Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein, Senator Kennedy and others on low-yield nuclear weapons.

The Defense Authorization bill would repeal the ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, sometimes called ``mini- nukes.''

The ban, known as the Spratt-Furse Amendment, was enacted in 1993. That law prohibits ``research and development which could lead to the production by the United States of a low-yield nuclear weapon.'' It even has specific exemptions, including allowing research on existing weapons and research to address proliferation concerns.

To state it plainly, this is not about basic research or defensive research. This is about research and development to produce new nuclear weapons. And since these weapons would have yields of less than 5 kilotons of TNT, these are not strategic weapons.

That means that if we pass this bill without adopting the Feinstein amendment, we are heading down the path of developing new, low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons. And you can bet that if we develop these weapons on the drawing board, we will see a demand to build and test these weapons to be sure that they would work. Why would we build these mini-nukes if we don't intend to use them?

We don't need to go down that path. America has the strongest military in the world. We also have a huge arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons, which can strike anywhere in the world, for deterrence. We don't need tactical nuclear weapons, not even to strike buried targets like bunkers. We have conventional weapons to do that. Our scientists are developing better weapons all the time. I am so proud of the brilliant people at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Indian Head, Maryland, who developed and produced the ``bunker-buster'' thermobaric bombs used against caves in Afghanistan. But the bottom line is that America doesn't need new nuclear weapons.

I don't want to go down that path because it is destabilizing and dangerous to America's national security.

Why is it so dangerous?

It would signal that the U.S. would no longer use nuclear weapons only for deterrence. That would legitimize nuclear weapons and increase the risk that they'll be used against us or our allies. If we move to testing of nuclear weapons, other nations would almost surely follow our lead.

Increasing the range and number of weapons in our nuclear arsenal would fundamentally undermine our nuclear nonproliferation efforts, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT. That would mean more countries developing and deploying nuclear weapons.

The production of small nuclear weapons, some of which could even be portable or easily transported in a truck, poses a particular danger. Even if the U.S. would effectively safeguard such weapons, other countries might develop similar weapons. The presence of a large but unknown number of tactical nuclear weapons in Russia poses one of the greatest dangers to our national security. If we are concerned about terrorists getting nuclear bombs, the last thing we should do is develop more small, easily-transported weapons.

America's national security will best be served if we keep in place the existing ban on research and development leading to production of low-yield nuclear weapons. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act. This bill expands and coordinates research on uterine fibroids at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and creates an education campaign to make sure women and their doctors have the facts they need about this painful, chronic condition. I want to thank Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones for introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives and Senator Clinton for joining me as an original cosponsor.

Uterine fibroids are a major health issue for American women. Three quarters of all reproductive age women, and an even greater number of African American women, have uterine fibroids. Although many women with fibroids have few or no symptoms, it is estimated that a quarter of all women in their thirties and forties seek medical care for the abnormal or heavy bleeding, pain, infertility, or miscarriage that uterine fibroids cause.

Despite their prevalence, little is known about uterine fibroids, and few good treatment options are available to women who suffer from them. Right now, hysterectomy--the surgical removal of the uterus--is the most common treatment for uterine fibroids. More than 200,000 women undergo a hysterectomy each year to treat their uterine fibroids, which requires a six week recovery, has a 20 to 40 percent risk of complications, and means a women can no longer bear children. Less invasive treatment options, like drug regimes or fibroid embolyzation, are promising, but many have not undergone the rigorous testing that women expect. In fact, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality at the Department of Health and Human Services found ``a remarkable lack of high quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of most interventions for symptomatic fibroids.''

Women deserve better. That's why I am introducing the uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act--to find new and better ways to treat or even cure uterine fibroids.

This bill does three things. First, it expands research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, by doubling funding for uterine fibroids every year for the next five years. Despite a budget of

over $27 billion, NIH spent just $5 million on uterine fibroids research in 2002. This legislation authorizes $50 million over five years to provide the investment needed to jumpstart basic research and lay the groundwork to find a cure.

This additional funding will help researchers find out why so many women get uterine fibroids, why African American women are disproportionately affected, what tests women can take to prevent uterine fibroids, and what are the best ways to treat them.

Second, this legislation coordinates research on uterine fibroids through the Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH. More than a decade ago, I fought to create this Office at NIH to give women a seat at the table when decisions were made about funding priorities. This bill directs this Office to lead the Federal Government's research effort on uterine fibroids. A coordinated research effort is needed to make the best use of limited resources and to give women a one-stop shop to find out what the Federal Government is doing to combat uterine fibroids.

Finally, this bill creates education campaigns for patients and health care providers. According to a 1999 survey conducted by the Society for Women's Health Research, as many as one-third of women who have hysterectomies do so without discussing potential alternatives with their doctors. This bill will make sure women can count on their doctors for information about the best possible treatment for uterine fibroids. It will also give women the facts they need to make good health care decisions and take control of their health.

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

The Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act is supported by the National Uterine Fibroid Foundation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the Feminist Majority Foundation, the Center for Uterine Fibroids at Brigham and Women's Hospital, the National Urban League,, Delta Sigma Theta, and the Society for Women's Health Research. I look forward to working with these advocates and my colleagues to get this bill signed into law.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act. This bill expands and coordinates research on uterine fibroids at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and creates an education campaign to make sure women and their doctors have the facts they need about this painful, chronic condition. I want to thank Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones for introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives and Senator Clinton for joining me as an original cosponsor.

Uterine fibroids are a major health issue for American women. Three quarters of all reproductive age women, and an even greater number of African American women, have uterine fibroids. Although many women with fibroids have few or no symptoms, it is estimated that a quarter of all women in their thirties and forties seek medical care for the abnormal or heavy bleeding, pain, infertility, or miscarriage that uterine fibroids cause.

Despite their prevalence, little is known about uterine fibroids, and few good treatment options are available to women who suffer from them. Right now, hysterectomy--the surgical removal of the uterus--is the most common treatment for uterine fibroids. More than 200,000 women undergo a hysterectomy each year to treat their uterine fibroids, which requires a six week recovery, has a 20 to 40 percent risk of complications, and means a women can no longer bear children. Less invasive treatment options, like drug regimes or fibroid embolyzation, are promising, but many have not undergone the rigorous testing that women expect. In fact, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality at the Department of Health and Human Services found ``a remarkable lack of high quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of most interventions for symptomatic fibroids.''

Women deserve better. That's why I am introducing the uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act--to find new and better ways to treat or even cure uterine fibroids.

This bill does three things. First, it expands research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, by doubling funding for uterine fibroids every year for the next five years. Despite a budget of

over $27 billion, NIH spent just $5 million on uterine fibroids research in 2002. This legislation authorizes $50 million over five years to provide the investment needed to jumpstart basic research and lay the groundwork to find a cure.

This additional funding will help researchers find out why so many women get uterine fibroids, why African American women are disproportionately affected, what tests women can take to prevent uterine fibroids, and what are the best ways to treat them.

Second, this legislation coordinates research on uterine fibroids through the Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH. More than a decade ago, I fought to create this Office at NIH to give women a seat at the table when decisions were made about funding priorities. This bill directs this Office to lead the Federal Government's research effort on uterine fibroids. A coordinated research effort is needed to make the best use of limited resources and to give women a one-stop shop to find out what the Federal Government is doing to combat uterine fibroids.

Finally, this bill creates education campaigns for patients and health care providers. According to a 1999 survey conducted by the Society for Women's Health Research, as many as one-third of women who have hysterectomies do so without discussing potential alternatives with their doctors. This bill will make sure women can count on their doctors for information about the best possible treatment for uterine fibroids. It will also give women the facts they need to make good health care decisions and take control of their health.

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

The Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act is supported by the National Uterine Fibroid Foundation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the Feminist Majority Foundation, the Center for Uterine Fibroids at Brigham and Women's Hospital, the National Urban League,, Delta Sigma Theta, and the Society for Women's Health Research. I look forward to working with these advocates and my colleagues to get this bill signed into law.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 605.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, my amendment is the family caregiver relief amendment. It gives help to those who practice self-help. It will provide tax relief for family caregivers who face the crushing consequence of caring for a chronically ill family member.

Some of our families are facing extraordinary challenges, such as caring for a loved one with special needs, a child with autism or cerebral palsy, a parent with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or a spouse with multiple sclerosis. I want to give help to those families who are practicing family responsibility.

My amendment would provide a tax credit up to $5,000 for family caregivers. This tax credit would help people pay for prescription drugs, home health care, specialized daycare, and respite care. One in five Americans has a multiple chronic condition requiring some type of medical intervention. That means over 26 million people were supported by many organizations.

I urge my colleagues to vote for my family caregiver relief tax amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I support the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003.

For 20 years, HIV/AIDS has spread from the devastated region of sub- Saharan Africa to the entire world. It is the fourth leading cause of death in the world, killing over 22 million people.

But HIV/AIDS doesn't just kill people. It destroys economies. It ruins nations. It menaces our children and stifles hope.

Forty-two million people worldwide have HIV/AIDS. Thirteen million children are now orphans because of its wrath. Three million children are infected. The vast majority of the afflicted live in Africa, but the disease continues to spread at an alarming rate. The peoples of Eastern Europe, China, India and Central Asia are under assault. The world cannot afford a mediocre response to this disease's assault on human life.

While the experts know how this disease spreads, we can't afford to rely on one solution. Abstinence, being faithful and condoms is an approach that has been successful in Uganda. The ABC approach is now being followed in other countries as well. But this won't stop rape, sexual abuse and prostitution. We cannot expect women and children refugees to overcome their vulnerability to HIV/AIDS by themselves. They deserve real help--help with empowerment, help in fighting the sex and trafficking industries, and help in keeping their predators away.

We also need to help the families that are ruined by AIDS. The costs of caring for a family member afflicted with AIDS are severe, even worse if the person affected is the family's primary wage earner. America must stand up and ensure that families can afford the treatment and care they need to dull the spread and impact of HIV/AIDS.

This disease affects whole societies and nations, not just the infected individuals and their families. Economies suffer when labor forces can no longer survive, much less be productive. When the most educated and vital members of society get HIV, economies contract rather than grow. National security suffers when military forces contract HIV, often at rates up to 5 times as high as civilians.

But the HIV/AIDS pandemic is not the only threat we need to fight. Tuberculosis and malaria compound the problems of HIV/AIDS in developing countries, where 6 million people died of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, or malaria in 2002.

The nations and peoples of the world must share the burden of responding to the HIV/AIDs pandemic. Eliminating

the scourge of AIDS won't be easy and it won't be cheap.

That's why the U.S. needs to make a real contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The $500 million the U.S. has pledged to the fund falls far short of the $7 billion it will need over the next two years to carry out its critical mission. We can do better. We must.

America also needs to encourage concerted international action beyond these important monetary contributions. HIV/AIDS is not a unilateral threat. The world must make a sustained, comprehensive global effort to provide a coordinated program of treatment, care and prevention. Together, we must combine the best of our values, service, technology, expertise and diplomacy to fight the great international menace of HIV/

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I understand that the Republicans introduced the wrong tax bill yesterday. I think they got it right. I think the tax bill is the wrong bill. I don't think it was a drafting problem. I think it is an economic problem. I don't think this tax bill is the right solution to what our economy is facing. The tax bill is the wrong bill. It is the wrong bill because it does not create jobs; it adds to our structural deficit; and it doesn't deal with the other economic issues facing our country.

I would like to have an economic package which clearly helps create jobs. If we are going to give tax breaks, they should be targeted to help families and small businesses. They should be temporary, such as aid to States and local communities that are reeling with their own problems. And they should not in any way weaken Social Security or weaken Medicare.

I think the tax bill is the wrong bill.

I believe if we put our heads together and think about targeted tax credits, we can help small business with health care and help families. Later on this week, I will offer an amendment to the tax bill to provide relief for family caregivers and help those who face the crushing consequences of caring for chronically ill family members.

Families are hurting. There is a weak economy. They worry about their jobs. They worry about their pension. They worry about skyrocketing health care. They are often holding down two jobs to make ends meet or are going into debt in order to put their children through college. They are finding it more difficult to be able to afford health insurance.

My targeted tax credit will give help to those who practice self- help. I think that should be a guiding principle. Let us give help to those who practice self-help.

My bill will provide a tax credit up to $5,000 for family caregivers who are caring for someone with a chronic condition.

Who would that be? Some families are facing extraordinary challenges--caring for loved ones with special needs, a child with autism or cerebral palsy, a parent with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or a spouse with multiple sclerosis. Those are just a few examples of what I mean by a chronic and severe condition.

My tax credit would help people pay for prescription drugs, home health care, specialized daycare, respite care, and specialized therapy, including occupational, physical, or rehabilitation therapy.

Family caregivers face so many stresses. There is the emotional and physical stress of caregiving. Then there is the financial stress of caregiving, and the long days of raising a family while caring for a loved one with a chronic disease such as cerebral palsy or Parkinson's. A dad would have to work two jobs to meet the cost of care for a handicapped child, or a dad and mom might be working to be able to afford the special care for grandma. It places incredible stress on the family checkbook, and it places great strains on the family marriage.

We need to give help to those families who are practicing self-help. If you took the total cost of caregiving, it would be $200 billion.

The first caregivers are the families--not government. But government should help the family with its responsibilities. They face high costs for prescription drugs, home health, adult daycare or specialized daycare for a handicapped child, physical therapy, durable medical equipment such as a wheelchair, and medical bills for care by specialists.

People who care for a chronically ill family member must often patch together whatever they can afford. They really go into debt. Many of them go into their college accounts or retirement savings or they go without in order to be able to care of their family.

Example one: Let's talk about a family in Baltimore who has a child named Jackson. These are real families. They gave me permission to talk about them on the Senate floor so that we would again be focusing on what a family is facing. Family responsibility, yes, but a family's stress needs to be helped.

This family has a 2-year-old son named Jackson. He was born with severe brain abnormalities. He has the motor skill development of a 4- month-old. This little guy has daily seizures, so he needs total, round-the-clock care. The emotional costs of caring for a severely disabled child are incalculable. The financial costs are also crushing.

It costs $650 a month for daycare for medically fragile children. His little wheelchair costs $1,400. Though his skills are not growing, he is growing, so they need to frequently replace his wheelchair. He even needs a special shower chair which costs $700. Then, of course, with all of those seizures and all the other complications, the cost of prescription drugs goes off the charts.

Let's talk about another family.

This is a family in Rockville. They have a 10-year-old girl named Rachel. She has autism. The mom does not work because the cost of specialized afterschool care would be so high; yet the family has very high costs, including $200 a month for medication, $150 a week for physical and speech therapy. That is $600 a month for physical and speech therapy. So that is $800 a month or $9,600 a year for just medication and physical and speech therapy.

This father works 70 hours a week to provide for his family and to meet Rachel's special needs but also to save for college for his three other children. This places great stress on the family.

Then there is a couple where the wife is in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's. She was a teacher and spoke five languages. Now she needs 24-hour-a-day care, but the husband will not put her in a nursing home, which, by the way, would cost over $60,000 a year. This family is spending $3,000 a month or $36,000 a year. They have gone through their savings, but they took a vow, ``for richer or for poorer, and in sickness and in health,'' and that man intends to keep his vow to his wife.

What is the social contract that we have with those families? These are real families. This is why we need to have a real tax bill that also gives help to those who practice self-help. There are 26 million people in this country who face those situations.

My amendment has been backed by the Autism Society of America, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Easter Seals, the National Organization for

Rare Disorders, the United Cerebral Palsy Association, Arc of the United States, the National Health Council, the National Council on the Aging, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Family Voices, the National Respite Coalition, the National Family Caregivers Association, and the National Alliance for Caregiving.

Mr. President, one of my first milestones in the Senate was the enactment of something called the Spousal Anti-Impoverishment Act. That changed the cruel rules of Medicaid so families would not go bankrupt before they could get help for nursing home care.

I said: Family responsibility, yes, and always. Family bankruptcy due to the cruel rules of government, no.

That has helped over 1 million people. Now it is our turn to also help the caregivers. They are the backbone of our long-term care in this country.

I thank my colleagues, Senators Clinton and Sarbanes, and others, for supporting this amendment. If we really want to help the economy, let's start by helping the American family. I hope, when the Senate considers whatever is introduced, Senators will favorably consider my targeted tax credit to help family caregivers.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of ratification of the Protocol to the Washington Treaty to bring seven new members in the NATO alliance.

Allies and partners make concrete and indispensable contributions to American national security in the complex and rapidly-changing post- cold war environment. Most security problems cannot be addressed unilaterally, and acting with others helps reduce the backlash against the United States. We are virtually always better off sharing the risks and burdens and costs with our allies. The NATO alliance has been a reliable cornerstone of America's national security since it was founded more than half a century ago.

I believe we need to modernize and strengthen NATO as our key alliance in the 21st century. We need to do four things to make NATO stronger:

First, we need to overcome differences over Iraq and other issues by working together to develop a common understanding of the threats we face, so we don't again face the challenge of NATO Allies refusing access to U.S. troops or denying protection to another ally.

Second, our European partners need to modernize their military capabilities to be ready to take on any potential enemy or military task, and to ensure interoperability between U.S. and European forces.

Third, NATO must be ready to act beyond Europe, because our common enemies and shared missions could be anywhere.

Finally, NATO must be ready to fight new enemies rather than just conventional military forces. These threats include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles, rogue states and ethnic conflicts, and terrorism.

The limited debate and sparse opposition to further enlargement of NATO are a tribute to the success of the round of NATO enlargement we ratified in 1996. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are full and reliable NATO allies. They have already contributed to America's security, joining in the unanimous invocation of article 5 of the Washington Treaty, that an attack on one is an attack on all, after terrorists attacked the United States on September 11 of 2001.

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are being fully integrated into Europe including membership in the European Union. But they understand the value of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

I am particularly proud that Poland is always ready to stand with America. Poland sent ground forces for the war in Iraq, joining only two other allies: the United Kingdom and Australia.

I strongly support NATO membership for the three Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. These countries know freedom and are willing to fight for it, because they suffered so long under Soviet occupation. The Baltic states are working to help America confront new challenges now that the cold war is over.

I had the opportunity to visit Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania a few years ago, and participate in the NATO parliamentary assembly meeting in Vilnius. I was truly impressed by the spirit and progress of the Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian peoples. All three Baltic states are building modern armed forces to contribute to the security of NATO.

I am particularly proud of the Maryland-Estonia partnership, under which the Maryland National Guard has helped organize and train Estonia's military. All three Baltic states have contributed to the war on terrorism and international peacekeeping missions.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of further enlargement of NATO. I believe this round of enlargement, like the last, will strengthen NATO. Strengthening NATO strengthens America's national security.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the IDEA Full Funding Act of 2003. I'm so proud to cosponsor this important legislation. This bill provides mandatory increases for IDEA funding each year, so that the Federal Government will be paying its full share of the cost of special education by 2011. This legislation is long overdue. I think it's shocking that the President is fighting for tax breaks for zillionaires while delaying help for those who need it most--the children with special needs and their parents and teachers. We must fully fund IDEA to ensure that children with disabilities are receiving the services they need to succeed with their classmates in public schools.

In 1975, Congress promised to pay 40 percent of the cost of special education when it passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Yet it has never paid more than 17.5 percent. That means local districts must make up the difference, either by cutting from other education programs or by raising taxes. I don't want to force States and local school districts to forage for funds, cut back on teacher training, or delay school repairs because the Federal Government has failed to live up to its commitment to special education. That's why fully funding IDEA is one of my top priorities.

Everywhere I go in Maryland, I hear about IDEA. I hear about it in urban, rural, and suburban communities, from Democrats and Republicans, and from parents and teachers. They tell me that the Federal Government is not living up to its promise, that special education costs about 18 percent of the average school budget, that schools are suffering, and the parents are worried.

Parents today are under a lot of stress--sometimes working two jobs just to make ends meet, trying to find day care for their kids, and elder care for their own parents. The Federal Government shouldn't add to their worries by not living up to its obligations. With the Federal Government not paying its share of special ed these parents have real questions in their minds: Will my child will have a good teacher? Will the classes have up-to-date textbooks? Will they be learning what they need to know?

Parents of disabled children face such a tough burden already. School should not be one of the many things they have to worry about, particularly when the laws are already on the books to guarantee their child a public school education. The bottom line is that the Federal Government is shortchanging these parents by not paying its share of special ed costs.

This bill will give local governments the resources they need to improve education for all children. It will free up money in local budgets for hiring more teachers, buying new textbooks and technology, and repairing old school buildings. It will help the teachers who struggle with teaching the toughest students. It will help students with disabilities and their families by providing enough funding for special education programs so parents can have one less thing to worry about, and students get the opportunities they deserve.

Full funding of IDEA is essential. It will give disabled children a chance to succeed in school and in life without

shortchanging other vital education programs. It will give parents peace of mind about their children's education. Let's pass this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the IDEA Full Funding Act of 2003. I'm so proud to cosponsor this important legislation. This bill provides mandatory increases for IDEA funding each year, so that the Federal Government will be paying its full share of the cost of special education by 2011. This legislation is long overdue. I think it's shocking that the President is fighting for tax breaks for zillionaires while delaying help for those who need it most--the children with special needs and their parents and teachers. We must fully fund IDEA to ensure that children with disabilities are receiving the services they need to succeed with their classmates in public schools.

In 1975, Congress promised to pay 40 percent of the cost of special education when it passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Yet it has never paid more than 17.5 percent. That means local districts must make up the difference, either by cutting from other education programs or by raising taxes. I don't want to force States and local school districts to forage for funds, cut back on teacher training, or delay school repairs because the Federal Government has failed to live up to its commitment to special education. That's why fully funding IDEA is one of my top priorities.

Everywhere I go in Maryland, I hear about IDEA. I hear about it in urban, rural, and suburban communities, from Democrats and Republicans, and from parents and teachers. They tell me that the Federal Government is not living up to its promise, that special education costs about 18 percent of the average school budget, that schools are suffering, and the parents are worried.

Parents today are under a lot of stress--sometimes working two jobs just to make ends meet, trying to find day care for their kids, and elder care for their own parents. The Federal Government shouldn't add to their worries by not living up to its obligations. With the Federal Government not paying its share of special ed these parents have real questions in their minds: Will my child will have a good teacher? Will the classes have up-to-date textbooks? Will they be learning what they need to know?

Parents of disabled children face such a tough burden already. School should not be one of the many things they have to worry about, particularly when the laws are already on the books to guarantee their child a public school education. The bottom line is that the Federal Government is shortchanging these parents by not paying its share of special ed costs.

This bill will give local governments the resources they need to improve education for all children. It will free up money in local budgets for hiring more teachers, buying new textbooks and technology, and repairing old school buildings. It will help the teachers who struggle with teaching the toughest students. It will help students with disabilities and their families by providing enough funding for special education programs so parents can have one less thing to worry about, and students get the opportunities they deserve.

Full funding of IDEA is essential. It will give disabled children a chance to succeed in school and in life without

shortchanging other vital education programs. It will give parents peace of mind about their children's education. Let's pass this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Law Enforcement Officers Retirement Equity act of 2003. I am proud to be joined on this bill by my colleagues, Senators Sarbanes, Leahy and Campbell. This legislation will ensure that all Federal law enforcement officers have the same retirement options and that their pay and benefits conform with the Federal law enforcement retirement system.

Under current law, most Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters are eligible to retire at age 50 with 20 years of Federal service. But, some Federal law enforcement personnel, such as customs and immigration inspectors at the Department of Homeland Security or police officers at Veterans Affairs, are not eligible for these same benefits. This legislation will amend current law and grant the same pay and 20-year retirement to all law enforcement officers.

We must honor our Federal law enforcement personnel. The names of Federal law enforcement officials who have died in the line of duty are engraved on the Law Enforcement Memorial. We include the names of the officers from Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. We honor them when they die, but we don't recognize them when they are living.

We need to make sure that all Federal law enforcement officers earn the pay and benefits that they deserve. These brave men and women are the country's first line of defense against terrorism and the smuggling of illegal drugs at our borders. They have the same law enforcement training as all other law enforcement personnel, and face the same risks and challenges.

For example, U.S. Customs inspectors are responsible for the most arrests performed by Customs Service employees. Yet, they do not qualify for law enforcement officer status. Along with U.S. customs agents, uniformed U.S. Customs inspectors are helping provide additional security at the Nation's airports and help enforce U.S. customs laws. They were among the first to respond to the tragedy at the World Trade Center. After September 11, Customs inspectors are playing a critical role in ensuring that terrorists don't get their hands on weapons of mass destruction and smuggle them into the country.

In 2002, the U.S. Custom Service impounded over 4,100 pounds of heroin and 167,000 pounds of cocaine, and confiscated over 39,000 firearms and 6.4 million rounds of ammunition. In fact, on a typical day, employees of the Customs Service inspect over 57,000 trucks and containers. Customers inspectors are vital in winning the war on drugs and keeping America safe from terrorism.

Like customs inspectors, immigration inspectors at the Department of Homeland Security are also on the front lines of defense against terrorism. Immigration inspectors enforce the Nation's immigration laws at more than 300 ports of entry. In the normal course of their duties, they enforce criminal law, make arrests, interrogate applicants for entry, search persons and effects, and seize evidence. Inspector's responsibilities have become increasing complex as political, economic and social unrest has increased globally. The threat of terrorism only increases these responsibilities.

These immigration inspectors help secure our borders. In FY 2001, over 510 million inspections were performed by these inspectors with 700,000 individuals denied entry, and approximately 71,000 criminal aliens were removed from the country.

This legislation is cost effective. Any cost that is created by this act is more than offset by savings in training costs and increased revenue collection. A 20-year retirement bill for these critical employees will reduce turnover, increase productivity, decrease employee recruitment and development costs, and enhance the retention of a well-trained and experienced work force. These vital Federal employees bear the same risks and work under similar conditions to other law enforcement officials and deserve to receive the same level of benefits.

This bill will improve the effectiveness of our inspector and revenue officer work force to ensure the integrity of our borders and proper collection of the taxes and duties owed to the Federal Government. This bill is supported by the Fraternal Orders of Police and the National Treasury Employees Union. I urge my colleagues to join me again in this Congress in expressing support for this bill and finally getting it enacted.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Law Enforcement Officers Retirement Equity act of 2003. I am proud to be joined on this bill by my colleagues, Senators Sarbanes, Leahy and Campbell. This legislation will ensure that all Federal law enforcement officers have the same retirement options and that their pay and benefits conform with the Federal law enforcement retirement system.

Under current law, most Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters are eligible to retire at age 50 with 20 years of Federal service. But, some Federal law enforcement personnel, such as customs and immigration inspectors at the Department of Homeland Security or police officers at Veterans Affairs, are not eligible for these same benefits. This legislation will amend current law and grant the same pay and 20-year retirement to all law enforcement officers.

We must honor our Federal law enforcement personnel. The names of Federal law enforcement officials who have died in the line of duty are engraved on the Law Enforcement Memorial. We include the names of the officers from Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. We honor them when they die, but we don't recognize them when they are living.

We need to make sure that all Federal law enforcement officers earn the pay and benefits that they deserve. These brave men and women are the country's first line of defense against terrorism and the smuggling of illegal drugs at our borders. They have the same law enforcement training as all other law enforcement personnel, and face the same risks and challenges.

For example, U.S. Customs inspectors are responsible for the most arrests performed by Customs Service employees. Yet, they do not qualify for law enforcement officer status. Along with U.S. customs agents, uniformed U.S. Customs inspectors are helping provide additional security at the Nation's airports and help enforce U.S. customs laws. They were among the first to respond to the tragedy at the World Trade Center. After September 11, Customs inspectors are playing a critical role in ensuring that terrorists don't get their hands on weapons of mass destruction and smuggle them into the country.

In 2002, the U.S. Custom Service impounded over 4,100 pounds of heroin and 167,000 pounds of cocaine, and confiscated over 39,000 firearms and 6.4 million rounds of ammunition. In fact, on a typical day, employees of the Customs Service inspect over 57,000 trucks and containers. Customers inspectors are vital in winning the war on drugs and keeping America safe from terrorism.

Like customs inspectors, immigration inspectors at the Department of Homeland Security are also on the front lines of defense against terrorism. Immigration inspectors enforce the Nation's immigration laws at more than 300 ports of entry. In the normal course of their duties, they enforce criminal law, make arrests, interrogate applicants for entry, search persons and effects, and seize evidence. Inspector's responsibilities have become increasing complex as political, economic and social unrest has increased globally. The threat of terrorism only increases these responsibilities.

These immigration inspectors help secure our borders. In FY 2001, over 510 million inspections were performed by these inspectors with 700,000 individuals denied entry, and approximately 71,000 criminal aliens were removed from the country.

This legislation is cost effective. Any cost that is created by this act is more than offset by savings in training costs and increased revenue collection. A 20-year retirement bill for these critical employees will reduce turnover, increase productivity, decrease employee recruitment and development costs, and enhance the retention of a well-trained and experienced work force. These vital Federal employees bear the same risks and work under similar conditions to other law enforcement officials and deserve to receive the same level of benefits.

This bill will improve the effectiveness of our inspector and revenue officer work force to ensure the integrity of our borders and proper collection of the taxes and duties owed to the Federal Government. This bill is supported by the Fraternal Orders of Police and the National Treasury Employees Union. I urge my colleagues to join me again in this Congress in expressing support for this bill and finally getting it enacted.

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

Mr. President, I rise as a proud cosponsor of this amendment that would provide $340 million to State governments to do important education, screening, and monitoring in the delivery of the smallpox vaccine program.

I would like to share with my colleagues a story. One of my constituents, who lives on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, died last week from a heart attack 5 days after she received the smallpox vaccine. I am not drawing a conclusion that the two are linked. We will leave that to the appropriate medical and public health officials to decide. But let me tell you the story. She was 55 years old. She just got her nursing degree after having another degree. She wanted to get her nursing degree because the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland is an underserved health community in terms of doctors and nurses.

She is a Native American. She is a proud descendant of the Assateague tribe. Her name is Andrea Deerheart Cornitcher. She wanted to volunteer for the smallpox vaccine so she could serve her community, serve her country in the event of a smallpox attack. She was ready to do anything she needed to when she was called.

When I spoke to her husband, filled with grief and melancholy, I asked him what he wanted to tell me and, if he could come to the floor of the Senate, what would he tell us. He said: Senator, tell your colleagues, and if you have a chance to talk to the President, tell him, people are ready to volunteer, but they have to have a right to know what they are getting into. They have the right to know how safe the vaccine is. They have to know how safe they will be if they get the vaccine. We need education. We need screening. I might add, we need monitoring and surveillance, so that if you sign up to be part of the bioshield warriors, you will have ongoing monitoring and biosurveillance to make sure there are no physical or other repercussions from this.

That is what Mr. Glenn Standing Bear Mayo asked. He said, the way I want to honor my wife, the way we ought to protect America, is to make sure we protect the volunteers. The way to protect the volunteers is through education, better and more amplified screening, and ongoing monitoring and surveillance.

You cannot do this on the cheap. Public health departments are already stretched to the breaking point.

They are now foraging for funds to be able to meet a Federal mandate to recruit, screen, and do smallpox vaccinations for our first responders who are volunteering. This takes $85 per screening. They don't have it. They are taking money from other funds--from maternal and child health, West Nile virus, or being prepared in case SARS comes to the United States.

This is a very modest amount to put into the Federal checkbook. It doesn't

even deal with the larger issue of compensation that we will debate at another time, an appropriate time.

I salute the Senator from Indiana for advocating this. I advocated it in the authorizing committee just yesterday. It was accepted by the committee. The committee knows this is important. Now is the time to make it a reality by putting screening, testing, and monitoring into the Federal checkbook.

So I really ask my colleagues: If the volunteers are going to have enough confidence to participate in the program, they need to know what they are getting into, and they need to be properly screened. They need to know that they will be monitored and that there will be surveillance to protect them as they line up to protect America. They also need to know that there is a safety net for an adequate and responsible compensation program. This amendment does not deal with compensation, but it deals with funding the usual and customary public health protections. It says that people have a right to know, they have a right to be heard about their concerns, and they have a right to be protected.

On behalf of Andrea Deerheart Cornitcher, I offer this amendment with my colleagues to the Senate.

I yield the floor.

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

I am proud to cosponsor the Graham amendment. Our men and women in uniform have my steadfast support. We must support the brave men and women who are fighting for our country. Our troops need to know that America is with them, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. We need to remember our troops in the Federal checkbook.

That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Graham amendment. The amendment is simple and straightforward. It would provide $375 million more for VA medical care, so that when our troops return from war, the VA can give them the medical care they deserve.

Under a law we passed after the Persian Gulf War, the VA must give priority to returning troops for immediate medical care. But the VA medical care system is strained. Nationally, there are 236,000 veterans waiting longer than 6 months to get their first appointment with a VA doctor. In January, the VA health care system stopped accepting Priority 8 veterans. These are veterans who are not service disabled, and whose income is higher than about $29,000 per year.

Our veterans didn't stand in waiting lines when they were called up or they volunteered to serve our country. So they shouldn't have to stand in line or pay toll charges to get the medical care they deserve.

As the ranking member on the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, my guiding principle for the VA budget is that we keep the promises we made to our veterans. In the last four years, the VA-HUD Subcommittee has provided large increases for medical care, including $1.7 billion in 2000, $1.3 billion in 2001, $1 billion in 2002, and $2.4 billion in 2003. We provided these increases because we know that the failure of private health insurance companies and high prescription drug costs are really straining our veterans on fixed incomes. At the same time, our veterans population is growing and getting older. Today, the VA treats 2 million more veterans than in 1996

I am very concerned that the administration's VA budget for next year does not keep promises to our veterans, and will not support the needs of our troops. The VA's budget puts new toll charges and means tests on our veterans. Specifically, the budget proposes four things. First, the budget proposes to keep the VA closed to Priority 8 veterans. Second, the budget proposes a new $250 entrance fee for veterans. Third, the budget proposes to increase outpatient primary care copayments from $15 to $20. Fourth, the budget proposes to increase prescription drug copayments from $7 to $15.

I raised my concerns about these proposals with Secretary Principi during the VA-HUD Subcommittee budget hearing last month. We have great respect for Secretary Principi. He is a Vietnam Veteran who continues to serve his country. Now he's battling OMB against a skimpy and spartan budget. But I am concerned that the budget OMB gave VA this year leaves the VA foraging for funding. It will leave our troops without access to the medical care they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to support our troops and our veterans in the Federal checkbook by supporting the Graham amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Schumer and Clinton, who have been working steadfastly to get the resources we need to properly fund homeland security. They have stood up not only for New York but for all of America because we know that homeland security cannot be done on the cheap. We are at war. We are at war in Iraq, and we need to support our troops. But we are at war here. The President of the United States, George Bush, said we are at war here in the war against terrorism and we need to support the hometown, homeland troops. They are our first responders.

Where are they? They are in local governments. They are in fire stations. They are in police stations. They are standing sentry behind the ambulances ready to respond to any emergency need. When a citizen calls 911 because of an event that has happened in their community, it happens locally.

The Schumer-Clinton-Mikulski amendment not only gives more money, which is desperately needed, but it brings money to the local communities where it is needed.

We live in the capital region, we in Maryland, whether it is Montgomery County or Prince George's or Baltimore City. Our overtime is skyrocketing. We are spending loads of money in the protection for infrastructure. In Baltimore, every time we go to code orange we are spending $50,000 a week on police overtime. Prince George's County needs $50 million just to be able to talk to the rest of the State in interoperable radio equipment. Anne Arundel County is responsible for the protection of the National Security Agency, the Naval Academy, the capitol of the State of Maryland, and BWI Airport. We say: Oh, wow, we can't afford to do it.

Let me say this: When the country goes to code orange, our local communities go to red ink. Local governments have no place to turn except higher property taxes. We say no to higher property taxes. We say yes to more funds for homeland security. If we want to wear the flag, let's stand up for the flag and let's stand up for the flag by supporting our first responders in the local community and by putting the money where our patriotism is, right in the Federal checkbook.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, my amendment would give a tax credit up to $5,000 to family caregivers. My amendment would help a family dealing with juvenile diabetes, a spouse taking care of someone with Alzheimer's, a parent taking care of an adult son with Down's syndrome.

My tax credit would pay for prescription drugs, home health care, durable medical equipment--things that give help to those families practicing self-help. These families face a tremendous financial and emotional burden. Families will deal with their own emotional burden, but I believe America should step up and help them with their financial burden as they deal with caregiving in the United States of America.

Mr. President, 125 million Americans have chronic conditions; 18 million of those are children. Family caregivers are often stretched to the limit, often working two jobs. This amendment costs $35 billion. We can afford it and we ought to do it.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sarbanes- Jeffords-Mikulski-Graham water infrastructure amendment.

Our amendment is simple and straightforward: It adds $3 billion to the 2004 budget resolution for a total of $5.2 billion for water and sewer infrastructure in 2004. The amendment increases funding for EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund from $1.35 billion to $3.2 billion, and increases funding for EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund from $850 million to $2 billion.

Our amendment is necessary for two reasons.

First, our Nation's communities are facing enormous needs in their efforts to provide clean and safe water. The need for better sewer and drinking water systems is much greater than what we put in the Federal checkbook each year. These needs have been studied and restudied and the needs are real and valid.

In April 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network reported that our Nation's water and wastewater systems will face a funding gap of $23 billion a year over the next 20 years. In November 2001, the general Accounting Office reported that cost range from $300 billion to $1 trillion over the next 20 years. In September 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that demands for improved sewer and drinking water systems will outstrip current levels by $535 billion. And in November 2002, the Congressional Budget Office reported that water and sewer costs could average as much as $40 billion each year. The results are conclusive and the need is real and valid.

We are not putting enough funding in the Federal checkbook each year. The current level for water infrastructure is only $2.2 billion. We can't expect communities to comply with growing regulations like arsenic, radon, and new requirements related to security, to name just a few, without increased financial assistance.

If we don't help, the entire burden falls on local ratepayers. In many urban and rural low-income areas, rate increases are just not affordable. My hometown of Baltimore is facing a $1 billion cost in order to meet Federal regulations.

The second reason that this amendment is necessary is for job creation. The economy lost 300,000 jobs in February. Water infrastructure funding creates jobs. For every $1 billion we spend on water infrastructure, up to 40,000 jobs are created.

This amendment is a mini-stimulus package for three reasons:

First, it will create and sustain jobs. As I stated, for every $1 billion in SRF funding, about 40,000 jobs are created. Second, the amendment is temporary and targeted.

The amendment is a one-time, $3 billion increase of an existing program. It does not create a new bureaucracy. Third, the amendment does not contribute to long-term deficits because the $3 billion is fully offset by reducing the tax cut.

This $3 billion increase for water infrastructure is less than one- half of 1 percent of the $726 billion tax cut in this budget resolution.

Mr. President, the Sarbanes-Jeffords-Mikulski-Graham amendment helps our communities by providing more funding for immediate water and sewer needs and by creating jobs.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.