Floor Statements

Mr. President, over the past few years the U.S. Senate has acted to stimulate the American economy. This spring we passed an economic stimulus package to provide meaningful tax relief for businesses and assistance for unemployed workers to soften the blow of difficult economic times. We have also worked to approve trade agreements that ensure a free and fair trade market for U.S. businesses.

As we work on these measures to improve our economy today, it is equally important to ensure that America's economy remains strong for the next generation as well.

I recently joined with Chadron State College to establish the Exploring Free Enterprise program. This program will focus on teaching students in elementary, middle and high school the principles of market economics, entrepreneurship, personal financial success and business ethics.

Entrepreneurship is a particularly important skill in Nebraska. A revitalized rural economy requires individuals who are able to seize upon openings in the marketplace and expand employment opportunities.

Business ethics is another area of great importance. I am proud to be a part of a program that will teach our future leaders that being honest is even more important than making money.

In 2002 I was honored to receive the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Spirit of Enterprise award. The Exploring Free Enterprise program seeks to spread that spirit of enterprise to a new generation of young business leaders and entrepreneurs. It is their entrepreneurial spirit that will drive America's economic engine in a competitive world economy.

I would like to thank Chadron State College for the opportunity to participate in this program and especially Dr. Rick Koza, the director of the program, and Dr. Tom Krepel, president Chadron State College, for their leadership.

Together, our investment in education recognizes that while children may only be 20 percent of our population, that they are 100 percent of our future.

Mr. President, I am speaking today on what I think is an extremely important issue that is getting a considerable amount of attention today, and that is the prescription drug benefit as part of the Medicare Program, which is also being considered in conference at this very moment.

As the minority leader has said, very often it is possible to read more about what is going on in the conference on Medicare than it is to find out this kind of information here. I might point out, as a matter of personal interest, one of the major reasons Nebraska has a unicameral legislature is that they wanted to do away with the conference committee system. At times, that certainly appeals to me back here.

I come to the floor today to discuss this critically important issue that is now being considered in the prescription drug bill, and that is retaining retiree health benefits. If this problem is not addressed-- and from some of the information I am receiving through various sources, it may be under consideration at this moment--but if it is not addressed and solved, my colleagues and I will be forced to choose between the impossible--the haves and the have-nots--those who have coverage as retirees, with benefits being provided by a former employer, and want to keep it, and those who don't have the coverage and need it.

It will be a war between seniors. It is an impossible decision that should not have to be made. Our first priority should be first to do no harm. Usually, we are faced with decisions between children and seniors, between this group and that group--a group typically seeking additional help. It is always a double-edged sword, but it is an impossible decision that this Senate and this Congress should not and must not make.

I know this issue is also important to the conferees. They have been grappling with trying to make sure that those who have coverage keep it while those who need coverage get it. News reports today suggest they are close to reaching some sort of deal on how to entice employers to continue to provide retiree benefits. I commend them for their work in trying to get that done and addressing that issue. I hope they are successful in being able to accomplish it.

Employer-sponsored retiree health benefits are the single greatest source of coverage for retirees, providing drug coverage for one in three Medicare beneficiaries. Retiree coverage is declining, though, and it is declining dramatically. Just 34 percent of all large firms-- 200 or more workers--offered retiree benefits in 2002. That is down from 68 percent of all large firms in 1988. In a little more than 10 years, the number has been cut in half. But there are still those who presently receive the benefits, and we cannot ignore the fact that they do have those benefits.

Drug costs continue to constitute 40 to 60 percent of employers' retiree health care costs, and steep price increases are prompting employers to eliminate drug benefits, cap their contributions, or drop retiree coverage altogether. The spiraling costs relating to prescription drugs continue to threaten the continued provision of those benefits.

Due to budget constraints, the Senate and House bills use the definition of out-of-pocket costs that would not

allow employer contributions to count for meeting the catastrophic cap on beneficiary spending.

This means, in understandable terms, that retirees with employer- provided coverage will get less of a benefit than other seniors. In fact, under the Senate bill, retirees would need closer to $10,000 in drug costs before the stop-loss protection would apply, well after the $5,800 cap that applies to all other beneficiaries. And employers that choose to wrap around the Medicare benefit would be subject to a gap in coverage that doesn't end.

As a result, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated slightly more than one-third of retirees will lose their employer coverage, making more than 4 million Medicare beneficiaries worse off at a time when we are trying to make them better off.

Although Congress may claim this formula will save money for Medicare, any provision that encourages employers to drop their retiree benefits will only end up costing the Federal Government more and hurt millions of seniors in the process. Seniors who have retiree benefits have worked a lifetime and have made wage concessions over the years with the expectation that they would have retiree benefits in exchange. To change the rules of the game at this point and give them less than the other Medicare beneficiaries is, in a word, unfair.

Congress must now enact a drug benefit that recognizes employers that are doing the right thing, continuing to provide their retirees these very important benefits, because to do otherwise will further threaten retiree coverage and will drive millions more seniors to Medicare for the coverage they used to get from their employers. This is a choice that might be put before us, but this is not a choice we should make. We should not have to decide between Lee and George and Mary and John. These are not decisions that this Congress should be forced to make. There are solutions.

I am encouraged when I hear the conferees are looking at these solutions, but I encourage, in the most dramatic way possible, that they not only continue to work, but they find solutions that are workable, because without that the choice is an impossible one and I think threatens whether or not this body will pass a Medicare plan that provides prescription drugs for retirees.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Indiana for the opportunity to speak in support of this amendment. I thank my colleagues who are cosponsoring this amendment: Senators Ensign, Collins, Snowe, Lindsey Graham, and the Presiding Officer, Senator Chambliss. It is a pleasure to be working with them in a bipartisan way on what I think is an important point to the American people and an important point as a message to the world.

When the President delivered his address announcing the $87 billion he would ask Congress to approve for postwar military operations and construction and reconstruction in Iraq, known as the supplemental, there was clearly a collective gasp from the American people. This was primarily because I do not believe the American public was prepared, before the war, for the cost of reconstruction after the war.

Americans clearly want our mission in Iraq to succeed. We cannot fail. And

we want our young men and women to come home safely. Now our No. 1 priority must be that we do everything in our power to make sure that happens in a fiscally responsible way for the United States and Iraq.

The American role in the liberation of Iraq planted the seeds for democracy. The creation of the Coalition Provisional Authority, led by Ambassador Bremer, and the interim Iraqi Governing Council, have laid the foundation for what I hope will be a lasting Iraqi Republic.

Now is the time to seek greater international support for security, perhaps through NATO, as I have previously suggested, and also to seek more international support through the United Nations, to help democracy and freedom in Iraq by the drafting of a constitution, the holding of legitimate elections, and the participation by all Iraqis in the political process.

Funds for military operations must not be delayed and should be quickly appropriated so that the 140,000 American troops in theater, and those supporting them, will have the tools they need to do their job.

Our soldiers should not be held hostage because of deliberations on controversial portions of this supplemental.

The reconstruction funding the President requested may be the appropriate amount to accomplish our goals. However, as we have all indicated, we have concerns with the way the funding is being made to the Iraqis. The President's reconstruction request simply gives money to Iraq as a grant. It asks the American taxpayer to pick up the entire cost for postwar construction with the hope that we will get others to be donors in this process. It asks nothing from the international community at the present time, and certainly it asks nothing of Iraq in return.

The United States liberated Iraq, but should reconstruction become the sole responsibility of the American people with the expectation and the hope we might get additional contributions from the donors conference? Furthermore, the question can be, Is that the best for Iraq? I don't think so.

The amendment we offer today will ask that the international community do more to aid Iraq in their reconstruction, while simultaneously easing the financial burden that Iraq now carries because of the policies of a brutal tyrant. In contrast to the administration's proposed total direct grant, which does not ask Iraq to contribute financially to its own recovery, this amendment is both generous and fair.

As my colleague from Indiana has indicated, the amendment first provides for a grant covering $5 billion for building Iraq's security services. That is a grant. And it provides $5.2 billion in emergency economic assistance. That is a grant. It also asks the administration to notify all relevant congressional committees of every $250 million obligated out of the $5.2 billion so that there is some transparency and accountability on how these dollars are going to be spent.

Most importantly, our proposal asks America to negotiate with the world on behalf of Iraq. Iraq, unfortunately, due to the tyrannical powers and programs of Saddam Hussein, owes money in reparations to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It also has debts to France and Russia primarily for military purposes. France and Russia are owed $6 billion and $6.9 billion, respectively. Saudi Arabia is owed approximately $25 billion. This is debt that was incurred by Iraq as a result of the tyrannical forces, powers, and programs of Saddam Hussein.

Our colleague from Oklahoma has proposed a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which will be voted on later this evening, as will this amendment. He has asked that we request the countries that own the debt to forgive the debt. I think that is a start that is halfway to the conclusion that this amendment brings us. But it is only halfway. It is asking rather than providing leverage where I think we will absolutely have the opportunity to seek the forgiveness of this debt. So that if France, Russia, and others can forgive Iraq's debt, the international community would consider this as a positive step toward independence. This immense gesture would enable the Iraqi economic engine to become energized, free of a burden most Iraqis never wanted in the first place.

It is estimated as well that Iraq's proven oil reserves are worth $2.8 trillion and its potential oil reserves might be worth $5.5 trillion. Freeing the Iraqis of their prewar debt would help them use their oil resources immediately to provide for their people and their reconstruction.

Our amendment is the only amendment offered that directly addresses the issue of Iraqi debt. Our amendment provides an incentive to those nations to forgive Iraq of its Saddam-era debt. It is my hope the administration and the Iraqi Governing Council will be able to satisfactorily and successfully negotiate with the international community to eliminate 90 percent of the prewar bilateral Iraqi debt. If those negotiations are indeed successful, this amendment would provide that the remaining $10 billion in reconstruction funding to the Iraqi people would be in the form of a grant. It will be convertible from a loan to a grant in exchange for the forgiveness of 90 percent of the prewar bilateral Iraqi debt.

If the negotiations are unsuccessful, which we hope they would not be, then the $10 billion will be appropriated as a long-term loan to the Iraqi Governing Council and all prewar debts will be subordinated to the U.S. postwar debt of $10 billion. This would allow the Iraqi people to get the same jump-start on rebuilding their country while delaying their payments to us and the world until this Iraqi nation has established an economy and can meet its responsibilities to the world community. The loan would be secured by revenues from Iraqi oil exports in the future.

There are some who will charge that making reconstruction funds available as a loan is evidence that the United States is after Iraq's oil. In my estimation, they will hold that contention regardless of what we do or don't do in regard to funding reconstruction. In fact, the use of the funds to rebuild within Iraq is evidence to the contrary. But even if we can't prove to the rest of the world that we are not after the oil, we must pursue a loan approach as we are proposing.

I can understand that the administration does not want to add to the debt of the Iraqi people. This isn't, as long as the prewar Saddam Hussein indebtedness is forgiven. We owe it to our taxpayers to be just as concerned about growing our budget deficit as we are about Iraq's deficit.

I hope my colleagues will join in support of this generous and fair amendment, recognizing that those who said an entity doesn't exist, that that argument just doesn't wash. If it exists for a grant, it exists for a loan. There are those who have said we are loading it up with debt. It is just the opposite. They have even cited post-World War I Germany with the debt that was added there. The intent here is to clear the debt, to clear it up so we put Iraq on a firm financial footing as it moves forward. All we ask is the help of the other nations.

This provides leverage to go to the donors conference and say: We are prepared to make a grant. We just want to make sure the debt that is existing prior to the war, the Saddam-era debt, is forgiven.

I appreciate the opportunity. It is a pleasure to work with my colleagues. I thank my colleague from Indiana.

Mr. President, I honor one of Nebraska's finest who recently gave his life in the line of duty. His service and sacrifice are an inspiration to us all and a reminder of the appreciation we have for our law enforcement officers and first responders.

Officer Jason Pratt began his career with the Omaha Police Department in 1996 at the age of 23. He served honorably for 7 years and 2 days before being tragically killed in the line of duty on September 11, 2003. During his years on the force, his commitment and energy were recognized several times by his fellow officers, community members and superiors.

In February of 1997, Officer Pratt began work as a patrol officer. By April of that year--less than a year on the job--members of the Leavenworth Neighborhood Association were already noticing Jason for the work he and his crew did in the area. Jason's dedication to service did not wane and in May of 2001, he was recognized by the Neighborhood Association again for his efforts.

Jason followed that service with a year in the vice squad, a division of the intelligence unit. During this time, he kept family areas, such as neighborhood parks, safer for our families. Finally, he also spent time in the emergency response unit, placing himself in extreme danger on numerous occasions by taking high-risk offenders off the street.

Officer Pratt will be well remembered for being an officer who always came as back up to help out other officers. In September of 2001, he assisted bike officers with a traffic stop that ultimately led to the suspect being booked on a number of felony charges. In another instance, in April of 2003, he was responding to a house fire where an adult and two children were trapped. Poor weather conditions delayed a second fire unit so Officer Pratt assisted firefighters in carrying gear up to the house. Because of his actions, there were no further injuries that day.

Officer Pratt lost his life while trying to make our city safer. His sacrifices, and those of his family, are another reminder of the risks taken by police officers across the Nation to keep our cities and towns safe. Americans honor their commitment and we stand shoulder to shoulder with them when one is struck down.

I am proud to have witnessed the outpouring of support for his family given by the people of Omaha. His two children, Madison and Jordyn, and his wife Stacy, have lost their father and husband and he can never be replaced. But the people of Omaha have shown again and again that they will do whatever necessary to help the Pratt family in the weeks, months and years to come. Officer Pratt will not be forgotten and all of Omaha will work to ensure his family is safe.

Jason Pratt died doing what he always wanted to do. He died protecting his and our community through public service alongside his friends and fellow officers. In his memory, those officers will continue to serve every day knowing that if he were still alive; he would be standing at their side. I join with my fellow Nebraskans in thanking Officer Pratt and his family for all they have given to us and pledging to remember his work and his life and the difference he made in our community.

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the upcoming birthday of two native Nebraskans--both fine educators, loving mothers, and devoted wives.

Veronica and Elizabeth Marron were born Oct. 14, 1933, to parents Harry and Pearl Marron, in Waterbury, NE. They were the last children of five, including Joe, Leonard and Gene. Fraternal twins, the girls were called Bonnie and Betty from childhood.

The twins graduated from Newcastle High in 1951, with Betty earning valedictorian and Bonnie salutatorian and Girls' State honors. Although just 17-years-old, both quickly earned teaching certificates and started work in Dixon County's country schools.

That was just the beginning of two lifetimes dedicated to education and twin, true passions for teaching. Both women taught for more than 30 years, with Bonnie ending her career at the O'Neill Public Schools and Betty at Falls City Elementary School.

Bonnie married Jim Lowe of Ponca and had four children, Peggy, Paula, Ann and Patrick. Betty married Phil Slagle of Falls City and also had four children, Scott, Todd, Jeff and Jay.

On October 14, 2003, Bonnie and Betty will celebrate 70 years of living ``the good life'' in Nebraska. I join their family and friends in wishing them a very happy birthday, and many more.

Mr. President, I would like to express my concern with a proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, that would threaten the ability of rehabilitation hospitals to continue to provide critical care.

In my home State of Nebraska, Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital in Lincoln is a nationally recognized premier rehabilitation facility that offers specialized programs and services for those who have suffered brain injuries, strokes, spinal cord injuries, and other rehabilitating injuries. If this proposed rule goes into effect, Madonna would not be able to offer the same critical care to its patients as it currently does.

When CMS first looked at whether facilities would qualify as an IRF, a list of criteria was created to determine eligibility. They current criteria, generally referred to as the 75 percent rule, were established in 1984 and have not been updated since then. To qualify as an IRF under the 75 percent rule, 75 percent of a facility's patients must be receiving treatment for one of 10 specified conditions. Because the rule has not been updated in almost 20 years, newer rehabilitation specialties are not reflected and, therefore, are not counted in determining facility compliance with the 75 percent rule.

Since the 75 percent rule was implemented, IRFs have argued that the list of conditions should be expanded to reflect advances in modern rehabilitation medicine. The need for new rehabilitation specialties to treat cardiac, pulmonary, cancer, and other conditions was not even foreseeable when the 75 percent rule was implemented. Yet CMS has repeatedly refused to update the rule--even after implementing a payment system that specifically recognizes many more conditions than the 10 listed in the 75 percent rule.

On September 9, 2003, CMS published proposed modifications to the outdated 75 percent rule. I commend CMS for recognizing the need to update the regulation. Unfortunately, I believe that the proposed changes do not go far enough and may have serious consequences for Medicare beneficiaries and other patients who need inpatient rehabilitative care.

On its face, it appears that CMS expanded the rule by increasing the number of conditions from 10 to 12 and by lowering the percentage threshold from 75 percent to 65 percent. However, this ``expansion'' is illusory. The proposed rule will, by CMS's own estimate, reduce Medicare payments to IRFs by $223 million annually and shift hundreds of thousands of patients--both Medicare and non-Medicare--into alternative care settings that may be inappropriate.

It is worth noting that Congress gave CMS a directive to implement the rehabilitation prospective payment system in a budget-neutral manner. Yet this rule--without any congressional directive--seriously cuts rehabilitation hospital funding.

Although CMS expanded the number of conditions from 10 to 12, it did so by replacing one of the existing conditions--polyarthritis--with three new conditions that collectively are much more narrow than the original condition. CMS acknowledges that the industry historically has understood hip and knee replacement cases to fall within the definition of ``polyarthritis.'' Unfortunately, CMS now proposes to count joint replacement cases only if the patient has made no improvement after an ``aggressive and sustained course of outpatient therapy.''

This means that, instead of being directly transferred from an acute care hospital to an IRF, the patient will be forced into a skilled nursing facility, SNF, and/or outpatient therapy before being eligible for inpatient rehabilitation. IRFs would become a setting of last resort, and patients who might have returned to function after a brief IRF stay will be forced to endure weeks if not months, of therapy in other settings that may be inappropriate before being admitted to an

Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleagues, Senators Akaka and Allen, for their efforts toward ensuring that young people in this country are able to access valuable mentoring services.

As Governor, I helped the mentoring program TeamMates of Nebraska-- which was started by former Nebraska football coach, now Congressman, Tom Osborne--expand statewide. From your personal experience, I know that, like any youth-development strategy, mentoring works best when measures are taken to ensure quality and effectiveness. Programs must carefully recruit, screen, and train prospective volunteers, and then support them throughout the duration of the mentoring relationship. Inadequate funding directly impacts a mentoring organization's ability to operate a high-quality program. I strongly believe that we should recede to the House numbers on mentoring, which would provide $75 million to help match young people across the country with mentors.

I'd like to share a quote from a Nebraska mentee, Ean Garrett. Ean is a participant in the ProPal Plus Mentoring Program in Omaha, Nebraska, and these are his own words:

Mentoring shows us that we don't have to live day by day,

that we live in a world full of opportunities. It teaches us

that with imagination and a lot of hard work, we can go as

far as we want. Mentoring helps us see that graduating from

high school is not an option; it is a requirement. And

mentoring helps us develop our skills so that we are

successful well-rounded people who are major contributors to

our community, our society, our country, the human race, and

the world. Thanks to ProPal Plus and my mentor, the American

dream is mine.

The chairman and ranking member have faced a lot of tough choices in crafting this bill, and I am pleased they were able to find an increase for mentoring. I do think Ean's words help us all understand why we must find more. I will end there and yield time to the distinguished chairman and ranking member.

Mr. President, it has become clear that welfare programs created in the 1960s to be safety nets became spider webs by the 1990s. The old welfare system provided monetary assistance but did not do enough to provide job training, education, and other paths towards self-sufficiency. The welfare reforms of 1996 changed the old system and gave States more freedom to attempt new and innovative approaches to move people from welfare to work.

This legislation expired last year, and Congress must look to enhance the successes of the 1996 law. I am pleased today to join Senator Carper in cosponsoring the Building on Welfare Reform Act--a bill that will continue to help people move from welfare to work.

During my time as Governor, Nebraska began programs like Employment First and Families First that provided much-needed assistance to low- income families and helped them find a way to leave the cycle of welfare dependency. The average time a family spent on assistance fell nearly two-thirds and Nebraska taxpayers saved $14 million.

The best path to self-sufficiency is work. This bill increases the percentage of welfare recipients who must work from 50 to 70 over the next 5 years. The bill also requires a 32-hour workweek from able welfare recipients. States will receive credit for moving people from welfare to work, not just off welfare. This will encourage States to solve problems that present an obstacle to meaningful work and lasting independence from public assistance programs.

Since 1996, welfare reform has been successful, not just because it requires work but also because it provides the resources to families to meet the work requirements. Our welfare reform proposal provides funding for childcare, transitional jobs, and public-private educational partnerships that will allow welfare recipients to gain the skills they need to advance in the workplace and become independent.

Because a strong family is essential to breaking the cycle of poverty, our welfare reform proposal encourages families to stay together and provides assistance to families who do. Another provision provides additional funds to prevent teen pregnancy with a bonus to States that meet this goal.

Given flexibility and resources, States have worked their own magic since the welfare program was revamped, and I will continue to support this approach as we embark on the next generation of welfare reform.

Mr. President, today it is my great honor to recognize three outstanding Nebraska students who recently were named Gates Millennium Scholars by the Bill and Melinda Gates Scholarship Foundation.

David Sanchez-Aparicio, from Oaxaca, Mexico, is the son of Benito and Juana Sanchez. Since he was a child, David's scholastic interest has been in computer technology. While a student at Lincoln High School in Lincoln, NE, David took part in the Information Technology Focus Program, specializing in computer programming, networking, and multimedia production. David played tennis and ran track, focusing on the 800-meter race. David also spent his time working at BryanLGH Medical Center in the cafeteria. In addition to rigorous coursework and extracurricular activities, David, whose mother passed away 2 years ago, has spent much of his high school career helping his father care for his younger siblings. David's teachers note that he is a quiet, yet diligent student who is dedicated to his studies and his family. David will attend the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in the fall where he plans to major in computer engineering.

Codah Gatewood, 18, is the youngest of three children and a member of the Navaho, Omaha, and Santee Sioux tribes. His parents are Edison Gatewood and Belva Gatewood. Since he was a young boy, Codah's primary academic interest has been architecture. As a child, he would create intricate buildings with Legos; at Lincoln High School, he learned to use computer-aided-design, CAD, in technical design and architecture classes before tackling advanced architecture and engineering. Codah won an academic letter during his senior year of study for his mastery in pre-calculus, differentiated physics, advanced architecture, and applied economics. In his free time, Codah volunteers at the Indian Center of Lincoln, assisting in powwows and dinners. He also likes to experiment with mobile electronics on his car, frequently updating his own website with his success in modifications. Codah's teachers describe him as a self-reliant and high-ranking scholar. For his commitment to academic excellence, Codah has also earned a University of Nebraska Davis Scholarship, awarded to the most academically talented racial minority students. He will attend the university this fall.

Huong Le, 18, came to Lincoln from Long An, Vietnam, 11 years ago with her parents, Vinh Le and Luong Nguyen, and sisters and brother. Long An is a small province in the Mekong Delta of South Vietnam. Huong spoke very little English when she arrived in Lincoln, but began to master the language while a student at Everett Elementary School. Huong was nominated for the Gates scholarship by her Lincoln High School chemistry teacher, who taught her a rigorous advanced chemistry course and saw promise in her passion for science. The following summer, Huong participated in a sophisticated research project, coordinated by the University of Nebraska, involving organic and biochemical processes of insects. While at Lincoln High School, she also played tennis for 4 years and was a member of the Asian Caucus, Upward Bound, and Youth Leadership Lincoln. Huong has also volunteered at the Lincoln Buddhist Temple, Lincoln Action Program and United Way. Huong plans to take English composition and calculus classes as part of the Summer of Promising Scholars Program. Huong will pursue a degree in pharmacy from the University of Nebraska.

The Gates Millennium Scholarships aim to reduce the financial barriers for African-American, Hispanic, Native and Asian-Pacific students with high academic and leadership promise. They also increase representation of minority students in the targeted disciplines.

The Gates Foundation will pay for the students to attend any college with any undergraduate major, and for a graduate education in mathematics, science, engineering, education, or library science.

I am proud to represent these promising young students who are dedicated to excellence in the classroom and in the community. I am confident that these talented leaders will excel at the University of Nebraska and beyond. The city of Lincoln and the State of Nebraska are fortunate to have these three students as part of their community.

Mr. President, Tom Allan wasn't born in Nebraska, but that didn't stop him from falling in love with my State or from making the entire State feel like part of his family. Tom traveled the highways and byways for over 40 years, seeing the beauty of Nebraska, making friends, and sharing his experiences through his often humorous and always insightful news articles. When he passed away recently there were Nebraskans in every city, town, and village that mourned him and fondly remembered their favorite Tom Allan stories.

Tom Allan was born in Scotland and moved to Nebraska when he was only 9 years old. After graduating from high school and Ottawa College he served his Nation honorably in World War II with tours in the Philippines and Alaska. He retired as a major in the Nebraska National Guard.

He began working for the Omaha World Herald in 1947 and became the paper's roving reporter in 1959. He traveled more than a million miles and wore out 20 cars while filing stories from every community in the State. He covered the occasional big news story, but Tom Allan specialized in simple stories that touched the heart. For readers in Omaha, Tom brought to life the unique people and small towns that can't be found on a map.

Tom Allan outran tornados, trekked through the Amazon jungle, and even stood in for a U.S. Ambassador in Finland. He covered the State fair with such regularity that he was honored with ``Tom Allan Day'' at the Nebraska State Fair in 1997. His humor and humility were clear when he wrote, ``I'd rather they'd just given me a fat-hog blue ribbon and let it go at that.''

In that same column Tom described his job as the privilege of discovering what is over the next hill and who is around the next bend in the road along the byways of Nebraska. On behalf of all Nebraskans, I would like to thank Tom Allan for the privilege of his company and for the wonderful stories he shared with all Nebraskans for over 50 years. We will always remember his love for the State of Nebraska, and we are grateful that through his stories he taught us about Nebraska and helped us understand ourselves.

Tom Allan passed away on June 27, 2003.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity today to speak regarding the Daschle amendment. First, I want to commend my colleagues from Iowa and New Mexico, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, for doing truly an outstanding job with putting together a package of legislation to deal with the challenges we have all met and continue to sort out relating to prescription drug coverage for seniors. I commend them for an outstanding effort.

In the midst of that commendation, I think--and others would admit-- that the pending legislation can be improved. I have yet to see a piece of legislation that could not have some amendment that at least some people would think would be an improvement.

In this particular situation, I think the area that we could improve is in making sure the rate differentials among the States is not extraordinary. Therefore, the Daschle amendment sets a 10 percent variation of the national average, so that a State would not have a rate that would be 10 percent above what that national average is. What this provides is protection that the rate differential between States such as New York and Nebraska are not going to vary more than 10 percent.

We all recognize if insurance is a focus to provide protection and stabilize across a broad base of individuals, to spread the costs and risks over that entire group of individuals, you will then have a rate that would be based on that spreading of the risk. This particular situation seeks to do that, but the spread of the risk seems to be more directed on a statewide basis, therefore giving the opportunity for a wide variation of rates between two States on a nationwide basis.

I think this amendment will correct that and will assure that people living in whatever State they may reside are not going to be paying a substantially higher rate than other individuals.

The proposed prescription drug plan promises an average premium of about $35 a month. But we cannot be sure that is a guarantee because just in the case of Medicare, managed care, Medicare+Choice, there is no set premium under the new prescription drug proposal. So all premiums will vary nationwide. Experience suggests that premiums could significantly--as they do with premiums for Medicare HMO plans--vary from $99 a month in Connecticut to $16 a month in Florida. Floridians might enjoy that, but residents of Connecticut might ask a question as to why we cannot have a balanced rate nationwide with variations of a much smaller amount.

Spreading the risk is what insurance is all about. I think spreading the risk in this case involves spreading the costs as well. I think I speak for many of my colleagues when I say we want to have a prescription drug benefit that is well balanced, meets the needs of those who are the neediest and the sickest, but provides a fair amount of coverage for all American seniors who qualify. It is my duty to make sure that what we provide, whether for Nebraskans or Floridians, is truly a spread of the risk and cost. We need to ensure that the premiums are priced both fairly and equitably and that geographic concerns don't price seniors out of the market for coverage in any location. That is what I think we must find as the focus as we move forward.

So, again, I commend my colleagues for putting together an outstanding package of benefits given the very difficult task of making the ends meet with $400 billion, but with needs that could exceed that several times over, putting together a package that I think truly represents what will take care of the prescription drug needs of our seniors. At the same time, we want to make sure the protection is also there against a wide disparity of rates from State to State. So I speak today on behalf of the Daschle amendment. I hope the people within this body will look at that and think about that in terms of their own States--not as to whether their State will get a better deal than others but where we all have an opportunity for an excellent deal and that the variations will be minimal at best.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the purpose of insurance is to help stabilize the market and spread costs and risk over an entire group of people. This amendment will help achieve that goal. It will reduce significantly the unpredictability of the premium and the unpredictability of the disparity of State premiums. It will bring certainty to the process. People will know that their rate cannot be greater than 10 percent of the national average.

If we are going to manage care, we need to manage competition as well. This is one way of being able to do it. Just such as in Medicare, the insurance companies here, providing the new drugs, would decide what premiums to charge seniors based on experience within the State. What we would say is they have to take into account the national statistics and data in determining the rates.

I think it will even it out, and the disparity between State 1 and State 2 will be significantly lower. Unpredictability will be reduced and the certainty that will be established will be beneficial to the people. It will give seniors peace of mind, as well, with the ability to pay and know what the future will bring.

Stability and predictability is important in this particular program. We hope our colleagues will take a look at this and understand that the difference in the rate in New York should not be significantly different than the rate in Florida or Nebraska or wherever we may reside.

I think we all have an interest in making sure this program works, that

it is sustainable, and, therefore, I ask colleagues to be supportive of this amendment. I think it is in the best interests of the insuring public, and, in this particular case, our seniors.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my congratulations to a Nebraska native son. This gentleman is among the many who honor our Nation through their service in our Armed Forces and I am very pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to him.

As our Nation faces threats abroad and our military men and women fight to keep us safe, it is important for us to never forget the sacrifices made in our defense. These men and women give up a great deal to protect our Nation and we owe them a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid.

Today, it is my honor to offer my heartfelt congratulations to one of their number, CAPT Gabriel Griess, a hometown Nebraska hero. Captain Griess is a proud member of the U.S. Air Force and he has recently been named the 15th Air Force Company Grade Officer of the Year for 2002. This was no easy accomplishment as the criteria for the award ensures that only the best of the best are eligible for consideration. To meet those criteria, Captain Griess had to show clear drive, pursuit of self-improvement, and involvement in base and community activities. Captain Griess met and exceeded all expectations.

He was awarded this title based on his dedication, leadership, and professionalism. Captain Griess' military history speaks volumes about the confidence placed in him by his superiors. He was deployed twice in 2002 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom; given missions such as tracking down al-Qaida leaders, and evacuating critically injured troops from combat zones. He provided support during Operation Anaconda by flying in critical supplies, destroying al-Qaida strongholds, and providing air support for ground troops. He has earned three Air Medals and two Aerial Achievement Medals for his valiant work.

But perhaps more importantly, he has won the respect of his peers. As an instructor navigator with the 317th Airlift Group at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, he is recognized as the ``go to'' guy, an officer who will work as part of the team to meet the challenges ahead.

As our military efforts continue in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other regions around the world, we rely on the men and women in uniform to make our Nation safe. With soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines of the caliber of Captain Griess, I can say with complete confidence our Nation is secure.

I congratulate Captain Griess on this recognition he has so deservedly received. It is truly an honor for him and his family.

Mr. President, today I would like to offer my best wishes and support for the beginning of a new organization--Mosaic. On July 1, 2003, Bethphage, founded in Axtell, NE, in 1914, and Martin Luther Home Society, founded in Sterling, NE, in 1925 will come together to form Mosaic. These two organizations bring decades' worth of experience to the field of developmental disabilities, and I applaud their previous efforts while looking forward to a successful partnership. I have enjoyed a great working relationship with Sharon Walters and Bethphage and appreciate the positive things they have brought to the State of Nebraska. Mosaic will be supporting and advocating for more than 3,700 people in 16 States with an annual budget of approximately $165 million. They also provide support in Great Britain, as well as participating in an international alliance called IMPACT. Congratulations, Mosaic.

Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to appear here with my colleague from Utah to say how much I appreciate the opportunity to cosponsor with him and others this very important legislation.

I should also say that when I went to the ranking member, Senator Leahy, a year or so ago and talked about how difficult an issue this was and how difficult it was becoming, he was gracious and granted a hearing, and he has worked very diligently to make certain this issue gets the kind of exposure it should. He has also worked toward finding solutions to it. Senator Dodd has also worked tirelessly on this issue, and they both remain very interested in finding a solution.

My colleague from Utah has outlined very clearly much of the statistical support for this kind of legislation. Historically, in the early 1970s, lawsuits against the asbestos manufacturers opened the door for victims suffering from asbestos-related diseases to be justly compensated for their issues, and they were.

When Johns-Manville--the largest asbestos manufacturer--filed for bankruptcy in 1982, there were fewer than 20,000 asbestos cases, most on behalf of individuals with severe asbestosis or mesothelioma--a vicious asbestos-related cancer. The system worked. Sick people and their families were given the financial security they deserved.

But then the system stopped working. A flood of cases overwhelmed it--some from individuals who were not yet sick but could potentially get sick in the future. We don't want to prevent these individuals from recovering down the road, but we also need to work toward allowing those who are sick now to recover now. With the current docket load, that just isn't happening. Over 90,000 new asbestos lawsuits were filed in 2001 alone, representing an increase of 30,000 from the previous year. However, the American Academy of Actuaries estimates that there are only about 2,000 new mesothelioma cases filed each year, another 2,000 to 3,000 cancer cases that are likely attributable to asbestos, and a smaller number of serious asbestosis cases. As a result, we need to work toward finding a way to address the lawsuits of seriously ill individuals immediately without eliminating the ability for those who may become sick in the future to have their case addressed at the appropriate time.

The unfortunate result of these tens of thousands of lawsuits is that people who are seriously sick and dying from asbestos must wait longer to recover less money than they deserve--if they can recover anything at all. After transaction costs and fees for both plaintiff and defense lawyers, only about one-third of the money spent on asbestos litigation will actually reach the claimants.

Moreover, as insurance is depleted and an increasing number of these defendants declare bankruptcy, it is inevitable that many asbestos victims who develop cancer in the future will go uncompensated, unless we take the action this bill will provide.

The economic fallout from this situation, though, extends beyond sick victims. Because every company that manufactured asbestos is now bankrupt, plaintiffs have been forced to seek alternative defendants to take their place. According to the Rand Institute for Civil Justice, 300 firms were listed as defendants in asbestos cases in 1983. But by 2002, Rand estimates that more than 6,000 independent entities have been named as asbestos liability defendants. More recently, another Rand Institute study has estimated that there is about $200 billion in pending asbestos claims. Many of these new defendants are small businesses located in every community across the country, with little or no actual connection to asbestos.

I have heard from scores of small businesses in my State--local hardware stores, plumbing contractors, auto parts dealers, lumber yards--and none of these businesses manufactured it. Many did not sell it or install it. But these businesses and the jobs they represent are at stake. They are now afraid that as primary asbestos defendants declare bankruptcy, they will be next in line for the thousands of cases being filed and their businesses will not, therefore, survive.

As the Wall Street Journal reported recently:

Lawsuits are now piling up against consultants, engineering

firms, plant owners, and maintenance and construction

contractors, all of whom are being blamed for workers'

exposure to asbestos.

Also, part of this litigation is now being targeted at insurance providers. As the same story states:

Many of the smaller [companies] lack resources to defend

thousands of lawsuits or pay huge verdicts. But the companies

do have one thing in common: plentiful insurance.

As the number of asbestos claims filed each year has nearly tripled in the last 5 years, the pace of asbestos-related bankruptcies has also accelerated dramatically.

Since 1998, more companies have filed for bankruptcy protection than in the previous 20 years combined; and in the first 7 months of 2002 alone, 12 companies facing significant asbestos liability went bankrupt--more than in any other 3-year period before 1999. Firms declaring bankruptcy since 1998 employed more than 120,000 workers prior to their filing, many of whom were significantly invested in their company's stock, pension, and 401(k) plans.

According to Fortune magazine, for example:

[A]t the time of the Federal-Mogul's bankruptcy filing [in

2001], employees held 16 percent of the company's stock,

which had lost 99 percent of its value since January 1999.

It was reported that Federal-Mogul employees lost over $800 million in their 401(k). Similarly,

[A]bout 14 percent of Owens Corning's shares--which lost 97

percent of their value in the two years before its filing--

were owned by employees.

I think we can all agree that those individuals with legal claims who are truly very sick need to be taken care of in the most timely and equitable manner possible. That must be our No. 1 priority. We must also work to ensure that those who are not sick now, but may become sick in the future, are not precluded from recovery and that there are still funds available for such a recovery.

Mr. President, this bill, as it is currently, begins the process of doing just that. And as indicated by my colleague, it is a work in progress. There are many opportunities yet to modify and to improve it as we go through this

process. That is what the hearing will be about, and that is what the negotiation would be about.

I am a strong believer that every American has a right to their day in court, but I also believe people dying of asbestos-related disease deserve just compensation for themselves and their families. Fortunately, we are coming closer to being able to restore balance to the system. The fund is in the process of being created that will, I hope, provide a pool of lasting benefits for those with meritorious claims. At the same time, this fund will spread the burden of the cost more evenly and ensure the financial impact will not solely be directed at some parties due to their ability to pay rather than their true liabilities.

There are a number of task that remain to be done, and we recognize that, and we welcome the opportunity to bring all those folks together to make sure we come together with the best possible bill that will do the best possible job for those who are truly sick and those who will become sick.

We are now at a time, I believe, when this issue can be and should be resolved, perhaps not once and for all, as some would hope, but for a good long while, giving us a chance to restore stability and certainty to a very uncertain issue.

While this may not be a perfect bill, as they say, we must not let our desire for the perfect become the enemy of the good. Much work remains to be done, but I hope the parties, the stakeholders, will come together and work with us to refine the bill.

I look forward to working with Members on all sides who truly are striving to ensure that those who have been injured the most have an opportunity to make their cases heard.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. I particularly thank Chairman Warner and ranking member Senator Levin for the extraordinary job they do each and every day to ensure our national security priorities are adequately addressed. I also thank them both for continuing to work in a bipartisan way to ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of the country.

As the new ranking member for the Personnel Subcommittee, I have enjoyed working with the subcommittee chairman, Senator Chambliss. I hope the President will take note of the complimentary remarks I am going to make about the chairman. I congratulate him for the outstanding leadership of this subcommittee. Together we have kept our focus on doing what we can to improve the quality of life of our service members, Active and Reserve, their families, our retirees, and civilian employees. I particularly appreciate his personal attention and cooperation with me.

I am particularly pleased about several provisions in the subcommittee mark that reflect our appreciation for the sacrifices of our service members and our desire to see they are adequately compensated when placed in harm's way. These include a minimum pay raise of 3.7 percent especially for the junior service members who have received less under the administration's proposal; a change in the high PERSTEMPO allowance that will actually put money in the pockets of our service members who deploy frequently; increases in imminent danger pay, family separation allowances and, as Senator Collins mentioned, the death gratuity; and authorization for full replacement coverage for lost or damaged household goods.

Our mark also includes provisions that address concerns and needs of our Reserve and National Guard service members who are serving so successfully. These include extending survivor benefit plan annuities to surviving spouses of reservists who died from an injury or illness incurred in the line of

duty during inactive duty training; a requirement for specially trained beneficiary counseling and assistance coordinators to help our National Guard and Reserve members and their families navigate the complex TRICARE health system; medical and dental screening and care for Reserve component members as soon as they are alerted for deployment; and a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to report on the mobilization of the reserves that will give us the data we need to make needed changes in the force mix and use of our Guard and Reserve personnel.

I am also pleased the committee responded to legislation I introduced to provide a special pay incentive for Reservists, National Guard, and Active Duty service members who deploy for long durations. This incentive will help alleviate some of the hardships suffered by military families when their loved ones are called up for lengthy or numerous deployments. With the Armed Forces depending on military reserves for such a large percentage of troops, more and more sailors, soldiers, air personnel, and marines are facing long call-ups that keep them away from their regular employment. These call-ups produce a severe financial hardship for the troops as their normal employment lives and income are disrupted, often for months, and in some cases for up to 2 years.

Finally, I fully endorse the supplemental impact aid contained in our mark. We simply have to ensure the schools that educate our sons and daughters of military personnel have adequate funding to provide for a quality education. Our service members will leave, and we will be unable to recruit if we don't provide this for their families.

I greatly appreciate the bipartisan manner in which the chairman, Senator Chambliss, has chaired the Personnel Subcommittee, and I believe we have worked as a team and with a common goal of improving the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, DOD civilians, retirees, and the families of all these groups. I thank him for his excellent leadership, and also thank his staff, Dick Walsh and Mrs. Lewis, and Mr. Gary Leeling from the Democratic staff.

I again thank Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their leadership.

I yield the floor.