Floor Statements

Mr. President, in my conversations with the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Mississippi, it is my understanding the bipartisan amendment I offered earlier today--on behalf of myself and Senator Specter, along with several other colleagues, including Senators Stabenow, Snowe, Biden, Mikulski, Corzine, and Clinton--to provide funds to fire departments to hire firefighters, will be accepted by the committee. That being the case, I see no reason for us to ask for a rollcall vote.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Volunteer Fire Council be printed in the Record.

I appreciate immensely the support of the Senator from Mississippi and others who are willing to accept the amendment. I want to commend Senator Byrd, Senator Specter, as well as their staffs, for the tremendous efforts they have made on behalf of the amendment. We were able to work out an offset that will not do any significant damage to the management and administrative functions of the Homeland Security Department. We still would have a 35-percent increase in title I, and roughly the status quo when it comes to title IV.

Firefighter staffing is the No. 1 issue for firefighters all across America. By agreeing to this amendment, we are fulfilling our pledge to these heroes to do everything we can to not only provide them with the materials, training, and equipment they need, but also the necessary personnel these departments

must have if they are going to complete their jobs.

Again, I thank the Senator from Mississippi and his staff for their outstanding efforts.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2328, the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2004, and to explain my reasons for becoming a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, which was introduced by Senators Dorgan and Snowe earlier this year. My decision to cosponsor this bill has come after serious and careful deliberation. I know that there are many who oppose the importation of prescription drugs, and I have carefully considered their arguments.

However, I have come to the conclusion that this bill can be helpful to ensuring that Americans have access to the drugs they need, with the peace of mind that the medications they are taking--or giving to a family member--are safe.

Mr. President, all of us are aware of the unfortunate news released over the last several weeks about the state of health care in our country. In many respects, we have the greatest health system in the world, but far too many Americans are unable to take advantage of this system. According to data released by the Census Bureau in August, 45 million Americans were without health insurance in 2003--an increase of 1.4 million over 2002. The primary reason for the continued increase in the number of uninsured is that employers are dropping their health coverage. That's right Mr. President, most of the newly-uninsured are working Americans.

Employers are not dropping health coverage out of malice they are doing so because they can no longer afford to provide this benefit. Year after year, health care costs increase by double digit percentages. The cost of employer-sponsored coverage increased by 14 percent in 2003. And year after year, the increase in the cost of prescription drugs stands out as a driver of the overall cost increase. Over the last three years, drug costs have increased by over 50 percent.

Mr. President, I do not subscribe to or participate in the attacks on our prescription drug industry. The American drug industry is an extraordinary success story. As a result of the innovations that this industry has spawned, millions of lives have been improved and saved in our country and around the globe. Because of the importance of these medicines to our health and well-being, I have consistently supported sound public policies to help the industry to succeed.

These policies include authoring a successful statute to ensure that drug manufacturers receive appropriate incentives for ensuring that their products are safe and effective for children. I have also co- authored legislation to make sure that new drugs can more swiftly move through the approval pipeline and move quickly into the hands of the patients who need them. I have worked to create a fair balance between the need to protect drug patents for their full patent life, and the need to ensure that generic pharmaceuticals are able to come to market when that patent life has expired. I have always encouraged pharmaceutical research and development. I have also supported trade agreements to help open international markets for American pharmaceuticals. The American pharmaceutical industry is the best in the world, and it has succeeded, and will continue to succeed, in a competitive global environment.

Prescription drugs are an absolutely integral part of our health care system. I am proud that many of these medicines are made in my home state of Connecticut. But Mr. President, I am saddened that such a basic and necessary part of modern health care is becoming unaffordable for the average American--including many thousands of men, women, and children in Connecticut. Americans should not be put in the position of choosing whether to purchase groceries or medicine. And yet I have talked to far too many of my constituents who are faced with that choice every day.

We have an obligation to seek opportunities to lower drug costs. I was disappointed that such an opportunity was missed during our consideration of the Medicare Modernization Act. That law now prohibits the Federal government from using its purchasing power to bargain for lower drug prices. Such a measure is inconsistent with the economic principle of competition that is fundamental to our economy.

We are now faced with another opportunity to control prescription drug costs by allowing the importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from Canada and other industrialized nations. I have long taken the position that drug importation should only be allowed if we can ensure that it is safe. I do not want affordable medicines to come at the cost of quality and safety for American consumers. I have looked at every importation proposal with these priorities in mind.

Mr. President, Senate bill 2328, while not perfect, is a sensible approach to the issue of drug importation. I believe that it addresses the safety concerns that have been raised in the past, and in my discussions with opponents of this bill, I have yet to hear an argument that makes me believe that the medicines imported under this bill would be unsafe. In fact, I believe that it has the potential to be significantly safer for American consumers than the status quo. Currently, an American can easily go on the Internet and order drugs from another country. But there is no guarantee that these drugs are safe, and no way to prevent these drugs from entering the country. We are being flooded with counterfeit and compromised medicines, and people are being hurt.

Under the Dorgan-Snowe bill, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would be given the authority and resources necessary to make drug importation a safe proposition. Importers would be required to register with the FDA, so Americans can know where it is safe to purchase imported medicines.

Mr. President, with the issue of safety addressed, this really becomes an issue about what is best and what is fair for American consumers. At the moment, Americans pay significantly more for prescription drugs than those in other industrialized nations. Based on that fact, it is my belief that we should work toward a more open global market for prescription drugs, just as we do for countless other products that we trade internationally.

As I mentioned earlier, I am confident that the American drug industry can compete with that of any other nation. I am committed to ensuring that this continues to be true. We should, in my view, take steps to bring about fairer trade, freer trade, and safer trade for prescription medicines. This legislation represents one such step.

I intend to continue to talk to all interested parties about this bill. If safety concerns should arise in the future that have not been previously considered, I will do everything in my power to address them with the sponsors of this legislation. But it is past time for us to do something about the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs, and I support this bill as a step in the right direction.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my good friend from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, we are once again offering an amendment which deals with the underlying issue of this debate, and that is the adequacy of our resources to the homeland security effort.

In recent days we have heard the Vice President of the United States suggesting that we ought not enter the mindset of a pre-9/11. I couldn't agree more. It is a dangerous thing for this country to forget what our Nation went through 3 years ago come Monday. Certainly, what we are suggesting with this amendment we are offering--Senator Stabenow, myself, and Senator Kennedy--is to put some real resources, a real effort behind the homeland security effort.

We have put this amendment together not based on our conclusions individually of what ought to be a part of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Rather, we draw upon the tremendous work done by a former colleague of ours, Senator Warren Rudman, and his report that was produced by experts in conjunction with the Council on Foreign Relations. A significant amount of time was spent to assess the adequacy of our first responders and whether we have in place across this country 3 years after the brutal attacks of 9/11 the resources, the personnel, the equipment, and the training necessary to provide the protections this country needs if, Lord forbid, we are attacked again by terrorists.

That report concludes that we are woefully inadequate to meet those challenges with which we are confronted. It lays out in detail suggestions as to what needs to be done in

order to make us better prepared to respond to those situations. So we are offering this amendment in the same spirit in which our colleague from West Virginia offered his amendment. It is out of a deep concern we are not doing enough to protect our Nation from the risk of a terrorist attack.

Last June, former Senator Warren Rudman, with a very distinguished panel of experts, produced a report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Their report concluded that we must spend at least $98 billion over the next 5 years in order to provide a reasonable degree of security here at home.

The Council on Foreign Relations report was not just another study thrown together over a few days; it was authored by a friend and former colleague from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman. He assembled a very distinguished group of Americans to serve on a task force which wrote the July 2003 report. The task force members included Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism adviser for three Presidents. It also included Admiral William Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan; George Shultz, President Reagan's Secretary of State; Harold Varmus, former Director of the National Institutes of Health under President Clinton; William Webster, who served both as the Director of the CIA and the FBI in the 1980s and 1990s, among many others.

Regrettably, 1 year later, the urgent recommendations of this very distinguished panel--a very comprehensive study--have been almost totally ignored by the leadership of the Congress and the executive branch. According to the Rudman report:

Estimated combined federal, state and local expenditures .

. . would need to be as much as tripled over the next five

years to address the unmanned need. Covering this funding

shortfall using federal funds alone would require a five-fold

increase from the current levels.

So, depending upon the level of State and local funding available, the Federal Government should be committing between $15 and $25 billion per year according to the Council on Foreign Relations. If $15 billion to $25 billion a year is what it takes to get the job done, that is what we ought to be providing. Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate only commits about $3.4 billion a year, which is a fifth of what is really needed to support our first responders.

The amendment Senator Stabenow and I are offering would commit a full $20 billion necessary in fiscal year 2005 and would set us on the path toward meeting the Council on Foreign Relations' recommendations for first responder investments over the next 5 years. I realize $20 billion a year is a lot of money. I would like to put that number into context, if I may.

First, I don't believe that any of my colleagues who served with Warren Rudman or know Warren Rudman would call him free spending. In fact, when one hears the words ``deficit hawk,'' you often think immediately of Warren Rudman. He led the Concord Coalition in the mid 1990s with another friend and former colleague, the late Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts. He fought tirelessly for deficit reduction and balanced budgets while serving in the Senate. He also lent his name to the landmark 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, of which I was honored to be a cosponsor at the time. So when Warren Rudman says we need to be spending $20 billion a year for our Nation's first responders, I think we need to take his advise very seriously.

When George Shultz, when Mr. Webster, when Admiral Crowe and others make these recommendations, we are not talking about people who do not know what they are talking about. We are talking about some of the most serious public servants of the last two or three decades, people who have taken a serious look at our needs, a serious look at the threats facing us, in a bipartisan way, and have urged this Congress to do a better job in seeing to it that the American public is protected from the dangers of a terrorist attack by insisting that our first responders receive the necessary tools they ought to have in order to respond.

We should also keep in mind that the current Department of Defense budget is about $400 billion per year--that is more than a billion a day we are investing on our military security. If we would allocate an additional $20 billion a year for first responders, as the Rudman report recommends, our amendment would provide only 5 percent of the total defense budget. Isn't 5 percent of that budget worth it in order to provide more protection to the American citizens at home?

By the way, that $400 million does not necessarily include the money we are spending in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq alone is $200 billion we have already spent in that particular conflict.

We are also spending billions of dollars, as I mentioned, to sustain our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe that $20 billion a year is a good investment to ensure our urgent homeland security needs are going to be met. Again, focusing $20 billion on domestic security would represent only a fraction of 1 year's military budget. If we committed the entire amount identified in the Warren Rudman report--$98 billion-- it would only be 90 days' worth of military spending in any given year.

If we as a nation can find the resources we need to ensure our military security, and I believe we should, then we must make a similar commitment to find the resources we need to ensure that the domestic defenders of our Nation are also equipped to provide domestic security. We do not send our military personnel into battle without the equipment they need to do their jobs, and we should not send our law enforcement personnel, our firefighters, our emergency medical technicians, out into a field without equipping them with what they need. We do not send our military into battle without the training to succeed. We should not send our domestic defenders into the field without proper training, either. We do not send our military to battle without sufficient human resources, and we should not send our firefighters into dangerous situations without the backup they need in order to ensure their safety.

In the 3 years since September 11, we have made progress. But we also know categorically that we are not doing enough and we need to do more. If the choice is between tax cuts that we cannot afford and securing the public against the now known threats of terrorism, I believe the choice is simple. We must act responsibly to protect the public we serve. To not do so and then be attacked, then to not look back and wonder why we did not take the necessary steps, would be an indictment against this Congress and the people who are unwilling to step up and provide the resources we need at the local and State level.

September 11 was one of the darkest days in our history. We all know that. We have heard about it. We all feel it very painfully. The simultaneous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as well as the battle in the airspace over Pennsylvania was the deadliest foreign attack ever launched against the citizenry of this great country of ours.

September 11 drew our attention to a fact that experts had known for years--namely, that the United States is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Certainly we had experienced acts of terrorism before. Indeed, the World Trade Center itself had been attacked by terrorists in 1993. We had experienced the horrific attacks in Oklahoma City. We knew terrorism was possible anywhere, even in our schools. But it took the attacks of September 11 to focus our attention on the magnitude of the dangers we face and the people we are up against and what they are willing to do in order to do great damage to our country.

Since September 11, the Federal Government has taken steps to improve our Nation's security. I applaud that. The fact we are even debating the Homeland Security appropriations bill is a reflection of the Federal Government's efforts to meet the challenges posed by the threats of terrorism. Yet there is still more that we must do. We can heed the recommendations of the Rudman report, which tells us we have not done nearly enough to protect the public we serve. That would be a major step in the right direction. It tells us that despite the risks this Nation faces, despite the real and present dangers, even the real likelihood of future terrorist attacks, that we are failing to take the steps necessary to protect the American people.

The Rudman report also tells us that the Federal Government has not made a sufficient commitment to help ensure that our first responders-- our firefighters, our police, and our emergency medical personnel--have the training, the equipment, and staffing levels they need to effectively respond to what seemed unthinkable but that we now know can happen anywhere at any time.

After talking to State and local emergency management professionals-- fire chiefs, police chiefs, the authors of the Rudman report--I have concluded we need to do much more than we have been doing. Local authorities asking for Federal assistance are told: We are sorry, but this is the best the Federal Government can do right now. Is this really the best we can do? I don't think so. I think we can do better.

In addition, Vice President Cheney has been attacking the Democratic candidate on homeland security and warning about the risks of returning to a pre-September 11 mindset. I am almost quoting him. But who is really in a pre-September 11 mindset? This homeland security has not even begun to reflect the post-September risks that have been clearly, painstakingly detailed by our former colleague, Warren Rudman, and the distinguished panel that compiled this report.

Three years ago, President Bush asked for and Congress agreed to large tax cuts. The rationale at the time was we had a huge surplus and could afford a tax cut. However, this year things have changed and record surpluses have become record deficits, staggering deficits, the largest in our Nation's history on an annual basis, and a national debt that is mounting. By the end of this fiscal year, the total Federal deficit will be nearly $422 billion. That will be the largest deficit in our Nation's history.

This deficit is being racked up at a time when we have to address clear and immediate threats that are before us. However, instead of marshaling our resources in a comprehensive, responsible way, the administration did something that, in my view, will be recorded in history as irresponsible. It committed even more resources for the purpose of giving more tax benefits to the most affluent of our citizens.

That was the choice they made--a clear choice to give tax benefits to the privileged few rather than taking the steps to make the commitment to protect all of us. Our enormous budget deficit has been coupled with a huge security deficit. There is now an enormous gap between what we are committing to homeland security and what we should be providing to State and local first responders.

We have an opportunity with this amendment to set our priorities straight. We can, and we should, reestablish that the priority of this Nation is to protect all Americans and not to lavish scarce public resources on the privileged few.

The amendment Senator Stabenow and I are offering would adhere to the recommendations of the task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and establish a more responsible and realistic baseline for supporting our first responders--our firefighters, our police, and our emergency medical personnel.

To those who say we cannot afford to commit the resources to protect our people, I ask: Can we really afford not to do so? It seems to me if we can afford trillions of dollars in tax cuts that benefit the most affluent, then we ought to be able to afford $20 billion this year, next year, and the 3 years following to ensure, or to do a better job of ensuring, our security.

According to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office released last month, the tax cuts approved in the last 3 years exacerbate income inequality by boosting the after-tax income of high- income households far more than that of middle- or low-income households. Based on the Congressional Budget Office data, the top 1 percent of households whose annual incomes average $1.2 million a year will receive an average tax cut of approximately $40,000 in the year 2004. This tax break is more than 40 times--40 times!--the average tax break for those in the middle fifth of income distribution.

With the amendment we are offering today, millionaires are going to be asked to take a smaller tax cut than they are already receiving under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. With our amendment, these individuals would still be able to benefit from significant tax cuts. But by simply reducing the 2003 tax breaks for those earning in excess of $1 million a year--one-tenth of 1 percent of all taxpayers; which is what our amendment does--we would be able to live up to our commitment, our obligation, to our Nation's first responders and to the people of this country by providing them with the resources to see to it they can respond if, God forbid, we are confronted with another terrorist attack.

So we have an offset. I suspect it will be challenged as a violation of the Budget Act. But here we are paying for an amendment by reducing the tax cut for the most affluent, to see to it that the general public can have the kind of protections they need, in order to see to it that we are protected against terrorist attacks that may come at a future date.

With that, Madam President, I will yield to my colleague from Michigan, who is a cosponsor of this amendment. And she was there the last time we offered this amendment. She is a great advocate of these efforts to improve our homeland security picture. I am honored to join with her in this effort once again this year.

I yield to my colleague from Michigan.

Madam President, I say to the chairman, we will be happy to try to work that out. I don't know if other colleagues want to be heard. I will find out. If not, I will certainly not oppose the idea of having a vote. We will make a motion to waive if the point of order is raised. We will work that out.

If I can, let me, first of all, say that the chairman of the subcommittee has been a wonderful friend of mine. I have great respect for him. He has a thankless job, in many ways, in trying to deal with budget constraints. I am not sure that history is going to judge us well if, in fact, we are confronted with one of these dreadful attacks and the argument is we were prohibited because the Budget Act would not allow us to respond. We had an emergency supplemental adopted to deal with the situation in Iraq. Certainly, this Chamber and the other responded to it. The American public responded to it.

Certainly, nothing could be more important. The first and most significant obligation that all of us at a Federal level assume when we take the oath of office is to protect the citizenry of this country. Nothing is more fundamental to our jobs. We all understand that and respect it. This is not a request we are making for some social spending or education or health, and I argue that there is a good case to be made for those. We are talking about fulfilling the most basic obligation we have; that is, to protect and defend the people of this country. We have been given more than adequate warnings of what those who would do us great harm intend to do given the opportunity.

My colleague from Michigan rightfully points out the tragedy that occurred halfway around the globe in Russia only a few days ago. We are dealing with similar people. You need only look at your local newspaper and reports of how hostages--innocents doing humanitarian work in Iraq--are being treated by terrorists who apprehend them and threaten their lives. Let there be no doubt of the intentions of those who would do us great harm.

To argue that because there is restraint in the Budget Act that prohibits us from coming up with an offset--and again, I know it takes a little work to get it done, but I argue strenuously that history will look back and say: Why didn't you provide these resources when we knew we needed them. We are not making this up out of whole

cloth. It is not as if the Senator from Michigan and I sat around and decided what ought to be done. We are relying on a very significant group of people who made some very serious recommendations.

Once again, I share with my colleagues the members of this panel. These are very distinguished people. This report was done a year ago, in July of 2003. It is not ancient history.

I mentioned already, of course, the chairman of this task force, Warren Rudman, our former colleague, the author of the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings deficit reduction package, a fiscal hawk during his tenure in the Senate, certainly not one who is known as a profligate spender.

I already mentioned Admiral Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Margaret Hamburg, vice president for Biological Weapons at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Before coming to NTI, she was Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Joshua Lederberg, a Nobel laureate, and who currently serves as president emeritus and Sackler Foundation Scholar, Rockefeller University.

Donald Marron, chairman of UBS America, as well as Light-Year Capital. Previously, he served as chairman and chief executive officer of Paine Webber. Certainly no wild spender when we start talking about people who looked at these issues.

I believe I mentioned Norm Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

George Shultz, former Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Labor, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who is certainly not a wild spender, and who sat and unanimously adopted the recommendations my colleague from Michigan and I are suggesting.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Prior to her appointment at Princeton, she was the J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School.

Harold Varmus, president and chief executive officer of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Previously, he served as the Director of the National Institutes of Health.

John Vessey has served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.

I mentioned Bill Webster as well. He served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, as well as the Director of the FBI.

Steven Weinberg is director of the Theory Group of the University of Texas. He is a Nobel laureate in physics and a recipient of the National Medal of Science.

The list goes on. These are highly competent people who sat down under the leadership of Warren Rudman and said this is what we think we need to do. The Senator from Michigan and I know it is a lot of money. It is a lot of money--$20 billion a year over the next 5 years, an additional $15 billion, included with what is in this budget. But if something happens tomorrow, next week, next month, and we are not prepared to respond to it, people will ask: What did you do? You have been given an opportunity to get ready, to be responsible, to take the necessary steps so we would be prepared to respond. And we were told we could not because of the Budget Act.

Imagine if we offered this amendment without offset. We would be accused of spending money without coming up with resources to offset the obligation. Is it too much to say to one-tenth of 1 percent of our population, not to eliminate your tax cut, but reduce it for 1 year in order to pay for this? That is the choice.

We are all confronted with difficult choices. I do not think this one is terribly difficult, and I suspect if you asked that one-tenth of 1 percent of the most affluent of our citizenry whether they are willing to give up a tax cut for 1 year in order to enhance the homeland security of this Republic, I suspect an overwhelming majority of them would say: Do it; do it.

These are patriots. These are people who understand difficult choices need to be made. We are going to be given the chance in the next few minutes to waive the Budget Act to make it possible for us to come up with the resources to do this. This is the choice with which we are going to be confronted, and I do not think history is going to accept the argument that the Budget Act somehow could not be waived because we could not come up with the resources to do it, because somehow a regulation or some provision of law made it difficult for us to do so.

I think that answer is pathetic. It is inadequate. It is not going to be accepted by history or the American public. Yet that is the choice I think we ought to be making today.

Senator Byrd, our colleague from West Virginia, has offered a modest increase. My colleague from Michigan and I are offering something that is larger. We know that. It may be asking a lot, but I think to do anything less is to place our Nation at risk.

We are once again asking our colleagues to put aside the technical arguments that could be raised and do what is right for our country. Let's waive the Budget Act. There is a resource to offset this cost. We need not add to the deficit of the country to do what needs to be done. The people who made these recommendations are distinguished Americans. They come from all political walks of life, all parties. They are involved in science, national security, and the domestic security of our Republic. They have come to the conclusion that this is what we ought to do. We ought to listen to them, and we ought to respond to them by adopting this amendment and waiving the point of order when it is made.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, be also added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Madam President, I am prepared to go into a quorum call at this point to chat with our friend from Mississippi as to how he wants to proceed on points of order and waivers. I would also like to at least give the respective leaders an opportunity to inquire as to whether any Members would like to be heard on the amendment before we end the time. I assume it will not be much and I would be happy to agree on a time certain. I would be happy to make it around the time for the vote on the Byrd amendment to accommodate Members' interests.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes equally divided to speak on the amendment.

How about a minute each?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi.

Very briefly, I know Members were at the various luncheons during the debate on the amendment we are about to vote on. This is the Warren Rudman report prepared in July of 2003. It laid out in a very detailed way what needs to be done in order to provide the necessary resources for first responders. This was a task force that included Admiral Crowe and George Shultz, William Webster, who served as Director of both the FBI and CIA, and many others, who said we need to be doing a lot more to see to it that our first responders have the necessary resources to do the job, Lord forbid we are attacked by terrorists again.

Now we have included an offset that makes this subject to a point of order. But I believe we have to come up with some choices. One choice is whether one-tenth of 1 percent of the American taxpayers for 1 year could do without a tax cut to pay for the $15 billion to make our country more secure. That is what this amendment does.

I urge my colleagues to waive the point of order.

Mr. President, I believe that the legislation before us tonight--the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act--represents a positive step towards finding concrete, comprehensive and effective remedies to the epidemic of suicide in our Nation's young people. I intend to support this legislation, and I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Gordon Smith, for all his tireless work and commitment in seeing this legislation through.

By authorizing $82 million over 3 years, this bill seeks further to support the good work being done on the community level, the State level, and the Federal level with regards to youth suicide early intervention and prevention in four principal ways.

First, it establishes a new grant initiative for the further development and expansion of youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies and the community-based services they seek to coordinate in schools, mental health programs, substance abuse programs, foster care systems, juvenile justice systems, and other youth support organizations.

Second, it authorizes a dedicated technical assistance center to assist States, localities, tribes, and community service providers with the planning, implementation, and evaluation of these strategies and services.

Third, it establishes a new grant initiative to enhance and improve early intervention and prevention services specifically designed for college-aged students.

And fourth, it creates a new inter-agency collaboration to focus on policy development and the dissemination of data specifically pertaining to youth suicide.

In July, the Senate took up this important bill and showed its commitment to reduce the public and mental health tragedy of youth suicide by passing it unanimously. I hoped at that time that the House would see this strong example of bipartisanship and follow suit.

Regrettably, the House sent back the legislation containing a controversial provision authored by a small group of House Members with rather extreme views that has the potential actually to harm, rather than help, suicide prevention and suicide awareness efforts.

Simply put, this provision sets a new precedent by erecting and mandating broad and ambiguous parental consent measures across all ``school-based programs'' and non-medical services in our nation's schools--the very places where most children who are prone to suicidal tendencies first seek help. These measures are stigmatizing, untried, unproven, and arguably most importantly--undefined.

I am afraid that because of the ambiguity of this provision, we cannot know what ``prior written, informed consent'' really means, what ``school-based programs'' will require this consent, or what emotional state a child must be in to be considered for ``emergency'' care.

I am also afraid that because of this provision, we may not be able to guarantee that the services this bill funds will be made available to all children who need them. We may not be able to guarantee that a child who is being abused by parents or guardians--an unfortunate occurrence that's unacceptably common in our country--will be able to obtain the appropriate mental health services he or she might desperately need without the consent of that very same parent or guardian.

Nevertheless, the strengths of this bill outweigh its weaknesses. The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act is an important first step towards recognizing the causes of this public and mental health tragedy and supporting innovative and effective public and mental health initiatives that reach every child and young adult in this country-- compassionate initiatives that given them encouragement, hope, and above all, life.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2004.

The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2004 will put an end to an outdated

legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and in other States throughout the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home.

Technology has changed the way business is conducted in America. With the use of cell phones, lap-top computers, email, the Internet, mobile networking, and many other telecommunication advancements of the 21st century, Americans have a greater flexibility in where they can work without compromising productivity. Many citizens now choose to work from home or alternative offices when their physical presence is not necessary at their primary place of work.

Telecommuting provides enormous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps businesses lower costs and raise worker productivity. It reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing it lowers pollution. It helps workers better manage the demands of work and family. And last but not least, it can mean lower income taxes.

Yet, the many benefits to workers of telecommuting are today placed in jeopardy because of current law in New York. Today, New York State requires that workers pay income tax on income even if it is not earned in the State through their ``convenience of the employer'' rule. While there are several States that have the ``convenience of the employer'' rule, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York.

New York's ``convenience of the employer'' rule requires that by working for a New York employer, all income earned from that employer must be declared in New York so long as the worker ``could'' perform his or her duties in New York. A worker for a New York employer who works part-time from home in Connecticut or another State is still subject to taxation by New York on 100 percent of his or her income. At the same time, the work done by that worker in a State outside New York is subject to taxation by that State.

This unfairly subjects many workers who telecommute from their homes or from satellite offices outside of New York to a double tax on that part of the income earned from home. According to Connecticut's Attorney General, thousands of Connecticut residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation.

This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, but it is an incentive for workers not to telecommute, when what we should be doing is providing an incentive to encourage telecommuting.

Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2004 does this specifically by preventing a state from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to be in the taxing State when the nonresident is actually working in another State. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting.

Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation would do--is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the worker should pay taxes in that State.

Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. However, why should Connecticut, or any other State, be required to allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of services paid for and maintained by Connecticut including roads, water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that he or she uses.

This is not just an issue which deals with a small group of citizens from one small State. Rather, this is an issue which affects workers all over the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that affect the way we live and work.

I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2004.

The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2004 will put an end to an outdated

legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and in other States throughout the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home.

Technology has changed the way business is conducted in America. With the use of cell phones, lap-top computers, email, the Internet, mobile networking, and many other telecommunication advancements of the 21st century, Americans have a greater flexibility in where they can work without compromising productivity. Many citizens now choose to work from home or alternative offices when their physical presence is not necessary at their primary place of work.

Telecommuting provides enormous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps businesses lower costs and raise worker productivity. It reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing it lowers pollution. It helps workers better manage the demands of work and family. And last but not least, it can mean lower income taxes.

Yet, the many benefits to workers of telecommuting are today placed in jeopardy because of current law in New York. Today, New York State requires that workers pay income tax on income even if it is not earned in the State through their ``convenience of the employer'' rule. While there are several States that have the ``convenience of the employer'' rule, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York.

New York's ``convenience of the employer'' rule requires that by working for a New York employer, all income earned from that employer must be declared in New York so long as the worker ``could'' perform his or her duties in New York. A worker for a New York employer who works part-time from home in Connecticut or another State is still subject to taxation by New York on 100 percent of his or her income. At the same time, the work done by that worker in a State outside New York is subject to taxation by that State.

This unfairly subjects many workers who telecommute from their homes or from satellite offices outside of New York to a double tax on that part of the income earned from home. According to Connecticut's Attorney General, thousands of Connecticut residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation.

This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, but it is an incentive for workers not to telecommute, when what we should be doing is providing an incentive to encourage telecommuting.

Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2004 does this specifically by preventing a state from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to be in the taxing State when the nonresident is actually working in another State. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting.

Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation would do--is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the worker should pay taxes in that State.

Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. However, why should Connecticut, or any other State, be required to allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of services paid for and maintained by Connecticut including roads, water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that he or she uses.

This is not just an issue which deals with a small group of citizens from one small State. Rather, this is an issue which affects workers all over the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that affect the way we live and work.

I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, on a lighter note and a moment of celebration, I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to congratulate an institution located in my home State of Connecticut which is going to be celebrating today its 25th anniversary as an institution. I speak of ESPN, the network which is enjoying 25 years of existence as a network.

I want to read the lead paragraph from a newspaper article that appeared on June 27, 1979, in the Journal Inquirer, a newspaper located in Connecticut. The lead paragraph of this story reads as follows:

Cable television may be the place for over 150 hours of

local sports programming starting this fall. The

Entertainment and Sports Programming Network--

That story was the harbinger of what has become one of the great stories of the media in the last 100 years or longer.

It is not an exaggeration to say that ESPN has radically changed the way we see, hear, and follow sports, not only here in America, but around the world. The network has truly become, as its slogan proclaims, ``The Worldwide Leader in Sports.''

Over the past quarter-century, ESPN has transformed itself from a minuscule cable television network to one of the leading names in national media, reaching over 94 million Americans each week. If ESPN were an athlete, it would be the little-known draft pick from a small school who made it all the way to the Hall of Fame.

It is hard to believe it today, but in those early years, ESPN found it difficult to fill up its schedule with sports. The June 27, 1978 issue of one of our local newspapers, the Journal-Inquirer, under the headline ``Network Planning TV Sports,'' reported the modest goals of a new station that would televise ``up to 20 hours a week of both professional and amateur local sports programming.''

Today, to say that ESPN has managed to fill its schedule is an understatement. Today, if one is asked the question, ``What's on ESPN,'' the most appropriate response might be, ``Which ESPN do you mean?'' There is ESPN, the flagship network. There is ESPN2. There is ESPNEWS, the 24-hour sports news station. There is ESPN Classic, where nostalgic sports fans can relive the exploits of Mickey Mantle, Jim Brown, Muhammad Ali, and countless others. There is ESPN Deportes, a 24-hour Spanish-language sports network, not to mention ESPN International and ESPN Radio. And, of course, there is ESPN.com, which has become one of the most popular sites on the internet, much to the dismay of office managers everywhere.

ESPN has truly lived the corporate version of the American dream. As its announcers might say, when it comes to sports broadcasting, you can't stop ESPN; you can only hope to contain it.

Yet even as it has transformed itself into a media giant, for 25 years now, ESPN has called only one place home--the city of Bristol, in my home State of Connecticut.

Some might question why a network of ESPN's stature might prefer a quiet city of only 60,000 people to the glitz and glamour of New York City or Hollywood. But, those of us who live in Connecticut aren't the least bit surprised that ESPN's executives, workers, and broadcasters have chosen not only to work in central Connecticut, but to buy homes and raise their families there as well.

We are also especially proud of our ``homegrown talent,'' those ESPN broadcasters who first made a name for themselves at local stations in Connecticut. Most notably, of course, there is my friend Chris Berman, a native of Greenwich. Back when I was a member of the House of Representatives, Chris was a weekend anchor with WVIT-TV, Channel 30, in Hartford. His head of hair was much fuller then, and mine was much darker. In the two-and-a-half decades since, Chris has become one of ESPN's most well-known and beloved on-air personalities.

Over the course of its 25 years, ESPN has set records, reached numerous milestones, become a household name, and revolutionized sports coverage as we know it.

Whenever a major event takes place in the world of sports, fans know that ESPN will bring them the latest news, the first interviews, and the deepest coverage. Thanks to ESPN, fans across the Nation watched live when Cal Ripken passed Lou Gehrig, when Mark McGwire tied Roger Maris, and when the World Cup was played in the United States for the very first time. ESPN has also made countless innovations in the world of sports broadcasting, introducing techniques like the ``helmet-cam,'' the ``K Zone,'' the ``player mike,'' and ultra-slow-motion replay.

Of course, one can't discuss ESPN without mentioning their most well- known news program, SportsCenter. Watched by as many as 88 million people each month, SportsCenter is a phenomenon within a phenomenon, a program that has carved out its own niche in American culture.

By combining all-star coverage with a knack for wit, SportsCenter has become the model that all other sports programs emulate. Its announcers have perfected a style that is, as one of them might put it, ``as cool as the other side of the pillow.'' Professional athletes admit that they stay up late after game nights to watch their own highlights on the 1 a.m. SportsCenter. Even in games of sandlot baseball or pickup basketball, players have adopted the lingo of ESPN announcers, calling exceptional plays ``SportsCenter highlights'' or ``web gems.''

There is a great deal of uncertainty in our Nation today. We have an election in less than two months. Our troops are on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. We are fighting a global campaign against terrorism.

But even during these difficult times, sports have the power to capture our attention. It is an inescapable fact that sports are woven into the fabric of American life. The spirit of competition; the importance of fair play; courage in the face of adversity--these are all American values that we can and do celebrate with our enthusiasm for sports.

Sports have the power to inspire us all to strive for greater and loftier heights. Who can forget Willis Reed limping onto the floor at Madison Square Garden in 1970, or the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team's ``Miracle on Ice,'' or the American women's team winning the 1999 World Cup?

True, sports can inspire fierce rivalries. We in Connecticut, who live on the front lines of the Yankee-Red Sox divide, know that better than anyone. But more significantly, sports can unite us. At no time was that clearer than in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, when the sight of baseball and football players taking the field helped restore a sense of normalcy, and in a small way, helped our Nation begin to heal.

For the past 25 years, ESPN has helped bring the exciting, emotional, and magical world of sports into the living rooms of millions and millions of Americans. And in doing so, they have become a part of American history.

I wish everyone at ESPN a very happy 25th anniversary, and I wish them nothing but success in the years to come.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, this evening the Senate is expected to consider H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2004. While there are significant problems with this bill, I believe it is in the best interest of ensuring the continuity of government that the Senate pass the bill, as received from the House, without amendment, before we begin this extended recess.

The most troubling problem with this bill is that it may have the unintended consequence of disenfranchising overseas military voters who are serving this Nation in combat. So in taking this action tonight, let me suggest that our work will not be done. I strongly encourage my colleagues in the House to review this legislation in light of these concerns and to consider adopting technical corrections to this bill to address its unintentional consequences.

The bill before the Senate today is, at best, a stopgap measure which attempts to provide a way to reconstitute the House of Representatives in the event that in excess of 100 vacancies occur in its membership. Unlike vacancies in the Senate, which under the Seventeenth Amendment can be immediately filled, the House has no way to reconstitute itself short of holding elections. In essence, H.R. 2488 requires the States to hold expedited special elections to fill vacancies which occur under extraordinary circumstances.

The House-passed bill provides that upon the announcement by the Speaker of the House that more than 100 vacancies exist in the membership of the House, the States affected must hold a special election within 45 days of the announcement, unless there is a regularly scheduled general election scheduled within 75 days of the announcement. This overly optimistic time line all but ensures that overseas military voters and overseas voters will not have their ballots counted in such an election.

In an attempt to address the issue of overseas military voters and other overseas voters, the House adopted language which calls on the States, but does not require them, to issue absentee ballots or voting material to overseas military voters within 15 days of the Speaker's announcement. However, the bill then requires such States to accept and process such ballots for up to 45 days from the date that the State transmitted the ballot to the voter. On its face, those deadlines would require that an election be held no sooner than 60 days after an announcement by a Speaker of the House in order to ensure that such absentee military ballots are counted.

However, the situation may be much worse. Because the House bill does not require States to transmit ballots to overseas military voters by any specific date, under certain State laws, such voters can receive absentee ballots up to literally the day before the election. In such a case, a State would be required to accept the overseas military ballot up to 45 days after that date, or 90 days after the Speaker's announcement.

The obvious result of these two provisions is to potentially extend the date of the election beyond the required 45 days after the Speaker's announcement--ranging from 46 days to 90 days. And therein lies the problem: are overseas military ballots that are received by the State from 1 to 90 days after the actual election date still counted, or are they ignored unless the election is close?

The unintended consequence of this bill is to tell our brave men and women in uniform, who are literally putting their lives on the line for this Nation in combat overseas, that while they may be able to cast a vote, there is no guarantee that their vote will be counted. That is simply an unacceptable result.

On the other hand, if the result is to hold an election open until all possible overseas ballots are received, then this bill does not provide for expedited elections at all. In fact, the result may be the inability of our Government to function for as long as 90 days after a catastrophe. That would be contrary to the stated purpose of the bill.

And that is why our work is not done. This bill may be a necessary interim measure, but to ensure that there is no lapse in the authority of the House, and the ability of Congress, to exercise its constitutional responsibilities, may require a constitutional amendment providing for an appointment to fill a vacancy. In the meantime, until an amendment to the Constitution can be adopted and ratified providing for the immediate reconstitution of the House, this measure provides some assurance that our representative form of government will continue.

Numerous organizations have called on the House to adopt a constitutional approach, not the least of which is the Continuity of Government Commission, chaired by our distinguished former colleague, Alan Simpson, and the respected Lloyd Cutler. While I respect the concerns of my House colleagues that we preserve the House as an elected body, the Framers did not intend that such a noble principle become the undoing of the people's representative branch of government.

We must find a rational and workable way to ensure that our Government continues to function despite the intent of terrorists and others who would render the people's House silent. But we must do it in a way that ensures

that all voters, and particularly those military voters who are serving overseas during a time of war, have an equal opportunity to not only cast a vote, but to have that vote counted.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the United States- Morocco Free-Trade Agreement, which was passed in the Senate yesterday by a vote of 85 to 31. Nearly a year and a half of negotiations were devoted to crafting this agreement by U.S. and Moroccan officials. I voted in support of the implementing legislation to this agreement, and it is my hope that both of our countries will soon move to adopt the agreement.

Every year, the United States exports roughly $475 million worth of goods to Morocco. While this amount is not high when we compare it with U.S. exports to Australia--approximately $13 billion in 2003--it is significant if we view it in the dual contexts of leveling the playing field for American exporters, and, second, development and economic growth. The United States-Morocco FTA will ease the burden on Americans, who, according to the United States Trade Representative, currently face an average tariff of over 20 percent on products they export to Morocco.

Hopefully, this agreement will also spur domestic economic growth in Morocco and encourage that nation to raise its labor and environmental standards. Like all nations, Morocco seeks to develop and modernize its economy. If distributed equitably amongst a nation's citizens, economic modernization and prosperity are important tools in the fight against extremist ideologies that promote terrorism. I hope that will be the case in Morocco.

Indeed, prospects of a United States-Morocco FTA have already in the last year prompted that nation to reform its labor laws. Now it is important that Morocco take all necessary steps to enforce these laws. The U.S. should also encourage Morocco to pursue further labor and environmental reform and strengthen its domestic enforcement of international standards.

That is not to say that this agreement is perfect. No agreement will be perfect--although I still believe that the Jordan FTA, which passed the Senate just a few years ago by a vote of 100 to 0, should serve as a benchmark and guide for the crafting of free trade agreements. Few bills, especially free trade agreements, pass with such overwhelming support. I believe that support was a testament to the inherent quality of that agreement.

Despite my overall support for the pending agreement, I do have a significant concern here. First, as my colleagues are aware, the United States-Morocco FTA, like the United States-Australia FTA, includes language that would allow prescription drug manufacturers to prevent the reimportation of their products.

For a variety of reasons, we are unlikely to import drugs from Morocco in the near future. So as a practical matter, like the United States-Australia FTA, this provision will not affect drug prices in the U.S. And as the United States-Morocco FTA was negotiated around the same time as the United States-Australia FTA, it is not surprising that this provision appears in both agreements. But, in my view, this provision must not be viewed as a precedent by the Bush administration, and I would discourage its inclusion in any future trade agreements entered into by the U.S. Nor do I believe that it prevents us from adopting laws related to drug importation in the future.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Judith L. Lichtman, who stepped down recently after serving for 30 years as president of the National Partnership for Women and Families.

I have been privileged to work with Judy Lichtman for the past quarter century on numerous issues of importance to American women and families. Judy took the lead in efforts to combat gender-based discrimination in the workplace, to protect a woman's right to choose, to provide each and every American with affordable health care, and to in so many other ways help working families across our Nation.

Judy began her career at the National Partnership for Women and Families in 1974, when it was known as the Women's Legal Defense Fund. At the time, she was its executive director and only paid staff member. Under her leadership, the National Partnership has become an organization that has been at the forefront of many major legislative initiatives concerning women and families for the past three decades.

Judy was particularly instrumental in the successful effort to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, legislation I was privileged to author in the Senate. Judy recognized decades ago that each and every day, men and especially women in America are forced to make difficult choices between advancing their careers and caring for their families. The FMLA hasn't eliminated these difficult choices entirely. But by providing working men and women with up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave to care for a sick loved one or a newborn child, it has been an enormous help to women and men as they strive to balance the competing demands of work and family.

In this legislative body, and around our country, we often hear rhetoric about ``family values.'' Judy understands that if ``family values'' as a term means anything, it must be accompanied by policies that actually value families by providing them with access to affordable health care, by helping parents care for their children, by giving working mothers opportunities for equal jobs with equal pay, and by fighting practices that discriminate against parents in the workplace.

Judy understands that the American family's priorities are America's priorities. The family is the fundamental building block of our society. And when we make the American family stronger, we make America stronger.

Judy has won praise from wide circles for her tireless efforts. President Clinton called her ``a remarkable national treasure,'' and I echo those words today. The occasion of Judy's retirement is indeed a bittersweet one. But I have no doubt that she will continue to lend her expertise and passion to the National Partnership as she continues on in the role of senior advisor.

I don't know anyone who is a more passionate, tenacious, and intelligent advocate for women and families than Judy Lichtman. She is a model for generations to come, and I have truly enjoyed the time I have spent working together with her over the years.

I thank Judy for her many, many years of dedicated work, and I wish her luck as she moves on to this new stage in her life and her career.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Mike DeWine, to introduce legislation designed to prevent our nation's children and youth from succumbing to the dangers associated with underage alcohol use. The legislation that we introduce today, the STOP (Sober Truth On Preventing) Underage Drinking Act, will greatly strengthen our Nation's ability to combat the too often deadly consequences associated with underage drinking.

An initial examination of the problems presented by underage drinking is truly alarming. Alcohol is the most commonly used drug among America's youth. More young people drink alcohol than smoke tobacco or use marijuana combined. In 2002, 20 percent of eighth graders had drunk alcohol in the previous 30 days. Forty-nine percent of high school seniors are drinkers, and 29 percent report having had five or more drinks in a row, or binged in the past 2 weeks.

Tragically, we know that this year underage drinking will directly lead to more than 3,500 deaths, more than two million injuries, 1,200 babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome and more than 50,000 youths treated for alcohol dependence. We also know that the social costs associated with underage drinking total close to $53 billion annually, including $19 billion from automobile accidents and $29 billion from associated violent crime.

And while no one can argue with the tragic loss of life and significant financial costs associated with underage drinking, too few of us think of the equally devastating loss of potential that occurs when our children begin to drink. Research indicates that children who begin drinking do so at only 12 years of age. We also know that children that begin drinking at such an early age develop a predisposition for alcohol dependence later in life. Such early experimentation can have devastating consequences and derail a child's potential just as she or he is starting out on the path to adulthood. The consumption of alcohol by our children can literally rob them of their future.

The truly alarming and devastating effects of underage alcohol use are what initially led Senator DeWine and I to begin work to address this important issue. Over the last few months we have worked extensively with Representatives Roybal-Allard, Wolf, DeLauro, Osbourne and Wamp to craft the broad legislative initiative that we introduce today.

The STOP Underage Drinking Act creates the framework for a multifaceted, comprehensive national campaign to prevent underage drinking. Specifically, the legislation includes four major areas of policy development. First, the STOP Underage Drinking Act authorizes $2 million to establish an Interagency Coordinating Committee to coordinate all Federal agency efforts and expertise designed to prevent underage drinking. Chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, this committee will be required to report to the Congress on an annual basis the extent to which Federal efforts are addressing the urgent need to curb underage drinking.

I am particularly pleased that one of the many items in this annual report to Congress will provide for the public health monitoring of the amount of alcohol advertising reaching our children. I have become increasingly concerned about the degree to which alcohol advertisements appear to target our Nation's children. It is my hope that the monitoring called for by this legislation will expose any unethical advertising practices that reach children. We must do all that we can to ensure that our children are not exposed to harmful and deceptive alcohol promotions.

In addition to the Federal coordination of Federal underage drinking prevention efforts, the STOP Underage Drinking Act additionally authorizes $1 million to fund an adult-oriented National Media Campaign against Underage Drinking. Research indicates that most children who drink obtain the alcohol from their parents or from other adults. The National Media Campaign against underage drinking will specifically seek to educate those who provide our children with alcohol about the dangers inherent in underage alcohol use. This media campaign will build upon the valuable underage drinking prevention efforts begun last year by the Ad Council, whose campaigns average an estimated $28 million in donated media from media outlets nationwide.

The legislation additionally authorizes $10 million to provide States, not-for-profit groups and institutions of higher education the ability to create statewide coalitions to prevent underage drinking and alcohol abuse by college and university students. This section will also provide alcohol-specific enhancement grants through the Drug Free Communities Program.

Lastly, the STOP Underage Drinking Act authorizes $6 million to expand research to assess the health effects of underage drinking on adolescent development, including its effect on the brain. This effort will additionally increase Federal data collection on underage drinking, including reporting on the types and brands of alcohol that kids consume.

I want to convey my belief that this legislation truly offers a historical, first step toward addressing the national tragedy represented by underage drinking. I pledge to work strenuously toward passing the STOP Underage Drinking Act and building on its strong foundation and I ask for the support of my colleagues for this critically important initiative.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Cochran, Durbin and Feingold to introduce The International and Foreign Language Studies Act of 2004.

In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the Federal Government due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy. Likewise, American business increasingly needs internationally experienced employees to compete in the global economy and to manage a culturally diverse workforce.

Currently, the U.S. government requires 34,000 employees with foreign language skills across 70 federal agencies. These agencies have stated over the last few years, that translator and interpreter shortfalls have adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, counter-terrorism and diplomatic efforts.

Despite our growing needs, in the 2000-01 school year, the number of undergraduate foreign language degrees conferred was only one percent of all degrees. In 2003, only 41 percent of undergraduates reported taking foreign language courses while only 18 percent reported having studied abroad. And yet, 79 percent of Americans believe that students should study abroad sometime during college.

At a time when our security needs are more important than ever, at a time when our economy demands that we enter new markets, and at a time when the world requires us to engage in diplomacy in more thoughtful and considered ways, it is extremely important that we have at our disposal a multilingual, multi cultural, internationally experienced workforce. The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act attempts to provide us with this.

The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act will increase undergraduate study abroad opportunities as they relate to programs designed to enhance foreign language proficiency and deepen cultural knowledge. The Dodd-Cochran bill will reinstate undergraduate eligibility for Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships. The Dodd-Cochran bill will encourage the Department of Education to engage in the collection, analysis and dissemination of data on international education and foreign language needs so that we know and understand exactly what our needs in this area are. And, most importantly, the Dodd-Cochran bill will demonstrate our nation's commitment to increasing the foreign language proficiency and international experience of our electorate by increasing the amount appropriated to international education within the Higher Education Act to $120 million each year.

The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major activities as they relate to financial assistance for students attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of higher education, services to help students complete high school and enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve the training of our emerging workforce. This bill will help fulfill that mission.

Foreign language skills and international study are vital to secure the future economic welfare of the United States in an increasingly international economy. Foreign language skills and international study are also vital for the nation to meet 21st century security challenges properly and effectively, especially in light of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that we strengthen our Nation's security and economy by capitalizing on the talents and dreams of those who wish to enter the international arena.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Stabenow and Lautenberg to introduce the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees (GRAD) Act.

The percentage of individuals pursuing graduate education has increased dramatically in recent decades as individuals seek the education and skills needed to participate in a technologically complex and global economy. In the last 25 years alone, graduate enrollment in the United States has increased by 39 percent. In the fall of 2000, there were 1.85 million graduate students enrolled in American schools.

The economic benefits of graduate education are significant. The median earnings of workers who possess a graduate or professional degree are more than 3\1/2\ times those of high school dropouts.

Despite the impact of graduate education on individuals' economic well being, and on the economic strength of our national economy as a whole, graduate education is, for many, financially out of reach. In 2001-02 the average graduate school tuition at public institutions was $4,491 and $15,233 at private institutions. In a 2002 borrower's survey, the average debt reported by graduate students was $45,900. This is an astounding figure.

To respond to the need for a highly educated workforce, I have put together a series of proposals that will make graduate education more accessible and affordable to qualified applicants regardless of income level, the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act (GRAD). The purpose of the GRAD Act is to encourage students to pursue graduate education and to assist them in affording it.

Specifically, the GRAD Act increases the authorization level of the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) program to $50 million and the Jacob Javits Fellowship Program to $35 million. The GAANN fellowship program helps to support graduate study in areas of national need such as chemistry, computer and information science, engineering, mathematics and physics. The Jacob Javits Fellowship Program helps support graduate study in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

To encourage greater participation by minority students in graduate studies, the Act creates the Patsy T. Mink Fellowship Program to offer assistance to underrepresented minority students pursuing a doctoral degree. The Patsy T. Mink Fellowship Program will help address the important problem of underrepresentation of students from certain minority groups in graduate education.

To help students afford the costs of graduation education, the GRAD Act expands the tax-exempt status of scholarships to treat reasonable room and board allowances as part of permitted higher education expenses. The Act revises the cost of attendance calculations for financial aid for students with dependents to reflect the true cost of living expenses for themselves and their children. The Act increases the amount of earnings students can set aside without having to apply those earnings to the cost of attendance. The GRAD Act also increases the unsubsidized Stafford loan limit for graduate and professional students from $10,000 to $12,500 so they are less likely to have to turn to more expensive private loans.

The Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act will help students meet the financial challenges faced in pursuing graduate studies. The Act strengthens programs that support graduate students in areas of vital importance to our Nation and makes assistance available to underrepresented minority students pursuing a doctoral degree. By helping students to pursue and afford graduate education, the GRAD Act will help individuals, families and the nation as a whole, realize the important benefits of graduate education.

I hope more of my colleagues will join me in support of graduate education by signing on this bill. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that more individuals are able to pursue graduate education and assist our Nation in meeting the challenges faced in a global economy.

Mr. President, it is often said that small things can make a very large difference in our society. That saying certainly fits the subject I have come to speak briefly about this afternoon. That little thing in question that I am talking about is 3\1/8\ inches wide, 2\1/8\ inches long, and no thicker than one's fingernail. But it has a monumental impact on how millions of Americans live their lives each and every day. The object to which I am referring, of course, is the credit card.

We have come a long way from the day in 1950 when the Diner's Club issued the first universal credit card that allowed its holders to use credit at certain very select restaurants in New York City. Today, the credit card has become an indispensable part of how we do business in the United States, and across the globe, for that matter.

For many Americans, the main appeal of the credit card is convenience and flexibility. They allow us to go out and eat, go to a shopping mall, to the movies, and stop off at the grocery store on the way home, without folding a single bill or fumbling for loose change in their pockets. Credit cards allow people to shop for products on the Internet in a matter of seconds.

But for more and more Americans, credit cards serve a very different purpose. As the name implies, these cards provide access to credit. We are living in a time when real wages are failing to keep up with price increases, when health care costs and college tuition are on the rise. Millions of Americans are having difficulty making ends meet. For Americans who are strapped for cash, credit cards are much more than a convenience. They have become the only way they can afford basic necessities, such as food, gas, clothing, and medical care.

These Americans are not paying by credit card because they want to; they are doing so because they have no other choice. It is this function of credit cards that make them so appealing to American consumers, but I must also say it is this function that presents the greatest danger to them as well.

Today, the level of credit card debt in the United States is at record heights. Total consumer debt in America is over $2 trillion. Out of that, $735 billion is credit card debt. The average American household has over $9,000 worth of credit card debt. Let me repeat that. The average family living in the United States has over $9,000 of credit card debt. In comparison, the average family household income is just above $40,000.

Due in large part to credit card debt, more Americans are filing for bankruptcy. Last year, over 1.6 million families declared they were bankrupt. For every one family that actually does file for bankruptcy, there are seven more whose debt suggests that they, in fact, should do the same.

Credit card debt does not affect all Americans equally. It is a growing burden that is disproportionately being borne by middle-income, low-income, and working-poor families. According to a recent report, during the 1990s, on average, the American family saw its credit card debt go up by 53 percent. The debt of middle-class families, those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 a year, went up 75 percent. For the older Americans, senior citizens, their average credit card debt went up 149 percent. Finally, for very low-income families, those making less than $10,000 a year, credit card debt grew by a shocking 184 percent.

Why is this happening? Why are millions of Americans drowning in credit card debt? There are some who would describe the numbers I just quoted as a matter of personal responsibility, that some Americans are spending way beyond their means and ultimately are paying the price.

I do believe personal responsibility is extremely important, but many of the victims of credit card debt today are not in that state because they bought a home entertainment system, an expensive vacation, or a plasma TV set.

Take Roberto Towler. Roberto was a professional accountant who was very careful to always pay his bills on time. In early 2000 he was forced to take 2 months off from work because of a back injury. The lost salary meant he had much less cash on hand than before. He had no alternative but to use his credit card for toiletries, clothes for his children, and groceries. He eventually was able to return to work and scale back the use of his credit card, but he found himself barely able to pay back his debt. Eventually Roberto was forced to file bankruptcy with $22,000 of credit card debt.

Many Americans have stories just like Mr. Towler. They work hard, they play by the rules, but after a few twists of fate suddenly find themselves in a tremendous debt. For those caught in the quicksand of debt, a credit card appears to be a lifeline. But, in reality, it only pulls them in deeper and deeper.

We often speak of the ill and infirm as living on borrowed time. These people are living on borrowed money.

In the middle of all this are credit card companies. If we demand responsibility from individuals, and we should, and we do demand it, then we also ought to demand it from corporations as well. Responsibility is not limited to those who are consumers alone.

The reason I am here today is because a good deal of the blame for the crisis in credit card debt we are seeing in America lies in the practices of credit card companies.

I am not someone who takes regulatory reform lightly. I am not a believer in regulation that stifles innovation or efficiency. But at the same time, when we see practices that are truly hurting working families around the country, I believe we have an obligation to act. Just what kind of practices are we talking about? Let me spell it out.

Let's start with interest rates. I am not naive about this. I certainly do not expect credit card companies to be terribly benevolent when it comes to interest rates. But what I expect, and what all Americans deserve, is honesty and fairness.

We have all seen print ads and commercials that advertise fantastically low interest rates, sometimes as low as zero percent. But what these commercials don't tell you is that these teaser rates, as they are called, often expire and rise considerably only after a few months.

If you slip up even once by failing to make a minimum monthly payment, your interest rate may go up even faster. Just one mistake can be enough to drive an interest rate up by nearly 30 percentage points. Of course that information is usually hidden in the fine print of a lengthy disclosure statement.

Most Americans would assume that their interest rates will stay low as long as they make their minimum monthly payments. Not so. Today, credit card companies don't just look at the bill that you pay them, they look at your entire financial picture in deciding how high your interest rate ought to be, how high a rate they ought to charge you.

I learned of a doctor in Illinois who had always paid his credit card bills on time and stayed within his credit card limits. Then one day he took a look at his bill and discovered that the interest rate on his credit card had jumped from 6 percent to nearly 17 percent. He asked the credit card issuer, why? The company said that he was now a higher risk.

What was the reason?

He had taken out a mortgage on his new home.

This is incredible to me. There are few things more rewarding to a family than buying their first home. We celebrate home ownership here in America. Apparently for credit card companies it's a reason to celebrate as well, because it's an excuse to charge higher interest rates.

Interest rates, of course, are not the only way credit card companies make money. In recent years, more and more companies have found another way to increase their bottom lines, by assessing exorbitant fees for the most minor of offenses. Miss a payment by a single day and you may be charged $30 or even $40 for that mistake. Gone are the grace periods that gave consumers some reasonable leeway.

Over the past 2 years, the amount of money generated by credit card fees has simply skyrocketed. In fact, the term ``skyrocketed'' may be something of an understatement. In 1996, the fees raised $1.7 billion for credit card companies. That's 1996. Last year the credit card companies raised $11 billion in fees alone, only 8 years later.

You might think that if credit card companies know that someone is a risk they would take some action to limit that person's spending, such as lowering their credit line. Or perhaps they might not issue a card to that person in the first place.

But there is a little secret the credit card companies don't want Americans to know. They are actively soliciting and signing up customers who are tremendous credit risks. They are soliciting these people not in spite of the risk, but because of it.

Contrary to what one might think, customers who cannot afford to pay their bills on time are the credit card companies' best customers--not their worst. Unbelievably, these customers who do pay on time are known within the credit card industry as ``deadbeats.''

Let me repeat that. Those who pay their credit card bills on time are known within the industry as ``deadbeats.'' Why is this? Because when people fail to pay their bills on time, that means more profits for the credit card industry, in the form of more interest charges and penalty fees.

How much more of a profit? Let's say you are the average American, with $9,000 in credit card debt, which is the case today. Let's say you stopped accumulating any more debt and decided you would pay it off by making the minimum monthly payment of 2 percent. Let's say further that your interest rate is 15 percent--which is just about the average today, I might add.

How long would it take you to pay off that debt? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? It would take 39 years to pay off your debt. Over the course of those 39 years, you would pay $14,000 in interest payments alone, in addition to the $9,000 you owe. This is all assuming, of course, that your interest rate wouldn't rise over those years and that you wouldn't be hit with unexpected fees.

Credit card companies know this. They know their greatest chance of financial profit lies in those customers who have the least chance of paying their bills on time. That is why they continue to solicit these customers and that is why those who do pay on time are known within the industry as the deadbeats.

Last year, credit card companies mailed out 5 billion solicitations to about 200 million individuals in the United States. The average person received about one offer every other week. The average household received more than one per week. I guarantee that a great many of these people do not have sparkling credit ratings, yet these companies continue to send out offer after offer, hoping that yet another customer will take the bait.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the July 6, 2004 edition of the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Growing Profit Source for Banks: Fees from Riskiest Card Holders.''

This goes into the topic in greater detail.

What I find most troubling about this trend is that credit card companies have set their sights on the most vulnerable members of our society when it comes to debt--low-income individuals, the elderly, mentally retarded, and most recently, our children.

Go to any college campus in America and you are bound to come across a table where an enthusiastic sales person is offering free T-shirts, or sports bags, or Frisbees--almost anything in exchange for signing up as a credit card customer. According to a report on CBS News, the average college student is offered 8 cards in his or her first semester in college--8 credit cards. By the end of college, the average graduating senior has 6 credit cards in his or her name.

Why are credit card companies targeting college students so frequently? Because of their limited experience with financial matters, students tend to accumulate debt very quickly, and as a result, more and more of our young people are falling deeper and deeper into the financial hole from which they cannot escape.

In 1998, 67 percent of college students had a credit card. Today, 83 percent have credit cards. In 1998, the average college student graduated with $1,800 in credit card debt. Today the average college senior graduates with $3,000 in credit card debt.

I was shocked to learn that the fastest growing segment of our population that is forced to declare bankruptcy is people under the age of 25. Think of

that. The fastest growing group of people declaring bankruptcy are people under the age of 25.

When we think about bankruptcy, we generally envision middle-aged Americans with failed businesses, investments gone bad, perhaps medical bills that have spiraled out of control. The answer is not so. It's college kids, recent graduates.

Some time ago, a piece on ``60 Minutes II'' told a story of one student's circumstance, Sean Moyer. I have told the story on the floor before but I think it deserves being repeated.

Sean's life began to spin out of control as a result of huge debts racked up in 3 years of college. He could not get loans to go to law school, as he dreamed. His parents couldn't afford to pay his way.

Sean Moyer had 12 credit cards and more than $10,000 in debts. He had two jobs, one at the library, another as a security guard in a Holiday Inn, but he still could not pay the collectors who continually harassed him with letters and phone calls. In 1998, Sean Moyer took his own life.

Three years after his son's death, his mother still gets pre-approved credit card offers in Sean's name. According to his mother, one company preapproved Sean for a $100,000 credit card line.

How is the credit card industry doing as a result of these practices? These companies are thriving. Credit Card Management, an industry publication, reported that 2003 was the most profitable year for credit cards since the magazine began tracking the industry in 1992.

What makes matters even more astonishing is that this is happening when interest rates are at an all-time low. Yet, for millions of Americans, the interest rates they read about in the newspapers, those set by the Federal Reserve, bear absolutely no relationship whatsoever to interest rates that appear on their credit card bills.

Still, the industry wants more. In recent years, while they have been encouraging consumers to accumulate debt, credit card companies have simultaneously been lobbying Congress to change bankruptcy laws to make it harder and harder for people to have their debts forgiven. This amounts to a two pronged attack on working families in America--get people into as much debt as possible, and then change the rules of the game so they can't get rid of that debt.

It is time we stood up for consumers. It is time we restored a sense of responsibility to this industry.

I am here today to introduce the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2004, also known as the Credit CARD Act. This bill takes aim at what I consider to be some of the more egregious abuses of consumers by credit card companies.

This bill takes some simple, common-sense steps to stop abusive practices, educate cardholders, and stiffen the penalties on corporations that violate the law.

First of all, I think we can all agree that it is reasonable for a consumer to be clearly notified if his or her interest rates are going up. That is not a radical idea, that is just common sense. My bill would require clear disclosure of any rate changes so there aren't any surprises for the average consumer.

I also don't believe a company should be able to retroactively change the interest rate on debt that already exists. If you want to raise interest rates, fine, but raise them on future debt, not existing debt. Our bill would prohibit any retroactive interest rate changes.

Second, I believe that companies should be rewarding people for responsible card use--not penalizing them. If you pay your bills on time, your interest rate shouldn't go up. If you pay off your balances in full, your company shouldn't be able to charge you any new fees. If you decide to cancel your card, your interest rate shouldn't go up. I am pointing out these facts because that is exactly what happens. My bill would codify all of these common-sense principles into law.

Third, my bill would protect some of the most vulnerable in our society--our Nation's youth--by implementing new requirements for issuing credit cards to people under the age of 21. We are not going to prohibit college students from getting cards, but we are going to make sure that companies can't simply give away cards to millions and millions of students who they know will rack up years and years worth of debt and potentially face bankruptcy and financial ruin before their working lives have barely begun.

If you apply for a credit card and you are under 21, under this bill you will need one of three things: A signature of a parent or guardian who is willing to take responsibility for your debt; information indicating that you have some other means of repaying any debt; or a certification that you have completed a credit counseling course. And if you are a credit card company that offers cards to students under 21, you will be required to comply with these requirements--or face serious penalties.

Finally, this bill requires companies to be honest with consumers by introducing some new disclosure requirements. The most important one is a box--prominently located on every single bill--containing four simple pieces of information: The total balance on your account; your minimum monthly payment; how long it will take to pay your bill if all you pay is the minimum monthly payment; and finally, how much you will have to pay over time--in both interest and principal--if you only make the minimum payments.

The reason for these disclosures is simple, and to many, probably obvious: To allow consumers to know exactly what it means to carry a debt, so they can decide whether or not to do so.

The Credit CARD Act also contains a number of additional disclosure requirements to bring more transparency to an industry that has clearly reaped benefits from the use of fine print and lengthy and confusing policy statements.

We are not asking for much here--only that companies be fair and straightforward with consumers. Let us see some real disclosures so Americans can understand what their bill means, how much they are being charged, and why.

No one wants credit cards to disappear. I certainly believe credit cards are tremendously valuable and worthwhile as long as they are handled responsibly. And no one wants people who need and deserve credit to have no way to get it. But we can't simply stand by as more and more Americans fall deeper and deeper into debt with no way out. We need to take some responsible action so that the credit card can still be a useful financial tool without being a ticket to financial ruin.

If we are going to pass bankruptcy bills in the Senate that demand more responsibility from consumers, shouldn't we demand more responsibility from creditors, as well? This bill, the Credit CARD Act, does just that, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to adopt it.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce important legislation which I believe is vital to our economic security. I am proud to introduce this legislation, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2004, with Senators Bennett, Schumer, Jack Reed, Hagel, Dole, Bunning, Crapo, Chafee, Harry Reid, and Ben Nelson.

As my colleagues know, the Senate hasn't been a model of legislative productivity this year. It has been a very difficult year--there has been partisan gridlock on a whole host of issues.

It is against this backdrop, the day that we adjourn for 6 weeks for the August recess which includes both conventions and campaigning, that I am proud to speak about an issue that has broad bipartisan support. That issue is an extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.

This critically important legislation has a history of bipartisan support and I am pleased to say that the robust support on both sides of the aisle still exists as we consider an extension of the program.

The original TRIA legislation was not an easy undertaking. But we persevered, negotiated, and had a frank exchange of views over numerous months and in the end, even though it was at times a laborious, difficult process, we produced a bipartisan bill that garnered 86 votes in this body on this critically important issue.

I worked closely with Democratic Senators Schumer, Sarbanes, Reed, and Corzine as well as Senators Bennett, Hagel, Phil Gramm, and many others on the Republican side to get this critical bill passed. That is the model that the Senate should follow more often and that is the model that we are following as we introduce a 2-year extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act today which will provide continued economic security and stability and avoid potential chaos in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

The September 11 tragedy resulted in disbelief, devastation, and economic dislocation. An attack on our country seemed unimaginable. Few believed any significant major terrorist attack would occur, no less the one as horrific and devastating as the one on 9/11.

September 11 changed everything, most visibly, of course, national and homeland security policy. But September 11 also fundamentally changed the way insurers looked at terrorism risks which suddenly started to resemble an act of war. As a result, after 9/11 the insurance market for terrorism nearly completely dried up. Coverage was unavailable. Many financial transactions weren't able to proceed. And construction workers and other hard-working Americans suddenly found themselves economic victims of terrorism.

In short, we wrote TRIA for a very simple reason: hundreds of thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars of business investment hung in the balance.

We worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass this bill including significant support from this administration which deserves its fair share of credit for enactment of the legislation in November 2002.

TRIA was created as a 3-year Federal program to help make sure the part of the commercial insurance marketplace, disrupted by 9/11, could work again. Most Americans don't even know that TRIA provides a crucial economic safety net for virtually every sector of our economy. Transportation, real estate, utilities, construction, travel and tourism, and financial institutions are just a few of the sectors that need TRIA to protect them against the economic devastation that would come because of a terrorist attack.

Under TRIA, the Government shoulders a share of the financial risk of future attacks. This makes sense--these attacks are against us as Americans, against our democracy, our way of life.

But TRIA also required insurers to offer terrorism coverage on commercial policies. In addition, insurance companies would have to bear an escalating financial burden in future years.

TRIA is working. This public-private ``shared loss'' mechanism is making terrorism insurance available to all businesses at a reasonable cost. Under TRIA, in the event of another terrorist attack, private insurers will still shoulder tens of billions of dollars of terrorism related risk.

What TRIA does is act as a backstop to the private commercial property-casualty insurance system. It gives the market some certainty by establishing, by law, a limit to insured terrorism losses for the insurance industry and the Federal Government.

The Mortgage Bankers Association recently surveyed its 40 largest commercial/multi-family mortgage banking firms. A substantial majority of them believe that TRIA has made terrorism insurance both more available and less expensive.

But the Mortgage Bankers also noted that failure to extend TRIA would probably hurt the commercial real estate market. If we let TRIA expire, we will see the same uncertain environment we saw before TRIA.

TRIA does not expire until the end of 2005. Now some may wonder why I am choosing today to join with Senator Bennett and others to introduce this legislation to extend the program.

The answer is that we cannot wait until next year.

The economic safety net that TRIA provides will begin to come apart as

early as this fall if Congress does not act.

In the next few months, commercial insurers and their policyholders will begin negotiating new policies. But any 12-month policy taken out after Jan 1 will include at least some time where TRIA doesn't exist if we let it expire.

If we let TRIA expire, business consumers are going to have a hard time getting the coverage they need. That can only hurt our economy, and I'm sure that all Senators share the goal of growing our economy.

If we don't act this year, insurers will have to evaluate every policy as if the backstop will not exist for part of the coverage period.

Senator Bennett and I and other colleagues propose a 2-year extension this year. That will help avoid destabilizing the insurance market, and, in turn, the national economy. It will give Congress, insurers, businesses, and Government officials time to gather all available, relevant data.

Collecting that data--without fear of market disruption--will help all of us develop a more permanent solution for managing our Nation's economic exposure to catastrophic terrorism.

I know there is plenty of partisan tension in the Senate this year. But keeping our country safe from the economic devastation of a terrorist attack is a critical priority. It is too important to be affected by partisan politics. We didn't let that happen last time, and I hope everyone can work on a bipartisan basis and follow the bipartisan model--rare in this body these days--to make sure it doesn't happen this time.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Mike DeWine, to introduce legislation designed to prevent our nation's children and youth from succumbing to the dangers associated with underage alcohol use. The legislation that we introduce today, the STOP (Sober Truth On Preventing) Underage Drinking Act, will greatly strengthen our Nation's ability to combat the too often deadly consequences associated with underage drinking.

An initial examination of the problems presented by underage drinking is truly alarming. Alcohol is the most commonly used drug among America's youth. More young people drink alcohol than smoke tobacco or use marijuana combined. In 2002, 20 percent of eighth graders had drunk alcohol in the previous 30 days. Forty-nine percent of high school seniors are drinkers, and 29 percent report having had five or more drinks in a row, or binged in the past 2 weeks.

Tragically, we know that this year underage drinking will directly lead to more than 3,500 deaths, more than two million injuries, 1,200 babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome and more than 50,000 youths treated for alcohol dependence. We also know that the social costs associated with underage drinking total close to $53 billion annually, including $19 billion from automobile accidents and $29 billion from associated violent crime.

And while no one can argue with the tragic loss of life and significant financial costs associated with underage drinking, too few of us think of the equally devastating loss of potential that occurs when our children begin to drink. Research indicates that children who begin drinking do so at only 12 years of age. We also know that children that begin drinking at such an early age develop a predisposition for alcohol dependence later in life. Such early experimentation can have devastating consequences and derail a child's potential just as she or he is starting out on the path to adulthood. The consumption of alcohol by our children can literally rob them of their future.

The truly alarming and devastating effects of underage alcohol use are what initially led Senator DeWine and I to begin work to address this important issue. Over the last few months we have worked extensively with Representatives Roybal-Allard, Wolf, DeLauro, Osbourne and Wamp to craft the broad legislative initiative that we introduce today.

The STOP Underage Drinking Act creates the framework for a multifaceted, comprehensive national campaign to prevent underage drinking. Specifically, the legislation includes four major areas of policy development. First, the STOP Underage Drinking Act authorizes $2 million to establish an Interagency Coordinating Committee to coordinate all Federal agency efforts and expertise designed to prevent underage drinking. Chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, this committee will be required to report to the Congress on an annual basis the extent to which Federal efforts are addressing the urgent need to curb underage drinking.

I am particularly pleased that one of the many items in this annual report to Congress will provide for the public health monitoring of the amount of alcohol advertising reaching our children. I have become increasingly concerned about the degree to which alcohol advertisements appear to target our Nation's children. It is my hope that the monitoring called for by this legislation will expose any unethical advertising practices that reach children. We must do all that we can to ensure that our children are not exposed to harmful and deceptive alcohol promotions.

In addition to the Federal coordination of Federal underage drinking prevention efforts, the STOP Underage Drinking Act additionally authorizes $1 million to fund an adult-oriented National Media Campaign against Underage Drinking. Research indicates that most children who drink obtain the alcohol from their parents or from other adults. The National Media Campaign against underage drinking will specifically seek to educate those who provide our children with alcohol about the dangers inherent in underage alcohol use. This media campaign will build upon the valuable underage drinking prevention efforts begun last year by the Ad Council, whose campaigns average an estimated $28 million in donated media from media outlets nationwide.

The legislation additionally authorizes $10 million to provide States, not-for-profit groups and institutions of higher education the ability to create statewide coalitions to prevent underage drinking and alcohol abuse by college and university students. This section will also provide alcohol-specific enhancement grants through the Drug Free Communities Program.

Lastly, the STOP Underage Drinking Act authorizes $6 million to expand research to assess the health effects of underage drinking on adolescent development, including its effect on the brain. This effort will additionally increase Federal data collection on underage drinking, including reporting on the types and brands of alcohol that kids consume.

I want to convey my belief that this legislation truly offers a historical, first step toward addressing the national tragedy represented by underage drinking. I pledge to work strenuously toward passing the STOP Underage Drinking Act and building on its strong foundation and I ask for the support of my colleagues for this critically important initiative.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Cochran, Durbin and Feingold to introduce The International and Foreign Language Studies Act of 2004.

In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the Federal Government due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy. Likewise, American business increasingly needs internationally experienced employees to compete in the global economy and to manage a culturally diverse workforce.

Currently, the U.S. government requires 34,000 employees with foreign language skills across 70 federal agencies. These agencies have stated over the last few years, that translator and interpreter shortfalls have adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, counter-terrorism and diplomatic efforts.

Despite our growing needs, in the 2000-01 school year, the number of undergraduate foreign language degrees conferred was only one percent of all degrees. In 2003, only 41 percent of undergraduates reported taking foreign language courses while only 18 percent reported having studied abroad. And yet, 79 percent of Americans believe that students should study abroad sometime during college.

At a time when our security needs are more important than ever, at a time when our economy demands that we enter new markets, and at a time when the world requires us to engage in diplomacy in more thoughtful and considered ways, it is extremely important that we have at our disposal a multilingual, multi cultural, internationally experienced workforce. The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act attempts to provide us with this.

The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act will increase undergraduate study abroad opportunities as they relate to programs designed to enhance foreign language proficiency and deepen cultural knowledge. The Dodd-Cochran bill will reinstate undergraduate eligibility for Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships. The Dodd-Cochran bill will encourage the Department of Education to engage in the collection, analysis and dissemination of data on international education and foreign language needs so that we know and understand exactly what our needs in this area are. And, most importantly, the Dodd-Cochran bill will demonstrate our nation's commitment to increasing the foreign language proficiency and international experience of our electorate by increasing the amount appropriated to international education within the Higher Education Act to $120 million each year.

The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major activities as they relate to financial assistance for students attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of higher education, services to help students complete high school and enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve the training of our emerging workforce. This bill will help fulfill that mission.

Foreign language skills and international study are vital to secure the future economic welfare of the United States in an increasingly international economy. Foreign language skills and international study are also vital for the nation to meet 21st century security challenges properly and effectively, especially in light of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that we strengthen our Nation's security and economy by capitalizing on the talents and dreams of those who wish to enter the international arena.