Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to support and cosponsor Senator Frist's second-degree amendment to provide much-needed funding for homeland security. This amendment provides increased funding in three vital areas, Federal air marshals, fire grants and emergency management grants, and for the first time, it would give assistance to nonprofit institutions that are at high risk of terrorist attack.

Insuring that the brave men and women who are our first responders have the resources they need is one of my highest priorities. We must do our best to protect the protectors and they protect us everyday. These are the people who risk their lives to keep us safe. The bill before us today actually cuts funding and the step we take today to increase funding by $50 million for the fire grant program is a step in the right direction. But it is a first step.

Our Nation's firefighters need more resources. They need to replace aging fire engines and rescue vehicles, and they need self-contained breathing masks. Additional money for the Fire Grant Program is not just about new equipment--it is about saving lives. It is about making sure that our firefighters and rescue workers are well prepared, whether it is a terrorist attack or a hurricane. These brave men and women will be the first on the scene and we need to make sure that they have the tools they need to protect against threats to American lives.

It is my hope that as we proceed with this bill in the coming days, we will be able to add additional funding to provide the resources that fire departments across the Nation so desperately need. That is why I applaud my colleagues for taking this first step--the next step is to ensure that we include additional funding to bring this model program up to the full funding level of $900 million. On Monday, I will offer an amendment to take that final step and make sure that our firefighters have all the resources that they need. I hope that my colleagues will join me then as we have all joined Senator Frist today, in supporting those much needed increases in fire grant funding.

This amendment also takes a great first step in helping nonprofit organizations who are at risk for terrorist attack. As the majority leader knows, I have worked closely with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter on legislation to create a program to help nonprofits who serve communities throughout the Nation but who are threatened daily by the risk terrorist attack. Today, I am proud to provide funding to make our communities stronger and safer by protecting these ``soft targets'' of terrorism all over the United States.

We are all aware of recent terrorist attacks in the United States, Spain, Germany, Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco, and Turkey. These attacks by al-Qaida on an international Red Cross building, synagogues, train stations, hotels, airports, restaurants, night clubs, and cultural centers, show its willingness to attack ``soft targets'' of all types in order to conduct its campaign of terror.

I want to make sure that our communities are safe and the buildings where citizens live, learn, and work are strong and secure to safeguard American lives in the vent of a terrorist attack. Local communities are on the front lines in our war against terrorism. This Congress must do its share to make sure that they do not have to bear the full cost of this war. We can do that by helping to provide funds for security enhancements in buildings that Americans visit everyday.

In this amendment we simply provide an additional $50 million to enhance the security and safety of high-risk nonprofits. This funding will jumpstart the effort to make security improvements to these ``soft targets'' of terrorism. These nonprofits are worried now, they are under threat now, and then need our help now. This Congress must act now to make these nonprofits and the communities that they serve safer and stronger.

As a Nation, our priority in fighting the war on terror is to be safer, stronger, and smarter so that we are able to better detect, prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. This bill gets us one step closer to meeting those goals by making vulnerable targets smarter in detecting and preventing terrorist attacks and by making sure that if terror strikes one of these facilities, security

and safety measures are in place to protect the lives of those inside and around these buildings.

Nothing the Senate does is more important than providing America security and Americans safety. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it does exactly that. In the battle to protect our Nation from terrorist attacks, we must be sure to provide assistance to first responders and to these high-risk nonprofit organizations that provide vital health, social, cultural, and educational services to the American people.

Mr. President, in a few weeks we are going to be cheering on our champion athletes at the Olympics in Athens, Greece. I rise today to tell America the unique and inspiring story of a 12-year- old Marylander and record-breaking swimmer named Jessica Long.

Jessica was born in Russia and adopted with her brother Joshua as an infant. Though Jessica has faced health difficulties and worn prosthetic legs since she was a little girl, she has always been on the move. She began swimming seriously several years ago, pushing off the wall of the pool with her knees, and using her upper body for the majority of her swimming strength. She has since set 11 National and 2 Pan American records for disabled swimmers. Jessica is now going to compete in the 50-, 100-, and 400-meter freestyle events at the Paralympics Games in Athens.

Jessica also finds time to just have fun and be a kid. She has been a cheerleader, plays with Barbies and music boxes, and has dreams of being a model or designer. I am confident that Jessica will accomplish her goals, whatever they may be.

Jessica Long is a testament to triumph over adversity. She is strong in both body and spirit. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her spirit and wishing her the best of luck at the Athens Paralympics.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Boxer, to introduce the Closing the Coverage Gap of 2004 Act. This bill would fix one of the major flaws of the recently passed Medicare Modernization Act--the $2,850 gap in prescription drug coverage.

The Medicare bill is a hollow promise for a prescription drug benefit for seniors which talks big but delivers small. It promises prescription drugs for seniors, yet it will cause over 2 million seniors to lose their drug coverage, coerce seniors into HMOs, and do nothing to stop the soaring cost of prescription drugs.

During the debate on the bill, Senator Boxer and I worked on an amendment to fix one of the worst flaws in the drug benefit--the coverage gap. When I reviewed the bill, I was appalled to discover that the promised benefit actually provides no drug benefit to seniors for drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100 per year.

The new Medicare benefit affects seniors' drug costs in two ways. First of all it, it prohibits Medicare from negotiating better prices for seniors. I am fighting for legislation that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices--lowering drug costs to both seniors and taxpayers.

Next, the benefits are skimpy and spartan. The new Medicare benefit leaves too many seniors in a coverage gap. Some people are calling this a ``donut,'' as if it's a ``Krispy Kream,'' but there is nothing sweet about it. Seniors will have to pay out of pocket all of their drugs between $2,250 and $5,100 while still paying monthly premiums. This isn't a donut; it's a hidden deductible. The real deductible in this plan isn't $250. Once a senior's drug costs put them into the coverage gap, their deductible could be as high as $3,100. Seniors would have to pay all of the drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100, a total of $2,850, out of their own pockets on top of the $250 deductible.

I think this is outrageous. No other insurance plan simply stops coverage for a while.

Our bill would fix this fatal flaw in the Medicare prescription drug benefit by providing real prescription drug coverage. Under our bill, there is no coverage gap. Seniors would pay their premium and the $250 deductible. Once they have paid their deductible, they would pay 25 percent their drug costs until they reach the catastrophic limit of $5,100. And just like the current benefit, once a senior reaches $5,100, Medicare would pay 95 percent of all drug costs.

I thank Senator Boxer for all her work on this important bill and look forward to working together to close the coverage gap.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Boxer, to introduce the Closing the Coverage Gap of 2004 Act. This bill would fix one of the major flaws of the recently passed Medicare Modernization Act--the $2,850 gap in prescription drug coverage.

The Medicare bill is a hollow promise for a prescription drug benefit for seniors which talks big but delivers small. It promises prescription drugs for seniors, yet it will cause over 2 million seniors to lose their drug coverage, coerce seniors into HMOs, and do nothing to stop the soaring cost of prescription drugs.

During the debate on the bill, Senator Boxer and I worked on an amendment to fix one of the worst flaws in the drug benefit--the coverage gap. When I reviewed the bill, I was appalled to discover that the promised benefit actually provides no drug benefit to seniors for drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100 per year.

The new Medicare benefit affects seniors' drug costs in two ways. First of all it, it prohibits Medicare from negotiating better prices for seniors. I am fighting for legislation that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices--lowering drug costs to both seniors and taxpayers.

Next, the benefits are skimpy and spartan. The new Medicare benefit leaves too many seniors in a coverage gap. Some people are calling this a ``donut,'' as if it's a ``Krispy Kream,'' but there is nothing sweet about it. Seniors will have to pay out of pocket all of their drugs between $2,250 and $5,100 while still paying monthly premiums. This isn't a donut; it's a hidden deductible. The real deductible in this plan isn't $250. Once a senior's drug costs put them into the coverage gap, their deductible could be as high as $3,100. Seniors would have to pay all of the drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100, a total of $2,850, out of their own pockets on top of the $250 deductible.

I think this is outrageous. No other insurance plan simply stops coverage for a while.

Our bill would fix this fatal flaw in the Medicare prescription drug benefit by providing real prescription drug coverage. Under our bill, there is no coverage gap. Seniors would pay their premium and the $250 deductible. Once they have paid their deductible, they would pay 25 percent their drug costs until they reach the catastrophic limit of $5,100. And just like the current benefit, once a senior reaches $5,100, Medicare would pay 95 percent of all drug costs.

I thank Senator Boxer for all her work on this important bill and look forward to working together to close the coverage gap.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I am proud to support the United States- Australia Free Trade Agreement. I have opposed some trade agreements in the past because I am not willing to put American jobs on a slow boat to China or a fast track to Mexico. However, I am ready to support free trade when it is fair trade, and that is what we are talking about today.

This agreement ensures fair trade with one of our closest allies. It will also bring an expansion of opportunities for American workers and American businesses.

America's relationship with Australia is about our shared history and shared values. Australia has been one of America's staunchest allies in times of war, sending troops to fight beside our own in both World War I and II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, Afghanistan and now Iraq. In sending troops to fight alongside our own in Iraq, Australia was one of only three countries to fight along with America from the outset of war.

America and Australia share a common terrorist threat. Al-Qaida attacked America on September 11, and 10 Australian citizens died that day. A group linked to al-Qaida also killed almost 100 Australians in the Bali bombings. Our security relationship is strengthened by the ANZUS treaty, through which we work together for our mutual security. Now is the time to strengthen our economic partnership with a free- trade agreement.

I stand in support of this free-trade agreement because it is good for America and good for Maryland. It will protect and even create American jobs, and my first priority is fighting for jobs today and jobs tomorrow. This free-trade agreement will boost trade, increase efficiency and competitiveness, and result in additional foreign investment.

By eliminating Australian tariffs on our manufactured goods, American companies will be able to sell goods without penalty to our Australian allies. In my own State of Maryland, this means semiconductors, medical equipment, and fiber optic cable and switching equipment. This could mean as much as $2 billion for the U.S. economy in just the first year of agreement.

This free-trade agreement will also provide new opportunities for American farmers. The United States is now the second largest exporter of food to Australia, an exchange with a value of almost $400 million a year.

However, I do have concerns about the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I am concerned about what this agreement might mean for America's families trying to buy prescription drugs. Instead of making America's families a priority, this agreement protects drug companies and prioritizes the rights of prescription drug patent holders.

We cannot use this as an excuse for Congress not to pass prescription drug reimportation legislation. We need a regulated framework for drug reimportation so drug reimportation can take place out in the sunshine, rather than underground. Congress must act this year to control the spiraling cost of prescription drugs for our families.

With regard to labor rights, I think free-trade agreements should always include enforceable and high labor and environmental standards. This will ensure that the workers don't miss out and the environment doesn't suffer when businesses boom.

The Australian and American systems have much in common. We share democratic processes and labor rights such as freedom of association, the right to collective bargain, and the right to strike. We could have set the bar higher for workers around the world. Instead the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a missed opportunity. It contains no enforceable standards to protect labor rights or the environment.

The free-trade agreement with Jordan included a minimum standard of labor rights and environmental protection. People now talk about the ``Jordan standard.'' We finally had an opportunity to create an even higher standard, an ``Australia standard'' of labor rights. We could have used this standard if we renegotiated CAFTA and for future trade agreements. While we ensured our intellectual property rights are enforceable, we did nothing about our labor rights in this trade agreement.

I am willing to support the Australia Free Trade Agreement only because Australia's own laws are so strong. When I visited Australia, I saw that Australia stands up for its families, its workers and its environment. Almost 25 percent of Australian employees are union members. That's nearly double the level of union representation here. Australian workers are paid a livable minimum wage, receive 4 weeks of annual leave and are guaranteed high standards of workplace safety. Australia's world-class health-care system offers first-rate maternity care to its new mothers, with extra time in the hospital and a public health nurse to teach first time moms how to care for their newborns.

The United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement isn't perfect. Yet I support it because it will mean jobs for America.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I have a few words to say about the importance of protecting overtime pay for hard-working Americans. This bill that we're about to vote on is nicknamed the JOBS bill. But the most important thing we did for American workers in this bill was to pass Senator Harkin's amendment to protect overtime pay. I was proud to stand with Senator Harkin and stand up for American workers. I urge the conferees on this bill to make sure the Harkin amendment stays in the final version.

Millions of Americans depend on overtime pay to pay their bills and make ends meet. Yet the Bush administration wants to strip overtime protections for hard-working men and women. I thought in this country, the best social program was a job. Yet 6 million workers would lose overtime protection under the Bush proposal. Who are these workers? They are registered nurses, police sergeants, nursery school teachers, and others. These men and women work hard to serve our communities. They protect us and they help us when we are in need. They deserve extra pay for their extra efforts.

What does the Bush proposal mean for workers? It means workers will have to work long hours for less money because they will no longer be eligible for overtime pay. They might have to find a second job because they won't be able to count on overtime pay to make ends meet. They will spend less time with their families, but they won't get compensated. I think that's outrageous.

Let me give an example. America is facing a crisis in nursing. In Maryland hospitals, 12.6 percent of nursing jobs are vacant. They desperately need over 2,000 nurses. Nationwide, we will need about 2.8 million registered nurses by the year 2020, but only about 2 million will be available. Nurses work an average of 8.5 weeks of overtime each year. Eighty-seven percent of Maryland nurses work overtime just to make up for the shortage. If the Bush proposal becomes law, it will be easier for employers to deny overtime pay to registered nurses. RNs will have to work the same long hours for no extra pay, or hospitals will have to get by without enough nurses to take care of patients. Lack of overtime pay will discourage young nurses from entering the profession and experienced nurses from staying. I worked hard to pass legislation to help eliminate the nursing shortage. Changing the overtime rules would be a huge step backwards.

The Bush plan would also deny overtime pay for police sergeants. The Bush Labor Department got a lot of criticism when the American public realized that first responders would lose overtime pay. So they revised their proposal; and now they claim that first responders won't lose overtime protections. Yet the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Union of Police Associations, and the International Brotherhood of Police Organizations say that police sergeants and other managers could still lose their overtime pay.

What a thing to say to police officers and their families. These men and women put their lives on the line to keep us safe no matter what time it is or how many hours they've worked already. Every time a police officer leaves their home, they don't know when they'll be home. They don't even know if they'll be home. And now the Bush administration is asking them to donate their overtime. That's no way to show our appreciation. We need to protect the protectors so that they can protect us. That means protecting their overtime pay.

Nurses and police sergeants are just a few examples. The Bush proposal would deny overtime pay for workers in many industries, from nursery school teachers to insurance claims adjusters. It would take money out of the pockets of hard working Americans and their families. I think the Bush administration ought to be ashamed of itself.

Families in my State of Maryland are worried. They're worried about their jobs. They're terrified of losing their healthcare, when costs keep ballooning. They don't know how they can afford to send their kids to college. Tuition at University of Maryland increased by 30 percent over the last 2 years. Our middle class families are stressed and stretched. Many are holding down more than one job or working overtime to make ends meet. They're racing from carpools to work and back again. They want to know what we in the United States Senate are doing to help them. We need to protect their jobs and protect their overtime pay.

Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Smith in submitting this resolution to commemorate the 1944 Warsaw Uprising against the Nazi German occupation.

The Polish and American people have stood up against oppression and fought for liberty through the centuries. During our Revolutionary War, Polish patriots fought alongside American patriots to help secure our independence. During the Second World War, Polish mathematicians helped us break the enigma codes and American troops and the Polish Army in exile fought side by side to liberate Europe.

Within Poland, the Polish people fought for their own freedom against the occupying armies of Nazi Germany. Two of the most dramatic battles took place in Poland's capital: the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising by Jews in 1943, and the Warsaw Uprising in 1944.

In the summer of 1944, the German army was in retreat and the Red Army of the Soviet Union was approaching Warsaw. The Poles knew from the Katyn Forest Massacre what brutal treatment they could expect under Soviet occupation. So they took charge of their own liberation, hoping to allow the Polish government in exile to return to Warsaw.

On August 1, 1944, the Polish home army rose up against the Nazi Germany occupation. They took control of most of Warsaw within days. But the Germany army was determined to crush the resistance, and the Soviet Union hampered U.S. and British efforts to support the Warsaw Uprising from the air. The Poles fought bravely to liberate and protect their capitol and their nation. But after 63 days of bitter fighting, Germany tanks, planes and artillery overcame the valiant but poorly- armed Polish resistance.

Nazi Germany was not satisfied with mere victory. Heinrich Himmler ordered the people of Warsaw killed and the city razed to the ground as an example for all of Europe. Eighty-five percent of Warsaw was leveled by German forces and hundreds of thousands of Poles were killed.

The Poles were right to fight for their freedom in 1944, because Soviet domination lasted for nearly half a Century. The Solidarity Movement later took up the banner of Polish freedom, and we are now proud to have Poland as a friend and NATO ally.

This year, as we mark the 60th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising, we should remember and honor the Poles who fought so bravely, against such heavy odds, for freedom. This is what the resolution Senator Smith and I are offering today, and a companion resolution introduced in the House by Representatives Emanuel and Hyde, will do. I urge my colleagues to join us in commemorating the Warsaw Uprising.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Federal marriage amendment and also on the motion to proceed.

Today I rise to talk about the Federal marriage amendment. I first will talk about timing and then about content. First, I will talk about timing. Marriage is not under a threat. It is not in any clear, imminent danger of being destroyed. What is in clear and imminent danger and what we have heard is under threat of possible attack is the homeland.

There are other issues families are facing that are eroding their very stability such as their economic situation and the cost of health care. If we really want to stand up and protect America and protect families, we would be focusing on these and other issues. This discussion is ill-conceived, ill-timed, and unnecessary.

Last week, Homeland Secretary Tom Ridge announced that al-Qaida is planning a large-scale attack on the United States of America. What should we be doing? We should be working on homeland security. We have a homeland security appropriations bill pending, waiting to come before the Senate. That is what we should be talking about today, not this amendment.

This is why I will vote against the motion to proceed as a protest that we are not meeting the compelling needs of the Nation. We need to show a deterrent strategy, to send a message to the terrorists: Do not even think you can affect our elections because we would be united across the aisle to stand up and vote for legislation to protect the homeland. To protect our ports, our cities, our transportation, our schools, and, yes, those moms and dads and children we have been hearing about all day long. Instead, we are debating the motion to proceed to a constitutional amendment. America is united in the war against terrorism. We should not be divided in a cultural war.

Let's talk about another war, the war in Iraq. Right now, we have men and women returning with broken bodies, some who have lost their limbs. One cannot go to ward 57 at Walter Reed, the way I have, and see the young men and women who have lost an arm, lost a leg, lost hope, wondering if anybody is ever going to love them again, if they are ever going to be able to work again, and not want to do everything possible to help these young Americans.

That is why I am working now on a bipartisan basis with my colleague, Senator Kit Bond, on the VA/HUD appropriations bill so we can help our veterans, so we can have a prosthetic initiative to give them a ``smart'' arm with the best technology, to give them a smart leg so they can run the race for life and maybe give them back a life. That is what we should be focusing on, working on a bipartisan basis, solving the problems that confront the Nation.

This amendment is not about policy; it is about politics. It is not about strengthening families; it is about helping the other party get elected. If we were serious about helping families, we would be focusing on jobs, on health care, on the rising costs of college tuition. This proposed amendment does not help families. Why? It does not create one new job or keep one in this country. It does not pay for one bottle of prescription drugs that seniors so desperately need. This amendment does not send one child to college. No, this amendment does not help a family pay for health care for a sick child. What it does do is divide. Americans are tired of divisive debates. This amendment is just simply a distraction.

On the timing, I wish we would put it aside and address our Nation's real needs.

I also want to talk about the content should we move to proceed. I will vote against this amendment because it is unneeded and unnecessary. Congress in 1996 spoke on this issue. They passed something called the Defense of Marriage Act. What this legislation did was define marriage as between a man and a woman. It also allows each State to determine for itself what it considers marriage under its own State law, leaving the concept of federalism intact.

Maryland, my own home State, also has a law on the books that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. So when you look at Maryland law and you look at Federal law, this constitutional amendment is unneeded.

We talk about what the courts are doing. Well, I don't quite see that as the same level of threat as terrorism, or the loss of a job on a slow boat to China or a fast track to Mexico.

Some of my constituents are worried that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages. Under separation of

church and State, no law--not a Federal law, not a State law--can force a church, temple, mosque, or any religious institution to marry a same- sex couple. That will be up to their religious determination. Why? Because, again, under separation of church and State, we cannot dictate to a church what to do. Because of this constitutional commitment there can be no Federal law, for example, even under equal protection that could force the Catholic Church to ordain women. Our First Amendment provides this protection to religious institutions.

And so I reiterate that this amendment is unnecessary.

I also oppose this amendment because I take amending the Constitution very seriously. In our entire history, over 200 years, we have only amended the Constitution 17 times since the Bill of Rights. We have amended that Constitution to extend rights, not to restrict them. We amended the Constitution to end slavery. We amended the Constitution to give women the right to vote. We amended the Constitution to give equal protection in law to all citizens. We amended the Constitution to give citizens over age 18 the right to vote. We have never used the Constitution as a weapon or as a social policy tool against a minority of the population.

I am concerned that this amendment would condone discrimination. We should not embark on that path today. It is wrong. It undermines the integrity of the Constitution.

When the roll is called on the motion to proceed, I will oppose that motion. There are far more pressing needs for American families and those children we love.

When we amend the Constitution, it should be to expand hope and opportunity, not to shrink it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to oppose the Class Action Fairness Act.

This bill is anything but fair to the millions of consumers who will have the courthouse doors slammed on them.

Class action lawsuits are the only way a large number of people can get justice for a harm done to them by a consumer product, a corporate practice or an environmental harm. It is often not possible or practical for an ordinary individual to go to court against powerful corporations when they have only have a small amount of damage from a dangerous product. These cases help Americans, who can not bring a lawsuit on their own behalf, get their day in court. We cannot close the courthouse door on them.

I do believe that there are problems in the tort system that we need to address, and I have supported reform efforts to do that. But this bill goes too far. It throws the baby out with the bath water, removing virtually every State class action to Federal court.

Yesterday's New York Times called this bill ``A mischievous bill masquerading as . . . reform.'' In fact, this bill does little to reform the tort system and does much more to benefit the special interests who are supporting it.

Supporters of this legislation have claimed that they are making the system fairer and that they have improved on the original bill. But creating a system which moves virtually all class action cases to federal court is not fair to consumers, workers and victims of discrimination, who stand to benefit from strong State laws on consumer and environmental protection, civil rights protections and labor rights.

In our federalist system, these individuals look to their State courts and State judges for justice and this bill would undermine those rights.

This bill will also cause many of these cases to be dismissed once they reach Federal court. It is a bait and switch game. Get the cases out of State court and into Federal court where there are more hurdles for a class to be certified and then the case is thrown out. That is not fair either.

Finally, this legislation means delay and denial for injured consumers. Our Federal courts are already overburdened. Adding a significant number of cases to their dockets will only create further delay, both for the cases that this bill removes to those courts and for the cases that are already there. Judges will have more complex cases, with no additional resources, and plaintiffs will wait longer and longer for relief, if they get relief at all. Federal judges have even said that they don't want all these cases sent to them.

Instead, it is the special interests who will benefit. They will be able to take cases out of State courts where they belong, even if most of the plaintiffs live in the State and the issue involved purely matters of State law. Corporations will be able to move these cases to Federal court where it is harder to certify a class, where courts often won't certify a multi-State action, and where business interests have an advantage over the little guy. That puts special interests above the interests of working Americans.

Supporters of this bill claim that consumers will benefit from the provisions they have added to the bill. They say that the bill will safeguard consumer rights and make sure that the lawyers don't get all the money. But what this bill really safeguards is a good outcome for corporations, for drug companies, and the tobacco industry, by changing the case to a forum known to be better for business and, once its there, not even guaranteeing that the Federal court will allow it to proceed. That means State and Federal courthouse doors all over our Nation will be slammed on those seeking to hold business accountable for harmful practices. That is not fair and that's not what our legal system is all about.

As I travel through my State, I hear about problems with the legal system. Most often people are concerned about

policies that restrict access to the courts and not with abuses of the tort system. Yet I know that there are problems out there, and I have been on the record saying let's fix the problems.

But this bill doesn't do it. This bill does not deal directly with the problems. This bill is a one-size-fits-all solution to a complicated legal problem. Instead, let's look directly at the problems that are impacting consumers, workers and communities and where there are abuses in legal fees or trial awards they should be fixed. Many States have led the way, fixing their own systems to prevent some of the abuses that proponents of this bill talk about. More work needs to be done and the Senate should be looking at doing that instead of supporting this overbroad bill.

But I believe in fixing the problems. That is why I supported Senator Breaux's alternative the last time we debated this bill and why I will vote to support his and Senator Bingaman's amendments if they are able to offer them this time around. That is why I was optimistic when members of the Judiciary Committee were debating this issue, and I wish that we had given them more time to conduct hearings to get the root of the concerns and provide a specific solution.

Yet today we find ourselves faced with a bill that goes too far. I came to the Senate to fight for the little guy when his or her rights were trampled. This legislation threatens those rights, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. We should go back to the drawing board and come up with a proposal that gets at the heart of the abuses but doesn't undermine the rights of consumers and others looking for a fair day in court.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Adjustment Equity Act. This legislation amends the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 to allow retired police officers of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division and the United States Park Police to receive the same Cost of Living Adjustment as active officers.

For almost 80 years, Secret Service and Park Police retirees were assured an increase in their pensions whenever their active counterparts received an increase by the ``equalization clause'' in the District of Columbia Police and Firearms Salary Act of 1958. When the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act passed in 2000, the automatic link that ensured retirees of getting the same COLA as active officers was severed. This bill would restore that link, guaranteeing that the pension for these retired Federal police officers keeps up with the cost of living.

The Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act created a sharp inequality in retirement benefits for a small number of

retirees--600 Secret Service retirees and 470 Park Police retirees, roughly eleven hundred in total. They gave years of loyal service, often in difficult and life-threatening situations. They are the only Federal retirees who had existing retirement benefits scaled back.

Providing for government retirees and their families has always been an important function of the Federal Government. There is no reason why the government should go back on its word to provide this small group of valuable employees with secure retirement benefits. Restoring the COLA to the pensions of 1,100 Federal retirees will have a minimal impact on the Federal budget, but a major impact on the quality of life of the people involved.

When it comes to Federal employees, I believe that promises made should be promises kept. These former Secret Service and Park Police officers planned for their retirement with the understanding that their pension would be enough to live on, even as the cost of living increased. They deserve the retirement benefits they were promised when they signed up for service.

I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this bill to restore promised retirement benefits to retired officers of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division and the United States Park Police. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Adjustment Equity Act. This legislation amends the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 to allow retired police officers of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division and the United States Park Police to receive the same Cost of Living Adjustment as active officers.

For almost 80 years, Secret Service and Park Police retirees were assured an increase in their pensions whenever their active counterparts received an increase by the ``equalization clause'' in the District of Columbia Police and Firearms Salary Act of 1958. When the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act passed in 2000, the automatic link that ensured retirees of getting the same COLA as active officers was severed. This bill would restore that link, guaranteeing that the pension for these retired Federal police officers keeps up with the cost of living.

The Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act created a sharp inequality in retirement benefits for a small number of

retirees--600 Secret Service retirees and 470 Park Police retirees, roughly eleven hundred in total. They gave years of loyal service, often in difficult and life-threatening situations. They are the only Federal retirees who had existing retirement benefits scaled back.

Providing for government retirees and their families has always been an important function of the Federal Government. There is no reason why the government should go back on its word to provide this small group of valuable employees with secure retirement benefits. Restoring the COLA to the pensions of 1,100 Federal retirees will have a minimal impact on the Federal budget, but a major impact on the quality of life of the people involved.

When it comes to Federal employees, I believe that promises made should be promises kept. These former Secret Service and Park Police officers planned for their retirement with the understanding that their pension would be enough to live on, even as the cost of living increased. They deserve the retirement benefits they were promised when they signed up for service.

I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this bill to restore promised retirement benefits to retired officers of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division and the United States Park Police. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the NIH Security Act. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is one of America's most successful investments. NIH saves lives and helps Americans to live longer and live better. Research funded by NIH has made breakthroughs on many different fronts, from cutting edge bioterrorism research to mapping the human genome. Much of the research depends on experts working with hazardous chemicals or biological substances. We must make sure NIH is safe and secure--both to protect important research that may save future lives, and to make sure hazardous materials don't fall into the wrong hands.

The main NIH campus and its satellite facilities contain approximately 3,000 research laboratories--2,500 of which are approved for the use of radioisotopes. NIH has 21 high-containment laboratories and two high-containment animal facilities. And NIH is constructing additional high-containment laboratories in order to tackle the challenging issue of defending the country against bioterrorism.

We count on the NIH Police to protect this national treasure. Yet NIH Police officers are overworked and underpaid. Security at NIH facilities may be at risk because NIH is having trouble recruiting and retraining qualified police officers, and because the Police Department is not authorized to protect all of NIH's facilities.

That's why I am introducing this bill to improve security at NIH by giving the NIH Police the authority they need to do their job and the pay and benefits they deserve for a job well done. This legislation does three things. It establishes a permanent police force at NIH. It expands their jurisdiction to cover all of NIH's campuses. And it gives NIH Police officers the same pay and retirement benefits that other Federal law enforcement officers have.

Historically, NIH Police salaries have been among the lowest for law enforcement officers in the Washington-Metropolitan area. From 1998- 2002, the NIH Police had a 70 percent attrition rate. Most officers left for positions in other Federal and local law enforcement agencies that offered better pay and benefits. The constant turnover is having a devastating effect on morale, and it's costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime pay and lost training costs. That's because NIH invests in specialized training to make sure their officers are prepared to respond to potential biological, chemical, and nuclear disasters. But other agencies are able to lure these officers away. After spending the money to give their officers the training they need, NIH isn't able to give them the pay and benefits they deserve. My bill will ensure that NIH Police officers are getting the same pay and retirement benefits as other Federal law enforcement officers.

My bill also gives NIH Police officers the authority to carry firearms, serve warrants and conduct investigations on all properties under the custody and control of the NIH. Currently, the NIH Police's jurisdiction is limited to the main campus in Bethesda, leaving thousands of employees and numerous laboratories without their protection. NIH currently employs unarmed security guards at its satellite facilities in Maryland and across the country. These security guards do the best they can, but they don't have the authority to enforce laws, and they aren't as highly trained as the NIH Police.

NIH is serious about security. Dr. Zerhouni, the Director of NIH, fully recognizes the need for a highly quality police force to protect NIH and the surrounding community, and fully supports this legislation. Let's give the NIH Police the resources they need to make sure NIH is safe and secure. This is an important issue that must be addressed. I urge my colleagues to pass this important bill quickly, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the NIH Security Act. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is one of America's most successful investments. NIH saves lives and helps Americans to live longer and live better. Research funded by NIH has made breakthroughs on many different fronts, from cutting edge bioterrorism research to mapping the human genome. Much of the research depends on experts working with hazardous chemicals or biological substances. We must make sure NIH is safe and secure--both to protect important research that may save future lives, and to make sure hazardous materials don't fall into the wrong hands.

The main NIH campus and its satellite facilities contain approximately 3,000 research laboratories--2,500 of which are approved for the use of radioisotopes. NIH has 21 high-containment laboratories and two high-containment animal facilities. And NIH is constructing additional high-containment laboratories in order to tackle the challenging issue of defending the country against bioterrorism.

We count on the NIH Police to protect this national treasure. Yet NIH Police officers are overworked and underpaid. Security at NIH facilities may be at risk because NIH is having trouble recruiting and retraining qualified police officers, and because the Police Department is not authorized to protect all of NIH's facilities.

That's why I am introducing this bill to improve security at NIH by giving the NIH Police the authority they need to do their job and the pay and benefits they deserve for a job well done. This legislation does three things. It establishes a permanent police force at NIH. It expands their jurisdiction to cover all of NIH's campuses. And it gives NIH Police officers the same pay and retirement benefits that other Federal law enforcement officers have.

Historically, NIH Police salaries have been among the lowest for law enforcement officers in the Washington-Metropolitan area. From 1998- 2002, the NIH Police had a 70 percent attrition rate. Most officers left for positions in other Federal and local law enforcement agencies that offered better pay and benefits. The constant turnover is having a devastating effect on morale, and it's costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime pay and lost training costs. That's because NIH invests in specialized training to make sure their officers are prepared to respond to potential biological, chemical, and nuclear disasters. But other agencies are able to lure these officers away. After spending the money to give their officers the training they need, NIH isn't able to give them the pay and benefits they deserve. My bill will ensure that NIH Police officers are getting the same pay and retirement benefits as other Federal law enforcement officers.

My bill also gives NIH Police officers the authority to carry firearms, serve warrants and conduct investigations on all properties under the custody and control of the NIH. Currently, the NIH Police's jurisdiction is limited to the main campus in Bethesda, leaving thousands of employees and numerous laboratories without their protection. NIH currently employs unarmed security guards at its satellite facilities in Maryland and across the country. These security guards do the best they can, but they don't have the authority to enforce laws, and they aren't as highly trained as the NIH Police.

NIH is serious about security. Dr. Zerhouni, the Director of NIH, fully recognizes the need for a highly quality police force to protect NIH and the surrounding community, and fully supports this legislation. Let's give the NIH Police the resources they need to make sure NIH is safe and secure. This is an important issue that must be addressed. I urge my colleagues to pass this important bill quickly, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to inform my colleagues and all who are watching that a wonderful American passed away yesterday. He was a 13-year-old boy who lost his life to muscular dystrophy. He was known to the world because of his many appearances on radio and TV reading his poetry. His name was Matthew Joseph Thadeus Stepanek. The world knew him as ``Mattie.''

Though this young man's death is a great tragedy, his life was a triumph. At age 13, he was a gifted author. He was even a noted peacemaker. He took a personal challenge and turned it into a life of inspiration for all of us.

Mattie Stepanek once said, ``I want my message to live beyond me,'' and it certainly will. His message of peace and hope has reached millions.

He was born in 1990 in Upper Marlboro, MD, and doctors did not expect him to live more than 24 hours. He suffered from a rare form of muscular dystrophy. He had two brothers and a sister, all who died before the age of 4. His own mom also has muscular dystrophy.

Though the disease would eventually render him unable to walk or breathe

on his own, he was more than a survivor. He began writing poetry at the age of 3; poems about hope, peace, love. His life philosophy was, ``Remember to play after every storm.'' And he did.

Mattie believed wishes could come true. Once when he was near death, he said he had three wishes. He wanted to talk to Jimmy Carter; he wanted to have his book of poems published; and he wanted to see his poetry read on Oprah.

Guess what. All three happened. President Carter did call him and talk to him several times. He wrote several volumes of poetry. I have one with me today called ``Heartsongs.'' This book reached the best seller's list because it reached the hearts of so many people. As soon as Oprah heard it, she had not only read his poetry but had Mattie on the show.

He was so sick at times the doctors were afraid he wouldn't make it, but through hope and prayer his life was saved, one miracle at a time.

After the chaos and confusion and heartbreak of September 11 and the terrible anthrax attack on the Capitol, I was pretty grief stricken. One night watching C-SPAN, like so many Americans at the end of the day, I saw this wonderful young boy reading poetry. I found his words so inspirational, so touching, that I immediately contacted him through his hospital, the wonderful Children's Hospital here in Washington.

Through the hospital, I arranged a visit to him at his home in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. I visited with Mattie and his mom, in their apartment especially arranged for people who live a life in wheelchairs but refuse to be handicapped. We had a great time, talking about life. Mattie was so lively, so witty. He was so filled with enthusiasm. He was filled with energy.

I brought the book that I wrote and he had his. I did a little reading from mine and he read his poems. It was a great afternoon with this special boy, there he was in a special motorized wheelchair with a special apparatus that enabled him to breathe.

Later on, I went to the Children's Hospital to give him the Children's Hope Medal of Honor. This medal is given to young heroes who have shown valiant effort and courage in facing life's daily challenges when they have a chronic or life-threatening illness. If anyone deserved it, Mattie deserved it.

I want the world to know who this little boy is. I want to tell you first of all what he said about himself and then what he said to us in what then proved to be a farewell. This is the poem.

I am Mattie J.T. Stepanek.

My body has light skin,

Red blood, blue eyes, and blond hair.

Since I have mitochondrial myopathy,

I even have a trach, a ventilator, and oxygen.

Very poetic, I am, and very smart, too.

I am always brainstorming ideas and stories.

I am a survivor, but some day, I will see

My two brothers and one sister in Heaven.

When I grow up, I plan to become

A daddy, a writer, a public speaker,

And most of all, a peacemaker.

Whoever I am, and whatever happens,

I will always love my body and mind,

Even if it has different abilities

Than other peoples' bodies and minds.

I will always be happy, because

I will always be me.

Isn't that great? But the last page in his book is ``The Daily Gift.''

You know what?

Tomorrow is a new day.

And today is a new day.

Actually,

Every day is a new day.

Thank you, God,

For all of these

Special and new days.

Mr. President, thank God for Mattie Stepanek and thank God for a loving, wonderful mother, Jeni Stepanek. Our hearts go out to express our condolences and our sympathy to her for all of the heartache she has had to endure. But we thank her for giving us this very special gift, Mattie Stepanek, who truly sang from his heart and was a peacemaker.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Daschle amendment, and in strong support of our Nation's veterans.

Our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have my steadfast support. So do those who served before them. Our veterans need to know that America is with them and that we owe them a debt of gratitude. Congress must show that gratitude not just with words, but with deeds. That means making our troops and our veterans a priority in the Federal checkbook.

That is why I am such a strong supporter of the Daschle amendment. The goal of this amendment is simple and straightforward--to guarantee enough funding in the Federal checkbook each year to provide health care to every single veteran enrolled in the VA system.

This amendment does four things to support our Nation's veterans:

First, the amendment sets a minimum level of funding for VA health care each year. This amount is based on the number of veterans enrolled in the VA system. This is important to ensure that VA can provide care for every veteran, without rationing care or charging deductibles, fees, or increased copayments.

Second, the amendment provides an annual adjustment for inflation, so that VA can keep up with the rising costs of medical equipment, supplies, and prescription drugs.

Third, the amendment says that after 2 years, the General Accounting Office, GAO, will provide Congress with a report of whether this funding was adequate to provide care for all of our veterans. The amendment also sets up a process to correct any flaws that GAO identifies.

Fourth, the amendment moves future increases to VA health care funding from the discretionary to the mandatory side of the Federal budget. This is important so that the VA-HUD Subcommittee won't have to have to forage for funds each year, and veterans won't have to compete for funding.

As the ranking member of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, my guiding principle for the VA budget is that promises made to our veterans must be promises kept. And each year, the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee makes veterans health care funding the top priority. We do this on a bipartisan basis, because when it comes to caring for our Nation's veterans, we are not members of the

Democratic or Republican parties. We are members of the red, white, and blue party.

But each year, we have to forage for funds. Over the last 3 years, we have worked on a bipartisan basis to reject new fees and increased copayments on our Nation's veterans.

In 2003, the administration proposed that Priority 7 and 8 veterans pay a yearly $1,500 deductible just to access VA health care. On a bipartisan basis, Congress rejected this proposal. Instead, we put $1.1 billion more in VA's budget.

In 2004, the administration proposed that Priority 7 and 8 veterans pay a yearly $250 fee to access VA health care. The budget also proposed increases in veterans' copayments--a 50 percent increase in the prescription drug copayment and a 30 percent increase in copayments for doctors visits. Again, on a bipartisan basis, Congress rejected these proposals. Instead, we put $1.3 billion more in the VA's budget.

The administration's 2005 budget again proposes a $250 annual fee and increased prescription drug copayments for veterans. And again this year, Senator Bond and I will fight to find the funding to reject these proposals.

But despite our efforts and these record increases, VA health care funding is just not keeping up with the needs of our Nation's veterans. This mismatch of funding and demand for VA health care has led the administration to ration VA health care. In January 2002, the administration closed enrollment to all new Priority 8 veterans. This is unacceptable. In addition, the VA has already treated 10,000 of our newest veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Our newest veterans deserve to know that the VA will be there to care for them.

Finally, I want to point out that under this amendment, Congress would keep its oversight authority over how VA health care funding is spent. The Appropriations and Veterans Affairs Committees would still be able to hold VA accountable for how it spends its money, and how it provides health care to veterans. Congress will continue to stand up for our Nation's veterans.

The Task Force To Improve Health Care Delivery For Our Nation's Veterans, a bipartisan task force of experts on health care convened at the request of the President, concluded that there is a definite mismatch between demand and funding for VA health care. The Task Force recommended fixing this mismatch. The Daschle amendment is a bold solution to this problem.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to stand up for our Nation's veterans by supporting the Daschle amendment.

I yield the floor.