Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Akaka amendment to increase funding for VA medical care.

When America is at war, there should be no greater priority than to sustain our brave men and women in uniform. And just as we owe a debt of gratitude to those brave men and women that are fighting to keep us safe in Iraq and Afghanistan and the far corners of the world, we owe that same debt to the veterans who served before them. We need to get behind our troops and our veterans, and use this budget to support them. Our veterans need to know that America is behind them, and behind their families, 100 percent.

As the former ranking member on the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I fought to add more than $1 billion to last year's Presidential budget to make sure our veterans had the health care and benefits that they earned. Yet as Yogi Berra would say, we have deja vu all over again with this year's budget resolution.

Once again the White House has sent us a budget that does not keep the promises we made to our veterans.

At a time when private insurance is failing and the cost of prescription drugs is skyrocketing, the VA's 2006 budget request puts new toll charges and means tests on our veterans. It fails to fully cover the costs of medical inflation, and it cuts back on services for vulnerable veterans. And it fails to do enough to expand care for veterans returning from the Middle East--especially those with special mental health or prosthetics needs.

Specifically, the budget proposes four things. First, the budget proposes to keep the VA closed to Priority 8 veterans. These are veterans who are not disabled as a result of their service, whom the VA considers to be higher income.

Second, the budget proposes a new $250 enrollment fee for middle- income veterans in Priority Groups 7 and 8. Third, the budget proposes to increase prescription drug copayments from $7 to $15 for these same veterans. These two measures have been twice rejected by Congress, yet the administration included them yet again in the 2006 budget.

Finally, the budget proposes to slash long-term care availability for veterans in Priority Groups 4 through 8 who are not ``catastrophically disabled.'' What does this mean? That means that VA won't provide long- term institutional care for many veterans, even some who are below the poverty line or have serious medical conditions that are not service- connected. The VA budget shifts the cost of paying for long-term care to Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance, leaving some of the most vulnerable veterans without a safety net.

More than 2 years ago, the VA health care system stopped accepting new Priority 8 veterans. Manufacturing is fading and private health insurance is failing. And many of those affected are Priority 8 veterans. Many corporations involved in manufacturing had defined benefits plans that included health plans with guaranteed retiree coverage. For these veterans, VA healthcare is their last safety net, until they turn 65 and are eligible for Medicare.

Many of my colleagues have heard me talk about the plight of veterans who worked for the former Bethlehem Steel Corporation--in Maryland there are nore than 10,000 Bethlehem Steel retirees alone. Their situation sums up the needs that too many of our Nation's veterans face.

Many former Bethlehem steelworkers are Vietnam veterans. They came back from serving their country at war, and they continued to fight for America's national and economic security by working in our steel mills. But now, many have lost their health insurance because of Bethlehem Steel's bankruptcy. They are not eligible for Medicare yet. Under this budget, many will be turned away from VA--the safety net they counted on will not be there because VA will continue to shut out Priority 8 veterans.

Bethlehem Steel's veterans, and other veterans who worked in manufacturing or for other businesses that don't offer health insurance, fought for their country and now they will have to fend for themselves on the open market for health insurance. I am deeply concerned that this policy and many other potholes in VA's budget leave our veterans paying toll charges, standing in lines, or without any health care at all.

In the last 5 years, the VA-HUD subcommittee has provided large increases for medical care--$1.3 billion in 2001, $1 billion in 2002, $2.4 billion in 2003, $3 billion in 2004, and $1.2 billion in 2005. We did this to honor our commitment to our veterans, to give them the health care and benefits they have earned on the battlefield. We did it because our veterans didn't stand in waiting lines when they were called up or they volunteered to serve our country. So they shouldn't have to stand in line to see a doctor, and they shouldn't have to face toll charges to get the health care that is owned to them.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support our veterans in this budget by supporting the Akaka amendment.

Mr President, today I rise to ask for a clarification in the Congressional Record from yesterday, dated March 15, 2004. The Record mistakenly reported that I was to be added as a cosponsor of S. 379, the Firearm Manufacturers Protection Act. Apparently, my name was typed into the Record instead of that of Senator Mitch McConnell who had requested to be added as a cosponsor of that bill. I wanted the Record to reflect that I never requested to be added to the bill. As I hope my record reflects, I have been a strong opponent of the gun immunity bill because it puts one industry's bottomline ahead of the families

and victims of gun violence. I opposed this bill and will continue to oppose it because it slams closed the courthouse door to those seeking justice for victims of gun violence, such as the victims of the horrific sniper who terrorized the citizens of DC, Maryland, and Virginia just a short time ago.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2005. To compete in this global economy, we need to make sure our students have 21st century skills for 21st century jobs. Vocational and technical education is an extremely important part of this effort. The Perkins Act, which provides $1.3 billion to help train more than 10 million Americans across the country, is a vital investment in our nation's high schools, community colleges, and our students.

The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical program gives a boost to America's workforce development system by providing funds to schools that teach technical skills ranging from auto shop to computer programming. The Perkins Act also supports practical career programs and links between secondary and post-secondary education, helping students to move up the opportunity ladder and prepare them for high- skill, high-wage jobs. Students who have completed Perkins-supported programs are better prepared not only for higher education but for the workplace.

The President has proposed eliminating funding for all vocational and technical education programs. This is the wrong way to go. If Perkins was eliminated, high schools, technical schools, and community colleges in every state would suffer. In Maryland, our schools would lose almost $19 million. Last year, we had more than 150,000 students enrolled in career and technical programs in Maryland. In the United States, 97 percent of high school students take at least one career and technical education course. One-third of college students are involved in career and technical programs. And almost 40 million adults attend short-term occupational training. If these schools had to close their doors or shut down their vocational programs, where would these students go to learn the skills they need to get good paying jobs?

Vocational and technical education provides students across the country with opportunities to develop academic and technical skills that are critical for economic and workforce development. It is our job in the United States Senate to make sure these opportunities are there for the people who need them and to invest in our human capital to create a world class workforce. That is why I strongly support this bipartisan bill and I oppose any cuts to the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education programs.

Mr. President, today I rise to oppose S. 256, the Bankruptcy Reform Bill. This bill is unfair to the little guy--to families who are struggling to overcome medical bills, unemployment, or divorce and find themselves forced to declare bankruptcy. Under the guise of reform it makes it tougher on families who have done the right thing. That's not what we should be doing in the United States Senate. Our job is to make sure we are protecting middle-class Americans and small businesses who are the lifeblood of our economy, not hurting them. While some of the reforms of the bill are good steps it goes too far to favor credit card companies and corporations over working families.

This bill creates such strict standards that many of our nation's most vulnerable families are treated unfairly when they are forced to file bankruptcy because of the loss of a job, the high cost of health care or a divorce. This bill does nothing to address the problems these individuals are having, the problems that have driven them to bankruptcy and it provides virtually no discretion for courts dealing with these bankruptcy claims.

I have supported bankruptcy reform legislation in the past--but it was not this bill and it was not this process. This bill was rushed through Committee with the promise that amendments would be considered on the floor, that there would be debate and an opportunity to improve the bill. Yet, none of the amendments were truly considered, most were opposed by Republicans marching in lock step to defeat every amendment to the existing bill. In short, there was no real opportunity to improve the bill. What came to the floor leaves the floor virtually unchanged and truly unfair to many of our citizens who are forced to file bankruptcy because of unforeseen circumstances like job loss, divorce or medical costs.

Half of all families filing for bankruptcy have faced illness or high medical costs. Medical costs, especially for seniors, are one of the fastest growing causes of bankruptcy. These are not folks who use their credit cards to buy fancy suits, designer wares or other luxury goods. They are paying for the basic necessities of their lives with their credit cards. They are putting their food, clothing and medical bills on the credit cards. Nearly 9 out of 10 people file bankruptcy because of health care problems, job loss or divorce. These individuals don't want to file bankruptcy--in fact, they have tried to avoid bankruptcy. That's why they pay those medical bills with credit cards when they simply can't afford any other way. Or they skip going to the doctor all together because they know have no means to pay. And what happens--they get sicker, incur greater costs for catastrophic care and that sends them spiraling further into debt and forcing many into bankruptcy.

We ought to be doing something to help those individuals--not creating a law that will make matters worse. The Senate should be on the side of those Americans who are facing hard times and hard decisions. We should be addressing the lack of health care and working to ensure that we are creating good, high paying jobs.

I am opposing this version of the Bankruptcy Reform Bill because it creates needless and unfair hoops for these individuals to jump through and the rigid means test puts those in real need of relief at a disadvantage. It imposes new burdens on families already overburdened by the debt they must shoulder. Certainly we all agree that those who can afford to should pay their creditors back--that they should be responsible for their debt. Those debtors who charge thousands of dollars on luxury goods, new cars and the like, only to then declare bankruptcy, should be held accountable. Many of us can remember a mother or father who taught us about debt, taught us the dangers of getting into debt and to be responsible for paying all our debts back. But we need to be fair in how we calculate who can pay. And we need to make sure that the provisions are not so rigid that they allow courts no discretion to take into account the circumstances that lead to the bankruptcy.

The legislation that the Senate considers today is different from past versions that I have supported. There is obviously the removal of the Schumer amendment which held those who block access to abortion clinics accountable for the court judgments that they have incurred. But it also gives women, single parents, families and those living in poverty less opportunity to overcome their hardships and get a fresh start. This bill punishes people, assumes that all those filing for bankruptcy have purposefully created their debt problems, imposes a strict standard that does not take into account the circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy and the real means of individuals to pay their debt back. That's not fair, it's not right, and it makes life tougher on working families. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for women, children and working families by opposing this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Educational Opportunity for All Act.'' The core of the American Dream is getting a college education and I want to make sure that every student has access to that dream. I want to help families who are trying to send their children to college and adults who are going back to school--for their first degree or their third. This $4,000 tuition tax credit will help students who are taking one night class at a community college to update their skills or four classes at a university to get their bachelor's degree. And my tax credit is refundable so it helps families who don't owe taxes.

Our middle class families are stressed and stretched. Families in my State of Maryland are worried--they're worried about their jobs and they're terrified of losing their healthcare when costs keep ballooning. Many are holding down more than one job to make ends meet. They're racing from carpools to work and back again. But most of all, they don't know how they can afford to send their kids to college. And they want to know what we in the United States Senate are doing to help them.

That's why I want to give every family sending a child to college a $4,000 per student per year tuition tax credit. My bill would give help to those who practice self help--the families who are working and saving to send their child to college or update their own skills.

College tuition is on the rise across America. Tuition at the University of Maryland has increased by almost 40 percent since 2002. Tuition for Baltimore Community College rose by $300 in one year. The average total cost of going to a 4-year public college is $10,635 per year, including tuition, fees, room and board. University of Maryland will cost more than $15,000 for a full time undergraduate student who lives on campus.

Financial Aid isn't keeping up with these rising costs. Pell Grants cover only 40 percent of average costs at 4-year public colleges. Twenty years ago, Pell Grants covered 80 percent of average costs. Our students are graduating with so much debt it's like their first mortgage. The average undergraduate student debt from college loans is almost $19,000. College is part of the American Dream; it shouldn't be part of the American financial nightmare.

Families are looking for help. I'm sad to say, the President doesn't offer them much hope. The Republican budget has all the wrong priorities. President Bush proposed increasing the maximum Pell Grant by just $100 to $4,150. I want to double Pell Grants. Instead of easing the burden on middle class families, the Republican budget helps out big business cronies with lavish tax breaks while eating into Social Security and creating deficits as far as the eye can see.

We need to do more to help middle class families afford college. We need to immediately increase the maximum Pell Grant to $4,500 and double it over the next 6 years. We need to make sure student loans are affordable. And we need a bigger tuition tax credit for the families stuck in the middle who aren't eligible for Pell Grants but still can't afford college.

A $4,000 refundable tax credit for tuition will go a long way. It will give middle class families some relief by helping the first-time student at our 4-year institutions like University of Maryland and the mid-career student at our terrific community colleges. A $4,000 tax credit would be 60 percent of the tuition at Maryland and enough to cover the cost of tuition at most community colleges. My bill would help make college affordable for everyone.

College education is more important than ever: 40 percent of new jobs in the next 10 years will require post-secondary education. College is important to families and it's important to our economy. To compete in the global economy, we need to make sure all our children have 21st century skills for 21st century jobs. And the benefits of education help not just the individual but society as a whole.

To have a safer America and a stronger economy, we need to have a smarter America. We need to invest in our human capital to create a world class workforce. That means making a college education affordable.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Educational Opportunity for All Act.'' The core of the American Dream is getting a college education and I want to make sure that every student has access to that dream. I want to help families who are trying to send their children to college and adults who are going back to school--for their first degree or their third. This $4,000 tuition tax credit will help students who are taking one night class at a community college to update their skills or four classes at a university to get their bachelor's degree. And my tax credit is refundable so it helps families who don't owe taxes.

Our middle class families are stressed and stretched. Families in my State of Maryland are worried--they're worried about their jobs and they're terrified of losing their healthcare when costs keep ballooning. Many are holding down more than one job to make ends meet. They're racing from carpools to work and back again. But most of all, they don't know how they can afford to send their kids to college. And they want to know what we in the United States Senate are doing to help them.

That's why I want to give every family sending a child to college a $4,000 per student per year tuition tax credit. My bill would give help to those who practice self help--the families who are working and saving to send their child to college or update their own skills.

College tuition is on the rise across America. Tuition at the University of Maryland has increased by almost 40 percent since 2002. Tuition for Baltimore Community College rose by $300 in one year. The average total cost of going to a 4-year public college is $10,635 per year, including tuition, fees, room and board. University of Maryland will cost more than $15,000 for a full time undergraduate student who lives on campus.

Financial Aid isn't keeping up with these rising costs. Pell Grants cover only 40 percent of average costs at 4-year public colleges. Twenty years ago, Pell Grants covered 80 percent of average costs. Our students are graduating with so much debt it's like their first mortgage. The average undergraduate student debt from college loans is almost $19,000. College is part of the American Dream; it shouldn't be part of the American financial nightmare.

Families are looking for help. I'm sad to say, the President doesn't offer them much hope. The Republican budget has all the wrong priorities. President Bush proposed increasing the maximum Pell Grant by just $100 to $4,150. I want to double Pell Grants. Instead of easing the burden on middle class families, the Republican budget helps out big business cronies with lavish tax breaks while eating into Social Security and creating deficits as far as the eye can see.

We need to do more to help middle class families afford college. We need to immediately increase the maximum Pell Grant to $4,500 and double it over the next 6 years. We need to make sure student loans are affordable. And we need a bigger tuition tax credit for the families stuck in the middle who aren't eligible for Pell Grants but still can't afford college.

A $4,000 refundable tax credit for tuition will go a long way. It will give middle class families some relief by helping the first-time student at our 4-year institutions like University of Maryland and the mid-career student at our terrific community colleges. A $4,000 tax credit would be 60 percent of the tuition at Maryland and enough to cover the cost of tuition at most community colleges. My bill would help make college affordable for everyone.

College education is more important than ever: 40 percent of new jobs in the next 10 years will require post-secondary education. College is important to families and it's important to our economy. To compete in the global economy, we need to make sure all our children have 21st century skills for 21st century jobs. And the benefits of education help not just the individual but society as a whole.

To have a safer America and a stronger economy, we need to have a smarter America. We need to invest in our human capital to create a world class workforce. That means making a college education affordable.

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

I rise to introduce the Women's Health Office Act with my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. The Women's Health Office Act authorizes and strengthens women's health offices or officers at Federal health agencies in the Department of Health and Human Services. This legislation will make sure that men and women get equal benefit from Federal investments in medical research and health care services.

Today, doctors, scientists, Members of Congress, and the American public know that women and men have different bodies and different health care needs. Diseases like ovarian cancer and endometriosis affect only women. Women are four times more likely to develop osteoporosis than men and according to some estimates, half of all women over 50 will fracture a bone because of osteoporosis in her lifetime.

Despite these differences, men's health needs have set the standard for our health care system and our health care research agenda. Women have been systematically excluded from medical research because decision-makers said that our hormone cycles complicated the results. One study on heart disease risk factors was conducted on 13,000 men-- and not one women. But the results of studies like these were applied to both men and women. This neglect puts women's health and lives at risk.

That's why my colleagues and I took action. More than a decade ago, I worked with Olympia Snowe, Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, and other women in the House to get an Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health, NIH. In 1993, I worked with these same women and Galahads in Congress to make sure that the women's health office would stay at NIH by putting it into law.

This office at NIH has made a real difference in how women are treated for certain illnesses. We now know that men and women often have different symptoms before a heart attack. Women's symptoms are more subtle, like nausea and back pain. Knowing these symptoms means women can get to the hospital sooner and can be treated earlier. That's turning women's health research into life-saving information.

I am proud that there are now women's health offices or officers at nearly every federal health agency at the Department of Health and Human Services. Like the one at NIH, women's

health offices mean that women's health needs are always at the table. These offices at the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, make sure women are included in clinical drug trials, reach out to low-income and minority women to make sure they are getting vaccines and cancer screenings, and work with health care providers to put research on women's health into practice. Recent questions about the risks and benefits of mammography and hormone replacement therapy remind us that women's health offices are as important as ever.

Right now, many of these offices--and the important work they do-- could be eliminated or cut back without the consent of Congress. That is why this bill is so important. This bill would put women's health offices into our nation's lawbooks.

The Women's Health Office Act does more than protect the status quo. It keeps us moving forward on women's health. It gives women's health offices a clear, consistent framework throughout the department. By writing them into law, it gives women's health offices the stature they need to be strong, effective advocates for women's health within the Federal Government. This legislation coordinates women's health activities within each agency, to identify needs and set goals. The Women's Health Office Act centralizes overall coordination throughout the Department of Health and Human Services, to clarify lines of accountability and chart a clear course on women's health. Finally, it authorizes funding for these women's health offices or officers, to make sure that we put our nation's priorities in the federal checkbook as well as the Federal lawbooks.

I would like to thank Senator Olympia Snowe for leading the way on this important legislation. As Dean of the Senate women, I will continue to fight to get this bill signed into law and to make progress to improve the health of American women.

I rise to introduce the Women's Health Office Act with my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. The Women's Health Office Act authorizes and strengthens women's health offices or officers at Federal health agencies in the Department of Health and Human Services. This legislation will make sure that men and women get equal benefit from Federal investments in medical research and health care services.

Today, doctors, scientists, Members of Congress, and the American public know that women and men have different bodies and different health care needs. Diseases like ovarian cancer and endometriosis affect only women. Women are four times more likely to develop osteoporosis than men and according to some estimates, half of all women over 50 will fracture a bone because of osteoporosis in her lifetime.

Despite these differences, men's health needs have set the standard for our health care system and our health care research agenda. Women have been systematically excluded from medical research because decision-makers said that our hormone cycles complicated the results. One study on heart disease risk factors was conducted on 13,000 men-- and not one women. But the results of studies like these were applied to both men and women. This neglect puts women's health and lives at risk.

That's why my colleagues and I took action. More than a decade ago, I worked with Olympia Snowe, Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, and other women in the House to get an Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health, NIH. In 1993, I worked with these same women and Galahads in Congress to make sure that the women's health office would stay at NIH by putting it into law.

This office at NIH has made a real difference in how women are treated for certain illnesses. We now know that men and women often have different symptoms before a heart attack. Women's symptoms are more subtle, like nausea and back pain. Knowing these symptoms means women can get to the hospital sooner and can be treated earlier. That's turning women's health research into life-saving information.

I am proud that there are now women's health offices or officers at nearly every federal health agency at the Department of Health and Human Services. Like the one at NIH, women's

health offices mean that women's health needs are always at the table. These offices at the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, make sure women are included in clinical drug trials, reach out to low-income and minority women to make sure they are getting vaccines and cancer screenings, and work with health care providers to put research on women's health into practice. Recent questions about the risks and benefits of mammography and hormone replacement therapy remind us that women's health offices are as important as ever.

Right now, many of these offices--and the important work they do-- could be eliminated or cut back without the consent of Congress. That is why this bill is so important. This bill would put women's health offices into our nation's lawbooks.

The Women's Health Office Act does more than protect the status quo. It keeps us moving forward on women's health. It gives women's health offices a clear, consistent framework throughout the department. By writing them into law, it gives women's health offices the stature they need to be strong, effective advocates for women's health within the Federal Government. This legislation coordinates women's health activities within each agency, to identify needs and set goals. The Women's Health Office Act centralizes overall coordination throughout the Department of Health and Human Services, to clarify lines of accountability and chart a clear course on women's health. Finally, it authorizes funding for these women's health offices or officers, to make sure that we put our nation's priorities in the federal checkbook as well as the Federal lawbooks.

I would like to thank Senator Olympia Snowe for leading the way on this important legislation. As Dean of the Senate women, I will continue to fight to get this bill signed into law and to make progress to improve the health of American women.

Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Bunning to introduce this important bill to make sure that Medicaid patients have access to care provided by podiatrists.

This bill ensures that Medicaid patients across the country can get services provided by podiatrists. This is a simple, common sense bill. This legislation includes podiatric physicians in

Medicaid's definition of physician. This means that the services of podiatrists will be covered by Medicaid, just like they are in Medicare. Podiatrists are considered physicians under Medicare. They should be under Medicaid. Medicaid covers necessary foot and ankle care services. Medicaid should allow podiatrists who are trained specifically in foot and ankle care to provide these services and be reimbursed for them.

The services of podiatrists are considered optional under Medicaid. Currently, most state Medicaid programs, including Maryland, recognize and reimburse podiatrists for providing foot and ankle care to their beneficiaries. However, during times of tight budgets, states may choose to cut back on these optional services. Recently, Connecticut, and Texas discontinued podiatric services. Even though podiatrist services are considered optional, Medicaid patients need foot and ankle care. If podiatrists do not provide the care, patients will see providers who may not be as well trained in the care of the lower extremities as podiatrists. I want the over 560,000 Medicaid patients in Maryland to have access to the services provided by over 400 podiatrists in Maryland.

Podiatrists receive special training on the foot, ankle, and lower leg. They play an important role in the recognition of systemic diseases like diabetes, and in the recognition and treatment of peripheral neuropathy, a frequent cause of diabetic foot wounds that can often lead to preventable lower extremity amputations. Over 18 million people in this country have diabetes, but an estimated more than 5 million of these people are not aware that they have the disease.

The President's budget challenges Congress to make major cuts to Medicaid--up to $60 billion. Covering podiatrists may be, in fact, a cost cutting measure. Ensuring Medicaid patient access to podiatrists will save Medicaid funds in the long term. According to the American Podiatric Medical Association, 75 percent of Americans will experience some type of foot health problem during their lives. Foot disease is the most common complication of diabetes leading to hospitalization. About 82,000 people have diabetes-related leg, foot, or toe amputations each year. Foot care programs with regular examinations and patient education could prevent up to 85 percent of these amputations. Podiatrists are important providers of this care.

This bill will make sure that Medicaid patients across the country have access to care provided by podiatrists. It has the support of the American Podiatric Medical Association. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Bunning to introduce this important bill to make sure that Medicaid patients have access to care provided by podiatrists.

This bill ensures that Medicaid patients across the country can get services provided by podiatrists. This is a simple, common sense bill. This legislation includes podiatric physicians in

Medicaid's definition of physician. This means that the services of podiatrists will be covered by Medicaid, just like they are in Medicare. Podiatrists are considered physicians under Medicare. They should be under Medicaid. Medicaid covers necessary foot and ankle care services. Medicaid should allow podiatrists who are trained specifically in foot and ankle care to provide these services and be reimbursed for them.

The services of podiatrists are considered optional under Medicaid. Currently, most state Medicaid programs, including Maryland, recognize and reimburse podiatrists for providing foot and ankle care to their beneficiaries. However, during times of tight budgets, states may choose to cut back on these optional services. Recently, Connecticut, and Texas discontinued podiatric services. Even though podiatrist services are considered optional, Medicaid patients need foot and ankle care. If podiatrists do not provide the care, patients will see providers who may not be as well trained in the care of the lower extremities as podiatrists. I want the over 560,000 Medicaid patients in Maryland to have access to the services provided by over 400 podiatrists in Maryland.

Podiatrists receive special training on the foot, ankle, and lower leg. They play an important role in the recognition of systemic diseases like diabetes, and in the recognition and treatment of peripheral neuropathy, a frequent cause of diabetic foot wounds that can often lead to preventable lower extremity amputations. Over 18 million people in this country have diabetes, but an estimated more than 5 million of these people are not aware that they have the disease.

The President's budget challenges Congress to make major cuts to Medicaid--up to $60 billion. Covering podiatrists may be, in fact, a cost cutting measure. Ensuring Medicaid patient access to podiatrists will save Medicaid funds in the long term. According to the American Podiatric Medical Association, 75 percent of Americans will experience some type of foot health problem during their lives. Foot disease is the most common complication of diabetes leading to hospitalization. About 82,000 people have diabetes-related leg, foot, or toe amputations each year. Foot care programs with regular examinations and patient education could prevent up to 85 percent of these amputations. Podiatrists are important providers of this care.

This bill will make sure that Medicaid patients across the country have access to care provided by podiatrists. It has the support of the American Podiatric Medical Association. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Community College Opportunity Act.'' Community colleges are the gateway to the future--for first time students looking for an affordable college education, and for mid-career students looking to get ahead in the workplace. As college tuition at four-year colleges continues to rise, more and more students are turning to community colleges for the education they need to prepare for 21st century jobs.

Yet soon we may not be able to count on our community colleges being available to everyone. The combination of budget cuts and increased enrollments is forcing community colleges to make tough choices-- between raising tuition and turning students away. This important legislation will help keep the doors of our community colleges open to increasing numbers of students without sending tuition through the roof. My bill authorizes $500 million for a competitive grant program to help community colleges serve more students. Community colleges could apply

for a grant to help with the cost of constructing or renovating facilities, hiring faculty, purchasing new computers and scientific equipment, and investing in creative ways of addressing overcrowding-- like distance learning.

Why is this important? Community colleges are one of the great American social inventions. I used to teach night school at Baltimore City Community College. I know firsthand the vital role they play in our communities. Their low cost, convenient location, and open door admissions policy have made them the key to the American dream for so many. Many generations of immigrants pursued the American dream by working all day and going to night school at night. After World War II, the GI bill gave returning veterans a chance to get ahead by going to local junior colleges.

Now, more than ever, it's important to invest in community colleges. In the next ten years, 40 percent of new jobs will require college education. At the same time, college tuition is on the rise. Tuition at the University of Maryland is up by as much as 32 percent. That's causing many students to take a second look at community colleges because they're more affordable. They're also leaders in training workers for 21st century jobs--from nurses to computer techies, and even lab techs for new industries, like biotechnology. They're playing a key role in addressing shortages in nursing and teaching. In Maryland, community colleges train 55 percent of new nurses.

Yet our community colleges are bursting at the seams. They're growing faster than 4-year colleges. Enrollment at Maryland's community colleges is expected to grow 30 percent in the next 10 years, while 4- year colleges will grow by 15 percent. Community colleges are holding classes from 7 in the morning to 10 at night, on weekends, and over the internet. In my own State of Maryland, they are starting to turn students away because there isn't enough room. Almost 1,000 students were shut out of Montgomery College last spring because they couldn't get into the classes they needed or they couldn't afford the cost. Prince George's Community College had to turn away 630 prospective nursing students and 1,000 prospective education students.

It's great that so many Americans are going to community colleges. For so many Americans, community colleges are the only way to get the education they need to be competitive for 21st century jobs. Yet the rapid increase of students is threatening the very mission of community colleges. If we want a world-class workforce, we need to invest in higher education. We need to make sure we always have institutions available to everyone who wants a college degree--or just a couple of courses. That means investing in our community colleges, so they can continue to be affordable, accessible, and successful at training the next generation of nurses, teachers, and techies.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to continue the fight to right a wrong in America's visa program. I believe it's time for America to extend the Visa Waiver program to Poland. I'm pleased to have formed a bipartisan partnership with Senator Santorum to reintroduce our bill to get it done.

Last fall, Senator Santorum and I met with a hero of the Cold War, Lech Walesa. When he jumped over the wall of the Gdansk shipyard, he took Poland and the whole world with him. He told us that the visa issue is a question of honor for Poland. That day, we introduced a bill to once again stand in solidarity with the father of Solidarity by extending the Visa Waiver program to Poland.

This morning, I had the honor of hosting Poland's Foreign Minister, Professor Adam Rotfeld. We reaffirmed and cemented the close ties between the Polish and American peoples. Senator Santorum and I heard loud and clear that the visa waiver program remains a high priority for Poland.

My friends, Poland is not some Communist holdover or third-world country begging for a handout. The Cold War is over. Poland is a free and democratic nation. Poland is a NATO ally and a member of the European Union. But America's visa policy still treats Poland as a second-class citizen. That is just wrong.

Poland is a reliable ally, not just by treaty but in deeds. Warsaw hosted an international Conference on Combating Terrorism less than two months after the September 11 attacks. Poland continues to modernize its Armed Forces so they can operate with the Armed Forces of the U.S. and other NATO allies, buying American F-16s and Shadow UAVs and humvees.

More importantly, Polish troops have stood side by side with America's Armed Forces. Polish ships participated in Desert Shield and Desert Storm during the 1990-91 Gulf War. Poland sent troops to Bosnia as part of UNPROFOR and IFOR. Poland sent troops as part of the international coalition in Afghanistan.

Polish troops fought alongside American and British and Australian troops from day one of the Iraq war. They are there because they want to be reliable allies. Because they are ready to stand with us even when the mission is risky and unpopular. Today, Poland still commands multinational forces in the South Central region of Iraq. Nearly 2,500 Polish troops are still on the ground in Iraq, sharing the burden and the risk and the casualties.

So why are Singapore and San Marino among the 27 countries in the Visa Waiver program, but Poland is not?

President Kwasniewski raised this issue with President Bush last year and again this week. The President has said this is a matter for Congress. It's time for us to act.

The bill Senator Santorum and I are introducing today will add Poland to the list of designated countries in the Visa Waiver program. That will allow Polish citizens to travel to the U.S. for tourism or business for up to sixty days without needing to stand in line to get a visa. That means it will be easier for Poles to visit family and friends or do business in America. Shouldn't we make it easier for the Pulaskis and Kosciuszkos and Marie Curies of today to visit our country?

We know that our borders will be no less secure because of these Polish visitors to our country. But we know that our alliance will be more secure because of this legislation.

I urge our colleagues to join us in support of this important bill.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that is desperately needed by small and seasonal businesses all over the Nation. These businesses are in crisis. They need seasonal workers before the summer so that they can survive. For many years they have relied on the H2B Visa program to meet these needs, but this year they can't get the temporary labor they need because they have been shut out of the H-2B visa program. That program lets them hire temporary foreign workers when no American workers are available.

So today, I join with my colleague Senator Gregg to introduce legislation that provides a quick fix to the H-2B problem. The ``Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act'' will help these employers by doing three things--temporarily exempting good actor workers from the H-2B cap, protecting against fraud in the H-2B program and providing a fair and balanced allocation system for H-2B visas. I urge my colleagues to work with us to pass this legislation quickly to save these businesses and the thousands of American jobs they provide.

Many in this body know about the H-2B crisis. All this week we have been talking about the litigation crisis--but a real crisis to thousands of small and seasonal businesses is the worker shortage they face as they approach the summer season. These small businesses count on the H-2B Visa Program to keep their businesses afloat. And this year, because the cap of 66,000 was reached so early in the year, many of these businesses will be unable to get the seasonal workers that they need to survive.

Hitting the cap so early has had a great impact on Maryland. We have a lot of summer seasonal businesses in Maryland, on the Eastern Shore, in Ocean City or working the Chesapeake Bay. Many of our businesses use the program year after year. They hire all the American workers they can find, but they need additional help to meet seasonal demands. Because the cap was reached so early this year, for the second year in a row, summer employers face a disadvantage. They can't use the program, so they can't meet their seasonal needs and many will be forced to limit services, lay-off permanent U.S. workers or, worse yet, close their doors.

These are family businesses and small businesses in small communities in Maryland. If the business suffers the whole community suffers. For seafood companies like J.M. Clayton, what they do is more than a business, it's a way of life. Started over a century ago and run by the great grandsons of the founder, J.M. Clayton works the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, supplying crabs, crabmeat and other seafood, including Maryland's famous oysters, to restaurants, markets, and wholesalers allover the Nation. It is the oldest working crab processing plant in the world and by employing 65 H-2B workers the company can retain over 30 full-time American workers.

But its not just seafood companies that have a long history on the Eastern Shore. It's companies like S.E.W. Friel Cannery, which began its business over 100 years ago when there were 300 canneries on the Eastern Shore. But now those others are gone and Friel's is the last corn cannery left. Ten years ago, when the cannery could not find local workers, it turned to the new H-2B Visa Program. It has used the program every year since, and many workers are repeat users who come each year and then go home after the season. What's important is that having this help each year has not only allowed the company to maintain its American workforce, but it has paved the way for local workers to return to the cannery. They now employ 75 full time and 190 seasonal workers, along with 70 farmers and additional suppliers.

Now these employers can't just turn to the H-2B program whenever they want seasonal workers. First, employers must try to vigorously recruit U.S. workers. They must demonstrate to the Department of Labor that there are no U.S. workers available. Only after that are they allowed to fill seasonal vacancies with H-2B visa workers. The workers that they bring in often participate in the H-2B program year after year. They often work for the same companies. But they cannot and do not stay in the U.S. They return to their home countries, to their families and their U.S. employer must go through the whole visa process again the following year to get them back. That means an employer must prove again to the Department of Labor that they cannot get U.S. workers.

This legislative fix keeps that visa process in place. It's a short- term legislative fix to solve the immediate H-2B visa shortage. It does not take the place of comprehensive immigration reform.

This legislation is a temporary two year fix. And it does four things:

One, it exempts returning seasonal workers from the cap. These are workers who have already successfully participated in the H-2B Visa Program. They received a visa in one of the past three years and have returned home to their families after their seasonal employment with a U.S. company.

Everyone must still play by the rules. Employers must go through the whole visa process, prove they need the seasonal help and only after that are returning employees exempt from the cap. Employees must be those who have left the U.S. and are requesting a new H-2B visa to come back for another season. This new system rewards those who have played by the rules, worked hard and successfully participated in the program. And the bill gives a helping hand to businesses by allowing them to retain workers who they have already trained to do their seasonal jobs.

Next, this bill creates new anti-fraud provisions. To make sure that everyone is playing by the rules and that no one is misusing the program. And it gives government some teeth to prevent fraud and enforce our nation's immigration laws. A $150 anti-fraud fee ensures that government agencies processing the H-2B visas will get added resources to detect and prevent fraud. New sanction provisions for those who misrepresent facts on a petition further strengthens DHS's enforcement power. This section also sends a strong message to employers--don't play games with U.S. jobs. Our bill reserves the highest penalties for employer actions which harm U.S. workers.

And, this bill creates a fair allocation of visas. Now, summer employers lose out because winter employers get all the visas. This bill makes the system fair for all employers. We reserve half of the visas for the winter and half for the summer. Allocating visas ensures that, until a long-term solution is reached, all employers will have an

equal chance of getting the workers that they need.

Finally, the bill adds some simple reporting requirements. So that DHS gives Congress the information it needs to make informed decisions about the H-2B visa program in the future.

This is a quick and simple fix. It lasts just 2 years--the rest of this year and next. And it does not get in the way of comprehensive immigration reform.

I worked with my colleagues to get a bill with strong bipartisan support, a bill that would work.

This bill is realistic. It provides a temporary solution because immediate action is needed to help these small and seasonal businesses stay in business. Yes, we need to help them now. Their seasons start soon. And if they don't get seasonal workers this year, there may not be any businesses around next year to help.

Every Member of the Senate who has heard from their constituents-- whether they are seafood processors, landscapers, resorts, timber companies, fisheries, pool companies or carnivals--knows the urgency in their voices, knows the immediacy of the problem and knows that the Congress must act now to save these businesses. I urge my colleagues to join this effort, support the Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, and push this Congress to fix the problem today.

Mr. President, I rise today to continue the fight to right a wrong in America's visa program. I believe it's time for America to extend the Visa Waiver program to Poland. I'm pleased to have formed a bipartisan partnership with Senator Santorum to reintroduce our bill to get it done.

Last fall, Senator Santorum and I met with a hero of the Cold War, Lech Walesa. When he jumped over the wall of the Gdansk shipyard, he took Poland and the whole world with him. He told us that the visa issue is a question of honor for Poland. That day, we introduced a bill to once again stand in solidarity with the father of Solidarity by extending the Visa Waiver program to Poland.

This morning, I had the honor of hosting Poland's Foreign Minister, Professor Adam Rotfeld. We reaffirmed and cemented the close ties between the Polish and American peoples. Senator Santorum and I heard loud and clear that the visa waiver program remains a high priority for Poland.

My friends, Poland is not some Communist holdover or third-world country begging for a handout. The Cold War is over. Poland is a free and democratic nation. Poland is a NATO ally and a member of the European Union. But America's visa policy still treats Poland as a second-class citizen. That is just wrong.

Poland is a reliable ally, not just by treaty but in deeds. Warsaw hosted an international Conference on Combating Terrorism less than two months after the September 11 attacks. Poland continues to modernize its Armed Forces so they can operate with the Armed Forces of the U.S. and other NATO allies, buying American F-16s and Shadow UAVs and humvees.

More importantly, Polish troops have stood side by side with America's Armed Forces. Polish ships participated in Desert Shield and Desert Storm during the 1990-91 Gulf War. Poland sent troops to Bosnia as part of UNPROFOR and IFOR. Poland sent troops as part of the international coalition in Afghanistan.

Polish troops fought alongside American and British and Australian troops from day one of the Iraq war. They are there because they want to be reliable allies. Because they are ready to stand with us even when the mission is risky and unpopular. Today, Poland still commands multinational forces in the South Central region of Iraq. Nearly 2,500 Polish troops are still on the ground in Iraq, sharing the burden and the risk and the casualties.

So why are Singapore and San Marino among the 27 countries in the Visa Waiver program, but Poland is not?

President Kwasniewski raised this issue with President Bush last year and again this week. The President has said this is a matter for Congress. It's time for us to act.

The bill Senator Santorum and I are introducing today will add Poland to the list of designated countries in the Visa Waiver program. That will allow Polish citizens to travel to the U.S. for tourism or business for up to sixty days without needing to stand in line to get a visa. That means it will be easier for Poles to visit family and friends or do business in America. Shouldn't we make it easier for the Pulaskis and Kosciuszkos and Marie Curies of today to visit our country?

We know that our borders will be no less secure because of these Polish visitors to our country. But we know that our alliance will be more secure because of this legislation.

I urge our colleagues to join us in support of this important bill.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that is desperately needed by small and seasonal businesses all over the Nation. These businesses are in crisis. They need seasonal workers before the summer so that they can survive. For many years they have relied on the H2B Visa program to meet these needs, but this year they can't get the temporary labor they need because they have been shut out of the H-2B visa program. That program lets them hire temporary foreign workers when no American workers are available.

So today, I join with my colleague Senator Gregg to introduce legislation that provides a quick fix to the H-2B problem. The ``Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act'' will help these employers by doing three things--temporarily exempting good actor workers from the H-2B cap, protecting against fraud in the H-2B program and providing a fair and balanced allocation system for H-2B visas. I urge my colleagues to work with us to pass this legislation quickly to save these businesses and the thousands of American jobs they provide.

Many in this body know about the H-2B crisis. All this week we have been talking about the litigation crisis--but a real crisis to thousands of small and seasonal businesses is the worker shortage they face as they approach the summer season. These small businesses count on the H-2B Visa Program to keep their businesses afloat. And this year, because the cap of 66,000 was reached so early in the year, many of these businesses will be unable to get the seasonal workers that they need to survive.

Hitting the cap so early has had a great impact on Maryland. We have a lot of summer seasonal businesses in Maryland, on the Eastern Shore, in Ocean City or working the Chesapeake Bay. Many of our businesses use the program year after year. They hire all the American workers they can find, but they need additional help to meet seasonal demands. Because the cap was reached so early this year, for the second year in a row, summer employers face a disadvantage. They can't use the program, so they can't meet their seasonal needs and many will be forced to limit services, lay-off permanent U.S. workers or, worse yet, close their doors.

These are family businesses and small businesses in small communities in Maryland. If the business suffers the whole community suffers. For seafood companies like J.M. Clayton, what they do is more than a business, it's a way of life. Started over a century ago and run by the great grandsons of the founder, J.M. Clayton works the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, supplying crabs, crabmeat and other seafood, including Maryland's famous oysters, to restaurants, markets, and wholesalers allover the Nation. It is the oldest working crab processing plant in the world and by employing 65 H-2B workers the company can retain over 30 full-time American workers.

But its not just seafood companies that have a long history on the Eastern Shore. It's companies like S.E.W. Friel Cannery, which began its business over 100 years ago when there were 300 canneries on the Eastern Shore. But now those others are gone and Friel's is the last corn cannery left. Ten years ago, when the cannery could not find local workers, it turned to the new H-2B Visa Program. It has used the program every year since, and many workers are repeat users who come each year and then go home after the season. What's important is that having this help each year has not only allowed the company to maintain its American workforce, but it has paved the way for local workers to return to the cannery. They now employ 75 full time and 190 seasonal workers, along with 70 farmers and additional suppliers.

Now these employers can't just turn to the H-2B program whenever they want seasonal workers. First, employers must try to vigorously recruit U.S. workers. They must demonstrate to the Department of Labor that there are no U.S. workers available. Only after that are they allowed to fill seasonal vacancies with H-2B visa workers. The workers that they bring in often participate in the H-2B program year after year. They often work for the same companies. But they cannot and do not stay in the U.S. They return to their home countries, to their families and their U.S. employer must go through the whole visa process again the following year to get them back. That means an employer must prove again to the Department of Labor that they cannot get U.S. workers.

This legislative fix keeps that visa process in place. It's a short- term legislative fix to solve the immediate H-2B visa shortage. It does not take the place of comprehensive immigration reform.

This legislation is a temporary two year fix. And it does four things:

One, it exempts returning seasonal workers from the cap. These are workers who have already successfully participated in the H-2B Visa Program. They received a visa in one of the past three years and have returned home to their families after their seasonal employment with a U.S. company.

Everyone must still play by the rules. Employers must go through the whole visa process, prove they need the seasonal help and only after that are returning employees exempt from the cap. Employees must be those who have left the U.S. and are requesting a new H-2B visa to come back for another season. This new system rewards those who have played by the rules, worked hard and successfully participated in the program. And the bill gives a helping hand to businesses by allowing them to retain workers who they have already trained to do their seasonal jobs.

Next, this bill creates new anti-fraud provisions. To make sure that everyone is playing by the rules and that no one is misusing the program. And it gives government some teeth to prevent fraud and enforce our nation's immigration laws. A $150 anti-fraud fee ensures that government agencies processing the H-2B visas will get added resources to detect and prevent fraud. New sanction provisions for those who misrepresent facts on a petition further strengthens DHS's enforcement power. This section also sends a strong message to employers--don't play games with U.S. jobs. Our bill reserves the highest penalties for employer actions which harm U.S. workers.

And, this bill creates a fair allocation of visas. Now, summer employers lose out because winter employers get all the visas. This bill makes the system fair for all employers. We reserve half of the visas for the winter and half for the summer. Allocating visas ensures that, until a long-term solution is reached, all employers will have an

equal chance of getting the workers that they need.

Finally, the bill adds some simple reporting requirements. So that DHS gives Congress the information it needs to make informed decisions about the H-2B visa program in the future.

This is a quick and simple fix. It lasts just 2 years--the rest of this year and next. And it does not get in the way of comprehensive immigration reform.

I worked with my colleagues to get a bill with strong bipartisan support, a bill that would work.

This bill is realistic. It provides a temporary solution because immediate action is needed to help these small and seasonal businesses stay in business. Yes, we need to help them now. Their seasons start soon. And if they don't get seasonal workers this year, there may not be any businesses around next year to help.

Every Member of the Senate who has heard from their constituents-- whether they are seafood processors, landscapers, resorts, timber companies, fisheries, pool companies or carnivals--knows the urgency in their voices, knows the immediacy of the problem and knows that the Congress must act now to save these businesses. I urge my colleagues to join this effort, support the Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, and push this Congress to fix the problem today.

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Rhode Island. I understand the Chaplain is a constituent of his.