A bill to apply the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a State for fiscal year 2005 for fiscal years 2006 through 2014.

Mr. President, how much time remains under the Smith unanimous consent request for a half hour?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to join my colleague at this time to discuss the Catastrophic Health Coverage Promotion Act that Senator Smith and I are introducing today.

Mr. President, first, I want to say how much I appreciate Senator Gordon Smith. At a time when our citizens all across the land and in our home State of Oregon believe there needs to be more bipartisanship, Senator Smith doesn't just talk about it, he is consistently willing to meet me more than halfway on critical issues, and he does that with other colleagues in the Senate.

As we begin our time discussing this legislation, I want to let him know how much I appreciate the chance to cooperate with him once again. As he stated, we did put the issue of catastrophic health coverage at the top of our bipartisan agenda for the Senate session.

What it comes down to, Mr. President, is that Senator Smith and I believe it is a moral blot on our Nation for a country as good and rich as ours to send millions of its citizens to bed at night fearing they will be wiped out if a serious medical illness hits them. That is the reality. It is the reality for families who have no coverage at all, and it is the reality for families who have some measure of coverage, say, through an employer, but it doesn't stretch far enough.

Senator Smith and I want, in a bipartisan way, to tackle both of those kinds of concerns. That is why we have put forward the legislation we introduced today. I think now is an ideal time for bipartisanship on the catastrophic health coverage issue.

If you look back over the last few years, Senator Kerry, in the 2004 Presidential campaign, had an excellent proposal with respect to catastrophic coverage, and I said so in the course of that campaign. But I also said at the time that I thought our distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, also had a good catastrophic coverage proposal. You could debate the various merits of the Kerry proposal and the Frist proposal--which approach involved a little more government, which approach involved the private sector--but at the end of the day, for the purposes of government work, they were pretty darn similar.

So when Senator Smith and I sat down after the 2004 election, we said let's finally get this done. Democrats and Republicans have been talking for years about how to make sure that all our citizens have a safety net under them so that they will not get wiped out from medical illness. We settled on this approach, which we thought would give us the opportunity to try some fresh, creative ideas for protecting our citizens.

Let me give an example of what happens in, for example, South Carolina, Oregon, or anywhere else in this country. If you have a small business with six people working there, and one of them gets sick, that essentially blows up the whole health premium structure for all six of the employees.

What we ought to look at is something called reinsurance. Under reinsurance, that employee who gets sick could get a bit of help for their high bills through a modest role for government, and if government steps in, in that kind of instance, you have an opportunity to hold down all of the costs for the entire six-person firm. So we should have been looking at reinsurance years ago, but because Senator Smith, who chairs the Senate Aging Committee, has been examining these questions and has worked with me, now we are going to have a chance to tackle it in a way that I think is going to give us the opportunity to get the job done.

We are also very concerned about people who have no coverage at all. So what happens if you have no coverage at all is folks walk into a hospital in Oregon or in South Carolina, usually they show up in the emergency room, and the hospital has to absorb those costs. What we would do is give that person who now has no coverage at all the possibility of actually buying some private coverage in the marketplace with a bit of a subsidy in order to be able to have coverage that would pick up at least a portion of those bills that the hospital is now absorbing.

At the end of the day, those are the two principal kinds of instances we are facing--folks who have some coverage through a private employer, but it doesn't stretch far enough, and folks who don't have any coverage at all. Under that approach, we would like to make it possible for them to get into the private insurance market, protect them from catastrophic illness. We think we can do it with a modest subsidy coming from government.

My sense is that we are now looking at health care on two tracks in our country. The first track is a track that suggests we can take steps right now in areas like catastrophic coverage to protect our citizens. There are other ideas I have advanced during this Congress. For example, Senator Snowe and I have now gotten a majority of Senators to agree with our proposal to lift the restriction so Medicare can bargain and hold down the costs. That, like the question of catastrophic coverage, is a step you can take right now. Let's protect our citizens from the catastrophic illness and let's hold down the costs of medicine. Those are practical, bipartisan approaches that can be taken today. We ought to pursue them and get them done.

I also think there is another track to health care. I noticed that Senator Hatch was on the Senate floor. He and I were the authors of the legislation creating the Citizens' Health Care Working Group that is going to look at opportunities to make sure that all Americans have decent, affordable coverage. We have only been on that issue for more than 60 years--going back to the 81st Congress, in 1945, and Harry Truman. I have said let's also work on that second track that involves getting all Americans under the tent for essential and affordable health care coverage.

That obviously isn't going to get done in the next 15 minutes. But if the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, as Senator Smith and I have sought to do on the catastrophic issue, and as Senator Hatch and I have sought to do on a broader approach to look at health care that works for all Americans--if we team up and look at health care on those two tracks, I think we can make a great contribution for our country.

There are no costs going up in the United States like medical bills. We spent $1.7 trillion last year on health care. There are 290 million Americans--I guess we are approaching 300 million. When you divide $1.7 trillion by 290 million Americans, it comes to something like $25,000 that could be sent to every family of four in America with the amount of money now being spent on health care.

So while we are spending enough money, my sense is that we are not spending it in the right places. Once again, Senator Smith has given us an opportunity to think creatively about better ways to approach the use of the health care dollars. I was pleased when Senator Smith suggested in our legislation that we also make it possible to include a focus on health care prevention. We are not doing enough with health care prevention in this country. The Medicare Program shows that pretty well. Medicare Part A, for example, will pay huge checks for senior citizens' hospital bills, but Medicare Part B pays virtually nothing for prevention to keep people well. That makes no sense. We need a sharper focus on health care prevention, and one of the things that I think is attractive about Senator Smith's leadership on this issue is that he has said even in the context of looking at catastrophic health care, let's put a sharper focus on prevention. We are going to make it possible in this legislation to do that.

I note we have other colleagues on the floor. I have secured time to focus on the Voting Rights Act legislation later in the afternoon, but I am very pleased to have the opportunity to talk for a few minutes about the Catastrophic Health Coverage Promotion Act Senator Smith and I are introducing today. We have focused on a number of issues in a bipartisan fashion over our years in the Senate, but this has the potential to be the biggest as it relates to the needs of our citizens at home.

We want to make sure when folks go to bed at night, they don't have to fear they are going to be wiped out financially by a serious medical illness. This legislation moves us one step closer toward the goal. We hope many colleagues on both sides of the aisle will want to support the legislation.

Mr. President, Senator Snowe and I today are introducing the

Medicare Prescription Drug Lifeline Act. This legislation provides a solution for those seniors falling into the coverage gap, also known as the doughnut hole of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The doughnut hole occurs when the spending for a senior's drug expenses reaches $2,250: at the point, the senior is on their own until their spending for prescription drugs reaches a total of $5,100, where the benefit picks up again. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that nearly 7 million seniors will fall into the coverage gap this year.

Seniors who enter this ``no man's land'' of spending face the same problems seniors faced before the drug benefit even began: they skip doses, they don't take all their medicine to make it stretch, and they are forced to choose between their food and fuel costs and their prescription drug costs.

This legislation would take three steps to deal with this problem: First, the Secretary of HHS would be required to let seniors know they are approaching the coverage gap. Second, it would allow seniors, when they are notified that they are reaching the coverage gap, to switch plans to avoid the gap. Finally, the legislation requires the Government Accountability Office to examine ways in which the benefit could be redesigned to eliminate the gap without increasing Federal spending. Together, these provisions will give seniors a lifeline to coverage.

Senator Snowe and I both voted for the legislation that created the Medicare prescription drug benefit. When we did so, we pledged that we would continue to work to improve the benefit. Senator Snowe and I have teamed up together on many occasions to try to reduce the cost of the prescription drug program by giving the Secretary the same power other Government officials have to bargain for better prices. Our legislation has won a majority of votes in the Senate, and we intend to continue to press for that power.

The latest effort is aimed at another shortcoming in the law: finding a way to help seniors avoid falling into the coverage gap. Senator Snowe and I believe that our legislation will help seniors a straightforward way to avoid the gap.

Congress needs to address both these issues and we will continue our strong commitment to seniors by working to improve the drug benefit.

Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Nelson of Florida, Hutchison, and Bingaman, on the 37th anniversary of the lunar landing when American astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin set foot on the Moon, to introduce the Spaceport Equity Act of 2006--a bill to help bring additional investment to the space transportation industry.

On June 18th, the Washington Post reported on the launching of Kazakhstan's first satellite and their catapult into the space transportation industry. Home to the world's largest space center, the Baikonur Consmodrome, this ex-Soviet state is joining the list of rivals to the U.S. space industry. America's competitive edge is declining and will continue to do so unless we act now. My colleagues and I recognize this, and that is why we are introducing this most important legislation.

U.S. satellite manufacturers face increasing pressure to consider the use of foreign launch vehicles and launch sites, due to the lack of a sufficient domestic launch capability. The United States once dominated the commercial satellite-manufacturing field with an average market share of 83 percent;

however, that market share has since declined to 50 percent. An even smaller share of U.S.-manufactured satellites is actually launched from U.S. spaceports. This comes at an estimated loss of $1.5 to $3.0 billion to the U.S. economy.

The space economy is made up infrastructure of manufacturers, service providers, and technologists in both the Government and private sector that deploy and operate launch vehicles, satellites, and space platforms. Many everyday goods and services rely on space infrastructure, including broadcast, cable, and satellite television, global internet services, satellite radio, cellular and international phone calls, etc.

Satellites are also used for global positioning systems, known as GPS, which enable us to have hands-on directions in our cars and vehicles. GPS is also influential in the trucking, aviation, and maritime industries for day-to-day operations and for our Nation's military operations. Thousands of gas stations use inexpensive small satellite dishes to connect to credit card networks so customers can pay instantly at the pump. Satellites also generate 90 percent of the weather forecasting data in the United States and are used to track hurricanes, tsunamis, and other weather phenomenon.

These satellites are launched vertically atop of rockets, propelling them into orbit in space. Because most U.S. space-launch facilities are operated by NASA, priority for launches at these facilities is given to Government projects. This means our commercial satellite needs take a back seat to Government operations. This often leaves U.S. commercial satellite ventures without reliable launch availability. This in turn has forced many companies seeking manufacturing and launch services toward our international competitors.

Spaceports are subdivisions of State governments that provide additional launch infrastructure than that available at Federal facilities. They attract and promote the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. Spaceport authorities function much like airport and port authorities by providing economic and transportation incentives to the industry, which in turn benefits the surrounding communities. Many States are forming space authorities to pursue ways of developing space transportation infrastructure.

The Florida Space Authority was the first such entity, which was created as a subdivision of the Florida State government by Florida's Governor and State legislature in 1989. Florida Space Authority is focused on leading the State's space industry in new directions through partnering with the commercial space industry to improve space transportation and provide innovative, forward-thinking solutions to the challenges facing this evolving industry.

The last few years have begun a new phase in space exploration. Spaceports presently operate in Florida, California, Virginia, and Alaska, but efforts are underway to establish 13 additional commercial spaceports in Alabama, California, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The commercial space transportation industry includes not only spaceports themselves but also companies that develop the needed infrastructure for testing and servicing launch vehicles. When including these industry partners with spaceports, at least 23 States are directly impacted by the commercial space transportation industry. Both spaceports and industry partners face increasing pressure from government-sponsored or subsidized competitors in Europe, China, Japan, India, Australia, Russia, and now Kazakhstan.

Commercial space transportation is a growing part of the U.S. economy. In 2004, this industry alone generated a total of nearly $98.1 billion dollars in economic activity, over $25 billion in earnings, and over 550,000 jobs; and $56.5 billion, more than half of this economic activity, was from satellite services. A 2004 Gallup poll shows overwhelming public support for space exploration. Roughly 80 percent of Americans agree that ``America's space program helps give America the scientific and technological edge it needs to compete in the international marketplace.'' And 76 percent agree that our space program ``benefits the nation's economy'' and inspires ``students to pursue careers in technical fields.''

The space industry has also led to a number of ``spin-off'' technologies--those influenced by space technology research and development. Home roof insulation and air filtration, antilock brakes, athletic shoes, vehicle protective airbags, cellular phones, and lasik surgery all owe thanks to NASA and space-based research. The list of space ``spin-off' technologies is estimated to exceed 40,000. These related technologies have helped employ tens of millions of Americans. Encouraging commercial investment in the space industry and increasing U.S. marketshare in this industry will certainly lead to additional innovation and technology that will impact other fields.

As you can see, this once government-dominated industry is now becoming a diverse mix of government and commercial entities--also leading way into future avenues of commercial space transportation, such as space tourism.

The increase in recent commercial launches includes the debut of the first commercial crewed suborbital launches of SpaceShipOne--leading the way to public space travel. ``Space tourism,'' as public space travel is now referred, has the potential to become a major growth industry. Recent market studies have shown space tourism has the potential to become a billion-dollar industry within 20 years.

Even though the average American may not be able to participate in public space travel, its potential impact on our economy and international competitiveness is something to be appreciated. Space tourism industry players expect there to be a market demand of at least 15,000 Americans per year to travel into suborbit and orbital flights. This would require an estimated 665 launches per year by 2010. If the United States continues as is, we will only be able to capture 10 percent market share, at best, of this emerging industry. If needed infrastructure is added, however, the United States is expected to pick up 60 to 70 percent of space flight demand by 2010. Every launch that we do not provide for in the United States means a loss to our economy and a gain for our international competitors. The Federal Aviation Administration's Commercial Space Transportation Division expects a $3 billion dollar loss to our economy if we do not meet the rising demand for space tourism.

Currently, U.S. launch facilities are few and most are owned and operated by the Federal Government, putting commercial users in direct competition with the U.S. military, NASA, and other Government entities, which get priority over commercial projects. If the United States is to remain competitive in the commercial space industry, added and improved infrastructure will be needed to support this growing industry.

On a more local note, my own State of Florida could stand to gain much by way of economic development from increased investment in spaceport infrastructure. According to recent studies by the Florida Space Authority, increase spaceport infrastructure and activity in Florida could mean as much as $29.7 million in additional economic activity by the year 2015--this does not include the economic activity generated from impacted tourism, secondary contracts, and spinoff technologies.

Other modes of transportation--highways, airports, and seaports-- currently enjoy a tax incentive for meeting their infrastructure needs, so why not spaceports?

This Spaceport Equity Act of 2006 would provide spaceports with the same treatment provided for airports, seaports, rail, and other transit projects under the exempt facility bond rules. With international competition on the rise, our Nation's spaceports are a vital component of the infrastructure needed to expand and enhance the U.S. role in the international space arena. The Spaceport Equity Act is an important step to increasing our competitiveness in this field because it will stimulate investment in expanding and modernizing our space launch facilities and lower the costs of financing spaceport projects.

Since 1968, tax-exempt bonds have played a crucial role in meeting airport investment needs, with 50 percent or more of major airport projects being financed through municipal tax-exempt

bonds. By extending this favorable tax treatment to spaceports, this bill will help meet spaceport needs and increase our Nation's ability to compete with expanded international interests in space exploration and technology. Similar legislation has been considered since the 1980s, and we cannot afford to wait any longer to address the needs of this important sector.

This proposal does not provide direct Federal spending for our commercial space transportation industry but, rather, creates the conditions necessary to stimulate private capital investment in industry infrastructure. By issuing tax-free bonds to finance spaceport infrastructure, space authorities could provide site-specific and vehicle-specific tailoring to promote the competition and innovation necessary to maintain the U.S. competitive edge in the space transportation industry.

This is an efficient means for achieving our space transportation needs, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this most important effort by cosponsoring this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish medicare health savings accounts, HSAs. This bill will make HSAs available under Medicare in lieu of Medicare medical savings accounts, MSAs. I have long been dedicated to quality health care and believe that seniors should have the ability to make their own decisions regarding their health care, so they can receive the health care they need and deserve. As a senior myself, I appreciate how imperative it is that we seniors be provided with a wide array of choices.

My desire to see my fellow Oklahomans and all Americans receive the best possible health care is evidenced by my involvement in various health-related issues. I have always been a champion of rural health care providers. In 1997, I was one of the few Republicans to vote against the Balanced Budget Act because of its lack of support for rural hospitals. At that time, I made a commitment to not allow our rural hospitals to be closed and am pleased we finally addressed that important issue in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 by providing great benefits for rural health care providers as well as a voluntary prescription drug benefit to seniors. In 2003, I also co-sponsored the Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act, to protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries to health care in rural regions.

In order to assist my State and other States suffering from large reduction in their Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, for Medicaid, I introduced S.1754, a bill to apply a State's FMAP from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal years 2006 through 2014 on September 22, 2005. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent drastic reductions in FMAP while revision of the formula itself is considered.

I am a strong advocate of medical liability reform and am an original cosponsor of S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act, and S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act. These bills protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care by reducing the effects of excessive liability costs. I am committed to this vital reform that would alleviate the burden placed on physicians and patients by excessive medical malpractice lawsuits.

I have also worked with officials from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to expand access to life-saving implantable cardiac defibrillators and many other numerous regulations that would affect my rural State such as the 250-yard rule for critical access hospitals.

As a supporter of safety and medical research, I have cosponsored legislation to increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research and a bill to take the abortion pill RU-486 off the market in the United States.

I also introduced S. 96, the Flu Vaccine Incentive Act, to help prevent any future shortages in flu vaccines in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. My bill removes suffocating price controls from government purchasing of the flu vaccine while encouraging more companies to enter the market. Also, my bill frees American companies to enter the flu vaccine industry by giving them an investment tax credit towards the construction of flu vaccine production facilities.

As a result of my sister's death from cancer and treatment we learned about not accessible in the United States that might have saved her life, Senator Sam Brownback and I introduced S. 1956, the Access, Compassion, Care and Ethics for Seriously-ill Patients Act--ACCESS--on November 3, 2005. This bill would offer a three-tiered approval system for treatments showing efficacy during clinical trials, for use by the seriously ill patient population. Seriously ill patients, who have exhausted all alternatives and are seeking new treatment options, would be offered access to these treatments with the consent of their physician.

On April 4, 2006, my resolution to designate April 8, 2006, as ``National Cushing's Syndrome Awareness Day'' passed by unanimous consent. The intent of this resolution is to raise awareness of Cushing's syndrome, a debilitating disorder that affects an estimated 10 to 15 million people per million. It is an endocrine or hormonal disorder caused by prolonged exposure of the body's tissue to high levels of the hormone cortisol.

Additionally, I have consistently cosponsored yearly resolutions designating a day in October as ``National Mammography Day'' and a week: in August as ``National Health Center Week'' to raise awareness regarding both these issues and have supported passage and enactment of numerous health-care-related bills, such as the Rural Health Care Capital Access Act of 2006, which extends the exemption respecting required patient days for critical access hospitals under the Federal hospital mortgage insurance program.

As the Federal Government invests in improving hospitals and health care initiatives I have fought hard to ensure that Oklahoma gets its fair share. Specifically, over the past 3 years, I have helped to secure $5.2 million in funding for the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, the Oklahoma State Department of Health planning initiative for a rural telemedicine system, the INTEGRIS Healthcare System, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, St. Anthony's Heart Hospital, the Hillcrest Healthcare System, and the Morton Health Center.

As a long supporter of HSAs, I believe all people should have access to them since they provide great flexibility in the health market and allow individuals to have control over their own health care. Medicare MSAs have existed since January 1, 1997, revised in December of 2003, but they have not worked. No insurer whatsoever has yet offered any Medicare MSA under the current law.

To fix this problem, my legislation creates a new HSA program under Medicare that incorporates a high-deductible health plan and an HSA account while dissolving the existing Medicare MSA.

In tandem with my efforts, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, are launching an HSA demonstration project that would test allowing health insurance companies to offer Medicare beneficiaries products similar to HSA. This activity points to the administration's support of HSAs and desire to see all seniors receive the best possible coverage.

As the July 13, 2006 edition of The Hill, explains, ``no legislation is pending that would integrate HSAs into the Medicare program . . .'' Thus, my legislation is necessary because real Medicare HSA reform is needed in order for seniors to have true flexibility and freedom of choice in their health care.

Under my bill, beneficiaries who choose the HSA option will receive an annual amount that is equal to 95 percent of the annual Medicare Advantage, MA, capitation rate with respect to the individual's MA payment area. These funds provided through the Medicare HSA program can only be used by the beneficiary for the following purposes: as a contribution into an HSA or for payment of high deductible health plan premiums. However, the individual also has the opportunity to deposit personal funds in to the Medicare HSA.

My bill also guarantees that seniors be notified of the amount they will receive 90 days before receipt to ensure they have time to determine the best and most appropriate HSA to accommodate needs. The bill also allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deal with fraud appropriately and requires providers to accept payment by individuals enrolled in a Medicare HSA just as they would with an individual enrolled in traditional Medicare.

Please join me in supporting this important legislation to give our seniors more choices regarding their health care.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my Senate and House colleagues in introducing the Protecting Children's Health in Schools Act of 2006. This bill will ensure that the Nation's 7 million school children with disabilities will have continued access to health care in school.

In 1975, the Nation made a commitment to guarantee children with disabilities equal access to education. For these children to learn and thrive in schools, the integration of education with health care is of paramount importance. Coordination with Medicaid makes an immense difference to schools in meeting the needs of these children.

This year, however, the Bush administration has declared its intent to end Medicaid reimbursements to schools for the support services they need in order to provide medical and health-related services to disabled children. The administration is saying ``NO'' to any further financial help to Medicaid-covered disabled children who need specialized transportation to obtain their health services at school. It is saying ``NO'' to any legitimate reimbursement to the school for costs incurred for administrative duties related to Medicaid services.

It's bad enough that Congress and the administration have not kept the commitment to ``glide-path'' funding of IDEA needs in 2004. Now the administration proposes to deny funding to schools under the federal program that supports the health needs of disabled children. It makes no sense to make it so difficult for disabled children to achieve in school--both under IDEA and the No Child Left Behind.

At stake is an estimated $3.6 billion in Medicaid funds over the next 5 years. Such funding is essential to help identify disabled children and connect them to services that can meet their special health and learning needs during the school day.

This decision by the administration follows years of resisting Medicaid reimbursements to schools that provide these services, without clear guidance on how schools should appropriately seek reimbursement.

The ``Protecting Children's Health in Schools Act'' recognizes the importance of schools as a site of delivery of health care. It ensures that children with disabilities can continue to obtain health services during the school day. The bill also provides for clear and consistent guidelines to be established, so that schools can be held accountable and seek appropriate reimbursement.

The legislation has the support of over 60 groups, including parents, teachers, principals, school boards, and health care providers--people who work with children with disabilities every day and know what is needed to facilitate their growth, development, and long-term success.

I urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting these children across the Nation, by providing the realistic support their schools need in order to meet these basic health care requirements of their students.

I ask unanimous consent that the attached bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Teacher Center Act of 2006, to help establish and fund teacher centers across the Nation. Its goal is to provide more effective and relevant professional development for teachers, and create a network of support for them to share best practices, improve classroom training, and improve working conditions in their schools. It's a privilege to join my distinguished colleague, Congressman George Miller, who is introducing companion legislation for teacher centers in the House of Representatives.

As research makes clear, good teachers are the single most important factor in achieving the success of students, both academically and developmentally. Students who receive good instruction can reach new heights through the hard work, vision, and energy of their teachers. Good teaching can also overcome the harmful effects of poverty and other disadvantages on student learning.

In 2002, with the No Child Left Behind Act, we made a commitment to put a first-rate teacher in every classroom to help all students succeed in school and in life. But to reach that goal, we need to recruit, train, retain, and support our teachers. Today, about half of all teachers who enter the profession leave the classroom within five years. That's an unacceptable loss--the 5-year mark is just the time when teachers have mastered their work and are consistently able to improve the education of their students.

Too often, teachers lack the training and support needed to do well in the classroom. Eliminating this deficit can make all the difference in their decision to remain in the profession. Teacher centers can help see that teachers have the professional development, mentoring, and support they need in order to succeed. Developing and expanding these centers is an important step toward enriching teachers' lives, enhancing their knowledge and skills, and encouraging them to stay in the profession and succeed in the classroom.

The teacher centers model grew out of an innovative approach to supporting the professional development of teachers in England. That model enables teachers to become leaders and decision-makers in their own professional growth and in the environments in which they work. It enables them to collaboratively plan and implement staff development and reform that can be shared with their colleagues, as a means for reflection and improvement in their teaching practice.

Since the initial creation of teacher centers in the United States in the late 1970s, we have seen how effective they can be in supporting teachers, so that they can respond more effectively to student needs and help them reach the high standards now required by the No Child Left Behind Act.

Teacher centers offer valuable programs for educators when aligned with State standards and school district curriculums. The centers support new teachers during their first years in the profession, and their peer-to-peer networks facilitate communication and collaboration among teachers to improve instruction. The centers also help teachers incorporate new research into their daily routines, and support the use of technology and proven strategies to keep students engaged and help them do well in school.

Most important, teacher centers are essential to the development of teacher capability and leadership. The training provided is aimed at building the capability of teachers to reach all of their students through differentiated instruction--a goal central to the promise of leaving no child behind. And by

taking advantage of the support provided by teacher centers, educators can have a more active role in their own professional growth and eventually hold leadership positions in their schools and communities.

As we know, teachers are on the front lines in the Nation's schools and in our efforts to improve public education. We cannot expect the quality of our classrooms to improve without investing more in the quality of our teachers. Teacher centers ensure that the nation's educators have the time, resources, and support they need to work and learn with one another.

I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill I am introducing called the Social Security Guarantee Act. The reason I am introducing this piece of legislation is in an attempt to try, at a time when it looks like the Social Security issue here in Congress has ground down to almost a halt--although I think there is still an opportunity; as we hear, the House may pass something to move the ball forward--I want to put forth an idea I think would be helpful as something we can get done that should have, I hope, bipartisan support and would create a sense of security and certainly reduce

anxiety among those at or near retirement with respect to any future changes to Social Security.

The Social Security Guarantee Act is a very simple concept. It says if you were born before 1950, this law now creates a right for you to the benefits that you have been promised.

Now, you may say: Why is that a new thing? Well, believe it or not, there is a Supreme Court case on this point that says Social Security recipients have no right to the benefits they have been promised under the law. This would create such a right for people born before 1950.

Now, why do I pick out 1950? Because in all the legislation that has been introduced in the Congress, the statements made by the President, and even statements made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we have all agreed that people who are at or near retirement should not be subject to change, for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is there is money there to pay those benefits. Cashflow-wise, there will be enough money to pay for the benefits for our seniors and those who are near retirement or near the eligible age of 62. So there is not a need to change the Social Security system for these individuals. Therefore, everyone who is proposing changes to the system, to save it and strengthen it for the future, has set them aside verbally and said: We are not going to propose anything that is going to affect your benefits if you were born before 1950.

Well, if we are going to say that, and promise that, then I think a step forward--both in terms of our ability to find a solution to the problem for younger workers and the fact that Social Security will not have sufficient resources to pay for benefits in the future--we take a step forward if we promise to put in law a guarantee that older workers' and retirees' benefits are guaranteed by the law.

The second benefit is one that is political in this sense, in that one of the difficulties in trying to rally support in the public for a program that will save and strengthen Social Security for younger workers is the anxiety that older workers have and retirees have that somehow or other, at the last minute, they will be folded into this bill and somehow their benefits will be affected or their taxes will be increased.

This should provide a level of comfort and reduce that anxiety and create a proper focus for reform, the proper focus for reform being the future, not the present, not the past.

So I put this forward as an admittedly minimalist step, but I think an important one, that creates a better atmosphere where there are not political accusations of trying to take someone's Social Security check away or that grandma's check be cut in half, or whatever the case may be. You hear all these things from those who do not want to make any kind of changes to the Social Security system for younger workers. So they go out and try to scare older workers and retirees.

I might add, another reason to do this is, it would not be fair at this point to reduce their benefits or to change the structure when they are either in the system or very close to being in Social Security.

So this is a step on which I would hope we could get bipartisan agreement, that we could pass this by unanimous consent. I do not know of anybody in this Chamber who has made the statement that they think we should change benefits for current retirees, or that we should change benefits for folks who are near retirement. That being the case, I see no reason we would not pass this and, in a sense, take those born before 1950 and say: OK, you are off the table. No Social Security changes are going to affect you. Your interest in the Social Security debate then becomes the future, not you. It becomes your children, your grandchildren, their children, their grandchildren, not how it affects you and your life today.

I think that is a helpful step in the right direction, to try to get something that is appropriate, a stronger Social Security system, that is appropriately designed for future generations of Americans.

I am pleased Senator DeMint has joined me in this legislation. I certainly put out a call for all those who are interested in trying to take a small step forward in moving the Social Security agenda to join me in securing the benefits for our seniors, removing the anxiety that often comes, particularly with those who live from Social Security check to Social Security check, removing the anxiety that they have about the potential for their benefits to be affected by any changes Congress would make. This would create a vote, which I suspect would be unanimous, that would put every Senator on record for putting in the law that they will not change the Social Security benefits for those who were born before 1950. That has a powerful effect when a Member votes that way. It makes it very difficult for them to come back and say: I am going to change my mind.

It is a meaningful piece of legislation. It is a step in the right direction. It does remove the anxiety which is a positive thing for our seniors. It creates a platform for us to build into the future a stronger Social Security system. I am hopeful that in the next couple of months, if not early next year, that we can get a vote on this; that we can have unanimous consent to bring it up and to pass it and to get a strong vote from every Member of the Senate that Social Security reform programs put forward in the Senate to save and strengthen the Social Security system will be all about the future, will be all about younger workers and how we make the system stable for them without using scare tactics about how it is going to affect older workers who are, in most cases, the most vulnerable citizens in our society.