an outdated bill that forces working families into more costly and difficult bankruptcy proceedings. I am committed to making improvements in this flawed law.

Today, I am introducing two bills that address flaws in the bankruptcy reform law. The first bill is the Predatory Payday Loan Prohibition Act. This bill would prevent federally-insured financial institutions from originating predatory payday loans. Payday loans are small cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Payday loan amounts are usually in the range of $100 to $500 with full payment due in 2 weeks. Finance charges on payday loans are typically in the range of $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed, which translates into triple digit interest rates in the range of 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate. Loan flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break.

Industry analysts conservatively estimate that more than 15,000 payday advance locations across America extend about $25 billion in short-term credit to millions of households experiencing cash-flow shortfalls. Too many of its customers are low-income, working families. More and more customers are the financially stretched middle class, including people who have maxed out their credit cards, people perhaps who have lost a job, or people with no savings to fall back on during a situation that causes a cash-flow shortfall, such as a medical emergency.

Payday lending is also rampant in the military. One in five servicemembers have used payday lenders in the last year, according to the report, ``Payday Lenders Target the Military,'' by the Center for Responsible Lending. Payday lenders exploit people in financial need and profit enormously from these loans. We must act to protect vulnerable consumers from these predatory lenders.

In addition, I previously introduced S. 1347, the Low-Cost Alternatives to Payday Loans Act. This bill would authorize award demonstration project grants for eligible entities to provide consumers with low-cost, small loan alternatives to more costly and predatory payday loans. Loan alternatives that meet the needs of consumers and are at a fair price must be developed.

Today, I am also introducing the Bankruptcy Prevention Credit Counseling Act. The new bankruptcy reform law does not allow consumers to declare personal bankruptcy in either chapter 7 or chapter 13, unless they receive a briefing from an approved nonprofit credit counseling agency within 6 months of filing. The credit counseling instructional course requirement is intended to provide financial education to consumers who declare bankruptcy so they can attempt to avoid future financial problems.

About one in three consumers in credit counseling enter a debt management plan. In exchange, creditors may agree to concessions so that consumers pay off as much of their outstanding debt as possible. Examples of concessions can include a reduced interest rate on the amount they owe and the elimination of fees. Unfortunately, most credit card companies have become increasingly unwilling to significantly reduce interest rates for consumers in credit counseling.

The Bankruptcy Prevention Credit Counseling Act would prevent unsecured creditors, primarily credit card issuers, from attempting to collect accruing interest and additional fees from consumers in bankruptcy, if the creditor does not have a policy of waiving interest and fees for debtors who enter a consolidated payment plan at a credit counseling agency. Since the new bankruptcy law requires that consumers enter credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy, we must ensure that consumers are given a fair chance at reducing their debt burden.

I also offered the text of the amendment of my bill, S. 393, the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act, as an amendment to the bankruptcy bill. My amendment, intended to provide consumers with adequate, timely, and meaningful disclosures, was unfortunately defeated. As the bankruptcy reform law makes it more difficult for consumers to discharge their debts in bankruptcy, we have a responsibility to provide meaningful additional information so that consumers can make better informed debt management decisions. The bankruptcy reform law includes a requirement that credit card issuers provide a generic warning about the consequences of only making the minimum payment. This requirement fails to provide consumers the detailed information that my amendment would have provided, which means detailed, personalized information necessary for them to make better informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. My amendment would have required companies to inform consumers of how many years and months it would take to repay their entire balance, and the total cost in interest and principal, if the consumer makes only the minimum payment. My legislation would also have required consumers to be provided with the amount they would need to pay to eliminate their outstanding balance in 36 months. Finally, my legislation would have required that creditors establish a toll-free number so that consumers can access trustworthy credit counselors. In response to criticisms that my amendment was not feasible, I, along with

Senator Sarbanes, requested that the Government Accountability Office study the issue. I am hopeful the report will provide helpful information as we must continue to improve meaningful and understandable disclosures that will help Americans better manage their credit card debts.

I want to take a moment to thank Senator Sarbanes, and his Banking Committee staff, for working with me on this and many other financial literacy related issues. In addition, I also want to thank Senator Leahy and the staff of the Judiciary Committee for all of their efforts to try and improve the flawed bankruptcy legislation.

I fear that the bankruptcy reform law will significantly harm families who have suffered financially due to illnesses, the loss of a job, or the death of a loved one. I remain committed to working with all of my colleagues to better protect and inform consumers and to hold the credit card industry accountable for its aggressive marketing of credit to our debt burdened society.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Predatory Payday Loan Prohibition Act of 2005. Currently, federal law authorizes insured depository institutions to export interest rates, as provided under the laws of the state where the bank or credit union is located, to out-of- state borrowers. My bill would effectively eliminate the ability of financial institutions to do this by prohibiting federally-insured financial institutions from originating predatory payday loans.

What constitutes a payday loan? These are small cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Payday loan amounts are usually in the range of $100 to $500 with payment in full due in two weeks. Finance charges on payday loans are typically in the range of $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed, which translates into triple digit interest rates in the range of 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate. Loan flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break. Today, industry analysts conservatively estimate that more than 15,000 payday advance locations across America extend about $25 billion in short-term credit to millions of households experiencing cash-flow shortfalls.

I am appalled that the payday lending industry is portrayed as a legitimate business. Too many of its customers are low-income, working families. More and more customers are the financially stretched middle class including people who have maxed out their credit cards, people perhaps who have lost a job, or people with no savings to fall back on during a situation that causes a cash-flow shortfall, such as a medical emergency. Payday lending is also rampant in the military. One in five servicemembers have used payday lenders in the last year, according to the report, ``Payday Lenders Target the Military,'' by the Center for Responsible Lending. Payday lenders are concentrated around military bases, such as the Navy bases in Norfolk, Virginia, the Army's Fort Lewis in Washington State, and the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton in California. The Department of Defense confirms the Center's report by listing payday lending as one of the top 10 priority issues facing military families, according to Dr. David Chu, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. To the predatory lenders, our military personnel's government paychecks represent a reliable source of fees. Also, payday lenders can be relatively confident that borrowers will continue to pay, because military personnel face harsh consequences, such as court martial or dishonorable discharge, for not repaying their debts. I am pleased that in my home state a local credit union, Windward Community Federal Credit Union, Kailua, Hawaii, has developed an affordable, alternative product to offer the many Marines who live in its service area. Earlier this year I introduced another bill to encourage replication of such practices. S. 1347, the Low-Cost Alternatives to Payday Loans Act, would authorize demonstration project grants to eligible entities to provide low-cost, small loans to consumers that would provide alternatives to more costly, predatory payday loans so that more people could have access to payday loan alternatives.

Payday loan providers claim that they are offering a simple financial product that addresses an emergency or temporary credit need that usually cannot be met by traditional financial institutions. An analysis of payday lending statistics by the Center for Responsible Lending indicates that the majority of payday loan borrowers have multiple loans each year with two thirds having five or more payday loans annually and half of these borrowers having 12 or more payday loans annually. Some borrowers seek loans from two or more payday lenders, multiplying the potential for getting trapped in debt. Research by the Community Financial Services Association of America, the payday loan industry's national trade association, found that 40 percent of payday loan customers renew their payday loans a staggering five times or more.

The payday loan industry exploits people that are in financial need. Congress has failed to act to prevent the exploitation of working families that are short on cash due to unexpected medical expenses or other needs. We must act to protect consumers from these unscrupulous lenders. I remain committed to restricting all forms of predatory lending, including payday loans, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Bankruptcy Prevention Credit Counseling Act. The new bankruptcy reform law does not allow consumers to declare personal bankruptcy in either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, unless they receive a briefing from an approved nonprofit credit counseling agency within 6 months of filing. The credit counseling instructional course requirement is intended to provide financial education to consumers who declare bankruptcy so they can attempt to avoid future financial problems.

About one in three consumers in credit counseling enter a debt management plan. In exchange, creditors may agree to concessions so that consumers pay off as much of their outstanding debt as possible. Concessions can include a reduced interest rate on the amount they owe and the elimination of fees. Unfortunately, most credit card companies have become increasingly unwilling to significantly reduce interest rates for consumers in credit counseling. A study by the National Consumer Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America revealed that 5 of 13 credit card issuers increased the interest rates they offered to consumers in credit counseling between 1999 and 2003. American Express and Wells Fargo completely waive all interest for consumers in credit counseling. However, the majority of credit card issuers charge interest rates above 9 percent for account holders that enter into credit counseling, with several charging more than 15 percent.

My bill would prevent unsecured creditors, primarily credit card issuers, from attempting to collect accruing interest and additional fees from consumers in bankruptcy, if the creditor does not have a policy of waiving interest and fees for debtors who enter a consolidated payment plan at a credit counseling agency.

Since the new bankruptcy law requires that consumers enter credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy, we must ensure that credit counseling is truly effective and a viable alternative to bankruptcy. Credit card issuers undermine the good intentions of those consumers. They have sharply curtailed the concessions they offer to consumers in credit counseling, contributing to increased bankruptcy filings. According to a survey by VISA USA, 33 percent of consumers who failed to complete a debt management plan in credit counseling said they would have stayed on the plan if creditors had lowered interest rates or waived fees. Credit card companies have an obligation to ensure that effective alternatives are readily available to the consumers they aggressively pursue.

We must make sure that credit counseling is an effective tool to help consumers avoid bankruptcy. In order to do this, credit card issuers should waive the amount owed in interest and fees for consumers who enter a consolidated payment plan. Successful completion of a debt management plan benefits both creditors and consumers. Mr. President, for many consumers, paying off their debt is not easy. My bill will help people who are struggling to repay their obligations. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation to help consumers enrolled in debt management plans to successfully repay their creditors, free themselves from debt, and avoid bankruptcy.

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

Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the ``Medicare Value Purchasing Act of 2005.''

This bill will establish a new program to link a portion of Medicare's reimbursement for health care services to the quality of that care. This bill takes a crucial step towards improving the value of our health care dollar as well as the safety and quality of our Nation's health care system.

Last week, I gave a statement in this Chamber about America's place in the world. I am proud of our Nation; I am proud of our enterprising spirit, our energy, our diversity, and the hope for a better future that is inherent to our roots. I am proud of this country, but I am disappointed in the state of our health care system and in the impact it is having on the lives of our fellow citizens, as well as on the economy and ultimately on our place in the world. As I look to the future, I see a stronger America, but I know we must work hard to make sure that vision is realized.

We hear about the problem of increasing health care costs nearly every day--in newspaper headlines and in casual conversations. Per capita spending on health care in America is nearly 2\1/2\ times the average in the industrialized world. We spend over $5,000 per person on health care, and premiums for employer-sponsored coverage are rising five times faster than inflation.

With all this money going into health care, one might assume we had the best health care in the world. But that assumption is wrong. Despite spending more per capita than any other developed nation, the World Health Organization ranks the United States 37th in health care quality. As many as 98,000 patients die each year as a result of medical errors, and research has shown that in some cases more care, more specialists, and more treatments, actually result in worse outcomes for the patient.

Costs are rising, we are not getting high-quality care for the dollars spent, and due to the nature of our health care system much of this burden is borne by employers. For the first time, the Big Three automakers are beginning to charge premiums and scale back benefits for their workers and retirees, because they can't afford the cost of health care. All told, GM estimates that they will spend about $6 billion in 2005 on health care. This translates into $1,525 for every vehicle they sell. That is more than the company spends on steel.

By comparison, Toyota's health care costs are about $1,000 less per vehicle. It is not surprising, therefore, that a recent survey of business leaders found that 65 percent of top Chief Financial Officers in the United States feel that it is very important for Congress to address the cost of health care. Their European and Asian counterparts did not cite the costs of health care among their top concerns.

No other industry tolerates the level of disrepair that can be found in the U.S. health care system today. Many of my colleagues in the Senate agree that in order to improve the system, we need to do more to control health costs through efficient purchasing and the use of health information technology. In other words, we need to create a ``culture of efficiency'' in health care.

How do we do that? First, we need to begin building a health information infrastructure that can reach providers and patients nationwide, from Manhattan, NY to Manhattan, MT. We must take aggressive steps to establish standards and policies around this infrastructure, and to make initial investments in hardware, software, and training. I applaud my colleagues Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy for introducing important legislation on this topic today, the ``Health Information Technology and Quality Improvement Act of 2005''.

Building a Health Information Infrastructure will facilitate the provision of high-quality care. But we also must begin rewarding quality in the way we pay for health care. Today, Medicare payment policies typically do not include mechanisms designed to encourage quality of care. Medicare does not distinguish between paying for care that is necessary and that which might be unnecessary or inappropriate.

As a result, I worked with Senator Grassley to design a program that will tie a portion of Medicare reimbursement for hospitals, physicians, health plans, renal dialysis facilities, and home health agencies to the quality of care provided in these settings. Payment for these providers, as well as for Skilled Nursing Facilities, would also be linked to reporting data on

quality of care and, after the first year of the program, to making this data available to the public.

The Medicare Value-Based Purchasing program would begin paying for value in the health care system--good care, better patient outcomes, evidence-based medicine, and increased transparency. We have learned a lot from programs such as this that have begun on a smaller scale in the private sector, and we hope that taking this step forward in Medicare will drive the entire health care system toward a system of high-quality, high-value health care.

But designing a program like this one is not easy, and I want to be clear on this point: I don't believe Congress should determine how the quality of health care is measured. That is why my bill sets up a system of stakeholder involvement at every step in the development and implementation of a Quality Measurement System for Medicare--in determining what measures of health care quality are appropriate for each provider group, in implementing a system of data collection and analysis, and in updating the measurement system in accordance with changing science. Providers, payers, patients, and many other groups are the key experts who should be involved in the details of a health care quality system--not Congress.

But it is our job to lay out some of the parameters for the system, and to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to follow them and create this new program. It is also our job to oversee such a program once it is enacted and implemented. Over the last year or so, we have met with provider groups, consumer organizations, researchers and policy experts, and many of the individuals who have built and participated in private-sector programs to drive quality improvement in health care.

As I mentioned, our bill sets up a process by which a quality measurement system is developed in consultation with stakeholders and is uniquely tailored for the different groups of providers who participate in Medicare. This system should measure the quality of health care in a variety of ways, looking at processes of care, health information technology infrastructure, patient outcomes, patient experience of care, efficiency of resource use, and equity. For some groups of providers, only a very few measures of health care quality will be available when the program begins. These providers should not be penalized for that, but rather rewarded for reporting and improving the quality of the care they provide according to those measures. We may start small in some cases, but we can get the ball rolling.

The bill sets up a two-phase approach to quality improvement. In the first phase, the annual update to a provider's reimbursement is tied to reporting data on quality of care. This data would be on the measures included in the Medicare Quality Measurement System which has been developed by the Secretary with stakeholder involvement. Some providers--such as hospitals, Medicare Advantage Plans, and renal dialysis facilities, are already reporting data on quality of care to Medicare and might move more quickly to the second phase of the program.

In the second phase, those providers who report data on quality of care to the Secretary will be able to participate in value-based purchasing, where a portion of total payments to participants in each provider group is taken to form a quality pool. The funds in this pool are then reallocated to award providers who demonstrate high-quality care, or who show that they are improving. In theory, this sets up a system in which all providers could receive money back out of the pool--in essence it is a system that will ``raise all boats.'' Following the recommendation of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, the portion of payments tied to quality in this second phase will be 1 percent in the first year of the program for each provider group, and will increase to 2 percent over five years.

In addition to setting up this program, the ``Medicare Value Purchasing Act of 2005'' includes additional measures to facilitate quality improvement in the health care system, such as a provision to reduce the legal barriers to health IT adoption that are present in the Federal anti-kickback and Stark laws.

It also includes several studies to look more closely at the true costs of health care, and the benefits--both human and financial--that can be gained from improving quality. The information generated by these studies will be critical in moving forward with value-based purchasing, allowing us to more accurately predict the program-wide savings from efforts to improve quality. Given that the Medicare Part A Trust Fund faces insolvency in 2020--decades earlier than Social Security--identifying these savings will be critical to preserving access, to care for Medicare beneficiaries and adequate reimbursement for providers.

Senator Grassley and I set out to write a bill that would address value-based purchasing, set up a system of measuring quality of care in Medicare, and encourage the adoption of health information technology. We set out to write a bill that, in concert with the bill introduced by Senators Enzi and Kennedy would create a roadmap to a ``culture of efficiency'' in health care.

That means that our bill does not put new money on the table to reward health care quality, and it does not fix the problems that currently exist with the physician payment system or with reimbursement updates to renal dialysis facilities. But nor does it mean that we are blind to these issues. Indeed, I know that sustained cuts to the physician fee schedule, which will take effect if current law is not changed--are not sustainable.

I want to work with physicians and practitioners to find a sustainable solution to the problems with the physician fee schedule, and I want to work with the renal dialysis community to make sure that reimbursement is adequate so that facilities--especially those in underserved areas--can keep their doors open. But I also ask these providers to work with me to move Medicare in the right direction-- ultimately, better quality and value means better health care, better coverage, and a stronger system for all.

Finally, I believe that quality improvement efforts should extend beyond Medicare, into the Medicaid and SCHIP programs, and into the private sector. Currently, programs at the State level have found ways to improve quality and find efficiencies through health information technology use in Medicaid. Our bill includes State government health program representatives in the process of developing the Quality Measurement System because we believe they have important perspective to share, and also because we believe that quality improvement policies are equally important for their programs. I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley on a bill to address quality of care in the Medicaid and SCHIP programs later this year.

I want to thank my colleagues Chairman Grassley, Chairman Enzi, and Senator Kennedy, as well as their able health care staff, for their tireless work on this legislation. We feel passionately about this issue because it matters to all of us. We all want to ensure that the best care possible is provided. We know how hard health care providers work for their patients, and we believe they should be rewarded for that work. And we believe this issue should be advanced in the Congress as soon as possible.

As I said, I have a vision of a stronger America. I envision a health care system in which quality and value are rewarded, in which innovative health information technology is accessible to all, in which data systems that can exchange crucial patient information to save lives and prevent mistakes, and in which American companies are not at a competitive disadvantage in the world because of health care costs. I call on my colleagues to support the important steps toward that vision that will be taken under the pieces of this legislation introduced today.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by my two friends and Finance Committee colleagues, Senator Jeffords and Senator Kerry, in filing legislation to close a loophole in the 2003 tax cut bill. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 provided for lower rates of taxation on dividend income. Formerly, taxpayers paid ordinary income rates on dividend income. Now, individuals who receive dividends are taxed at either a 15 percent for upper-income taxpayers, or a 5-percent rate for lower-income taxpayers. Further, in 2008, this lower rate becomes zero before the whole provision expires in 2009.

The demand for lower rates was premised on the claim that dividend income was subject to double taxation; that is, taxed once by the corporate entity and then again by the shareholder. Assuming that is the case, then if we are sure the corporate entity is not subject to tax, the dividend should not be afforded the special rate. In fact, we heard testimony today in the Taxation Subcommittee that corporations with little or no taxes at the entity level really receive an additional benefit from the dividend tax break.

Current law, however, allows dividends from ``qualified'' foreign corporations to benefit from these lower rates if the company is based in a U.S. possession, or based in a country with which the U.S. has a tax treaty, or has stock which is traded on a U.S. stock exchange. Senator Jeffords, Senator Kerry, and I have become concerned that the definition of qualifying foreign corporations is overly broad and may encompass companies in tax haven countries with little or no tax system. Providing this special benefit for such companies simply because its stock is traded on a U.S. exchange does not meet with the original intent of the legislative change. Our bill would shut down this loophole by modifying the ``stock exchange'' test to only allow this special rate for companies based in countries with a comprehensive income tax system. By doing this, we will address a current inequity between dividend-paying stocks and make sure that only stock of companies subject to tax at the corporate level enjoys this preferential rate.

With every tax bill we enact, it is important to review the provisions from time to time to make sure the law works as intended. Here, I believe we have found a significant and unintended loophole. Certainly, as we debate whether to extend, expand, or eliminate these preferential rates, we should also be open to improvements in the current law. I encourage my colleagues to join with us in working for such an improvement.