Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution commending relief efforts in response to the earthquake in South Asia and urging a commitment by the United States and the international community to help rebuild critical infrastructure in the affected areas.

On October 8, 2005, a devastating magnitude 7.6 earthquake hit remote mountainous regions of northern Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. More than 75,000 people have died, nearly 70,000 have been injured and 2.8 million remain homeless. On a bipartisan basis, the President and members of Congress joined the world community in expressing our sympathy and pledging our assistance to help those suffering in the face of this terrible disaster.

But expressions of sympathy are not enough. The United States must set an example and lead the world in the humanitarian effort of recovery and rebuilding. That's why I supported the initial pledge of $156 million in humanitarian aid from the United States.

The Department of Defense, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have taken the lead in making good on that pledge. USAID has provided more than $50.1 million in assistance to Pakistan and more than $600,000 to India. The Defense Department has so far spent about $56 million on relief efforts, including sending more than 1,000 troops into Pakistan to provide urgent medical care, delivering much-needed supplies and clearing roads and opening routes for ground transportation so more help can reach those most in need.

The American private sector has also pitched in. U.S. charities have raised more than $21 million to support earthquake relief efforts. Non- government organizations like Catholic Relief Services, Mercy Corps and Save the Children all have a presence in Pakistan and are providing aid and relief. At President Bush's request, five major American corporations are encouraging additional private donations. General Electric, Pfizer, Citigroup, Xerox and UPS are coordinating a nationwide fund raising effort through the South Asia Earthquake Relief Fund. To date, more than $46 million has been donated by American corporations.

As Americans, we can all be proud of these efforts to help the people of South Asia survive, recover and rebuild. I applaud President Bush and his administration for acting quickly to provide relief and support. But I know that, together, we can do better.

That's why I support the immediate reprogramming by USAID of assistance funds for Pakistan in the FY 2006 Foreign Operations Act to help meet the immediate, emergency need for medical care and shelter. The nearly 3 million Pakistanis left homeless by the earthquake are already facing snow and freezing rain. Conservative estimates suggest another 80,000 people could die from exposure in the next few months without a massive effort to provide thousands of heated tents. Those people can not afford to wait for the next supplemental appropriations bill--we must act now.

The United States should also engage with the international community to boost relief and recovery efforts. The United Nations has already responded, convening a donors' conference to organize international relief efforts. Economic institutions like the World Bank and the Paris Club can assist long-term recovery efforts by re-examining their debt policy toward the affected countries. And members of NATO and the European Union must step-up their support for relief and recovery. NATO in particular has unique assets that can make a difference today for people on the ground in South Asia.

I also believe the United States should make a long-term investment in rebuilding the areas devastated by the earthquake. We have strong partnerships with the nations of South Asia, and we have strong affection for their people. We must commit to work with our friends for as long as it takes to help them rebuild their infrastructure, with a particular emphasis on boosting medical resources for a health care system now overwhelmed by caring for the weak and injured.

The people and governments of Pakistan, India and Afghanistan must know that the United States will be an unwavering partner in their recovery and reconstruction. Our U.S. military and the employees of the State Department and USAID are working hard to extend support to our friends in this terrible time of need. We thank them for their service and pledge that we, too, will do our part.

I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes under the time controlled on the Democratic side.

I note that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee has come to the Chamber, and I know he is eager to speak on the bill and has many demanding responsibilities.

I compliment both Senators Enzi and Kennedy, as well as Senators Grassley and Baucus, on the outstanding job they have done in developing this legislation and putting two bills together. Pension reform is one of the most important issues facing the American people, and Congress must rise to the challenge of passing legislation. Reform is needed to protect workers' pensions, to protect good-guy businesses, and also to protect the American taxpayer, who often ends up being the safety net for so many pensions.

The bill before us today is generally a very good bill. Yes, I do see some yellow flashing lights about two provisions of the bill regarding the use of credit rating and something called smoothing. That is why Senator DeWine and I had originally wanted to offer an amendment to avoid the unintended consequences that might push companies to drop their pension plans and leave workers in desperation.

In recent days, we have made a lot of progress. Senator DeWine and I have had very constructive conversations with Senators Grassley and Baucus. Senators Enzi and Kennedy have been particularly helpful in brokering a resolution to some of the issues. The process seemed far less ominous when their wise heads and hands got involved in it. Their help was invaluable in ironing out some of the wrinkles. I believe we have a commitment to work together in conference to address our concerns because I truly believe that the Senate bill is in many ways a superior bill to those in the House. This is why I am eager to see this bill move ahead.

Throughout my career, everyone knows I have been fighting for the little guy. This is no different. Pensions are part of the American dream. People believe that if one works hard, they can get ahead, but also if they work hard, they are going to have a pension. A pension has to serve as one of three legs of an increasingly wobbly stool supporting older Americans in retirement. That is why we are so concerned about the fragility of so many pension plans in our own country.

We have worked from the beginning on a bipartisan basis. Senator DeWine and I are the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, of which Senator Enzi is the chair and Senator Kennedy is ranking. We held a series of hearings, and they were outstanding. I wish the American people could have seen them. They were content rich, and they were also characterized by civility, particularly among members. The hearings demonstrated the need for comprehensive reform that addressed not just single-employer plans, but multi-employer plans and cash balance plans as well.

What I like about the bill is that we have a smart bill, we have a good bill, and we have a bipartisan bill. When we looked at it, part of our bipartisan framework was to let us do no harm either to the people who need pensions or to the people who provide the jobs and the business. We need to make sure workers do not lose their pensions. We had to look out for good-guy businesses that are doing everything they can to fund their pensions. We also had to protect the taxpayer and ensure that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was solvent. It must not be used as a dumping ground for those companies that want to walk away from their pensions even though there was no need to. I believe we accomplished so much in those principles: do no harm, protect the worker, protect good-guy businesses, and look out for our taxpayers.

When the HELP bill was merged into the finance bill, many improvements were made, but there were several provisions that, as I said, had yellow flashing lights. One is the issue of credit rating and the other is the issue of smoothing.

There are those within the HELP Committee--and my colleague, Senator DeWine, and I count ourselves as two of them--who are concerned that a company's credit rating is being used as an indicator of its pension plan's health. Companies with bad credit ratings could be forced to put in extra payments, even if they had been responsible in making regular payments to their generally well-funded plans.

Credit rating is a blunt instrument. Data from Moody's, one of the Nation's leading credit rating companies, should help explain this. Moody's looked at companies that were sub-investment grade and followed them for a full 20 years. After these 20 years, a majority of the companies had not defaulted on their bonds. This tells us that the companies had not gone bankrupt.

Some people are worried that weak companies will go into bankruptcy and dump their pension plans. The facts say otherwise: a majority of companies in junk-bond status won't go bankrupt. Forcing struggling companies to make new draconian payments could end up pushing many companies to terminate their plans or enter bankruptcy. We have to take that into consideration.

This means in fact this language would bring about exactly what it is designed to protect against.

Auto manufacturers and tech companies, many of whom are just now regaining their financial stability, could be among those hit hardest by these provisions. We should encourage these viable businesses to continue making contributions to their plans, not push them into bankruptcy.

Such an unintended consequence could well cost many Americans their jobs and their pensions. Senator DeWine and I wanted to make a targeted change to the bill to help prevent this, substituting the actual measure of a plan's health in place of credit ratings.

The other issue that concerned me is limitations on smoothing. Smoothing is the process of averaging estimates of assets and liabilities and is used because pensions are by nature long-term investments. Smoothing improves predictability and makes it easier for companies to plan their budgets around their pension contributions.

Under current law, companies can average estimates of assets and liabilities over 4 or 5 years to smooth fluctuations in the stock market and in interest rates. Senator DeWine and I wanted to tighten this to 3 years, which is more restrictive than current law but more effective than the merged bill's one year. Numerous experts have said that one year is just not enough.

I also want to highlight a key transparency provision in the merged bill that requires companies to issue a snapshot, unsmoothed picture of their assets and liabilities each year to participants and the PBGC. This new disclosure addresses the criticism that smoothing can hide problems in plan funding for several years. Now, many problems should be apparent just 90 days after the end of the plan year.

Last Wednesday, the House Ways and Means committee passed Chairman Thomas' bill. Like the HELP bill and like Chairman Boehner's bill, the Ways and Means Committee didn't include credit rating and allowed 3 years of smoothing.

I continue to feel strongly about the need to make changes to the legislation before us today. I also believe it is imperative to continue moving through the legislative process so we can pass this much needed reform. The Ways and Means Committee has acted, and we now know that the House of Representatives is sure to have a good position on these issues. There are too many other good provisions in this bill that we must pass.

I am not going to go into all the details of the bill. I note that the chairman of the Finance Committee wishes to speak. We want to move this legislation. I want to pass this bill so we can get to conference. We want to say to the House: They sometimes think the Senate is the body that talks more than it gets done. We challenge the House to pass this bill before they leave the way the Senate is going to do it and to do it the way we did it--working on a bipartisan basis.

I cannot say enough about the appreciation I have for Senator DeWine of Ohio, who was the chairman of the subcommittee. We worked together, and we really looked out for those jobs that have a defined benefit plan, particularly in the older manufacturing corporations. It was a delight to work with him, and I look forward to that on many other issues.

Senator Enzi, with his accounting background, provided a steady hand and again has worked to create a culture and climate of civility that is becoming a hallmark of our committee. I have also appreciated working with Senators Grassley and Baucus to achieve the melding of two very good bills. We thank them and we thank their staffs for their collegiality and consultation.

I look forward to voting for this bill. I look forward to being a conferee, and I look forward to bringing a bill back to the Senate not only that the Senate can be proud of but that people who need pensions can rely upon and that business does not fear. Government must be part of the solution rather than the problem.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Senator Shelby and I have worked on a bipartisan basis to bring this bill back to the floor as a conference report. We are in agreement with the principles of the bill so we are able to bring the bill forward. On our side, we estimate that we have three other speakers. We note the Senator from Minnesota is in the Chamber and he wishes to speak. There are two others whom we expect to speak.

This is a new subcommittee. The VA-HUD Subcommittee on Appropriations

was dismantled and farmed out to different subcommittees, so some parts came to the Commerce Committee and the Justice Committee, and now we call it the Science Committee. It has a fantastic jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction is focused on saving lives and saving livelihoods. It is about investing in innovation through science and technology for our country's future, and it is about looking out for our communities and justice system.

Despite a tough allocation, I believe this bill, as completed, is fair and we have done the best we could. The Commerce Department oversees many agencies, some of which are very important Federal labs such as NOAA and the National Institute of Standards. The Department of Justice is on the front line. It funds the FBI, DEA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the U.S. Attorneys.

These are not just agencies; these are men and women who every single day are trying to find those people who are often criminals in our country, those who have committed terrible acts of arson. In my own home State, they detected the sniper who held the capital region at bay a few years ago. It is our U.S. attorneys, America's DAs, who are prosecuting drug dealers, organized crime, and white-collar crime, and also chairing the task forces on homeland security.

The Justice Department tries to protect us from terrorists and protect our neighborhoods and our communities. It also provides grants to State and local law enforcement and helps fight gang violence. This year, this bill provides $21 billion to the Justice Department. That is $800 million more than last year. The Justice Department accounts for almost 50 percent of the entire cost of our bill. The FBI, with tremendous responsibility to fight both crime and to find terrorists, will receive $5.7 billion. This is a $500 million increase over last year. It will focus on things such as counterterrorism, in which we then try to use this as a domestic agency to fight terrorists.

We also remember we have other obligations, particularly for missing and exploited children. We are working very closely with the President of the United States and our Attorney General to make sure we have a hotline and a way to identify those sexual predators who have been released from prison who come back to our communities, and also to recover missing children and to prevent abduction and sexual exploitation, whether it is on the Internet or in our communities. They are doing a great job.

Also, they have been used to identify those children who were missing after Katrina. So we not only look for the kids on AMBER alert--as terrible and as chilling as that could be--but after the hurricanes hit we could not find a lot of our children. Moms and dads put their children on some of the last buses leaving Louisiana and now, thanks to the way we work, we have helped bring about family unification.

At the same time, we have a new menace sweeping our country and that is gangs. We have certainly seen an increase in my own home State. We are providing Federal funds for initiatives, particularly focused in Montgomery County and Prince George's County.

Our way of fighting gangs is going to follow a three-point strategy of suppression, intervention, and prevention. We believe this bill will work with law enforcement in our communities and community support groups to do that.

At the same time, we have substantial funding to deal with the methamphetamine scourge that is sweeping our country. Many of my colleagues have spoken about that.

While we are busy fighting criminals, though, we also have to protect the judges as we bring those criminals to justice. We are all aware of the great threat that often happens to our judges as they try to do their duty. So we have increased the funding for the Marshals Service to capture fugitives and protect judges in our Federal court system. Just this past week, the marshals captured a convicted murderer who escaped from a prison in Texas.

Where we had a tough fight was in State and local law enforcement. The President's budget cut that by $1.4 billion. Working on a bipartisan basis, we did increase that budget by $1.1 billion, but that left us $300 million down. I am sorry that had to happen. We did the best we could, and I know others will talk about it.

We put a great deal of effort into making sure we have a national effort that will be funded locally for the growing problem of methamphetamine--and, gosh, how it is affecting not only urban but rural communities is shocking--and also to fund counterterrorism and counterintelligence. These growing problems are facing us. We did the best we could.

I know some of our colleagues will ask: Senator Mikulski, how did it all work out with the methamphetamine in conference? When the bill left the Senate, it was pretty good.

I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we have provided a record amount of money, over $60 million, to fight meth abuse. Meth abuse is one of our biggest problems and we hope this is a significant downpayment in dealing with this problem.

While we are busy fighting crime, we also want to fight for America's future. We believe we need to focus more on innovation. A country that does not innovate stagnates. We are worried that we are losing ground in terms of our ability to innovate. We believe one of the ways to strengthen innovation is through our Federal laboratories. That is why this year we have funded an increase of $62 million at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, raising their appropriations to $761 million. The NIST partners, working with industry, develop new technologies and new breakthroughs that create jobs. At the same time it creates standards for new products coming to the marketplace so they can file patents, they can be exported, and they can meet the demands of the EU and the WTO.

In terms of our Federal labs, we want not only new ideas but also those ideas that protect America. So this year we have increased funding for NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Everybody knows NOAA; they are known for their weather reports. We know them for their hurricane reports. We know them for their tsunami alerts. NOAA generally saves lives and saves livelihoods.

The weather service has given us important forecasts and warnings so we can secure our property and get people out of harm's way. Also, we made a particular note that the conference prohibits the consolidation or reducing of hours of those weather forecast offices. For us coastal Senators, it supports our fisheries which are critical to our economy.

While we are busy working on some of the new ideas, such as at NASA and the National Science Foundation, which I will talk about in a minute, I want to talk about the issue of intellectual property, as I have talked about NIST. In America, we often invent great ideas. We win the Nobel Prizes, but we have to win not only the Nobel Prizes, we have to win the markets. When we go out there to win those markets, we have to protect our intellectual property. It is as important as defending the homeland because it is our jobs, our future, and our source of revenue. All around the world, particularly in southeast Asia, they are trying to steal our ideas. Well, we are not going to allow it. We have to make sure we fight it in our trade agreements, we have to fight it in our trade enforcement, but we have to begin at home to make sure we have a patent office that protects this intellectual property. We have increased their funding 30 percent to reduce the backlog of over 500,000 patents.

Who knows what those patents are. It could be the next generation of pacemaker. It could be the next generation of hybrid for an automobile or for a truck. Most of all, it is going to be the next generation that hopefully keeps jobs, and jobs in manufacturing, in the United States of America.

So while we talk about labs, this is not some wonky legislation. We believe it is our ideas that are saving lives, saving property, and saving jobs.

We do know we need to be on the cutting edge of science. We believe that cutting edge comes from the National Science Foundation, which we have funded at $5.6 billion, $180 million more than last year. The National Science Foundation funds a lot. It funds our basic research in chemistry, biology, and in physics. We all know about the National Institutes of Health and salute them, but at the same time we

need to know it is the NSF that is doing the basic science and also breakthrough science such as in nanotechnology and in global warming. It also funds the post-doctorates and the graduate school stipends so our young people can go on to graduate school. That is that next generation.

Then, of course, near and dear to my heart is NASA. This year, we have provided $16.4 billion, $260 million over last year. I know many people are wondering what is going to happen to the Hubble. Is the Hubble going to run out of steam? Will the Hubble stop discovering all that wonderful new science?

Hang on. Hope and help is on the way. We have increased the funding for the Hubble budget to accommodate a servicing mission into space to rescue the Hubble. It will take new batteries. It will take new operating and optical equipment. What we do need, though, is to make sure the shuttle makes two more flights so it is safe for the astronauts to go up. We are helping our astronauts. We are providing full funding for the Space Shuttle, the space station, and the development of crew exploration vehicles. All science programs are funded at the President's request.

We also have funded the Census Bureau at $812 million, which allows the census to move forward with the 2010 census. The census is America's database, and we need to keep it contemporary.

What I have just given sounds like an accountant. I will submit a statement later on that will talk about what this means in terms of innovation. But today Senator Shelby wanted to brief our colleagues on the numbers and on the money.

We think we have done a good job. What we have done is take our appropriations allocation, put 50 percent of our money into protecting America from terrorists, from crooks, from thugs, and from the exploiters of children. At the same time, we have used the other 50 percent to promote innovation in science and technology and also to protect our intellectual property. We think we have done a very good job.

I thank at this time my very good friend, Senator Shelby. Senator Shelby and I came to the House of Representatives together and served with the Energy and Commerce Committee. We came to the Senate at the same time. He is an excellent colleague to work with. We share the same priorities for this country. I want America to know that we do work together, and when we work together we always do better.

I thank staffs who really function with collegiality and with great civility. I thank the Shelby staff: Katherine Hennessey, Art Cameron, Joe Long, Christa Crawford, and Allan Cutler.

My own staff who worked so hard, I thank Paul Carliner, Gabrielle Batkin, Alexa Sewell, and Kate Fitzpatrick for all of the hard work they have done.

This is kind of a thumbnail sketch for our bill in the interest of time. There will be Senators who will be coming to speak on the bill.

I will yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton. Later on in the afternoon I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan; to Senator Obama, from Illinois, for 5 minutes; and 5 minutes to Senator Sarbanes, my esteemed and cherished colleague from Maryland.

I now yield the floor to our excellent colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton, who, himself, has been an enormous advocate for local law enforcement and has been a real strong voice for increasing funding for fighting the meth scourge. We are so sorry it is going to be his last year with us, the great guy that he is. We know he will do well. We certainly wish him well, and I look forward to hearing him this afternoon.

Before the senior Senator returns to the Banking Committee, I want him to know that I, too, regret that we could not do the housing vouchers, the small business administration loans, as well as the economic development assistance Katrina amendments. These would have really helped rebuild communities and rebuild lives. But the House was so resistant we could not. We were defeated on a voice vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as my colleagues know, we continue to discuss the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations conference report. We note that our colleague from Illinois wishes to speak, and I yield to Senator Obama 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chris Crawford of the Appropriations Committee staff be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 2862.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of Senator Nelson's amendment to protect seniors against the outrageous increases in their Medicare costs.

Health care costs are skyrocketing and seniors are paying a greater share out of their pockets for health care each year. Medicare premium increases are outpacing inflation. Prescription drug costs are shooting through the roof.

Other out-of-pocket medical expenses are also increasing. Seniors are facing higher copays and deductibles. Last year's Medicare bill increased deductibles for doctors' visits by 10 percent. Deductibles for hospital and skilled nursing home visits are also rising.

Medicare beneficiaries spend a sizable portion of their income on health care. In 2004, beneficiaries spent about $3,725--nearly one- quarter--of their income on health care costs. Over the last 3 years, Medicare premiums have increased by 50 percent. Compare this to the only 10-percent increase in seniors' cost-of-living adjustments, COLA. Next year, Part B premiums will increase by another 12 percent.

But there is another problem this amendment addresses. The current Medicare physician payment formula, known as the sustainable growth rate, SGR, has serious flaws. The current formula has generated negative updates since 2001. Without congressional intervention, reimbursement rates for physicians in the Medicare Program will decrease by 4.3 percent next year.

I have long supported fixing this flawed formula. With the majority of my colleagues, I have written letters to CMS Commissioner Dr. Mark McClelan and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Joshua Bolten. I have supported legislation trying to address this issue. Without a permanent fix, this uncertainty causes considerable angst among the physician community every year. Although I believe Congress needs to enact a long-term solution, this amendment supports a 1 percent increase in the physician reimbursement rate for the next year.

But this increase in physician payments will also increase overall spending on Medicare Part B. This will in turn increase Medicare premiums, which are set at 25 percent of Part B expenses. While I strongly support the payment change, I believe it is equally important that Medicare beneficiaries not have their premiums unexpectedly increased.

This amendment ensures that Medicare beneficiaries will not have to pay unexpectedly higher premiums in 2007 because of the payment changes for 2006 in the Senate's budget reconciliation bill. This amendment prevents us from having to make a King Solomon-like decision. With this amendment, we do not have to consider ``cutting the baby in half.'' We do not have to decide between this modest increase to physician reimbursement and a further hike to our senior citizens--especially for those who are forced to live on a fixed income.

In addition, the increase necessary to provide for physician reimbursement will not have to come from taxpayers. The offset for this amendment is an expansion of a drug rebate program currently in place since 1990. Drug manufacturers currently pay a rebate to participate in Medicaid. The Nelson amendment would offset the cost of protecting Medicare beneficiaries from the Part B premium increase by providing Medicaid managed care plans access to these drug rebates.

I think it is a good idea to expand the drug rebate program from Medicare fee-for-service to all of Medicaid, including the managed care programs. When we first passed this law, 15 years ago, Medicaid managed care did not have such a strong presence. It now accounts for much of Medicaid services and should be part of this rebate program.

I believe honor thy mother and father is not just a good commandment to live by, it is good public policy to govern by.

That's why I feel so strongly about Medicare. Congress created Medicare to provide a safety net for seniors. In 1965, seniors' biggest fear was the cost of hospital care. One heart attack could have put a family into bankruptcy. That is what Medicare Part A is all about.

Then Congress added Medicare Part B to help seniors pay for doctor visits as an important step to keep seniors healthy and financially secure. Now, Part B premium increases are racing ahead of seniors' ability to pay. So seniors may lose the ability to pay for coverage for their doctor's visits.

This amendment is not an answer to skyrocketing health care costs, but a stopgap measure to give seniors a little breathing room. I am working hard on several bills to fix the Medicare bill that was passed last year. I am fighting to protect seniors' Social Security COLAs from increases in both Part B and Part D premiums.

I am fighting to close the coverage gap to provide a real drug benefit for seniors. I am fighting to allow the Government to negotiate with drug companies to lower the cost of prescription drugs to save money for the Government and for seniors. I am fighting to end the giveaways to insurance companies and use those savings to improve Medicare.

And I could go on.

I am fighting to protect physician reimbursement rates by supporting legislation and writing to government officials who have the authority to make changes to the flawed formula.

And I will continue to fight.

This amendment is a good step down in our constant attempt to reign in Medicare premium costs for seniors while protecting reimbursement rates for physicians.

Seniors cannot afford 17-percent increases in their Medicare premiums. Physicians cannot afford to have their reimbursement rates cut. I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Opening the refuge is not the answer to solving our country's energy needs. We cannot drill our way out of our energy problems.

We need to focus on real solutions not gimmicks--solutions that decrease our dependence of foreign oil, protect the environment and help consumers at a time when the costs to fill up their gas tanks and heat their homes are at all time highs.

If we open the Arctic Refuge for oil and gas drilling, it would provide only about a 6-month supply of oil and would not even be available for 10 or more years. That means that drilling in the wildlife refuge would not affect our current oil and gasoline prices nor will it reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil. Even in 10 or so years when we might get the oil, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will help little if at all.

Rather than trying to get a couple of months of oil supply in 10 years, we need to address the most pressing issues facing our country now: our growing dependence on foreign oil, sky-high oil and gas prices, and global warming. This is what I have been fighting for--real solutions to real problems that would help today's consumers and tomorrow's energy needs.

That is why I fought to include an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill that would provide a million dollars to the Federal Trade Commission to immediately investigate claims of price gouging. While oil companies and refineries report record profits, American consumers shouldn't have to scrimp to buy gasoline to go to work, or church or to buy groceries. I also cosponsored a bill that would place a federal ban on price gouging for oil, gasoline and other petroleum products during times of energy emergencies. To drive this point home, I sent a letter to the chairwoman of the FTC, expressing my concern over the consolidation of oil refineries, resulting in the lack of competition.

I also recently sent a letter to President Bush urging him to convene a White House summit of oil and gas company CEOs to insist that they

lower their sky-high gas and home heating oil prices. These are some of the President's closets political supporters and friends They are also the same men and women who the President called on to write the administration's energy policy in 2001. If the President can call them in to help themselves, he should call them back to help ordinary Americans. Another letter called on the oil and gas company CEOs to temporarily halt unnecessary exports of any home heating oil products that they are currently sending abroad. We cannot expect Americans to pay over $1,000 to heat their homes this winter when U.S. companies are exporting billions of gallons of refined heating oil and propane.

We need to find solutions for tomorrow's energy needs as well as those facing Americans today. I introduced a bill that would provide tax incentives for energy efficient hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, which was included in the Energy bill. I also voted for a proviso in the Senate energy bill that would have required utilities to generate 10 percent of their energy from renewable sources. In addition, I supported a provision in the bill that requires the Federal Government to get at least 7.5 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2013. I also supported an amendment that would require the U.S. to reduce foreign oil imports by 40 percent in 20 years

Just last week, oil companies reported record third quarter profits, some more than 85 percent higher than last year. As Americans struggle to fill their gas tanks and pay high home heating bills, the oil and gas companies are filling their pockets with historic profits. And now, here we are, in the Senate, giving them the opportunity to drill in federally protected land.

This is not a time to reward oil and gas companies with the promise of more profits. We need to give these companies the opportunity to be patriots--not profiteers. They need to join us by holding down prices, investing in renewable energy, serving the needs of Americans and conserving as much as possible. Together, America can do better.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to say how deeply concerned I am over the wrong priorities in the spending reconciliation bill that is before us today.

The United States faces a Federal deficit of $331 billion for fiscal year 2005 alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This is a complete turnaround from when President Bush took office just under five years ago. He inherited record budget surpluses and turned them into record deficits. Unfortunately, that has not stopped Republicans from pushing relentlessly for the wrong priorities and irresponsible policies.

As a result, we now have encountered years of record deficits that have contributed to $3 trillion added to our country's debt. Moreover, under President Bush's watch, American debt to foreigners has doubled. Japan holds $680 billion of our debt, China holds $240 billion, and the Carribean Banking Centers hold over $100 billion. Increasingly, our fate is in the hands of their central banks and investors.

We must take action so that we don't put this burden on our Nation's future generations. The budget reconciliation process was designed for such a situation: to give Congress the tools necessary for deficit reduction. Reconciliation could have offered us the opportunity to work across the aisle to take responsible steps toward reducing the deficit.

Instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are pushing for the wrong priorities. Take for example their opposition to Senator Conrad's commonsense amendment on fiscal responsibility. His amendment, called paygo, would have reinstated a rule meant to stop Congress from worsening the deficit. It was my hope that it would have once again served as a check against irresponsible spending or new rounds of tax cuts at a time when the Nation cannot afford them.

My colleagues across the aisle say that tough choices are needed to get our fiscal house in order. I agree--we should balance the federal budget just as every American must balance theirs, unless a natural disaster or other national crisis demands it. Anytime Congress wants to raise spending--or lower revenue--Congress should pause and be required to stand up to vote and defend its action. That is what this amendment would have required, but Republicans voted against fiscal responsibility.

Today, we are debating the spending reconciliation bill for fiscal year 2006, but it is only half of the equation. This bill makes $39 billion in cuts to critical spending programs. Many of these cuts will directly hurt low- and middle-income Americans. The bill takes away Americans' access to health care and affordable housing and jeopardizes their pensions. The bill attacks important conservation efforts by cutting funding and opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. But the bill stays silent on lowering energy prices for working families who can no longer afford to pay their monthly gas bills. Simply put, it leaves too many Americans out in the cold.

In several weeks, the Senate will be taking up a tax reconciliation bill. That bill will cut taxes by $70 billion, with an average giveaway of $35,500 for those making more than $1 million each year. Those with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would get just over $100 on average. The difference is striking, but not so much as the fact that this will all be done under the Senate's

procedure of reconciliation--which was designed to lower the deficit, not raise it. These tax cuts will undermine the cuts that the bill is making today to critical spending programs and will add an additional $31 billion to the deficit. This is irresponsible. It's just another example of how the President and his allies in Congress have the wrong priorities, and not the best interest of America, at heart.

What is most frustrating is the knowledge that the final budget will likely be even worse than what we pass in the Senate. The House of Representatives plans to cut $50 billion in critical services, including student loans, food stamps, child support enforcement, foster care, and health care. Again, these cuts will not go to lowering the deficit. Instead, they will finance another round of tax cuts at a time when we also have staggering energy costs, a war in Iraq, many unfunded education needs, an exploding population of seniors, and an unprecedented relief and rebuilding effort stemming from Katrina.

I believe we must work together to realign priorities so they reflect those of the American people. Working together, we can do better. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided bill.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pandemic flu preparedness amendment that my colleague from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, has offered to the fiscal year 2006 Labor/Health and Human Services/ Education appropriation bill.

I thank Senator Harkin for taking the lead in addressing the important issue of pandemic flu on the floor of the Senate. Over the past few months, we have heard from leading public health experts such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it is no longer a question of if a pandemic flu will occur, but instead when the threat does occur will we be prepared as a nation. Public health experts have warned that an avian influenza outbreak could ignite a worldwide pandemic that would threaten the lives of millions of Americans. The consequences of a pandemic could be far reaching, impacting every sector of our society and our economy.

Past influenza pandemics have led to high levels of illness, death, social disruption, and devastating economic losses; the 1918 ``Spanish Flu'', took the lives of more than 500,000 Americans, the 1957 ``Asian Flu'' caused more than 70,000 American deaths and the 1968 ``Hong Kong Flu'' is attributed to more than 34,000 American deaths.

Our Nation is facing a major health threat. Experts have told us that the next pandemic has the potential to be every bit as devastating as what the world witnessed over 100 years ago. With the rapid travel around the globe compared to 1918, and the interdependence of our economic markets compared to 1918, the potential human and economic costs of the next pandemic are unimaginable.

We must take the necessary steps to adequately prepare for a potential pandemic. We must heed the warning we have been given. That is why I support Senator Harkin's pandemic flu amendment. Senator Harkin's amendment provides necessary funding that would be used to expand and strengthen efforts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as at the State and local level related to pandemic flu and public health preparedness. The amendment would provide additional funding to expand CDC's global disease surveillance capabilities, provide additional support for State and local public health facilities, increase hospital surge capacity and scale up vaccine manufacturing to make sure the American people are protected against pandemic threats.

First, the amendment provides additional funding to expand and support the strategic national stockpile to ensure antivirals, as well as necessary drugs, vaccines and other supplies are secured to respond to a pandemic flu and/or other pandemic threats.

Second, this amendment provides additional funding to build up and support one of the most important components to public health and threat assessments, which is global disease surveillance. One of the best first defenses to limiting the scope and consequences of any outbreak within a short turn around is to rapidly detect and contain the spread of a new influenza strain.

Third, this amendment funds research efforts to discover new vaccine treatments to deal with pandemic flu infections. Currently, there is no vaccine available to protect humans against a pandemic influenza. There is some vaccine development underway, but these efforts need to be strengthened, sustained, and tested to protect our Nation against pandemic flu.

Lastly, this amendment provides additional funding for State and local public health preparedness initiatives. If a pandemic were to spread in the United States, State and local health departments would be on the front lines. However, State and local entities are woefully unprepared. Additional funds are needed for terrorism response planning, training, strengthening epidemiology, and surveillance, upgrading lab capacity and communications systems and other related activities. They must be given adequate resources. We must take the lessons learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It was evident that our country's public health infrastructure was not adequately prepared to address the needs of the people affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We cannot let that happen again. We can do better, and we must do better.

Our Nation's public health experts have done their jobs--they have told us what needs to be done. We must heed their warning. Again, I thank Senator Harkin for his work on this important issue, and I support the amendment as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, we have reached a milestone in Iraq. Two thousand U.S. servicemembers have been killed, including 42 Marylanders. We must not talk about this in terms of just numbers and statistics. Each individual has left behind a legacy, a unique life story.

Today, I want to pause to remember five young men from Maryland who

died in Iraq in the last 10 days: Army SGT Brian R. Conner, Army SPC Samuel M. Boswell, Army SPC Bernard L. Ceo, Marine LCpl Norman W. Anderson, III, and Army SPC Kendell K. Frederick. Our condolences go out to their families, as well as our gratitude and our appreciation for these brave young men. To honor those who have died, we must remember the way they lived. Let me tell you about them:

SGT Brian R. Conner of Gwynn Oak, MD was just 36 years old. He was a member of the Maryland National Guard's 243rd Engineer Company, in Baltimore. Sergeant Conner was one of three Army National Guardsmen killed October 14 in an accident northwest of Baghdad. A tractor trailer struck their humvee, setting it on fire and detonating ammunition aboard. Sergeant Conner was a lieutenant in Baltimore Fire Department, having joined in 1993. He had served in the Maryland National Guard since June 1989. Sergeant Conner leaves behind three daughters, ages 10, 15, and 21, and his beloved 3-year-old grandson. He is survived by his mother Hortense Connor, his brother Paul Edwards, and sister Cherice Conner Davis. He is also mourned by his brothers and sisters in the Baltimore Fire Department. One family friend said of Sergeant Conner: ``Brian was not only a great man who accomplished many of his dreams--he was someone loved and cared for. His values will live on.'' May God bless Brian Conner.

SPC Samuel M. Boswell of Elkridge, MD, was 20 years old. He was also in the Army National Guard, killed in the same accident that took Sergeant Conner's life. Specialist Boswell joined the National Guard in June 2003, right after graduating from the technology magnet program at River Hill High School in Clarksville. He is mourned by his father, Anthony L. Boswell, and by his seven brothers and sisters. Describing his youngest brother, Michael Boswell said, ``Sam was probably the happiest person you'll ever meet. He was always walking around with a smile on his face. . . . He always wanted to do things that would help other people whether he knew them or not.'' May God bless Sam Boswell.

SPC Bernard L. Ceo of Baltimore was 23 years old. He was the third member of Maryland's Army National Guard killed on October 14. Specialist Ceo enlisted in the Army in December 2001, joining the military to help pay for college. He dreamed of being a teacher, and when he wasn't serving with the Guard, he worked with students with special needs at Kennedy Krieger High School Career and Technology Center. Specialist Ceo was carrying on a proud family tradition of military service: his father and several uncles served in Vietnam. He leaves behind his parents Rosemarie and Fred Ceo, fiancee Dajae Overton, and her two young children, whom he was raising as his own. Specialist Ceo's coworker said, ``He was a thoughtful, introspective young guy. He would have been an excellent teacher.'' May God bless Bernie Ceo.

Marine LCpl Norman W. Anderson, III, from Parkton, MD, was 21 years old. He served with the U.S. Marines' 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, based at Camp Lejeune, NC. Lance Corporal Anderson was killed by a suicide car bomb on October 19 in Karabilah, near the Syrian border. He was a 2002 graduate of Hereford High School, where he was a running back on the football team. He joined the Marines in December 2003, and had already served one tour in Afghanistan. He is survived by his wife Victoria Anderson, his parents, Robyn and Norman, and his sister Brooke. The last time he was home he told his mother that, if he was killed in Iraq, she should know that he died doing what he wanted to do. May God bless Norman Anderson.

Army SPC Kendell K. Frederick, from Randallstown, MD, was 21 years old. He was an Army reservist, assigned to 983rd Engineer Battalion, in Monclova, OH, where he served as a mechanic who worked on power generators. Specialist Frederick was killed outside Tikrit when a roadside bomb detonated near the vehicle he was driving. He was a 2004 graduate of Randallstown High School. Specialist Frederick leaves behind his parents, Michelle Murphy and Peter Ramsahai, his stepfather Kenmore Murphy, and two sisters and one brother. May God bless our Kendell.

Mr. President, similar stories are being told in every community, across the Nation. Stories about volunteers who left behind friends and family--in the case of guardsmen and reservists, they also left behind jobs--to protect our country and help bring freedom to people of Iraq. We honor their service and sacrifice, not just with words, but with deeds.

First, we must support our troops, by ensuring they have the equipment they need to stay safe and accomplish their mission. Second, we need a workable plan to drawdown our troops. Today, there are 159,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Our strategy for Iraq must be worthy of sacrifices they have made. We need to involve the international community more, getting help to seal Iraq's borders and keep out foreign fighters and terrorists. We used to be at war with Iraq, now we are at war in Iraq with insurgents.

We must also continue to support Iraqi political process. The constitution has been approved by more than 78 percent in an election that included 63 percent of Iraq's registered voters. Iraq can now move forward with parliamentary elections. We should continue to support their progress toward democracy. We need better progress rebuilding Iraq's military. Iraqis need to fight for Iraq. Our training program has been slow to start. We seem to be making progress, but not fast enough. We should let our allies help us in this effort. Finally, let's get that Iraqi oil going, so they can start to pay their own bills.

We need to see faster progress on all these things. When these things happen, we can begin to withdraw our troops in stages and bring them home. Our military men and women have sacrificed in Iraq. They honored our country by volunteering to serve. We must honor them with an effective plan to finish their work, and bring our troops home.

Mr. President, today we reach a milestone in Iraq.

Two thousand U.S. service members were killed, including four Marylanders.

A few weeks from now we will be celebrating Thanksgiving. For 2,000 families, there will be forever and a day an empty chair.

The 2,000 members of our armed services who died, we cannot think about them in numbers and statistics. We in Maryland have lost 42 soldiers, and most recently we have lost 5 in just this last week alone. Each individual left behind a legacy, a unique story.

Today, as I come to the Senate floor, I wanted to remember the five young men who died in the last 10 days, tell you their names, and tell you a little bit about them. Army SGT Brian R. Conner, Army SPC Samuel M. Boswell, Army SPC Bernard L. Ceo, Marine LCpl Norman W. Anderson, III, Army SPC Kendell K. Frederick.

Our condolences go out to their families, as well as our gratitude and our appreciation for those who have died. To honor those who have died, we must remember the way they lived.

Let me just tell you about them. SGT Brian Connor was only 36, a member of the Maryland National Guard's 243rd Engineer Company. He was one of three Army National Guardsmen killed on October 14 northwest of Baghdad. Their humvee carrying munitions was set on fire and detonated. The ammunition exploded and all three died. Sergeant Conner, Specialist Boswell, and Specialist Ceo.

Sergeant Conner was a lieutenant in the Baltimore Fire Department. He joined in 1993. But he was a real star. He rose quickly through the ranks to become a lieutenant. The firehouse put his hat and his coat aside as a perpetual remembrance. He leaves behind three daughters, one 10, one 15, the other 21, and a grandson he loved so much.

A family friend said about Sergeant Conner:

Brian was not only a great man who accomplished many of the

dreams, he was someone who loved and cared for people. His

values will live on.

God bless Brian Conner.

Then there is SPC Samuel Boswell from Elkridge, MD, another guy from the Army National Guard, killed in that same accident. He joined the Guard in 2003. He had just gotten out one of our technology magnet schools called River Hill High School in Clarksville. He was one of eight brothers and sisters. He joined the military because he wanted to have a future. He wanted a long career, and he wanted to follow the American dream while protecting the American homeland. Here is what Michael Boswell said about his brother:

Sam was probably the happiest person you'll ever meet. He

was always walking around with a smile on his face. He always

wanted to do things that would help other people whether he

knew them or not.

God bless you, Samuel Boswell.

Then there was Specialist Bernard L. Ceo, from Baltimore. He was just 23. He enlisted in the Army in December 2001 to help earn money for college. Specialist Ceo dreamed of being a teacher, and when he wasn't on duty as Guardsman, he worked with students with special needs at the Kennedy Krieger High School Career and Technology Center. He was carrying on a proud family tradition of military service--his father and several uncles had served in Vietnam. Specialist Ceo leaves behind his parents, Rosemarie and Fred, his fiancee Dajae Overton, and her two children, whom he was raising as his own. God bless you, Bernie Ceo.

Then there was Norman Anderson, III from Parkton, MD. He was a marine based in Camp Lejeune. He was killed on October 19. A suicide bomber killed him. He had just graduated in 2002 from Hereford High School, where he was a running back on the football team. Under the Friday Night Lights this week, they took his helmet and his sweatshirt and put them aside. The team gave him a salute. They really knew that Norman Anderson gave one for the Gipper and one for the United States of America. He joined the Marines in December 2003. He already served one tour in Afghanistan. He came back home and was recently married to a wonderful woman named Victoria. But he went back into the field one more time because he felt it was his duty. The last time he was home, he told his mother if he died she should know that he died doing what he wanted to do.

God bless Norman Anderson, III.

Then we come to Kendell K. Frederick, U.S. Army, only 21 years old, from Randallstown, MD. He was in an engineering battalion. He was a mechanic who worked with power generators. He wanted to do something for his country as wells as for himself. He graduated from one of our community high schools called Randallstown High School. He was killed outside Tikrit. A roadside bomb detonated near the vehicle he was driving. He leaves behind his parents, a stepfather, and other family members. He had two sisters and one brother. But he was willing to go into the military in order to be able to earn what he needed to earn to be able to go on to college.

All of Randallstown mourns our Kendell. We want to say to Kendell Frederick, God bless you.

Senators of the U.S. Senate, and to all who are watching, those are five Marylanders. Knowing they will never be back, we can never forget them. The best way for a grateful nation to honor them is to stand up for our troops. We need to make sure they have the right pay, that they have the right benefits, that they have the right equipment to protect themselves. We also need to have a workable plan to draw down our troops. Our strategy for Iraq must be worthy of the sacrifices our troops have made. The U.N. needs to get more involved in international burden sharing--in securing Iraq's borders. We need to continue supporting the Iraqi political process, and work with our allies to boost training for the Iraqi military. Iraqis want to fight for Iraq, and they should. Finally, let's get that Iraqi oil going, so they can pay their own bills. We need to see faster progress on all these things. When these things happen, we can begin to withdraw our troops and bring them home with the honor they have earned.

God bless our men and women in the U.S. military and all those who passed on. And wherever there is an empty chair, we should always fill it with our hearts and our remembrance.

Yes.

Mr. President, as I noted under the request made by the chairman of the Senate Defense appropriations, I have time at 2:30. I know it is a minute or two earlier, but I ask for the ability to proceed.

Mr. President, I know we are considering the Defense appropriations bill, and we congratulate the leadership of the subcommittee of which I am a proud member. Senators Stevens and Inouye have brought an excellent appropriations bill to the Senate.

I rise about another security issue which is the high price of gasoline. I rise today to urge President Bush to convene a White House jawboning session of the American oil and gas companies to urge them to be good corporate citizens and lower the price of gasoline, home heating oil, and natural gas.

I think it is swell the President is agreeing that conservation is an important goal. But it is very little and very late. Yes, we do need conservation. But wearing sweaters just will not be enough. The President needs to call on CEOs of the oil and gas companies to be patriots. It is time for the oil and gas company CEOs to be looking at the ways they can help the American people, not only their profits.

These sky-high prices have created a crisis for American families and businesses--from families that must commute to work, to small businesses that deliver flowers, to truckers that deliver food, and watermen in the Chesapeake Bay who are paying $4 a gallon to take their boats out. This is going to have a tremendous inflationary pressure on our economy. We in Maryland are feeling it very severely. Maryland has the third highest gas prices in the country, at more than $3 per gallon. It has been a 30-percent increase in little more than 1 month.

Maryland is not the only State affected. The national price for a gallon of gas is now as high as it has been in 20 years. Some are saying: Well, gas prices are going down. Well, they have been going down a penny or two, but they are still very high.

As people go to the gasoline pump, they feel this great anxiety. People are nervous about getting gas. As for what that means to families, I have seen on our local TV a soccer mom filling up her minivan, and seeing that it cost $90, she just put her head down on the window crying about what her family was going to do?

That is why I have asked the President today to convene a White House ``jawbone'' session. There is precedent for this. Forty years ago, Jack Kennedy felt that big steel was really pushing up the prices. Some called it price gouging. He called in the CEOs of the steel industry to the White House. He made the case for the American people. He said the steel industry action was unjustified and irresponsible and not in the public interest. President Kennedy publicly pressed them hard. Guess what happened? Roger Blough and the steel industry decreased their prices.

I am asking President Bush to follow President Kennedy's example and call in these oil and gas CEOs. He has called in the oil and gas CEOs before to help write the energy policy. Well, now we need a new energy policy. We need one based on conservation. We need one based on innovation, to come up with new ideas on alternative fuel supplies. We need a new energy policy to look at what we can do to rebuild the gulf. And we understand oil and gas has suffered some damage there. But we also need them to take a look at the prices they are charging and the consequences to our economy. So we feel if they could write a national policy a few years ago, they can come in and write a new national policy.

So I have sent this letter to the President, signed by many Senators. I would hope the President would think about how we can engage the private sector to come to grips with what is happening here. He should also reach out to get their advice on innovation, to get their advice on boosting our supplies, to get their advice on what to do about having more refining capacity and, at the same time, meet some of our environmental constraints.

We understand we are at a crossroads in this country. Now is the time to bring them together, but bring them together as patriots. I believe they will be able to make profits and be patriots at the same time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to the President, dated October 6, 2005, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland and very important to government workers and retirees across the Nation. I am reintroducing a bill to modify a cruel rule of government that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying the benefits of their hard work during retirement. My bill has bipartisan support and had 29 cosponsors last year. With this strong bipartisan support, I hope that we can correct this cruel rule of government this year.

Under current law, a Social Security spousal benefit is reduced or entirely eliminated if the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension from a local, State or Federal Government job that was not covered by Social Security. This policy is known as the Government Pension Offset.

This is how the current law works. Consider a surviving spouse who retires from government service and receives a government pension of $600 a month. She also qualifies for a Social Security spousal benefit of $645 a month. Because of the Pension Offset law, which reduces her Social Security benefit by 2/3 of her government pension, her spousal benefit is reduced to $245 a month. So instead of $1,245, she will receive only $845 a month. That is $400 a month less to pay the rent, purchase a prescription medication, or buy groceries. I think that is wrong.

My bill does not repeal the government pension offset entirely, but it will allow retirees to keep more of what they deserve. It guarantees that those subject to the offset can keep at least $1,200 a month in combined retirement income. With my modification, the 2/3 offset would apply only to the combined benefit that exceeds $1,200 a month. So, in the example above, the surviving spouse would face only a $30 offset, allowing her to keep $1,215 in monthly income.

Unfortunately, the current law disproportionately affects women. Women are more likely to receive Social Security spousal benefits and to have worked in low-paying or short-term government positions while they were raising families. It is also true that women receive smaller government pensions because of their lower earnings, and rely on Social Security benefits to a greater degree. My modification will allow these women who have contributed years of important government service and family service to rely on a larger amount of retirement income.

Why do we punish people who have committed a significant portion of their lives to government service? We are talking about workers who provide some of the most important services to our community--teachers, firefighters, and many others. Some have already retired. Others are currently working and looking forward to a deserved retirement. These individuals deserve better than the reduced monthly benefits that the Pension Offset currently requires.

Government employees work hard in service to our Nation, and I work hard for them. I do not want to see them penalized simply because they have chosen to work in the public sector, rather than for a private employer, and often at lower salaries and sometimes fewer benefits. If a retired worker in the private sector received a pension, and also received a spousal Social Security benefit, they would not be subject to the Offset. I think we should be looking for ways to reward government service, not the other way around. I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be penalized by arcane, legislative technicalities.

Frankly, I would like to repeal the offset altogether. But, I realize that budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope we can agree that retirees who have worked hard all their lives should not have this offset applied until their combined monthly benefit, both government pension and Social Security spousal benefit, exceeds $1,200.

I also strongly believe that we should ensure that retirees buying power keeps up with the cost of living. That's why I have also included a provision in this legislation to index the $1,200 amount to inflation so retirees will see their minimum benefits increase along with the cost of living.

The Social Security Administration recently estimated that enacting the provisions contained in my bill will have a minimal long-term impact on the Social Security Trust Fund--about 0.01 percent of taxable payroll.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and support my legislation to modify the Government Pension Offset. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland and very important to government workers and retirees across the Nation. I am reintroducing a bill to modify a cruel rule of government that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying the benefits of their hard work during retirement. My bill has bipartisan support and had 29 cosponsors last year. With this strong bipartisan support, I hope that we can correct this cruel rule of government this year.

Under current law, a Social Security spousal benefit is reduced or entirely eliminated if the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension from a local, State or Federal Government job that was not covered by Social Security. This policy is known as the Government Pension Offset.

This is how the current law works. Consider a surviving spouse who retires from government service and receives a government pension of $600 a month. She also qualifies for a Social Security spousal benefit of $645 a month. Because of the Pension Offset law, which reduces her Social Security benefit by 2/3 of her government pension, her spousal benefit is reduced to $245 a month. So instead of $1,245, she will receive only $845 a month. That is $400 a month less to pay the rent, purchase a prescription medication, or buy groceries. I think that is wrong.

My bill does not repeal the government pension offset entirely, but it will allow retirees to keep more of what they deserve. It guarantees that those subject to the offset can keep at least $1,200 a month in combined retirement income. With my modification, the 2/3 offset would apply only to the combined benefit that exceeds $1,200 a month. So, in the example above, the surviving spouse would face only a $30 offset, allowing her to keep $1,215 in monthly income.

Unfortunately, the current law disproportionately affects women. Women are more likely to receive Social Security spousal benefits and to have worked in low-paying or short-term government positions while they were raising families. It is also true that women receive smaller government pensions because of their lower earnings, and rely on Social Security benefits to a greater degree. My modification will allow these women who have contributed years of important government service and family service to rely on a larger amount of retirement income.

Why do we punish people who have committed a significant portion of their lives to government service? We are talking about workers who provide some of the most important services to our community--teachers, firefighters, and many others. Some have already retired. Others are currently working and looking forward to a deserved retirement. These individuals deserve better than the reduced monthly benefits that the Pension Offset currently requires.

Government employees work hard in service to our Nation, and I work hard for them. I do not want to see them penalized simply because they have chosen to work in the public sector, rather than for a private employer, and often at lower salaries and sometimes fewer benefits. If a retired worker in the private sector received a pension, and also received a spousal Social Security benefit, they would not be subject to the Offset. I think we should be looking for ways to reward government service, not the other way around. I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be penalized by arcane, legislative technicalities.

Frankly, I would like to repeal the offset altogether. But, I realize that budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope we can agree that retirees who have worked hard all their lives should not have this offset applied until their combined monthly benefit, both government pension and Social Security spousal benefit, exceeds $1,200.

I also strongly believe that we should ensure that retirees buying power keeps up with the cost of living. That's why I have also included a provision in this legislation to index the $1,200 amount to inflation so retirees will see their minimum benefits increase along with the cost of living.

The Social Security Administration recently estimated that enacting the provisions contained in my bill will have a minimal long-term impact on the Social Security Trust Fund--about 0.01 percent of taxable payroll.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and support my legislation to modify the Government Pension Offset. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Cornyn to introduce the ``Pulmonary Hypertension Research Act of 2005.'' This important legislation increases funding for medical research dedicated to finding treatments and possibly a cure for Pulmonary Hypertension (PH), and would establish Centers of Excellence that would be charged with educating health professionals and the public about the disease.

PH is a serious, often fatal condition. It is estimated that more than 100,000 Americans suffer from pulmonary hypertension. It does not discriminate based on race, gender or age. However, women are more than twice as likely as men to develop the condition. PH is characterized by dangerously high blood pressure in the lungs. In PH patients, the walls of the arteries that take blood from the right side of the heart to the lungs thicken so much that they restrict the flow of blood.

The Pulmonary Hypertension Research Act would do three things: First, it expands PH research at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at the NIH, authorizing $250 million over five years to fund PH research. Additional funding would help researchers further understand PH and develop new treatment options for the illness.

Second, the legislation would establish ``Centers of Excellence'' which would focus on PH research and education efforts for both health professionals and the general public. One of the greatest tragedies of PH is that it often goes undiagnosed. Most Americans have never heard of PH and do not know that symptoms such as shortness of breath, fatigue, and dizziness are common indicators of the illness. Lastly, the legislation establishes a data system and clearinghouse at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute that would disseminate information on PH to the general public in order to facilitate more accurate and timely diagnosis.

Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to make sure women don't get left out or left behind when it comes to their health. From women's inclusion in clinical trials to quality standards for mammograms, I have led the way to make sure women's health needs are treated fairly and taken seriously. This legislation builds on these past successes to address this silent disease among young American women. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this bill signed into law.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Cornyn to introduce the ``Pulmonary Hypertension Research Act of 2005.'' This important legislation increases funding for medical research dedicated to finding treatments and possibly a cure for Pulmonary Hypertension (PH), and would establish Centers of Excellence that would be charged with educating health professionals and the public about the disease.

PH is a serious, often fatal condition. It is estimated that more than 100,000 Americans suffer from pulmonary hypertension. It does not discriminate based on race, gender or age. However, women are more than twice as likely as men to develop the condition. PH is characterized by dangerously high blood pressure in the lungs. In PH patients, the walls of the arteries that take blood from the right side of the heart to the lungs thicken so much that they restrict the flow of blood.

The Pulmonary Hypertension Research Act would do three things: First, it expands PH research at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at the NIH, authorizing $250 million over five years to fund PH research. Additional funding would help researchers further understand PH and develop new treatment options for the illness.

Second, the legislation would establish ``Centers of Excellence'' which would focus on PH research and education efforts for both health professionals and the general public. One of the greatest tragedies of PH is that it often goes undiagnosed. Most Americans have never heard of PH and do not know that symptoms such as shortness of breath, fatigue, and dizziness are common indicators of the illness. Lastly, the legislation establishes a data system and clearinghouse at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute that would disseminate information on PH to the general public in order to facilitate more accurate and timely diagnosis.

Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to make sure women don't get left out or left behind when it comes to their health. From women's inclusion in clinical trials to quality standards for mammograms, I have led the way to make sure women's health needs are treated fairly and taken seriously. This legislation builds on these past successes to address this silent disease among young American women. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this bill signed into law.

Thank you, very much.

Madam President, I rise today to address one of the most significant and far-reaching decisions a Senator makes--the vote on the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice.

This vote will have an immense impact on current and future generations, because we are voting on a person who will lead the Court for the next 20 years.

I compliment Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy for the way the whole process within the Senate was conducted.

I think we owe to the President, as well as to the nominee, a dignified process that focuses on intellectual rigor, substantive discussion, and plain good manners. I believe overall that process was indeed dignified and open.

This vote is crucial. A Senator is only called upon to make two decisions in our career that are either irrevocable or irretrievable. One is the decision to go to war. Once we vote to go to war, to put our troops in harm's way, we cannot say a day later, Oops, we changed our minds or, 6 months later, cut off the money. Once they go, they go, and we have to stick with them.

The other is the confirmation of members of the Supreme Court. Those are lifetime appointments, and they can only be removed for an impeachable offense, to be tried here in the Senate.

So this decision is among the top two that we are called upon to make.

We make budget decisions, and we can change it later. We make a legislative decision--most of our legislation is for 3 years' authorization we can always change it. But not this decision.

The people of Maryland have entrusted me with the right to make this decision, and I take it seriously. I really pondered this and what I thought about this nomination. Two of my main questions were: No. 1, what will it mean for the fundamental constitutional liberties that has meant so much to so many? And two, what will a Chief Justice Roberts mean to our future?

After a thorough and careful review of his record and his testimony, I must state now that I will oppose the confirmation of Judge Roberts to be the Chief Justice.

I do so because I have too many doubts about the direction a Roberts Court will take us--persistent, nagging doubts about his positions on nondiscrimination, and the right of privacy in personal decisions, and in public policy.

On nondiscrimination, I just couldn't get to what his views were. Is it thorough? Is it broad? Is it narrow? On the issue of privacy, his views sounded eerily like those of Clarence Thomas's that were given to reassure us, only to find that they are not what we heard.

On the issue of discrimination, I am looking at very specific issues such as the Voting Rights Act, Americans with Disability Act, title IX, which has meant so much to combat gender discrimination in education.

And, of course, on the right of privacy. What will this mean for personal decisions related to a woman's reproductive choice, or public policy in terms of where we are going to safeguard our records and safeguard ourselves.

When I decided how I would vote on the nominee, I looked at three threshold criteria: One, is the nominee competent? Second, is the nominee a man of integrity?

I believe every Senator knows, having both met Judge Roberts and from also reviewing his background, he is competent. He is endorsed by the American Bar Association. I also truly believe he is a man of personal integrity.

But what about the nominee protecting core constitutional values and guarantees that are central to our system of government? I really do not know the answer to this question.

Based on his writings and his testimony, as I said, I am left with these persistent doubts about whether he will safeguard civil rights, the right to privacy, and equal protection under the law.

I have approached this nomination very seriously. I have approached it with an open mind and an open door.

I have personally met with Judge Roberts. I found him to be very intelligent, to be very affable. Although he is personally appealing, personal demeanor is not synonymous with personal philosophy. Personal demeanor is not synonymous with judicial philosophy. It is not his demeanor that we are voting on. We are voting on what will his judicial philosophy mean to the Court, and particularly with his being its Chief Justice.

When I looked at the hearings, they occurred as I was moving my Commerce-State-Justice bill. I put in a couple of shifts, which I know the Presiding Officer does as well--one shift being here in the Senate with my colleague, Senator Shelby, getting an appropriations bill through, and then I would go home and do a second shift and watch the Roberts hearings on C-SPAN so that I could hear his words personally about those answers.

Then, after listening to the hearings, I reviewed the testimony. I reviewed his writings and I also reviewed the testimony of others.

I was disappointed that we didn't have access to documents from 16 cases that he prepared while he worked for Solicitor General's office in the previous Bush administration, which would have given us insight, even though similar documents were given when Justice Rehnquist was nominated.

I tried to get insight into his legal reasoning and judicial philosophy.

Is he smart? Yes. Is he experienced? Yes. As a young man, was he flip and a bit cheeky? The answer is yes. But put me in that column, too. I understand that. We all mature. But as we mature, we sometimes distance ourselves from those remarks. Yet Judge Roberts did not distance himself from those remarks.

I was puzzled by it. I did not quite understand it. I read and pursued it further.

In the hearings, he had the opportunity to let us know whether he would ensure personal rights, but he didn't clear up the uncertainty. He didn't back away from his record and his writings. He wouldn't tell us if he shared the views of his clients. Again, he left too many doubts about whether he will safeguard the rights that Marylanders and all Americans rely on each day.

He did say that he would follow the rule of law. I believe that. But you

know, coming to a decision in the Supreme Court, unlike the lower court, is not necessarily only following the law. It is not a mechanical decision. It is not like punching in a legal question, you go to the 15 precedents and out comes the printout. This is interpretation of the law at the highest level. And the Supreme Court has the authority to create precedent, not only follow precedent.

So I couldn't get to where Judge Roberts was going. Take an example such as civil rights. One of the most important civil rights is the right to vote--cherished, fought for both through social movements and our wars. Yet Judge Roberts left me with serious doubts.

One of the most compelling testimonies during the hearing was that of Congressman John Lewis. He was a hero of the civil rights movement. He marched side by side and hands on with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. When John Lewis speaks, we listen. He raised questions about whether Judge Roberts would support the basic guarantee of the Voting Rights Act, the law that ensures every citizen may vote and that there should be no barriers, no publicly sanctioned barriers to participation in the voting process. Yet as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, Roberts held a very restrictive view.

John Lewis spoke about section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which is an important section because it seeks to remedy not only intentional discrimination and barriers to participation but also the effects of discrimination on under represented groups.

Judge Roberts held a very restrictive view, as I said. He argued that only intentional discrimination violated the law.

If that argument prevailed, it would have made it impossible to change discriminatory voting practices that stood in the way of African Americans voting and holding elective office.

Let us take the poll tax, for example, a repugnant and despicable practice that has now been outlawed. The poll tax was a barrier that prevented African Americans from voting. But what could we do? Look at one person at a time? No. Section 2 bars it, because it was a discriminatory practice that affected a whole group of people.

During the hearings, Judge Roberts could have clarified or changed his views.

Yet he said nothing to distance himself from that very narrow legalistic viewpoint that would have maintained barriers to participation, and we have no idea what principles he might apply to a case that would come before the Court like, for example, on the so- called voter verified paper trail. We do not know today where he stands on such important voting rights issues.

Now to disability rights. He left doubts about whether he would provide disabled Americans with guarantees under the law for equal opportunity, particularly to education. Again, going back to being that lawyer in the Reagan administration, he wrote a memo attacking a Federal court decision that would have provided a deaf child with learning tools. He thought this was too burdensome on the local school system, local government and, therefore, the State. He believed that States should not be required to provide these same equal opportunities to handicapped children and that the burden it placed on the states had to be evaluated. He called the lower court's decision an activist one.

What would this mean for disabled children? What would this mean for his interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act? This raises doubts for me as to if he would apply a cost-benefit analysis to other areas of discrimination. Certainly when we look at disability and the equal opportunity or an opportunity for education, we have to look at the benefit, not at the cost.

And now title IX. That has changed the face of American scholarships and of American sports. Title IX, for those who might not be familiar with it, prevents gender discrimination in education. It says that schools that receive Federal funds can't treat men and women differently. That means there has to be parity--not sameness but parity--in the number of sports programs, access to classes, and opportunities for scholarships. That meant there had to be girl's soccer teams at college just like there were boy's football teams; that there had to be girl's lacrosse just like there was boy's lacrosse.

Let's take a look at what that has meant. It was phenomenal. All of a sudden, girls were getting scholarships for basketball, for playing lacrosse, and for playing soccer. Aren't we proud of what we have done? We can only look at the Olympics and see our so-called ``all star'' basketball team lost to Puerto Rico, but our girl's team brought home the gold. People such as soccer player Mia Hamm passed the torch to the next generation, which will go on and win the gold and give us such honor. That is what title IX meant. It meant if you wanted to go to school and sports was your thing, you would not be restricted because you were a girl.

In his writings, Judge Roberts argued that the only part of the school receiving direct Federal aid but not the whole school would not have abided by title IX protection. That would have meant schools could discriminate in their athletics or scholarships even when another part of the school got federal funds. In his testimony, he did nothing to back away from this view.

What would the Roberts Court mean to millions of girls who now have access to scholarships? What would this mean to thousands of girls who right now this afternoon are heading for practice in middle school, working at it in high school, and ready to go? In my own home State, we are known for producing Olympic gymnastics stars, primarily out of Montgomery County, stars such as Dominique Dawes. Right now at that gym in Montgomery County are young girls working to either be able to go on to the Olympics, or if they do not make the Olympic team, on to make the college team. We should never close the door to that kind of heart and soul and hard work because of gender. Where would the Roberts Court be on that? Would he close that door? I am not so sure. That is why I come back to these nagging doubts.

Finally, in the area of the constitutional, protected right to privacy, I appreciate Judge Roberts speaking on the right to privacy. He certainly said more on it than some other nominees have. Yet what he said does not tell us what he thinks about how far the right of privacy extends. He said he supported Griswold. Griswold upheld the right of married couples to buy contraception. Connecticut banned the sale of contraception to married couples. So under the right of privacy, the Supreme Court said that if you are married, you have the freedom to buy family-planning mechanisms.

In many of his answers, he sounded as if he was assuring members that the right of privacy is settled law, stating that ``I believe in precedent,'' et cetera. But many of these answers sounded like Clarence Thomas, eerily like Clarence Thomas. Thomas said there is a constitutional right to privacy. He did not say how he would apply it to the most personal choices or what it would mean to public policy. Since Clarence Thomas has gone to the Supreme Court, we know he does not quite follow what we thought he was assuring us he would. In fact, I don't know if Judge Thomas really supports the right of privacy in the Constitution.

Roberts followed the same script. He refused to clarify his previous dismissal of Roe v. Wade, nor would he elaborate on what the right to privacy includes. What would that mean to the future of reproductive rights? What would that mean to privacy rights in general?

This is important because I am voting not only about today, I am voting about tomorrow. If Mr. Roberts is confirmed at age 50, he will be on the Court for the next 20 or more years. And we wish him good health. But just think how profoundly society has changed with the internet and information technology. Where we were 20 years ago. Where was the Internet 20 years ago? We did not have laptops; laptops were big boxes. What about 30 years ago? What was the computer? They were big machines in big warehouses.

Twenty years ago, we would not have thought about privacy rights in this context. But now, because of the Internet and computerization, we think about all the issues related to our right of privacy. Think how they can plunge in with your financial records, your medical records, the so-called data-

mining where they know everything about you and find out all your moves. Who do you want to have access to that? Who do you want to protect your basic rights?

What will technology mean 20 years from now? What will that technology mean in terms of right of privacy? How do we need to protect our privacy?

Today have a national debate on privacy, the right for security of our country versus our own personal privacy. The right of search. The right, literally, of intrusion in our records. The PATRIOT Act would give us some sets of rules; the ACLU would frown on others. It is likely many of these decisions will go to the Supreme Court. Where will those decisions be made? They have to be made to serve the national interest but also to serve the principles of the Constitution. I am not dictating what the decision should be, but I can dictate who I want on the Supreme Court to listen to that delicate balance between preserving the security needs of our country with one's ability to be left alone from the intrusions of government.

How would Judge Roberts apply the right of privacy in a world where all our most personal health and financial records can be easily stored and shared?

So here we are now at this decision point. As I have looked at this, I have too many doubts about what Judge Roberts will mean for the Supreme Court--caused by what he said and what he didn't say. I believe the American people were entitled to know what he thinks. The American people are entitled to know if judge Roberts will be a protector of their most basic and fundamental rights. I would have been more comfortable if in any way he would have said how he was different from that young, cheeky lawyer trying to write up attention-getting briefs. Something that would have moved him to say: Oh, that was my client, not me. I never wanted him to say how he would rule on cases in the future or any pending before the Court. But I would have liked to have known who is this man for whom I am voting. What he believes is what he is and it will shape the Supreme Court for the next 20 years.

Several times, I came right up to the threshold. As I said, there are many magnetic aspects about the Roberts nomination, but at the end of the day and after careful review, I have too many doubts about his commitment to nondiscrimination, the right of privacy, and equal protection under the law. So when my name is called for this nomination, I will vote no.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to close a loophole in current law that allows convicted murderers to be honored at our national cemeteries. I believe we must preserve our national cemeteries as places of honor for our veterans. Arlington National Cemetery--and all our national cemeteries--are hallowed ground. They should not be polluted by the remains of convicted murderers.

In August, I learned of a tragic and troubling circumstance regarding our national cemeteries. The remains of a convicted cold-blooded murderer sentenced to two life sentences for his crimes were buried at Arlington National Cemetery on July 27, 2005. This man, Russell Wagner, was convicted of stabbing to death two elderly residents of Hagerstown, MD--Daniel Davis, 84 and his wife, Wilda Davis, 80. He was sentenced in State court to two life sentences for these unspeakable crimes. While serving his sentence in prison, Wagner died from a heroin overdose. Because he served honorably in Vietnam, his remains were allowed to be placed in Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors, even though he committed this terrible crime.

This episode has been terribly painful for the Davis family, understandably: they have had to relive the horror of their parents' brutal murder, while seeing the man who took away their loved ones being honored as a hero in our Nation's most sacred burial ground. There has been community outrage--which I share. The law that allows this disgrace must be changed.

Arlington is for heroes. So many Marylanders who served with honor were laid to rest in Arlington, the heroes from every war: men like Navy Diver Michael Steadam, who was brutally murdered by terrorists simply because he was a member of our military. In the Iraqi conflict, 37 Marylanders have died, including two from the same high school who died within weeks of each other. These are the heroes who deserve burial at our national cemeteries.

In my 18 years as the head of the VA-HUD subcommittee, I was proud to work closely with our Veterans' Service Organizations. They are tireless advocates for America's veterans. I so respect and admire them. I know many in these groups are uncomfortable with the idea of Congress tinkering with the benefits our veterans have earned. I can understand their yellow flashing lights. Promises made to our veterans

must be promises kept. For 18 years, I fought every day to safeguard these benefits--and continue to do so, because they represent America's payment of a debt we owe our brave veterans for their service--a debt that can never be fully repaid. But this is murder.

Federal law already prohibits murderers from being honored at Arlington and our national cemeteries. In 1997, Congress passed a law to restrict burial eligibility, to prevent convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh from being buried in a national cemetery following his execution. Under current law, if a veteran is convicted of a capital crime in a Federal court, he or she cannot be placed in a national cemetery. Yet, if someone is convicted of the same crime in a State court, they retain their eligibility to be placed in a national cemetery if they are eligible for parole. This loophole enabled the man who murdered Mr. and Mrs. Davis to be placed alongside the heroes at Arlington.

Why did Congress pass what is known as the McVeigh law? Not to further punish the guilty, but to preserve our national cemeteries as places of honor for our veterans. So I was shocked to learn that the law we passed in 1997 does not apply in the case of the man who murdered Daniel and Wilda Davis. He was convicted of two life sentences, but because he was convicted in State court, he remained eligible for interment with honors at Arlington National Cemetery. This doesn't make any sense. The purpose of the 1997 law was to protect the standards our military men and women live by: to protect the values they fight and die for. The cold-blooded murder of an elderly couple is certainly contrary to those values.

I am introducing this bill on behalf of the Davis family. But I am also introducing it on behalf of a Nation at war. Every day across this country, brave young soldiers are being honored and laid to rest in our national cemeteries. We have precious little to offer in comfort for their grieving loved ones, who have made the ultimate sacrifice a Nation can ask. But we can insist that these sacred resting places and the honors our Nation rightfully bestowed on those who have died in its service are preserved as sanctuaries and monuments to the values they died protecting. Placing the remains of a cold-blooded murderer in this hallowed ground makes a mockery of that service. And it is wrong.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to close a loophole in current law that allows convicted murderers to be honored at our national cemeteries. I believe we must preserve our national cemeteries as places of honor for our veterans. Arlington National Cemetery--and all our national cemeteries--are hallowed ground. They should not be polluted by the remains of convicted murderers.

In August, I learned of a tragic and troubling circumstance regarding our national cemeteries. The remains of a convicted cold-blooded murderer sentenced to two life sentences for his crimes were buried at Arlington National Cemetery on July 27, 2005. This man, Russell Wagner, was convicted of stabbing to death two elderly residents of Hagerstown, MD--Daniel Davis, 84 and his wife, Wilda Davis, 80. He was sentenced in State court to two life sentences for these unspeakable crimes. While serving his sentence in prison, Wagner died from a heroin overdose. Because he served honorably in Vietnam, his remains were allowed to be placed in Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors, even though he committed this terrible crime.

This episode has been terribly painful for the Davis family, understandably: they have had to relive the horror of their parents' brutal murder, while seeing the man who took away their loved ones being honored as a hero in our Nation's most sacred burial ground. There has been community outrage--which I share. The law that allows this disgrace must be changed.

Arlington is for heroes. So many Marylanders who served with honor were laid to rest in Arlington, the heroes from every war: men like Navy Diver Michael Steadam, who was brutally murdered by terrorists simply because he was a member of our military. In the Iraqi conflict, 37 Marylanders have died, including two from the same high school who died within weeks of each other. These are the heroes who deserve burial at our national cemeteries.

In my 18 years as the head of the VA-HUD subcommittee, I was proud to work closely with our Veterans' Service Organizations. They are tireless advocates for America's veterans. I so respect and admire them. I know many in these groups are uncomfortable with the idea of Congress tinkering with the benefits our veterans have earned. I can understand their yellow flashing lights. Promises made to our veterans

must be promises kept. For 18 years, I fought every day to safeguard these benefits--and continue to do so, because they represent America's payment of a debt we owe our brave veterans for their service--a debt that can never be fully repaid. But this is murder.

Federal law already prohibits murderers from being honored at Arlington and our national cemeteries. In 1997, Congress passed a law to restrict burial eligibility, to prevent convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh from being buried in a national cemetery following his execution. Under current law, if a veteran is convicted of a capital crime in a Federal court, he or she cannot be placed in a national cemetery. Yet, if someone is convicted of the same crime in a State court, they retain their eligibility to be placed in a national cemetery if they are eligible for parole. This loophole enabled the man who murdered Mr. and Mrs. Davis to be placed alongside the heroes at Arlington.

Why did Congress pass what is known as the McVeigh law? Not to further punish the guilty, but to preserve our national cemeteries as places of honor for our veterans. So I was shocked to learn that the law we passed in 1997 does not apply in the case of the man who murdered Daniel and Wilda Davis. He was convicted of two life sentences, but because he was convicted in State court, he remained eligible for interment with honors at Arlington National Cemetery. This doesn't make any sense. The purpose of the 1997 law was to protect the standards our military men and women live by: to protect the values they fight and die for. The cold-blooded murder of an elderly couple is certainly contrary to those values.

I am introducing this bill on behalf of the Davis family. But I am also introducing it on behalf of a Nation at war. Every day across this country, brave young soldiers are being honored and laid to rest in our national cemeteries. We have precious little to offer in comfort for their grieving loved ones, who have made the ultimate sacrifice a Nation can ask. But we can insist that these sacred resting places and the honors our Nation rightfully bestowed on those who have died in its service are preserved as sanctuaries and monuments to the values they died protecting. Placing the remains of a cold-blooded murderer in this hallowed ground makes a mockery of that service. And it is wrong.