Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me express my gratitude to my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, and his colleague from Indiana, Congressman Pence, and his colleague, Congressman Boucher of Virginia, who are drafting similar legislation and propose similar legislation in the other body and, of course, Senator Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, and the Presiding Officer for their work on pulling together this bill which is a very sound proposal. As the Senator from Pennsylvania has explained, it deals with an issue that many were concerned about, and that is the national security question.

The point I would like to make is that while this is about journalists and the collection of information and revealing stories that might otherwise not be told, the real winners of this proposal are not journalists or news media outlets, television stations, or the like. The real winners are the people we represent, our constituents, and the consumers of information. This is most important for them. It is really not that significant. If it were only about journalists, frankly, we might have second questions about it.

Jefferson, of course, said it better than anyone many years ago when he said if he had to choose between a free country and a free press, he would select the latter. Madison, on the same

subject, talking about freedom of information, freedom of the press, had this quote:

Popular government without popular information or the means

of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce, or tragedy, or

perhaps both.

Today, that fundamental principle--that a well-informed citizenry is the cornerstone of self-government--is at risk in a manner in which it has not been at risk previously.

In the past year alone, some two dozen reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned about their confidential sources. Most of theme face fines or prison time. Seven have already been held in contempt. One has been jailed. Another was found guilty of criminal contempt for refusing to reveal a confidential source and served 6 months under house arrest. Why? Because they received information from confidential sources and pledged to protect the confidentiality of those sources. In other words, they have committed the ``offense'' of being journalists.

These actions by our Government against journalists are having a profound impact on news gathering. For example, in testimony last summer before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Norman Pearlstine, the editor in chief of Time, Inc., said this about the fallout from the Justice Department's efforts to obtain confidential information from a Time reporter:

Valuable sources have insisted that they no longer trusted

the magazine and that they would no longer cooperate on

stories. The chilling effect is obvious.

Confidential evidence may be just the tip of the iceberg. We have no way of knowing for certain the number of journalists who have been ordered or requested to reveal confidential sources. We can only speculate as to how many editors and publishers put the brakes on a story for fear that it could land one of their reporters in a spider web spun by the Federal prosecutors that could include prison. If citizens with knowledge of wrongdoing could not or would not come forward to share what they know in confidence with members of the press, serious journalism would cease to exist, in my view. Serious wrongs would remain unexposed. The scandals known as Watergate, the Enron failure, the Abu Ghraib prison photos--none of these would have been known to the public but for good journalists doing their work.

That scenario is no longer purely hypothetical. It is, in some respects, already a reality. When journalists are hauled into court by prosecutors and threatened with fines and imprisonment if they don't divulge the sources of their information, we are entering a dangerous territory for a democracy. That is when not only journalists, but ordinary citizens, will fear prosecution simply for exposing wrongdoing. When that happens, the information our citizens need to remain sovereign will be degraded, making it more and more difficult to hold accountable those in power. When the public's right to know is threatened, then I suggest to you that all of the liberties we hold dear are threatened, as well.

Again, I thank Senator Specter for working out this compromise, and I emphasize that the issue of national security, which was a very legitimate concern, has been handled by this proposal. The underlying issue is the right of citizens to have access to important information that might otherwise never become available were it not for the ability to have confidential sources share that information and the ability of these journalists to protect the confidentiality of those sources. Thirty-nine States have provisions dealing with the shield law. I think 10 States have regulations regarding the same matter.

I think it is long overdue that the Federal Government have a similar piece of legislation to protect the kind of information we seek. I commend my colleagues for their efforts in this regard. I am happy to join them.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Reed, Clinton, Sarbanes, Akaka, Lautenberg, Kerry, Landrieu and Menendez to introduce the Student Bill of Rights. This bill would ensure that every child in America has an equal opportunity to receive a good education.

The Student Bill of Rights would achieve this goal by providing America's children with the key components of a solid education. These components include highly qualified teachers, challenging curricula, small classes, current textbooks, quality libraries, and up-to-date technology.

Currently, Federal law requires that schools within the same district provide comparable educational services. The Student Bill of Rights would extend that basic guarantee of equal opportunity to the State level by requiring comparability of resources across school districts within a State.

Over 50 years ago, Brown v. Board of Education struck down segregation in law. Over 50 years later, we know that just because there is no segregation in law does not mean that it does not persist. Today, our education system remains largely separate and unequal.

All too often, whether an American child is taught by a high quality teacher, has access to the best courses and instructional materials, goes to school in a new, modern building, and otherwise benefits from educational resources that have been shown to be essential to a quality education still depends on where the child's family can afford to live. In fact, the United States ranks at the bottom among developed countries in the disparity in the quality of schools available to wealthy and low-income children. This gap is simply unacceptable, and it is why the Student Bill of Rights is so important to our children's ability to gain the skills they need to be responsible, participating citizens in our diverse democracy, and to compete and succeed in the global economy.

Of course, factors besides resources are also important to academic achievement--supportive parents, motivated peers, and positive role models in the community, just to name a few. But at the same time, we also know that adequate resources are vital to providing students with the opportunity to receive a solid education.

This bill is entirely consistent with America's historical commitment to equal opportunity. That is why 42 Senators voted for similar legislation in the 107th Congress. On the other hand, it would be inconsistent with America's principles to tolerate an educational system that provides meaningful educational opportunities for just a select few.

The quality of a child's education should not be determined by his or her ZIP code. The Student Bill of Rights will help ensure that each and every child gets a decent education, and in turn, an equal opportunity for a successful future.

Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the Student Bill of Rights and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Reed, Clinton, Sarbanes, Akaka, Lautenberg, Kerry, Landrieu and Menendez to introduce the Student Bill of Rights. This bill would ensure that every child in America has an equal opportunity to receive a good education.

The Student Bill of Rights would achieve this goal by providing America's children with the key components of a solid education. These components include highly qualified teachers, challenging curricula, small classes, current textbooks, quality libraries, and up-to-date technology.

Currently, Federal law requires that schools within the same district provide comparable educational services. The Student Bill of Rights would extend that basic guarantee of equal opportunity to the State level by requiring comparability of resources across school districts within a State.

Over 50 years ago, Brown v. Board of Education struck down segregation in law. Over 50 years later, we know that just because there is no segregation in law does not mean that it does not persist. Today, our education system remains largely separate and unequal.

All too often, whether an American child is taught by a high quality teacher, has access to the best courses and instructional materials, goes to school in a new, modern building, and otherwise benefits from educational resources that have been shown to be essential to a quality education still depends on where the child's family can afford to live. In fact, the United States ranks at the bottom among developed countries in the disparity in the quality of schools available to wealthy and low-income children. This gap is simply unacceptable, and it is why the Student Bill of Rights is so important to our children's ability to gain the skills they need to be responsible, participating citizens in our diverse democracy, and to compete and succeed in the global economy.

Of course, factors besides resources are also important to academic achievement--supportive parents, motivated peers, and positive role models in the community, just to name a few. But at the same time, we also know that adequate resources are vital to providing students with the opportunity to receive a solid education.

This bill is entirely consistent with America's historical commitment to equal opportunity. That is why 42 Senators voted for similar legislation in the 107th Congress. On the other hand, it would be inconsistent with America's principles to tolerate an educational system that provides meaningful educational opportunities for just a select few.

The quality of a child's education should not be determined by his or her ZIP code. The Student Bill of Rights will help ensure that each and every child gets a decent education, and in turn, an equal opportunity for a successful future.

Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the Student Bill of Rights and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last Friday, May 12, marked the 30th anniversary of the oldest active Russian human rights organization, the Moscow Helsinki Group.

The creation of the Moscow Helsinki Group was announced on May 12, 1976, at a press conference called by Academician Andrei Sakharov, who later won the Nobel Peace Prize for his defense of human rights and his commitment to world peace. Formally named the ``Public Group to Assist in the Implementation of the Helsinki Final Act in the USSR,'' its members sought to monitor the Soviet Government's implementation of the historic Helsinki Accords.

At the initiative of Professor Yuri Orlov, a physicist by profession and a veteran human rights activist, the group joined together 11 committed individuals to collect and publicize information on Soviet violations of the human rights provisions enshrined in the Helsinki Accords. The group monitored fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of movement and freedom of religion, as well as the basic rights of minorities.

The group documented evidence of systemic human rights abuses and provided reports of Helsinki violations to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and the embassies of Helsinki signatory countries in Moscow. Additionally, these reports were widely distributed to Western correspondents. All together, the Moscow Helsinki Group published 195 numbered reports, along with numerous other documents, some of them in cooperative initiatives with other human rights organizations. These reports played a critical role in documenting the Soviet Union's failure to adhere to many of its Helsinki commitments.

The example set by the Moscow Helsinki Group inspired human rights activists elsewhere in the USSR. Helsinki monitoring groups were founded in Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia, and Armenia, and affiliated groups were also established to combat psychiatric abuse for political purposes and to defend religious liberty in Lithuania. As time went on, more brave individuals joined the Moscow Helsinki Group in its pursuit of truth and accountability.

However, regrettably, the Soviet Government had no intention of tolerating the ``assistance'' provided by the Moscow Helsinki Group in monitoring the Soviet Union's adherence to Helsinki commitments. The state-controlled Soviet press launched a campaign of slander against the group. By early 1977, the group's founders, Dr. Yuri Orlov and Alexander Ginzburg, a longtime activist who had earlier produced the celebrated ``White Book'' on the trial of writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel, had been arrested on political charges. Cyberneticist Anatoly ``Natan'' Sharansky and retired geologist Malva Landa were arrested shortly thereafter. Orlov was sentenced to 7 years in a labor camp and 5 years in internal exile. Ginzburg received 8 years labor camp and 3 years internal exile. Sharansky was sentenced to a total of 13 years in labor camp and prison, and Landa received 2 years internal exile.

Other members followed this path into the ``Gulag'' or were forced to emigrate. By 1981, KGB pressure had left only three members of the Moscow Helsinki Group at liberty in the Soviet Union, and they were forced to announce the ``suspension'' of their work. In 1984, one of those three, Dr. Elena Bonner, joined her husband, Dr. Sakharov, in forced internal exile in the closed city of Gorky.

Tragically, in December 1986, just as the Soviet political system was showing the signs of the exhaustion that would eventually lead to its collapse, Moscow Helsinki Group member Anatoly Marchenko died during a hunger strike at Chistopol Prison. Just over 2 months later, hundreds of known political and religious prisoners were freed from the Soviet prison system.

With the advent of Glasnost, the Moscow Helsinki Group was formally reestablished in July 1989 by a handful of Helsinki veterans, and several new members joined their cause. Today, the Moscow Helsinki Group continues to work to defend human rights in post-Soviet Russia. And while there have been dramatic changes in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the lure of authoritarianism still has a strong appeal for some in today's Russia.

Mr. President, on the occasion of its 30th anniversary, I congratulate the members and former members of the Moscow Helsinki Group, many of whom, sadly, are no longer with us, for their courage and fortitude in the struggle against tyranny. I wish the group continued success as they work to advance democracy, defend human rights, and promote a vigorous civil society.

Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to improve the way we measure the condition of America's economy. My bill, the Economic Indicators Commission Act of 2006, would establish a nonpartisan commission of experts to make recommendations concerning the appropriateness and accuracy of the methodology, calculations, and reporting of the government's economic statistics. I am joined in this effort by Representative Emanuel in the other body.

The statistics that describe our economy provide essential information and guidance for private market actors and public policymakers. Statistics like Gross Domestic Product, GDP, the inflation rate, and the unemployment rate help investors decide how to allocate their money, help entrepreneurs decide whether to start a new business, and help job-seekers decide where to look for new opportunities. Policymakers ranging from central bankers to elected officials rely on the same statistics to make informed decisions about monetary and fiscal policy and public sector investments.

Yet while we rely on these indicators, we know that they paint an imperfect picture. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, for example, reports two separate measures of employment, which, as many of us may remember, created some controversy in 2003 and 2004 when they provided conflicting assessments of our economy's health. The BLS's two series never match up perfectly, but at one point, one measure showed a loss of 1 million jobs since the recession's official end in November 2001, while the other reported an increase of 1.4 million. The 2004 Economic Report of the President called such a large and sustained divergence ``unprecedented.''

Ben Bernanke, now Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors,

described well the challenge of relying on imperfect indicators in a 2004 speech to the National Economists Club in Washington, DC. In the speech, Dr. Bernanke made light of a common analogy used to describe American monetary policy, which compares the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee to the driver of a car--the U.S. economy--who must decide whether to tap the accelerator or the brake in order to maintain proper speed. Dr. Bernanke offered a slightly modified comparison: ``[I]f making monetary policy is like driving a car,'' he said, ``then the car is one that has an unreliable speedometer, a foggy windshield, and a tendency to respond unpredictably and with delay to the accelerator or the brake.''

While our economic statistics will likely never provide perfect, real-time gauges of our economy's performance, that does not mean we should cease seeking to improve them. Chairman Bernanke's predecessor at the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, was known for his search for insight not only by reading economic data, but also by knowing its limitations and pushing for better ways to measure what was happening in the national and global economies. As Chairman Greenspan recognized in a speech to the American Economic Association on January 3, 2004, ``the economic world in which we function is best described by a structure whose parameters are continuously changing.''

Chairman Greenspan makes an important point. As our economy evolves, so too should our methods for measuring it. In a recent Business Week cover story, reporter Michael Mandel outlines one example of how modem features of the 21st century economy may be challenging the accuracy of traditional economic indicators. America's economy, Mandel argues, has become increasingly ``knowledge-based,'' driven by intangible investments in addition to the production of tangible goods. Intangibles, however, are notoriously difficult to measure, so as a result, our traditional indicators may be leaving out a growing portion of the economic picture. If intangibles truly are growing in importance, our statistics must better account for them in order to provide a full and accurate measure of economic activity.

Intangibles aren't the only economic factor that our current indicators may not capture accurately. Researchers in academic and public policy institutions have also questioned the way we measure poverty in America. They suggest that the government's use of ``reported household income'' as the primary measurement tool does not properly account for regional differences in the cost of living or noncash items such as food stamps. As a result, we may be systematically undercounting the number of Americans living in poverty, especially those living in high-cost areas. Mr. President, if we as a Nation are going to effectively fight the scourge of poverty, we must know where to aim and have the ability to measure our progress.

Properly accounting for intangibles and developing more realistic standards of poverty represent only two of the many challenges we face in improving the way we measure our economy. Public servants at each of our government statistical agencies, along with independent researchers, are working continuously and diligently to better the techniques for collecting and reporting information. But the challenge is to bring these efforts together in a larger, coordinated context, with the mission to fundamentally re-examine the way we measure economic activity and our progress as a society.

The legislation I introduce today, the Economic Indicators Commission Act of 2006, will achieve this goal. It establishes a nonpartisan panel of eight experts appointed by Senate and House leadership, in consultation with the chairman and ranking members of the Banking and Finance Committees in the Senate, the Financial Services and Ways and Means Committees in the House, and the Joint Economic Committee. The bill directs the Commission to consult with both users and reporters of data, such as the Federal Reserve and Council of Economic Advisers and the Commerce and Labor Departments, and report its findings and recommendations to the Congress within 12 months.

In order to formulate effective policy and improve market efficiency, we need a full and accurate picture of the economy. Our economic data has the power to literally move markets; it influences billions of dollars worth of investment and public policy decisions. The legislation I introduce today will help Americans make more informed decisions by improving these statistics. Going back to Chairman Benanke's joke about the analogy of the economy as a difficult-to-drive car, this bill will help drivers de-fog the windshield and upgrade the speedometer, for the benefit of all.

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

Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to improve the way we measure the condition of America's economy. My bill, the Economic Indicators Commission Act of 2006, would establish a nonpartisan commission of experts to make recommendations concerning the appropriateness and accuracy of the methodology, calculations, and reporting of the government's economic statistics. I am joined in this effort by Representative Emanuel in the other body.

The statistics that describe our economy provide essential information and guidance for private market actors and public policymakers. Statistics like Gross Domestic Product, GDP, the inflation rate, and the unemployment rate help investors decide how to allocate their money, help entrepreneurs decide whether to start a new business, and help job-seekers decide where to look for new opportunities. Policymakers ranging from central bankers to elected officials rely on the same statistics to make informed decisions about monetary and fiscal policy and public sector investments.

Yet while we rely on these indicators, we know that they paint an imperfect picture. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, for example, reports two separate measures of employment, which, as many of us may remember, created some controversy in 2003 and 2004 when they provided conflicting assessments of our economy's health. The BLS's two series never match up perfectly, but at one point, one measure showed a loss of 1 million jobs since the recession's official end in November 2001, while the other reported an increase of 1.4 million. The 2004 Economic Report of the President called such a large and sustained divergence ``unprecedented.''

Ben Bernanke, now Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors,

described well the challenge of relying on imperfect indicators in a 2004 speech to the National Economists Club in Washington, DC. In the speech, Dr. Bernanke made light of a common analogy used to describe American monetary policy, which compares the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee to the driver of a car--the U.S. economy--who must decide whether to tap the accelerator or the brake in order to maintain proper speed. Dr. Bernanke offered a slightly modified comparison: ``[I]f making monetary policy is like driving a car,'' he said, ``then the car is one that has an unreliable speedometer, a foggy windshield, and a tendency to respond unpredictably and with delay to the accelerator or the brake.''

While our economic statistics will likely never provide perfect, real-time gauges of our economy's performance, that does not mean we should cease seeking to improve them. Chairman Bernanke's predecessor at the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, was known for his search for insight not only by reading economic data, but also by knowing its limitations and pushing for better ways to measure what was happening in the national and global economies. As Chairman Greenspan recognized in a speech to the American Economic Association on January 3, 2004, ``the economic world in which we function is best described by a structure whose parameters are continuously changing.''

Chairman Greenspan makes an important point. As our economy evolves, so too should our methods for measuring it. In a recent Business Week cover story, reporter Michael Mandel outlines one example of how modem features of the 21st century economy may be challenging the accuracy of traditional economic indicators. America's economy, Mandel argues, has become increasingly ``knowledge-based,'' driven by intangible investments in addition to the production of tangible goods. Intangibles, however, are notoriously difficult to measure, so as a result, our traditional indicators may be leaving out a growing portion of the economic picture. If intangibles truly are growing in importance, our statistics must better account for them in order to provide a full and accurate measure of economic activity.

Intangibles aren't the only economic factor that our current indicators may not capture accurately. Researchers in academic and public policy institutions have also questioned the way we measure poverty in America. They suggest that the government's use of ``reported household income'' as the primary measurement tool does not properly account for regional differences in the cost of living or noncash items such as food stamps. As a result, we may be systematically undercounting the number of Americans living in poverty, especially those living in high-cost areas. Mr. President, if we as a Nation are going to effectively fight the scourge of poverty, we must know where to aim and have the ability to measure our progress.

Properly accounting for intangibles and developing more realistic standards of poverty represent only two of the many challenges we face in improving the way we measure our economy. Public servants at each of our government statistical agencies, along with independent researchers, are working continuously and diligently to better the techniques for collecting and reporting information. But the challenge is to bring these efforts together in a larger, coordinated context, with the mission to fundamentally re-examine the way we measure economic activity and our progress as a society.

The legislation I introduce today, the Economic Indicators Commission Act of 2006, will achieve this goal. It establishes a nonpartisan panel of eight experts appointed by Senate and House leadership, in consultation with the chairman and ranking members of the Banking and Finance Committees in the Senate, the Financial Services and Ways and Means Committees in the House, and the Joint Economic Committee. The bill directs the Commission to consult with both users and reporters of data, such as the Federal Reserve and Council of Economic Advisers and the Commerce and Labor Departments, and report its findings and recommendations to the Congress within 12 months.

In order to formulate effective policy and improve market efficiency, we need a full and accurate picture of the economy. Our economic data has the power to literally move markets; it influences billions of dollars worth of investment and public policy decisions. The legislation I introduce today will help Americans make more informed decisions by improving these statistics. Going back to Chairman Benanke's joke about the analogy of the economy as a difficult-to-drive car, this bill will help drivers de-fog the windshield and upgrade the speedometer, for the benefit of all.

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

Mr. President, I begin by thanking my friend and colleague from Iowa, chairman of the Finance Committee, and the Senator from Montana for the hard work they and their staffs put in on this legislation. These are not easy bills to deal with, either in this Chamber or the other. And getting through conference always poses a trying time for everyone. Regardless of what positions we take on the final product they present to us, we have a great deal of respect for the work they do. I commend my colleague from New Mexico, as well, for his fine comments this morning regarding this legislation.

It is sort of a nasty day in Washington weather-wise. I was noticing this morning a lot of our constituents from around the country are in the building to see their Nation's Capitol. We have a lot of students, a lot of people with families, and graduating classes that have come to Washington. I was trying to think how I might explain to these younger people, if asked--and I will be meeting with various student groups from my State of Connecticut later today--the $8.4 trillion in our Nation's debt.

What is $8.4 trillion? That is a big number. That is the size of our national debt as we gather here this day in May of 2006. The way I thought I could possibly explain it would be like this: Since they are in this building today, if these students would stand on the steps of the Capitol and hand out one-hundred-dollar bills, a one-hundred-dollar bill every single second, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the next 2,635 years, you would equal $8.4 trillion--a one-hundred-dollar bill every second, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the next 2,600 years. That is the level the debt has reached in the last 5 years under this administration and in this Congress. That is a staggering amount of money.

So when somebody says to you: What is $8.4 trillion, explain it to them in simple terms. I will hand out a one-hundred-dollar-bill every second for the next 2,600 years, every single day of the week, every minute of the day, and that is the national debt.

Now we are about to add $70 billion to that without paying for it. And the benefits don't even go to the average citizen. Quite frankly, very few of them get much at all. In fact, the middle 20 percent of income earners will get an average tax benefit of only $20. That doesn't even fill a car's gas tank today. Go to your local gas station and try to put $20 worth of gas in your car and find out how much you get. That is your tax break.

If you fall into the $35,000-to-$65,000 range of income, that is what you get out of this bill. So the benefits are very small and we're not paying for the bill, so it adds to the deficit and the national debt-- which is already staggeringly high. Frankly, we are disregarding very important priorities that we ought to be considering. With all due respect--and I know the managers tried their darnedest to get a better bill, and I know both of the gentlemen--this bill should be rejected. I don't know how we go back to our constituencies and explain that the fiscal irresponsibility of this Congress and this administration should dictate that we ought to allow our national debt to grow to the extent that it is growing.

So my hope is that when the vote occurs, our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, would say no to this; that we should go back and try again. This is not a good bill, and it will do a great disservice to our country.

What are we going to use the money for? Where is it going? We intend to use this money--this $70 billion that we are going to put on a credit card--by the way, of that $8.4 trillion, who do you think holds about a quarter of that mortgage? It is not held in America; $2 trillion of that debt is being held offshore in some countries that don't necessarily have the best interests of our country at heart. They are holding that mortgage, and we are going to give them $70 billion more, more than likely, or a good part of it, to be held offshore.

We have young men and women serving in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan who are putting their lives on the line. Are we going to pay for that? Of course not. Are we providing for the veterans who have come home who we know need significant help in health care? No. Are we going to invest in education? How many times do you have to read that we need to do a better job in education in our country if America is going to be able to compete in the 21st century? But no. Research and development? No. How about alternative fuels so that we are less dependent on foreign sources of energy? No. Or infrastructure? There is not a person anywhere who won't warn you that our roads, highways, sewage systems, and water systems are collapsing in many places, and we are doing nothing about replacing or maintaining them. None of this bill goes for that at all.

Under this bill, mainstream Americans--the middle 20 percent of income earners--will get an average tax cut of $20. I suspect that a lot of the people we saw arriving in our Nation's Capitol, walking the halls, would fall into that category. They are going to get about a $20 break in this bill. I won't go down this complete chart. But if you make less than $10,000, of course, you get no tax break. If you make $10,000 to $20,000, you get $2. If you are in the $20,000 to $30,000 category, you get $9. If you make $30,000 to $40,000, you get $16 in a tax break in this bill. If you make $40,000 to $50,000, you get $46. If you are in the $50,000 to $75,000 range, it is $110. I will jump ahead. If you are in the two-tenths of 1 percent of the population of this country that makes more than $1 million, you get a $41,977 tax break.

I don't agree with some of my colleagues and others who talk about a sort of class warfare, pitting those in the middle against those who make a lot of the money. I represent one of the most affluent States in the country on a per capita income basis. Connecticut is always listed near the top on per capita income. I have a sizable part of my constituency that do well financially and would benefit under this bill. As I stand here today, I will tell you that the majority of those people who do well in my State think this bill is a bad idea. They are not calling and writing and e-mailing and demanding that this bill be signed into law. They understand fiscal responsibility. They think it is a mistake for us to go deeper and deeper into debt, and to deliver little or no benefit for anyone other than those with incomes of over $1 million.

There are 146,000 people in this country in the top one-tenth of one percent

of income earners, who make more than $5 million a year on average. They get an $82,000 tax break under this bill; 146,000 people get an $82,000 tax break. How many of those people do you think actually need that tax break to make the kind of investments that the supporters of the bill envision? A tiny fraction, if any, would admit that this bill has any merit when it comes to growing our economy. I do know that a small percentage of our population gets a windfall here. The average citizen gets little or nothing.

We are not making the kinds of investments in our country that we ought to be making, and we are going deeper and deeper into debt. We in this generation are going to have an awful lot of explaining to do to coming generations, as to why we left such a mess on their doorstep as we go off into retirement and they are left trying to figure out how to pay these bills.

My colleague from North Dakota, and others, when we considered the bill on the floor, offered amendments to pay for these provisions. We lost them on party-line votes, pretty much. If you want to have a $70 billion tax break, pay for it, we said, but we lost. Pay-as-you-go proposals were made on this side of the aisle. They were rejected by the other side. Of course, we come back from the conference report with the House and the bill gets even worse.

Let me you show what happened. Senator Bingaman of New Mexico did this eloquently. Let me explain it again because it shows you the sort of fantasy world in which people are living. We have all kinds of priorities we need to address in the tax code, some of which were part of this bill when it went over from the Senate--provisions that provided for research and development tax incentives, electricity from cleaner fuels, energy-efficient home tax credits, solar investment, electric car credits, and so forth--reflecting what we are hearing from constituents: Do something about the dependency on foreign oil and the rising price of gasoline. That is what our constituents are asking us to do for the future. But we go to a conference and come back and we dump provisions like the R&D tax credit from the bill and fail to address the pressing energy issues. This bill addresses none of those priorities. Under previous legislation, we've taken care of estate tax relief and top marginal tax relief up until 2010. And now in this bill, we have, of course, capital gains and dividend tax relief in this bill, which have 2 more years on them. They are not going out of date in the next few months, or even the next year. Why not wait and see whether you really think you need to extend them further? Instead, we dump the very provisions to which the American people think we ought to pay attention, not to mention putting non-pressing capital gains and dividends tax benefits ahead of all these other items I talked about that the American people think are important.

So the R&D tax credit is gone. A chance to address the Alternative Minimum Tax for a more meaningful length of time is gone. How about the provisions for kids in college that allow their parents a deduction for tuition expenses? That got dropped from the bill. How many Americans would like tax relief when they are looking at the rising cost of a college education? It is very important to us as a country that those of you in the middle-income category in this country can afford to send your kids to college. We provided for that in the bill, and it got dumped in order to take care of the top two-tenths of 1 percent of income earners. Those were some of the ideas that we thought were important to send over to the other body.

As I mentioned, my colleague from North Dakota offered the amendment that would have paid for these tax cuts, but it was rejected.

Mr. President, I find this terribly disappointing. I wonder if anyone is listening at all. I am not suggesting that all of the wisdom in the world resides in one corner of this Chamber or the other. But I don't know how, when the debt is mounting at the rate it is, with debt being held offshore by countries who don't necessarily have our interests at heart, we are not investing in things that we ought to be investing in to make our country better prepared for the 21st century; how we are squandering our ability to prepare for the great challenges we will face economically in the 21st century. In the midst of all of that, we turn around and take up a tax bill costing $70 billion, which is unpaid for, the overwhelming majority of which goes to those who, frankly, don't need it or want it. And we do this at the expense of everything else we should be doing in our country.

Again, we are adding to that $8.4 trillion in debt. When you want to explain it back home, just say if you give away a one-hundred-dollar bill every second of every day for 2,600 years, you will get that number. How do you explain that in 5 years we have accumulated so large a portion of that debt, yet we are adding to it today with this irresponsible piece of legislation?

I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report when we have a vote later today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts and very quickly say to our good friend from Wyoming as well, I appreciate his interest in the subject matter and his concern about it. I want to point out to our colleagues why I am terribly disappointed with the procedures we have been confronted with this evening dealing with this legislation.

In committee we spent quite a bit of time and had some rather close votes, tie votes on a number of amendments that were not adopted to the underlying bill.

I raise two issues here in the very short time we have remaining. First is the process itself. This is the Senate. This Chamber historically is the place where debate occurs. To have a process here this evening on an issue where we have dedicated the entire week to health care and then to basically lock out any amendments that might be offered to this proposal runs contrary to the very essence of this body.

Whether or not you are impressed with the substance of this bill, if you believe the Senate ought to be heard on a variety of issues relating to the subject matter--when the amendment tree has been entirely filled, then obviously we are dealing with a process that ought not to be. Even if you are supportive of the bill, it seems to me the Senate ought to be a place where we can offer amendments, have healthy debate over a reasonable time, and then come to closure on the subject matter.

I am terribly disappointed. I know there are relevant issues and irrelevant issues. Members wanted to talk about things such as extending the time on the Medicare proposal. It is going to expire on May 15. That is not an unreasonable proposal, in a Health Care Week, when you are debating these subject matters. My colleagues wanted to talk about prescription drugs, to spend an hour or two out of the entire week to debate whether we ought to have a different proposal regarding prescription drugs. I don't think that is asking too much of this body, for one small debate about an issue that is so important to people. Even amendments designed to help small business would have been prohibited from being offered here as a result of this process. I am terribly disappointed that we are not going to have a chance to talk about this bill in a broader context where Members could bring their ideas to the debate.

The second issue deals with the substance itself. My colleagues ought to take note. The key word here is preempts, because this bill preempts our States--each and every one of us--from having the kind of health care benefits that have been debated and discussed and adopted by our respective States. We each have unique problems. I mentioned earlier this week in this debate, Lyme disease is a huge issue in my State. It originated and was discovered in the town of Lyme, CT. I live 2 miles away from Lyme, CT. People in my State are deeply worried about that issue. So the State of Connecticut in its wisdom adopted as part of its health

care plan a requirement that insurance cover Lyme disease.

I recognize that may not be an issue in the State of some other Member. But we ought to allow Connecticut and every other of the 49 States to decide how they can best serve their constituents, their people, when it comes to health care coverage. This bill preempts my State from deciding whether they can cover certain problems that are unique to my part of the country.

And second, of course, we preempt the States when it comes to setting any kind of rating rules. That is a critical issue because even if you have a comprehensive plan, if you allow the industry to price those products way beyond the reach of the average person, then de facto they are eliminated. So we preempt them on what they can cover and we preempt the States from determining what the prices ought to be for the insurance products that will be sold.

I point out to my colleagues, not a single Governor has supported this bill. Not a single attorney general, not a single insurance commissioner. Over 200 health care organizations have said this bill is flawed and it ought not to be approved.

We are urging our colleagues to reject this proposal. Listen, if you will, to what a business organization in my State had to say about this bill. The Connecticut Business and Industry Association represents 5,000 small businesses in the State of Connecticut. They said:

We believe that in Connecticut federally certified AHPs

would destabilize the small business insurance marketplace,

erode carefully crafted consumer protections and raise

premium rates for small businesses with older workforces and

those that employ people with chronic illnesses or

disabilities.

That is a business organization representing 5,000 small employers. This is not an organization that says those words lightly.

For those reasons, for process and procedure, as well as preempting state benefits and rating rules, this bill ought to be rejected. I urge my colleagues to do so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes. Senator Kennedy is

not here right now, but pursuant to previous agreement, I would like to be notified when 15 minutes expires so I can conclude my remarks in the 20 minutes.

I spoke yesterday about this legislation. I want to begin by saying to my friend from Wyoming, the chairman, I have a great deal of regard for him. I have enjoyed working with him on the HELP Committee. We do a lot of work together. I have enjoyed that relationship. It is with a note of sadness that I disagree with him about this bill. We had a lengthy markup. He was very patient to listen to all of our ideas and the amendments we offered during the markup. I appreciated his willingness to do so. But as happens from time to time, we have disagreements. They are not personal. They are ideas on which we have a different point of view. Today is one of those occasions. These remarks are in no way intended to denigrate the work of the chairman of the committee or those who agree with him.

There are those of us who believe strongly that this proposal would do a lot more harm than good, that, in fact, the cure being proposed with this legislation creates far more problems than presently exist, as bad as the present situation is. We know, as a matter of fact, that over the last 3 years, the premium cost for health care has risen: 9 percent in 2005, 11 percent in 2004, 14 percent in 2003. These costs continue to rise. A family of four today is paying about $11,000 in premiums for health care coverage. The problem is significant.

I regret in some ways--and this is not the fault of the chairman of the committee--that we are not debating in a broader sense how we might address the far more significant issue, as important as this one is, when we have 45 million fellow Americans with no health care coverage at all. I regret that we are not having a larger debate on that issue.

Secondly, I believe it is a legitimate issue to raise the issue of how small business is dealt with when it comes to insurance. In the next 2 days, we will offer a substitute to the proposal authored by the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Wyoming, that we believe will deal far more thoroughly with the legitimate issues that smaller businesses face. In fact, we redefine small business to mean businesses not with 50 employees or less but 100 employees or less, thereby covering more small businesses than would be covered by the legislation before us.

The problems are huge in the area of health care. If you do surveys of the American public and ask them to identify what are the largest concerns they have, if not the No. 1 issue--from time to time other issues may be more important to people--consistently year in and year out, people will tell you their great concern is about the fear of watching a family member or themselves be hit with a major health care crisis and not having the resources to pay for it, not being able to get the doctors, not being able to have the kind of care they would want for their families because they cannot afford the premiums that would provide them broader coverage, if they have any kind of coverage at all. They may not have any kind of health care. This is a major problem. We ought to be spending a lot more time addressing this issue than we are.

Having said that, let me talk about this proposal. I am deeply worried about it. It isn't just my concern. Many Governors, more than three-quarters of the attorneys general of the States which we represent, not to mention the health insurance commissioners of many States, have raised very serious concerns about this legislation. They are very worried about what this bill will do to their constituents, the States that we represent as Senators.

Let me share a letter from the Connecticut Business and Industry Association. This association represents 5,000 small employers in my State. This is not an organization that is known for its liberal tendencies. Quite the contrary, it is a very conservative business group. Listen to what my business group that represents the small businesses of my State has to say about this bill.

We believe that in Connecticut federally certified AHPs

would destabilize the small business insurance marketplace,

erode carefully crafted consumer protections and raise

premium rates for small businesses with older workforces and

those that employ people with chronic illnesses or

disabilities.

The letter goes on to say:

Although the passage of AHP legislation would present us

with opportunities to expand our CBIA health connection's

product customer base as a regional offering, we do not

believe that the proposed legislation represents a sound

public policy for providing more affordable coverage or

access to health care benefits. The proposed legislation does

little to address the underlying causes of health care

inflation, which is the most important barrier to small

employers providing health care benefits.

That is a strong letter from an organization that represents 5,000 small employers in the State of Connecticut. They are worried about what this bill will do to smaller employers in my State in terms of their costs. They are deeply worried about this legislation and what it may mean.

Let me also share with my colleagues a second chart. This was a chart that was produced by Families USA, with estimates from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, a medical expenditure panel, and from the U.S. Census Bureau. It tells us the number of people that will be losing State regulatory protections if this bill is passed. What we are doing is shrinking the amount of benefits that can be offered. In my State, we offer a range of 30 different benefits--that was passed by my State legislature--that insurance companies must cover. If you are going to do business in my State, then you have to provide coverage for these 30 areas that we believe are important.

I note this morning an editorial in the Wall Street Journal that criticizes those of us who have raised issues about this bill. They say in one paragraph:

Some provider groups are opposed for nakedly self-interest

reasons since it would allow plans to bypass state

regulations mandating coverage for, say, chiropractors.

Chiropractors provide some decent services to people. But with all due respect, I would suggest that it is a lot more than chiropractors who get bypassed with this legislation. It is things such as diabetes, cancer screening, infant health care, mental health care, pregnancy, Lyme disease, to mention a few. I know several of my colleagues have had family members affected by Lyme disease. My State thinks that is an important area to provide coverage. This bill would eliminate coverage for Lyme disease because this legislation would mandate that Federal law would supersede State law. Regardless of what your State thinks is important, this bill will decide what will be covered. Everything else goes. That is an overreach, in my view. As a result, the analysis of the legislation presented on this chart suggests that in the State of Alabama, 1.7 million people who would be adversely affected if this legislation is passed. In Connecticut, more than a million people would lose benefits that the State legislature requires the insurance industry to cover. In State after State, the numbers are at least in the six-figure category. In California, 12 million people would be adversely affected, Kentucky over a million people, Kansas over a million people, Illinois almost 4 million people, and the like.

I will leave this chart so my colleagues will be able to see how many people will be affected in their States, according to data collected by those who have examined what it would mean to a Federal mandate that tells every State in the country: We don't care what you have done, we don't care what benefits you think are important, this bill will tell you what kind of coverage you are going to have.

We also prohibit the States by preempting their ratings rules, which is my second point. This legislation preempts the States from having rating rules that will actually determine what the difference in cost would be between young and healthy workers and older, sicker workers, to make sure they are not going to price the product so beyond the reach of an older, less healthy person that it would be unaffordable. It is de facto exclusion if you allow the insurance industry to set that price by preempting the States from determining whether there ought to be a cap on how much an insurance company can charge. By limiting benefits and by preempting the States from determining rates and holding them down,

we make it very difficult for literally millions of people to be positively affected by this legislation.

Those are the two major concerns we have. There are other areas that we will certainly raise. I mentioned earlier in my State, more than a million people will lose access to cancer screening, well childcare, diabetes supplies, alcoholism treatment, mental health care, the treatment for Lyme disease, to mention some. The list goes on with my State.

In addition to seeing their benefits disappear, millions of Americans will see their health insurance premiums skyrocket as well. This bill preempts State laws that currently protect older workers, those with serious illnesses such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease, even expectant mothers, from seeing their premiums increase. This bill will allow the insurance industry to charge people more based on the fact that they are sick or pregnant or simply older.

I have many insurance companies in my State, as my colleagues know, that do a wonderful job in many ways. But don't have any illusions about this. They are going to be offering as few benefits as they can get away with and charge as much as they can. That is what they are in business for. This is not the Vista Program or AmeriCorps. These are private companies. If we give them a green light to limit the benefits you can provide and take the caps off what they can charge, then, obviously, they are going to take advantage of it. I am greatly concerned, as the major business organization in my State warns. When the Connecticut Business and Industry Association says this bill would hurt the businesses in my State, we ought to take note of it. This organization has a strong record of protecting the interests of smaller businesses.

It doesn't take an expert to predict what will happen. Insurance companies are going to offer plans with minimal or no benefits, hoping to attract young and healthy workers. Older, sicker people are going to be left without a plan that meets their needs. Every analysis of this bill reaches the same conclusion.

Listen to what the Congressional Budget Office says. They found the bill ``would tend to reduce health insurance premiums for small firms with workers who have relatively low expected costs for health care and increase premiums for firms with workers who have relatively high expected costs.

In other words, instead of attacking the real problem, the rising cost of health care, this legislation would simply shift costs to small businesses with older and less well workers.

In fact, another study commissioned by the supporters of this legislation concluded this bill ``is not going to address the underlying causes of high health insurance premiums, which are high health care costs.''

Again, Governors, State attorneys general, the State insurance commissioners have all reached the same conclusion, as have an enormous number of groups representing health care providers and patients. All of them say the same thing. They all can't be wrong. When your Governors, attorneys general of the States, insurance commissioners, not to mention almost every single health care group in the country warns about the passage of this bill, then we ought to take note of it. When you hear that you will have literally millions of people losing benefits passed by State legislative bodies that require the insurance industry to cover them, then we ought to take note of that as well.

I know my colleagues will be offering amendments to allow lifesaving stem cell research to go forward, to strengthen Medicaid, reduce prescription drug prices, and ensure access to mental health care. I look forward to having an opportunity to debate those amendments, many of which I will be supporting. We should also consider an amendment to extend the Medicare prescription drug plan enrollment deadline which is causing a huge problem. These are the kinds of issues that ought to be part of our debate today. Medicare beneficiaries have only until this coming Monday, May 15, to enroll in a prescription drug plan, if they are to avoid financial penalty. Why don't we take that as an amendment and extend that time to allow people to come forward. As we are all aware, for many of the Nation's 41 million Medicare beneficiaries, the new prescription drug plan offers more confusion than assistance and, frankly, extending that date would make sense.

I intend to offer an amendment to protect newborns and children from the damage inflicted by this legislation. Right now, 25 states have enacted mandates requiring insurers to provide benefits to the children of their enrollee; 31 States require insurers to cover the cost of childhood immunization.

I am going to ask my colleagues to support language that would see to it that newborns and children are protected in every State, instead of allowing the insurance industry to pick plans that would exclude child immunization and well-child care.

This legislation would completely preempt these State laws, leaving babies and children unprotected. That is a major step backward. Instead, families will be faced with health insurance that doesn't cover routine care for children. They might be forced to pay out of pocket, drastically driving up health care costs, or to forego care entirely. My amendment would ensure that those State laws not be preempted by this Federal mandate that we are about to adopt.

I will also offer an amendment that would prevent health insurers from deciding how much to charge a person for health insurance based on how healthy they are. That is something we have done across the country in State after State.

Many States, including my own, have laws preventing the insurance industry from charging more based on health status. Unfortunately, this legislation would remove those State protections. It would allow the insurance industry to charge more based on health status. We ought to make sure we don't allow that to occur in this bill.

Without these protections in place, it just makes good business sense for an insurance company to increase premiums for people with diabetes, HIV/AIDS, cancer survivors, pregnant women, or anybody with health needs that are outside of the ordinary. As a result, the people who need insurance the most will find they would be the first to lose it.

Finally, I will offer an amendment to protect those patients that admirably choose to participate in clinical trials from undue costs resulting from their routine care. Currently, 19 States, including my own State of Connecticut, have enacted mandates requiring insurers to provide coverage for routine patient care costs while those patients are participating in potentially lifesaving clinical trials. But this legislation, as crafted, would completely preempt these State laws, leaving patients without needed coverage for items such as blood work and physician visits. And this legislation would preempt States like mine that provide benefits for people who are willing to become part of a clinical trial.

Clinical trials save lives. Just 50 years ago, less than one in four women with breast cancer survived for 5 years or more. Compare that to today when 96 percent of women with localized breast cancer reach the 5-year mark. This legislation would create a powerful disincentive to patients weighing the option of whether to participate in a clinical trial. Tragically, we know that only 3 percent of adults suffering from cancer participate in clinical trials. Compare this to the 60 percent of children with cancer that enroll in a trial.

Mr. President, there are a number of amendments we would offer to try to improve this piece of legislation. While I respect the intent of the authors, the bottom line is that it would do great damage to the gains that have been made in State after State across the country, by controlling the costs of premiums and seeing to it that benefits are offered to people out there. The States made these decisions, and the insurance industry, if they want to do business in their States, should comply.

This legislation would mean that the Federal Government would wipe out protection in State after State that has provided for the protection of its people--listen to your Governors, your attorneys general, your health commissioners, insurance commissioners; listen to the groups out there that pay attention to this kind of legislation. Listen to the business groups that have warned what this would do to smaller businesses across the country.

Mr. President, I hope that when the appropriate time comes, we will either adopt amendments that will improve the bill substantially or, more important, adopt the substitute that will be offered by Senator Lincoln of Arkansas and Senator Durbin, which would allow people to have the same kind of benefits each and every one of us have as Members of Congress, as part of a Federal health benefit program here that allows for the pooling of people, that would cover 100 employees or less, far beyond what this bill would cover with 50 or less. It would not mandate that benefits provided by States be eliminated, and it would not preempt the States from setting caps on premiums when it comes to older and sicker workers. That is the way to go.

If you really want to make a difference, why don't we adopt this alternative. That would be a major gain for smaller businesses and people who work with them. I understand this is an important issue. Small businesses could use help, but we are not helping them with this bill, with all due respect. We can help them if we take the right steps.

I urge my colleagues to adopt the alternative, or at least improve the bill with the amendments we will be offering in the next few days.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elizabeth Hoffman, a fellow in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate on this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to voice my concern about the current debate we have begun on the floor of this body. This is the fourth time that we in this Chamber have devoted floor time for legislation to restrict the rights of those injured by medical malpractice. Once again, this bill is being considered without any committee consideration whatsoever, without any hearings examining this question, and without any attempt to enter into meaningful negotiations with the minority over our very legitimate concerns about this legislation. So to begin with, we are going to take a week of the Senate's time to debate a piece of legislation which has not been considered by committee, has had no hearings and no effort to try to reach any kind of a compromise position on critical legislation dealing with medical malpractice.

I have always believed that the best public policy comes out of consensus, when we work together as Democrats and Republicans, not when one side tries to dictate to the other exactly what we are going to have to accept or reject. By bringing together a broad coalition of people, we can and have on many occasions enacted laws and made sure they work as they ought to. Yet, too often these days, we are seeing tactics meant to divide rather than to reach any kind of consensus at all--tactics, in my view, which have no place in our system of governance and which will undoubtedly lead to bad public policy, if any public policy at all.

I come to this medical liability debate with no prejudgments about the merits of the claims of those who support this legislation. I have never shied away from legal reform when warranted, and most of my colleagues know this. In the past, I have supported reform to class action litigation, securities litigation, asbestos litigation, Y2K litigation, and the list goes on. In each and every one of those instances, I worked with Republicans and other Democrats to fashion compromise consensus legislation. We did it on class action, we did it on asbestos, we did it on securities litigation, and I was pleased to do it with my colleague from Utah, Bob Bennett, on Y2K legislation. Yet on this occasion dealing with medical malpractice, no effort is being made at all to reach any consensus. No hearings, no committee work, just take it or leave it with legislation that is seriously flawed.

I have also opposed legal reforms when I believed it was unwarranted, such as reforms that effectively inoculate gun manufacturers and sellers from essentially any and all liability, and I say that as a Senator representing a State with the largest number of gun manufacturers in the United States, and one of the largest gun manufacturers in the world. They are wonderful people. I respect them immensely. But the idea that we would take an entire industry and excuse it even from the worst kind of negligence made no sense to me whatsoever.

A recent proposal to shield vaccine manufacturers from responsibilities for the safety and effectiveness of their products was something I opposed as well, since it made no sense to me whatsoever.

The two bills we are going to consider this week--one to cap noneconomic damages for all medical malpractice cases and one to cap damages in cases involving women and children--fall into the latter category. These are unwarranted proposals, they are unfair, and they are terribly unwise.

I could quote facts to let my colleagues know how troubled I am about these proposals. The point is very simple. The pillars upon which the supporters of this legislation rest their arguments are deeply flawed. As we heard our colleague from New York, Senator Pat Moynihan, say on numerous occasions: Everyone in this Chamber is entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts.

The facts here are very clear. The fact is the magnitude of this crisis regarding medical malpractice has been drastically overstated. The number of physicians in the United States increased from 814,000 to 885,000 between the years 2000 and 2004, and the number of OB/GYNs increased from 40,000 to 42,000 in the same period, while the birth rate was in decline in many States.

What we normally hear is we are losing physicians, people are leaving the profession, OB/GYNs are packing up and moving on to other professions. The fact is there are more OB/GYNs today than there were in the year 2000.

We should be looking to rein in health care costs, but the supporters of this proposal are looking in the wrong place, in my view. The fact is, liability premiums account for less than 1 percent of health care costs. Let me repeat that. Liability premiums account for less than 1 percent of health care costs, and yet, when we hear this debate this week, we will hear numbers that bear no relationship to the facts.

The fact is that the number of claims and the value of jury awards have not spiked, as some suggest. Between the years 2001 and 2004, the number of claims filed actually decreased by almost 14 percent, and the amount that defendants and their insurers are paying for medical malpractice claims, including jury awards and settlements, has not increased in relationship to medical inflation.

The fact is that those States which have adopted caps have seen greater increases in premiums than States without caps. Let me repeat that. In those States which adopted caps, they have seen a greater increase in premiums than States without caps. Seven of the 10 States with the highest premiums already have caps. In 2003, premiums actually increased by 17.1 percent for OB/GYNs in States with caps, compared to a 16.6-percent increase in States without caps on these awards. In 2004, the average premium for physicians in States with caps was $46,733. The average premium in States without caps was $42,563. So, if anything, the evidence suggests the caps on patient damages actually correspond to higher insurance premiums for doctors.

Again, these numbers are high. Premiums that are $46,000 or $42,000 are extremely large. But if we are going to address the problem, then we ought to address the cause of why these premiums are so high.

I could continue to quote a number of these facts to underscore my point, but I think the point is very simple. Again, the facts which the supporters of this bill rest their arguments on are flawed. Again, they are entitled to their opinions but not their facts.

The number of practicing physicians is on the rise. The number of medical malpractice claims is actually falling. The amount of awards to victims actually lags behind inflation. Malpractice premiums in States with caps are higher than in States without caps. Those are the facts. And based on this evidence, we are being asked to limit the rights of injured patients. The facts fail utterly to dictate such a conclusion, in this Senator's opinion.

But if neither the number of claims nor the amount of malpractice awards can explain rising premiums, then what is the explanation? What is going on? According to several analysts, the increase in premiums does, in fact, correlate with fluctuations in the stock market and interest rates.

One recent study showed premiums closely tracked insurers' economic cycles. During good economic times, insurers slashed premiums to attract as much business as possible. This is because every new policy brings in an additional so-called float, money to invest in a booming market. However, when the market turns, the investment returns are weak, as has happened in the last few years, and insurers raise their rates or, in some cases, leave the market altogether. When this happens, of course, the result is often a crisis in the availability and affordability of insurance. This is what we have seen over the past several years. In fact, with markets showing some improvement, the evidence suggests today that premium increases are slowing dramatically.

The idea of placing caps on noneconomic damages is also unfair. One of the bills we are considering today seeks to limit the legal rights of a very specific segment of our society, and that is women and newborns.

It is important to remember that this bill is going to affect those who have actually been injured by malpractice. This is not just anyone who has a bad outcome, but malpractice. An individual has been accused of malpractice. A jury has already decided that they are eligible to collect noneconomic damages, that malpractice has occurred. Somebody has messed up terribly and caused a woman or a child to suffer. That conclusion has been reached. Now we are saying we are going to put a cap on that damage and limit it only to economic damages. We are essentially telling women and infants that their injuries and the suffering they experience as a result are not worth as much as the injuries and suffering of other people in this country.

We are going to single out women and children for special consideration, and that is to say: You have been damaged because of malpractice, and here we are going to make it almost impossible for you to collect any damage beyond economic damages.

Furthermore, these bills do not take into account the extent of injuries and the costs thereof. As a result, they will hurt the most seriously injured, those who might receive a noneconomic damage of more than $250,000 were it not for this arbitrary cap.

Finally, this legislation is terribly unwise, in my view. Reasonable litigation provides accountability. When health care providers make mistakes, they should be held accountable. Placing a cap on noneconomic damages simply removes the incentive for the health care system to improve quality and patient safety, and it does so with no guarantee that there will be any reduction in doctors' medical malpractice premiums. In fact, time and time again, insurance companies have refused to commit to lowering premiums, even if a cap is enacted.

Last year, for instance, a spokesman for the American Insurance Association said:

We have not promised price reductions with tort reform. Six

months after Texas enacted a cap like the one we are

debating here today, one insurer in that State tried to

raise premiums by 19 percent, arguing that noneconomic

damages are a small percentage of total losses paid.

Capping noneconomic damages would show lost savings of 1

percent or less.

I just have a few more comments to make on this issue. I realize I am extending my time. I see my colleague from Kentucky and my colleague from Tennessee are here. Let me just wrap up, Mr. President, and take a minute, if I can.

There are other things we need to be doing. Information technology in health care would be a major step forward. I have supported almost every major tort reform piece of legislation here in the last 10 years. I have done it on securities litigation reform. I did it on class action. I was willing to do it on asbestos and on Y2K legislation. In all of those cases, we worked out compromises to make sure that what we were doing would make sense.

This bill makes no sense whatsoever. The facts show that there is no justification for moving in the direction we would be with this piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal and come back with a piece of legislation that really would make a difference.

If we really want to reduce these kinds of costs, there are steps that can

be taken to allow us to do it. But with this bill, the number of doctors is increasing, the number of OB/GYNs is increasing. States with caps are watching premium costs go up, and States without caps are watching premium costs go down--the exact reverse of what we are claiming we would accomplish with this legislation. The details of my statement make that clear.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion but not facts. The fact is, we are going in the wrong direction with this bill. I urge my colleagues to step back, allow for some hearings to go forward, allow for people to sit down and look into things as we did with class action, as we did with Y2K and asbestos litigation. With those bills, we put together and produced good legislation. This bill is nothing like that and does not deserve to be on the floor without that kind of work.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the memory of Marine LCpl Stephen Bixler, of Suffield, CT, who was killed last week while serving our Nation in Iraq. He was 20 years old.

Tragically, Corporal Bixler's life was cut short when an improvised explosive device detonated while he was on patrol in Iraq's Al Anbar province. He was on his third tour of duty with the Marine Corps, having served previous tours in Haiti and Iraq. His heroic service is remembered today by a grateful nation.

Service and leadership. These are the traits that best defined Stephen Bixler--as a talented runner on his high school cross-country team and as senior patrol leader in Boy Scout Troop 260. He was awarded the rank of Eagle Scout after working hard to improve the Jesse F. Smith Memorial Forest. He decided early on in high school that he wanted to serve his country, and shortly after graduating in 2003 he joined the Marines.

Stephen returned home during the holidays last year and took the time to speak to students at his former high school about his experiences overseas and his pride in serving his country. Friends remember him as an intelligent, dedicated young man who was truly patriotic and possessed a self-confidence and leadership ability beyond his years.

All of us in Connecticut and across America owe a deep and solemn debt of gratitude to Stephen Bixler and to his family for his tremendous service to our country. On behalf of the United States, I offer my deepest condolences to Stephen's parents, Richard and Linda, his twin sister Sandra, and to everyone who knew and loved him.

Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment, No. 3755, to this Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill to provide for full funding of the Help America Vote Act. However, once cloture was invoked, my amendment would have been ruled non-germane and consequently, I will not call it up.

But the parliamentary circumstances of this bill do not change the fact that we have reached a critical juncture in the ability of States to be prepared for Federal elections this November.

The amendment I intended to offer would have ensured that States have

the resources necessary to conduct fair and accurate elections this fall. It would have fulfilled the promise made by Congress to be a full partner in the funding of Federal election reform by providing full funding for payments to State governments to meet the election reform requirements mandated by Congress over 3 years ago under the Help America Vote Act, HAVA.

HAVA was overwhelmingly enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bush on October 29, 2002.

HAVA mandates that by the Federal elections this year, States must implement certain minimum requirements for the administration of Federal elections. These requirements were phased in over roughly a 2- year period with the final requirements mandated to be in place by this year.

To ensure that the States could meet these requirements, Congress authorized nearly $4 billion to pay for 95 percent of the costs of HAVA implementation. In order to receive Federal funding, States had to provide 5 percent matching funds.

All 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the territories have raised their 5 percent matching funds under this Federal-State partnership.

Only the Federal Government is coming up short on its end of the deal. To date, Congress has appropriated only $3.1 billion of the nearly $4 billion it promised the States in funding. That means the States are short nearly $800 million in promised Federal funds needed to implement these reforms.

With 2 Federal primary elections already over and with 10 upcoming primaries scheduled in May, there is precious little time left to get these needed funds to the States in time to ensure that the Federal elections this year are conducted in compliance with Federal law.

This amendment would provide full funding for HAVA. Arguably, this is the last opportunity we may have to ensure that the States have the promised funds in time to meet the 2006 deadlines for reform.

The amendment would fund the balance of the requirement payments to States under section 251 of HAVA in the amount of $724 million. It would also make up the shortfall of $74 million in funding to date for disability access grants and protection and advocacy payments to serve the voting needs of persons with disabilities.

It is simply unconscionable that Congress has not kept up its end of this funding bargain. As Thomas Paine observed, the right to vote for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. That statement is still true today. The right to vote in a democracy is the fundamental right on which all others are based.

As we witnessed in the Presidential election debacle of 2000, the confidence of the American public in our system of elections was shattered after witnessing hanging chads, confusing ballots, missing names on voter lists, malfunctioning machines, and different standards to recount ballots.

Congress responded with the first ever comprehensive requirements for the administration of Federal elections.

The HAVA requirements effective for the 2004 Federal elections provided that all States offer provisional ballots to any voter challenged, for any reason, at the polls as ineligible to vote. Because of the HAVA requirement, 2 million more ballots were counted in the 2004 elections than would have otherwise been counted.

In 2004, States also had to have in place measures designed to ensure the identity of certain first-time voters who registered by mail. States had to ensure voter education by posting certain voter information in the polling place.

But the most far-reaching, and arguably most expensive reforms, must be in place for the Federal elections this year. Effective January 1, 2006, all voting systems used in Federal elections must meet the following minimum voting system standards:

Provide all voters with the right to verify their ballot,

before it is cast and counted, to ensure that it accurately

reflects his or her choices;

Provide a permanent paper record with a manual audit

capacity, which can be used as an official record in the case

of a recount;

Provide full accessibility to persons with disabilities,

including the blind and visually impaired, allowing for the

same privacy and independence as other voters;

Provide alternative language accessibility to language

minorities, consistent with the requirements under the Voting

Rights Act;

Meet current machine error rates; and

Establish a standard for defining what constitutes a vote

and what will be counted as a vote.

In the aftermath of the November 2000 election, there were allegations that voter registration lists contained numerous irregularities and errors, including multiple registrations and the names of deceased individuals. Registration lists were also subject to questionable purges by State and local governments, conducted in a manner inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act.

HAVA addressed those concerns with a balanced response by requiring each State to implement a computerized voter registration list for use as the official list of registered voters. For many, this requirement is the single most important reform for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of elections.

But it is a significant, and expensive, task when you consider there were more than 142 million registered voters in the United States in 2004.

Depending upon the data used, that number represents between 65 percent to 85 percent of the total eligible voters. With more than 15 percent of Americans moving every year, it is crucial that State registration lists remain current and accurate in order to ensure the public's confidence in the outcome of Federal elections.

The 2006 reforms are absolutely critical to the successful implementation of HAVA nationwide and to achieving our twin goals of making it easier to vote and harder to defraud the system.

This amendment that I filed to this bill is supported by a broad coalition of organizations, lead by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the National Association of Secretaries of State, representing the civil rights and voting rights communities, disabilities groups, State and local governments and election officials.

The LCCR/NASS letter, dated April 20, 2006, notes, and I quote:

Without the full federal funding, state and local

governments will encounter serious fiscal shortfalls and will

not be able to afford complete implementation of important

HAVA mandates.

I will ask that this letter appear in the record following my remarks.

I am grateful to the LCCR and NASS for their continuing leadership on this issue and for their support of full funding of the HAVA requirements. It would have been my preference that 100 percent of the HAVA costs be covered by the Federal Government, but I agreed to a 95 to 5 split to ensure that the States became vested in reform. All of the States and the District of Columbia and the territories are vested--they have met their required 5-percent match. Only the Federal Government appears to be less than committed to reform.

Unless and until we can assure the American public that we have done all that we can to ensure the accuracy and access to the ballot box for all eligible voters, there will be a cloud hanging over the final results of any given Federal election. That is not productive for democracy and undermines the very authority of our system of elected government.

Congress enacted HAVA in response to the crisis in confidence of the American electorate following the 2000 Presidential elections. We promised the States we would be a full partner in funding those reforms.

To help restore the public's confidence in the results of our Federal elections, Congress intended that HAVA ensure that every eligible American voter has an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted.

Without the promised funding, Congress has created an unfunded mandate and State governments have indicated they will not be able to fully implement the requirements on time. This amendment would have ensured that the minimum Federal requirements would be implemented on time nationwide.

Since Congress mandated that these requirements be effective by January 1, 2006, it is critical that Congress now provide these funds no later than fiscal year 2006 in order to ensure that the statutory requirements are met.

It is past time to live up to our promise. While my amendment may not be in order to this bill, I am serving notice that I will continue to look for ways to ensure that Congress makes

good on its promise to be a full partner in funding election reform.

I ask unanimous consent that the before-mentioned letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about the emergency supplemental bill and about the amendments related to the ongoing conflict in Iraq and other pressing issues of the day.

For example, I am deeply disappointed that Senator Levin and others who had Iraq-related amendments were not allowed to offer them postcloture. I would have supported the Levin amendment, just as I supported the underlying emergency supplemental earlier today.

Having said that, I think there is something very wrong with a process that doesn't allow for full and open debate on the emergency funding for Iraq and Afghanistan just passed by this body. That is why I voted against cloture on the underlying bill earlier this week.

Indeed, the Senate just approved more than $67 billion in emergency supplemental funding for our combined military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. But because of the special rules of the Senate related to the consideration of appropriations matters, most amendments which would have spoken to United States policy in Iraq or Afghanistan were ruled out of order and never received an up-or-down vote, or even an opportunity for full debate. This fact has done a real disservice to the American people and, I believe, left the false impression that Congress is fully on board with our current policies.

By limiting debate on this bill, I'm afraid this body has also missed an important opportunity to address other issues of serious concern to the American people, including, importantly, the high prices Americans are paying at the pump for gas. The energy issue, I would add, is central in our efforts not only to promote a strong economy and supplies for Americans at home, but to our global efforts to secure U.S. national security interests.

Since 2000, the price of a gallon of gas has more than doubled, even when adjusted for inflation. In my home state of Connecticut, the average price for a gallon of gas hit $3.04 last weekend. In some parts of the country, prices are even higher. And this winter, only mild weather kept people in colder parts of the country like New England from seeing record increases in their heating bills.

Anyone who drives a car, buys or sells anything shipped by truck or plane, or turns on the heat when it's cold, is paying record prices for energy and enduring serious financial hardship.

At current prices, the average driver can expect to spend about $1,440 more on transportation this year than they did just a year ago. That's a big chunk of money coming out of consumers' wallets and businesses' bottom line. It's also a real cause for concern for the overall economy--it has the potential to create inflation and act as a drag on economic growth.

Meanwhile, while consumers are paying more, a few large oil companies continue to reap record profits. Let me be clear that I do not begrudge a company--any company--from making a profit. The ability to earn a profit is central to our capitalist system and the American spirit of entrepreneurship. But there is a big difference between profits and profiteering. And in the opinion of many, the big oil companies--who control the market for their products--have been engaging in profiteering on the backs of the American consumer.

Regrettably, by invoking cloture on this bill, this body chose not to consider measures that would have provided timely relief to American consumers and would have strengthened our ability to prevent profiteering at the expense of American families and businesses.

I was ready to offer one such measure with my colleague, the junior senator from North Dakota. Many of my other colleagues were planning to offer measures of their own that also deserved consideration by this body. The senior senator from Oregon, for one, held the floor for several hours last Thursday asking for a vote on his amendment, only to be refused by the majority.

America has an energy policy that is rooted in the 19th century. We depend on fossil fuels that are increasing in cost and limited in supply; that contaminate our air, water, and food supplies; and that are found predominantly in parts of the world that are politically unstable. Meanwhile, global demand is growing as countries like China require greater fuel supplies to power their increasingly modern economies.

This antiquated policy is having many adverse effects on our national security. Frankly, if the industrialized world had a secure alternative supply of energy, we would likely better be able to address any number of major international security crises--including the genocide in Sudan and Iranian nuclear ambitions. Serious action to address either issue is being stymied by nations reliant on other nations' oil exports.

We cannot keep running away from this problem. By failing to act on-- or even consider--any of the measures that were ready to be offered this week and last week, this body missed an important opportunity to provide tangible energy policy solutions for the American public, and an important opportunity to strengthen U.S. national security. And the end result, in my view, is a great disservice to the American people and to U.S. national security.

I will vote for the emergency supplemental bill because while our troops are in harm's way, I believe that we need to provide them with every necessary resource so they can come home safely. But I frankly think that having more time to debate these issues and amendments would have done much to ensure the safety and security of our troops and all Americans in the years to come.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and I thank the chairman and ranking member for their acceptance of this amendment.

I point out to my colleagues that I was looking over some of the data involving the need for this appropriation.

In Louisiana, four of the most heavily impacted parishes, not counting New Orleans, a total of 60 polling places the hurricane simply swept away. These parishes lack basic services, such as electricity, generators, rest rooms, lights, and the like, creating some serious problems. We were told that FEMA would not allow for an allocation of funds in this kind of a situation--even Federal elections. It does not meet the test of assistance under the Stafford Act.

We point out to our colleagues that New York City officials were in the process of holding a primary election on September 11 when they were interrupted by the terrorist attack. FEMA in that case allowed $8 million for the city of New York to allow for the election process to go forward.

There are other precedents, indeed, which fall under the emergency category.

Elections are a number of weeks away, and certainly providing assistance for the most basic of all of our functioning as citizens, to make sure that every person in these Gulf State areas is able to cast a vote and have their vote count is something we all embrace.

We appreciate the managers of this amendment allowing this kind of additional appropriation on this bill.

Over 8 months ago, the lives of many Americans living in the Gulf Coast region of the United States were subject to the devastating natural disasters of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Today, those impacted by the hurricanes face many of the same problems faced immediately after the storms--no homes, no jobs, no community infrastructure, and no guarantee that their lives will return to normal any time soon.

And in this election year, many of these same individuals now also face the potential that their communities will be unable to guarantee that they will be able to cast a vote and have that vote counted in the mid-term federal elections. This is simply unacceptable in America.

There are still areas of the Gulf Coast that are without basic services, such as electricity, and many areas that are still mucking out homes and demolishing buildings.

The hope and desire to rebuild their communities and restore some sense of normalcy is alive and well in the Gulf Coast. But these communities need help. And that is clearly the case when it comes to federal elections.

In Louisiana, four of the most heavily impacted parishes--not counting New Orleans--must recreate a total of 60 polling places. The hurricanes simply swept them away or destroyed them beyond use.

These parishes lack basic services such as electricity, generators, restrooms, or lights which are necessary to hold an election.

But FEMA is taking the position that the conduct of elections--even federal elections--does not meet the test for assistance under the Stafford Act.

That is a curious position for FEMA to take since that agency did provide election assistance to both New York City, following 9-11, and to Miami-Dade County, Florida, following Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

In the case of Miami-Dade--which faced a very similar situation to what the Gulf Coast faces today--FEMA provided temporary polling places, water, generators, lights, fans and portable restroom facilities on election day. FEMA also provided trailers for absentee voting in the September primary.

More importantly, FEMA even reimbursed Miami-Dade for the costs of holding the election that were over and above the normal costs of the election.

In New York City, officials were in the process of holding primary elections on September 11 when they were interrupted by the terrorist attack. Elections were rescheduled two weeks later, and FEMA reimbursed the state roughly $8 million for the costs involved in cancelling and rescheduling the primary election.

The Katrina impacted States are not asking for anything that has not been provided by FEMA before for the conduct of elections following a natural disaster.

And yet, when these States have requested assistance to conduct elections--including federal elections--following what has been described as the most devastating hurricane season to ever hit the region, FEMA has balked.

The federal Election Assistance Commission, established in 2002 under the Help America Vote Act, has attempted to work with impacted states in order to help identify both the requirements for ensuring accurate and accessible federal elections and potential sources of assistance for these communities.

To date, FEMA has come up largely emptyhanded. So far, FEMA has been willing to only reimburse states for the uninsured loss of certain polling equipment, machines, supplies and storage facilities. In the case of Louisiana, that has amounted to just over $1 million.

But Louisiana officials estimate that the state will face costs of up to $18 million this year to hold elections--well in excess of what FEMA has been willing to certify to date. Similarly, Mississippi officials anticipate un-reimbursed expenses for holding elections to total $7.8 million while Alabama faces nearly $3 million in un-reimbursed costs.

And there is little reason to expect FEMA to offer more assistance. In a letter addressed to Paul DeGregorio, Chairman of the Election Assistance Commission, dated March 9 of this year, FEMA advises the EAC that--and I quote from the letter:

FEMA does not have the authority to pay for operating costs

related to the conduct of elections.

Well if FEMA does not, then who does?

I would suggest to my colleagues that the Election Assistance Commission not only has the expertise to accurately access the requirements and costs of holding federal elections, but they are in a better position to do so.

Consequently, the amendment my distinguished colleague, Senator Lott, the Chairman of the Rules Committee, and I are offering today.

It is a very modest and targeted amendment. It provides $30 million to the Election Assistance Commission to provide grants to eligible states impacted by these natural disasters to restore and replace supplies, materials, records, equipment and technology used in the administration of federal elections and to ensure the full participation of individuals displaced by the 2005 hurricanes.

This amendment is supported by a broad bipartisan coalition of voting rights activists and election officials, headed by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the National Association of Secretaries of States. Joining in support of the amendment is the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Election Officials, the National Association of State Election Directors, and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be included in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, these funds will enable the states to establish temporary polling places, secure generators for running the electronic voting machines, provide basic sanitation services for poll workers and voters, such as water and portable restroom facilities.

Congress has taken great efforts to address the immediate needs of those affected by the hurricanes. Now Congress must take additional steps to assist the long-term needs of these communities as they rebuild and move forward.

Ensuring the integrity of federal elections in these states by guaranteeing that the people of the Gulf Coast have access to a polling place is the very least this Congress can do.

Senator Lott and I first brought these anticipated needs to the attention of the Senate last October. At that time we noted the loss of polling places, election equipment, and election records in the impacted states. While we did not have reliable cost estimates at that time, we served notice that as the committee of jurisdiction over federal elections, we would come back to the Senate as the full extent of the damage and its potential impact on the 2006 federal elections became clear.

Well, by last December it had become clear that the states could not reconstruct the infrastructure to conduct federal elections without assistance.

And so in December Chairman Lott and I introduced the ``Hurricane Election Relief Act of 2005.'' This bill authorizes the necessary funding to aid impacted states in the conduct of federal elections this year, consistent with the Help America Vote Act--HAVA.

Specifically, it provides federal funding to impacted states to restore and replace supplies, materials, records, equipment and technology that were damaged, destroyed, or dislocated as result of the storms. The bill directs the Election Assistance Commission to determine need and disburse grants to eligible states.

The Senate passed this measure by unanimous consent on February 9. A House companion bill, H.R. 4140, ``Ensuring Ballot Access for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Victims Act of 2005,'' was introduced by Representative Millender-McDonald.

It is imperative that Congress ensure that affected states have the resources necessary to conduct federal elections this year in a fair and accurate manner. It is equally imperative that all eligible voters affected by these natural disasters have an opportunity to participate in their democracy.

Being displaced by a hurricane should not result in being disenfranchised from a federal election.

Each affected state will have its own challenges. For example, according to the Secretary of State in Louisiana, over 400,000 registered voters are dispersed in 49 states.

While fewer voters were displaced in Mississippi, the election infrastructure was completely destroyed or severely damaged by winds and surges, according to the Secretary of State of Mississippi.

In Alabama, the Secretary of State has indicated that their allocated election costs were spent not on conducting elections, but removing debris and repairing election infrastructure following the hurricanes.

Other states have been impacted, to a lesser extent, by the influx of temporary residents displaced by the hurricanes. In many of those states, displaced citizens may have decided not to return home but to become residents of the host state, thereby adding to the election administration responsibilities of those jurisdictions.

The amendment we are offering today will ensure that these unforseen needs are met and that the federal elections required this year are accessible, accurate, and transparent.

Regardless of the funding needs of the impacted states, one thing is clear. They are similarly situated with all other states conducting 2006 federal elections. They have a solemn duty to protect and preserve the constitutionally guaranteed right of each eligible voter to cast a vote and have that vote counted.

The impacted states are prepared to work hard to secure the rights of our nation's voters and they will conduct these elections with whatever resources are available to them. But the access to the ballot box should not depend upon whether or not a state has recovered from an unprecedented series of natural disasters.

And voters are ready to work hard and participate in the governance and rebuilding of their communities, no matter what the damage inflicted on them by nature. But their ability to participate in our democracy through the ballot box should not depend upon whether their community has been successfully rebuilt.

It is essential that we join together to ensure that all states impacted by these natural disasters have the resources to conduct timely federal elections that fully enfranchise all eligible voters.

This is literally our last opportunity to provide these funds in time to make a difference. It would be irresponsible not to ensure that these states have sufficient resources to conduct federal elections this year. The health of our democracy depends upon it.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Exhibit I

Make Election Reform A Reality

support gulf coast states in their extraordinary efforts to administer

elections after katrina

April 24, 2006.

Dear Senators: We, the undersigned organizations, urge you

assist Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama in their efforts to

hold meaningful elections in the aftermath of Hurricane

Katrina. We are asking for $50 million in the upcoming

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations legislation for those

states in their efforts to administer transparent and

accountable elections.

It is imperative that the citizens of the Gulf Coast region

are provided with the opportunity to participate in the

critical and difficult decision making that each of these

states face in the foreseeable future. Every election

presents states with challenges, but never before has there

been such great potential for disenfranchisement than in the

elections the Gulf Coast states are facing this year.

Voters have been displaced, voting equipment has been

destroyed or severely damaged and polling places have been

leveled. The outcome of the devastation is that county

budgets which were strained before the hurricane have now

been depleted dealing with issues like debris removal and

infrastructure rebuilding. Many of the businesses have shut

down, thereby reducing or eliminating a tax base for those

counties. The funding is just not available at the state and

local level to rebuild the elections infrastructure.

Time is of the essence. Starting this month and running

through the summer, all of these states have primary

elections for local and federal offices.

The officials and residents of the Gulf Coast states are

extremely grateful for the support from all levels of

government and from the many Americans who have been devoted

to helping them rebuild and move forward. We look forward to

working with you on this critical issue. Should you have any

questions, please contact Leslie Reynolds of the National

Association of Secretaries of State at (202) 624-3525 or Val

Frias of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights at (202)

263-2852, or any of the individual organizations listed

below.

Sincerely,

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,

National Association of Counties,

National Association of Election Officials,

National Association of Secretaries of State,

National Association of State Election Directors,

National Conference of State Legislatures.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a concurrent resolution acknowledging African descendants of the transatlantic slave trade throughout the Western Hemisphere, and in particular, Latin America and the Caribbean. This resolution would raise awareness about the continued injustices they face and urge the U.S. and the international community to work to improve the condition of Afro- descendent communities in these regions.

Slavery remains a dark stain on human history. Over the past century, this terrible evil has been virtually eliminated in many parts of the world, including in the Western Hemisphere.

Here in the United States, we most often speak of slavery as it existed within our borders. But we need to remember that the institution of slavery extended throughout the Americas.

Across the hemisphere, slaves were brought in bondage from Africa, enduring extraordinary hardships, brutal maltreatment, and the deprivation of a most fundamental human right--the right to liberty. Yet, despite this reality, Afro-descendent communities have contributed a great deal to the countries and communities in which they have lived. Unfortunately, though, even today, the many contributions of Afro- descendent communities throughout our hemisphere are underappreciated.

Currently, there are approximately 80 million to 150 million individuals of African descent living in Latin America and the Caribbean. In some countries, including the Dominican Republic and Cuba, Afro-descendants actually constitute the majority of the population. But all too often, they are left marginalized in these societies.

Indeed, individuals of African descent throughout Latin America and the Caribbean suffer disproportionately from a variety of social and economic ills.

On average, they have lower incomes and rates of literacy than do other populations in the same areas. And while Afro-descendants make up 30 percent of the population of Latin America, they comprise 60 percent of the region's poor.

These circumstances severely impact Afro-descended communities in the Americas. Their inhabitants have shorter life spans and higher rates of infant mortality. They suffer from higher rates of HIV/AIDS infection than their compatriots. And many live in deplorable conditions, without potable water, access to healthcare, or basic education.

The resolution I am submitting today is a companion to a measure introduced by Congressman Charles Rangel in the House of Representatives. I believe it is an important resolution, which celebrates the contributions of Afro-descendants to the economic, social, and cultural fabric of our hemisphere, while drawing attention to the continued injustices they face.

This resolution is a message that more attention needs to be focused on the continuing plight of Afro-descendants in the hemisphere. Most importantly, it proposes positive initiatives that would enable us to take a step towards alleviating the suffering caused by extreme poverty and racial disparities in this hemisphere.

Among other things, it encourages the United States and the international community to invest in critical measures to combat racial disparities, including research into identifying and eradicating the causes of such iniquities; funding for development programs targeted at the needs of Afro-descendent communities; technical assistance for groups advocating for the rights of Afro-descendents; the creation of an international working-group focused on the problems facing these communities; and the promotion of trade agreements that take into account their needs.

Individuals of African descent have and will continue to play an essential role in the long-term development of our hemisphere. This resolution will help to shed some light on the historic injustices they have faced, and will raise awareness about the challenges continuing to face them in their daily lives throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. Doing so is an important step toward righting a historical wrong and paving the way for a more prosperous future. I ask my colleagues for their support in this effort.