Emergency Medical Services Support Act

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to explain briefly the provisions of legislation I have introduced today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to award the Combat Medical Badge (CMB), or a similar badge to be designed by the Secretary of the Army, to pilots and crew of the Army's helicopter medical ambulance units--commonly referred to by their call sign ``DUST OFF''--who have flown combat missions to rescue and aid wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

The legacy of the DUST OFF mission was brought to my attention by a group of Pennsylvania constituents who have been sharing the DUST OFF story in an attempt to persuade the Army to recognize the service and sacrifice DUST OFF crews made, especially during the Vietnam War, in saving the lives of thousands of fallen comrades by extracting the wounded from forward positions to bases where they would receive life- saving medical care.

The Army began using helicopters to evacuate wounded soldiers during the Korean War. However, because of their smaller size, Korean War helicopters were used solely as a means of transporting the wounded from the combat zones. It was not until the early 1960's that a group of Army aviators envisioned using the newer, larger, UH-1A ``Huey'' helicopters to serve as mobile air ambulances where a medic and crew could provide life-saving treatment en route to the medical aide station.

The road to establish air ambulance units within the Army was rocky and uncertain. Combat commanders often considered the use of helicopters for this purpose a diversion of valuable resources. However, through determination, skill, and the American fighting spirit, air ambulance crews proved they were a valuable and reliable resource in providing support to the combat mission. Indeed, between 1962 and 1973, DUST OFF crews evacuated more than 900,000 allied military personnel and Vietnamese civilian casualties to medical assistance sites.

Captain John Temperelli, Jr. was the first commander of the 57th Medical Detachment, Helicopter Ambulance, who would lead the first DUST OFF unit in Vietnam. Army Captain Temperelli is considered the ``pioneer'' of DUST OFF; however, it was Army Major Charles L. Kelly, the unit's third commander, who would establish the traditions and the motto that DUST OFF crews hold sacred today.

Major Kelly, like his predecessors, believed in the mission of rescuing fallen comrades so much so that he gave his life to the mission. On July 1, 1964, Major Kelly and his crew received a call to evacuate a wounded soldier. When they arrived, Major Kelly was instructed by an American advisor on the ground to leave the area; the landing zone was too ``hot.'' Major Kelly responded with the phrase that would become the DUST OFF motto: ``When I have your wounded.'' As Major Kelly hovered over the battlefield, an enemy bullet struck him in the heart; he was killed. It was with news of Major Kelly's death and the story of DUST OFF's dedication to the wounded that DUST OFF earned its permanency in the Army.

I received a book written by a Pennsylvania native, Army Chief Warrant Officer 5 Mike Novosel, titled DUSTOFF: The Memoir of an Army Aviator. Mr. Novosel--a Medal of Honor recipient who served two tours in Vietnam and was a veteran of two other wars--knows first hand the sacrifice, courage and dedication to duty that DUST OFF crews displayed in Vietnam and continue to display today. In his two tours as a DUST OFF pilot in Vietnam, Mr. Novosel flew 2,543 missions and extracted 5,589 wounded. In his book, Mr. Novosel shares many amazing stories of landing in ``hot'' landing zones to allow his medic and crew chief, who were also exposed to enemy fire, to rescue and care for the wounded. But as Mr. Novosel has said, his experience as a DUST OFF pilot was not uncommon. Thousands of brave soldiers risked their lives every day by flying into combat zones to evacuate the wounded.

I am honored that Mr. Novosel and others have brought the story of DUST OFF to my attention. It is my sincere hope that the Army will recognize DUST OFF pilots and crew with an appropriate badge which acknowledges the combat service of these brave individuals. When the War Department created the Combat Medical Badge (CMB) in WWII, as a companion to the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) it did so to recognize that ``medical aidmen . . . shared the same hazards and hardships of ground combat on a daily basis with the infantry soldier.'' DUST OFF pilots and crew equally shared the hazards and hardships of ground combat with the infantry soldier. The fact that they were not directly assigned or attached to a particular infantry unit a fact that, under current Army policy, makes them eligible to receive a CIB or CMB should not bar special recognition of their service, service that one author has characterized as ``the brightest achievement of the U.S. Army in Vietnam.''

On July 29, 2003, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs to hear testimony from DUST OFF participants about their experiences under fire. I gave the Army an opportunity to explain its position and,

perhaps, rethink its opposition to the awarding of an appropriate designation to DUST OFF crew members. Based on testimony offered by three Vietnam veterans--Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., Michael J. Novosel, M.O.H., Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., John M. Travers, and Mr. William Fredrick ``Fred'' Castleberry--I am now more convinced than ever of the worthiness of this legislation. Following the July 29, 2003, hearing, I introduced this legislation--S. 1487 in the 108th Congress. The bill was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, which has jurisdiction over this matter. Unfortunately, the bill never made its way out of committee which is why I am re-introducing this important legislation today.

Army officials recently decided to create a ``Close Combat Badge'' (CCB) for non-infantry soldiers that recognizes their direct participation in ground combat. However, this badge will not be awarded to DUST OFF Medical Helicopter Evacuation Crew Members who have yet to be properly recognized.

On the Vietnam Veterans Memorial are etched the names of over 400 medics, pilots, and crew that gave their lives so others might live. The forward thinking, enthusiasm, and dedication of DUST OFF crews in Vietnam are attributes seen in today's DUST OFF crews. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which would recognize the nature of the service these individuals have performed, and continue to perform, while serving on DUST OFF crews.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation that will honor the importance of the steel industry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Nation by creating the ``Steel Industry National Historic Site'' to be operated by the National Park Service in southwestern Pennsylvania.

The importance of steel to the industrial development of the United States cannot be overstated. A national historic site devoted to the history of the steel industry will afford all Americans the opportunity to celebrate this rich heritage, which is symbolic of the work ethic endemic to this great Nation. The National Park Service recently reported that Congress should make remnants of the U.S. Steel Homestead Works an affiliate of the national park system, rather than a full national park, an option which had been considered in prior years, and which I proposed in legislation during the 107th Congress. Due to the backlog of maintenance projects at national parks, the legislation offered today instead creates a national historic site that would be affiliated with the National Park Service. There is no better place for such a site than in southwestern Pennsylvania, which played a significant role in early industrial America and continues to today.

I have long supported efforts to preserve and enhance this historical steel-related heritage through the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area, which includes the City of Pittsburgh, and seven southwestern Pennsylvania counties: Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Fayette, Greene, Washington and Westmoreland. I have sought and been very pleased with congressional support for the important work within the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area expressed through appropriations levels of roughly $1 million annually since fiscal year 1998. I am hopeful that this support will continue. However, more than just resources are necessary to ensure the historical recognition needed for this important heritage. That is why I am introducing this legislation today.

It is important to note why southwestern Pennsylvania should be the home to the national site that my legislation authorizes. The combination of a strong workforce, valuable natural resources, and Pennsylvania's strategic location in the heavily populated northeastern United States allowed the steel industry to thrive. Today, the remaining buildings and sites devoted to steel production are threatened with further deterioration. Many of these sites are nationally significant and perfectly suited for the study and interpretation of this crucial period in our Nation's development. Some of these sites include the Carrie Furnace complex, the Hot Metal Bridge, and the Unites States Steel Homestead Works, which would all become a part of the Steel Industry National Historic Site under my legislation.

Highlights of such a national historic site would commemorate a wide range of accomplishments and topics for historical preservation and interpretation from industrial process advancements to labor-management relations. It is important to note that the site I seek to become a national site under this bill includes the location of the Battle of Homestead, waged in 1892 between steelworkers and Pinkerton guards. The Battle of Homestead marked a crucial period in our Nation's workers' rights movement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, individuals, and public and private entities have attempted to protect and preserve resources such as the Homestead battleground and the Hot Metal Bridge. For the benefit and inspiration of present and future generations, it is time for the federal government to join this effort to recognize their importance with the additional protection I provide in this bill.

I would like to commend my colleague, Representative Mike Doyle, who has been a longstanding leader in this preservation effort and who has consistently sponsored identical legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. I look forward to working with southwestern Pennsylvania officials and Mr. August Carlino, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation, in order to bring this national historic site to fruition. We came very close to passing this bill in the 108th Congress with its passage in various forms in the House and Senate. However, Congress adjourned prior to final passage of the same bill in both chambers. Therefore, today I reintroduce this legislation and urge its swift passage.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to reintroduce the ``Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act of 2005,'' a bill which seeks to assist Medicare-eligible veterans struggling with the costs of prescription medications.

In the 108th Congress, I worked with my colleagues to provide a prescription drug benefit for all Medicare-eligible seniors. Today, I offer legislation to allow Medicare-eligible veterans to obtain prescription drugs from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at the significantly discounted costs that VA, as a high-volume purchaser of prescriptions medications, is able to secure in the marketplace.

On May 23, 2003, I introduced similar legislation--S. 1153 in the 108th Congress. In my capacity as Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee in the 108th Congress, I held a hearing on June 22, 2004, and heard testimony from Senate colleagues, Veterans Administration officials, and various veterans service organizations on this important legislation. On July 20, 2004, the Committee on Veterans Affairs reported out S. 1153 by a vote of 10 yeas and 5 nays. Unfortunately, the full Senate did not consider this measure.

In 2003, former Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony J. Principi was forced to limit access to VA care--which continues to this day--by suspending new enrollments of non-service-disabled middle and higher income veterans who were not enrolled for care as of January 17, 2003. The Secretary was forced to so act because the number of patients provided care by VA had more than doubled in just five years and, as a result, VA's medical care system had been overwhelmed. As a consequence, VA was unable to provide timely access to healthcare for all veterans who had sought it and appointment waiting times had grown to alarming levels. But in almost every news story that followed the Secretary's difficult decision, it was noted that many of the new

enrollees who had overwhelmed VA's capacity to provide care were Medicare-eligible veterans who were able to get Medicare-financed care elsewhere but who were seeking access to the relatively generous prescription drug program provided to veterans under VA care.

Currently, VA provides enrolled patients with prescription medications for $7 for each 30-day supply. But to get such prescriptions, the veteran must obtain the full range of medical care from VA. This fact, coupled with former VA Secretary Principi's decision to close enrollment, means that veterans who are now, or who will be, eligible for Medicare who had not enrolled for VA care prior to January 17, 2003, will be unable to access VA's generous prescription drug benefits. This legislation would provide some relief for those veterans. In addition, I anticipate that it may induce some VA-enrolled Medicare-eligible veterans--those who were happy with their Medicare-financed care but who enrolled for VA care to gain access to VA-supplied drugs--to return to non-VA care with knowledge that they will be able to get their non-VA prescriptions filled through VA. Enactment of this provision, then, would reduce--not exacerbate--VA patient backlog numbers.

The premise of this legislation is straightforward. VA fills and distributes more than 100 million prescriptions each year for its 4.7 million veteran-patients. As a result, it has significant purchasing power--power which, coupled with VA's formulary program, allows it to negotiate very favorable prices for prescription drugs. According to the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the average ``cash cost'' of a prescription in 2003 was $59.28. The average VA per- prescription cost in 2003 was just under $25--more than 50 percent less. This bill would allow veterans to access these significant discounts simply by providing a written prescription from any duly licensed physician, presumably one he or she has seen under the Medicare program.

By reintroducing this legislation today, I seek to afford Medicare- eligible veterans access to such discounts. I do not propose that VA be directed to supply drugs to all Medicare-eligible veterans at VA expense, or even with a partial VA subsidy. VA has stated that such a mandate would divert VA funding which, clearly, is already stretched to the limit--away from VA priority patients: the service-connected, the poor, and those with special needs. I accept VA's statement of concern. I accept and I insist that scarce funding be directed, first, to meet the needs of priority patients. This legislation, therefore, requires that VA recover the costs of drugs it supplies under this program from veterans who bring their prescriptions from outside doctors to VA.

I do not propose to tell VA in this bill how to recover these costs. VA is better positioned than I to make such judgments. Thus, my legislation provides flexibility to VA to design and test payment mechanisms to best accomplish cost recovery while still easing veterans' access to the drugs they need. It might be that enrollment fees, a co-payment structure, or a simple ``cost-plus'' for administrative expenses pricing format, or some combination of those mechanisms works best. It might be that different approaches work best in different regions of the country. I intend for the VA to experiment with different pricing structures to determine what works best. However, I also intend that veterans get a break on prescription drug pricing.

Those who would first benefit from this program are World War II and Korean War veterans who answered their country's call over 50 years ago. As they age, many desperately need relief from high drug prices. My purpose is not to minimize the work of the drug companies. Their discoveries have truly been marvels, but that is precious little comfort to a Medicare participant who, whatever the drug's overall utility might be, cannot afford both the drug and food or shelter or heat.

The premise of this legislation is simple: veteran access to VA market-driven discounts. Yet, the assistance it could provide might be profound. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that the problem might be solved, or at least reduced, for seniors who served. They deserve it, and we should do it.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce legislation that will repeal two provisions of current law that reduce earned Social Security benefits for teachers and other government pensioners--the Government Pension Offset provision and the Windfall Elimination Provision.

Under current law, public employees, whose salaries are often lower than those in the private sector, find that they are penalized and held to a different standard when it comes to retirement benefits. The unfair reduction in their benefits makes it more difficult to recruit teachers, police officers, and fire fighters; and it does so at a time when we should to be doing everything we can to recruit the best and brightest to these careers.

The current Government Pension Offset provision reduces Social Security spousal benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the spouse's public employment civil service pension. This can have the effect of taking away, entirely, a spouse's benefits from Social Security. And, as one might guess, this provision disproportionately affects women.

The Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and also receive a government pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund.

Private sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to 90 percent of their first $627 in average monthly career earnings, plus 32 percent of monthly earnings up to $3,152 and 15 percent of earnings above $3,152. Government pensioners, however, are only allowed to receive 40 percent of the first $627 in career monthly earnings, a penalty of over $300 per month.

To my mind it is simply unfair. My legislation will allow government pensioners the chance to earn the same 90 percent to which non- government pension recipients are entitled.

I do not understand why we would want to discourage people from pursuing careers in public service by essentially saying that if you do enter public service; your family will suffer by not being able to receive the full retirement benefits they would otherwise be entitled to.

Record enrollments in public schools and the projected retirements of thousands of veteran teachers are driving an urgent need for teacher recruitment. Critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate hiring additional teachers. It is estimated that schools will need to hire between 2.2 million and 2.7 million new teachers nationwide by 2009.

California currently has more than 300,000 teachers, but will need to hire an additional 300,000 teachers by 2010 to keep up with California's rate of student enrollment, which is three times the national average. All in all, California has to hire tens of thousands of new teachers every year.

To combat the growing teacher shortage crisis, forty-five States and the District of Columbia now offer ``alternate routes'' for certification to teach in the Nation's public schools.

It is a sad irony that policymakers are encouraging experienced people to change careers and enter the teaching profession at the same time that we clearly tell them that we will reduce your Social Security benefits for making such a change--benefits they worked so hard to earn.

Nearly one million government retirees nationwide are affected by the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination provisions, but their impact is greatest in the 12 States that chose to keep their own public employee retirement systems, including California.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Pension Offset reduces benefits for some 200,000 individuals by more than $3,600 a year. And, as I mentioned earlier, the Windfall Elimination Provision causes already low-paid public employees outside the Social Security system, like teachers, firefighters and police officers, to lose up to sixty percent of the Social Security benefits to which they are entitled. Sadly, the loss of Social Security benefits may make these individuals eligible for more costly assistance, such as food stamps.

I am also very aware that we are facing extraordinary deficits and that fixing the problem that we are talking about here today will be expensive. I am open to considering all options that move us toward our goal of allowing individuals to keep the Social Security benefits they are entitled to. The important thing for us to do is to take action that moves us in the right direction.

The reforms that led to the Government Pension Offset provision and the Windfall Elimination Provision are almost 20 years old. At the time they were enacted, I'm sure they seemed like a good idea. Now that we are witnessing the practical effects of those reforms, I hope that Congress will pass legislation to address the unfair reduction of benefits that make it even more difficult to recruit and retain public employees.

Mr. President, I rise to offer, along with Senators Warner of Virginia and DeWine of Ohio, the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2005. We are joined by Senators Schumer, Mikulski, Durbin, Clinton, Boxer, Levin, Dodd and Reed, who are original cosponsors of this critical legislation.

This is the same basic legislation that passed by the Senate last year as an amendment to a bill designed to provide blanket immunity for gun manufacturers. However, once that amendment passed, the underlying bill was defeated, in part by its own sponsors, after the National Rifle Association applied intense pressure to Members of this body.

Thus we saw the ideological and extreme view of the National Rifle Association, when they sacrificed their most desired legislative priority--gun immunity legislation--because the Senate had approved the assault weapons ban and two other amendments that would save people's lives: closing the gun show loophole, and requiring trigger locks.

Although President Bush had said he supported the assault weapons ban, he refused to personally engage to help this legislation get signed into law, and the ban expired on September 13, 2004. As a result, these weapons are now once again proliferating through our neighborhoods and communities throughout the United States.

That is why, today, I am introducing the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2005. This legislation mirrors the legislation I authored in the Senate and then-Congressman Schumer authored in the House in 1994.

As was done then, the legislation I am introducing would: ban the manufacturing of 19 specific types of military-style assault weapons, as well as a number of other guns based on a simple test to determine whether the guns were hunting guns or weapons of war; prohibit the manufacture of large capacity ammunition magazines--clips, drums and strips of more than ten rounds--because it is those large capacity ammunition feeding devices that can make a semiautomatic assault weapons so very deadly; and continue to exempt 670 hunting guns entirely, and it is also important to note that the ban would continue to ``grandfather'' in every gun that was made before 1994. So no innocent gun owner would lose a weapon. There will again be no confiscation component to the bill.

This legislation is not perfect. There are comparisons that were made to get it passed last time around, and since its previous enactment there have been many concerns raised about the need to tighten or alter the definition in order to make the prohibition more effective. I am open to working with my colleagues to ensure we enact the best legislation possible, but we need a first step--at a minimum Congress needs to reinstate the original assault weapons ban.

Unfortunately, we are already seeing the impact of the lapse of this law and we should not let another year pass without reinstating its protections. We know the ban worked. Supply went down. Prices went up. The use of these weapons of war in gun crimes had fallen consistently since the ban passed.

According to Department of Justice data, the proportion of these assault weapons used in crime fell more than 65 percent since the ban took effect. And these statistics are backed up by report from the Brady Campaign.

The analysis in the Brady study was performed by Gerald Nunziato, who for eight years served as the Special Agent in Charge of ATF's National Tracing Center--a man who know first hand what these numbers means.

The study found two key things:

First: ``Assault weapons banned by name in the Federal Assault Weapons Act have declined significantly as a percentage of guns ATF has traced to crime, and in absolute number of traces, since the Act was passed. Had this decline not occurred, thousands more of these banned assault weapons would likely have been traced to crime over the last 10 years.''

In other words, the assault weapons legislation signed into law ten years ago successfully dried up the use of banned assault weapons in crime. Second, arguments have arisen that despite this evidence, the ban has not really worked because gun manufacturers would simply produce copycat guns that have the same killing power as assault weapons, and use these guns in crime across the country. I agree that gun manufacturers have tried everything they could to circumvent the ban and this concern is something that may need to be addressed. But let's look at what the Brady study said about this issue.

Second: ``The gun industry's efforts to evade the Federal Assault Weapons Act through the sale of `copycat' guns has not substantially undercut the positive effect of the statute in reducing the incidence of assault weapons among crime guns.''

In other words, even though determined gun manufacturers tried to evade the ban, they were not successful and copycat guns did not replace banned guns in equal numbers, at least when traced to crimes.

In many cases, and when dealing with many issues, I continue to find that what is most compelling is not just the statistics, but rather the real people affected by the policies we debate. It's those men, women and children that are the reason most of us come to work everyday. I'm here today to talk about this issues because of the devastating effect these guns can have on families in our neighborhoods, office buildings, street corners or schoolhouses across the country. I have said before that this issue really came home to me on July 1, 1993, just over 11 years ago, when Gian Luigi Ferri walked into 101 California Street in San Francisco carrying two high-capacity TEC-DC9 assault pistols capable of holding 30- or 50-bullet magazines. Within minutes, Ferri had murdered eight people and six others were wounded. His victims were not soldiers or even enforcement officers. These people doing everyday jobs in an everyday place. A place forever tainted by the bloodshed caused by one man and his assault weapons.

And 101 California was just one of many shootings by grievance killers, discontented employees or even schoolchildren--shooting that shows us that nobody is safe when these guns are in the hands of the wrong people. Yet five months ago, the federal ban on assault weapons expired, and once again new guns like the TEC-DC9 are allowed on our streets. The ban expired despite overwhelming public support to renew it--71 percent of all Americans support renewing the assault weapons ban, as do 64 percent of people in homes with a gun. And it expired despite overwhelming support from law enforcement and civic organizations--nearly every major law enforcement and civic organization has supported a renewal, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Chiefs of Police, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the list goes on and on.

Sadly, the ban expired despite the stated public support of President George W. Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft and despite the support of a majority of United States Senators--52 of us voted to renew this ban just this past March. Despite all of this support, this past September the American people were lift unprotected and made less safe. And make no mistake--when the ban expired the guns began to flow. And when the guns began to flow the safety of our communities was put in jeopardy.

One advertisement that ran in gun magazines is from ArmaLite, a company that makes post-ban rifles. ArmaLite offered a coupon for a free flash suppressor for anyone who bought one of their guns before the ban expired so that, once the ban expired, the gun could be modified to its pre-ban configuration.

The ad even states that, ``It is not legal to install this on a post ban rifle until the assault weapons ban sunsets.''

This is the kind of thing we can continue to expect--companies once again producing deadly assault weapons, high capacity clips, and dangerous accessories we worked so hard to stop almost ten years ago.

The original assault weapons ban was passed before September 11, 2001, with focus on the use of these military weapons by street criminals and gangs. But in the intervening years we have come to appreciate the significance of the threat posed by foreign terrorists. We know that al Qa'ida and other shadowy terrorist groups may plan to attack us here, at home, using these very weapons. A training manual found in Afghanistan made clear that al Oa'ida has seen the threat posed by these weapons. In fact, some of these guns are the very ones being used against our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Simply put--these weapons are not just a law enforcement problem. They are a homeland security and counterterrorism problem. We need to take action to ensure that AK-47s and other such assault weapons cannot simply be purchased by a terrorist operative in preparation for an attack in the United States.

I am deeply disappointed that despite support of the American people, support of the Congress, and stated support of the President, the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire this past fall.

It is past time to stand up to the NRA and instead listen to law enforcement all across the nation who know that this ban makes sense and saves lives. It is past time to listen to the studies that show that crime with assault weapons of all kinds has decreased by as much as 65 percent since the ban took effect almost ten years ago.

The bottom line is that across this nation everybody knows this ban should be law. Law enforcement, mayors, cities, counties, three former Presidents, and even George W. Bush himself have said the ban should be renewed.

This time I hope, for the safety of all Americans, President Bush, Majority Leader Frist and Speaker Hastert will help re-enact this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Emergency Medical Services Act of 2005. This legislation will help to improve Federal efforts to support community-based emergency medical services across America. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Feingold in this effort.

Today, New York University's Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response is releasing an important report, titled ``Findings from a National Roundtable to Improve Emergency Medical Service's Homeland Security Preparedness.'' This report details concerns and recommendations from more than 50 representatives of national EMS organizations and Federal agencies. Their top recommendation was to improve EMS homeland security preparedness through enactment of the very measure we are introducing today. I would note that a former member of my staff, Tim Raducha-Grace drafted this report. Tim continues to be a champion of first responders nationwide, and I congratulate him on this latest achievement.

A comprehensive, coordinated emergency medical services system is essential to assure prompt, quality care to help individuals suffering from automobile crashes to traumatic medical emergencies, to terrorist events. The emergency medical services system serves as one of the most important parts of our health care safety net.

Unfortunately, for the past 20 years, Federal support for EMS has been both scarce and uncoordinated. At least seven Federal agencies are involved in various aspects of emergency medical services (EMS), though most agencies focus on only one segment of the EMS system and don't effectively coordinate with other agencies.

In 2001, at the request of Senator Feingold and myself, the General Accounting Office cited in its report Emergency Medical Services: Reported needs are Wide-Ranging with a Growing Focus on Lack of Data the need to increase coordination among Federal agencies as they address the needs of regional, State, or local emergency medical services systems.

This legislation would seeks to improve one of the few existing efforts to coordinate Federal support for EMS providers. This legislation would formally establish a Federal Interagency Council on Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS), and would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, to provide organizational and staff support.

This legislation would enhance coordination among the Federal agencies involved with the State, local, tribal and regional emergency medical services and 9-1-1 systems. It would also help to assure Federal agencies coordinate their EMS-related activities and maximize the best utilization of established funding.

Local, State and Federal level emergency medical services systems are extremely diverse and involve numerous different agencies and organizations. To assure a viable, responsive emergency medical services system, Federal agencies need the input and advice of their non-Federal partners and from persons regulating or providing emergency medical services systems at the State and local level.

According to Tom Judge, the Executive Director of Lifeflight of Maine, and Jay Bradshaw, the State of Maine's EMS Director, improved coordination can help strengthen support for a wide range of emergency medical services, from rural EMS providers, to communications between EMS systems, to improving coordination between local EMS providers and their Federal partners.

Another GAO report made it clear that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services needs to better coordinate its reimbursement with the Department of Transportation's matching grants for equipment and vehicles. Many of Maine's communities are at risk of seeing their first ambulance service closures in rural areas, such as in Rumford, ME, due to low reimbursement rates. If DOT targeted assistance to the low reimbursement areas that were at risk of shutting down, we might be able to maintain service in those areas.

Improved coordination could also strengthen the integration between local providers and Federal agencies. Substantial numbers of our Reserve and National Guard units are being called up for duty, which has hurt search and air rescue capability across Maine. While LifeFlight of Maine is called upon to provide an eye in the sky there is little to no current capability for lifting someone out of the woods when there is no space to land. If the Navy pulls the last part time aircraft out of Brunswick Naval Air station, there wouldn't be any capability at all within a reasonable response timeframe.

I am pleased to have the support of Maine's EMS Director, Jay Bradshaw, Lifeflight of Maine, the American Ambulance Association, the National Association of Maine EMS Directors, and others.

We must ensure that Federal agencies coordinate their efforts to support the dedicated men and women who provide EMS services across our Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their efforts by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security Fairness Act. This bill repeals two provisions of current law--the windfall elimination provision (WEP) and the government pension offset (GPO) that unfairly reduce earned Social Security benefits for many public employees when they retire.

Individuals affected by both the GPO and the WEP are those who are eligible for Federal, State or local pensions from work that was not covered by Social Security, but who also qualify for Social Security benefits based on their own work in covered employment or that of their spouses. While the two provisions were intended to equalize Social Security's treatment of workers, we are concerned that they unfairly penalize individuals for holding jobs in public service when the time comes for them to retire.

These two provisions have enormous financial implications not just for Federal employees, but for our teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees as well. Despite their challenging, difficult and sometimes dangerous jobs, these invaluable public servants often receive far lower salaries than private sector employees. It is therefore doubly unfair to penalize them when it comes to their Social Security benefits. These public servants--or their spouses--have all paid taxes into the Social Security system. So have their employers. Yet, because of these two provisions, they are unable to collect all of the Social Security benefits to which they otherwise would be entitled.

While the GPO and WEP affect public employees and retirees in virtually every State, their impact is most acute in 15 States, including Maine. Nationwide, more than one-third of teachers and education employees, and more than one-fifth of other public employees, are affected by the GPO and/or the WEP.

Almost one million retired government workers across the country have

already been adversely affected by these provisions. Millions more stand to be affected by them in the future. Moreover, at a time when we should be doing all that we can to attract qualified people to public service, this reduction in Social Security benefits makes it even more difficult for our Federal, State and local governments to recruit and retain the teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public servants who are so critical to the safety and well-being of our families.

The Social Security windfall elimination provision reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and who receive a government pension from work not covered under Social Security, such pensions from the Maine State Retirement Fund. While private sector retirees receive Social Security checks based on 90 percent of their first $612 average monthly career earnings, government pensioners checks are based on 40 percent a harsh penalty of more than $300 per month.

The government pension offset reduces an individual's survivor benefit under Social Security by two-thirds of the amount of his or her public pension. It is estimated that nine out of ten public employees affected by the GPO lose their entire spousal benefit, even though their deceased spouses paid Social Security taxes for many years.

What is most troubling is that this offset is most harsh for those who can least afford the loss--lower-income women. In fact, of those affected by the GPO, 73 percent are women. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 200,000 of these individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.

Our teachers and other public employees face difficult enough challenges in their day-to-day work. Individuals who have devoted their lives to public service should not have the added burden of worrying about their retirement. Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked with me about this issue. They love their jobs and the children they teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial security in retirement.

I hear a lot about this issue in my constituent mail, as well. Patricia Dupont, for example, of Orland, ME, wrote that, because she taught for 15 years under Social Security in New Hampshire, she is living on a retirement income of less than $13,000 after 45 years in education. Since she also lost survivors' benefits from her husband's Social Security, she calculates that a repeal of the WEP and the GPO would double her current retirement income.

These provisions also penalize private sector employees who leave their jobs to become public school teachers. Ruth Wilson, a teacher from Otisfield, Maine, wrote:

``I entered the teaching profession two years ago, partly in response to the nationwide pleas for educators. As the current pool of educators near retirement in the next few years, our schools face a crisis. Low wages and long hard hours are not great selling points to young students when selecting a career.

``I love teaching and only regretted my decision when I found out about the penalties I will unfairly suffer. In my former life as a well-paid systems manager at State Street Bank in Boston, I contributed the maximum to Social Security each year. When I decided to become an educator, I figured that because of my many years of maximum Social Security contributions, I would still have a livable retirement `wage.' I was unaware that I would be penalized as an educator in your State.''

In September of 2003, I chaired a Governmental Affairs Committee hearing to examine the effect that the GPO and the WEP have had on public employees and retirees. We heard compelling testimony from 73- year old Julia Worcester of Columbia, ME, who told us about her work in both Social Security-covered employment and as a Maine teacher, and about the effect that the GPO and WEP have had on her income in retirement. Mrs. Worcester worked for more than 20 years as a waitress and in factory jobs before deciding, at the age of 49, to go back to school to pursue her life-long dream of becoming a teacher. She began teaching at the age of 52 and taught full-time for 15 years before retiring at the age of 68. Since she was only in the Maine State Retirement System for 15 years, Mrs. Worcester does not receive a full State pension. Yet she is still subject to the full penalties under the GPO and WEP. As a consequence, she receives just $107 a month in Social Security benefits, even though she worked hard and paid into the Social Security system for more than 20 years. After paying for her health insurance, she receives less than $500 a month in pension income.

After a lifetime of hard work, Mrs. Worcester, is still substitute teaching at 75, just to make ends meet. This simply is not fair. I am therefore pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation to repeal these two unfair provisions, and I urge my colleagues to join us a cosponsors.

Mr. President, to better protect our children and families from the increasingly indecent and violent images pervading our homes, I am introducing with Senator Hutchison the Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act of 2005. I believe this to be a crucial issue with far-reaching implications for our young people and for our country, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in seeing that this bill is enacted and sent to the President for his signature.

Each day, and for hours and hours every day, broadcast, cable, and satellite television outlets indiscriminately barrage our children and families with indecent and violent images. Our children don't differentiate between sources of their programs, and neither should the law. Not only does the pervasive nature of indecent programming coarsen our society, but also its effects are being felt in our homes, in our schools, and on our streets. I cannot tell you how many parents and educators have told me that the behavior of the children in their care is bad and getting worse, and that they blame what these kids are seeing on television for much of the problem.

The Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act is not intended to limit artistic expression, nor is it my purpose to impose the will of Congress on decisions that properly belong to parents. What I hope to do with this legislation is to give parents and broadcasters, especially local affiliates, a set of tools they can use to control the violence and lewdness being beamed into their homes and communities. To help parents determine what is appropriate programming for their children to watch, this legislation mandates meaningful labeling of violent and indecent programming to include a full-screen, 30-second warning every 30 minutes on broadcast, cable, and satellite programming. To help local broadcasters determine what appropriate programming for their communities is, the bill would allow local broadcasters to refuse to air programming that they believe violates their own community standards, and protects local broadcasters from fines levied for broadcast decisions imposed on them by national networks. I believe local broadcasters in West Virginia and across the country know what the standards of decency are in their own communities, but currently are at the mercy of the national networks. We need to give them the tools to follow community standards, and protect them when a national network forces them to air harmful programming.

The Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act will require the Federal Communication Commission to begin comprehensive review of existing technologies to protect our children from gratuitous and excessively violent programming on broadcast television. My bill would require the FCC to assess the effectiveness of both the current voluntary ratings system and the ``V-Chip'' and other content-blocking technologies. I supported both voluntary announcements and requiring television manufacturers to install the V- Chip. I believe that both can be beneficial to parents who seek to limit what their kids are seeing. But I acknowledge--as every parent in a house with a television must that kids will seek out inappropriate content, and will attempt to find a way around whatever warnings or technological fixes we put in place to control their access to that content.

This legislation calls upon the FCC to recommend improved techniques or additional technologies that will help parents protect their children from material that could harm them or incite them to harm others. Specifically, if the FCC cannot affirm that these technologies are practically effective in protecting children then 1. create a ``safe harbor'' or other mechanism to protect children from gratuitous and excessively violent programming on

broadcast television and 2. Require the least restrictive means to protect children from indecency and gratuitous and excessive violence for cable and satellite programming.

This should not be an ad hoc judgment made out of fear of the FCC on the part of broadcasters, but instead a bright line test that artists, television networks, advertisers, and cable and satellite providers and, most importantly, parents can rely on. Because programming that is excessively violent or promotes violence is every bit as damaging to our youth as is content depicting sexuality in gratuitous or prurient manner, we must address both issues.

The Indecent and Violent Programming Control Act would increase fines the FCC could impose on broadcasters from $27,500 to $500,000 and gives the FCC the appropriate authority to double fines bases on certain circumstances. While I believe indecent programming transmitted against national and community standards, or against the wishes of adult consumers, must be punished, I also believe that most broadcasters are responsible and are interested in providing wholesome entertainment. As a means of self-policing, I have included a Sense of Congress that broadcast television outlets, as well as cable and satellite providers, abide by the ``Television Code of National Association of Broadcasters.''

Finally, and this may be the most important part of the bill, my legislation mandates that all broadcasters, be they network, cable, or satellite, to double the amount of children's programming they are required to show each week. Whatever one believes about other parts of the legislation I am introducing here today, I would hope that my colleagues would be pleased and proud to see this provision enacted. What might surprise my colleagues, and indeed most Americans, is that broadcasters are currently only required to show three hours of children's content a week. When you consider that what passes for children's content often amounts to little more than advertisements for products aimed at children, this is a travesty.

I welcome a vigorous and healthy debate on the issue of indecent programming aimed at children. We owe it to our children, and to the nation, to take up these challenging questions, and resolve to find ways to protect kids, encourage creativity, and pay allegiance to the Constitution. I believe the Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act is a vital step toward that goal.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 10 a.m. in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the nomination of Dr. Richard A. Raymond to be Under Secretary for food safety at the United States Department of Agriculture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 22, 2005, in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the Livestock Manadatory Reporting Act 1999.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorize to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 22, 2005, at 10 a.m. to hold a business meeting to consider pending committee business.

Agenda

legislation

S. 662, Postal Accountability Enhancement Act; S. 457, Purchase Card Waste Elimination Act; S. 611, Emergency Medical Services Support Act; S. 37, a bill to extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for two years.

post office naming bills

H.R. 1460, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 6200 Rolling Road in Springfield, VA, as the ``Captain Mark Stubenhofer Post Office Building''.

S. 590/H.R. 1236, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 750 4th Street in Sparks, NV, as the ``Mayor Tony Armstrong Memorial Post Office''.

S. 571, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 1915 Fulton Street in Brooklyn, NY, as the ``Congresswoman Shirley A. Chisholm Post Office Building''.

S. 892/H.R. 324, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 321 Montgomery Road in Altamonte Springs, FL, as the ``Arthur Stacey Mastrapa Post Office Building''.

S. 867/H.R. 289, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, CA, as the ``Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post Office Building''.

S. 1207/H.R. 120, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 20777 Rancho California Road in Temecula, CA, as the ``Dalip Singh Saund Post Office Building''.

S. 775, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 123 West 7th Street in Holdenville, OK, as the ``Boone Pickens Post Office''.

S. 1206/H.R. 504, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 4960 West Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA, as the ``Ray Charles Post Office Building''.

H.R. 1001, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 301 South Heatherwilde Boulevard in Pflugerville, TX, as the ``Sergeant Byron W. Norwood Post Office Building.''

HR. 1072, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 151 West End Street in Goliad, TX, as the ``Judge Emilio Vargas Post Office Building.''

S. 904, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, NJ, as the ``Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building.''

HR. 1542, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 695 Pleasant Street in New Bedford, MA, as the ``Honorable Judge George N. Leighton Post Office Building.''

H.R. 1082, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 120 East Illinois Avenue in Vinita, OK, as the ``Francis C. Goodpaster Post Office Building.''

H.R. 1524, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service at 12433 Antioch Road in Overland Park, KS, as the ``Ed Eilert Post Office Building.''

H.R. 627, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 40 Putnam Avenue in Hamden, CT, as the ``Linda White-Epps Post Office.''

H.R. 2326, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, NC, as the ``Floyd Lupton Post Office.''

Nominations

Linda M. Combs to be Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget.

Linda M. Springer to be Director, Office of Personnel Management.

Laura A. Cordero to be Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Noel Anketell Kramer to be Associate Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, June 22, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the In Re Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 22, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.