A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to recognize the United States Military Cancer Institute as an establishment within the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, to require the Institute to promote the health of members of the Armed Forces and their dependents by enhancing cancer research and treatment, to provide for a study of the epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups for cancer prevention and early detection efforts, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and myself, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the tremendously successful Breast Cancer Research Stamp for 2 additional years.

Without Congressional action, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp will expire on December 31 of this year.

The life of this extraordinary stamp deserves to be extended as it has proven to be a highly effective and self-supporting fundraiser.

Since 1998, the American people have bought over 588 million breast cancer stamps--raising $42.66 million for breast cancer research.

The National Cancer Institute and the Department of Defense have put these research dollars to good use by funding novel and innovative research in the area of breast cancer.

Over a 7 year period, the Breast Cancer Stamp has demonstrated a very sustained and committed customer base.

Millions of Americans have bought the stamps to honor loved ones with the disease, to highlight their own personal battle with breast cancer or to promote general public awareness--in hope of helping to find a cure.

One cannot calculate in dollars and cents how the stamp has focused public awareness on this devastating disease and the need for additional research funding.

There is still so much more to do because this disease has far reaching effects on our Nation:

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in the United States, ranking second among cancer deaths in women after lung cancer.

In 2005, approximately 211,240 women in the U.S. will get breast cancer.

About 40,410 women will die from the disease this year.

There are over two million women living today in the U.S. who have been treated for breast cancer.

Though much less common, about 1,300 men in America are diagnosed with breast cancer each year.

It is imperative that we extend the life of this stamp so that we can continue to reach out to American women and men who do not know of their cancer and to those who are living with it.

This legislation would extend the authorization of the Breast Cancer Research stamp for two additional years until December 31, 2007.

The stamp would continue to have a surcharge of up to 25 percent above the value of a first-class stamp with the surplus revenues going to breast cancer research.

Extending the Breast Cancer Research stamp does not affect any other semi-postal proposals under consideration by the Postal Service.

We urge our colleagues to join us in passing this important legislation to extend the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for another 2 years.

Thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research, more and more people are becoming cancer survivors rather than cancer victims. Every dollar we continue to raise will help save lives.

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

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Robert Kuan Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei (``Alice'') Hsu-Liang, foreign nationals who live in San Bruno, California.

I have decided to offer private relief immigration bills on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their three United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer.

The Liangs are foreign nationals facing deportation on account of their overstay of visitors visas and the failure of their previous attorney to timely file a suspension of deportation application before the immigration laws changed in 1996.

Mr. Liang is a foreign national and refugee from Laos. His wife is a citizen of Taiwan. They entered the United States 22 years ago as tourists and established residency in the San Bruno, CA. Because they overstayed the terms of their temporary visas, they now face deportation from the United States.

After living here for so many years, removal from the United States would not come easily or perhaps without tearing this family apart. The Liangs have three children born in this country: Wesley, 13 years old, Bruce, 10 years old, and Eva, 7 years old. Young Wesley suffers from asthma and has a history of social and emotional anxiety. The immigration judge who presided over the Liang's case in 1997 concluded that there was no question that the Liang children would be adversely impacted if they were required to leave their relatives and friends behind in California to follow their parents to Taiwan, a country whose language and culture is unfamiliar to them. And that was 7 years ago. I can only imagine how much more they would be adversely impacted now given the passage of 7 more years.

The Liangs have filed annual income tax returns; established a successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant, in the United States; are home owners, and are financially successful. Since they arrived in the United States, they have pursued and, to a degree, achieved the American Dream.

Mr. and Mrs. Liang's quest to legalize their immigration status began in 1993 when they filed for relief from deportation before an immigration judge. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, however, did not act on their application until nearly 5 years later, in 1997, after which time the immigration laws had significantly changed.

According to the immigration judge, had the INS acted on their application for relief from deportation in a timely manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, given that they were long-term residents of this country with US citizen children and other positive factors. By the time INS processed their application, however, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which changed the requirements for relief from removal to the Liangs' disadvantage.

I supported the changes of the 1996 law, but I believe sometimes there are exceptions which merit special consideration. The Liangs are such a couple and family. Perhaps what distinguishes this family from many others is that through hard work and perseverance, Mr. Liang has achieved a significant degree of success in the United States while battling a severe form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. According to his psychologist, this disorder stems from the persecution he, his family and community experienced in his native

country of Laos during the Vietnam War. Throughout his childhood and adolescence, Mr. Liang was exposed to numerous traumatic experiences, including the murder of his mother by the North Vietnamese and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He also routinely witnessed the brutal persecution and deaths of others in his village. In 1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan.

The emotional impact of Mr. Liang's experiences in his war-torn native country have been profound and continue to haunt him. In addition to being diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, his psychologist has also indicated that he suffers from severe clinical depression, which has been exacerbated by the prospect of being deported to Taiwan, where on account of his nationality, he believes he and his family would be treated as second-class citizens. Moreover, Mr. Liang believes that the pursuit of further mental health treatment in Taiwan would only exacerbate the stigma of being an outsider in a country whose language he does not speak. Given those prospects, he also fears the impact such a stigma would have on the well-being and future of his children.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs.

I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record and that the attached three letters of community support also be printed.

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Shigeru Yamada, a 22-year-old Japanese national who lives in Chula Vista, CA.

I have decided to introduce a private bill on his behalf because I believe that Mr. Yamada represents a model American citizen, for whom removal from this country would represent an unfair hardship. Without this legislation, Mr. Yamada will be forced to return to a country in which he lacks any linguistic, cultural or family ties.

Mr. Yamada legally entered the United States with his mother and two sisters in 1992 at the young age of 10. The family was fleeing from Mr. Yamada's alcoholic father, who had been physically abusive to his mother, the children and even his own parents. Since then, he has had no contact with his father and is unsure if he is even alive. Tragically, Mr. Yamada experienced further hardship when his mother was killed in a car crash in 1995. Orphaned at the age of 13, Mr. Yamada

spent time living with his aunt before moving to Chula Vista to live with a close friend of his late mother.

The death of his mother marked more than a personal tragedy for Mr. Yamada; it also served to impede the process for him to legalize his status. At the time of her death, Mr. Yamada's family was living legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa for herself and her children qualified as her dependents. Her death revoked his legal status in the United States. In addition, Mr. Yamada's mother was engaged to an American citizen at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would likely have become an American citizen through this marriage.

Mr. Yamada has exhausted all administrative options under our current immigration system. Throughout high school, he contacted attorneys in the hopes of legalizing his status, but his attempts were unsuccessful. Unfortunately, time has run out and, for Mr. Yamada, the only option available to him today is private relief legislation.

For several reasons, it would be tragic for Mr. Yamada to be deported from the United States and forced to return to Japan.

First, since arriving in the United States, Mr. Yamada has lived as a model American. He graduated with honors from Eastlake High School in 2000, where he excelled in both academics and athletics. Academically, he earned a number of awards including being named an ``Outstanding English Student'' his freshman year, an All-American Scholar, and earning the United States National Minority Leadership Award. His teacher and coach, Mr. John Inumerable, describes him as being ``responsible, hard working, organized, honest, caring and very dependable.'' His role as the Vice-President of the Associated Student Body his senior year is an indication of Mr. Yamada's high level of leadership, as well as, his popularity and trustworthiness among his peers. As an athlete, Mr. Yamada was named the ``Most Inspirational Player of the Year'' in Junior Varsity baseball and football, as well as, Varsity football. His football coach, Mr. Jose Mendoza, expressed his admiration by saying that he has ``seen in Shigeru Yamada the responsibility, dedication and loyalty that the average American holds to be virtuous.''

Second, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as a local volunteer. As a member of the Eastlake High School Link Crew, he helped freshman find their way around campus, offered tutoring and mentoring services, and set an example of how to be a successful member of the student body. After graduating from high school, he volunteered his time for 4 years as the coach of the Eastlake High School Girl's softball team. The former head coach, who has since retired, Dr. Charles Sorge, describes him as an individual full of ``integrity'' who understands that as a coach it is important to work as a ``team player.'' His level of commitment to the team was further illustrated to Dr. Sorge when he discovered, halfway through the season, that Mr. Yamada's commute to and from practice was 2 hours long each way. It takes an individual with character to volunteer his time to coach and never bring up the issue of how long his commute takes him each day. Dr. Sorge hopes that, once Mr. Yamada legalizes his immigration status, he will be formally hired to continue coaching the team.

Third, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would be an immense hardship for him and his family here. Mr. Yamada does not speak Japanese. He is unaware of the nation's current cultural trends. And, he has no immediate family members that he knows of in Japan. Currently, both of his sisters are in the process of legalizing their immigration status in the United States. His older sister is married to a United States citizen and his younger sister is being adopted by a maternal aunt, who is a United States citizen. Since as all of his family lives in California, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would serve to split his family apart and separate him from everyone and everything that he knows. His sister contends that her younger brother would be ``lost'' if he had to return to live in Japan on his own. It is unlikely that he would be able to find any gainful employment in Japan due to his inability to speak or read the language.

As a member of the Chula Vista community, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as an honorable individual. His teacher, Mr. Robert Hughes, describes him as being an ``upstanding `All-American' young man''. Until being picked up during a routine check of riders' immigration status on a city bus, he had never been arrested or convicted of any crime. Mr. Yamada is not, and has never been, a burden on the State. He has never received any Federal or State assistance.

Currently, Mr. Yamada holds sophomore status at Southwestern Community College. However, he is taking this semester off in order to alleviate his financial burdens by working full time. He had hoped to pursue a career in law enforcement, but his plans have recently changed due to his current immigration status dilemma. Until he obtains citizenship, Mr. Yamada will be prohibited from pursuing a career in law enforcement. Due to the circumstances, Mr. Yamada has changed his career goal to that of becoming a high school teacher. Mr. Yamada's commitment to his education is admirable. He could have easily taken a different path but, through his own ``individual fortitude,'' he has dedicated himself to his studies so that he can live a better life.

With his hard work and giving attitude, Shigeru Yamada represents the ideal American citizen. Although born in Japan, he is truly American in every other sense. I ask you to help right a wrong and grant Mr. Yamada lawful permanent resident status so that he can continue towards his bright future.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Mr. Yamada.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and that the three letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I offer today a private immigration relief bill to provide lawful permanent residence status to Denes and Gyorgyi Fulop, Hungarian nationals who have lived in California for more than 20 years. The Fulops are the parents of six U.S. citizen children. Today, they face deportation having exhausted all administrative remedies under our immigration system.

The Fulop's story is a compelling one and one which I believe merits Congress' consideration for humanitarian relief.

The most poignant tragedy to affect this family occurred in May 2000, when the Fulops eldest child, Robert ``Bobby'' Fulop, an accomplished 15 year-old teenager, died suddenly of a heart aneurism. Bobby was considered the shining star of his family.

That same year their six-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with moderate pulmonary stenosis, a potentially life-threatening heart condition and a frightening situation similar to Bobby's. Not long ago, she successfully underwent heart surgery, but requires medical supervision to ensure her good health.

The Fulop's youngest child, Matthew, was born seven weeks premature. He subsequently underwent several kidney surgeries and is still being closely monitored by physicians.

Compounding these tragedies is the fact that today the Fulops face deportation. They face deportation, in part, because in 1995 the family traveled to Hungary and remained there for more than 90 days. Under the pre-1996 immigration law, prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, their stay in Hungary would not have been a factor in their immigration case and they would have been eligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents.

Indeed, in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Fulop applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, for permanent resident status. Due to large backlogs, the INS did not interview them until 1998. By the time their applications were considered, the new 1996 immigration law had taken effect. Given their one-time 90 day trip outside the United States, they were statutorily ineligible for relief pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

One cannot help but conclude that had the INS acted on the Fulop's application for relief from deportation in a timelier manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation under the pre-1996 law, given that they were long-term residents of the United States with U.S. Citizen children and many positive factors in their favor.

The irony of this situation is that the Fulops were gone from the United States for nearly five months in 1995 because they traveled to Hungary to help Mr. Fulop's brother build his home. Mr. Fulop's brother is handicap and they went to help remodel his home.

The Fulops are good and decent people. Mr. Fulop is a masonry contractor and the owner and president of his own construction company--Sumeg International. He has owned this business for 10 years and currently has three full-time employees.

The couple are active in their church and community. As Pastor Peter Petrovic of the Apostolic Christian Church of San Diego says in his letter of support, ``[t]he family is an exceptional asset to their community.'' Mrs. Fulop has served as a Sunday school teacher and volunteers regularly at Heritage K-8 Charter School in Escondido. Mrs. Morris, a Heritage K-8 Charter School faculty member says in her letter of support that Mrs. Fulop is ``. . . a valuable asset to our school and community.''

Mr. President, this is a tragic situation. Essentially, as happened to many families under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the rules of the game were

changed in the middle. When the Fulops applied for relief from deportation they were eligible for suspension of deportation. By the time the INS got around to their application, nearly three years later, they were no longer eligible and in fact suspension of deportation as a form of relief ceased to exist.

The Fulops today have been in the United States since the early 1980s. Most harmful is the effect that their deportation will have on the children, all of whom were born here and who range from one year old to 17 years of age. Their eldest, Dennis, is a 4.0 honor student at Palomar Community College having graduated from high school one year early. His sister, Linda, has a 3.8 grade point average and is an honor student in high school.

It is my hope that Congress sees fit to provide an opportunity for this family to remain together in the United States given their many years here, the profound sadness they have already experienced and the harm that would come from their deportation to their six U.S. citizen children.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act of 2005. This legislation will require that individuals are notified when their most sensitive personal information is stolen from a corporate or government database. This is the second Congress in a row that I have introduced this legislation-- it is time for us to pass it to give Americans the notice they need to protect themselves from identity thieves.

Specifically, the bill would require government or private entities to notify individuals if a data breach has compromised their Social Security number, driver's license number, credit card number, debit card number or financial account numbers.

In most cases, if authorities know that someone is a victim of a crime, the victim is notified. But, that isn't the case if an individual's most sensitive personal information is stolen from an electronic database.

Measuring the problem of security breaches is difficult, because many companies never report breaches of their systems for fear that their reputation for securing data would be harmed. But, in a survey conducted in 2004 by the FBI and the Computer Security Institute, 52 percent of respondents reported some level of unauthorized use of their computer systems. (Source: 2004 CSI/FBI Computer Crime and Security Survey)

Data breaches are becoming all too common. Consider the following incidents which have compromised the

records of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

On January 10, 2005, George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia notified 30,000 students that their names, photos and Social Security numbers were taken by an online intruder; (Source: Cnet news, ``Hackers Steal ID Info from Virginia University,'' Monday, January 11, 2005)

On August 30, 2004, a University of California-Berkeley database containing the personal information of 600,000 people was penetrated. The computer contained names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and Social Security numbers; (Source: Associated Press, October 21, 2004)

Already in the new year, cell phone carrier T-Mobile announced that a hacker broke into its database and accessed the names and Social Security numbers of 400 customers. (Source: Cnet News, ``Hacker Had Limited Access'' January 12, 2004)

Last year, San Diego State University reported that hackers broke into a server, gaining access to names and Social Security numbers for more than 178,000 former and current students, alumni and staff; (Source: San Francisco Chronicle, ``Colleges Leaking Confidential Data,'' April 5, 2004)

At the Georgia Institute of Technology, a hacker downloaded information that could have included names, addresses, phone numbers and credit card numbers for about 57,775 people; (Source: San Francisco Chronicle, ``Colleges Leaking Confidential Data,'' April 5, 2004) and

Finally, in 2004, a Florida man and his employees hacked into Acxiom Corp.'s computer system for 16 months and stole large amounts of personal information. Christopher Way, a U.S. assistant attorney general, said then that the case represents ``what may be the largest intrusion of personal data ever.'' (Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, ``Hacker Accesses Load of Data from Acxiom,'' July 22, 2004)

My home State of California has a similar data notification law, on which my bill today is modeled. But this sort of protection needs to be extended to all Americans.

I strongly believe Americans should be notified if a hacker gets access to their most personal data. This is both a matter of principle and a practical measure to curb identity theft.

Let me take a moment to describe the proposed legislation.

The Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act will set a national standard for notification of consumers when a data breach occurs.

The legislation requires a business or government entity to notify an individual when there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a hacker or other criminal has obtained unencrypted personal data maintained by the entity.

Personal data is defined by the bill as an individual's Social Security number, State identification number, driver's license number, financial account number, or credit card number.

The legislation's notification scheme minimizes the burdens on companies or agencies that must report a data breach. In general, notice would have to be provided to each person whose data was compromised in writing or through e-mail.

But there are important exceptions.

First, companies that have developed their own reasonable notification policies are given a safe harbor under the bill and are exempted from its notification requirements.

Second, encrypted data is exempted.

Third, where it is too expensive or impractical (e.g., contact address information is incomplete) to notify every individual who is harmed, the bill allows entities to send out an alternative form of notice called ``substitute notice.'' Substitute notice includes posting notice on a website or notifying major media. Substitute notice would be triggered if any of the following factors exist:

(i) the agency or person demonstrates that the cost of providing direct notice would exceed $250,000;

(ii) the affected class of subject persons to be notified exceeds 500,000; or

(iii) the agency or person does not have sufficient contact information to notify people whose information is at risk.

The bill has a tough, but fair enforcement regime. Entities that fail to comply with the bill will be subject to fines by the Federal Trade Commission of $5,000 per violation or up to $25,000 per day while the violation persists. State Attorneys General can also file suit to enforce the statute.

Additionally, the bill would allow California's law to remain in effect, but preempt conflicting state laws. It is my understanding that legislators in a number of states are developing bills modeled after the California law. Reportedly, some of these bills have requirements that are inconsistent with the California legislation. It is not fair to put companies in a situation that forces them to comply with database notification laws of 50 different states.

A year after California's landmark legislation went into effect, the law has raised overall awareness of the need to have strong privacy protections in place. Chris Jay Hoofnagle, associate director of the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center, said: ``the California law has given the public a window into a very serious problem of information security.'' (Source: Associated Press, ``Authorities Probe U.C. Hacking Attack,'' October 21, 2004)

As Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, points out ``if [California] didn't have this law, the vast majority of these situations would go unreported.'' (Source: The Orange County Register, ``Ingram Micro Discloses Database Break-In,'' May 15, 2004)

I strongly believe individuals have a right to be notified when their most sensitive information is compromised--because it is truly their information. Ask the ordinary person on the street if he or she would like to know if a criminal had illegally gained access to their personal information from a database--the answer will be a resounding yes.

Enabling consumers to be notified in a timely manner of security breaches involving their personal data will help combat the growing scourge of identity theft. If individuals are informed of the theft of their Social Security numbers or other sensitive information, they can take immediate preventative action.

They can place a fraud alert on their credit report to prevent crooks from obtaining credit cards in their name;

They can monitor their credit reports to see if unauthorized activity has occurred;

They can cancel any affected financial or consumer or utility accounts; and

They can change their phone numbers if necessary.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this vitally needed legislation. This bill will give ordinary Americans more control and confidence about the safety of their personal information. Americans will have the security of knowing that should a breach occur, they will be notified and be able to take protective action. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the ``Privacy Act of 2005.''

This legislation would establish, for the first time, a comprehensive national system of privacy protection. This is the second Congress in a row that I have introduced this legislation. Every year that we wait, millions more Americans become victims of identity theft. It is time for us to act.

As you know, Mr. President, I have ardently fought for years for legislation to hamper identity theft. Today, this legislation is one of three bills that I am introducing to continue that fight. I am also introducing the Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act of 2005, and the Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act of 2005. I urge my colleagues to pass all of them, to protect Americans from those who would steal our very identities.

At the heart of this bill is the requirement that companies may not sell consumers' most intimate personal information unless consumers affirmatively give their authorization. This is known as ``opt-in.'' Therefore, companies must obtain consumers' written consent prior to selling their personal health information, financial information, Social Security numbers, and drivers' license data (opt-in). For this sensitive data, the bill gives the individual ultimate control over whether

or not his or her information is shared. If an individual does not actively decide to permit sharing of personal data, the data is not disclosed.

The bill recognizes that different sorts of information deserve different levels of protection. For information that is still personal, but not as intimate, the bill allows businesses more flexibility. Therefore, for other personal information--names, physical addresses, e-mail addresses, telephones, photographs, birth dates, places of birth, and birth certificate numbers--companies can sell the information so long as consumers receive notice of the companies' intent, and an opportunity to object and prohibit the sale of their information. This is known as ``opt-out.''

That is structure of the overall bill. Let me take a moment to go over some of the specifics.

For financial data, the Privacy Act would tighten the information- sharing provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This legislation would modify that statute, to prohibit the sale or disclosure of sensitive personal financial information to third parties unless the consumer affirmatively consents or opts in. The legislation would also require that banks let consumers opt out of the sharing of their personal financial information with the bank's affiliates or joint partners. The bill makes exceptions for vital public safety concerns. The Privacy Act of 2005 also prohibits banks from denying a customer a financial product or financial service if the consumer withholds consent.

For sensitive medical information, this legislation would expand on the Department of Health and Human Services privacy regulations, by extending the restrictions placed on ``covered entities'' (health insurers, health providers, and health care clearinghouses) to ``non- covered entities'' (business associates, health researchers, schools or universities, and life insurers). All of those entities will be able to share information only with the patients' consent.

For Social Security numbers, this bill will prohibit the sale or display of an individual's Social Security number to the general public without the individual's express consent, and prohibit federal, state, and local governments from displaying the numbers on the Internet, or from printing them on checks and drivers' licenses. This legislation also recognizes legitimate uses of Social Security numbers, by allowing the sale of Social Security numbers between businesses, or between the government and businesses, among other exceptions.

This legislation protects the privacy of information regardless of the medium through which it is collected. Therefore, it recognizes that both paper and electronic records are important to protecting the identities of Americans.

To minimize the regulatory burden of these privacy rules, the bill sets up a safe harbor so that industries that established approved policies will be exempt from some regulatory requirements of the legislation.

To ensure uniformity of the laws across all 50 states, the bill preempts inconsistent state laws regarding the treatment of non- sensitive information.

I note that this legislation is modeled on the California Financial Information Privacy Act, which gives consumers the right to require their consent before financial companies share their most intimate data. The plan is a good one for Californians, and it is a good one for all Americans. The fact that the California law is under assault in the courts makes it all the more vital that the uniform, national standard I introduce today becomes law.

I want to give a sense of why this legislation is so necessary. Recent statistics on the growth of identity theft show we have no time to waste in protecting personal privacy.

For years, identity theft has topped the list of complaints reported to the Federal Trade Commission. In 2003, the Commission received over half a million such complaints, about 42 percent of the total. While the FTC will not report its numbers for 2004 until early February, I unfortunately expect to again see identity theft as the cause of the most complaints.

According to a 2003 report from the FTC, 10 million Americans discovered that year their identities had been stolen. The report also stated that consumers have to spend an average of 30 hours to clear their name; The Identity Theft Resource Center puts the number at 175 hours. And as Attorney General John Ashcroft said last August, ``Identity theft costs the nation's businesses nearly $50 billion a year in fraudulent transactions and often involves coordinated criminal conduct.''

My own State, California, has more victims of identity theft than any other state. The FTC recorded 39,452 complaints of identity theft cases in 2003 in California alone.

But the numbers tell only part of the story. More important are the individual people whose lives have been devastated by identity theft. Let me tell just one story that I find particularly disturbing:

Eric Drew was a patient in a hospital receiving a bone marrow transplant. Yet unbeknownst to him, a worker in the hospital had stolen Drew's identity, and had taken advantage of this sick patient. As the Associated Press reported, ``Drew said that while he was lying in a hospital bed, dying from cancer and weak from massive doses of chemotherapy, he began to get mail thanking him for opening accounts he knew nothing about.'' In this case, luckily, the criminal was caught and convicted.

Since I introduced this legislation for the first time in the 108th Congress, there are millions more stories like this one.

Indeed, there are also new common methods of identity theft. There has been a massive upswing in the phenomenon known as ``Phishing,'' in which criminals send emails to people, spoofed to fraudulently look like emails from banks and other financial institutions. These emails tell consumers to click on a Web page, and then to enter their name, account numbers, passwords, and other sensitive financial information. The criminals then use this information not only to steal from the unwitting consumers, but to literally lock them out of their own accounts. This one sort of identity theft has, according to a December study from e-mail security company MessageLabs, increased by almost tenfold over the last year.

Given the grave risks that technology poses to our privacy, it is our responsibility to start taking action. This is especially the case for older Americans, who are disproportionately vulnerable to identity theft, as I tried to highlight last year by cosponsoring the ``Protecting Older Americans From Fraud Month'' resolution last October.

I would like to highlight some of the key provisions of the law.

For financial information this legislation tightens the privacy provisions of the Financial Services Modernization Act, commonly known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Under Gramm-Leach-Bliley, a bank can share a customer's personal information with other companies so long as it gives consumers notice and the right to opt-out of the data sharing.

The problem with the prevailing opt-out is that most people throw away their privacy notices from banks along with the rest of the unrelenting pile of commercial solicitations they receive. Since the passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, banks have sent out over one billion privacy notices.

According to available published information, fewer than 5 percent of bank customers have opted out of sharing their personal information, and for many financial institutions, the response rate has been less than one percent.

Accordingly, this legislation prohibits the sale or disclosure of sensitive personal financial information to third parties unless the consumer affirmatively consents or opts in--the burden thus shifts off of the consumer.

This legislation also toughens Federal financial privacy laws for affiliate-sharing and joint-marketing. An affiliate is a company that is linked by common ownership with another company. Under Federal law, a bank can share with affiliates or joint marketing partners regardless of whether the consumer wants this information shared.

This legislation would require that banks give consumers the option of opting out of the sharing of their personal financial information with the bank's affiliates or joint partners.

I would also like to describe several other key components of the financial privacy section.

The bill prohibits banks from denying a customer a financial product or financial service just because the customer chooses to not disclose his personal information to third parties, affiliates, or joint venture partners. However, the bill does allow banks to offer incentives to customers to encourage them to permit the sharing of their personal information.

Additionally, the bill permits banks to disclose, but not sell, personal information to third parties for vital public interest purposes such as identifying or locating missing and abducted children, witnesses, criminals and fugitives, parents delinquent in child support payments, organ and bone marrow donors, pension fund beneficiaries, and missing heirs.

Just as with financial data, personal health and medical data deserves the most stringent privacy protections.

The recently adopted Department of Health and Human Services privacy regulations set a basic opt-in framework for disclosure of health information. But more can be done to protect patient privacy.

The regulations only prohibit ``covered entities''--namely health insurers, health providers, and health care clearinghouse--from selling a patient's health information without that patient's prior consent.

Meanwhile, non-covered entities--such as business associates, health researchers, schools or universities, and life insurers--are not subject to this opt-in requirement, except through contractual arrangements.

This legislation would preserve the privacy of health information wherever the information is sold. Any business associate, life insurer, school or non-covered entity trying to sell or market protected health information would, like covered entities, have to get the patient's prior consent. This is a crucial step to protect what is truly our most intimate information.

Drivers' license data also are given the strongest level of protection under this bill.

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act, DPPA was amended in 2000 to offer some meaningful protections for drivers' privacy.

For example, under the DPPA, a State Department of Motor Vehicles must obtain the prior consent (opt-in) of the driver before ``highly sensitive information''--defined as a physical copy of the license, a Social Security number, medical or disability information, and other information can be disclosed to a third party.

However, loopholes remain. Other sensitive information found on a driver's license deserves equal protection.

This legislation would expand the definition of ``highly sensitive information'' to include a physical copy of a driver's license, the driver identification number, birth date, information on the driver's physical characteristics and any biometric identifiers, such as a fingerprint, that are found on the driver's license.

Thus, this bill would ensure consumers have control over how their motor vehicle records and driver's license data are used.

I would like to take a moment to highlight the Social Security number section of this legislation. I have also introduced this section as a stand-alone bill, the ``Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act of 2005.''

It is crucial to protect Social Security numbers because Social Security numbers are the key to a person's identity. Many identity theft cases start with the theft of a Social Security number. Once a thief has access to a victim's Social Security number, it is only a short step to acquiring credit cards, driver's licenses, or other crucial identification documents.

This legislation bars the sale or display of Social Security numbers to the public except in a very narrow set of circumstances. In general display or sale is permitted only if the Social Security number holder affirmatively consents or if there are compelling public safety needs. Government entities will have to redact Social Security numbers from electronic records that are readily available to the public on the Internet. State governments will no longer be permitted to use the Social Security number as the default driver's license number.

The legislation, however, recognizes that some industries rely on Social Security numbers to exchange information for certain transactions.

Thus, the bill directs the Attorney General to develop regulations allowing for the sale or purchase of Social Security Numbers to facilitate business-to-business and business-to-government transactions, so long as businesses put appropriate safeguards in place and do not permit public access to the number.

This legislation codifies steps Congress can take to protect citizens from identity thieves and other predators of personal information.

It restores to an individual more control over her most sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers, health information, and financial information. It also sets reasonable guidelines for businesses that handle our personal information every day. Every American has a fundamental right to privacy, no matter how fast our technology grows or changes.

Last year, President Bush signed into law the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, legislation that I helped to write, to increase punishment on people who steal others' identities. I am proud of my work to make that bill into a law. But we all must realize that punishment is no substitute for prevention. My legislation today will make fewer suffer from identity theft in the first place.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.

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

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Voinovich to introduce legislation to expand the federal loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers.

Nationwide, only 30 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a baccalaureate or advanced degree program.

In California, that number is even smaller: about eighteen percent of Head Start teachers have completed a bachelor's degree.

To prepare Head Start children for elementary school, we must recruit highly qualified teachers who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning.

Recruiting and maintaining teachers with such qualifications is the only way to jump-start cognitive development and ensure that our children start elementary school ready to learn.

A survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services called the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) found a strong relationship between the education of Head Start teachers and classroom quality. Teachers with higher education levels were found to be more sensitive and responsive to their children, to have more high quality language activities, and more creative activities in their classrooms.

Teachers with higher levels of education also had classes with higher quality language activities such as reading books for the children and provided more opportunities for children to develop skills in expressing thoughts.

Head Start is the primary federal program that has the potential to reach out to low-income children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing.

We know that poor children disproportionately start school behind their peers--they are less likely to count to 10 or to recite the alphabet.

Many of our nation's youngsters enter elementary school without the basic skills necessary to succeed. Often these children lag behind their peers throughout their academic career.

As taxpayers, we will spend millions on efforts to help these children catch up. Many of these children will never catch up. A recent national study by The High/Scope Perry Preschool confirms the importance of providing preschool children with the opportunity early on to gain the basic skills necessary for school.

The study found that preschoolers were more likely to graduate from high school and be employed at age 40, earn more money a year, and were more likely to own a home and have a savings account.

We can save millions by providing low-income children with access to quality preschool where they will gain the necessary skills to succeed in school and life.

In order to give every child a head start in life, we must continue to recruit highly qualified teachers to the Head Start field and prevent the best teachers from leaving.

Many Head Start programs across the country, including in California, are losing qualified teachers to local school districts in part because the pay is better.

Nationally, the average Head Start teacher earns a salary of $21,287 compared to $43,152 for an elementary school teacher.

Head Start teachers are making half of what elementary school teachers are paid on average.

Low pay, combined with increasing student debt, is a real deterrent to getting college graduates to become Head Start teachers.

And every teacher that Head Start loses impacts the quality and access to services for our nation's low-income children.

One way to recruit and retain highly qualified Head Start teachers is to offer incentives to pursue a career in this field.

Current law allows elementary and secondary school teachers to receive up to $5,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for five years of service.

We believe Head Start teachers should be given this same opportunity.

The legislation we are introducing today is meant to encourage recent graduates, current Head Start teachers without a degree, and college students to enter and remain in the Head Start field.

In exchange for 5 years of service, a Head Start teacher could receive up to $5,000 of their federal loans forgiven.

We must continue to improve the Head Start program so that children will have the necessary cognitive skills when they leave the program, such as being able to count to ten, begin to recite the alphabet, and recognize sizes and colors.

This is just the first step. To further ensure cognitive learning, we must also continue to raise the standards and pay for Head Start teachers.

Providing our nation's low-income children with access to highly educated and qualified teachers so that they enter school ready to learn is critical to their future success and should be a priority of this Congress.

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

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Maria Cristina Degrassi, a 37-year-old severely disabled Italian national currently living with her family in San Mateo, California.

I have decided to offer private relief legislation on Ms. Degrassi's behalf because I believe that her removal from the United States would be tragically unfair not only to her, but to her sister and brother-in- law, Daniela Degrassi and Luca Prasso, who reside legally in the United States and who are Ms. Degrassi's closest family and only willing caregivers.

Ms. Degrassi has legally resided in the United States since 1997 on a non-immigrant tourist visa. However, she is not like an ordinary tourist. She cannot enjoy California's beautiful coastline or stunning mountain ranges. She cannot tour Hollywood movie studios or Napa Valley wineries. Ms. Degrassi was born premature in 1965 and, consequently, is severely mentally handicapped and autistic. Because of these disabilities, Ms. Degrassi has the mental capacity of a two-year old, cannot speak and understands only a few sentences in Italian.

In addition to these challenges, Ms. Degrassi was diagnosed with diabetes in 2001 and now requires daily insulin shots and a carefully monitored diet.

For Ms. Degrassi, the sum of these health problems means that she must have 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week personal care and attention. Luckily, however, there are two people in Ms. Degrassi's life who are more than happy not only to care for her daily needs, but to love and nurture her.

Ms. Degrassi's sister, Daniela, and her brother-in-law, Luca, are legal permanent residents of the United States. Mr. Prasso is a highly skilled and valued employee of PDI-DreamWorks, the world renowned movie production company. Serving as a Character Technical Supervisor and earning nearly $200,000 per year, Mr. Prasso has worked on such critically acclaimed films as ``Shrek'' and ``ANTZ.'' In the course of that work, Mr. Prasso has developed and patented new technologies and become a leader in his field. In a letter in support of this private legislation, DreamWorks referred to Mr. Prasso's skills as ``rar[e]'' and ``irreplaceable.''

Daniela Degrassi has also excelled in the United States, starting a successful freelance photography career and business.

Together, Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi have provided Ms. Degrassi with the love, care and attention that she so desperately needs. When Ms. Degrassi's father and aunt died in 1997, the couple knew that they were the only family left who was willing to care for her. The choice for them was clear. Mr. Prasso wrote in a letter he sent me, ``My wife and I then faced a big decision. We refuse[d] completely to put her in an institution. We [could not] accept the idea of not being able to properly take care of her. No other relative was alive or came forward to offer help. We were the only and closest persons to Cristina. We decided to take care of her like a daughter.''

For the past seven years, Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi have done just that, organizing their lives around caring for and attending to Ms. Degrassi.

They cook for her and clothe and bathe her on a daily basis. Because of the close monitoring Ms. Degrassi's diabetic condition requires, when the couple wants to go out to dinner or see a movie, they must do so separately so that one of them is always with Ms. Degrassi in case of an emergency.

Despite the hardships that caring for Ms. Degrassi have imposed upon Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi, the experience has deeply enriched their lives. In Mr. Prasso's letter, he wrote, ``despite my long work hours and my wife['s] new successful business as a photographer, we are able and fully committed to continue to take care [of Cristina] 24 hours a day . . . The reward of a kiss, hug or smile from Cristina is an amazing thing and makes all the pain disappear.''

Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this wonderful family will face a tragic set of choices. Since 1997, Ms. Degrassi has applied for and always received six-month extensions of her non-immigrant tourist visa. The Degrassi's lawyer has informed the couple that approval of the current extension is unlikely and has recommended they withdraw their petition. This would leave Ms. Degrassi with nothing. There are no other avenues available for her to remain in the United States lawfully. In short, if this private relief legislation is not approved, Ms. Degrassi will be forced to return to Italy.

However, Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi's love for their sister will never allow her to return to Italy alone. Faced with Ms. Degrassi's removal, the couple will leave their lives in California and move back with her in order to continue to provide the care and attention on which Ms. Degrassi depends.

The consequences of such a move will be tragic for this family. It will mean the end of Mr. Prasso's highly accomplished career with DreamWorks, as well as, the end of the photography career Daniela Degrassi has worked so hard to build. In addition, both Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi are eligible to become United States citizens this year.

I can think of no compelling reasons why the United States should not enable this family to continue as they have in California. Because of the substantial salary that Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi earn and because of the monthly pension Ms. Degrassi receives, due to her disability, from the Italian government, there is almost no chance that Ms. Degrassi will become a burden on the state or federal government.

In Mr. Prasso's letter to me, he made this simple request, ``We are looking forward to find[ing] a permanent solution to this dilemma that does not involve dismembering this family or giving up on a wonderful job. A solution that will allow us to live a normal life like a normal family.''

We can make this solution a reality for Ms. Degrassi and this wonderful family. For that reason, I offer this private relief legislation and ask my colleagues to support it.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Ms. Degrassi.

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

Mr. President, I introduce today the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005'', legislation to reform the way the federal government treats unaccompanied alien children who are apprehended by federal immigration officials at our borders or within the United States.

I first introduced legislation similar to this bill during the 107th Congress and still strongly believe that its passage is necessary to ensure the proper treatment of unaccompanied alien children within our federal system. With each passing year, as members realize the necessity for this legislation, the bill has moved further along in the process.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins, Schumer, Hagel, Durbin, DeWine, Cantwell, Inouye and Feingold as original co-sponsors of this legislation.

During the 108th Congress, the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' passed the Senate by unanimous consent, after garnering no less than 34 co-sponsors. Unfortunately, the bill stalled in the House of Representatives.

So today I re-introduce this legislation, and again, this will be one of my top legislative priorities because I believe we have a special obligation to ensure that every child that comes into contact with federal officials is afforded fair and humane treatment.

In 2004, approximately 6,200 unaccompanied alien children were apprehended by Department of Homeland Security officials and transferred to the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services. This number has grown over the years and shows no signs of abating.

Thousands of foreign-born children under the age of 18 enter the United States each year unaccompanied by parents or other legal guardians. These children are among the most vulnerable of the immigrant population and these numbers are going to continue to grow given the greater emphasis on enforcement actions by immigration officials--which I support--and the relatively unchanged conditions bringing them here.

These children are from all over the world, although the majority encountered by immigration officials today are from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. Some are asylum seekers fleeing human rights abuses and armed conflict in their homelands. Others are fleeing abuses specific to children, such as forced recruitment of child soldiers, forced prostitution and servitude, sexual slavery and exploitation, child labor, abuse of street children, child brides and female genital mutilation. Yet other children come to the United States because they have been abused, abandoned or neglected by their parents or caregivers. And finally, some come seeking to reunify with family members already in the United States or seeking a better life.

Historically, U.S. immigration law and policies have been developed and implemented without regard to their effect on children. This result has been similar to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole--it just doesn't work.

Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuanced legal principles or courtroom and administrative procedures. Because of this, children who may very well be eligible for relief are often vulnerable to being deported back to the very life-threatening situations from which they fled--before they are even able to make their cases before the Department of Homeland Security or an immigration judge.

Prior to March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service had responsibility for the care, custody and treatment of unaccompanied alien children. Unfortunately, the Immigration and Naturalization Service fell short in

fulfilling these responsibilities. The legislation that I am introducing today builds on Section 462 of Public Law 107-296, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which provided for the transfer of responsibility for the care and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the now-abolished Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services.

Section 462 was based on S. 121, comprehensive legislation relating to unaccompanied alien children that I introduced during the 107th Congress.

With the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, we set into motion the centralization of responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children with the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The first phase of this transfer of responsibility occurred on March 1, 2003. Once the transition was completed, we finally resolved the conflict of interest inherent in the former system which pitted the enforcement side of the Immigration and Naturalization Service against the benefits side of that same agency in the care of unaccompanied alien children.

I am pleased that the provision transferring responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children was contained in the Homeland Security Act and that by all accounts the transition in the care of children between the affected agencies has gone well.

But, the transfer of authority to the Office of Refugee Resettlement--by itself--is not enough to ensure that these children are treated fairly and humanely. Congress now has a responsibility to go beyond the simple transfer to actually laying out the process and steps to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are treated fairly and humanely. We must provide the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice with the tools they will need to succeed in their missions regarding the care of unaccompanied alien children after the transfer of jurisdiction took place.

First of all, I want to stress that this bill is not about benefits, as it provides no new immigration benefit to unaccompanied alien children. Rather, this bill is about the process of how we treat these children.

The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' provides guidance and instruction to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice in the following areas:

First, in the custody, release, family reunification and detention of unaccompanied alien children;

Second, it provides access by unaccompanied alien children to guardians ad litem and pro bono counsel;

Third, it streamlines the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program and provides guidance on the training of federal government officials and private parties who come into contact with unaccompanied alien children;

Fourth, it requires the issuance of guidelines specific to children's asylum claims;

Fifth, it authorizes appropriations for the care of unaccompanied alien children; and

Sixth, it amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide additional responsibilities and powers to the Office of Refugee Resettlement with respect to unaccompanied alien children.

Central throughout the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' are two concepts:

The United States government has a fundamental responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and in all proceedings and actions, the government should have as a priority protecting the interests of these children.

I first became involved in this issue in 2000 when I heard about a young 15-year old Chinese girl who stood before a U.S. immigration court facing deportation proceedings with her hands chained to her waist, like a criminal. She had found her way to the United States as a stowaway in a container ship captured off of Guam, hoping to escape the repression she had experienced in her home country.

She had been placed on a boat bound for the United States by her very own parents, fleeing China's rigid family planning laws. Under these laws, she was denied citizenship, education and medical care. She came to this country alone and desperate.

And what did our immigration authorities do when they found her? The Immigration and Naturalization Service detained her in a juvenile jail in Portland, Oregon for eight months before her asylum hearing, and more than seven weeks after she was granted asylum.

At her asylum hearing, the young girl stood before a judge, unrepresented by counsel, confused and unable to understand the proceedings against her. She could not wipe away the tears from her face because her hands were chained to her waist. According to a lawyer who later came to represent her, ``her only crime was that her parents had put her on a boat so she could get a better life over here.''

While the young girl eventually received asylum in our country, she unnecessarily faced an ordeal no child should bear under our immigration system. This young Chinese girl represents only one of the more than 6,000 foreign-born children who, without parents or legal guardians to protect them, are discovered in the United States each year in need of protection.

This is unacceptable treatment and we have a responsibility to do better than this.

Imagine the fear of an unaccompanied alien child, in the United States alone, without a parent or guardian. Imagine that child being thrust into a system he or she does not understand, provided no access to pro bono counsel or guardians ad litem, placed in jail with adults or housed with juveniles with serious criminal convictions. I find it hard to believe that our country would allow children to be treated in such a manner.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' will help our country fulfill the special obligation to these children to treat them fairly and humanely.

I am proud to have the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Amnesty International USA and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and many other organizations with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to join with me by cosponsoring this important measure and ensuring that these reforms are finally enacted.

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

Mr. President, I offer today private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California.

Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in the United States for almost 20 years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 18, and Cindy, age 16, also stand to benefit from this legislation. Their other three children, Roberto, age 13, Daniel, age 9, and Saray, age 8, are United States citizens. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola and their two eldest children face deportation.

The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

The Arreolas are in this uncertain situation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking his disbarment for the detriment he caused his immigration clients.

Mr. Arreola has lived in the United States since 1986. He was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years, and as such would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers, SAW, program had he known about it.

Mrs. Arreola was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy, but returned to Mexico to give birth so as to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Given the length of time that the Arreolas had, and have been, in the United States it is quite likely that they would have qualified for relief from deportation pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but for the conduct of their previous attorney.

Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the devastating impact their deportation would have on their children--three of whom are U.S. citizens, as I stated earlier, and the other two who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. For these children, this country is the only country they really know.

Nayely, the oldest, is a freshman at Fresno Pacific University. She was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to attend college. She attends Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition scholarship package and works part-time in the admissions office.

At her young age, Nayely has demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She has worked hard to achieve her full potential both in her academic endeavors and through the service she provides her community. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services, Cary Templeton, at Fresno Pacific University states in a letter of support, ``[t]he leaders of Fresno Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.''

In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID, a college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely was also president of the Key Club, a community service organization. She helped mentor freshmen and participates in several other student organizations in her school. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family, if forced to return to Mexico, will be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams and further contribute to her community and to this country.

It is clear to me that Nayely feels a strong sense of responsibility for her community and country. By all indications, this is the case as well for all of the members of her family.

The Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent residents of this country or United States citizens. Mrs. Arreola has three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is a U.S. citizen. It is also my understanding that they have no immediate family in Mexico.

According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family.

It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have introduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record and that the three letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation cosponsored by Senator Boxer to adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the State of California to include the addition of the Mill Creek property. This continues the effort initiated in the last Congress with the leadership of Congressman Mike Thompson, to solidify and expand the co-operative management relationship between the United States Government and the State of California, working together to protect forever the ancient majesty of the redwood forest.

In 2002, the California Department of Parks and Recreation acquired from the Save-the-Redwoods League 25,000 acres of forest land known as the Mill Creek property in Del Norte County, which is contiguous with the Redwood National and State parks boundary. This bill would include within the park boundary the Mill Creek acquisition and about 900 acres of land acquired and added to the State redwood parks since the 1978 expansion of the Redwood National Park boundary. There would be no Federal costs for land acquisition or development resulting from this legislation.

Approval of the expansion of the boundary of Redwood National Park to include the headwaters of Mill Creek will complete the vision of the Redwood Park embraced by Senator Kuchel in S.1370 that he introduced in 1967, a vision dating back to the McLaughlin-Cook report issued by the National Park Service in 1937. Protection of the headwaters of Mill Creek will secure the long term viability of the ancient redwoods already within Redwood National and State Park. It would permanently safeguard the coho salmon who return to spawn in the clear, cold waters of this forest.

These lands will be managed by the same cooperative management agreement between the National Park Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. This partnership is viewed as a model of interagency cooperative management efforts and will provide for more efficient and costeffective management of an ecologically significant resource.

This bill enjoys strong support from local and Federal officials, including Del Norte County and the Department of the Interior. Given this support and lack of controversy, I believe this legislation to be of great importance to ensure that our Redwood National Park is further protected.

I have long held a deep interest in protecting California's magnificent Redwoods. The coast redwood, the sequoia sempervirens, is native only to the West Coast where it stands in a narrow band from the tip of the Big Sur Coast to the Chetco River, just north of the California-Oregon border. The redwood stands taller than any other tree in the world and traces its lineage to among the oldest of living things. The cathedrals formed by these ancient trees inspire the best in us as a people. The redwood forests of California are a national and worldwide treasure that is ours to protect and preserve.

In 1966, the Headwaters Agreement was negotiated in part in my offices to protect approximately 7,500 acres of old growth redwoods, which was the largest grove of redwoods held in private ownership at the time. It is my great pleasure today to introduce this legislation to extend our national commitment to collaboration in preservation of the redwoods and the watersheds they anchor.

I applaud Congressman Mike Thompson's commitment to this issue and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

I rise today to introduce a bill that combines needed help for small Yosemite schools, and an addition to the beautiful Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Each of these bills individually has passed both the House and Senate in previous Congresses.

The first title of this legislation provides critical funds to three small schools nestled in the heart of Yosemite National Park and authorizes the Yosemite Regional Transportation System to shuttle visitors in and out of the park.

Approximately 130 children of park service employees are taught in the three elementary small schools located in Yosemite National Park-- Wawona, El Portal, and Yosemite Valley elementary schools.

These schools represent a dying breed of education models; they are small schools that teach children who live in remote communities and are taught by one or a group of teachers. At El Portal, three teachers instruct 53 students in seven grades. Wawona has 17 students in 7 grades who are taught by one teacher/principal.

And Yosemite Valley serves 60 students in 8 grades who are taught by two teachers.

The remote location of these schools, their small sizes and California's unique method for funding education, have all contributed to the schools amassing a combined deficit of $290,000. In their efforts to continue to provide basic educational services to students, the schools have had to cut supplemental instruction that would normally be available to students taught outside of the park.

Some have suggested that these schools consolidate into one to pool their limited resources. While this may seem to solve the problem, you must understand that many of these students already travel many miles on treacherous mountainous roads to attend their current schools. If the three schools were to consolidate, this problem would be exacerbated, requiring many students to make a 2 hour commute to their new schools.

I do not believe this is a viable option and that is why I support this legislation.

Last year, Senator Bingaman, Congressman Radanovich and I worked out a compromise on this legislation that would help the schools while protecting the National Park Service's budget. The compromise includes the following terms:

For fiscal year 2006 through 2009, the Secretary of the Interior may provide up to $400,000 in funds to the Bass Lake Union Elementary School District and the Mariposa Unified School District for educational services to students who are dependents of persons engaged in the administration, operation, and maintenance of the Park or students who live at or near the Park; the Secretary can only provide the funds if the State of California and local agencies maintain 2005 per-student funding levels to the schools, and the Secretary also must make sure that the assistance to the schools does not reduce the remaining funding available to Yosemite National Park below fiscal year 2005 levels.

Furthermore, this legislation allows the Park Service to allot federal funds for the continuing operation of a bus service that shuttles visitors through Yosemite National Park--the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System.

The federally funded demonstration project that allowed YARTS to offer services on a temporary basis expired in May 2002 and since then, YARTS has leveraged local funds to ensure that services were not discontinued.

Both the Park Service and YARTS are supportive of continuing their mutually beneficial agreement. This legislation would do just that by taking the burden off local entities and providing the necessary assistance that this service needs.

I am also pleased to introduce today a second title in this legislation to allow the National Park Service to extend the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, GGNRA, by acquiring critical natural landscapes and scenic vistas.

This bill meets several distinct needs in California and national needs of all National Park System visitors by adding 4,600 acres of pristine natural land to the boundary of the Golden Gate Recreation Area. It will protect four major watersheds, preserve the home of numerous threatened, rare and endangered plant and animal species in the region, allow potential access to valuable future trail links to contiguous State and county parks, and establish a dramatic and logical southern entrance to the park.

A key component of this legislation is its three-way, local-state- federal partnership. Half of the total purchase price of these lands has already been donated by local and State sources. Additionally, this legislation specifically provides that all land transactions involve a willing seller and willing buyer.

Furthermore, this bill has the strong support of local community groups, the former Golden Gate National Recreation Area Advisory Commission, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, the National Park Service, and the California State Farm Bureau. It also has the endorsement of the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News. I know of no opposition to this bill.

Expanding the boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to include Rancho Corral de Tierra through such a beneficial partnership is an opportunity not to be missed. A vast land within a major metropolitan area that offers extraordinary scenic views of the Pacific coastline and the greater Bay Area, a place with plants found nowhere else on earth find refuge, a home for rare and endangered animals, is available now for protection and enjoyment. We have the chance to enjoy this special land and to leave a lasting legacy for our children and our grandchildren.

California's national parks are truly invaluable and the park that this bill supports offers an opportunity for visitors and residents to enjoy unique national habitats and offers a unique chance for the National Park Service and the community to work together, not only to protect the environment, but also the interests of the nearby communities and national and international visitors.

This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, as it did last Congress. Congressman Tom Lantos plans to introduce companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his leadership on this issue.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the United States Military Cancer Institute Research Collaborative Act. This legislation would formally establish the United States Military Cancer Institute (USMCI), and support the collaborative augmentation of research efforts in cancer epidemiology, prevention and control. Although the USMCI already exists as an informal collaborative effort, this bill will formally establish the institution with a mission of providing for the maintenance of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and treatment, and studying the epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups. By formally establishing the USMCI, it will be in a better position to unite military research efforts with other cancer research centers.

Cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are significant issues for the military population, thus the USMCI was organized to coordinate the existing military cancer assets. The USMCI has a comprehensive database of its beneficiary population of 9 million people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14 years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is predominantly Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic.

The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, is a Professor of Surgery at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). A highly talented cancer epidemiologist, Dr. Kangmin Zhu, has also been recruited to lead the USMCI Prevention and Control Programs.

The USMCI currently resides in the Washington, D.C., area, and its components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. There are more than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of Defense civilian scientists, working in the USMCI.

The USMCI intends to expand its research activities to military medical centers across the Nation. Special emphasis will be placed on the study of genetic and environmental factors in carcinogenesis among the entire population, including Asian, Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic subpopulations.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Tsunami Preparedness Act with my friend and distinguished colleague, Senator Ted Stevens, in our new capacities as Co-Chair and Chair of the Commerce Committee. Our bill today provides a scientific and technological response to minimize the threats posed by tsunami to our own shores, and the coastal communities of the world, as exemplified by the appalling scope of the Indian Ocean tragedy. The bill builds on our work to establish a system in the Pacific that is a model for the world, and also provides for its expansion and improvement to repair gaps that have been identified recently.

Protecting human life and property from natural disaster requires the ability to reliably detect and forecast, the capacity to broadcast warnings in a timely and informative manner, and the knowledge in communities of how to respond and evacuate to safety. Above all, however, it requires the willingness to invest resources to prepare for a threat that is largely unseen and unpredictable until the last moment, when a monstrous wave actually strikes.

The people of Alaska and Hawaii have long memories of the threat of tsunami. Perhaps it is because Hawaii sits in a position of terrible vulnerability in the Pacific Ocean, which is the site of 85 percent of the world's tsunami activity, and because Alaska, perched on the northern edge of the Pacific's Ring of Fire, suffers frequent tsunami- generating earthquakes.

In order to protect local communities, Hawaii established in 1949 a tsunami warning center, following a tragic Hilo tsunami. In response to the Good Friday earthquake and tsunami of 1964, which accounted for 90 percent of the deaths in the state that year, Alaska followed suit by establishing an observatory in Palmer, Alaska, in 1967. Collaborations between the two centers and other partners led to a nascent capacity for predicting and warning coastal communities about potential tsunami in Alaska and Hawaii and beyond.

As we came to understand the broader threat that tsunami posed, Ted Stevens and I worked together to pass legislation in 1994 to direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program.

We are pleased to report that the program has laid the foundation for tsunami preparedness. Through its Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), NOAA has developed Deep ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami--or ``DART''--buoys, which accurately measure the subtle variations in the ocean's sea level caused by tsunami traveling over open water. With these measurements, as well as readings from coastal gauges, the mathematical models PMEL and others have developed can forecast tsunami direction, speed, and inundation with astonishing accuracy. Although the worldwide network of seismic sensors operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides excellent notice of earthquakes with the potential to generate tsunami, the DART buoys represent a next-generation approach to detection and forecasting of tsunami that will form the backbone of our domestic preparedness.

Interpreting these data and issuing warnings are Hawaii's Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, and Alaska's West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center, which jointly have the capacity to cover our domestic shores, and, at the same time, to reach out to all cooperating nations of the world.

Forecasting and warning networks, however, depend on ears who know how to respond, and so the Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program has partnered with states and local authorities to produce inundation mapping, develop evacuation routes, and conduct tsunami education. As a result of much hard work, fifteen counties up and down the west coast, and in Alaska and Hawaii have become national and world leaders by becoming ``tsunami ready.''

The appalling scope of the Indian Ocean tragedy illustrates the importance and necessity of our work of the past ten years, and with stark clarity, we can see that despite our best efforts, much remains to be done. Now, as before, Senator Stevens and I have come together to lead the charge toward national and international tsunami preparedness.

Our legislation today formally authorizes NOAA to establish, operate, and maintain a dependable national tsunami warning system that would provide maximum tsunami detection capability for the nation. The system would build on the model established in the Pacific, and provide for its repair, expansion and modernization by the close of calendar year 2007. The system would include four components: an expanded and upgraded detection and warning system, a federal-state tsunami hazard mitigation program, a tsunami research program, and a modernization and upgrade program. In addition, the bill would direct NOAA to provide any necessary technical or other assistance to international efforts to establish regional systems in other parts of the world, including the Indian Ocean.

The detection and warning system established by the bill would cover the Pacific Ocean region, as well as the Atlantic-Caribbean-Gulf of Mexico region, and incorporate a variety of seismic and tsunami detection technologies, including deep ocean buoys, as well as encompass tsunami warning centers charged with collecting and analyzing the data and distributing warnings--including the existing Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii and the West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center in Alaska, as well as any others deemed necessary by the NOAA Administrator.

The bill also formally authorizes NOAA's Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program and its community-based tsunami hazard mitigation program to improve tsunami preparedness of at-risk areas. The bill directs a Federal-State coordinating committee for the program, consisting (FEMA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and affected coastal states and territories, to work together to improve inundation mapping, community outreach and education, and promote and integrate tsunami warning and mitigation measures, including rescue and recovery guidelines. The program would provide grants to states to ensure the program elements are implemented in coastal communities.

The bill also requires NOAA to establish, along with other agencies and academic institutions, a tsunami research program to continuously improve detection, prediction, communication, and mitigation science and technology to support tsunami forecasts and warnings. This program would also focus on the potential for improved communications systems for tsunami and other hazard warnings, including telephones, wireless and satellite technology, the Internet, television and radio, and any innovative combination of these technologies.

A critical component of the bill requires NOAA to upgrade and modernize the U.S. tsunami detection system by December 2007, as well as provide accountability for the long-term operation of the system. NOAA is required to repair and upgrade the system, ensuring deployment of existing deep ocean detection buoys and related detection equipment, as well as notify Congress upon any equipment or system failures that will impair regional detection, and of significant contractor failures or delays. In addition, the bill calls for the National Academy of Sciences to review the system for further modernization recommendations.

The bill recognizes the need for global coordination on tsunami preparedness, requiring NOAA, and the interagency coordinating committee of the U.S. Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, to provide technical assistance and advice to international entities as part of an international effort to develop a fully functional global tsunami warning system.

Finally, the bill authorizes $35 million annually for six years to support these activities. Through this legislation, the work Senator Stevens and I started over ten years ago will step up to the next level, and provide our nation with coverage and protection that it needs, while fulfilling our duties as citizens of the global community.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation is designed to extend space-available travel privileges on military aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our country.

Currently, retired members of the Armed Services are permitted to travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected disabilities.

We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30 percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it serves as a reminder that our Nation has not forgotten their sacrifices.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct discrepancies in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered through Medicare, Part B. The three proposed changes contained in this legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical social workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the profession that is similar to other health care professionals reimbursed through the Medicare program.

First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary. Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare. Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for services provided to a client who is hospitalized.

Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care provider network. They are legally regulated in every state of the nation and are recognized as independent providers of mental health care throughout the health care system. It is time to correct the disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jim K. Yoshida, to obtain recognition of his service with the U.S. military in Korea so that he may obtain veteran's status.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Nursing School Clinics Act. This measure builds on our concerted efforts to provide access to quality health care for Americans by offering grants and incentives for nursing schools to establish primary care clinics in underserved areas where additional medical services are most needed. In addition, this measure provides the opportunity for nursing schools to enhance the scope of student training and education by providing firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities.

Primary care clinics administered by nursing schools are university or nonprofit primary care centers developed mainly in collaboration with university schools of nursing and the communities they serve. These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are nurse practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement patient care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of nursing faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with academic institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse practitioners. To date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics have yielded excellent results, including significantly fewer emergency room visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of specialists, as compared to conventional primary health care.

This bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery in underserved areas with the education of advanced practice nurses. To accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act would be amended to designate that the services provided in these nursing school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination of grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the financial incentives for clinic operators to establish the clinics.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider a wide range of proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must approach the issue of health care with creativity and determination, ensuring that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always been an integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School Clinics Act recognizes the central role nurses can perform as care givers to the medically underserved.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act, a bill that responds to the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and disease prevention programs. Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are without access to a primary care provider. Even in areas where providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as geography, distance, lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural populations, language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to medical care.

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

An Institute of Medicine IOM report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research,'' highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. The training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural health care providers lack preventive care training opportunities.

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

The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act would implement the

risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific interventions for those risk factors. The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places a huge financial burden on communities, families, and individuals. By implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the potential psychological and financial savings are enormous.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Native Hawaiian Medicaid Coverage Act. This legislation would authorize a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent (FMAP) of 100 percent for the payment of health care costs of Native Hawaiians who receive health care from Federally Qualified Health Centers or the Native Hawaiian Health Care System.

This bill was originally a provision within the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, which the Senate passed by an overwhelming majority of 76 to 21, but was dropped from the final Medicare Prescription Drug Conference Report.

This bill is modeled on the Native Alaskan Health Care Act, which provides for a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent (FMAP) of 100 percent for payment of health care costs for Native Alaskans by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, or a tribal organization.

Community health centers serve as the ``safety net'' for uninsured and medically underserved Native Hawaiians and other United States citizens, providing comprehensive primary and preventive health services to the entire community. Outpatient services offered to the entire family include comprehensive primary care, preventive health maintenance, and education outreach in the local community. Community health centers, with their multidisciplinary approach, offer cost effective integration of health promotion and wellness with chronic disease management and primary care focused on serving vulnerable populations.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief mill on behalf of Donald C. Pence of Stanford, North Carolina, for compensation for the failure of the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay dependency and indemnity compensation to Kathryn E. Box, the now- deceased mother of Donald C. Pence. It is rare that a federal agency admits a mistake. In this case, the Department of Veterans Affairs has admitted that a mistake was made and explored ways to permit payment under the law, including equitable relief, but has found no provision authorizing the Department to release the remaining benefits that were unpaid to Mrs. Box at the time of her death. My bill would correct this injustice, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the autonomous functioning of clinical psychologists and clinical social workers within the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

In my judgment, it is unfortunate that Medicare requires clinical supervision of the services provided by certain health professionals and does not allow them to function to the full extent of their State practice licenses. Those who need the services of outpatient rehabilitation facilities should have access to a wide range of social and behavioral science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical social workers are recognized as independent providers of mental health care services under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the TRICARE Military Health Program of the Uniformed Services, the Medicare (Part B) Program, and numerous private insurance plans. This legislation will ensure that these qualified professionals achieve the same recognition under the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Registered Nurse Safe Staffing Act. I am introducing this bill on behalf of the American Nurses Association's Chief Executive Officer and President Linda Stierle, MSN, RN, CNAA and Barbara A. Blakeney, MS, APRN, BC, ANP, respectively. For over four decades I have been a committed supporter of nurses and the delivery of safe patient care. While enforceable regulations will help to ensure patient safety, the complexity and variability of today's hospitals require that staffing patterns be determined at the hospital and unit level, with the professional input of registered nurses. More than a decade of research demonstrates that nurse staff levels and the skill mix of nursing staff directly affect the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients. Studies show that when there are more registered nurses, there are lower mortality rates, shorter lengths of stay, reduced costs, and fewer complications.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the risks of patient mortality rose by 7 percent for every additional patient added to the average nurse's workload. In the midst of a nursing shortage and increasing financial pressures, hospitals often find it difficult to maintain adequate staffing. While nursing research indicates that adequate registered nurse staffing is vital to the health and safety of patients, there is no standardized public reporting mechanism, nor enforcement of adequate staffing plans. The only regulations addressing nursing staff exists vaguely in Medicare Conditions of Participation which states: ``The nursing service must have an adequate number of licensed registered nurses, licensed practice (vocational) nurse, and other personnel to provide nursing care to all patients as needed''.

This bill will require Medicare Participating Hospitals to develop and maintain reliable and valid systems to determine sufficient registered nurse staffing. Given the demands that the healthcare industry faces today, it is our responsibility to ensure that patients have access to adequate nursing care. However, we must ensure that the decisions by which care is provided are made by the clinical experts, the registered nurses caring for these patients. Support of this bill supports our nation's nurses during a critical shortage, but more importantly, works to ensure the safety of their patients.

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

Mr. President, all too often we find that our Nation's civilian employees of the Federal Government who have been forcibly detained or interned by a hostile government do not receive the recognition they deserve. My bill would correct this inequity and provide a prisoner of war medal for such citizens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Cooperative Housing Corporations (co-ops), to convert to condominium forms of ownership.

Under current law, a conversion from cooperative shareholding to condominium ownership is taxable at a corporate level as well as an individual level. The conversion is treated as a corporate liquidation, and therefore taxed accordingly. In addition, a capital gains tax is levied on any increase between the owner's basis in the co-op share pre-conversion and the market value of the condominium interest post- conversion. This double taxation dissuades condominium conversion because the owner is being taxed on the transaction which is nothing more than a change in the form of ownership. While the Internal Revenue Service concedes that there are no discernable advantages to society of the cooperative form of ownership, they do not view federal tax statutes as providing sufficient flexibility with which to address the obstacles of conversion.

Cooperative housing organizes the ownership structure into a corporation, with shares of stock for each apartment unit, which are sold to buyers. The corporation then issues a proprietary lease entitling the owner of the stock to the use of the unit in perpetuity. Because the investment is in the form of a share of stock, investors sometimes lose their entire investment as a result of debt incurred by the corporation in construction and development. In addition, due to the structure of a cooperative housing corporation, a prospective purchaser of shares in the corporation from an existing tenant- stockholders has difficulty obtaining mortgage financing for the purchase. Furthermore, tenant-stockholders of cooperative housing also encounter difficulties in securing bank loans for the full value of their investment.

As a result, owners of cooperative housing are increasingly looking toward conversion to the condominium structure of ownership. Condominium ownership permits the owner of a unit to own the unit itself, eliminating the cooperative housing dilemma of corporate debt that supercedes the investment of cooperative housing share owners, and other financial concerns.

The legislation I introduce today will remove the penalty of double taxation from the conversion of cooperative housing to condominium ownership, and will greatly benefit co-op owners across the nation. The bill does not apply to cooperatives which have been or are now being financed by any federal, state, or local programs for the purpose of assisting in the construction of affordable housing cooperatives or the conversion of rental units to affordable housing cooperatives. I urge my colleagues' consideration and support for this measure.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing flights from the air transportation excise tax. A clarifying amendment to the Tax Code is needed due to a problem that exists in the application of the excise tax.

In 1986, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), issued a Private Letter Ruling in which it exempted one Hawaii-based air tour operator from paying the air passenger transportation excise tax, but has not applied equal treatment to other similarly situated aerial sightseeing tour operators. It is my belief that the IRS should be consistent in its application of this excise tax.

Under current law, a variety of excise taxes on air transportation are imposed to finance the Airport and Airway Trust funds program that is administered by the Federal Aviation Administration. For example, an air passenger transportation excise tax is imposed on users of our nation's airports and airways. The Congress intended that the tax be levied on passengers traveling on scheduled commercial airlines. In addition, for the most part, the tax is imposed on each flight segment.

The Congress did not intend to have the tax applied to air tour operators, who utilize our system of airways differently. Our national transportation system receives little or no benefit from aerial sightseeing operations. Air tour operations are not scheduled commercial airlines. They are for entertainment purposes and are circular, in that they begin and end at the same destination point.

Hawaii is among a small handful of states where our citizens can enjoy aerial tours of sights that are remote or difficult to reach by land. Aerial sightseeing tours are also enjoyed in Alaska, California, Washington, Arizona, and even New York City. The imposition of the air transportation excise tax on aerial sightseeing flights will significantly raise the consumer price on air tours. Doing so will cause many small aerial sightseeing tour operators, especially in my home state, to lose customers. Many of these small companies have struggled to stay in business after incurring significant losses in the months following September 11, 2001, when our government imposed flight restrictions across the nation. Those flight restrictions prevented many flight operations in all segments of the general aviation industry for many months into early 2002.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support my bill, which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing trips from the air transportation excise tax. Under my bill, air tour operations would still be subject to the aviation fuel excise tax.

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

Mr. President today I am introducing legislation that would provide a federal charter for the National Academies of Practice. This organization represents outstanding health care professionals who have made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology, medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, podiatry, social work, and veterinary medicine. When fully established, each of the ten academies will possess 150 distinguished practitioners selected by their peers. This umbrella organization will be able to provide the Congress of the United States and the executive branch with considerable health policy expertise, especially from the perspective of those individuals who are in the forefront of actually providing health care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research. Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect. The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information about basic and clinical social work research, and training, with emphasis on service to underserved and rural populations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a psychology post-doctoral program. Psychologists have made a unique contribution in reaching out to the nation's medically underserved populations. Expertise in behavioral science is useful in addressing grave concerns such as violence, addiction, mental illness, adolescent and child behavioral disorders, and family disruption. Establishment of a psychology post-doctoral program could be an effective way to find solutions to these issues.

Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in traditionally underserved settings have been successful in retaining participants to serve the same populations. For example, mental health professionals who have participated in these specialized federally funded programs have tended not only to meet their repayment obligations, but have continued to work in the public sector or with the underserved.

While a doctorate in psychology provides broad-based knowledge and mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, specialized post-doctoral fellowship programs help to develop particular diagnostic and treatment skills required to respond effectively to underserved populations. For example, what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child recently relocated from Southeast Asia might actually reflect a cultural value of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic learning. Specialized assessment skills enable the clinician to initiate effective treatment.

Domestic violence poses a significant public health problem and is not just a problem for the criminal justice system. Violence against women results in thousands of hospitalizations a year. Rates of child and spouse abuse in rural areas are particularly high, as are the rates of alcohol abuse and depression in adolescents. A post-doctoral fellowship program in the psychology of the rural populations could be of special benefit in addressing these problems.

Given the demonstrated success and effectiveness of specialized training programs, it is incumbent upon us to encourage participation in post-doctoral fellowships that respond to the needs of the nation's underserved.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, it's an honor to join our Democratic Leader and so many of our colleagues in introducing the Affordable Health Care Act.

This legislation states our strong commitment as Democrats to end the crisis in health care that affects every family. It's a down payment on our commitment to quality, affordable health care for every American, and we

will not rest until that goal is achieved.

The worsening crisis in health care is caused by skyrocketing costs, declining insurance coverage, and less security for every family. Businesses--especially small businesses--find it increasingly difficult to provide decent coverage for their employees. Companies struggling with foreign competition are at an every-larger competitive disadvantage because of their constantly rising costs.

Last year, the percentage of the Nation's gross domestic product devoted to health was 15.5%, the highest in our history. Since 2000, annual spending on health care has risen from $1.3 trillion to $1.7 trillion, an increase of almost half a trillion dollars in just four years.

Even worse, insurance premiums have soared by 59 percent during those four years. The cost of insurance for a family has risen by almost $3,000. Last year, the cost of the premiums for family coverage averaged $10,000, and was much higher for many families.

Drug costs are also out of control. According to current data, they rose 47 percent in the first three years of the Bush Administration. Too many patients are cutting the pills their doctors prescribe in half or going without them altogether, because they can't afford the drugs they need to treat or prevent disease.

Even Medicare premiums are out of control. The largest premium increase in Medicare's history went into effect just three weeks ago. Since President Bush took office, Medicare premiums have climbed by 72 percent. Senior citizens, with an average income of $15,000, now have to pay almost $1,000 a year for their Part B premiums under Medicare. The recent report of the Medicare trustees included the stunning revelation that Medicare cost sharing and premiums will soon eat up more than 40 percent of the total Social Security benefit of the typical 85 year old.

As a proportion of Gross Domestic Product spent on health care, America is first in the world by a large margin. We spend 30 percent more than the Swiss who are number two, a third more than the Germans, fifty percent more than the French and the Canadians, and seventy-eight percent more than the Japanese.

These extraordinarily high levels of health spending might be justified if they produced dramatically better health care for the American people. But they don't. Among the world's leading industrialized countries, the United States ranks 22nd in average life expectancy and 25th in infant mortality.

We also face a worsening crisis of the uninsured. Since President Bush took office, the number of uninsured Americans has increased by a shameful million a year. Today, 45 million Americans have no coverage. Between 2001 and 2004, five million jobs offering health insurance were lost.

Even these figures understate the problem. Over a two-year period, 82 million Americans--one out of every three non-elderly Americans--will be uninsured for a significant period of time.

Tragically, eight and a half million children are uninsured and may well be denied the opportunity for a healthy start in life that should be the birthright of every child. Even people who have health insurance today cannot count on it being there for them tomorrow. No American family is more than one pink slip or one employer decision away from being uninsured.

The uninsured are vulnerable not only to unaffordable costs, but to substandard or health care or no care at all. In any given year, one- third of the uninsured go without needed medical care. Two hundred seventy thousand children suffering from asthma never see a doctor. Three hundred fifty thousand children with recurrent earaches never see a doctor. Three hundred fifty thousand children with severe sore throats never see a doctor.

Twenty-seven thousand uninsured women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. They are twice as likely as insured women not to receive medical treatment until their cancer has spread too far, and they are 50 percent more likely to die of the disease.

Thirty-two thousand Americans with heart disease go without life- saving and life-enhancing bypass surgery or angioplasty--because they are uninsured.

The bottom line is that whether the disease is AIDS or mental illness or cancer or heart disease or diabetes, the uninsured are left out and left behind. In hospital and out, young or old, black or brown or white, they receive less care, suffer more, and are 25 percent more likely to die prematurely than those who have insurance.

Even for those with insurance, the quality of health care is often needlessly compromised. Recent events cast serious doubt on the FDA's ability to respond promptly when drugs it has approved turn out to have dangerous side effects. By some estimates, tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths have resulted.

The lack of coordination in our system results in duplicative, costly, and often counterproductive tests and procedures. The Midwest Business Group on Health estimates that the cost of poor quality care to employers providing health insurance coverage is $2,000 per worker, and it's paid in the form of higher insurance premiums. A recent study found that for many serious illnesses, patients are as likely to receive substandard care as they are to receive care meeting accepted professional standards.

In the face of this massive crisis in health care, the Administration and Congress have been missing in action for too long. The Bush Administration and the Republican leadership in Congress defend the special interests that profit from the status quo and ignore the suffering of the millions of families victimized by their neglect.

Reports suggest in fact that the Administration's new budget will propose to cut Medicaid, which provides health care for more than 50 million of the poorest of the poor. The deficit must be addressed--but it was created by the Administration's tax breaks for the wealthy, and the poor and the sick should not have to bear the burden of reducing it. That's the wrong priority and the wrong values.

The legislation we are offering today will not solve all these problems, but it is a good start, and we are committed to finishing the job.

The Affordable Health Care Act guarantees that every child in America will have quality health care coverage.

It reduces health costs substantially, by making FDA-approved drugs available at the same fair prices available to Canadians and Europeans, rather than the inflated prices charged to U.S. patients.

It takes a giant step toward adoption of modern information technology in health care, which has the potential to dramatically improve the quality of care and dramatically reduce its cost--by as much as $140 billion a year. It also improves quality by giving the FDA additional authority to monitor the safety of approved drugs.

It addresses the special burden faced by small businesses by offering tax credits to reduce the premiums they pay to cover their employees. It also establishes a demonstration program in 25 cities to see if a successful program in Michigan to expand insurance coverage for small businesses can be replicated elsewhere. Finally, our bill includes a sense of the Senate resolution to put Congress firmly on record against destructive cuts in Medicaid.

Affordable health care is a high priority for every family, and it should be an equally high priority for this Congress. We face a crisis, and it is time to act. Senate Democrats are committed to guaranteeing the basic right to health care for all Americans, and when we say ``all'', we mean ``all''.

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

Mr. President, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress are no friend of America's seniors. In 2003, they enacted legislation to dismantle Medicare, even though Medicare has helped a generation of seniors live their golden years with health and dignity.

Now their target is Social Security. They want to privatize this trusted program for the benefit of Wall Street bankers. They even want to cut benefits for women because--in the Republican view--they live too long. It's time to end these shameful attacks on our senior citizens, restore Medicare and protect Social Security.

I commend the leadership of my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton, and our Democratic Leader, Senator Reid, in introducing this urgently needed legislation today to enable Medicare to keep its promise to the elderly.

Forty years ago, Congress enacted the landmark legislation that established Medicare. We would do well today to remember President Lyndon Johnson's words on signing that historic bill in 1965: ``No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years.''

The ruinous Medicare legislation that the Republican Congress enacted in 2003 breaks that solemn promise.

Before Medicare was created, millions of seniors could obtain health care coverage only at the whim of the insurance industry. If they were too sick or too poor to be profitable to an insurance company, they would be denied health care coverage. Their savings--and their children's savings--were in jeopardy when illness struck. Before Medicare, senior citizens were among the poorest Americans, with almost three in ten living in poverty. Bankruptcies from overwhelming medical bills were common.

Medicare changed all that, and 40 years later, President Bush and the Republican Congress are wrong to try to turn back the clock.

Some of my colleagues attempt to portray Medicare as a failure. But the facts show that it is one of the most successful endeavors the Nation has ever undertaken. In 1963, before Medicare was enacted, almost half of America's seniors were uninsured. Today that number is one in a hundred.

Before Medicare was enacted, Americans turning 65 could expect to live another 14 years. Today, they can expect almost 18 more years.

Seniors understand that Medicare works. They don't want to return to the days when they had to gamble their health, their savings and their lives on risky private insurance.

The 2003 Republican bill was sold to the American people as a way to help seniors with the high cost of prescription drugs, so you might think it does something about the high cost of drugs. But it doesn't.

It not only fails to help Medicare lower the cost of drugs--it actually makes it illegal for Medicare to try. Republicans were so worried about protecting drug company profits that they made it illegal for Medicare to do what

the Veterans Administration does for veterans--negotiate discounts on drug prices. The Bush Administration and the GOP Congress wouldn't dare to prohibit the VA from doing that for the veterans, and they shouldn't do it for senior citizens either.

The discounts on drug prices for veterans are substantial. On average, the price paid by the VA is 45 percent of the retail price, but often, the savings are even more dramatic. The retail price for Mevacor is $4 a pill, but the VA pays only 23 cents. The undiscounted price of Zantac is $1.83, but the VA pays two cents.

Senator Dayton's legislation abolishes the unconscionable provision that bars Medicare from negotiating discounts on drug prices for America's seniors. That's not price control--it's common sense.

Republicans also claim that their new drug benefit is ``voluntary.'' Not exactly. If seniors don't sign up the first year, they have to pay more and more to join in subsequent years. When they need the coverage, they may not be able to afford it.

Senator Dayton's legislation reverses this flagrant system of fines and makes the Medicare drug program truly voluntary. When Congress enacts it, seniors will be able to sign up for the drug program without facing ruinous fines.

Good prescription drug coverage for senior citizens is a priority for Democrats. For the Administration and the Republicans in Congress, however, tax cuts for billionaires are more important than health care for senior citizens.

In addition, the 2003 Medicare law leaves too many elderly citizens with unaffordable costs. Seniors with moderate incomes and high drug expenses still face high drug costs. The benefits under the GOP law-- with its $250 deductible, 25 percent cost-sharing, an out-of-pocket limit of $3,600 on costs, but continued co-payment obligations even after the limit is reached--are far less generous than those enjoyed by most younger Americans, even though the elderly's need for prescription drugs is much greater.

Senior citizens with an income of $15,000 and drug expenses of $4,000 would have to pay more than $2,900, including premiums, out of their own pocket. That's too heavy a burden.

If they fall into the so-called doughnut hole, their situation is much worse. Under the 2003 law, the government makes no contribution to any drug costs between $2,250 in expenditures and $5,100 in expenditures. Patients who need $5,200 worth of prescriptions could be forced to pay $2,850 in drug expenses without any help at all from Medicare. That's too much for an elderly person to pay and still meet other essential medical needs, pay the rent or mortgage, and buy food and other necessities of life.

Senator Dayton's proposal begins to fill in that doughnut hole by not allowing the cap on total out of pocket expenditures to rise year after year, as it does under the GOP act. Under Senator Dayton's proposal, seniors will have the certainty of knowing where that limit is from one year to the next. As drug expenses rise, more seniors will gain the benefit of the assistance from Medicare at these high spending levels, and ultimately, the doughnut hole will close.

The Republican Medicare law is a raw deal for seniors, but it's a bonanza for the drug industry and the insurance industry.

It gives massive subsidies to HMOs. Most Americans probably think it's the job of insurance companies to guarantee the health of their beneficiaries, but according to the Republican view that's wrong. They make America's seniors guarantee the health and wealth of HMOs.

The government already pays private insurance plans 104 percent of what it costs Medicare to provide seniors with the same health care. Republicans claim to be in favor of competition, but the playing field is tilted toward HMOs, and their 2003 Act tilted it further. You might think HMOs need that overpayment because they serve sicker or needier beneficiaries. Not true. Enrollees in private plans are actually healthier than those in Medicare, resulting in a further bonus of 8.7 percent to the private plans.

Senator Dayton's legislation requires realistic risk adjustment for private plans that provide services to seniors under Medicare. It removes the artificial calculations that inflate payments to HMOs and other private insurance carriers.

Another problem with the 2003 Act is that if the subsidies don't provide enough profits, the Republican bill provides cash handouts for the insurance industry. If an HMO doesn't think it can make enough money in some area of the country, the Bush Administration can simply ladle out the cash--up to $12 billion a year--until the bribe is high enough to get the company to participate.

Senator Dayton's legislation reverses this outrageous giveaway and ensures that the dollars devoted to this slush fund are used instead to provide better health care for seniors.

The Republican law stacks the deck against seniors in other ways. It allows a region to be served by only one prescription drug plan, along with a PPO. That gives the drug plan a monopoly in that region for seniors who want to remain in Medicare. If the only available drug plan is tailored to the healthiest and youngest seniors, it might be acceptable for a senior whose prescription needs are limited. But it gives no help to seniors who take medications for multiple chronic conditions every day. Seniors have no real recourse if they can't afford the monopoly drug plan. The only way they can get prescription drug coverage is to enroll in the PPO.

Senator Dayton's legislation provides an effective guarantee that seniors who wish to remain in traditional Medicare will have a genuine choice of prescription-only plans. If a choice between at least two private drug-only plans is not available in any region, the Federal Government will provide a plan. This proposal ensures that any senior who wishes to remain in Medicare will have access to high-quality affordable prescription drug coverage.

The Republican Medicare law also dealt a harsh blow to the employer plans that millions of retirees depend on. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that almost three million retirees will lose their current drug coverage, because employers will drop the coverage when retirees become eligible for the new federal benefit, which is not as comprehensive.

Democrats fought to include provisions in that flawed legislation to help employers maintain the good coverage that so many Americans depend on to meet their needs in retirement. Sadly, some employers could abuse these subsidies by failing to use them to assist their employees--and the Bush Administration is letting them get away with it. Toothless enforcement and weak regulation allow some unscrupulous employers to pocket the subsidy and weaken the coverage.

Senator Dayton's legislation will put an end to this scandalous practice by requiring employers to account for the funds they receive in subsidies. No longer will employers be able to hide that they are accepting subsidies to maintain retiree health coverage and still cut back the coverage. The Dayton bill also requires new research on ways to help employers maintain retiree coverage.

One of the most troubling aspects of the 2003 Act is that it victimizes six million senior citizens and disabled people on Medicaid--the poorest of the poor. Their out-of-pocket payments for drugs will be raised, even though they do not even have coverage for the drugs they need the most.

Today, under Federal law, people with drug coverage under Medicaid may be charged only nominal amounts for the drugs they need. The vast majority of states charge nothing.

For every other Medicare benefit, Medicaid wraps around Medicare coverage and picks up the out-of-pocket costs that Medicare does not pay. Not under this legislation. States are prohibited from wrapping around the Medicare benefits with their Medicaid program. Instead, a uniform Federal co-payment is imposed. It is indexed, so that it increases every year. If low income seniors need a drug that is not in the insurance company formulary, they have to go through a burdensome appeals process. Most will simply go without the drug they need.

The people we are talking about are truly the poorest of the poor. In most cases, their incomes are well below poverty. And the impact of even small

co-payments is devastating. Study after study finds that when the poor have to pay more for drugs, they end up hospitalized, in nursing homes, or dead.

Senator Dayton's legislation reverses this cruel provision and allows States to delay implementing the requirement that the new Medicare provisions must immediately supplant State Medicaid programs for the poorest of the poor.

Congress should be helping seniors with the burden of high drug costs, not allowing a right wing agenda to destroy the guarantee of affordable health care that America's seniors deserve and expect.

That's why Senator Dayton and Senator Reid have introduced this needed legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I'm honored to join my friend and colleague, Senator Kerry, in introducing this legislation to guarantee affordable health insurance for every child. We made a good start toward this goal in the 1990s, by enacting the Children's Health Insurance Program to cover more low-income children. Now it is time to finish the job.

Twelve million Americans who are twenty-one years old or younger have no health insurance today. Seven million are already eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, but five million are not eligible for these current programs.

Every uninsured child represents a national failure. Every uninsured child is at risk for losing the healthy start in life that should be birthright of every American. Every uninsured child is a potential source of heartbreak for parents and other loved ones. Every uninsured child is an American tragedy waiting to happen.

This year, three hundred eighty thousand children suffering from asthma will never see a doctor. Five hundred thousand children with recurrent earaches will never see a doctor. Five hundred thousand children with severe sore throats will never see a doctor.

Uninsured children pay for their lack of coverage in human suffering, unnecessary disability, and even death, and our society pays too. Sick children cannot learn. Every child whose education is limited or whose future potential is lost because of avoidable illness is a loss to America, because America's children are America's future.

The legislation we are introducing today will guarantee coverage for every child twenty-one years of age or younger. It makes health insurance affordable for every family, but it also asks families to share the responsibility of covering their children, when they are able to do so.

The bill expands Medicaid and CHIP up to 300 percent of poverty. Families of moderate means will be able to obtain subsidized coverage for their children. Families with incomes above 300 percent of poverty will be able to buy into Medicaid or CHIP for their children, and they will be guaranteed that the cost will not exceed 5 percent of their family income.

The bill also lifts the cap on CHIP funding that has caused some States to limit enrollment. It assists States financially by shifting current State spending for children under 100 percent of poverty to the Federal government. It requires all States to adopt the proven methods that encourage families to enroll and stay enrolled--methods such as presumptive eligibility, the ability to apply on-line or by telephone for the coverage, and coverage for at least twelve months without eligibility redeterminations.

This legislation is vitally important to all children. It is a pledge that they will have access to good health care without regard to their family's wealth. It is a commitment to a healthy start in life for every child.

As important as those objectives are, the significance of this legislation goes beyond coverage of all children. It is a major step toward the day when the basic right to health care will be a reality for every American, whatever their age or income. We will not rest until that goal is achieved, and I commend Senator Kerry for leading this essential effort.

Mr. President, today I am joining my good friend the Senator from Texas, (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator from Tennessee, the Majority Leader, Mr. Frist, in legislation to permanently extend the State sales tax deduction. This bill aims to make permanent legislation that the Congress passed and the President signed into law last year on October 22, 2004 as a provision of the JOBS Act. It is a change to the tax code that I have worked to see enacted since coming to the U.S. Senate, and one I want to maintain.

The JOBS Act reinstituted, for a period of 2 years, the ability of taxpayers to deduct State and local sales taxes just as they would State and local income taxes. Residents of States such as Washington that do not have income

taxes, but have State sales taxes, had not been able to do this since the 1986.

Make no mistake about it: permanently extending the sales tax deduction is a tax cut for Washington State taxpayers. Such a cut will strengthen our economy and fundamentally restore basic tax fairness.

When the Federal income tax was first imposed in 1913, Congress allowed taxpayers to deduct State and local sales so they would not be taxed on once at the State level and then, again, at the Federal level in the same calendar year.

In 1986, after 74 years of precedent, this tax equity abruptly ended. Taxpayers from States without income taxes were given a raw deal when Congress made a budgetary squeeze play and ended the tax deduction for State sales taxes.

For States like Washington, where sales tax revenues are nearly 60 percent of the State budget, the impact is immense. The loss to Washington State taxpayers in 2004 alone, is estimated to be $500 million.

Washington taxpayers waited 18 years to for the Federal government to correct the unique burden on them that amounts to requiring them to pay taxes twice on the same money. Now that the burden has been lifted for 2 years, with thanks to this body and the President, Washington taxpayers are now looking for--and must have--permanence in the tax code with regard to their ability to deduct State and local sales taxes from their Federal income tax.

As I mentioned, this issue has been a primary one for me on behalf of the people I serve. In fact, when I became a member of this body in the 107th Congress, one of my first legislative acts was to cosponsor sales tax deduction legislation that at the time was introduced by the former Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson. In the 108th Congress, Senator Hutchison and I carried the banner as the lead sponsors of similar legislation, the core of which we saw enacted into law for a 2-year period.

I am here once again in the 109th Congress with the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, on the heels of a victory for a two-year reprieve for our constituents, looking, now, for permanent equity in the tax code. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Hutchison, as well as Senator Frist and others, in moving this sales tax deduction legislation forward in the coming months.

Only by making the two-year law permanent will we be able to see to it that taxpayers from Washington State, or any other State, are not unfairly singled out to pay higher taxes.

I urge prompt action on this measure.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Electricity Needs Rules and Oversight Now, or ENRON, Act.

This legislation does two simple--yet critical--things. The ENRON Act would amend the Federal Power Act to put in place a broad prohibition on all manipulative practices in electricity markets--rather than just round-trip trading, as included in last year's comprehensive energy bill; and it would specify that electricity rates resulting from manipulative practices are not just and reasonable under the Federal Power Act.

Many of my colleagues are, by now, familiar with the provisions of this legislation, as I have often described the circumstances that led me to propose it. While the Senate has been considering comprehensive energy legislation over the past few years, various investigations have unearthed Enron's ``smoking gun'' memos--detailing the company's schemes to drive up electricity prices--and other evidence leading the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to conclude that market manipulation was ``epidemic'' in western markets during 2000-2001. Recently, even more information--including audio files detailing Enron traders' conversations--has come to light. Meanwhile, the energy crisis continues to take a serious toll on American consumers and businesses: it's been estimated that, as a result, the West has lost $35 billion in domestic economic product--in other words, a 1.5 percent decline in productivity and a total loss of 589,000 jobs. Adding insult to injury, Enron has now sued a number of utilities throughout the country--for almost a $1 billion--attempting to collect penalty charges on inflated contracts, cancelled when the company went bankrupt. In essence, Enron is asking the same consumers it gouged to pay yet again.

As I have discussed on the Senate floor many times, the Western market meltdown of 2000-2001 has had a profound impact on my state's economy, the pocketbooks and economic well-being of my constituents-- too many of whom have had to make the choice between keeping their heat and lights on and buying food, paying rent, and purchasing prescription drugs. In some parts of Washington state, utility disconnection rates have risen more than 40 percent. People just can't pay their utility bills.

As my colleagues can imagine, what we have seen and heard since the height of the crisis--as we have learned about the market manipulation and fraud that took place in the Western market, while Enron energy traders laughed about the plight of ``Grandma Millie''--has added tremendous insult to substantial economic injury. Moreover, the Western crisis has brought to the forefront a number of very important policy questions about the kind of behavior that will be tolerated in our Nation's electricity markets, as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has continued to pursue its ``restructuring'' agenda.

I believe we need strong leadership that will condemn the types of schemes

used by Enron traders--manipulation tactics with infamous nicknames like Get Shorty, Death Star and Ricochet. We need to send a strong and unanimous message that these practices will not be tolerated in our nation's electricity markets. Next, we need to agree--as a matter of policy--that the victims of these schemes should not have to pay the inflated power prices resulting from market manipulation. The ENRON Act will make these commonsense principles the law of the land.

I would like to thank the original cosponsors of this legislation, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, the senior Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, and the junior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, for joining me today. It is our hope that the Senate will move toward swift passage of the ENRON Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Animal Feed Protection Act of 2005. It is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 108th Congress.

Last week, during the Senate's consideration of the nomination of Governor Mike Johanns to be the Secretary of Agriculture, I spoke in favor of exercising caution with respect to re-opening the U.S.- Canadian border to imports of live animals and processed beef products until the Animal Protective Health Inspection Service fully investigates the most recent case of Mad Cow in that country. This legislation is important to our ongoing efforts to eradicate the possibility that Mad Cow disease will infect U.S. cattle herds.

My legislation provides necessary enhancements to current Federal feed regulations. It reduces the chance that the riskiest materials, those most likely to transmit Mad Cow disease, cross-contaminate cattle feed or are accidentally fed to cattle.

Specifically, my legislation would ban the inclusion of specified risk materials, or SRM, in all animal feed. Currently these materials are only banned from ruminant feed.

As we continue to negotiate the reopening of export markets to U.S. beef, a comprehensive SRM ban is a prudent step. It is necessary to assure our trading partners that we have secured our domestic feed, and eliminated the risk of spreading Mad Cow disease through feed.

As our domestic beef producers continue to suffer from the closure of our largest export markets, I encourage my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this legislation--a measure that will strengthen our Mad Cow firewalls and our assurances to foreign beef consumers. I also hope that as the Senate Agriculture Committee conducts hearings next month into the appropriate Federal response to the most recent Canadian Mad Cow case, the committee will consider examining this legislation as well. The Senate should move toward its swift passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the White Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. I am pleased to be joined by the Senior Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), who has been a strong supporter of this legislation.

This bill would designate some 20 miles of the main stem of the upper White Salmon River Salmon and one of its tributaries, Cascade Creek, all within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. By designating this upper third of the White Salmon, we can permanently protect this special river as a premiere recreational destination, a Southwest Washington economic resource, and an important wildlife habitat.

I am happy to note that my delegation colleague, Congressman Baird, recently offered identical legislation in the House.

The White Salmon River's remarkable beauty and pristine condition are not in question. In fact, the lower eight miles of the river received protection when Congress granted that stretch of the river Wild and Scenic status in 1986. As we saw then, its protected status hasn't prevented residents and visitors from taking advantage of the unique recreational opportunities the White Salmon River offers. Extending Wild and Scenic protection to the river's upper reaches today is an important step forward in protecting even more of its wild character for fishing, boating, and other recreational activities.

As one of the best whitewater rivers in the Pacific Northwest, the White Salmon already supports a number of whitewater rafting companies. About 12,000 whitewater boaters visit the river each year. So I see this designation as not just protecting a pristine river, but also its beneficial impact on the local economy downstream.

Protecting the White Salmon River will help increase opportunities for other outdoor sports, as well. This is an important sector of our state's economy. According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, fish and wildlife related recreation pumps nearly $2.2 billion per year into our economy. And we rank first in the Northwest and eighth in the nation in spending by sport fishers.

Safeguarding the White Salmon through this designation will also be an important step toward restoring wildlife habitat. Once the Condit Dam is removed from the lower reach of the river, the White Salmon will again become valuable spawning habitat for salmon and steelhead.

I am proud that identical legislation to the measure I introduce today passed the Senate unanimously on October 10, 2004. While the bill narrowly missed clearing the House of Representatives, I am confident that because this bill has a broad range of support, and is a true win- win proposal for local interests, that it will become law during the 109th Congress.

Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, as well as other members of the Washington state congressional delegation, to ensure swift passage of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, today I am introducing two pieces of legislation to help families save for their children's education.

In today's global marketplace, ensuring access to high-quality education--starting in early childhood and grade school, moving on to college and beyond--is central in maintaining America's competitive edge. To make paying for school easier, I am introducing two pieces of legislation that would expand Coverdell Education Savings Accounts or ESAs: The Education Savings for Students Act and College Savings Act.

Coverdell ESAs are trusts created solely for the educational benefit of any child under the age of 18. Contributions to a Coverdell Education Savings account can be used toward a child's education from kindergarten through 12th grade, college, and even graduate school. All earnings in the account grow tax-free and can be withdrawn on a tax- deferred basis, if used for educational expenses. Currently, annual contributions to each Coverdell ESA cannot exceed $2,000. But this particular provision will sunset on 12/31/2010 unless Congress takes action to extend it, otherwise the maximum contribution will drop back to a previously set stipulation of $500.

My bill, the Education for Students Act would expand the existing Coverdell ESA by permanently increasing the maximum annual contribution from $2,000 to $5,000. This bill keeps the current Coverdell ESA provision that investment earnings accumulate tax-free and withdrawals from the account are tax-exempt when the child uses the funds for school.

My other bill, the College Savings Act would also permanently increase the maximum annual contribution to a Coverdell ESA to $5,000. Instead of anticipating future earnings, families would be able to deduct the amount they contribute to their education savings account from income.

Rather than putting away money ad-hoc, both bills provide a financial incentive to save for college or other educational expenses. And since there is no limit on the number of Coverdell ESAs that may be opened for a child under age 18, parents have the flexibility to set aside money now through deductible contributions or bank on projected savings through tax-deferred earnings and withdrawals, or even take on both options. The College Savings and Education Savings for Students Acts will help families plan for future educational expenses, paving a path to financial self-sufficiency.

I understand that all families are different. Saving for college may be the last thing on a parent's mind, especially when their child is young and their family has significant financial needs. But just as fast as our children

grow, so does the cost of tuition. Mounting prices for books and materials, plus room and board have made colleges and universities less affordable for most families.

College is expensive. There are many parents whose children aim to go to college, but soon discover they can't afford it because the price of pursuing a higher education costs too much. If the College Savings and Education for Students Acts became law, families would have another powerful tool to help their children realize their educational dreams.

By saving money early and often, families won't feel as hard hit by skyrocketing college prices because you'll know what's coming in and what's going out of these accounts.

In 2002, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education reported on the national trends of rising college prices. The Center determined that if educational costs are unaddressed there will be adverse consequences for expanding students' opportunities to pursue a higher education and future career.

This report found that over the last two decades, the cost of attending two- and four-year public and private colleges have not only grown more rapidly than inflation, but faster than family incomes, increasing the share of family income that is needed to pay for tuition and other college expenses. From 1991 through 2001, tuition at four- year public colleges and universities rose faster than family income in 41 states, including my home state of Washington.

The Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board reports that, over the last ten years, tuition and fees have far outpaced family income, increasing 89 percent compared to 51 percent in per capita personal income in my state. In comparison, the cost of most consumer goods increased an average of 20 percent during the same time. Per capita personal income in Washington increased 51 percent during this same period.

As a result, more students and families at all income levels are borrowing more money than ever before to pay for college. According to a recent study by the College Board, nonfederal borrowing reached $11.3 billion in 2003-04, up 39 percent over the previous year, and jumping nearly 150 percent in three years. Over $10 billion of these loans are private. Over the past five years, borrowing through banks and other private lenders has increased from 7 percent to 16 percent of education loan volume.

Although borrowing is an acceptable way to pay for college, the financial consequences of high debt can still ensue, and students spend years paying back loans, undermining their ability to purchase a home or save for retirement. Additionally, college students on average graduate with about $3,300 in credit card debit alone. Concern about the increase in educational loan debt may cause students to spend more time working than attending class or to opt out of enrolling in college altogether.

Moreover, the steepest increases in college and university tuition have been imposed during times of greatest economic hardship. Just in the past three years, our economy has experienced a loss of 1.8 million private sector jobs and 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. Preparing America's workforce and keeping up with the demand for skilled workers across all sectors of the 21st century economy is my priority. If we want to maintain our economic competitiveness, it is imperative that there are opportunities for individuals to fully take advantage of educational opportunities.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that six of the ten fastest- growing occupations in the U.S. economy require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree, and that all ten of these careers will require some type of skills training. By 2010, 40 percent of all job growth will require some form of post-secondary education.

On average, a college graduate earns nearly 73 percent more than a typical high school graduate. In 2003, the average worker in the U.S. with a four-year college degree earned just under $50,000, over 60 percent more than the $30,800 earned by the average worker with a high school diploma, reports the College Board. Those with advanced degrees earn two to three times as much as high school graduates. In addition, society reaps the benefits of an educated workforce by improving quality of life and overall, the well-being of our communities.

Affordability is key to expanding opportunities to go to college. Saving for college early and often will help lift the pressures off of parents who are feeling the financial squeeze of increased tuition and fees.

Because my family qualified for financial aid, I was able to work my way through college using Pell grant funding. But there are many families who do not qualify for Pell or other sources of financial aid.

For these families, Coverdell Education Savings plans provide necessary relief for the middle class. The purpose of education savings plans are to increase saving by increasing net returns. Today, parents can put up to $2,000 a year into a Coverdell Education Savings account. The actual contribution is not tax deductible, but all earnings in this account are free from taxes when they are withdrawn to pay for school.

However, the current $2,000 annual limit on Coverdell contributions will be repealed in 2010 unless Congress acts to extend it. If we don't extend the contribution level, the maximum contribution will drop to $500.

While the current tax benefit makes it easier to save for college, the Education Savings for Students Act would increase the annual contributions from $2,000 to $5,000; making this change permanent ensures greater savings for families. By increasing the amount parents can put aside for their children's college savings, middle-income parents will be able to save more easily for their child's college education.

Say, for example, parents start saving when their child turns eight years old. If they put away just $100.00 a month--at an interest rate of savings of four percent--by the time their kid turns 18, their account would have earned more than $12,400 in interest. Parents will save over $3,100 in taxes when that child is old enough to go to school.

In addition to projected savings, parents also have the option to save now. The College Savings Act would allow families to deduct Coverdell ESA contributions from their taxes each year.

Mr. President, both of these bills, the College Savings Act and the Education Savings for Students Act are financial incentives for people to save by allowing families to deduct the amount they contribute and take tax-free earnings when their child is ready to go to school. These bills would further lessen the financial burden that parents bear by saving money early and often.

Permanently expanding the Coverdell maximum contribution from its current threshold of $2,000 to $5,000 a year and allowing this contribution to be tax deductible is a common-sense savings vehicle that keeps future college costs from spinning out of control. Increasing contribution caps will make school more affordable at a time when a college education and advanced job training is becoming more and more important for economic success.

I urge my colleagues to support these measures and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am honored to introduce the Standing with Our Troops Act of 2005. This bill addresses the needs of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who have responded so bravely to the call of our Nation. We owe it to them and their families to ensure that they are properly trained and equipped for the hazardous duties they are performing, that they are fairly compensated for their service, and that they receive their pay in the correct amount, on time.

We start with the recognition that we have cut our troop strength too far to sustain current military operations. This bill would authorize increases of up to 40,000 additional active duty Soldiers and Marines over the next two years. The bill authorizes an increase in the active duty Army end strength by up to 20,000 Soldiers in 2006 and an additional 10,000 in 2007, and it authorizes an increase in the Marine Corps' active duty end strength by up to 5,000 Marines in 2006 and an additional 5,000 Marines in 2007.

The Department of Defense currently reports numbers of service members killed or seriously wounded in action in our ongoing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This bill would require a formal monthly report that includes the numbers of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who are killed in action; killed as a result of non-combat injuries incurred during combat operations; killed as a result of self- inflicted wounds or suicide; wounded in action, when the injuries prevent the service member from returning to duty within 72 hours; wounded in action when the service member returns to duty within 72 hours, insofar as this data is currently maintained; and the total number of service personnel evacuated from theater for medical reasons.

To ensure that awards and decorations are expeditiously and fairly awarded to deserving military personnel, this bill would establish an Advisory Panel on Military Awards and Decorations to review the policies and practices of each of the Services for awarding medals and decorations and to report to Congress. This Panel would compare the different Service policies and practices for decorating its military personnel, and make a recommendation as to whether individual service practices should be continued or a single standard adopted that applies to all Services; recommend measures that can be taken to ensure that service members serving in combat are at least as likely to receive medals as those not exposed to combat, and enlisted personnel are just as likely as officers to be decorated for their service.

This bill would create an Office of Mobilization Planning and Preparedness within the National Security Council to ensure that all of our national resources are assembled and organized to respond to a national security emergency. National resources include our military, labor, transportation, industry and financial resources.

We know that current military operations are wearing out military equipment faster than we are replacing it. To address this, this bill would require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the needs of our military forces for reconstituting stocks of equipment and material damaged, destroyed, and worn out in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The report will include the needs of each military service, including the reserve components, for repair and replacement of equipment; and authorize appropriation of $8.5 billion for the Army and $2.1 billion for the Marine Corps for repair, refurbishment, and replacement of equipment used in OIF and OEF.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found, and I agree, that the Department of Defense's mobilization and deployment policies were implemented in a piecemeal fashion not linked to a strategic framework. We owe it to our service men and women to have clear policies regarding lengths of deployments. The Department of Defense must clearly communicate these policies and other deployment related information to service members and their families. This bill would require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on DoD policies on lengths of mobilization and deployment periods and on the use of stop-loss to keep military personnel in the service beyond their service commitments.

In two separate reports, the GAO has found that more than 90 percent mobilized reserve component personnel experienced pay problems. The GAO found that ``These pay problems often had a profound adverse impact on individual soldiers and their families.'' This bill would require the designation of a senior official to ensure implementation of GAO recommendations to correct these pay problems.

Representation of our reserve component personnel at the highest levels in the Department of Defense has not kept pace with the increased role of our Guard and Reserve personnel. Accordingly, this bill creates a new position, a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, to speak for the Reserve Components.

This bill would give tax relief to mobilized service members and employers who make up for pay lost to service members who are ordered to active duty. It would amend the Internal Revenue Code to authorize activated National Guard and Reserve personnel to make penalty free withdrawals from qualified retirement plans; allow employers a tax deduction for making up the difference between military pay and civilian income of mobilized reservists; and authorize a tax credit to small business employers who continue to compensate members of the Ready Reserve ordered to active duty and for costs of hiring a replacement employee.

We know that the military pay of about a third of our mobilized National Guard and Reserve personnel is less than the pay they received from their civilian jobs. Many private employers already pay a wage differential to those who lose money, and we will encourage more to do so with the tax incentives I have just described. The biggest employer of our Guard and Reserve personnel is the Federal Government, and the Federal Government should do as much as the private employers do for those who lose money while serving our Nation. This bill would require Federal Agencies to make up the pay differences for Federal employees who are ordered to active duty.

Studies have shown that 40 percent of our junior enlisted members in the reserve components have no health insurance except when they are on active duty. This bill would provide access to the military's TRICARE health care program for all members of the Selected Reserve and their families. They would pay a subsidized premium similar to the premium charged Federal Employees for health care. This will help to ensure that members of the National Guard and Reserves are medically ready when called to serve in the military.

When a Soldier, Sailor, Airmen or Marine dies on active duty, his survivors currently receive a death gratuity of just over $12,000. This is simply not enough. This bill would raise the death gratuity to $100,000, and would allow survivors to receive Dependency and Indemnity Compensation from the VA as well as a Survivor Benefit Plan annuity from the Department of Defense.

United States taxpayers have borne a disproportionate share of the cost for the reconstruction of Iraq. The support of the international community for this reconstruction is critical. This bill would require the President to report to Congress on U.S., Iraqi, and foreign contributions to Iraq's reconstruction before any new U.S. reconstruction funds are appropriated. The bill would also require any U.S. funds for reconstruction in Iraq be in the form of a collateralized loan which the U.S. would guarantee unless the President reports to Congress that it is in the U.S. national security interest to provide the funds other than in the form of a loan.

I again want to compliment the service of the young men and women serving in our military forces for their magnificent and unselfish service to our Nation. I trust that the measures included in this bill will serve as a token of the Nation's sincere appreciation for their great sacrifices and service.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today along with my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Biden, addresses an unintended effect of a provision in the original Drug Abuse and Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA) that hinders access to a revolutionary new treatment for thousands of individuals who seek it.

When Congress passed DATA as Title XXXV of the Children's Health Act of 2000, it allowed for the dispensing and prescribing of Schedule III drugs, like buprenorphine/naloxone, in an office-based setting, for the treatment of heroin addiction. As a result of DATA, access to treatment is significantly expanded; patients no longer are restricted to receiving treatment in a large public clinic, usually at a great distance, but now may receive such care in the private, nearby office of qualified physicians.

DATA limits individual physicians to treating no more than 30- patients at a time. Unfortunately, the law results in the same 30- patient limit on physician group practices. The difficulties that have arisen, including the dashed hopes for treatment of many, have resulted in the underutilization of this proven therapy all across this country, including my home state of Michigan.

One of the authors of DATA, I can tell you that it clearly was not our intention that individuals seeking this new treatment have less access simply because they receive care from a physician practicing in a group, or from a group-based or mixed-model health plan. Nevertheless, this is the effect and it is having a severe effect.

The problem is addressed by removing the 30-patient aggregate limit on medical groups. This is achieved in the bill we are introducing today. Our bill simply removes the statutory limit on physician group practices, while maintaining the 30-patient limit on each physician. I am pleased that the Senate has already gone on record in support of this modification to DATA. On October 11, 2004, the Senate Passed S. 2976, to remove the 30-patient limit on the group practices. However, the House adjourned before acting on the legislation. It is our hope that the bill we are introducing today will receive speedy action in both the Senate and House in the very near future.

Mr. President, I would like to share some of the sentiments that have been expressed in support of the group practice modification, as well as some first hand accounts of individuals who are being successfully treated with buprenorphine/naloxone. Dr. Charles Schuster, a former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse who currently heads the Addiction Research Institute at Wayne State University, writes:

We have three physicians in a group, all of whom have been

trained and granted waivers by the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services to prescribe Suboxone and Subutex for the

treatment of opiate addiction. All are specialists in the

treatment of addictive disorders. Rather than being able to

bring this potentially life saving therapy to 90 members of

our community, they are restricted to a total of thirty.

This situation is particularly heart breaking in places

where there are a few or only one provider. This situation

will only get worse as physicians and practice plans reach

their 30-patient limitation.

I have been involved in the development of Suboxone and

Subutex for the treatment of opiate addiction for many years.

It is a safer medication with less abuse potential than

methadone. It allows people who fear public knowledge of

their addictive disease to more discreetly seek help from a

private physician. It is a medication that can be used for a

short period with adolescents who have become addicted to

opiates because it is easier to taper them off of this drug

than methadone. In short, office-based practice with Suboxone

and Subutex is a major addition to our country's treatment

system for opiate addiction. It is essential that we remove

the impediment of limiting Physician Practice Plans to 30

patients so that each of the physicians in such Practice

Plans who are trained to use this medication can bring their

services to those in need.

Peter DeMarco, in an article in the May 30, 2004 Boston Globe, writes:

When buprenorphine became available as a treatment for

OxyContin and heroin addiction 18 months ago, many medical

professionals and addicts hailed it as a miracle drug,

bringing addicts back from the brink and helping them lead

normal lives when all else had failed. But for many addicts,

buprenorphine remains one of the hardest drugs to obtain. . .

. (B)prenorphine doesn't cloud the minds of patients,

allowing them to work or study as if they're not on any drug

at all. Nearly all who take buprenorphine, meanwhile, say

they lose all physical cravings for street drugs.

But a combination of federal limits on the distribution of

buprenorphine . . . has kept thousands of opiate addicts from

receiving the drug in Massachusetts and across the country.

At the heart of the issue is federal legislation passed in

2000--two years before the drug was approved by the FDA--that

restricts individual clinical practices from treating more

than 30 patients with buprenorphine at a time.

While many substance-abuse experts say the 30-patient

figure is too low for some practices, their main quarrel with

the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 is its failure to

differentiate single-physician practices, hospitals, and

health care organizations. For example, all the doctors who

work for Tufts Health Plan can treat a combined 30 patients--

the same total as can be seen by a physician practicing

alone.

Boston health officials, along with their counterparts in

the State and Federal governments, say the Federal

legislation erred on the side of caution, and needs to be

changed to allow wider access to buprenorphine.

``Boston Medical Center's main practice has 200 or more

general internal-medicine doctors, and within that practice,

we can only treat 30 people. It's the craziest loophole,''

said Colleen Labelle, nurse-manager of the hospital's Office-

Based Opioid Treatment Program. ``We get 20 calls a day from

across the state. People are begging, desperate to get

treated, who we can't treat.''

The Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration has begun an internal process to increase the

30-patient cap. But because any proposed change would be

subject to the public-review process, approval could take as

long as two years, said Nick Reuter, a senior public health

analyst with the agency.

Timothy Tigges says his addiction began after he wrenched

his back and bummed a few Percocet pills, a prescription

analgesic, from a friend to dull the pain. Before he knew it,

he was hooked on opiates, alternating between OxyContin and

shooting up heroin as his life went to pieces.

In October, Tigges, a 27-year-old East Boston carpet

installer, began taking buprenorphine, placing an orange pill

the size of a dime under his tongue until it dissolves, four

times daily. He hasn't touched an illegal drug since the day

he started the program, has put on 80 pounds from lifting

weights at the gym, and has yet to miss a day of work. For

the first time in three years, Tigges hopes to see his 5-

year-old daughter, whose mother has refused to let him visit.

``I've had clean urines, 100 percent, for nine months now.

There's nothing I'm prouder of than that,'' he said, choking

back emotion. ``What I read on the front page of the paper

every day is 18- and 20-year-old kids dying of garbage drugs.

There's just no need for it. I would take every ounce of

heroin off the street and give them this stuff. You watch the

crime rate go down.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be included at the end of my remarks.

Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague, Senator Lugar, a bill to grant normal trade treatment to the products of Ukraine. My brother, Congressman Sander Levin and other members are introducing a similar bill in the House. It is our hope that enactment of this legislation will help to build stronger economic ties between the United States and Ukraine.

The Cold War era Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions that deny most favored nation trade status to imports from former Soviet-Bloc countries are outdated and, when applied to Ukraine, inappropriate. Those restrictions were established as a tool to pressure Communist nations to allow their people to freely emigrate in exchange for favorable trade treatment by the United States.

Ukraine does allow its citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate. It has met the Jackson-Vanik test. In fact, Ukraine has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements under the Jackson-Vanik law. Ukraine has been certified as meeting the Jackson-Vanik requirements on an annual basis since 1992 when a bilateral trade agreement went into effect.

It is time the United States recognizes this reality by eliminating the Jackson-Vanik restrictions and granting Ukraine normal trading status on a permanent basis. Our bill does this as well as addressing traditional Jackson-Vanik issues such as emigration, religious freedom, restoration of property, and human rights. It also deals with the important trade issues that must be considered when granting a country permanent normal trade relations (PNTR), such as making progress toward World Trade Organization (WTO), accession and tariff and excise tax reductions.

Since reestablishing independence in 1991, Ukraine has taken important steps toward the creation of democratic institutions and a free-market economy. As a member state of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Ukraine is committed to developing a system of governance in accordance with the principles regarding human rights that are set forth in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Final Act.

On December 26, 2004, Ukraine took another historic step in its pursuit of democracy with the legitimate election of its new President Viktor Yuschenko. This election showed the world that Ukraine has joined the family of democracies. The United States can help advance this young democracy by repealing our Cold War-era laws that should no longer apply to them and welcoming them to the international economic community as a full partner. This bill will accomplish these goals.

In addition to welcoming the Ukrainian government to the family of democracies, we must also take a moment to honor the Ukranian people for their commitment to democratic institutions in civil society through peaceful demonstrations. Free and fair elections were conducted only because of the courage and hard work of the Ukranian people. Without their persistence Ukraine was in danger of moving forward with an illegitimately elected president.

By drawing Ukraine into normal trade relations, the international community will be helping Ukraine to achieve greater market reform and continue its commitment to safeguarding religious liberty and enforcing laws to combat discrimination. PNTR status will hopefully do more than increase bilateral trade between the United States and Ukraine and encourage increased international investment in Ukraine. Hopefully it will also stimulate the reform we all want and the Ukrainian people deserve on their way to achieving a more mature and stable democracy.

It's time we recognize Ukraine's accomplishments and status as an emerging democracy and market economy by lifting the Jackson-Vanik restrictions. I hope my colleagues will support this important bill.

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