A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits voluntary prayer nor requires prayer in schools.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits voluntary prayer nor requires prayer in the public schools of this country.

On September 25, 1885, an entrancing poem was published in the Glenville Crescent, the local paper in Gilmer County, West Virginia. The poem was attributed to Mrs. Ellen Rudell King, the wife of the Reverend David King, a man of the cloth who ministered to the citizens of Glenville, WV. Over time, people learned that the poem may have been written by the reverend as a gift to his wife Ellen, his soulmate. Just as my beloved Erma was my soulmate the West Virginia Reverend David King also had a soulmate, his wife Ellen.

Today we recognize that his poem was a gift not just to his wife Ellen but also to the State of West Virginia and to the Nation. In fact, when the poem was published at the end of the 19th century, its tone was so melodious, its message so inspiring, it drew the attention of a composer named Howard Engle. West Virginians know the story of what happened next. Howard Engle liked the poem so much that he decided to compose a tune to accompany its lyrical verse. In 1961, his musical composition became the West Virginia State song, known by its title today as ``The West Virginia Hills.'' Let me read for the Senators just a few of the stanzas of this beautiful song:

Oh, West Virginia hills! How majestic and how grand, with

their summits bathed in glory, like our Prince Immanuel's

land! Is it any wonder then, that my heart with rapture

thrills, as I stand once more with loved ones on those West

Virginia hills?

Oh, the West Virginia hills! Where my childhood hours were

passed, where I often wandered lonely, and the future tried

to cast; many are our visions bright, which the future ne'er

fulfills; but how sunny were my daydreams on those West

Virginia hills!

Oh, the West Virginia hills, how unchanged they seem to

stand, with their summits pointed skyward to the great

Almighty's land! Many changes I can see, which my heart with

sadness fills; but no changes can be noticed in those West

Virginia hills.

Ah, ah, those West Virginia hills. For West Virginians, this song, with its prayerful verse, has always been an uplifting reminder of the memories of our childhoods, our fervent hopes for a bright future, a testament to the beauty of our resplendent natural landscape, and a source of solace in time of trouble.

Regrettably, since January, West Virginians have had good reason to seek such solace. As witnessed by all of America since this year began, West Virginia has been beset by unspeakable tragedy. We have lost 18 coal miners--favorite sons of the West Virginia hills--in Boone County, in Logan County, in Mingo County, and in Upshur County. In the words of our ancient sweet song, these tragic events ``our heart with sadness fills.''

But we West Virginians stand strong despite our grief, steadfast in our devotion to one another and to Almighty God, from whom all good things come, from whom all blessings flow.

In our Easter season we celebrate the belief in both the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. We know that while our way may not always be God's way, His way is the only way. Therefore, our way must be His way. We know that life's most bitter travails can, at times, sear the human soul, painfully driving good people to their knees--sometimes through no fault of their own. But we also know that as long as there is life, there is hope, and we know that hardship can be endured and in fact diminished through the power--the ever working power--of prayer. We know this. We know it. We know it based on experience.

Over these past 5 years, as I watched my childhood sweetheart, my darling Erma--my darling Erma, who is in heaven now--I watched her fall ill and become increasingly frail. But she and I prayed for each other. We prayed every day. There were many good times--many good times--but there were also times that were difficult. Through it all, it was our abiding faith, Erma's and mine which we celebrated in prayer together, which I believe kept us devoted to one another and to God for nearly 69 years, through thick and thin, through good times and hard times. Our marriage was literally made in heaven, and I believe its duration was God's answer to our shared prayer.

So when I say that I know prayer can work miracles and move mountains, I speak from experience. I am a witness to the power of prayer.

But I am not unique. West Virginians have been and always will be a deeply spiritual and reverent people. In that sense, it remains as true today as it was in 1885 that no changes can be noticed in those West Virginia hills.

The Apostle Paul has told us that in the face of affliction--in the face of affliction--it is our job not to give in to discouragement but to proclaim the truth openly and to commend ourselves to every man's conscience before God.

So for people of faith, the question remains how best to do this. How do we lift our heads from the darkness to the light--from the darkness to the light? How do we help ourselves and others to keep the faith? The answer lies in three simple words: Let us pray. The Gospel, St. John 14, verse 13, tells us that we can have this confidence in God: that he hears us--yes, that he hears us whenever we ask for anything according to His will. Not always according to our will but according to His will.

The importance of prayer throughout all of the millennia is recognized by people of faith in nearly every denomination. Now get this: Yet, in America, prayer is increasingly estranged from public life. Some are hesitant to pray for fear they might offend someone else. How ridiculous, to think that prayer can be offensive. Offensive to whom? Nonbelievers? Well, they need only close their ears. How sad, really, that we cannot share our faith, particularly in an effort to comfort others, without being accused of offending someone or, worse, violating the first amendment to the Constitution.

Regrettably, that is the unfortunate situation that confronts the faithful in America today. How can this be possible? Does anyone really believe this state of affairs is consistent with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution?

I have referenced the religious beliefs of our Founders many times on the Senate floor, but I think it bears repeating. I think we should not forget the mindset of those who established our representative democracy, this Republic. They were not afraid of prayer. They believed in a Supreme Being, and they did not hesitate to say so. They were proud of their faith. They proclaimed it from the rooftops; yes, from the steeple tops. They did not hang their heads in shame.

Listen. Listen. Listen to what John Adams said. He served as Vice President for 8 years under George Washington. He was a member of the Continental Congress. He signed the Declaration of Independence. In an entry in his diary on February 22, 1756, John Adams wrote:

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the

Bible for their only lawbook and every member should regulate

his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member

would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality, and

industry; to justice, kindness, and charity toward his fellow

men; and to piety, love and reverence toward almighty God. .

. . What a Utopia, what a paradise would this region be.

John Adams believed that the Bible could be our only lawbook--think of that. What a small but mighty tome.

What about Benjamin Franklin? Was he afraid to discuss religion for fear of offending sensibilities? No, heavens no. When the Congress established a three-man committee, of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, to design a great seal of the United States, it was Franklin who suggested that the seal be one of Moses lifting his wand, dividing the Red Sea, with pharaoh in his chariot, overwhelmed by water. His suggested motto was, ``Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.''

Thomas Jefferson similarly suggested a Biblical theme, highlighting the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. These are vivid religious images that our Founding Fathers proposed be adopted as enduring symbols of our representative form of government.

The Founders did not view these proposals as repugnant religiosity, something to be kept under wraps for fear of offending the popular culture. They were creating the culture.

I have long been opposed to what I call the censorship of religion in America. I have said it before. I say it again. I don't agree with many of the decisions that have come down from the courts concerning prayer in the public schools or prohibiting the display of religious items in public places. I believe in ruling after ruling some of our courts, led by the Supreme Court, have been moving closer and closer to prohibiting the free exercise of religion in America, and it chills my soul. Americans don't want religious censorship--

no. Ours is a religious nation. It may not seem so but it is. We are a religious people. We may not seem so at times, not all of us, but we embrace religion as a people. We draw it close, close to us. We drape it over us, we draw it around us, we envelope our families in its protective shield. We will not shun it. We will not deny it. We will not run from it. We must be free to exercise our religious faith, if we have a religious faith, whatever it may be.

The religion clauses of the first amendment state:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .

In my humble opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses. Instead, they seem to have focused only on the first clause which says ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,'' at the expense of the second clause, which says, ``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

Yes, that protects the right of Americans to worship as they please. I have always believed that this country was founded by men and women of strong faith whose intent was not to suppress religion but to ensure that the government favors no single religion over another. This principle makes a lot of sense to me; namely, that government itself should seek neither to discourage nor to promote religion. We can understand the outrage of many fine people of faith who today decry the nature of our public discourse, with its overt emphasis on sex, violence, profanity, and materialism.

In addition, we live today with the omnipresent fear of another terrorist attack, global warming, avian flu, rising fuel and health care costs, and a whole panoply of other potential calamities over which we seem to have little or no control. Our Nation has every reason to seek comfort through prayer.

Nearly 44 years ago, on June 27, 1962--I was here. I was sitting over on that side of the Chamber, to my left, in the back row. Forty-four years ago, on June 27, 1962, 2 days after the U.S. Supreme Court first struck down prayer in schools, I made the following statement on the Senate floor. I said it then. I say it today.

Thomas Jefferson expressed the will of the American

majority in 1776 when he included in the Declaration of

Independence the statement, ``All men''--

Meaning, of course, women, too--

``All men are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness.''

Little could Mr. Jefferson suspect when he penned that line that the time would come that the Nation's highest Court might rule that a nondenominational prayer to the Creator of us all, if offered by schoolchildren in the public schools of America during class periods, would be unconstitutional. I believe this ingrained predisposition against expressions of religious or spiritual beliefs is wrongheaded, destructive, and completely contrary to the intent of the illustrious Founders of this great Nation. Instead of ensuring freedom of religion in a nation founded in part to guarantee that basic liberty, a suffocation or strangulation, if you might, of that freedom has been the result. The rights of those who do not believe, and they are few in number who do not believe--the rights of those who do not believe in a Supreme Being have been zealously guarded to the denigration--and I repeat, denigration--of the rights of those people who do so believe.

The Supreme Court has bent over backward to prevent the government from establishing religion--which is all right--but it has not gone far enough and, in fact, our government has fallen far short of protecting the right of all Americans to exercise their religion.

The free exercise clause of the first amendment states:

Congress cannot make laws that prohibit the free exercise

of religion.

Well, it seems to me that any prohibition of voluntary prayer in the public schools violates the right of our schoolchildren to practice their free religion, and that is not right. Any child should be free to pray to God of his or her own volition, whether at home, whether at church, whether at school, period.

I am not a proponent of repeatedly amending the U.S. Constitution. I believe such amendments should be done only rarely and with great care. However, because I feel as strongly about this today as I have for more than 40 years, I take this opportunity, once again, as I have at least 7 times over the past 44 years, to introduce today a joint resolution to amend the Constitution to clarify the intent of the Framers with respect to voluntary prayer in schools.

Our revered Constitution--this sacred document--was conceived by the Framers neither to prohibit nor to require the recitation of voluntary prayer in public schools. Consequently, the exact language of the resolution that I am introducing to amend the Constitution simply makes that clear.

It states--get this:

Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendments to

this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary

prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular

activity.

This resolution is similar to legislation that I introduced or cosponsored starting in 1962 but more recently in 1973, 1979, 1982, 1993, 1995, and 1997.

I believe Members of the Supreme Court have placed exaggerated emphasis on the Framers' alleged intent to erect an absolute ``wall of separation'' between church and state. I do not share that view.

I believe the right of every schoolchild to pray or not to pray voluntarily, if he or she chooses to do so, is protected by both the free speech and the free exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Even the Supreme Court in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly, in 1984, agreed that the Constitution does not require the complete separation of church and state. Instead, it mandates an accommodation of all religions and forbids hostility toward any.

Let me be clear that what we are talking about is not a radical departure. It is simply a reiteration of what should already be permissible under a correct interpretation of the first amendment.

My resolution does not change the language of the first amendment, and it would not permit any school to advocate a particular religious message endorsed by the government. My resolution would simply reiterate the Framers' intent that a child should be able to utter a voluntary prayer. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that.

This resolution seeks neither to advance nor to inhibit religion. It does not signify government approval of any particular religious sect or creed. It does not compel a ``nonbeliever'' to pray. In fact, it does not require an atheist to embrace or to adopt any religious action, belief, or expression. It does not coerce or compel anyone to do anything. And it does not foster any excessive government entanglement with religion.

This constitutional amendment is neutral. It is nondiscriminatory. It does not endorse state-sponsored school prayer. It simply allows children to pray voluntarily, if they wish to do so. It permits children to express themselves on the subject of prayer just as anyone is free to express themselves on any other topic.

As Justice Scalia recently held: ``A priest has as much liberty to proselytize as a patriot.''

The Supreme Court has held that the establishment clause is not violated so long as the government treats religious speech and other speech equally.

This resolution has a valid secular purpose, which is to ensure that religious and nonreligious speech are treated equally, and this secular purpose is preeminent. This purpose is not secondary to any religious objective.

In one of the more recent cases on the subject, the Supreme Court, in Santa Fe v. Jane Doe, reiterated that the religious clauses of the first amendment prevent the government from ``making any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' But by ``no means,'' the Court held, ``do these commands impose a prohibition on all religious activity in our public schools.''

``Indeed,'' the Court ruled, ``the common purpose of the Religious Clauses is to secure religious liberty.''

Thus, Justice Stevens wrote:

Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court

prohibits any public school student from unvoluntarily

praying at any time before, during or after the school day.

He went on to declare, though, that ``the religious liberty protected by this

Constitution is abridged when the state affirmatively sponsors a particular religious practice or prayer.''

So let me reiterate that the resolution I am introducing today addresses only voluntary student prayer--not state-sponsored speech.

In one of her final rulings on this subject, Justice O'Connor held that the first amendment expresses our Nation's fundamental commitment to religious liberty by means of two provisions--one protecting the free exercise of religion, the other barring the establishment of religion.

``They were written,'' she said, ``by the descendants of people who had come to this land precisely so that they could practice their religion freely.'' And, ``by enforcing these two clauses,'' she said, ``we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or the bureaucrat.''

We should keep it that way. We should keep it that way. We should keep religion a matter for the individual conscience. But does keeping religion a matter for the individual conscience mean that a schoolchild must stand silent, unable to turn to God for comfort or guidance in times of trial or heartache? No. No. No. Not even our Supreme Court has recognized that. Not every reference to God constitutes the impermissible establishment of religion.

Where would we be without recourse to prayer?

As we know, even the mighty King David sought guidance from above. In Psalm, 17, he implores:

Hear, O Lord, a just suit; attend to my outcry; harken to

my prayer from lips without deceit . . . I call upon You for

You will answer me, O God; incline Your ear to me; hear my

word . . . keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the

shadows of Your wings.

In our Nation's Capitol, just off the Rotunda, there is a small room called the Prayer Room. I was there when it was first dedicated. A small room called the Prayer Room was set aside in 1954 by the 83rd Congress to be used for private prayer and contemplation by Members of Congress. The room is open.

Have you ever been there? If you haven't, you ought to go to see that Prayer Room. I go to it still from time to time.

The room is open when Congress is in session though not open to the public. The room's focal point is a stained glass window that shows George Washington kneeling in prayer. Behind him are etched these words from Psalm 16:1: ``Preserve me, o God, for in thee do I put my trust.''

What right do we have to take from schoolchildren their right to pray a voluntary prayer when we preserve, protect, and defend and even create a seperate room to enshrine that same right to ourselves here in the Senate?

St. Luke, the apostle, tells us that such efforts are as much in our own interest as they are in the best interests of a child. Here is what St. Luke tells us:

Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find; knock

and it shall be opened to you. For whoever asks, receives;

whoever seeks, finds; whoever knocks is admitted. What father

among you will give his son a snake if he asks for a fish, or

hand him a scorpion if he asks for an egg? If you, with all

your sins, know how to give your children good things, how

much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to

those who ask him?

We must work to be certain that the free exercise clause remains as applicable and respected today as it was at the time it was conceived by the Framers.

We must guard its protection so that all Americans, including, yes, children, little children--suffer little children--retain their right freely to practice their religion. Let us make certain that every individual, including any child nestled in the West Virginia hills or anywhere else in America, can pray to God as they please.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits voluntary prayer nor requires prayer in the public schools of this country.

On September 25, 1885, an entrancing poem was published in the Glenville Crescent, the local paper in Gilmer County, West Virginia. The poem was attributed to Mrs. Ellen Rudell King, the wife of the Reverend David King, a man of the cloth who ministered to the citizens of Glenville, WV. Over time, people learned that the poem may have been written by the reverend as a gift to his wife Ellen, his soulmate. Just as my beloved Erma was my soulmate the West Virginia Reverend David King also had a soulmate, his wife Ellen.

Today we recognize that his poem was a gift not just to his wife Ellen but also to the State of West Virginia and to the Nation. In fact, when the poem was published at the end of the 19th century, its tone was so melodious, its message so inspiring, it drew the attention of a composer named Howard Engle. West Virginians know the story of what happened next. Howard Engle liked the poem so much that he decided to compose a tune to accompany its lyrical verse. In 1961, his musical composition became the West Virginia State song, known by its title today as ``The West Virginia Hills.'' Let me read for the Senators just a few of the stanzas of this beautiful song:

Oh, West Virginia hills! How majestic and how grand, with

their summits bathed in glory, like our Prince Immanuel's

land! Is it any wonder then, that my heart with rapture

thrills, as I stand once more with loved ones on those West

Virginia hills?

Oh, the West Virginia hills! Where my childhood hours were

passed, where I often wandered lonely, and the future tried

to cast; many are our visions bright, which the future ne'er

fulfills; but how sunny were my daydreams on those West

Virginia hills!

Oh, the West Virginia hills, how unchanged they seem to

stand, with their summits pointed skyward to the great

Almighty's land! Many changes I can see, which my heart with

sadness fills; but no changes can be noticed in those West

Virginia hills.

Ah, ah, those West Virginia hills. For West Virginians, this song, with its prayerful verse, has always been an uplifting reminder of the memories of our childhoods, our fervent hopes for a bright future, a testament to the beauty of our resplendent natural landscape, and a source of solace in time of trouble.

Regrettably, since January, West Virginians have had good reason to seek such solace. As witnessed by all of America since this year began, West Virginia has been beset by unspeakable tragedy. We have lost 18 coal miners--favorite sons of the West Virginia hills--in Boone County, in Logan County, in Mingo County, and in Upshur County. In the words of our ancient sweet song, these tragic events ``our heart with sadness fills.''

But we West Virginians stand strong despite our grief, steadfast in our devotion to one another and to Almighty God, from whom all good things come, from whom all blessings flow.

In our Easter season we celebrate the belief in both the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. We know that while our way may not always be God's way, His way is the only way. Therefore, our way must be His way. We know that life's most bitter travails can, at times, sear the human soul, painfully driving good people to their knees--sometimes through no fault of their own. But we also know that as long as there is life, there is hope, and we know that hardship can be endured and in fact diminished through the power--the ever working power--of prayer. We know this. We know it. We know it based on experience.

Over these past 5 years, as I watched my childhood sweetheart, my darling Erma--my darling Erma, who is in heaven now--I watched her fall ill and become increasingly frail. But she and I prayed for each other. We prayed every day. There were many good times--many good times--but there were also times that were difficult. Through it all, it was our abiding faith, Erma's and mine which we celebrated in prayer together, which I believe kept us devoted to one another and to God for nearly 69 years, through thick and thin, through good times and hard times. Our marriage was literally made in heaven, and I believe its duration was God's answer to our shared prayer.

So when I say that I know prayer can work miracles and move mountains, I speak from experience. I am a witness to the power of prayer.

But I am not unique. West Virginians have been and always will be a deeply spiritual and reverent people. In that sense, it remains as true today as it was in 1885 that no changes can be noticed in those West Virginia hills.

The Apostle Paul has told us that in the face of affliction--in the face of affliction--it is our job not to give in to discouragement but to proclaim the truth openly and to commend ourselves to every man's conscience before God.

So for people of faith, the question remains how best to do this. How do we lift our heads from the darkness to the light--from the darkness to the light? How do we help ourselves and others to keep the faith? The answer lies in three simple words: Let us pray. The Gospel, St. John 14, verse 13, tells us that we can have this confidence in God: that he hears us--yes, that he hears us whenever we ask for anything according to His will. Not always according to our will but according to His will.

The importance of prayer throughout all of the millennia is recognized by people of faith in nearly every denomination. Now get this: Yet, in America, prayer is increasingly estranged from public life. Some are hesitant to pray for fear they might offend someone else. How ridiculous, to think that prayer can be offensive. Offensive to whom? Nonbelievers? Well, they need only close their ears. How sad, really, that we cannot share our faith, particularly in an effort to comfort others, without being accused of offending someone or, worse, violating the first amendment to the Constitution.

Regrettably, that is the unfortunate situation that confronts the faithful in America today. How can this be possible? Does anyone really believe this state of affairs is consistent with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution?

I have referenced the religious beliefs of our Founders many times on the Senate floor, but I think it bears repeating. I think we should not forget the mindset of those who established our representative democracy, this Republic. They were not afraid of prayer. They believed in a Supreme Being, and they did not hesitate to say so. They were proud of their faith. They proclaimed it from the rooftops; yes, from the steeple tops. They did not hang their heads in shame.

Listen. Listen. Listen to what John Adams said. He served as Vice President for 8 years under George Washington. He was a member of the Continental Congress. He signed the Declaration of Independence. In an entry in his diary on February 22, 1756, John Adams wrote:

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the

Bible for their only lawbook and every member should regulate

his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member

would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality, and

industry; to justice, kindness, and charity toward his fellow

men; and to piety, love and reverence toward almighty God. .

. . What a Utopia, what a paradise would this region be.

John Adams believed that the Bible could be our only lawbook--think of that. What a small but mighty tome.

What about Benjamin Franklin? Was he afraid to discuss religion for fear of offending sensibilities? No, heavens no. When the Congress established a three-man committee, of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, to design a great seal of the United States, it was Franklin who suggested that the seal be one of Moses lifting his wand, dividing the Red Sea, with pharaoh in his chariot, overwhelmed by water. His suggested motto was, ``Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.''

Thomas Jefferson similarly suggested a Biblical theme, highlighting the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. These are vivid religious images that our Founding Fathers proposed be adopted as enduring symbols of our representative form of government.

The Founders did not view these proposals as repugnant religiosity, something to be kept under wraps for fear of offending the popular culture. They were creating the culture.

I have long been opposed to what I call the censorship of religion in America. I have said it before. I say it again. I don't agree with many of the decisions that have come down from the courts concerning prayer in the public schools or prohibiting the display of religious items in public places. I believe in ruling after ruling some of our courts, led by the Supreme Court, have been moving closer and closer to prohibiting the free exercise of religion in America, and it chills my soul. Americans don't want religious censorship--

no. Ours is a religious nation. It may not seem so but it is. We are a religious people. We may not seem so at times, not all of us, but we embrace religion as a people. We draw it close, close to us. We drape it over us, we draw it around us, we envelope our families in its protective shield. We will not shun it. We will not deny it. We will not run from it. We must be free to exercise our religious faith, if we have a religious faith, whatever it may be.

The religion clauses of the first amendment state:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .

In my humble opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses. Instead, they seem to have focused only on the first clause which says ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,'' at the expense of the second clause, which says, ``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

Yes, that protects the right of Americans to worship as they please. I have always believed that this country was founded by men and women of strong faith whose intent was not to suppress religion but to ensure that the government favors no single religion over another. This principle makes a lot of sense to me; namely, that government itself should seek neither to discourage nor to promote religion. We can understand the outrage of many fine people of faith who today decry the nature of our public discourse, with its overt emphasis on sex, violence, profanity, and materialism.

In addition, we live today with the omnipresent fear of another terrorist attack, global warming, avian flu, rising fuel and health care costs, and a whole panoply of other potential calamities over which we seem to have little or no control. Our Nation has every reason to seek comfort through prayer.

Nearly 44 years ago, on June 27, 1962--I was here. I was sitting over on that side of the Chamber, to my left, in the back row. Forty-four years ago, on June 27, 1962, 2 days after the U.S. Supreme Court first struck down prayer in schools, I made the following statement on the Senate floor. I said it then. I say it today.

Thomas Jefferson expressed the will of the American

majority in 1776 when he included in the Declaration of

Independence the statement, ``All men''--

Meaning, of course, women, too--

``All men are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness.''

Little could Mr. Jefferson suspect when he penned that line that the time would come that the Nation's highest Court might rule that a nondenominational prayer to the Creator of us all, if offered by schoolchildren in the public schools of America during class periods, would be unconstitutional. I believe this ingrained predisposition against expressions of religious or spiritual beliefs is wrongheaded, destructive, and completely contrary to the intent of the illustrious Founders of this great Nation. Instead of ensuring freedom of religion in a nation founded in part to guarantee that basic liberty, a suffocation or strangulation, if you might, of that freedom has been the result. The rights of those who do not believe, and they are few in number who do not believe--the rights of those who do not believe in a Supreme Being have been zealously guarded to the denigration--and I repeat, denigration--of the rights of those people who do so believe.

The Supreme Court has bent over backward to prevent the government from establishing religion--which is all right--but it has not gone far enough and, in fact, our government has fallen far short of protecting the right of all Americans to exercise their religion.

The free exercise clause of the first amendment states:

Congress cannot make laws that prohibit the free exercise

of religion.

Well, it seems to me that any prohibition of voluntary prayer in the public schools violates the right of our schoolchildren to practice their free religion, and that is not right. Any child should be free to pray to God of his or her own volition, whether at home, whether at church, whether at school, period.

I am not a proponent of repeatedly amending the U.S. Constitution. I believe such amendments should be done only rarely and with great care. However, because I feel as strongly about this today as I have for more than 40 years, I take this opportunity, once again, as I have at least 7 times over the past 44 years, to introduce today a joint resolution to amend the Constitution to clarify the intent of the Framers with respect to voluntary prayer in schools.

Our revered Constitution--this sacred document--was conceived by the Framers neither to prohibit nor to require the recitation of voluntary prayer in public schools. Consequently, the exact language of the resolution that I am introducing to amend the Constitution simply makes that clear.

It states--get this:

Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendments to

this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary

prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular

activity.

This resolution is similar to legislation that I introduced or cosponsored starting in 1962 but more recently in 1973, 1979, 1982, 1993, 1995, and 1997.

I believe Members of the Supreme Court have placed exaggerated emphasis on the Framers' alleged intent to erect an absolute ``wall of separation'' between church and state. I do not share that view.

I believe the right of every schoolchild to pray or not to pray voluntarily, if he or she chooses to do so, is protected by both the free speech and the free exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Even the Supreme Court in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly, in 1984, agreed that the Constitution does not require the complete separation of church and state. Instead, it mandates an accommodation of all religions and forbids hostility toward any.

Let me be clear that what we are talking about is not a radical departure. It is simply a reiteration of what should already be permissible under a correct interpretation of the first amendment.

My resolution does not change the language of the first amendment, and it would not permit any school to advocate a particular religious message endorsed by the government. My resolution would simply reiterate the Framers' intent that a child should be able to utter a voluntary prayer. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that.

This resolution seeks neither to advance nor to inhibit religion. It does not signify government approval of any particular religious sect or creed. It does not compel a ``nonbeliever'' to pray. In fact, it does not require an atheist to embrace or to adopt any religious action, belief, or expression. It does not coerce or compel anyone to do anything. And it does not foster any excessive government entanglement with religion.

This constitutional amendment is neutral. It is nondiscriminatory. It does not endorse state-sponsored school prayer. It simply allows children to pray voluntarily, if they wish to do so. It permits children to express themselves on the subject of prayer just as anyone is free to express themselves on any other topic.

As Justice Scalia recently held: ``A priest has as much liberty to proselytize as a patriot.''

The Supreme Court has held that the establishment clause is not violated so long as the government treats religious speech and other speech equally.

This resolution has a valid secular purpose, which is to ensure that religious and nonreligious speech are treated equally, and this secular purpose is preeminent. This purpose is not secondary to any religious objective.

In one of the more recent cases on the subject, the Supreme Court, in Santa Fe v. Jane Doe, reiterated that the religious clauses of the first amendment prevent the government from ``making any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' But by ``no means,'' the Court held, ``do these commands impose a prohibition on all religious activity in our public schools.''

``Indeed,'' the Court ruled, ``the common purpose of the Religious Clauses is to secure religious liberty.''

Thus, Justice Stevens wrote:

Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court

prohibits any public school student from unvoluntarily

praying at any time before, during or after the school day.

He went on to declare, though, that ``the religious liberty protected by this

Constitution is abridged when the state affirmatively sponsors a particular religious practice or prayer.''

So let me reiterate that the resolution I am introducing today addresses only voluntary student prayer--not state-sponsored speech.

In one of her final rulings on this subject, Justice O'Connor held that the first amendment expresses our Nation's fundamental commitment to religious liberty by means of two provisions--one protecting the free exercise of religion, the other barring the establishment of religion.

``They were written,'' she said, ``by the descendants of people who had come to this land precisely so that they could practice their religion freely.'' And, ``by enforcing these two clauses,'' she said, ``we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or the bureaucrat.''

We should keep it that way. We should keep it that way. We should keep religion a matter for the individual conscience. But does keeping religion a matter for the individual conscience mean that a schoolchild must stand silent, unable to turn to God for comfort or guidance in times of trial or heartache? No. No. No. Not even our Supreme Court has recognized that. Not every reference to God constitutes the impermissible establishment of religion.

Where would we be without recourse to prayer?

As we know, even the mighty King David sought guidance from above. In Psalm, 17, he implores:

Hear, O Lord, a just suit; attend to my outcry; harken to

my prayer from lips without deceit . . . I call upon You for

You will answer me, O God; incline Your ear to me; hear my

word . . . keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the

shadows of Your wings.

In our Nation's Capitol, just off the Rotunda, there is a small room called the Prayer Room. I was there when it was first dedicated. A small room called the Prayer Room was set aside in 1954 by the 83rd Congress to be used for private prayer and contemplation by Members of Congress. The room is open.

Have you ever been there? If you haven't, you ought to go to see that Prayer Room. I go to it still from time to time.

The room is open when Congress is in session though not open to the public. The room's focal point is a stained glass window that shows George Washington kneeling in prayer. Behind him are etched these words from Psalm 16:1: ``Preserve me, o God, for in thee do I put my trust.''

What right do we have to take from schoolchildren their right to pray a voluntary prayer when we preserve, protect, and defend and even create a seperate room to enshrine that same right to ourselves here in the Senate?

St. Luke, the apostle, tells us that such efforts are as much in our own interest as they are in the best interests of a child. Here is what St. Luke tells us:

Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find; knock

and it shall be opened to you. For whoever asks, receives;

whoever seeks, finds; whoever knocks is admitted. What father

among you will give his son a snake if he asks for a fish, or

hand him a scorpion if he asks for an egg? If you, with all

your sins, know how to give your children good things, how

much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to

those who ask him?

We must work to be certain that the free exercise clause remains as applicable and respected today as it was at the time it was conceived by the Framers.

We must guard its protection so that all Americans, including, yes, children, little children--suffer little children--retain their right freely to practice their religion. Let us make certain that every individual, including any child nestled in the West Virginia hills or anywhere else in America, can pray to God as they please.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act of 2006.

The Medicare prescription drug benefit got off to a bumpy start. As the new benefit was rolled out, the program experienced problems related to its computer system and databases. A lot of those problems have been fixed. But a new computer program or new software could not fix a number of the problems that pharmacists faced.

The Medicare drug benefit made big changes to the pharmacy business. Transitioning dual eligible beneficiaries from Medicaid to Medicare drug coverage affected the pharmacists who provide drugs. And pharmacists have experienced problems dealing with the private drug plans that offer the new benefit.

I have been hearing from pharmacists in Montana who are struggling. They are trying to help their patients. But they face great difficulty. The success of the Medicare drug benefit ultimately depends on the pharmacists who deliver the drugs. So we have to help them. And we must act now, before pharmacists find that they are no longer able to provide drugs to Medicare beneficiaries, or to provide drugs at all.

This bill would provide the help that pharmacists need to continue delivering the Medicare drug benefit. It would resolve problems that they face every day as they provide Medicare beneficiaries with their drugs. It would help ensure that pharmacies remain open and operable so the drug benefit can be a meaningful part of beneficiaries' health care.

The Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would do several things to help pharmacies. First, it would strengthen the access standards that drug plans have to meet. It is important that the drug plans contract with broad and far-reaching networks of pharmacies. This bill would ensure that the pharmacies that drug plans count in their networks provide real access to Medicare beneficiaries.

It would also help safety net pharmacies to join drug plan networks. These pharmacies have served the most vulnerable patients for years. They should be able to continue to do so. Drug plans should not be allowed to exclude safety net pharmacies. Excluding them does a huge disservice to needy beneficiaries. This bill would rectify the problems that safety net pharmacies have encountered in participating in the Medicare drug benefit.

The Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would speed up reimbursement to pharmacies. The delay that pharmacies have experienced in receiving payment from drug plans has sent pharmacies all over the country into financial frenzy. These delays have forced pharmacies to seek additional credit, dip into their savings, or worse, as they try to continue operations. This bill would require drug plans to pay promptly. Most claims would be reimbursed within 2 weeks, making it easier for pharmacies to operate. And the bill would impose a monetary penalty on plans if they paid late.

One of the most common complaints from beneficiaries has been how confused they are. One source of their confusion comes from the practice of co-branding. Co-branding is when a drug plan partners with a pharmacy chain and then includes the pharmacy's logo or name on its marketing materials and identification cards. This is confusing, because it sends the message that drugs are available only from that pharmacy. And that is not true. To help end this confusion, the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would prohibit drug plans from placing pharmacy logos or trademarks on their identification cards and restrict other forms of co-branding.

This bill would also require that pharmacists be paid reasonable dispensing fees for each prescription that they fill. Currently, some plans pay no dispensing fees. Other plans pay only nominal dispensing fees. Pharmacists are not able to cover their costs of dispensing drugs. And that puts them at a severe disadvantage. It eats up their margins from non-Medicare business. And it is unsustainable in the long-run.

Some would say that it is too soon to consider legislation that affects the Medicare drug benefit. I disagree. The problems that pharmacists are facing are real. And they are not going away. If we wait a year to consider the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act, it may be too late for many pharmacists and the beneficiaries whom they serve. We have a duty to make the Medicare drug benefit as strong and robust as it can be. And the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act presents an opportunity for us to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Simplification Act of 2006. This bill would improve the Medicare drug benefit by creating simple, understandable benefit packages. It would

provide extra funds for State counselors who educate Medicare beneficiaries about the drug benefit. And it would strengthen consumer protections for beneficiaries who enroll.

Medicare drug benefits are critical to the health of our Nation's elderly and disabled. In 2003, after years of debate, Congress added drug coverage to Medicare through passage of the Medicare Modernization Act, the MMA. I was proud to help pass that bill. The law was not perfect. But, as I said then, we should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. The MMA can go a long way toward helping those who need it most.

But implementation of the law has been flawed. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, was put in charge of ensuring that the prescription drug benefit was fully operational by January 1, 2006. The task was big. And CMS worked hard to get it done. Unfortunately, CMS's efforts have come up short in a few major areas.

First, CMS made the new program needlessly confusing. The law charged CMS with approving prescription drug plans. Last April, I urged CMS to approve only the plans meeting the highest standards, so that seniors could choose among a manageable number of solid offerings. But CMS ignored that advice.

Instead, CMS approved 47 plans in my State alone, and more than 1,500 nationwide. Furthermore, the differences between the plans are mind- boggling and difficult to sort out, even for the most-savvy consumer. Beneficiaries deserve better. They must be able to make apples-to- apples comparisons in order to choose what is best for them.

There are other problems in the way that CMS chose to implement the new program. Consumer protections are weak and inconsistent. The list of drugs covered by plans should not change in the middle of the year. Plan formularies should be transparent. And patients should be able to request exceptions to them using the same process and forms, no matter which plans the patients enrolled in.

Also, CMS terribly underfunded State Health Insurance Programs, known as SHIPs. These agencies are mainly staffed by volunteers who help educate and advise people about Medicare and the new drug benefit. They have held thousands of community events and assisted millions of people across the country. But they struggled to meet demand for help with the new drug program. Last week, Montana AARP donated $40,000 of its own funds to help the Montana SHIP keep enough staff and volunteers through the May 15 deadline. CMS provided only $7,500 for a five-county region in Montana with an area bigger than Delaware. In contrast, CMS spent $300 million for an ad campaign, a bus tour, and a blimp.

Yet despite these ads, many seniors are still confused about the drug benefit. When I asked Montanans how they feel about the new program, they tell me that it is too complex and confusing.

Recent focus groups conducted by MedPAC, the group that advises Congress on Medicare policy, found the same the problem. According to MedPAC, beneficiaries are ``confused by the number of plans, variation in benefit structure.''

And a study released by the Kaiser Family Foundation says: ``the absence of any standardization for many features of drug plan benefit design, and even some of the basic terminology used to describe these plans, adds to the challenges for beneficiaries'' and ``is likely to make apples-to-apples comparisons across plans more difficult for consumers.'' The report ``confirm[ed] the importance of federal safeguards . . . to minimize unnecessary complexity in [the] Medicare prescription drug plan marketplace.''

The message is coming through loud and clear from constituents, researchers, advocacy groups, and government advisers. We need to make the Medicare drug benefit more understandable, straightforward, and transparent. And that's what this bill would do.

First, the bill would make choices among prescription drug plans more simple and straightforward. It would require the Federal Department of Health and Human Services to define six types of drug benefit packages that insurers could offer. In addition, Medicare and insurers would both have to use uniform language, names, and terminology to describe drug benefit packages. Seniors can reach informed decisions, but they deserve clear options.

This approach is similar to the one Congress took with the Medicare supplemental market. In 1980, Congress enacted the Baucus amendments to fix marketing abuses and consumer confusion with supplemental or Medigap plans.

Those reforms required private issuers to meet minimum standards and have minimum loss ratios. Ten years later, Congress again took up Medigap reform, passing legislation that led to the standardization of Medigap policies. This resulted in a limited number of Medigap options, each with a fixed set of benefits. These changes were successful in helping consumers to make comparisons and in strengthening consumer protections.

My colleague and co-sponsor, Senator Ron Wyden, was instrumental in bringing about these reforms. And I thank him for his involvement then and today.

The bill that we are introducing today would build on these lessons and apply them to the Medicare drug benefit. By establishing six standardized types of benefit packages that insurers can offer, the bill would help people to make apples-to-apples comparisons. It would make choices more understandable. It would reduce confusion and help beneficiaries make the decisions that are best for each individual. And it would do this while preserving the ability of insurers to compete in the marketplace.

Second, the bill would provide extra funds to State Health Insurance Programs through 2010. Putting information on the Internet, television, and a toll-free hotline is not enough.

Third, the bill would stop drug plans from removing medications or increasing drug costs during the benefit year.

Fourth, the bill would prohibit insurance agents from engaging in unfair marketing practices that prey on vulnerable people--practices like cold-calling seniors.

I believe strongly that Medicare beneficiaries need prescription drug coverage. And, if CMS implements it correctly, the market-based approach envisioned in the MMA can deliver those benefits effectively. But a market can work only if the product is well defined and consumers have sufficient knowledge of it. As Adam Smith said: ``[Value] is adjusted . . . not by any accurate measure, but by the haggling and bargaining of the market.'' It's not fair to expect seniors and people with disabilities to haggle and bargain if the choices are incomprehensible.

Some may say that lots of choice is good. This is true when people buy cars or toasters. But, as many economists have shown, the health care market is different. People want to choose their providers and pharmacies. But they do not necessarily want to wade through a confusing array of plans.

Some may say that we should hold off making changes until the market consolidates. But that is both unfair and unrealistic. With more than 1,500 plans in the market now, how much consolidation could really fix the problem of confusion and complexity? Furthermore, the next enrollment period is fast approaching, and consumers are insisting on relief now.

Some may say that enrollment is high, so why tinker with the benefit? But look at the numbers. In 2003, CMS said that they expected 19 million Americans to sign up for the drug program. But so far, only 8 million have voluntarily enrolled. In Montana, only 42 percent of people who have a choice about whether to sign up have done so. We can do better than that. And with passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug Simplification Act, we will.

The MMA tried to balance the needs of private plans and beneficiaries. But implementation has tilted that balance toward the private firms, rather than seniors and the disabled. The Medicare Prescription Drug Simplification Act of 2006 would restore the proper balance needed to make the drug program work fairly for people with Medicare.

Mr. President I rise today with my colleague Senator Feinstein to introduce a bill to combat gang violence and honor a young girl from California, Mynesha Crenshaw, who was killed last year in a tragic shooting.

On November 13, 2005, a gang-related dispute broke out in San Bernardino, CA and gunfire sprayed an apartment building, killing 11- year old Mynesha Crenshaw and seriously wounding her 14-year old sister as they ate Sunday dinner with their family.

Imagine the fear and anguish the family and the community still feel over this tragedy a young girl, full of hope and promise, dead. Her big sister, wounded from the same gunfire, though thankfully she subsequently recovered. Imagine the fear that this could happen again. Our hearts and our prayers go out to Mynesha's family and to the entire community, which like so many others across the United States, has struggled with gang violence.

Last year, there were 58 homicides in San Bernardino, a city of 200,000 east of Los Angeles, and 13 more homicides so far this year. And just last month, two men were caught in a gang-related crossfire and died in Downtown San Bernardino. This has to stop. It is a waste of life; it is unacceptable.

San Bernardino's diverse population of young people and their families face many challenges, but San Bernardino also has a vibrant and united community, strong leadership, and a desire to come together to improve their city.

Mynesha Crenshaw's death galvanized over 1,000 residents to take to the streets, demanding change. And some 40 community and religious leaders, public officials, and concerned citizens from San Bernardino have joined together to form ``Mynesha's Circle'' to find solutions to the plague of gang violence and to help San Bernardino's young people grow up safe, finish school, and succeed in life.

I applaud Mayor Patrick Morris, Police Chief Michael Billdt, community leaders Kent Paxton and Rev. Reggie Beamon and Robert Balzer, the publisher of the San Bernardino Sun, for taking up this cause.

I want to also thank all the other members of ``Mynesha's Circle'' Sheryl Alexander, Betty Dean Anderson, Donald Baker, Fred Board, Ruddy Bravo, Hardy Brown, Cheryl Brown, Mark and Katrina Cato, Larry Ciecalone, Stephani Congdon, San Bernardino City Schools Superintendent Arturo Delgado, Tim Evans, San Bernardino County Schools Superintendent Herb Fischer, Rialto Schools Superintendent Edna Herring, Sheriff Rod Hoops, Syeda Jafri, Walter Jarman, Rev. David Kalke, CSU President Al Karnig, William Leonard, Sheriff Gary Penrod, DA Michael Ramos, Sandy Robbins, Doug Rowand, Larry Sharp, Ron Stark, Tori Stordahl, Heck Thomas, David Torres, Mark Uffer, San Bernardino Police Chief Gary Underwood, Councilmember Rikke Van Johnson, Bobby Vega, and the Sun Reader Advisory Board members: Daniel Blakely, Barbara Lee Harn Covey, Mark Henry, Julie Hernandez, Lynette Kaplan, Brenda Mackey, James Magnuson, Julian Melendez, Ernest Ott, Jeffrey Pryor, John Ragsdale, Glenda Randolph, Nora Taylor, and David Torres.

I have pledged to do what I can at the Federal level to help San Bernardino. And that is why today I am introducing ``Mynesha's Law,'' with my colleague, Senator Feinstein.

``Mynesha's Law'' will create an interagency Task Force at the Federal level, including the Departments of Justice, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, to take a comprehensive approach to reducing gang violence and targeting resources at the communities in our nation most at risk. The resources will come from proven existing Federal programs, including Child Care Block Grants, Head Start, Even Start, Job Corps, COPS, Byrne Grants and other programs the Task Forces chooses.

Communities will be able to apply to the Department of Justices for designation as a ``High-Intensity Gang Activity Area'' and then be eligible to receive targeted assistance from the Task Force.

The Task Force will be required to report annually to Congress on the best practices and outcomes among the High-Intensity Gang Activity Areas and on the adequacy of Federal funding to meet the needs of these areas. If the Task Force identifies any programmatic shortfalls in addressing gang prevention, the report will also include a request for new funding or reprogramming of existing funds to meet the shortfalls and the bill authorizes such sums to be appropriated.

In addition to ``Mynesha's Law,'' I am seeking a $1 million appropriation that the city of San Bernardino has requested to implement a comprehensive gang intervention and prevention strategy called ``San Bernardino Gang Free Schools.'' The program would fund 10 probation officers to provide gang resistance and education training to 57,000 students, as well as case management and oversight for at-risk youth.

I am also requesting a $3 million appropriation to renovate and equip what may be the most important organization for at-risk young people in the area the Boys and Girls Club of San Bernardino.

The Boys and Girls Club is one of the few safe and supportive places in San Bernardino where young people can go after school to get help with homework or play sports with their friends. Many community leaders believe the Boys and Girls Club is one of the best gang prevention programs in San Bernardino and has helped many young people stay in school and out of trouble.

This tragic shooting of Mynesha Crenshaw symbolizes the struggle that so many communities across the United States, like San Bernardino, face in combating gang violence and serves as a reminder of the nationwide problem we face in protecting our children from senseless violence. I believe ``Mynesha's Law'' will help the children of San Bernardino, and across our nation, grow up safely so they can reach their dreams.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will increase the fuel economy for our Nation's Federal fleet.

Americans are facing record high gasoline prices at over $3 per gallon. In some places in my State of California, people are paying over $4 per gallon. Oil is selling for over $75 per barrel.

We need to say ``enough is enough.'' We need to reduce our dependence on oil and gasoline. We can do this without changing our quality of life by investing in fuel-efficient cars.

The Federal Government must set an example to the American public by improving the Nation's fleet. Each year, the Federal Government purchases 58,000 passenger vehicles. According to the Department of Energy, the average fuel economy of the new vehicles purchased for the fleet in 2005 was an abysmal 21.4 miles per gallon.

In an era, where hybrid cars on the market that can achieve over 50 miles per gallon (mpg), that level of fuel economy is unacceptable.

Instead, our government needs to purchase fuel-efficient cars, SUVs, and other light trucks.

This can be done today. I drive a Toyota Prius that gets over 50 mpg. The Ford Escape SUV can get 36 mpg.

To have the Federal Government set an example for the American public and to create a larger market for fuel-efficient vehicles, I am introducing the ``Fuel-Efficient Fleets Act of 2006.''

This legislation would require all new Federal fleet vehicles to obtain a minimum miles per gallon based on vehicle type. The new fuel efficiency standards would be as follows: 45 mpg for cars, 36 mpg for SUVs, 24 mpg for pickup trucks, 20 mpg for minivans, and 15 mpg for vans.

The bill establishes a phase-in schedule over 4 years to allow for flexibility in purchasing new cars.

Additionally, the bill has a provision to allow the standards to be increased if technological advances allow fuel economy to improve.

Finally, the bill authorizes $100 million in incentive grants for the States' fleets to match or exceed the Federal standards.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill. This will be a good step to use less gasoline in this country.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleague Senator DeWine to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn infants. Many people know the joy of parenthood. They also know the sense of worry about whether their kids are doing well, are feeling well, and are safe. Nothing is of greater importance than the health and well-being of our children.

Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now possible to test newborns for more than 50 genetic and metabolic disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and treated can, in many cases, go on to live healthy lives. So newborn screening can literally save lives.

Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical history of the condition in the family, no way to predict the health of a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that are tested for are quite rare, there is a chance that any one newborn will be effected a sort of morbid lottery. In that sense, this is an issue that has a direct impact on the lives of every family.

Fortunately, some screening has become common practice in every State. Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their heel to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long- term health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with one of these disorders. That means that newborn screening could protect the health or save the life of approximately 1,000 newborns each year. That is 1,000 tragedies that can be averted families that can know the joy of a new infant rather than absolute heartbreak.

That is the good news. However, there is so much more to be done. For every baby saved, another two are estimated to be born with potentially detectable disorders that go undetected

because they are not screened. These infants and their families face the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. The survival of a newborn may very well come down to the State in which it is born, because not all States test for every detectable disorder.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in 2003 highlighting the need for this legislation. According to the report, most States do not educate parents and health care providers about the availability of tests beyond what is mandated by a state. States also reported that they do not have the resources to purchase the technology and train the staff needed to expand newborn screening programs. Finally, even when States do detect an abnormal screening result, the majority do not inform parents directly.

Two weeks ago, I visited Stamford Hospital in my home State of Connecticut to talk to physicians and parents about newborn screening. I was joined there by Pamela Sweeney. Pamela is the mother of 7-year- old Jonathan Sweeney. At the time of his birth, Connecticut only tested for eight disorders. He was considered a healthy baby, although he was a poor sleeper and needed to be fed quite frequently. One morning in December of 2000, Pamela found Jonathan with his eyes wide open but completely unresponsive. He was not breathing and appeared to be having a seizure. Jonathan was rushed to the hospital where, fortunately, his life was saved. He was later diagnosed with L-CHAD, a disorder that prevents Jonathan's body from turning fat into energy.

Despite this harrowing tale, Jonathan and his family are extremely fortunate. Jonathan is alive, and his disorder can be treated with a special diet. He has experienced developmental delays that most likely could have been avoided had he been tested for L-CHAD at birth. This raises a question. Why was he not tested? Why do many States still not test for L-CHAD?

The primary reason for this unfortunate reality is the lack of a consensus on the federal level about what should be screened for, and how a screening program should be developed. Fortunately, that is changing. In the Children's Health Act of 2000, Senator DeWine and I authored language to create an Advisory Committee on newborn screening within the Department of Health and Human Services. Last year, that Advisory Committee released a report recommending that all States test for a standard set of 29 disorders. Several States, including Connecticut, are already well on their way to meeting this recommendation.

The legislation that we are introducing today will give states an additional helping hand towards meeting the Advisory's Committee's recommendation by providing $25 million for States to expand and improve their newborn screening programs. In order to access these resources, States will be required to commit to screening for all 29 disorders.

Our legislation will also provide $15 million for two types of grants. The first seeks to address the lack of information available to health care professionals and parents about newborn screening. Every parent should have the knowledge necessary to protect their child. The tragedy of a newborn's death is only compounded by the frustration of learning that the death was preventable. This bill authorizes grants to provide education and training to health care professionals, state laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates.

The second type of grant will support States in providing follow-up care for those children diagnosed by a disorder detected through newborn screening. While these families are the fortunate ones, in many cases they are still faced with the prospect of extended and complex treatment or major lifestyle changes. We need to remember that care does not stop at diagnosis.

Finally, the bill directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish a national surveillance program for newborn screening, and provides $15 million for that purpose. Such a program will help us conduct research to better understand these rare disorders, and will hopefully lead us towards more effective treatments and cures.

I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative so that every newborn child will have the best possible opportunity that America can offer to live a long, healthy and happy life.

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