Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the conference report on the tax cut legislation that the Senate just considered.

I find it regrettable that we were forced to speed through debate on the tax cut bill last week, and were once again forced to hurry through this conference report. This is probably the most important bill that we will be debating and voting on this year. Its repercussions will be felt for years to come, and yet it seems that very little thought has really been given to it.

Regrettably, I could not in good faith support this Reconciliation in its current form for three reasons.

First, it will be ineffective in reviving the economy now.

Second, it is irresponsible insofar as it adds tremendously to the national debt for no compelling purpose.

Third, it is unfair to working families across the country insofar as it drains resources from investments in education and health care to fund tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefit the most affluent.

I will discuss these points in turn.

First, the resolution we have before us fails to effectively address the needs of our country. Instead of investing in a stronger economy for the future, the conference agreement provides little assistance and stimulus to our struggling economy now.

In the nearly 2\1/2\ years since the President has come into office, our nation has suffered a dramatic decline. We went from unparalleled job creation, economic growth, and opportunity to skyrocketing deficits and national debt, high unemployment, and uncertainty about the future.

Contrary to the claims of its proponents, it is by no means certain this conference agreement will create jobs or provide millions of working families with the relief they need. What is certain, however, is that it will drastically increase the national debt, and severely weaken key national priorities including homeland security, education, and health care.

According to Economy.com, the massive deficits that will be caused by the administration's tax cut will decrease gross domestic product by 0.25 percent annually beginning in 2005. GDP will be lower by 1.0 percent in 2013 than it would be without the Bush plan. The result is a loss of 750,000 jobs by 2013 according to Mark Zandi, a well-respected, non-partisan economist at Economy.com.

The administration's policies are not considered to be ineffective on a partisan basis, they are considered to be ineffective on a bipartisan basis, as well.

Republican Senators have voiced concern about the ineffectiveness and irresponsibleness of this proposal.

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has said that these large tax cuts, if not paid for by offsetting cuts in spending, will drive us deeper into deficit and that such high deficits and debt will actually hurt our long-term economic growth.

Other respected conservative economists have also warned us about the direction we are taking. For instance, AEI economist Kevin Hasset stated that the proposal, by cutting taxes in one year and then raising them in another, ``is one of the most patently absurd tax policies ever proposed,'' Similarly, Robert Bixby of the Concord Coalition said that the tax plan passed by the Senate just keeps ``building one gimmick on top of another gimmick.''

However, this administration continues to turn a deaf ear to their warnings, as it pursues its discredited economic theories.

Second, this conference agreement is irresponsible.

Two years ago, economists projected record surpluses; now they forecast record deficits. Recently the Congressional Budget Office raised its estimate of the deficit this year to more than $300 billion. This is the largest federal deficit ever in the history of our country. And it does not include the tax cut that is before us.

It is a fact that high deficits mean an increase in long-term interest rates on small business loans, families' mortgages, and education loans. These deficits therefore act as a hidden tax on working people.

Also the cost of all of the President's tax cuts and the deficits will explode just as baby boomers start to retire. Over the next ten years, more than $2 trillion will be raided from Social Security in order to pay for the President's tax cuts and spending plans. The Social Security surplus is going to be consumed.

Last month, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said that the retirement of the baby boomers will drive spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone from 8 percent of the economy's output today to 14 percent in 2030, and to 21 percent by 2075. When you also consider national defense, homeland security, education, health care, and other vital national priorities, you are left with a fiscal breakdown. But again, the administration is ignoring these warnings.

At the very time the President is asking for massive tax reductions, he is also asking for the largest debt limit increase in the history of the United States. He is seeking an increase of $984 billion. The President has dug this economy into a debt hole. He needs to stop digging. Yet, instead, he is reaching for a bigger shovel.

From coast to coast, states are facing the most serious fiscal crisis since World War II. States are in need of fiscal relief now. In Connecticut, we know that all too well. While there is a State relief package in the conference agreement, the overall agreement is going to

hurt States not help them since this legislation will mean less resources for Connecticut and other States to invest in infrastructure, education, homeland security, and health care for needy children and the elderly.

Americans all over the country have expressed their opinions in poll after poll. They believe that we should not be passing a massive tax cut if it means cutting Medicare, if it means cutting social security, and if it means cutting education. This conference agreement ignores the concerns of the American people.

Third, this tax bill is unfair to working families.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an article that says that through the President's tax proposal, some affluent investors may be able to avoid paying almost any taxes. Their tax bill would be almost near zero. This is unfair to middle-class Americans.

It is bad enough that we are going to force our children and grandchildren to shoulder the costs of this tax cut.

It is bad enough that this costly and irresponsible tax cut will bring about an average tax cut of $93,500 to tax filers who earn more than $1 million, while those households in the middle of the income spectrum, which includes the average family in Connecticut, would receive a tax cut of about $217.

It is bad enough that according to an analysis done by the Tax Policy Center, 36 percent of all U.S. households would receive no tax cut whatsoever in 2003 under the conference agreement, and 53 percent of households would receive a tax cut of $100 or less.

This bill also fails to address a crisis affecting Americans and small businesses--the burden of the high costs of health insurance. In the past year alone, health care premiums for businesses have risen more than 13 percent. This is extremely burdensome for small businesses, which employ 50 percent of the workers in this country. The Democratic alternative to the tax bill, which did not pass, provided small businesses with a 50 percent tax credit in 2003 to help pay their share of insurance premiums. This conference agreement that is before us contains nothing to assist small businesses that are struggling to keep their employees insured during these times when cash is tight and health care costs are rising.

In order to fit the massive tax breaks for the most privileged into the $350 billion limit that was agreed upon, the marriage penalty relief and the child tax credit increase will expire next year, which means a tax increase of $850 for a family of four with an income of $40,000 in 2005. Also, the small business expensing and bonus depreciation provisions, which would encourage business investments and provide them with needed relief, will also expire. This is essentially increasing taxes on small business owners.

In closing, I believe that the conference agreement before the Senate fails the test of common sense. It also fails the test of common decency. At a time of war, at a time of economic stagnation, at a time of rising national debt, and of rising national concern about how we will educate America's children and care for the health needs of our people, one might expect our national leaders to pursue policies calling for shared sacrifice to achieve shared benefits. Regrettably, that is not the case. This administration has a clear vision: to benefit the privileged few even if it means sacrificing the hopes and aspirations of the rest of the people. We can do better as a Senate, and do better for our country.

ceo signature legislation

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the vote that just took place to increase the debt ceiling.

The national debt is growing larger and larger, and yet just several hours ago the Senate passed another massive irresponsible tax cut that will add to our debt and lead this Nation down a fiscally perilous path.

Two years ago, the President assured the Nation that if we adopted his tax cut, we would see job growth, and we would still be able to eliminate the publicly held debt by 2008. The result was far from this.

In the more than 2 years that he has been President, 2.7 million jobs have been lost, and we are now having to increase the debt to $7.384 trillion, an increase of $984 billion--almost $1 trillion. This is the largest debt increase in the history of our country.

The debt limit was last increased on June 28 of last year by $450 billion. Prior to that increase, the limit had not been raised since August 1997.

The administration's request to raise the debt limit by almost $1 trillion confirms that it is unwise to make long-term commitments to tax cuts based on shaky projections and gimmicks. I truly think this increase is a mistake, and for that reason I voted against the debt limit increase.

Just several hours ago, the Senate approved a $350 billion tax cut that will further deteriorate our fiscal outlook. It will worsen the already skyrocketing deficit and our national debt.

Increasing deficits will decrease national savings and increase long- term interest rates, which effectively lowers the incomes of working Americans. Also, the national debt is not free. The hard working men and women in this country have to pay interest on the debt for decades, and when the deficit is high, it requires so much Federal borrowing that it displaces private investment and pushes up interest rates on mortgages, consumer credit, business borrowing, and capital investment. This in turn leads to less private investment, which reduces the size of the economy and future standards of living in the long run.

There are consequences to our actions, and yet the administration and the majority of this Congress are turning a blind eye to these consequences.

We unfortunately are in a position where we have to increase the debt, because we do not want to see the country in default. But we should be doing it in a responsible manner which is why I voted in support of an amendment which would have increased the debt limit by $350 billion.

An amendment was also proposed today that would have prohibited the Treasury Department from disinvesting the Social Security trust fund to stay under the debt limit. This amendment would have kept the Social Security trust fund safe for our retirees, and yet it was defeated by this body under the leadership of the majority party.

I believe we have a responsibility in the Senate to always do what is right for future generations. I think that the tax cut that was passed earlier today, and the debt increase that was passed several moments ago, fails to take the needs and hopes of future generations into consideration.

Mr. President, yesterday there were reports in the stock market that companies facing asbestos-related lawsuits had falling stock prices, some of them rather precipitously, in the New York stock exchange. USG fell more than $2, 17 percent; Georgia Pacific, Crown Holdings, R.W. Grace, and on and on, companies that have the potential of significant lawsuits.

The Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Nebraska, as well as the Senator from Delaware, are trying to pull a bill together. We have not done that yet.

I thought it important before we leave on this break to express to our colleagues that we are working very hard to come up with a compromise proposal on the asbestos issue. We have taken major steps in that direction, working with organized labor, with the insurance industry, with the insured, and many others that have a stakeholding in the outcome of this particular effort. It is a critically important effort.

We say to those out there wondering whether or not we will be able to get a bill, we believe we will. It will take time. It is hard work to pull this together properly. It is a lot of detailed work that needs to be done. We thought it was important to send a message to those interested in the subject matter that we are confident it can be done. We will have to work very hard in the coming days, particularly over this break, to try to resolve the differences that exist, and they are not insignificant. We believe there is such good will on the part of all to resolve this matter that it is in our interests to spend the time and effort.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, who has been tremendously helpful and productive in working with us. I yield to him for any comments he may want to make. We are all determined to get a bill. We believe we can get that done. It will take hard work.

Madam President, if I may just conclude, I thank again the Senator from Vermont for his comments. He has outlined this very well. It must truly be a no fault system. It must be truly no fault so both industry as well as victims have certainty. Medical criteria, medical monitoring--a variety of other provisions must be part of the effort.

Those are major agreements that have already been struck. Getting down to the details is the hard part. We are confident it will happen. It will require a lot of work. It can't be done on the fly, if we are going to take the unprecedented step dealing with the asbestos issue.

Amendment No. 834

Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues, especially Chairman Warner and Senator Levin, for their support in approving amendment No. 785 that I offered to help America's firefighters and ensure that our Nation will be prepared to respond to future acts of terrorism, should they occur. The amendment, which was approved by the Senate yesterday as part of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, will authorize the creation of a grant initiative to help local governments hire the firefighters they need to address the threat of terrorism and the dangers posed by more ordinary crises.

This amendment, Senate Amendment No. 785, is nearly identical to the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, SAFER, Act, which I am pleased to have co-authored with the distinguished Senator and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee--Mr. Warner. I am happy to say that this amendment has enjoyed strong support on both sides of the aisle.

The amendment I offered will help ensure that America's local fire agencies have the human resources they need to meet the challenge of an extended war against terrorism. The amendment authorizes the President to provide up to $3 billion in firefighter staffing grants to State and local governments over the next 3 years. These grants will provide a portion of the salary for new firefighters hired by State and local agencies.

Many of us in Congress have long understood that America's firefighters make extraordinary contributions to their communities every day. But on September 11, 2001, we got a glimpse of the larger role that the men and women of the fire service play. The National role of our firefighters has become apparent and our firefighters have made the Nation proud.

After September 11, we know that America needs its firefighters to be better prepared to respond to deliberate acts of mass destruction. The fire service needs to be better prepared to deal with acts of bioterrorism and it needs to be prepared to help save people who have been attacked with toxic chemical weapons. In short, America's fire departments need to be prepared for what once seemed unthinkable.

Despite the increasingly important role firefighters play as part of our National homeland defense system, communities over the years have not been able to maintain the level of staffing necessary to ensure the safety of the public of our firefighters themselves. Since 1970, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the U.S. workforce has steadily declined and the budget crises that our State and local governments are now enduring have only made matters worse. Across the country today, firefighter staffing is being cut and fire stations are even being closed because of State and local budget shortfalls.

That is not to say that we haven't made progress--we have. In recent years, the Federal Government has recognized that it can and should be a better partner with local firefighters. In 2000, my colleagues Senator DeWine, Senator Levin, Senator Warner, and I worked successfully on this floor to help create the FIRE Act. The FIRE Act was the first Federal grant program explicitly designed to help fire departments throughout America obtain better equipment, improved training, and much needed personnel. Since September 11, 2001, Congress and the administration have provided billions of dollars to help local firefighters purchase equipment and training to respond to acts of terrorism, accidental fires, chemical spills, and natural disasters. Over the last 2 years, the Federal FIRE Act grant initiative has provided nearly $\1/2\ billion in direct assistance to local fire departments across the country and will provide another $750 million this year. We are beginning to significantly improve the quality of the equipment available to firefighters in every State and in communities large and small.

Today, with passage of the SAFER provision, we have taken a giant step forward toward improving staffing conditions for America's fire service. The need for this legislation is abundantly clear. Currently two-thirds of all fire departments operate with inadequate staffing. Experts believe that previous hiring limitations and the increased demands for first responder services have resulted in a shortage of 85,000 firefighters.

According to a ``Needs Assessment Study'' recently released by the U.S. Fire Administration, USFA, and the National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, understaffing contributes to enormous problems. For example, USFA and NFPA have found that only 11 percent of our Nation's fire departments have the personnel and equipment they need to respond to a building collapse involving 50 or more occupants. I am delighted that the Senate has taken steps to address these problems and, again, I thank my colleagues for joining me in this important effort.

In closing, let me say that this legislation honors America's firefighters. It acknowledges the men and women who charge up the stairs while everybody else is running down. But it does more

than that. This legislation is an investment in America's security, an investment to ensure the safety of our firefighters, our families, our homes, and our businesses.

Both the International Association of Firefighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs have expressed their strong support for this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague, Senator Brownback, in introducing legislation to create a National Museum of African American History and Culture within the Smithsonian Institution.

This legislation will help ensure that the compelling stories and invaluable contributions of African-Americans to our national fabric will no longer be ignored, but shared with all Americans, indeed, all peoples of the world.

Senator Brownback introduced similar legislation in the last Congress, and I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of that bill. During my tenure as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, I was pleased to work with my colleagues to pass legislation to establish the Presidential Commission on the National Museum of African American History and Culture Action Plan.

That Presidential Commission spent a year traveling across the nation, and at more than 50 meetings, heard the voices of African- Americans calling for a national place to tell their individual and collective stories. This long overdue legislation will provide such a place.

In their report issued last month, the Presidential Commission identified a mission statement for the proposed museum that states, in part:

The museum will give voice to the centrality of the African

American experience and will make it possible for all people

to understand the depth, complexity, and promise of the

American experience.

It is that very goal of completing the American story of our quest for freedom and truth by publicly incorporating the experience and contributions of African Americans--that is the essence of this legislation. This museum offers the promise and hope that all Americans can come to understand the full story of how this nation was formed.

Since 1929, efforts have been made to recognize the contributions and unique history of Americans of African descent. This museum offers an historic opportunity to document, preserve, and educate this history for generations to come. It is past time that we publicly acknowledge and incorporate the African American experience into our collective identity and this museum will provide the appropriate means for accomplishing that goal.

In brief, within 18 months of enactment, the Smithsonian Board of Regents will choose a site for this museum from among four sites listed in the bill. The bill directs that, prior to the selection, the Board of Regents will consult with the National Capital Planning Commission, the chairman of the Presidential Commission, Congressional oversight committees, and others.

In the meantime, the Smithsonian Board of Regents will appoint a 19 member council, comprised of leaders within the African-American community and others, to advise the regents on the development, design and construction of the museum. The museum will include exhibits and programs relating to all aspects of African American life, art, history, and culture from the time of slavery through present day.

The museum will also provide leadership to other museums and will collaborate with historically black colleges and universities and educational organizations to ensure the integrity of the exhibits and programming and to broaden the reach of its story and mission.

I am honored to be the lead Democratic sponsor of this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Rules Committee to seeing this bill enacted this year.

Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague, Senator Brownback, in introducing legislation to create a National Museum of African American History and Culture within the Smithsonian Institution.

This legislation will help ensure that the compelling stories and invaluable contributions of African-Americans to our national fabric will no longer be ignored, but shared with all Americans, indeed, all peoples of the world.

Senator Brownback introduced similar legislation in the last Congress, and I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of that bill. During my tenure as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, I was pleased to work with my colleagues to pass legislation to establish the Presidential Commission on the National Museum of African American History and Culture Action Plan.

That Presidential Commission spent a year traveling across the nation, and at more than 50 meetings, heard the voices of African- Americans calling for a national place to tell their individual and collective stories. This long overdue legislation will provide such a place.

In their report issued last month, the Presidential Commission identified a mission statement for the proposed museum that states, in part:

The museum will give voice to the centrality of the African

American experience and will make it possible for all people

to understand the depth, complexity, and promise of the

American experience.

It is that very goal of completing the American story of our quest for freedom and truth by publicly incorporating the experience and contributions of African Americans--that is the essence of this legislation. This museum offers the promise and hope that all Americans can come to understand the full story of how this nation was formed.

Since 1929, efforts have been made to recognize the contributions and unique history of Americans of African descent. This museum offers an historic opportunity to document, preserve, and educate this history for generations to come. It is past time that we publicly acknowledge and incorporate the African American experience into our collective identity and this museum will provide the appropriate means for accomplishing that goal.

In brief, within 18 months of enactment, the Smithsonian Board of Regents will choose a site for this museum from among four sites listed in the bill. The bill directs that, prior to the selection, the Board of Regents will consult with the National Capital Planning Commission, the chairman of the Presidential Commission, Congressional oversight committees, and others.

In the meantime, the Smithsonian Board of Regents will appoint a 19 member council, comprised of leaders within the African-American community and others, to advise the regents on the development, design and construction of the museum. The museum will include exhibits and programs relating to all aspects of African American life, art, history, and culture from the time of slavery through present day.

The museum will also provide leadership to other museums and will collaborate with historically black colleges and universities and educational organizations to ensure the integrity of the exhibits and programming and to broaden the reach of its story and mission.

I am honored to be the lead Democratic sponsor of this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Rules Committee to seeing this bill enacted this year.

Mr. President, today I will join my colleagues in voting to approve the 2004 Defense authorization bill. This legislation provides a significant increase to our defense budget, a total of $400.5 billion, $17.9 billion more than was authorized for this year. This is the largest defense budget in our Nation's history, and, for the most part, it could not come at a more important time.

This bill is good for our armed services, and crucial for the security of our country. Above all else, it makes a substantial investment in our military's most important assets--our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. It provides a 3.7 percent across-the- board pay raise for all men and women in uniform and introduces a new health care benefit to Reserve and National Guard personnel. In addition, it funds important national security programs to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction, with $450 million going towards the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program to safeguard nuclear stockpiles and fissile material within the former Soviet Union. It ramps up research and development accounts for counterterrorism technologies as well as for intelligence and Special Operations resources.

To respond to emerging threats to our country, these investments are crucial components of the Defense authorization bill. I am also especially pleased that the Senate accepted without dissent, my amendment to establish a new initiative to assist States and communities in hiring firefighters. As we saw so vividly on September 11, our firefighters play an integral part in responding to and protecting our people from terrorist attacks. No homeland security strategy can ignore the crucial role that firefighters play in keeping our Nation safe. My amendment, which was approved by the Senate, authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to invest over $3 billion over the next 3 years in partnership with States and local governments to hire firefighters so that communities are better prepared to respond to potential acts of terrorism.

As this amendment underscores, our States play crucial roles in protecting our security. And the underlying bill supports a number of military initiatives that are particularly supported by the State of Connecticut. Since the days of the Revolutionary War, Connecticut has rightly taken pride in its disproportionately large role in contributing to the U.S. arsenal, earning it the nickname the ``Provision State.''

The 2004 Defense authorization bill continues this strong tradition, greatly outfitting the Nation's armed services and provisioning advanced technology from Connecticut. The projects funded in this bill from Army helicopters and Air Force fighters to new advances in submarine technology, will allow America's military to prosecute its war on terror from every corner of the globe. Included in this bill is $1 billion to fund the procurement of 36 additional UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters, manufactured by one of my State's leading manufacturers, Sikorsky. These aircraft have proven themselves repeatedly in combat on air assault and medical evacuation missions, as well as in peacekeeping missions providing important cargo and personnel transport.

This bill also authorizes a multiyear procurement and $2 billion in 2004 for a Virginia class submarine, manufactured in Groton. Production of this next generation ship will further enable the Navy to extend its reach to the coasts of every continent, staying undetected as it performs various missions from special operations and intelligence- gathering to precision guided missile strikes.

The bill also funds our force's next-generation fighter aircraft, the F/A-22 and Joint Strike Fighter, which will be outfitted with the finest engines in the world, developed at Pratt and Whitney. Procurement of these planes will maintain U.S. air superiority-- equipping pilots with unprecedented speed, stealth, and advanced munitions, and transforming the Nation's military into a 21st century force.

I believe these investments will save lives in both the near and long term, and they will strengthen the military industrial base that is so crucial to the long-term viability of our military. I am pleased that this authorization bill continues Secretary Rumsfeld's initiative to transform the military and respond to terrorist threats to our Nation. But I would be remiss if I did not enter into this record the serious reservations I have with this bill.

In particular, I am deeply concerned about the steps this legislation takes toward developing new tactical nuclear weapons. Despite the good- faith efforts of some of my colleagues, this Chamber failed to act as a check on an Executive bent on rolling back decades of strategic arms control and nonproliferation policies. At the President's recommendation, this bill repeals the 1993 Spratt-Furse provision that barred the Government from developing low-yield nuclear weapons. It also funds the study of a high-yield bunker-busting nuclear earth penetrator. Both weapons are part of the administration's long-term plan to field tactical nuclear weapons in war, as outlined in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review.

The defenders of these provisions believe that such weaponry will enhance America's security by enabling the United States to devastate terrorist targets in a more contained environment. They claim that the U.S. use of nuclear weapons during a war will not set an egregious precedent for other nations to begin fielding their own tactical nuclear arsenal. And they claim that by lifting the ban simply on research, we are not opening a new chapter of the nuclear era.

They are dead wrong. And I am gravely disturbed by this shift in U.S. nonproliferation policy. In 2000, the United States joined the other permanent U.N. Security Council members in a declaration of an ``unequivocal commitment to the ultimate goals of a

complete elimination of nuclear weapons and a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.''

This declaration was not made on a whim. This was the culmination of decades of diplomacy that has led to the worldwide movement in arms control. But today, with this legislation, we are taking a considerable step away from the goal stated at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference. While we insist that others disarm and cease their development of weapons of mass destruction, we are initiating plans to use new atomic weapons on the battlefield.

As our Armed Forces hone their conventional abilities to surgically strike with increasingly explosive force, it seems peculiar that the United States would now take steps backwards, and devote precious resources to expanding our nuclear arsenal. Our most recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated that the United States far exceeds any other nation in its ability to strike with nonnuclear weapons anywhere in the world with great precision, and minimal collateral damage. Rather than capitalizing on these new advantages in warfare, the administration's tactical nuclear policy, would actually leave the Nation less secure, and undercut our government's 50-year attempts at averting nuclear war.

But all in all, in spite of these provisions, I believe that this bill's passage is critical to sustaining our national security. Although major combat operations have ended in Afghanistan and Iraq, our military continues to be engaged in low-intensity conflict in this highly unstable region of the world. Our Armed Forces--both Active Duty and Reserve--stand ready to complete their missions in this Nation's ongoing campaign against terror, to stabilize the region, and win the peace.

To do this, they will need the resources provided in this bill. For that reason, I have supported this legislation, and hope that the House and Senate Conferees move quickly toward a final version, so that this Congress will swiftly approve necessary authorizations for America's men and women in uniform.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Prevention and Recovery of Missing Children Act of 2003, to improve the recovery of missing children and the tracking of convicted sex offenders and child predators.

No child or parent should ever have to go through the recent nine- month ordeal of Elizabeth Smart and her family. Yet, from the sparse information we have, we know that over one million families have endured a similar, and sometimes far worse, trauma.

In only the second study of its kind, the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway Children, NISMART-2, estimated that 1.3 million children met the criteria for being classified as missing, including runaway, from their caretakers in 1999. It is estimated that almost 800,000 of these cases involved notification to police or missing children agencies to help locate the child. When a parent's worst fear for a missing child materializes, in 91 percent of the cases the child became the victim of a homicide within 24 hours of abduction. In 74 percent of these cases, the homicide occurred within 3 hours of abduction.

With statistics such as these, it is truly a miracle and cause for celebration that Elizabeth Smart returned to her family alive and well nine months after her abduction.

We must build and expand on practices we know lead to the safe return of missing and abducted children. In Elizabeth's case, the family's circulation of the suspect's photograph led to the capture of Elizabeth's captor near her home community in Utah. This success story highlights the importance of the recently enacted National AMBER Alert Networks, which strengthens communication and notification to facilitate the recovery of other abducted children.

As important as AMBER Alert systems are, these are but one tool in our arsenal against child abduction. The bill we are introducing today will strengthen other tools used by law enforcement to help take every step possible to find missing children as soon as possible. For instance, we know now that Elizabeth's captor was already in custody in California during Elizabeth's ordeal. Those officials, at that time, did not have in their possession information to connect him to the Smart case. And so, he was released.

It is clear from this example that accurate, up-to-date information on missing children cases nationwide must be made available to law enforcement, as well. This act fosters the sharing of information about missing child cases among law enforcement by requiring the entry of child information into the National Crime Information Center, NCIC, within 2 hours of receipt. NCIC is a critical resource for linking 16,000 Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.

The availability of up-to-date identifying information of known child and sexual predators is a vital investigative tool. The women who signaled police in the Elizabeth Smart case identified the captor after seeing his photograph on television. One of these responsible women noted that it was the photograph, and not the composite sketch, that helped her recognize Elizabeth's captor as he walked down the street.

Whether the suspect in the Smart case had a history of sexual offenses is unclear. But, what is clear is that we can do more to help law enforcement track and investigate individuals with a history of sexual offenses.

Over the last decade, Congress enacted several laws designed to improve the tracking of convicted sex offenders and the recovery of missing children, including The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1994, Megan's Law of 1996, and The Pam Lychner Sex Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996. Collectively, these acts established minimum standards for State sex offender registration programs and created systems to track convicted sex offenders.

While these current federal laws address the main features of an effective registry system, the discretion over registry details and procedures is left up to the states. This has led to a lack of consistency and wide disparities between states. For example, state requirements for sex offender notification of registration changes range from 1 day to 40 days, and state requirements for a sex offender to register an address after moving to a new state range from 48 hours to 70 days.

In addition, many States place the burden to notify changes in registry information solely on the sex offender. We need to tighten registry systems so that law enforcement in all states is better equipped to track sex offenders. This bill strengthens the registry foundation for all states. It builds upon successful practices already in place in some States, to better protect our communities nationwide.

Sex offenders pose an enormous challenge for policy makers and create unparalleled fear among citizens. Most of their victims are children and youth. Two-thirds of imprisoned sex offenders report that their victims were under age 18, and nearly half report that their victims were ages 12 and younger.

The tracking of released sex offenders is critical to protecting our children. Most sex offenders are not in prison--about 60 percent of convicted sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community--and those who are in prison often serve limited sentences. This is of great concern because sex offenders, particularly if untreated, are at risk of re-offending.

For over two years, newspapers across the country, including the Hartford Courant, have highlighted the inadequacy of reporting information in missing child cases and tracking of convicted sex offenders and known child predators. One tragic example reported a convicted sex offender who moved from Massachusetts to Montana, where police were never contacted about his history. He brutally murdered several Montana children before he was apprehended, and was later linked to 54 cases of child abduction and molestation in several states.

In many cases, convicted sex offenders and child predators slip through law enforcement loopholes and continue to prey on children. While all 50 states have laws to create sex offender registry databases, states are unable to

adequately track these felons. For instance, in California, 33,000, or 44 percent of registered offenders are missing; it is estimated that states on average are unable to account for 24 percent of sex offenders.

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled against challenges from Alaska and Connecticut, and upheld current law pertaining to sexual offender registries. With the support of both Congress and the highest court of our land, it is inconceivable to me that we now allow bookkeeping challenges to deter law enforcements' ability to identify and locate child predators.

This bill makes several important changes to improve the tracking of sex offenders and the recovery of missing children. The bill: modifies the definition of ``minimally sufficient program'' to include: the registration of all convicted sex offenders prior to release; the collection of information to assist in tracking individuals, including a DNA sample, current photograph, driver's license and vehicle information; and verification of address and employment information for all offenders every 90 days. Modifies penalties for non-compliance with registry requirements. It provides that State programs must designate non-compliance as a felony and permits the issuance of a warrant. This provision is intended to encourage compliance by offenders as well as provide a tool for law enforcement and prosecutors. Improves the chances for recovering missing children and aids law enforcement in solving cases by preventing the removal of missing children from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. Improves the chances for recovery of missing children by requiring entry of child information into the NCIC database within 2 hours.

We must make the tracking of convicted sex offenders and the post- release supervision of child sexual predators a higher priority. Since most sex offenders are in the community, we must ensure there is continuing contact and supervision of released sex offenders. Data management challenges are simply inexcusable reasons for not protecting our innocent children from crimes committed against them.

We have an obligation to protect our children from the abductors, sex offenders and sexual predators who prey on our children. I urge my colleagues to join myself, Senator Collins and Senator Hatch in supporting and furthering this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Prevention and Recovery of Missing Children Act of 2003, to improve the recovery of missing children and the tracking of convicted sex offenders and child predators.

No child or parent should ever have to go through the recent nine- month ordeal of Elizabeth Smart and her family. Yet, from the sparse information we have, we know that over one million families have endured a similar, and sometimes far worse, trauma.

In only the second study of its kind, the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway Children, NISMART-2, estimated that 1.3 million children met the criteria for being classified as missing, including runaway, from their caretakers in 1999. It is estimated that almost 800,000 of these cases involved notification to police or missing children agencies to help locate the child. When a parent's worst fear for a missing child materializes, in 91 percent of the cases the child became the victim of a homicide within 24 hours of abduction. In 74 percent of these cases, the homicide occurred within 3 hours of abduction.

With statistics such as these, it is truly a miracle and cause for celebration that Elizabeth Smart returned to her family alive and well nine months after her abduction.

We must build and expand on practices we know lead to the safe return of missing and abducted children. In Elizabeth's case, the family's circulation of the suspect's photograph led to the capture of Elizabeth's captor near her home community in Utah. This success story highlights the importance of the recently enacted National AMBER Alert Networks, which strengthens communication and notification to facilitate the recovery of other abducted children.

As important as AMBER Alert systems are, these are but one tool in our arsenal against child abduction. The bill we are introducing today will strengthen other tools used by law enforcement to help take every step possible to find missing children as soon as possible. For instance, we know now that Elizabeth's captor was already in custody in California during Elizabeth's ordeal. Those officials, at that time, did not have in their possession information to connect him to the Smart case. And so, he was released.

It is clear from this example that accurate, up-to-date information on missing children cases nationwide must be made available to law enforcement, as well. This act fosters the sharing of information about missing child cases among law enforcement by requiring the entry of child information into the National Crime Information Center, NCIC, within 2 hours of receipt. NCIC is a critical resource for linking 16,000 Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.

The availability of up-to-date identifying information of known child and sexual predators is a vital investigative tool. The women who signaled police in the Elizabeth Smart case identified the captor after seeing his photograph on television. One of these responsible women noted that it was the photograph, and not the composite sketch, that helped her recognize Elizabeth's captor as he walked down the street.

Whether the suspect in the Smart case had a history of sexual offenses is unclear. But, what is clear is that we can do more to help law enforcement track and investigate individuals with a history of sexual offenses.

Over the last decade, Congress enacted several laws designed to improve the tracking of convicted sex offenders and the recovery of missing children, including The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1994, Megan's Law of 1996, and The Pam Lychner Sex Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996. Collectively, these acts established minimum standards for State sex offender registration programs and created systems to track convicted sex offenders.

While these current federal laws address the main features of an effective registry system, the discretion over registry details and procedures is left up to the states. This has led to a lack of consistency and wide disparities between states. For example, state requirements for sex offender notification of registration changes range from 1 day to 40 days, and state requirements for a sex offender to register an address after moving to a new state range from 48 hours to 70 days.

In addition, many States place the burden to notify changes in registry information solely on the sex offender. We need to tighten registry systems so that law enforcement in all states is better equipped to track sex offenders. This bill strengthens the registry foundation for all states. It builds upon successful practices already in place in some States, to better protect our communities nationwide.

Sex offenders pose an enormous challenge for policy makers and create unparalleled fear among citizens. Most of their victims are children and youth. Two-thirds of imprisoned sex offenders report that their victims were under age 18, and nearly half report that their victims were ages 12 and younger.

The tracking of released sex offenders is critical to protecting our children. Most sex offenders are not in prison--about 60 percent of convicted sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community--and those who are in prison often serve limited sentences. This is of great concern because sex offenders, particularly if untreated, are at risk of re-offending.

For over two years, newspapers across the country, including the Hartford Courant, have highlighted the inadequacy of reporting information in missing child cases and tracking of convicted sex offenders and known child predators. One tragic example reported a convicted sex offender who moved from Massachusetts to Montana, where police were never contacted about his history. He brutally murdered several Montana children before he was apprehended, and was later linked to 54 cases of child abduction and molestation in several states.

In many cases, convicted sex offenders and child predators slip through law enforcement loopholes and continue to prey on children. While all 50 states have laws to create sex offender registry databases, states are unable to

adequately track these felons. For instance, in California, 33,000, or 44 percent of registered offenders are missing; it is estimated that states on average are unable to account for 24 percent of sex offenders.

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled against challenges from Alaska and Connecticut, and upheld current law pertaining to sexual offender registries. With the support of both Congress and the highest court of our land, it is inconceivable to me that we now allow bookkeeping challenges to deter law enforcements' ability to identify and locate child predators.

This bill makes several important changes to improve the tracking of sex offenders and the recovery of missing children. The bill: modifies the definition of ``minimally sufficient program'' to include: the registration of all convicted sex offenders prior to release; the collection of information to assist in tracking individuals, including a DNA sample, current photograph, driver's license and vehicle information; and verification of address and employment information for all offenders every 90 days. Modifies penalties for non-compliance with registry requirements. It provides that State programs must designate non-compliance as a felony and permits the issuance of a warrant. This provision is intended to encourage compliance by offenders as well as provide a tool for law enforcement and prosecutors. Improves the chances for recovering missing children and aids law enforcement in solving cases by preventing the removal of missing children from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. Improves the chances for recovery of missing children by requiring entry of child information into the NCIC database within 2 hours.

We must make the tracking of convicted sex offenders and the post- release supervision of child sexual predators a higher priority. Since most sex offenders are in the community, we must ensure there is continuing contact and supervision of released sex offenders. Data management challenges are simply inexcusable reasons for not protecting our innocent children from crimes committed against them.

We have an obligation to protect our children from the abductors, sex offenders and sexual predators who prey on our children. I urge my colleagues to join myself, Senator Collins and Senator Hatch in supporting and furthering this legislation.

Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to improve access to higher education for middle- and low-income families by expanding the HOPE and lifetime learning tax credits and Pell grants, as well as deficit reduction. This is done by eliminating the 10 percent dividend exclusion for amounts greater than $500 and eliminating acceleration of the top tax rate reduction.

I have outlined in the amendment the purpose of this proposal. I do not think any of us would disagree that the long-term economic strength of our Nation will depend upon whether or not the next generation receives the higher education necessary to provide our Nation with the benefits of learning so the country can grow.

I am simply asking the question, as many Americans are, as we are talking about reducing Pell grants and doing nothing to expand the HOPE and lifetime learning proposals which are directly designed to assist middle-income families, can we not, on an evening when we are about to adopt a massive tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, set aside some of these funds to adequately provide for educational opportunities for people who would not otherwise be able to afford them? That is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. President, it is amendment No. 572. It is at the desk.

Mr. President, if I may, the purpose I have outlined in the amendment says what it is for. Some may want to interpret it otherwise, but this is a vote on whether we value higher education enough to ensure that all Americans have access to it.

The purpose states it clearly.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Reserving the right to object, I don't mind going last. I will be happy going last.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues. I know it is now after 1 in the morning. People are tired. It has been a long day. I have great respect for this institution and do not normally like to test the patience of my colleagues, but as tired as all of us are at this very hour, there are some 250,000 orphans right now, 80,000 of whom live in the Caribbean, who are orphaned because their families, their parents, contracted AIDS.

There are half a million people in the 14 CARICOM countries who will not be included as a part of this bill, for reasons that have never been explained adequately to me, who are suffering a lot more than just fatigue tonight because they will not get the kinds of medicines and support they deserve.

I apologize for raising an amendment that is brought up at a late hour. I am sorry we are not going to be here tomorrow to debate some of these issues. The decision to be here at this hour is certainly not that of those who are offering these amendments.

This is a very important bill. I have great respect for the President, who has made this an important issue, who wants to bring it up and see to it that these issues can be debated when he goes to the

I will be happy to yield.

I am prepared to yield back my time.

I am happy to yield.

I appreciate the comments of the chairman of the committee about the discretion of the President and, certainly, going on record as this being important, that additional countries are to be included as part of this package.

I ask unanimous consent a letter signed by the Ambassadors of all these countries asking these nations be included as part of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. President, no challenge is more daunting in scope or immediate in need than the Global AIDS crisis. I rise today with the utmost urgency to speak of this modern-day plague and to urge my colleagues to ensure that the legislation currently pending before the United States Senate is both swift in its passage and effective in its nature.

The global AIDS pandemic threatens to undermine all of our other efforts to bring stability and prosperity to the world. AIDS is an unparelled crisis, and it threatens to have a potentially irreversible effect. Every country around the globe will, in one way or another, feel the devastating impact of this disease; no nation will be spared.

Certainly, I applaud the administration for its initiative on this important issue. We all do. And, the bill currently before this chamber--which closely reflects the Administration's requests--provides a good framework for battling this crisis. However, it has some serious shortcomings--shortcomings that will greatly impact its chances of success. That is why this chamber must ensure that any AIDS legislation it passes will be effective on the ground. In order to do this, we must look carefully at the facts, and at the reality of the situation. This must be our first priority.

Mr. President, there are well over 42 million people currently living with HIV/AIDS. In 2001 alone, there were approximately five million new infections. Even worse is that the number of infections continues to grow at an alarming rate. There are 15,000 new infections every day, and half of these infections--half--are in children between 15 and 24 years of age.

Without a doubt, the region hardest hit by this pandemic is sub- Saharan Africa. Approximately 70 percent of the worldwide total of people with HIV/AIDS live in that part of the world, and well over 29 million people are currently infected. The overall rate of infection among adults in the region is close to nine percent, compared with 1.2 percent worldwide, and in seven countries, the infection rate is over 20 percent.

Experts contend that the severity of the AIDS pandemic in that region is directly related to its wide-spread poverty, lack of education, ill- equipped and underfunded health systems, and local taboos that stigmatize and ostracize those who are infected. Even more devastating to the region is that the AIDS pandemic creates a vicious circle of events that, despite international aid, increasingly hinders the ability of affected societies to help themselves.

This vicious circle is pervasive throughout all sectors of society. Skilled workers, teachers, farmers, management executives, and government officials alike are falling prey to AIDS. In fact, according to UNAIDS, by 2020, the most affected countries will experience a loss of more than 20 percent of their gross domestic product.

AIDS is also having a debilitating effect on our hemisphere. In Guyana, almost 3 percent of the adult population is infected, and in Haiti, a nation long-suffering from substantial economic and political instability, more than 6 percent of its adult population are living with the virus. Indeed, throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, over 1.9 million people are infected, and in some Caribbean countries, the rates of prevalence are second only to sub-Saharan Africa.

Throughout the world, AIDS is killing millions of parents, and often leaves young children in the precarious position of having to supply food, money, and medicine for their families. The World Bank estimates that there are currently 15.6 million AIDS orphans, and this number is expected to double by 2010. Many of these children, especially girls, quit school and become victims of sexual violence or commercial sex workers. And, due to lack of resources and education, only a fraction of these children know that they are infected. Most do not even believe that they are at risk or know how AIDS is spread.

I urge my colleagues to carefully examine this situation. Many of these children are not promiscuous because of childish recklessness. Certainly, children do not desire to become commercial sex workers. They are children. Given the chance, they would play games and go to school, as do most children. However, in many cases, their reality, as well as the obligation to provide for their families, forces them into this lifestyle.

I know that citing the successful efforts in the nation of Uganda, some of my colleagues argue that United States AIDS assistance should focus on the promotion of abstinence among children. Certainly, encouraging young, unmarried children to abstain is a worthy goal. We can teach them to abstain, we can urge them to abstain, and we should. However, we can not ignore the multitude of factors with which we are faced. We must remember that the Uganda plan worked because it encouraged abstinence, monogamy, and distributed condoms--the ``ABC'' model. Most of all, it worked because the President of that nation made it a national priority to educate his people about HIV/AIDS.

In my view, the most important distinction among regions of the world has been the ability of affected nations to deal with the AIDS crisis and to educate their people about it, as well as the ability of infected people to pay for a variety of life-saving or life-prolonging treatments.

I know we can all remember a time in the United States when in schools, television advertisements, and billboards, we strove to educate Americans about HIV/AIDS. In fact, this effort continues, and with much success. Coupled with access to state-of-the-art treatments, Americans with HIV are able to live longer and healthier lives than ever before. But it is important to realize that the methods used to progress in one area of the world will not necessarily be effective in another. In many regions, AIDS infection stems from an intricate social reality--one with many contributing factors. In most of these countries, poverty deprives the people of effective systems of health information, health education, and health care. AIDS counseling is often unavailable, and HIV testing is difficult for many to obtain. Lack of resources to buy and distribute the expensive drugs that prolong life for those infected with HIV, as well as the rarity of sex education and prevention methods, have compounded these problems.

Therefore, we must not ignore the widespread destitution caused by this disease, which forces many people--children and adults--into a lifestyle that dramatically increases their risk of infection. Any effort to fight AIDS must be accompanied by an effort to fight poverty and build infrastructure; it must be focused on helping people to help themselves. It is my hope that as the Senate addresses the issue of foreign aid in the coming year, it pays particular attention to the other myriad needs on the continent of Africa, as well as in other poverty-stricken regions throughout the world.

In addition, we must not ignore existing institutions, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. While I strongly support the provision in this bill authorizing up to $1 billion for the Global Fund in fiscal year 2004, I am concerned that the Bush Administration will instead choose to follow its fiscal year 2004 budget request, and only allocate $200 million for this important institution. Indeed, such a decision would threaten the ability of the Global Fund to continue its important work; it would be a step backwards in our fight against AIDS.

And lastly, although this bill will serve to combat HIV/AIDS in twelve African countries, as well as Haiti and Guyana, it is absolutely essential that we focus our efforts not only on these countries, but on the world at large. HIV/AIDS is a global problem and it needs a global response. My amendment designating Caribbean countries as priority countries for United States support was an attempt to give additional attention where it is most needed.

To highlight the necessity of this global approach, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a report on AIDS, which was published in January 2000 by the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA. This report states that by 2010, the focal point of infections will most likely shift from sub-Saharan Africa to Nigeria, Ethiopia, India, Russia, and China. There will be approximately 50 to 75 million infected people in these countries alone, and according to the CIA, the AIDS crisis will contribute to political instability and slow democratic development. These are dire predictions, and we have an obligation to address them.

Our intentions are noble and our conviction is real. But in order to achieve all of these vital goals, we must fully and sensibly commit ourselves to the fight against AIDS. That means providing the necessary resources to prevent and treat this illness, sufficiently funding important organizations and vaccine research, educating people about AIDS, providing a truly global response, and ensuring that our efforts are effective and grounded on the realities of those in need. And, as we consider this bill, it is crucial to remember that it is only a first step. In order to succeed, we must also change the reality in which this disease thrives.

If we don't act with urgency, sensibility, clarity, and deliberation, we will be condemning to death countless men, women, and children throughout the world. We must act now. We can not afford to fail.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleague Senator DeWine to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn infants. As a first-time dad of a 20- month old baby girl, I now know the joy of being able to experience every pleasure that comes with being a father. What I also now share with parents everywhere is a constant sense of worry about whether our kids are doing well, are feeling well, and are safe. Nothing is of greater importance than the health and well-being of our children.

Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now possible to test newborns for more than 30 genetic and metabolic disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and treated can go on to live healthy lives. In the most direct sense, newborn screening saves lives.

Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical history of the condition in the family, no way to predict the health of a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that are tested for are quite rare, there is a chance that any one newborn will be affected--a sort of morbid lottery. In that sense, this is an issue that has a direct impact on the lives of every family.

Fortunately, screening has become common practice in every State. Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their heel to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long-term health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with one of these disorders. That means that newborn screening could save approximately 1,000 lives each year. That is 1,000 tragedies that can possibly be averted--families left with the joy of a new infant rather than absolute heartbreak.

That is the good news. However, there is so much more to be done. For every baby saved, another two are estimated to be born with potentially detectable disorders that go undetected because they are not screened. These infants and their families face the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. Let me repeat that--disability or death from a preventable disorder. The survival of a newborn may very well come down to the State in which it is born. Only two States, including my home state of Connecticut thanks to recent legislation, will test for all 30 disorders. While the number of genetic and metabolic disorders screened for varies among different states, the vast majority test for eight or fewer.

The General Accounting Office, GAO, released a report in March highlighting the need for this legislation. According to the report, most States do not educate parents and health care providers about the availability of tests beyond what is mandated by the State. States also reported that they do not have the

resources to purchase the technology and train the staff needed to expand newborn screening programs. Finally, even when States do detect an abnormal screening result, the majority do not inform parents directly.

Last year, I chaired a hearing on this issue during which I related a story that illustrates the impact of newborn screening, or the lack of newborn screening, in a very personal sense. Jonathan Sweeney is a three-year-old from Brookfield, CT. At the time of his birth, the State only tested for eight disorders. He was considered a healthy baby, although he was a poor sleeper and needed to be fed quite frequently. One morning in December of 2000, Jonathan's mother, Pamela, found Jonathan with his eyes wide open but completely unresponsive. He was not breathing and appeared to be having a seizure. Jonathan was rushed to the hospital where, fortunately, his life was saved. He was later diagnosed with L-CHAD, a disorder that prevents Jonathan's body from turning fat into energy.

Despite this harrowing tale, Jonathan and his family are extremely fortunate. Jonathan is alive, and his disorder can be treated with a special diet. He has experienced developmental delays that most likely could have been avoided had he been tested for L-CHAD at birth. This raises a question. Why was he not tested? Why do 47 States still not test for L-CHAD?

The primary reason for this unfortunate reality is the lack of a consensus on the Federal level about what should be screened for, and how a screening program should be developed. Twenty disorders can only be detected using a costly piece of equipment called a Tandem Mass Spectrometer. Currently, only 21 States have this resource.

Many health care professionals are unaware of the possibility of screening for disorders beyond what their State requires. Parents, and I include myself, are even less well-informed. My daughter Grace was born in Virginia, where they screen for nine disorders. I was extremely relieved when all of those tests came out negative. However, at that time I did not know that this screening was not as complete as it could have been. My ignorance had nothing to do with my love for my daughter or my capability as a parent. The fact is that the majority of parents do not realize that this screening occurs at all, nor are they familiar with the disorders that are being screened for. In fact, only one out of four States inform parents that they have the option to obtain testing for disorders that are not included on the State's screening program. For that reason, one of the most important first steps that we can take to protect our children is to educate parents and health care professionals.

In the Children's Health Act of 2000, I supported the creation of an advisory committee on newborn screening within the Department of Health and Human Services. The purpose of this committee would be to develop national recommendations on screening, hopefully eliminating the arbitrary disparities between states that currently exist. The Children's Health Act also included a provision to provide funding to States to expand their technological resources for newborn screening. Unfortunately, funds were not appropriated for either of these provisions. Senator DeWine and I have led a campaign to secure $25 million in appropriations needed for this crucial initiative. It is unconscionable for us to not do all we can to help prevent children from dying of treatable disorders.

The legislation that we are introducing today, the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2003, seeks to address the shocking lack of information available to health care professionals and parents about newborn screening. Every parent should have the knowledge necessary to protect their child. The tragedy of a newborn's death is only compounded by the frustration of learning that the death was preventable. This bill authorizes $10 million in fiscal year 2004, and such sums as are necessary through fiscal year 2008, to HRSA for grants to provide education and training to health care professionals, State laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates.

Our legislation will also provide States with the resources to develop programs of follow-up care for those children diagnosed by a disorder detected through newborn screening. While these families are the fortunate ones, in many cases they are still faced with the prospect of extended and complex treatment or major lifestyle changes. We need to remember that care does not stop at diagnosis. For that reason, this bill authorizes $5 million in fiscal year 2004, and such sums as are necessary through FY 2008, to HRSA for grants to develop a coordinated system of follow-up care for newborns and their families after screening and diagnosis.

Finally, the bill directs HRSA to assess existing resources for education, training, and follow-up care in the States, ensure coordination, and minimize duplication; and also directs the Secretary to provide an evaluation report to Congress two and a half years after the grants are first awarded and then after five years to assess impact and effectiveness and make recommendations about future efforts.

I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative so that every newborn child will have the opportunity for a long, healthy and happy life; and to spare thousands of families from an avoidable tragedy.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleague Senator DeWine to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn infants. As a first-time dad of a 20- month old baby girl, I now know the joy of being able to experience every pleasure that comes with being a father. What I also now share with parents everywhere is a constant sense of worry about whether our kids are doing well, are feeling well, and are safe. Nothing is of greater importance than the health and well-being of our children.

Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now possible to test newborns for more than 30 genetic and metabolic disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and treated can go on to live healthy lives. In the most direct sense, newborn screening saves lives.

Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical history of the condition in the family, no way to predict the health of a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that are tested for are quite rare, there is a chance that any one newborn will be affected--a sort of morbid lottery. In that sense, this is an issue that has a direct impact on the lives of every family.

Fortunately, screening has become common practice in every State. Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their heel to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long-term health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with one of these disorders. That means that newborn screening could save approximately 1,000 lives each year. That is 1,000 tragedies that can possibly be averted--families left with the joy of a new infant rather than absolute heartbreak.

That is the good news. However, there is so much more to be done. For every baby saved, another two are estimated to be born with potentially detectable disorders that go undetected because they are not screened. These infants and their families face the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. Let me repeat that--disability or death from a preventable disorder. The survival of a newborn may very well come down to the State in which it is born. Only two States, including my home state of Connecticut thanks to recent legislation, will test for all 30 disorders. While the number of genetic and metabolic disorders screened for varies among different states, the vast majority test for eight or fewer.

The General Accounting Office, GAO, released a report in March highlighting the need for this legislation. According to the report, most States do not educate parents and health care providers about the availability of tests beyond what is mandated by the State. States also reported that they do not have the

resources to purchase the technology and train the staff needed to expand newborn screening programs. Finally, even when States do detect an abnormal screening result, the majority do not inform parents directly.

Last year, I chaired a hearing on this issue during which I related a story that illustrates the impact of newborn screening, or the lack of newborn screening, in a very personal sense. Jonathan Sweeney is a three-year-old from Brookfield, CT. At the time of his birth, the State only tested for eight disorders. He was considered a healthy baby, although he was a poor sleeper and needed to be fed quite frequently. One morning in December of 2000, Jonathan's mother, Pamela, found Jonathan with his eyes wide open but completely unresponsive. He was not breathing and appeared to be having a seizure. Jonathan was rushed to the hospital where, fortunately, his life was saved. He was later diagnosed with L-CHAD, a disorder that prevents Jonathan's body from turning fat into energy.

Despite this harrowing tale, Jonathan and his family are extremely fortunate. Jonathan is alive, and his disorder can be treated with a special diet. He has experienced developmental delays that most likely could have been avoided had he been tested for L-CHAD at birth. This raises a question. Why was he not tested? Why do 47 States still not test for L-CHAD?

The primary reason for this unfortunate reality is the lack of a consensus on the Federal level about what should be screened for, and how a screening program should be developed. Twenty disorders can only be detected using a costly piece of equipment called a Tandem Mass Spectrometer. Currently, only 21 States have this resource.

Many health care professionals are unaware of the possibility of screening for disorders beyond what their State requires. Parents, and I include myself, are even less well-informed. My daughter Grace was born in Virginia, where they screen for nine disorders. I was extremely relieved when all of those tests came out negative. However, at that time I did not know that this screening was not as complete as it could have been. My ignorance had nothing to do with my love for my daughter or my capability as a parent. The fact is that the majority of parents do not realize that this screening occurs at all, nor are they familiar with the disorders that are being screened for. In fact, only one out of four States inform parents that they have the option to obtain testing for disorders that are not included on the State's screening program. For that reason, one of the most important first steps that we can take to protect our children is to educate parents and health care professionals.

In the Children's Health Act of 2000, I supported the creation of an advisory committee on newborn screening within the Department of Health and Human Services. The purpose of this committee would be to develop national recommendations on screening, hopefully eliminating the arbitrary disparities between states that currently exist. The Children's Health Act also included a provision to provide funding to States to expand their technological resources for newborn screening. Unfortunately, funds were not appropriated for either of these provisions. Senator DeWine and I have led a campaign to secure $25 million in appropriations needed for this crucial initiative. It is unconscionable for us to not do all we can to help prevent children from dying of treatable disorders.

The legislation that we are introducing today, the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2003, seeks to address the shocking lack of information available to health care professionals and parents about newborn screening. Every parent should have the knowledge necessary to protect their child. The tragedy of a newborn's death is only compounded by the frustration of learning that the death was preventable. This bill authorizes $10 million in fiscal year 2004, and such sums as are necessary through fiscal year 2008, to HRSA for grants to provide education and training to health care professionals, State laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates.

Our legislation will also provide States with the resources to develop programs of follow-up care for those children diagnosed by a disorder detected through newborn screening. While these families are the fortunate ones, in many cases they are still faced with the prospect of extended and complex treatment or major lifestyle changes. We need to remember that care does not stop at diagnosis. For that reason, this bill authorizes $5 million in fiscal year 2004, and such sums as are necessary through FY 2008, to HRSA for grants to develop a coordinated system of follow-up care for newborns and their families after screening and diagnosis.

Finally, the bill directs HRSA to assess existing resources for education, training, and follow-up care in the States, ensure coordination, and minimize duplication; and also directs the Secretary to provide an evaluation report to Congress two and a half years after the grants are first awarded and then after five years to assess impact and effectiveness and make recommendations about future efforts.

I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative so that every newborn child will have the opportunity for a long, healthy and happy life; and to spare thousands of families from an avoidable tragedy.

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

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me some time. I have just a few observations.

First of all, on the amendment being offered by our colleague from Massachusetts, it has been said by others, by my colleague from Washington, and my colleague from Rhode Island, and certainly the Senator from Massachusetts, as well, that this is difficult for many of us to understand. I have served in this Chamber for more than two decades now. I don't recall another time when we had a downturn in the economy, where we had as many as 2 million jobs lost in the last 27 months, where 80,000 workers a week are losing their benefits. I don't recall under any administration--I have served here under Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, and I have served when this Chamber was controlled by Democrats and also under Republicans, and in the House also with both Democrats and Republicans; I know of no other time in the more than two decades I have been here where in a moment like this we would not provide an extension of unemployment benefits.

It is truly shocking to see a piece of legislation designed to offer relief to people, allegedly, through the tax cuts the President is suggesting, with no assistance to the unemployed. We literally have thousands of people who are facing difficult times, whose ability to take care of their families, and to make ends meet have been hindered. We are talking about putting people back to work and getting them jobs. We are talking about 80,000 people a week running out of benefits. And yet we find no space in the legislation to provide assistance to them. I am really stunned in many ways that this is not part of this effort.

I can only hope our colleagues, regardless of political party, will endorse the Kennedy amendment as part of this package. The administration says they are still deciding whether an extension of unemployment insurance is necessary. What do they need to know? Well, 80,000 people a week are losing their benefits. They are hard-working Americans trying to hold together families, pay mortgages, pay car payments, keep their kids in school. What do we need to know when 80,000 people a week are losing their benefits? Why can we not provide, in this legislation, which involves billions of dollars, some relief for these people?

Our unemployment insurance amendment would protect the unemployment insurance safety net for 4 million out-of-work Americans. So I sincerely hope the managers of this bill, and others, would see fit to provide some space here. In my State alone, 58,000 people who are out of work would be helped by the Kennedy amendment; in California, 562,000; in Florida, 161,000.

I ask unanimous consent that a State by State list, totaling the 4 million people who would be benefitted by this amendment be printed in the Record at this time.

Madam President, I really cannot believe that at this moment in our history we would pass a bill that would not provide help to the many, many Americans who need it. Let me also say, because I know we are under time constraints--and I am probably not going to have a chance to have any extended time for discussion of this later--that I will speak briefly on an amendment that I have filed and intend to offer later, to reduce the tax cut package to increase resources for programs designed specifically to assist middle- and low-income families with the cost of higher education--and those are the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits and the Pell Grant program. And, I also would have an equivalent amount of resources go to deficit reduction.

If we are serious about having this bill contribute to our economic growth, then we ought to dedicate these resources to higher education. I don't need to lecture anyone in the Chamber about the value of providing higher education opportunities for people. Yet, in spite of his rhetoric, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget includes cuts in the maximum Pell Grant available to low-income students, and he would do nothing to expand the Hope and Lifetime Learning credits, which are specifically designed to help middle-income families. Nothing could be more devastating to a family than to discover that they cannot afford to send their son or daughter to college, regardless of their child's talent, determination, or ambition. Or others who want to continue learning throughout their lifetime of learning, but cannot, because instead of helping them, we decide to provide a tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthiest among us. For us to say to middle-income families that your opportunity to send a child to college is going to have to take a back seat to providing a tax break to the top 1 or 2 percent of income earners is something I don't think we ought to do.

So I am going to try, with this amendment, to focus our attention on higher education. Of course, last week, we discovered the Government has reported that the unemployment rate jumped to 6 percent. There are economists in the country who believe the unemployment rate, by the first quarter of next year, will hover near 8 percent. It is beginning to become clear to this Senator that this possibility, as farfetched as it may have seemed a few months ago, is not so farfetched at all if we don't do something to stem the tide here.

Nothing in this legislation is designed to do that. Now we are going to have, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the largest single deficit ever accumulated in the history of the United States of America. What a record that is. This is, of course, just 27 months after we came off of a period of economic growth, of accumulating surpluses, and putting our country on sound fiscal footing. Yet in 27 short months, we have gone from surpluses to the record high deficits ever accumulated in this country's history. That is an incredibly stunning record, not to mention the more than 2 million jobs that have been lost.

In the midst of this massive tax break which will go mostly to the few elite in the country, we are also going to be raising the national debt to a point where it is almost a trillion dollars more than the present national debt. If you are out there paying mortgage payments, car payments, and student loans, you don't need to have a Ph.D. in economics to know that as you accumulate these deficits and debts eventually interest rates are going to start to go up.

When interest rates go up, that is a tax increase on average Americans. When you start paying more for that house payment, that car payment, that student loan that your child may need in order to receive a higher education, that is a tax increase for middle Americans. If we do not stem this tide and become more fiscally responsible, then those interest rates are going to have a huge impact on literally millions of Americans.

Again, you do not need to have me lecture about that point. I think most Americans understand it. We have seen periods in our recent past when that has happened. We are going to see it again, in my view, if this proposal is adopted as presented.

Two years ago when we were debating the tax cuts of 2001, we were told we could expect almost $6 trillion in surpluses over the next decade. Instead, we are now getting record high deficits. Two years ago we were told that if we enacted the President's tax cut plan, we would virtually pay off the publicly held debt by 2008. We are headed in exactly the opposite direction.

How many more signals do we need to get this Chamber to understand that as we are digging this hole deeper and deeper, we need to pull out of the hole. Instead, we are just as determined to dig that hole deeper to the point where we will be spending years trying to recover from this mistake.

After this Chamber passes part of the President's so-called growth plan, and after we vote to increase the debt by almost $1 trillion, how many more trillions of dollars are we going to have to increase the debt limit to in order to make room for this irresponsible tax cut affecting such a small percentage of taxpayers?

Let's consider what breaks people get. Again, I do not have to present all of the charts here, but so people understand what I am talking about, according to the Urban Institute Tax Policy Center, those who have incomes above $1 million will receive, on average, a tax cut of $64,400. For those in the middle-income spectrum, their tax cut will be $233. That is what we are about to adopt at a time when we are driving the deficit hole even deeper; and at a time when we are denying an extension of unemployment benefits to the 80,000 people a week who have and will be exhausting their benefits.

It seems to me that we are headed in the wrong direction on both fronts. The Kennedy amendment would extend unemployment benefits. The very least we ought to do in this Chamber is to say to hard-working people: When you are caught up in an economic downturn, Republicans and Democrats alike in recent history have extended a hand to these families and said: Through no fault of your own, you have ended up in that situation. This Congress is not going to ignore you. This Congress is not going to pretend you do not exist.

We are saying nothing about those people.

This tax cut is way too excessive, in my view, and will benefit a small percentage of income earners, creating deficits from which we will spend years recovering as it squeezes our ability to provide help to working families and for education. I urge the adoption of the Kennedy amendment. I ask for an additional 30 seconds.

We have 20 hours for debate on a reconciliation bill, which

may be the most significant debate we are going to have in this Congress. Twenty hours--that is all we get to talk about the importance of what we are about to do. I am deeply disappointed. We are constrained in the Senate of the United States to have a more meaningful debate about something as important as this.

I, again, urge adoption of the Kennedy amendment to at least provide relief for those who have lost their jobs and ought to have some help to provide for their families.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, and I will be very brief.

I want to follow up. I know the chairman of the committee is here, and I missed a little of the discussion because I had to step outside the Chamber with some police officers from my State. I will take a minute or so and obviously then move to the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas.

I understand the chairman made a statement about this issue of unemployment insurance at some point. I wonder if the distinguished chairman of the committee might share with Members when that might happen and why we cannot do it now. We know this is a growing problem, and we always delay these things. When 80,000 people a week are running out of benefits, we have had more than 2 million people

lose work since the President came into office, why not extend unemployment insurance on this bill? It would be a great gesture to the American public. My question is, simply, to ask if the chairman of the committee might respond.

Further reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 1 minute.

I want to know why this could not be adopted as part of this passage. We have an amendment here right now to do it. This is the time to do it. We all care about this and have people in every State adversely affected. Why wait another series of weeks? Why not do it right now and adopt the Kennedy amendment and move this issue beyond us and deal with the rest of the bill? That is my question to my distinguished chairman.

I further understand that the bill the chairman is talking about would not expand this at all but really just extend it; is that correct? So we will have a debate about that, obviously.

I thank the chairman for responding.

I am sad in a way, and maybe the amendment will be adopted by majority if that is the case and we can move beyond this.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last Friday, my Senate colleagues and I voted unanimously to confirm the nomination of Lewis J. Buckley to the rank of captain in the United States Coast Guard. This confirmation is well-deserved and bears a particular significance to the United States Coast Guard.

Captain-Select Buckley is the conductor of the Nation's Coast Guard Band. Since its formation in 1925, this organization has developed an international reputation as one of the finest professional concert bands in the world. And since 1965, the Coast Guard Band has been the permanent, official musical representative of the nation's oldest maritime service.

However, unlike its counterparts in the nation's four other military services, the Coast Guard Band has never been led by an officer over the military grade of O-5. Captain-Select Buckley's promotion demonstrates the ascendance of an institution with a laudable and grand tradition. Once regarded as the Coast Guard Academy's local music ensemble, the Coast Guard Band now routinely tours throughout the United States. It also often represents the Coast Guard around the world and will certainly promote a distinguished image of the country's new Department of Homeland Security.

The Coast Guard could not have found a finer leader to oversee the ongoing evolution of this important institution. Captain-Select Buckley is an accomplished jazz trumpeter as well as music composer, arranger, and director. He is the recipient of the American Legion's Distinguished Service Citation and two Meritorious Service Medals.

Since his appointment as conductor of the Band in 1975, Captain- Select Buckley has led the Coast Guard Band to play more concerts on air on National Public Radio than any other wind band, military or civilian--a fine testament to his able leadership and to the musical talent of the Coast Guard Band's men and women.

Mr. President, I am proud that my colleagues acted to confirm this nomination, to honor my constituent, Captain-Select Lewis J. Buckley, and to pay tribute to an historic musical institution, headquartered in New London, Connecticut.

Mr. President, as you know, I had originally intended to offer an amendment to the pending resolution adding an additional declaration to the nine that were added during the Foreign Relations Committee's consideration of this matter. My amendment would have dealt with a topic already covered by the Warner-Levin amendment, namely the relevancy of the consensus rule by which the North Atlantic Council has historically carried out its decision making. Now that the Senate has adopted the Warner-Levin amendment by voice vote, I do not see any need to proceed with my amendment.

My amendment would not have answered the question of whether in fact the consensus rule is relevant now that the world has profoundly changed and the membership of the organization has greatly expanded. It would however have appropriately called upon the President to review this matter as we move forward to sign off on the accession of seven additional members to this important organization.

We all know that the latest round of NATO expansion--Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia--will bring NATO membership up to 26 countries. And at least three more remain poised for admission in the coming years: Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia.

Let me be clear. I am all for offering NATO membership to any democracy that wants to join and can contribute to our common security. But I am wondering how all this expansion will affect the decision- making capabilities of NATO as an organization.

For more than 50 years, NATO decisionmaking has been based on consensus--every member state must agree on every important course of action. When 16 NATO countries all faced a common Soviet threat, achieving consensus on major issues was not much of a problem.

We may very soon--within a few years--have 29 members of NATO, from all across Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe. That is almost double the number we had not too many years ago. The idea that the alliance's decisions will soon be dependent on the unanimous consent of so many diverse nations, seems to me, potentially a recipe for stalemate in NATO decision-making.

My personal view is that NATO should consider creating some form of ``top-tier administrative council''--similar the U.N. Security Council--to prevent the diminution of NATO's power and effectiveness as a military alliance.

At last year's NATO summit in Prague, President Bush pressed for ``the most significant reforms in NATO since 1949.'' He was mainly referring to the creation of a rapid reaction force to deal swiftly and effectively with new and emerging threats.

Last month, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman reiterated this idea during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He rightly pointed out that NATO needs to be ``equipped with new capabilities and organized into highly ready land, air and sea forces able to carry out missions anywhere in the world.''

Mr. Grossman was referring to the need for the creation of a ``NATO Response Force'' to handle serious global challenges, such as proliferation and terrorism. I agree with him that such a force would be beneficial. But I also believe that is only half of the story. It seems to be stating the obvious that each addition to NATO will logically affect in some way the organization, mission, and effectiveness of this proposed rapid response force.

Just as I agree that NATO needs to tailor itself to future global challenges by standing up a NATO Response Force, I can foresee scenarios in which quick and decisive action will be needed in a very short amount of time--perhaps days.

I think it is reasonable to ask whether it will always be necessary or desirable for all 26, or 29, members of NATO to be involved in every aspect of the deployment of this force?

If the answer to that question is no, then shouldn't we at least ask the U.S. administration to study the question of whether NATO should consider a more streamlined decisionmaking structure for NATO to take into account both NATO's new missions, and the alliance's ever- expanding membership. The Levin-Warner amendment should allow a serious review and discussion of that issue.

As I have stated earlier, I am a strong supporter of the pending Protocol approving the new members to NATO. We all want a strong and vibrant NATO. I believe that the resolution of ratification, with the declarations and conditions that have been appended by the Senate will help to make that possible.