Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment No. 976 offered by Senator Rockefeller to protect retirees from losing their hard won health care benefits. I also support amendment No. 998 offered by Senator Dodd to encourage employers to continue to provide retirees with health care coverage.

I have seen how a community is devastated when a company pulls the retiree health care plan out from under their feet. Last year, when Senator Rockefeller and I worked on adding steel retirees to the trade adjustment assistance health care tax credit, the writing was on the wall for Bethlehem Steel. A once proud company, that was the backbone of several communities in Maryland, West Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania had been crippled by illegal dumping of foreign steel.

Now Bethlehem Steel is no more and nearly 20,000 of their retirees and their families in Maryland, nearly 100,000 total, are left without the health care for which they worked their whole lives. We provided some relief for these retirees.

But we cannot let other retirees face the fear of losing their health care; face going bankrupt trying to afford their drugs, or face a confusing new system.

This legislation does not privatize Medicare: it does not coerce seniors to leave the Medicare they trust to get the drugs they need. Yet it does rely too heavily on private insurance companies. It should be a benefit for seniors and not a benefit for insurance companies that have let seniors down so many times before. Yet it puts the health care benefits of millions of seniors in jeopardy by creating an incentive for employers to drop retiree health care coverage.

That is why I will join my colleagues in offering amendments to strengthen the bill.

What would this amendment do?

CBO, our nonpartisan, unbiased analyst tell us that 37 percent of seniors with employer-sponsored coverage will lose that coverage if this bill is passed.

These retirees earned their retiree health care benefits. The benefit payments made on their behalf should be counted as their contributions toward the catastrophic cap. They earned their health care coverage. It is a part of their benefit package as a worker and should count just as the wages they pay for their prescription drugs count.

Why is this amendment important?

Employers want to do the right thing but are being squeezed at the bottom line. Prescription drug costs account for about 40 percent to 60 percent of employer retiree health care costs. What does that mean for U.S. employers? U.S. employers face competition from overseas where the cost of health care, including prescription drugs, is subsidized by the Government. What does this mean for U.S. retired workers? Unless this amendment is adopted, a senior could have closer to $10,000 in drug costs before they get the relief of the catastrophic cap. Unless this amendment is adopted millions of seniors could lose their retiree health care coverage.

Under some estimates, this bill would give insurance companies up to $25 billion to provide drug benefits to seniors. Yet thousands of employers already provide quality health care benefits to their retirees, benefits that include prescription drugs.

Congress should use the same test as a doctor would: Do no harm.

In passing this bill, we could decimate the ability of employers to provide health care coverage for their retirees. I think we should fix this.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American businesses, stand up for America's workers, and stand up for America's seniors and support this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment No. 1001 offered by my colleague from California, Senator Boxer.

The Senate is debating legislation to provide seniors with prescription drugs that is a start but there are also many shortcomings with this bill. One of most glaring shortcomings is the gap in drug coverage. It doesn't make sense. As drug costs rise, benefits get shut off and seniors with high drug costs have to pay all of their drug costs from $4,500 to $5,800. I think that is cruel.

How would this amendment address this shortcoming?

It is simple. This amendment would let seniors continue to have continuous coverage until you hit the catastrophic cap of $5,800 so that means no gap. And, then your copay would drop to 10 percent just like in the bill. No figuring out when you hit the coverage gap. No figuring out how long you are going to be in the hole. No paying premiums and not getting benefits. You simply get drug coverage.

Why is this amendment important?

The coverage gap imposes a ``sickness tax'' on seniors. Once drug spending reaches $4,500 and this is a senior who clearly is facing serious health problems this senior would now have to pay $1,300 of their own money without any help from the Government even though they are still paying premiums to stay in the plan.

What does this mean?

Millions of our seniors will have no drug coverage for several months out the year. Their coverage will just stop and for many; it may not start back up again until the next year.

This is wrong. I believe honor thy mother and father is not just a good commandment to live by, it is good public policy to govern by. That is why I feel so strongly about Medicare. Congress created Medicare to provide a safety net for seniors. I don't think there should be any holes in that net. That is why I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to also.

Mr. President, 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. High blood pressure is two to three times more common in women than men. Women are four times more likely to develop osteoporosis than men. The number of uninsured women has grown three times faster than the number of uninsured men over the past 5 years. Women make three-quarters of all health care spending decisions for themselves and their families.

For decades, despite these differences, men's health needs set the standard for our health care system and our health care research agenda. Women were systematically excluded from medical research because decisionmakers said that our hormone cycles complicated the results. One study on heart disease risk factors was conducted on 13,000 men--and not 1 woman. But the results of studies like these were applied to both men and women. This neglect put 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 systems 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 law books.

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 law books.

This bill has strong bipartisan support. During the 107th Congress, the Women's Health Office Act passed the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee unanimously as part of a comprehensive women's health bill that would have expanded women's health research and improved women's access to health care. It also passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly during the 107th Congress. I am disappointed that Congress was not able to pass this bipartisan legislation, but I am hopeful that last year's momentum will help us get to women's Health Office Act signed into law this year.

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 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. High blood pressure is two to three times more common in women than men. Women are four times more likely to develop osteoporosis than men. The number of uninsured women has grown three times faster than the number of uninsured men over the past 5 years. Women make three-quarters of all health care spending decisions for themselves and their families.

For decades, despite these differences, men's health needs set the standard for our health care system and our health care research agenda. Women were systematically excluded from medical research because decisionmakers said that our hormone cycles complicated the results. One study on heart disease risk factors was conducted on 13,000 men--and not 1 woman. But the results of studies like these were applied to both men and women. This neglect put 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 systems 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 law books.

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 law books.

This bill has strong bipartisan support. During the 107th Congress, the Women's Health Office Act passed the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee unanimously as part of a comprehensive women's health bill that would have expanded women's health research and improved women's access to health care. It also passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly during the 107th Congress. I am disappointed that Congress was not able to pass this bipartisan legislation, but I am hopeful that last year's momentum will help us get to women's Health Office Act signed into law this year.

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.

Speaking to the Senator through the Chair, my remarks are about 5 or 7 minutes. I might add, there is a crisis in national service with volunteers. Senator Bond and I have a legislative solution. That is why we wanted to speak in morning business.

The corporation is blaming Congress when they, my colleagues would be interested to know, oversubscribed by 20,000 volunteers. So Senator Bond wanted to share our fix with the people. I could do this in about 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to speak as in morning business.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, what a mess we have at the Corporation for National and Community Service. The Congress has funded 50,000 AmeriCorps volunteers, as we have year after year. But, guess what. The corporation has enrolled 70,000 volunteers. It seems the corporation cannot count. As a result, there will be fewer volunteers this year.

Fortunately, because of a bipartisan collegial relationship on the VA/HUD subcommittee, Senator Bond and I are going to fix this problem for the volunteers and for the communities they serve. We are introducing something called the Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act, and, frankly, it gives AmeriCorps the fix it needs to straighten out the mess they created.

This bill is simple and straightforward. It gives the AmeriCorps Program the flexibility within the current funding for 2003 so there can be 50,000 AmeriCorps volunteers this year.

I have been reading in press reports, but most of all I have been getting calls from constituents and other Senators who support AmeriCorps. What are they concerned about? They are concerned that it appears there will be cuts by as much as 15,000 volunteers. I am concerned about that, too, and the effects on our communities and the young people who serve them while earning a scholarship for college.

I believe the public has a right to know what happened. So I want to explain to advocates and my colleagues what is happening and why the corporation has cut AmeriCorps. Congress has not cut AmeriCorps. It is because there is a persistent pattern of mismanagement at AmeriCorps. The corporation has over-enrolled 20,000 volunteers. When you make a mistake of 20,000 it is not a mistake, it is mismanagement. Two thousand would have been a mistake; 20,000 is mismanagement. The corporation has violated the law, mismanaged taxpayers dollars, and created uncertainty for our volunteers and our communities.

In April, at the VA/HUD subcommittee, I called on the National Service CEO, Dr. Leslie Lenkowsky, to fix the problem. He promised he would do that by June 1. But, guess what. He called on May 30 and said he just could not do it. Then out came the shrinking of the number of volunteers, and out came the blaming on Congress. Instead of fixing the problem, he blamed Congress. I wish the corporation was as good at accounting as it is blaming. They had 10 weeks to get their act together and they did not do it.

I was very stern with Dr. Lenkowsky and the Board of Directors at the hearing. I must say I thank the Board Chairman, Mr. Stephen Goldsmith, for responding constructively to the criticism of myself and other Members of the Congress. They took it to heart. They are beginning to reform national service. They are doing due diligence. They are putting more time into the oversight than, frankly, Dr. Lenkowsky.

Dr. Lenkowsky is the Chief Executive. He has failed to respond to the situation, failed to respond to the subcommittee request, failed volunteers, failed communities, and in the schools I went to when you get that many ``Fs'' you just flunk out.

Today, I am asking Dr. Lenkowsky to resign. I am really sorry we have gotten to this point, but we cannot continue this. I think if we are going to have a national service program, we need to have a national service program that serves the Nation and follows the directives of the Congress.

We have worked on a bipartisan basis in this subcommittee year after year after year. We saved this program. It is usually zeroed out in the House. It is a gimmick to get us to rescue it. And now, once again, thanks to the leadership and constructive relationship with Senator Bond, we are going to strengthen AmeriCorps. Without our cooperation and leadership at VA/HUD, AmeriCorps wouldn't even be here. So

we need to pass the Strengthen AmeriCorps Program quickly. It is an accounting fix that is certified and approved by OMB and GAO.

I support our President's call to national service. I want to work with President Bush in a bipartisan way to take national service into a new century. That is why I have worked with Senator McCain, Senator Bayh, and others to do that. Most of all, I want to work with my colleague Senator Bond, once again, as we always have, to sustain national service. Now we have legislation to clean up the mess that the corporation had. But the only way I think the corporation is going to get any momentum is if its current executive either steps aside or steps down.

I hope Congress moves this bill in a matter of days. The Nation needs it because the volunteers need it and the communities need the volunteers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I, too, want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Gregg. I think it is gracious of him to let us keep the bill at the desk knowing the urgency of the need to test it.

I think the point he raises about the need for regular oversight on national service is well taken. I look forward to participating in that hearing. I thank him for his courtesy and for his sensitivity to the urgency of the situation and his commitments regarding volunteers.

Mr. President, I want a medicare prescription drug plan that benefits seniors--not a plan that benefits insurance companies. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Stabenow amendment.

This amendment gives seniors a choice: to get their prescription drugs through traditional Medicare or through a private insurance company

Why is this important? Because it lets seniors choose the program that fits their needs. Seniors trust Medicare. It has provided a safety net for seniors for almost 40 years. Medicare hasn't let them down.

We can't say the same about insurance companies. We have been down that road in Maryland with Medicare+Choice. The insurance companies came in. They enticed seniors with promises of better care and prescription drugs. They took the money from our seniors and left town leaving over 100,000 Maryland seniors without coverage.

Seniors in my State were gouged and abandoned. So I don't trust insurance companies to be there for seniors. I trust seniors to make their own decision to decide which prescription drug plan is best for them.

Seniors trust Medicare. When given an opportunity, I think seniors will choose Medicare. In the mid-1990s, when Medicare HMOs offered prescription drug benefits. Only about 15 percent of beneficiaries signed up.

Yet year after year, Senate Democrats have fought off efforts to privatize Medicare--to force seniors to leave their family doctors and join HMOs and other private plans. We heard Newt Gingrich talk about making Medicare ``wither on the vine.'' Then this year, the President's prescription drug proposal would have forced seniors to leave the Medicare they trust to get the drugs they need.

I believe honor thy mother and father is not just a good commandment to live by. It is good public policy to govern by. That is why I feel so strongly about Medicare.

Medicare is not the problem. It is the solution. That is why Congress must now provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors. To benefit seniors--not to benefit insurance companies. We must do it now--to help seniors, to help families, top help American business and to help our economy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Stabenow amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act. I am proud to sponsor this legislation. Black Americans have a rich history that must be cherished and remembered. This bill will honor African American leaders from across the country--some who are well known, and others who are almost forgotten--by helping to preserve their names, faces, and stories for generations to come.

This legislation will provide Federal assistance to expand exhibits and educational programs at the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center in Baltimore, Maryland. The museum showcases the lives of great Black Americans who have proudly served the United States--from civil servants like Mary McLeod Bethune, to military heroes like Colin Powell, to Congressional leaders like Senator Edward Brooke, R-MA, and civil rights leaders like Rosa Parks. Some are household names, like Frederick Douglass and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Yet many more are unfamiliar, like the 22 African Americans who served in Congress in the 1800s. It's time we give these pioneers the recognition they deserve.

Maryland is proud to be home to so many important figures in black history. From the dark days of slavery through the civil rights movement, Marylanders have led the way. The brilliant Frederick Douglass was the voice of the voiceless in the struggle against slavery. The courageous Harriet Tubman delivered 300 slaves to freedom on the Underground Railroad. The great Thurgood Marshall argued the Brown v. Board of Education Case before the Supreme Court, and later became a Supreme Court Justice himself.

Maryland is home to contemporary leaders, too. The dynamic Kweisi Mfume, president of the NAACP, who, like me, came out of the Baltimore City Council. The passionate Elijah Cummings, Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Clarence Mitchell who was called by many the 101st Senator. Parren Mitchell and Al Wynn, fighting for their constituents. And all the members of the NAACP, which calls Baltimore home.

It is fitting that the national Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center also calls Baltimore home. The museum and learning center is a popular and respected black history museum. Approximately 300,000 people a year from around the country and the world visit the museum. Many are school children, who can see historical figures come to life in the museum's exhibits. Expansion will allow the museum to teach even more visitors about the important contributions of Black Americans. It will also help revitalize a poor neighborhood in East Baltimore. There will be new jobs. There will be more tourists. There will be new small businesses. And most important, there will be new inspiration for our young people.

The State of Maryland and City of Baltimore have already contributed over $5 million toward this expansion project. Private donors are contributing too. Now it's time for the Federal Government to do its part. Let's help make this museum a treasure for the entire Nation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act. I am proud to sponsor this legislation. Black Americans have a rich history that must be cherished and remembered. This bill will honor African American leaders from across the country--some who are well known, and others who are almost forgotten--by helping to preserve their names, faces, and stories for generations to come.

This legislation will provide Federal assistance to expand exhibits and educational programs at the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center in Baltimore, Maryland. The museum showcases the lives of great Black Americans who have proudly served the United States--from civil servants like Mary McLeod Bethune, to military heroes like Colin Powell, to Congressional leaders like Senator Edward Brooke, R-MA, and civil rights leaders like Rosa Parks. Some are household names, like Frederick Douglass and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Yet many more are unfamiliar, like the 22 African Americans who served in Congress in the 1800s. It's time we give these pioneers the recognition they deserve.

Maryland is proud to be home to so many important figures in black history. From the dark days of slavery through the civil rights movement, Marylanders have led the way. The brilliant Frederick Douglass was the voice of the voiceless in the struggle against slavery. The courageous Harriet Tubman delivered 300 slaves to freedom on the Underground Railroad. The great Thurgood Marshall argued the Brown v. Board of Education Case before the Supreme Court, and later became a Supreme Court Justice himself.

Maryland is home to contemporary leaders, too. The dynamic Kweisi Mfume, president of the NAACP, who, like me, came out of the Baltimore City Council. The passionate Elijah Cummings, Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Clarence Mitchell who was called by many the 101st Senator. Parren Mitchell and Al Wynn, fighting for their constituents. And all the members of the NAACP, which calls Baltimore home.

It is fitting that the national Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center also calls Baltimore home. The museum and learning center is a popular and respected black history museum. Approximately 300,000 people a year from around the country and the world visit the museum. Many are school children, who can see historical figures come to life in the museum's exhibits. Expansion will allow the museum to teach even more visitors about the important contributions of Black Americans. It will also help revitalize a poor neighborhood in East Baltimore. There will be new jobs. There will be more tourists. There will be new small businesses. And most important, there will be new inspiration for our young people.

The State of Maryland and City of Baltimore have already contributed over $5 million toward this expansion project. Private donors are contributing too. Now it's time for the Federal Government to do its part. Let's help make this museum a treasure for the entire Nation.

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

I thank the Chair, and, Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy, particularly Senator Dorgan. I am very appreciative.

Mr. President, seniors are facing a crisis, and it is caused by the high cost of prescription drugs. For so many years, Congress has talked about prescription drugs in Medicare.

Let me tell you what my seniors say: Talk, talk, talk. They are fed up with our talk, and they want us to take action. They tell me: You can't talk yourself out of high cholesterol; you need Lipitor. You can't talk your way out of diabetes; you need insulin.

The problem with the Senate, they say, is when all gets said and done, more gets said than gets done. The time for talking is over, and we need to listen to the seniors, to business, and we need to act.

I have been in communities all over Maryland, from diners to boardrooms, listening to seniors who are desperate, listening to their families who want to help their parents and listening to employers in boardrooms who really want to help their retirees but are wondering if they can afford to do so.

Here is what they tell me: Congress must do something about the prescription drug benefit, and they want us to do it now to help our seniors, our families, business, and our economy.

There are several different plans floating around, and a lot of them have wonderful new language: Medicare Choice, Medicare Advantage, et cetera. I am not sure what will happen, but what I know is, we must have a meaningful prescription drug benefit, not just slogans and sound bites, not just something out of the Heritage Foundation, not something out of a think tank, but something that enables seniors to afford the prescription drugs, which they paid for the research to develop.

I have five principles for a prescription drug benefit. These principles are the yardstick by which I am going to measure any proposal.

First, the cornerstone of any prescription drug benefit must be Medicare. It must be in Medicare. It must stay in Medicare. Medicare must be the cornerstone. I am absolutely opposed to the privatization of Medicare either overtly or covertly. Let me repeat, I am absolutely opposed to the privatization of Medicare.

Any prescription drug benefit that has a private insurance component to it must be in addition to a Medicare benefit, not in lieu of a Medicare benefit. It must keep a traditional Medicare component to it. Any private insurance program must be an option, and it must not be mandatory.

That goes to my second principle: voluntary. No one should be coerced or forced into a private program or forced to give up coverage if they already have it.

It must be affordable. Benefits must be affordable to business and affordable to seniors. That means a definite premium and a reasonable copayment.

It must be accessible, available to all seniors regardless of where they live, and it must be portable so they can take it with them if they visit their grandchildren in another State.

It must be meaningful and genuine. It must cover the drugs that doctors say they need, not what insurance executive gatekeepers say they are willing to give them.

Let's talk about the meaningful benefit. Congress cannot leave this up to the insurance companies.

We have been down that road in Maryland, and it was a rocky road, not only filled with potholes but with landmines. We had something called Medicare+Choice that turned out to be nothing more than a racket for seniors to be gouged and abandoned in my own State. I am not going to support any more rackets or gimmicks under the illusion of being able to help our seniors. Insurance companies came in. Seniors were going to have choice. They ended up with no choice and no coverage. The companies came in. They took the money from our seniors. Then they said, oh, it is too expensive to do this, and they left town. They left over 100,000 Maryland seniors without coverage. We are not going to go that way.

So I do not trust the insurance companies to be there for the seniors. Getting rid of Medicare by forcing them into this is not going to be the way we go. Medicare is the answer. Medicare is not the problem.

I believe honor thy mother and father is not just a good commandment to live by, it is good public policy to govern by. That is why I feel so strongly about Medicare. Congress created Medicare to provide a safety net for seniors. In 1965, seniors' biggest fear was the cost of hospital care. One heart attack could put a family into bankruptcy. That is what Medicare Part A is all about. Then Congress added Medicare Part B to help seniors pay for doctor visits, an important step to keep seniors healthy and financially secure.

New advances in medicine mean seniors are living longer. New treatments and therapies such as prescription drugs prolong life and maintain quality of life. These costs were not envisioned in 1965.

So as we look at this problem, we need to know that Medicare has served the Nation well. Now we know it is time to expand it to a prescription drug benefit. We have covered hospitalization. We have covered doctor visits. Yet because of the advances in medical science in this country, prescription drugs and medical devices save lives and help manage chronic conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes. This is what we need to be focusing on. Let's focus on the American people for a change and not on the so-called hollow opportunities of structural reform. It is a problem for middle class families. Families worry about their jobs and the weak economy. They do not know how they are going to take care of their children and their elderly parents.

American businesses are wondering about things such as legacy costs, and small business is wondering how they can afford health insurance as well. A lot of companies want to do the right thing for their employees and retirees. They want to offer comprehensive health care benefits, but they are struggling under the cost. That is why I fought for tax incentives for small businesses to provide health coverage for their employees. But those who supported the tax bill care more about special breaks for Joe Billionaire than about basic health care for families.

Our businesses do not get any help, but their competitors sure do. The playing field is not level. When competitors in other countries do not have to pay for prescription drug coverage because they have a national health care system, in my own State of Maryland this means people are losing jobs in the automobile industry and the steel industry. That is why I fought for tax incentives for small businesses to provide health coverage for their employees, but those who supported the tax bill care more about special breaks for Joe Billionaire than about basic health care for families.

We have to get real, and the first place we have to get real is to have a real prescription drug benefit. The Nation cannot afford to do nothing. Prescription drugs are lifelines to millions of Americans. They enable seniors to prevent and manage disease. Without access to medication, seniors are going to end up with trips to the hospital, longer hospital stays, more visits to emergency rooms.

All the great research done at NIH is meaningless if people cannot afford the cures. It is time to make prescription drug coverage a national priority so we can help our seniors, families, American business, and our economy.

When we stand up for America, we stand up for what America stands for, which is a safety net for our seniors and really helping our families be able to help themselves.

By passing a real prescription drug benefit, Congress will deliver real security to America's seniors. Retirement security means more pension security. Seniors need healthcare security to be at ease in their retirements. In today's world, we cannot have healthcare security without prescription drug coverage. Congress must keep this promise to America's seniors.

I now yield the floor, but if they come in with some more gimmicks, I will not yield the floor in this debate.

Madam President, I rise to introduce the Family Caregiver Relief Act of 2003--my legislation to help those who face the crushing consequences of caring for a chronically ill family member. While we stand up for America, we must also stand up for what America stands for. That means strengthening the safety net for those who need it most. That means standing up for American families.

Families are hurting. The economy is weak. Many are holding down two jobs to make ends meet, going into debt to put kids through college, or finding and paying for health insurance.

Some families are facing extraordinary challenges. They are caring for a loved one with special needs which could be a child with autism, or cerebral palsy, a parent with alzheimer's, or a spouse with multiple sclerosis. These families struggle every day to take care of their loved ones.

I want to give help to those who practice self-help. My bill would provide a tax credit of up to $5,000 for family caregivers. This tax credit would help people pay for prescription drugs, home health care, specialized day care, respite care, transportation to chronic care or medical facilities, specialized therapy, including occupational, physical, or rehabilitational therapy, and other specialized services for children, including day care for children with special needs.

Family caregivers face so many stresses--emotional, physical, and financial stresses of caregiving. They face long days, supporting a family--while caring for a loved one with a chronic condition. A dad might have to work two jobs to meet the costs of care which places strains on marriage and relationships with other family members.

Caregivers also face high costs for medications, home health care, adult day care, physical therapy, durable medical equipment like a wheelchair, day care for children with special needs, and medical bills from care with specialists.

People who care for chronically ill family must patch together whatever care they can afford. Too often they go into debt, use their college accounts or their retirement savings or go without the care their loved ones need.

I have heard from families from around Maryland who are facing these strains, who are trying to make ends meet, and who are caring for a loved one who is chronically ill or needs assistance with activities of daily living.

The Hart family from Baltimore has a 2 year old son named Jackson who was born with severe brain abnormalities. He has the motor skill development of a 4 month old. He has daily seizures, so he needs total, round the clock care. The emotional cost of caring for a severely disabled child are incalculable and the financial costs are crushing. For the Harts, the costs include: $650 a month for day care for medically fragile children; $1,400 for a wheel chair; and, $700 for a special shower chair--since Jackson can't sit up in the bath. My proposal would help them meet these costs by providing them with a tax credit of $2,750.

I know of a a couple in Baltimore where the wife is in the final stages of Alzheimers. She was a school teacher and once spoke 5 languages. Now, she can only say a few words. She needs 24 hour-a-day care which costs almost three thousand dollars a month. Their retirement savings are gone though this couple is only in their early sixties. My bill would only provide a tax credit of five thousand to this couple. I know that this would help this couple as they face the challenges of her final days.

My last example is a woman in Potomac, MD who is caring for her husband who has multiple sclerosis. He can no longer talk, walk, stand or feed himself. She works full time to support them and cobbles together whatever home care she can afford. She is not able to afford respite care to run errands, or take herself to the doctor. This couple made a commitment in sickness or in health.

These are just a few examples of the stresses facing thousands of American families. One in five Americans has multiple chronic conditions. About 26 million people in this country care for a family members who is chronically ill or disabled.

My legislation is supported by groups who see everyday the human cost of family caregiving, including: Autism Society of America; Cystic Fibrosis Foundation; National Organization for Rare Disorders; Easter Seals; United Cerebral Palsy Associations; Arc of the United States; National Health Council; National Council on the Aging; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Family Voices; National Respite Coalition; National Family Caregivers Association; and National Alliance for Caregiving.

One of my first milestones in the Senate was the enactment of the Spousal Anti-Impoverishment Act to change the cruel rules of Medicaid so that families would not have to go bankrupt before Medicaid would pay for nursing home care for a spouse. Under this law, the spouse living in the community could keep the family home, keep a car, and keep some income each month to live on. This law helped one million people. But this was only a down payment.

Not much has been done since then except the National Family Caregiver Support Program and long-term care insurance for federal employees. I was proud to sponsor and work on both of these bills on a bipartisan basis to get them signed into law.

Now it is time to help family caregivers. They are the backbone of the long term care system in this country. They must be a priority in the Federal law books and the tax code.

I thank Senators Clinton, Corzine, Sarbanes, Johnson, Lautenberg, Murray, Kennedy, Landrieu, Dayton, and Harkin for cosponsoring the Family Caregiver Relief Act.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Enzi in introducing the Elder Fall Prevention Act of 2003. Falls are a serious public health problem that affect millions of seniors each year. This bill expands research and education on elder falls to help keep seniors safe and in their own homes longer.

The facts are staggering. One out of every three Americans over age 65 falls every year. In 2000, over 10,200 seniors died and approximately 1.6 million seniors visited an emergency department as a result of a fall. Falls are the leading cause of injury deaths among seniors, accounting for 64,000 traumatic brain injuries and 340,000 hip fractures each year. Falls can be financially disastrous for families, and falls place a serious financial strain on our health care system. By 2020, senior falls are estimated to cost the health care system more than $32 billion.

These facts do not begin to tell the story of what falls can mean for seniors and their loved ones. Falls don't discriminate. Kay Graham was the victim of a fall. Many of us have friends or relatives who have fallen. A fall can have a devastating impact on a person's physical, emotional, and mental health. If an older woman loses her footing on her front porch steps, falls, and suffer a hip fracture, she would likely spend about two weeks in the hospital, and there is a 50 percent chance that she would not return home or live independently as a result of her injuries.

Last year, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Aging on the problem of elder falls. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Lillie Marie Struchen, a 91-year-old woman who had recently fallen in her bathroom when she slipped on the tile. Lillie Marie could not reach the panic button in her apartment, and it took her some time before she could get to her feet and call for help. Lille Marie was lucky. She recovered from her fall and returned to her normal routines. She shared with the Subcommittee some steps that she and her family had taken to prevent future falls, knowing that she may not be so lucky next time.

These falls, like the ones that Lillie Marie and thousands of others suffer from each year, can be prevented. With some help, there are simple ways that seniors can improve the safety of their homes and make a fall far less likely. Home modifications like hand rails in the bathroom, rubber mats on slippery tile floors, and cordless telephones that seniors can keep nearby can make a big difference. Well-trained pharmacists can review medications to make sure that two drugs do not interact to cause dizziness and throw a senior off balance.

That's what this legislation is about--getting behind our Nation's seniors and giving help to those who practice self-help. This bill creates public education campaigns for seniors, their families, and health care providers about how to prevent falls. It expands research on elder falls to develop better ways to prevent falls and to improve the treatment and rehabilitation of elder falls victims. This legislation also requires an evaluation of the effect of falls on Medicare and Medicaid, to look at potentially reducing costs by expanding coverage to include fall-related services.

Reducing the number of falls will help seniors live longer, healthier, more independent lives. This bill has the strong support of the National Safety Council and has been supported in the past by over 30 national and local aging and safety organizations. I look forward to working with Senator Enzi and my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to get this bill signed into law.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a member of ``the greatest generation,'' a World War II veteran who passed away on January 11, 2003. Buck Conrad was born in my hometown of Baltimore in 1921 and was raised just blocks from my childhood home. He is survived by a former neighbor of mine, Evelyn Dasch Conrad, his loving wife of 61 years, who now resides in Alexandria, VA. He was the proud father of two daughters, Karlene Conrad and Cindy Schafer, and Cindy's husband George Schafer, formerly of Catonsville, MD, as well as three grandchildren and great-grandchildren. He is also survived by numerous relatives in the Baltimore area, including his brother and sister-in- law, Tom and Joyce Ronci of Glen Burnie.

Buck graduated from Baltimore Polytechnic Institute and received his undergraduate degree from the University of Maryland. He was an avid Terrapins fan who would not let his illness stop him from cheering the Terps on to their victory last year in the Peach Bowl.

Buck entered the Army in 1944 and retired as a regular Army colonel in 1974. He was involved in personnel and logistics for most of his career, which included tours of duty in the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as Chief of the Ordnance Branch. Overseas and wartime assignments included the Philippines, Germany, France, Korea, and Vietnam. His military decorations include the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, the Bronze Star with oak-leaf cluster, the Joint Service Commendation, and the Army Commendation with oak-leaf cluster. He was a member of the Infantry OCS Hall of Fame and was designated a Department of the Army Logistician in 1970.

COL Conrad was well educated by the Army. He was a graduate of the Artillery School, the Chemical School, the Infantry School, the Command and General Staff College, and the Naval War College. He received a master's degree in business management from Babson College and received a second master's degree in international relations from George Washington University.

After retiring from the Army, Buck moved on to a successful career in the private sector and later served as a faculty member of the University of Maryland, University College.

Funeral Services were held at the Fort Myer Chapel on Wednesday, February 5, 2003 and COL Conrad was buried at Arlington National cemetery with full military honors.

We owe a debt of gratitude to men such as Buck Conrad who quietly served their country when our freedom was in peril. His son-in-law informed me that up to his dying day, COL Conrad expressed concern about the United States becoming embroiled in a war in the Middle East that could take the lives of thousands of our soldiers. Having witnessed personally the impact that war has on our young people and, just as importantly, their families, COL Conrad was hopeful that a peaceful resolution to this conflict could be achieved before any lives are lost, both our own troops and innocents in Iraq and throughout that region.

On March 12, 2003, during the debate on S. 3, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, I made the following statement in support of the Durbin amendment:

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the

Durbin amendment.

I support the Durbin amendment because it is consistent

with my four principles. These are my principles: It respects

the constitutional underpinnings of Roe v. Wade. It prohibits

all post-viability abortions, regardless of the procedure

used. It provides an exception for the life and health of a

woman, which is both intellectually rigorous and

compassionate. And it leaves medical decisions in the hands

of physicians--not politicians.

The Durbin alternative addresses this difficult issue with

the intellectual rigor and seriousness of purpose it

deserves. We are not being casual. We are not angling for

political advantage. We are not looking for cover.

The Durbin amendment offers the Senate a sensible

alternative, one that would prohibit post-viability abortions

while respecting the Constitution and protecting women's

lives. I believe it is an alternative that reflects the views

of the American people.

I support the Durbin amendment because it is a stronger,

more effective approach to banning late term abortions. The

Durbin amendment respects the Constitution and the Supreme

Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

The Santorum bill before us does not. It is

unconstitutional.

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart

just 3 years ago that a Nebraska State law that bans certain

abortion procedures is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court

ruled it was unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it did

not include an exception for a woman's health. Second, it

does not clearly define the procedure it aims to prohibit and

would ban other procedures, sometimes used early in

pregnancy.

The bill before us, the Santorum bill, is nearly identical

to the Nebraska law the Supreme Court struck down. The

proponents of this legislation say they have made changes to

the bill to address the Supreme Court's ruling. They have

not. It still does not include an exception to protect the

health of the woman. It still does not clearly define the

procedure it claims to prohibit. Let me be clear about this.

The Santorum bill is unconstitutional.

The Santorum bill violates the key principles of Roe v.

Wade and other Court decisions. When the Court decided Roe,

it was faced with the task of defining, ``When does life

begin?'' Theologians and scientists differ on this. People of

good will and good conscience differ on this.

So the Supreme Court used viability as its standard. Once a

fetus is viable it is presumed to have not only a body, but a

mind and spirit. Therefore it has standing under the law as a

person.

The Roe decision is quite clear. States can prohibit

abortion after viability so long as they permit exceptions in

cases involving the woman's life or health. Under Roe, states

can prohibit most late term abortions. And 41 states have

done so.

In my own state of Maryland, we have a law that does just

that. It was adopted by the Maryland General Assembly. It

prohibits post viability abortions. It provides an exception

to protect the life or health of the woman, as the

Constitution requires. It also provides an exception if the

fetus is affected by a genetic defect or a serious

abnormality. This law reflects the views of Marylanders. It

was approved by the people of Maryland by referendum.

Like the Maryland law, the Durbin alternative is consistent

with Roe. It is a compassionate, Constitutional approach to

prohibiting late term abortions.

It says that after the point of viability no woman should

be able to abort a viable fetus. The only exception can be

when the woman faces a threat to her life or serious and

debilitating risk to her health as required by the

Constitution.

The Durbin amendment is stronger than the Santorum bill. It

bans all post viability abortions. Unlike the Santorum bill,

the Durbin amendment doesn't create loopholes by allowing

other procedures to be used.

I believe there is no Senator who thinks a woman should

abort a viable fetus for a frivolous, non-medical reason. It

does not matter what procedure is used. It is wrong, and we

know it. The Durbin alternative bans those abortions. It is a

real solution.

On the other hand, Senator Santorum's bill does not stop a

single abortion. It does not ban all late term abortions. It

bans certain procedures and diverts doctors to other

procedures. This approach is both hollow and ineffective. It

bans procedures that may be the safest for a woman's health.

But let me be clear. Under Santorum, late term abortions

would still be allowed to happen.

It does not make late term abortions more rare. It makes

them more dangerous. And for that reason, the Santorum

approach is ineffective.

The Durbin amendment provides a tough and narrow health

exception that is both intellectually rigorous and

compassionate. It will ensure that women who confront a grave

health crisis late in a pregnancy can receive the treatment

they need. The Durbin amendment defines such a crisis as a

``severely debilitating disease or impairment caused or

exacerbated by pregnancy'' or ``an inability to provide

necessary treatment to a life-threatening condition.''

And we don't leave it up to her doctor alone. We require

that a second, independent physician also certify that the

procedure is the most appropriate for the unique

circumstances of the woman's life.

I want to be very clear in this. The Durbin amendment does

not create a loophole with its health exception. We are not

loophole shopping when we insist that an exception be made in

the case of serious and debilitating threats to a woman's

physical health. This is what the Constitution requires--and

the reality of women's lives demands.

Let's face it. Women do sometimes face profound medical

crises during pregnancy. Breast cancer, for example, occurs

in one in 3,000 pregnancies. In some unfortunate

circumstances, pregnant women in their second trimester

discover lumps in their breasts and are diagnosed with

invasive breast cancer. Continuing the pregnancy--and

delaying medical treatment--would put a woman's health in

grave danger.

The Durbin amendment recognizes that to deny a woman in a

situation like this access to the abortion that could save

her life and physical health would be unconscionable. To deny

her other children a chance to know a healthy mother would be

unconscionable.

When the continuation of the pregnancy is causing profound

health problems, a woman's doctor must have every tool

available to respond. I readily acknowledge that the

procedure described by my colleagues on the other side is a

grim one. I do not deny that. But there are times when the

realities of women's lives and health dictates that this

medical tool be available.

I support the Durbin alternative because it leaves medical

decisions up to doctors, not legislators. It relies on

medical judgement, not political judgement about what is best

for a patient.

Not only does the Santorum bill not let doctors be doctors,

it criminalizes them for making the best choice for their

patients.

Under this bill, a doctor could be sent to prison for up to

two years for doing what he or she thinks is necessary to

save a woman's life or health. I say that's wrong.

In fact, those who oppose the Durbin amendment say it is

flawed precisely because it leaves medical judgements up to

physicians. Well, who else should decide? Would the other

side prefer to have the government make medical decisions?

I disagree with that. I believe we should not substitute

political judgement for medical judgement. We need to let

doctors be doctors. This is my principle whether we are

talking about reproductive choice or any health care matter.

Physicians have the training and expertise to make medical

decisions. They are in the best position to recommend what is

necessary or appropriate for their patients. Not bureaucrats.

Not managed care accountants. And certainly not legislators.

The Durbin amendment provides sound public policy, not a

political soundbite. It is our best chance to address the

concerns many of us have about late term abortions.

Today we have an opportunity today to do something real. We

have an opportunity to let logic and common sense win the

day. We have an opportunity to do something that I know

reflects the views of the American people. Today, we can pass

the Durbin amendment.

We can say that we value life, and that we value our

Constitution. We can make clear that a viable fetus should

not be aborted. We can say that we want to save women's lives

and protect women's health.

The only way to do this is to vote for the Durbin

amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act.

During the upcoming Memorial Day holiday, we will honor our U.S. soldiers who died in the name of their country. These service men and women are America's true heroes and on this day we pay tribute to their courage and sacrifice. Some have given their lives for our country. All have given their time and dedication to ensure our country remains the land of the free and the home of the brave. We owe a special debt of gratitude to each and every one of them.

This holiday serves as an important reminder that our nation has a sacred commitment to honor the promises made to soldiers when they signed up to serve our country. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that funds veterans programs, I fight hard to make sure promises made to our service men and women are promises kept. These promises include access to quality, affordable health care and a proper burial for our veterans.

I am deeply concerned that burial benefits for the families of our wounded or disabled veterans have not kept up with inflation and rising funeral costs. We are losing over 1,000 World War II veterans each day, but Congress has failed to increase veterans' burial benefits to keep up with rising costs and inflation. While these benefits were never intended to cover the full costs of burial, they now pay for only a fraction of what they covered in 1973, when the Federal Government first started paying burial benefits for our veterans.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for working with me in the 107th Congress. Together, we were able to increase modestly the service-connected benefit from $1,500 to $2,000, and the plot allowance from $150 to $300. While I believe these increases are a step in the right direction, they are not a substitute for the amounts included in my bill.

That's why I am again introducing the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act. This bill will increase burial benefits to cover the same percentage of funeral costs as they did in 1973. It will also provide for these benefits to be increased annually to keep up with inflation.

In 1973, the service-connected benefit paid for 72 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Today, this benefit covers just 39 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the service-connected benefit from $2,000 to $3,713, bringing it back up to the original 72 percent level.

In 1973, the non-service connected benefit paid for 22 percent of funeral costs. It has not been increased since 1978, and today it covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the non- service connected benefit from $300 to $1,135, bringing it back up to the original 22 percent level.

In 1973, the plot allowance paid for 13 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Yet it now covers just 3 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the plot allowance from $300 to $670, bringing it back up to the original 13 percent level.

Finally, the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act will also ensure that these burial benefits are adjusted for inflation annually, so veterans won't have to fight this fight again.

This legislation is just one way to honor our Nation's service men and women. I want to thank the millions of veterans, Marylanders, and people across the nation for their patriotism, devotion, and commitment to honoring the true meaning of Memorial Day. U.S. soldiers from every generation have shared in the duty of defending America and protecting our freedom. For these sacrifices, America is eternally grateful.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation, and letters from several veterans' advocacy groups supporting it, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act.

During the upcoming Memorial Day holiday, we will honor our U.S. soldiers who died in the name of their country. These service men and women are America's true heroes and on this day we pay tribute to their courage and sacrifice. Some have given their lives for our country. All have given their time and dedication to ensure our country remains the land of the free and the home of the brave. We owe a special debt of gratitude to each and every one of them.

This holiday serves as an important reminder that our nation has a sacred commitment to honor the promises made to soldiers when they signed up to serve our country. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that funds veterans programs, I fight hard to make sure promises made to our service men and women are promises kept. These promises include access to quality, affordable health care and a proper burial for our veterans.

I am deeply concerned that burial benefits for the families of our wounded or disabled veterans have not kept up with inflation and rising funeral costs. We are losing over 1,000 World War II veterans each day, but Congress has failed to increase veterans' burial benefits to keep up with rising costs and inflation. While these benefits were never intended to cover the full costs of burial, they now pay for only a fraction of what they covered in 1973, when the Federal Government first started paying burial benefits for our veterans.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for working with me in the 107th Congress. Together, we were able to increase modestly the service-connected benefit from $1,500 to $2,000, and the plot allowance from $150 to $300. While I believe these increases are a step in the right direction, they are not a substitute for the amounts included in my bill.

That's why I am again introducing the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act. This bill will increase burial benefits to cover the same percentage of funeral costs as they did in 1973. It will also provide for these benefits to be increased annually to keep up with inflation.

In 1973, the service-connected benefit paid for 72 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Today, this benefit covers just 39 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the service-connected benefit from $2,000 to $3,713, bringing it back up to the original 72 percent level.

In 1973, the non-service connected benefit paid for 22 percent of funeral costs. It has not been increased since 1978, and today it covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the non- service connected benefit from $300 to $1,135, bringing it back up to the original 22 percent level.

In 1973, the plot allowance paid for 13 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Yet it now covers just 3 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the plot allowance from $300 to $670, bringing it back up to the original 13 percent level.

Finally, the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act will also ensure that these burial benefits are adjusted for inflation annually, so veterans won't have to fight this fight again.

This legislation is just one way to honor our Nation's service men and women. I want to thank the millions of veterans, Marylanders, and people across the nation for their patriotism, devotion, and commitment to honoring the true meaning of Memorial Day. U.S. soldiers from every generation have shared in the duty of defending America and protecting our freedom. For these sacrifices, America is eternally grateful.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation, and letters from several veterans' advocacy groups supporting it, be printed in the Record.