Floor Statements

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9:30 a.m., Friday, July 25. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 14, the Energy bill.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of S. 14, the Energy bill. Three fuel standards amendments were offered tonight. Senators are encouraged to come to the floor during tomorrow's session to debate the merits of these important amendments.

There will be no rollcall votes tomorrow. The next rollcall vote will occur on Monday at 5 p.m. That vote will be on the nomination of Earl Yeakel to be a U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas. Following the 5 p.m. vote on Monday, the Senate may also vote in relation to any available amendments to the Energy bill.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess under the previous order.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1351

Will the chairman yield for a question?

Mr. President, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know we have been having these hearings and the oversight hearings. We are conducting the investigations. I wonder if the chairman is aware of the fact that I believe the Office of the Inspector General of the CIA is conducting an investigation. I believe the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Panel had jurisdiction. Is it correct that the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, is conducting an inquiry?

At my count, at least five different investigations are going on. I wonder if that number is accurate, and does the chairman think that a sixth, which would not start until later on, would add anything?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the second- degree amendment offered by Chairman Stevens.

I think we all realize the tremendous strain that the deployments, the call-ups have placed on our Guard and Reserve and actually the continuing deployments place upon the active members of the military. That is a well-deserved concern. We must take into account how calling upon our troops, whether active or reserve, puts stress on them and their families.

I believe very strongly that Senator Stevens has in his amendment adopted the appropriate approach--appointing a commission to examine the overseas deployments of members of the Armed Forces, the overseas rotation policies and practices for Active and Reserve component forces, and how these policies and practices affect military readiness, unit and individual training, quality of life for members and their dependents, and retention of career and noncareer members.

In examining this issue, as cochairman of the National Guard caucus, we sent out a request, an urgent request, for information from the Guard on their views on these policies. MG Richard Alexander, retired major general, president of the National Guard Association, has written me a letter--which I will, at the end of my remarks, ask to include in the Record--noting and commending the efforts of Senator Byrd to bring this issue to the forefront but saying that the National Guard Association is opposed to the amendment. Understanding the intent behind the amendment, it does, unfortunately, reduce the ability of the President to utilize the National Guard and Reserve and places a large, unnecessary restriction on the Department of Defense.

He writes:

The National Guard, as part of the Total Force, shoulders

the burdens of our nation. Senior level members of the Office

of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of Defense

have iterated the importance of the Guard and Reserve to be

able to carry out this nation's will.

The members of the National Guard and Reserve with whom I am most familiar take very highly their obligation and responsibility to be available when the President must mobilize them in the national interest. They wish to be considered an active part of the military when we are at war. The single deployment limitation of 180 days or more, for example, may unnecessarily restrict the effectiveness of the Guard if they are called into service.

They say you can only be there 6 months and then you are gone. That really ties the hands of the Secretary of Defense and makes the Guard less likely to be called upon. In those circumstances, the missions for which our Guard members in Missouri and around the Nation train so assiduously may be lost.

The Reserve Officers Association of the United States says, in reference to the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia:

Although we understand the amendment is well intentioned,

these restrictions are not needed and such determinations are

best left with the Military Departments and services.

In today's security environment we must ensure that our

military commanders have flexibility to execute their mission

with all available forces.

Finally, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, EANGUS, the executive director, MSG Michael Cline, Retired, writes that there is clearly concern about the pressures of frequent deployment on National Guard and Reserve members. But much more consideration needs to go into how that will be accomplished. Limiting deployment of National Guard and Reserve members could negatively impact our national security during an overseas operation.

These are the reasons that I believe the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska is the preferred means of dealing with this question. Clearly, it is of concern to all of us because while we all recognize and acknowledge that the National Guard and Reserves have been called upon more and more over the last several years in various conflicts, our citizen soldiers have answered those calls to duty with a forbearance and spirit of service to their Nation that we all admire.

I will reference a book authored by a good friend, former chief of the National Guard Bureau, General John Conoway, ``Call Out the Guard.'' He underscores the commitment of our citizen soldiers. He said:

As we saw during Desert Storm, the readiness of the

individual Reservists was generally high in Operation Desert

Storm/Shield. An amazing 99.9 percent of Army National Guard

personnel who were called reported for active duty. Ninety-

four percent were ready for deployment; the remaining 5.9

percent were either waiting for initial duty training, high

school students, members attending officer candidate, missing

pantographic x-rays, or were medical personnel willing to go

anyway, but prevented from doing so due to critical civilian

jobs.

My question is, why would we want to limit or restrict those who sign up to serve their country and defend freedom when their country needs them?

If you ask any guards man or woman, he or she would not stand down when his or her country needed them. Whether the defense of freedom merits a two-week deployment or a 180-day deployment, our guards men and women stand ready to contribute to the fight. The fact is, today our dedicated soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in

the Active Duty rely on and recognize the tremendous value the National Guard brings to the fight and the seamless interoperability that exists between the Guard, Reserve, and Active Duty. Again, to quote from GEN Conoway, he quotes General Charles Horner, stating:

The Guard and Reserve performed very well.

He went on further to say that he ``couldn't even tell the difference between the active, Guard, and Reserve; and that's the way it is supposed to be.''

That is what we found wherever the National Guard has been called-- Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Kosovo, et cetera. They have been excellent members of the team. It is a validation of the total force policy that ensures the National Guard and Reserves are a ready, relevant, and reliable fighting force, capable of responding to any mission they are called upon to conduct. I fear that limiting the role arbitrarily to a 180-day deployment would be a limitation that would reduce the very real direct impact and connection our Guard has with the citizens of this Nation and with their obligation for our national security.

Just as we saw by calling up the National Guard and Reserves from over 6,000 communities during Desert Storm, community support was assured as their loved ones marched off to defend freedom. We all want our service men and women to return home as soon as possible. But under this circumstance, I feel the original amendment is too restrictive on our military services by limiting the amount of time our Guard and Reserve can be deployed. I urge my colleagues to support the alternative. There is a real question here, and I commend the Senator from West Virginia for raising these concerns. But I think they should be studied, as the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the full committee has suggested.

I urge we support the Stevens amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letters from the National Guard Association, Reserve Officers Association of the United States, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the provision sponsored by my colleague, Senator Mikulski, the chairman, Senator Stevens, and others in the Appropriations Committee, and I urge that we table the amendment.

This $100 million is something that is needed now to continue the President's strong commitment to assuring that we have a robust volunteer program in the United States. The President has spoken very eloquently about the need for volunteers, and I think all of us know how important volunteers are in our communities.

AmeriCorps is a means of providing assistance, and we need those funds now. There are some 20,000 slots ready for volunteers. In previous years they have committed to them. They overcommitted, no question about it. AmeriCorps has been fraught with mistakes and mismanagement, but there have been young people in America who have answered the call to volunteer. There are programs in America waiting for these volunteers. By making these funds available now, we can allow AmeriCorps to commit for the programs that begin with the new school year starting in September and to make sure there is not a hiatus in the programs.

There is no question about the mistakes of AmeriCorps, but we should not punish the young people of this country who want to give something back through community service. The volunteers are ready now, and we should not disappoint them or the communities they serve. This $100 million is necessary to keep the program moving.

As the Senator from Maryland has so eloquently described, we have spent 8 years on the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee trying to straighten this program out. My colleague from Maryland rightly called the Corporation for National and Community Service to task for the continuing problems. We have demanded the administration take corrective action. They are taking that action. Thanks in large part to Senator Mikulski, I think we are getting a response from the Corporation that will fix the problems and restore the accountability. We, I assure you, will continue appropriate oversight. The commitment of my colleague from Maryland to this program is enduring and strong, and we will see that it gets the leadership it needs.

The concerns of the House chairman that were mentioned by my colleague from Alabama are being addressed by requiring the inspector general to audit the AmeriCorps program and defund those programs that have not performed. Further, I have led the congressional efforts of oversight through the GAO and IG audits. That is how we found out about the problems. And we authored the Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act, which passed Congress in 2 days and was signed by the President last week, to correct the financial accounting problems.

I would not support these funds if I thought there were management problems that were not being corrected. They are. I urge my colleagues to table the amendment.

(At the request for Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Patients First Act of 2003. Going to the doctor for a checkup is hard enough these days. You have to juggle your family and work schedules. A few of us get all the checkups and screenings we need, but making matters a lot worse is the fact that more and more doctors are closing their practices or limiting the services they offer. They are doing so because they cannot afford the increasing costs of their medical malpractice insurance, which they are required to carry.

According to the American Medical Association, 19 States are in a full-blown medical liability crisis, including, regrettably, my home State of Missouri.

In Missouri, physicians' average premium increases for 2002 were 61.2 percent. This was on top of increases in 2001 of 22.4 percent. As a result, over 31 percent--almost one-third--of all physicians surveyed by the Missouri State Medical Association said they are considering leaving their practices altogether. Let me repeat that. Almost one in three physicians in Missouri are considering leaving their practices altogether because they simply can no longer afford to practice because of exorbitant medical malpractice insurance rates.

In some cases, medical liability insurance rates are tripling in Missouri, forcing older doctors into retirement and younger physicians into other fields.

What is the cause of that? The cause, quite frankly, is the unrestrained plaintiffs' legal actions asserting all kinds of noneconomic and economic damages, which are paid, ultimately, by the consumers who must compensate the doctors or lose their doctor services because of the rates of malpractice insurance. Those judgments go against doctors, and they have to be paid by insurance companies. But the insurance companies raise their rates and drive good and bad doctors out of practice.

According to the Missouri State Medical Association, 32 insurance companies are licensed to write professional liability insurance for Missouri physicians. Currently, only three of them are willing, or able, to write new business. Three companies, which accounted for almost one-third of Missouri's markets in 2001, have left the State of Missouri altogether. The result: doctors who have practiced for years in Missouri are closing their doors, moving their practices and families across State lines, or limiting the care and services they provide. It is happening in my State and it is happening across the country.

But this is not just a problem for doctors. They are well educated, and they can move elsewhere and resume their practice, as difficult and unfair as that is. The real damage and pain is being felt by the patients, or people who would be their patients if they had the choice. Look at what is happening in Kansas City, MO, for example. Twelve doctors at the Kansas City Women's Clinic, founded in 1953, used to serve women in Missouri and Kansas. Because of rising medical liability rates, the clinic could not find a single company that would offer them a single medical malpractice insurance policy that they need to keep their office open in Missouri. The result: On December 31, 2002, they closed their doors to Missouri patients. They closed their doors.

There were over 6,600 visits a year in the Missouri office. Now women in Kansas City, MO, tell me that when they are expecting a child, in order to go in for a checkup, they have to go to Kansas--drive across the State line to Kansas. They either travel to Kansas to see an obstetrician/gynecologist or try to find a new doctor elsewhere in Missouri.

In a recent letter, Dr. Anthon Heit, president of the Kansas City Women's Clinic, said:

Our loyal patients from Kansas City, Missouri, and many

surrounding Missouri communities, lost large, well-respected

groups of OB/GYN physicians as a source of their maternity

care. This type of action is going to continue to occur in

the Kansas City area, and in many other specialties, if the

trend does not reverse.

Sadly, that is not an isolated case. Also in Kansas City, the Midwest Women's Health Network suffered a 170 percent increase in the cost of its medical malpractice insurance. It used to pay $200,000 a year for liability coverage. Now it pays $543,000.

Two Kansas City inner-city OB/GYNs, who serve low-income, high-risk patients, had to sell their practices to their hospital in order to continue to see patients in Missouri. Excessive litigation has created an environment that forced these two doctors--committed to serving some of the most vulnerable in Kansas--out of business. They are no longer in independent practice.

One OB/GYN practice in Missouri is taking out a $1.5 million loan to pay its medical malpractice insurance for this year. That doesn't even cover the cost of previous actions over which they might subsequently be sued. Other doctors in Missouri are considering going without insurance for those past actions, or the ``tail'' coverage, as it is called, because they cannot afford the premiums.

In Missouri, this year alone, we have already lost 33 obstetricians and it is only July. If this trend continues, potentially 3,564 pregnant women in Missouri will be forced to find new physicians annually to provide their obstetric care--probably outside of the State--thus, interrupting continuity of care and long-established physician-patient relationships upon which so many women have come to rely.

Patients cannot get the care they need. The communities are losing their trusted doctors. We have a health care system that is in crisis in Missouri.

Mr. President, I yield such time as he may require to my friend and colleague from Kansas.

Mr. President, I wish to reclaim the remaining time. How much time is remaining?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and fellow Cardinal rooter from Illinois for allowing me to finish.

It is important, as I hope the Senator from Kansas and I have pointed out, that we must do something on a national basis. Missouri patients cannot continue to lose their trusted doctors to the State of Kansas. We cannot see people driven out of the practice of medicine--well- educated, good practitioners who cannot afford the premiums. Unless we act today, retaining and recruiting doctors in Missouri will continue to be a difficult task.

I urge my colleagues to consider the experience of patients in Kansas City and across Missouri and support the essential medical liability reforms in S. 11.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal entitled ``Political Malpractice'' be printed in the Record.

The Wall Street Journal says:

As federalists, we think this wave of state reform is

probably better than a single national law. Unlike class

actions, which damage commerce nationwide, medical liability

affects health care in individual states.

It goes on:

The argument for national reform is that the crisis is too

acute to wait for a 50-State trench warfare, especially

against a trial bar grown so rich on tobacco and asbestos

shakedowns that it can buy entire legislatures.

I yield the remainder of my time. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, it is a real pleasure today to rise to join my colleague and good friend, the Senator from Maryland, in introducing legislation that will strengthen the Corporation for National Community Service, the AmeriCorps Program.

I assure my colleagues the Strengthen AmeriCorps Act of 2003 is a bipartisan bill introduced with Senator Mikulski as ranking member, and the chair of the Appropriations Committee and members of the authorizing committee. The Senator from Maryland and I believe the bill will not only address some of the corporation's accounting problems but, more importantly, it will protect and expand volunteer service opportunities across the Nation.

Many of my colleagues--I wouldn't be surprised if all of our colleagues--have heard from their constituents and the media in recent weeks about the potential cuts to the AmeriCorps Program. This bill addresses, to the best extent we can, those concerns--some have longstanding concerns about the management and financial problems of the corporation--by creating a budgeting mechanism that ensures the corporation has the funds needed to pay educational awards.

Under this bill, the corporation would be able to enroll about 50,000 AmeriCorps members without the need for additional funds. Looking at the allocation that is available for the VA/HUD subcommittee, additional funds are not a very great prospect at this time, I regret to say. We have to deal with what OMB has given us and the allocations we received from our distinguished and all-knowing senior colleagues on the Appropriations Committee.

It is truly unfortunate--my colleague has already referred to it-- that there has been a plague of significant and longstanding management problems, neglected for many years, in the corporation. One notable result of this neglect has been the inappropriate and illegal practice of enrolling more AmeriCorps members than the corporation had budgeted. One would think a group of dedicated public servants running the AmeriCorps Program could count. They have not.

Last year, the corporation overenrolled the AmeriCorps Program by more than 20,000 people. They have done it year after year, the year before and the year before that and the year before that. They came to the VA/HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Committee to bail them out. We were able to provide $43 million more than requested in the 2003 appropriations bill to meet the needs of these members and more. But because of continued poor budgeting practices, the VA/HUD subcommittee also approved another $64 million in deficiency appropriations in the 2003 supplemental appropriations to cover additional shortfalls.

When the overenrollment problem first surfaced, we asked the GAO and the corporation's inspector general to review the accounting practices of the corporation and its internal controls to determine the causes of this problem. Further, we asked the GAO's Comptroller General to review the corporation's underlying statute to determine whether the corporation's practice complied with the law, and other fiscal laws such as the Anti-Deficiency Act.

Both the General Accounting Office and the IG found the corporation did not comply with the law by incorrectly recording its funding obligation. GAO identified several factors that led to the corporation's incorrect accounting practice. The factors included inappropriate obligation practices, little or no communication among key corporation executives, too much flexibility given to grantees regarding enrollments, and unreliable data on the number of AmeriCorps participants.

That is the official word. My unofficial word is they can't count.

GAO also found that the corporation was not following the law in recording its legal liabilities.

This bill responds to the problems identified by the auditors and allows the corporation to maximize the number of AmeriCorps enrollees that can participate in the program.

In short, the bill allows the corporation to fund AmeriCorps grants based on the estimate of the number of members who will likely complete and use their education award to ensure that the AmeriCorps Program is accountable to taxpayers and the volunteers.

It is our expectation the corporation will use conservative assumptions in developing its funding formula. This is especially important since the corporation has repeatedly failed to meet funding obligations resulting in action by Congress to provide additional funding, including deficiency appropriations.

I serve notice here and now: Don't come back to us if you screw it up again. You are not going to get bailed out.

Further, because of poor data, the bill requires the central reserve fund to give the corporation an extra cushion in case the actual usage rate exceeds the assumption used in the formulary.

We believe we should pass this legislation as quickly as possible. It provides for clarification of the corporation in determining grant award allocations to its grantees in the States. Without this legislation, uncertainty and disagreement will delay and limit the enrollment of AmeriCorps volunteers.

Considering the demand and need for the program, we cannot afford to wait. We designed this legislation with significant input from the administration. This is one of the President's top priorities. It has, I can assure you, their undivided attention.

We think it is a reasonable and fair approach to the issue. It mitigates harm to the AmeriCorps Program in a manner that will ensure accountability and fiscal integrity.

Keeping in mind the problems identified by the auditors which led to the enrollee freeze last November, we designed this legislation to ensure that we do not repeat those past mistakes. The enrollee freeze was unfortunate. It was an avoidable mistake, if the corporation had properly managed and monitored its programs.

We need to put these enrollment issues behind us. This program has had a difficult and star-crossed history. It is unfortunate. And we are here in June revisiting the implementation of the program to ensure both accountability and credibility. We need to ensure the State and local programs are meeting both the program requirements and the community needs.

I will tell my colleagues the corporation has hired a very strong CFO in getting a handle on these problems. And they do have the full attention of not only the administration through OMB but GAO and the

Mr. President, I express my deep appreciation to the chairman of the committee. We have shared this with the staff. But it was done on a very tight time schedule. I apologize to him for not being able to talk with him directly about it. I assure him it is a brief bill. If he has any questions, we will be happy to work with him.

I hope we can bring it up as quickly as possible because of the compelling nature of resolving this problem. If we can get it passed quickly, I will be happy to make a note of the particular organization in which he is interested and ensure that our friends at the Corporation for National Service know about the high priority the chairman of the authorizing committee places on this organization.

Madam President, I rise today to support legislation that will strengthen the Corporation for National and Community Service's AmeriCorps program. The Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act of 2003 is a bipartisan bill that I introduce with my colleague and good friend, Senator Barbara Mikulski, and a number of my other colleagues. As the ranking member and chair of the Corporation's appropriations committee and members of the authorizing committee, Senator Mikulski and I believe that this bill will not only address the Corporation's accounting problems, but more importantly, it will protect and expand volunteer service opportunities across our Nation.

Many of my colleagues have heard from their constituents and the media in recent weeks about the potential cuts to the AmeriCorps program. This bill addresses those concerns and the long-standing concerns about the management and financial problems of the Corporation by creating a budgeting mechanism that ensures the Corporation has the funds needed to pay educational awards. Under our bill, the Corporation would be able to enroll about 50,000 AmeriCorps members, without the need for additional funds.

As many of my colleagues know, the President has asked every American to volunteer in their communities and has made the AmeriCorps program a central vehicle in meeting volunteer needs. I support the President's call to service and if harnessed in the right fashion, the AmeriCorps program can play an important and effective role in improving the lives of many Americans and communities it serves.

The Corporation, unfortunately, has been plagued by significant and long-standing management problems that have been neglected for several years. One notable result of this neglect has been the inappropriate and illegal practice of enrolling more AmeriCorps members than the Corporation had budgeted. According to the Corporation's Inspector General, the number of approved AmeriCorps volunteer positions for program years 2000, 2001, and 2002, were approximately 59,000, 61,000, and 67,000, respectively, even though its budget estimates were based on enrollment levels that were around 50,000. Last year, the Corporation over-enrolled the AmeriCorps program by more than 20,000. Fortunately, the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees were able to provide $43 million more than requested in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill to meet the needs of these members and more. Because of continued poor budgeting practices, the VA-HUD Subcommittee also approved another $64 million in a deficiency appropriation in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations to cover additional shortfalls.

When the over-enrollment problem first surfaced, I immediately asked the General Accounting Office and the Corporation's Inspector General to review the accounting practices of the Corporation and its internal controls to determine the causes of this problem. Further, I asked the GAO's Comptroller General to review the Corporation's underlying statute to determine whether the Corporation's practices complied with this law and other fiscal laws such as the Antideficiency Act.

Both the GAO and the IG found that the Corporation did not comply with the law by incorrectly recording its funding obligations. In a statement for the record for the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on April 10, 2003, GAO identified several factors that led to the Corporation's incorrect accounting practice. The factors included inappropriate obligation practices, little or no communication among key Corporation executives, too much flexibility given to grantees regarding enrollments, and unreliable data on the number of AmeriCorps participants.

The GAO also found that the Corporation was not following the law in recording its legal liabilities. The GAO's finding is described in the Comptroller General's two legal opinions that were issued on April 9, 2003--B-300480, and June 6, 2003--B-300480.2. The first opinion concluded that the Corporation incurs a legal liability for the award of educational benefits of AmeriCorps participants when it enters into a grant agreement. At the time it enters a grant agreement, the Corporation approves a specified number of new participants in the AmeriCorps program. By this action:

the Corporation incurs a legal duty that once fully

matured, by action of the grantee and participants outside

the Corporation's control, will require the Corporation to

pay education benefits to qualified participants from the

National Service Trust.

The Comptroller General opinion further states that as:

the Corporation incurs an obligation for education

benefits, it must record the obligation against the budget

authority available in the Trust.

In other words, to ensure compliance with the law, the Corporation must record and track its obligations based on the value of the educational award multiplied by all approved positions.

We understand that recording obligations based on the approved level of AmeriCorps members in the program does not reflect the true performance of the program. We know from historical data that not all AmeriCorps volunteers successfully complete service. We also know that not all AmeriCorps members who successfully complete service use their educational award benefit. Accordingly, this bill recognizes the realities of the AmeriCorps program and allows the Corporation to maximize the number of AmeriCorps that can participate in the program.

In short, the bill allows the Corporation to fund AmeriCorps grants based on estimates of the number of members who will likely complete and use their education award. Further, the bill requires an annual actuarial audit of the National Service Trust to ensure that the Federal Government is able to

meet its liabilities. The bill also requires the chief executive officer to certify that the Corporation has properly recorded and tracked its obligations.

To ensure that the AmeriCorps program is accountable to the taxpayer and its volunteers, it is our expectation that the Corporation will use conservative assumptions in developing its funding formula. This especially is important since the Corporation has repeatedly failed to meet funding obligations resulting in actions by the Congress to provide additional funding, including a deficiency appropriation. While the program has been in place for about 10 years, there is little data on the performance of the program. Until there is reliable data, I strongly believe that the Corporation should assume a 100 percent enrollment rate for every volunteer slot approved in the grant agreements. I also believe that the Corporation should assume at least an 80 percent earnings rate for the program and at least an 80 percent education award usage rate. Further, because of poor data, the bill requires a central reserve fund to give the Corporation an extra cushion in case the actual usage rate exceeds the assumptions used in the formula.

It is my hope that we can pass this legislation as quickly as possible. This legislation provides clarification for the Corporation in determining grant award allocations to its grantees and the states. Without this legislation, uncertainty and disagreement will delay and limit the enrollment of AmeriCorps volunteers. Considering the demand and the need for this program, we cannot afford to wait.

We designed this legislation with input from the administration. I think it is a reasonable and fair approach to address this issue. It mitigates harm to AmeriCorps programs in a manner that will ensure accountability and fiscal integrity in the programs. Keeping in mind the problems identified by the auditors, which led to the enrollment freeze last November, we designed this legislation to ensure that we do not repeat those past mistakes. The enrollment freeze was an unfortunate but avoidable mistake if the Corporation had properly managed and monitored its programs.

Finally, we need to put these enrollment issues behind us. This program has had a difficult and star-crossed history, and it is unfortunate that we are here in June revisiting the implementation of the program to ensure both accountability and credibility. We need to ensure that the State and local programs are meeting both program requirements and community needs.

Before closing, I want to raise a technical issue regarding the enrollment cap of 50,000 AmeriCorps members. The Corporation enrolls members based on full-time equivalent or FTE levels since some AmeriCorps members serve part-time and others serve full-time. The cap should be based on FTE levels so that it is consistent with normal AmeriCorps business practices.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and pass it as quickly as possible. Senator Mikulski and I have tried to construct this bill in a thoughtful and fair manner to address the concerns about the program. This bill ensures that volunteers across this Nation and the taxpayers will have confidence in the AmeriCorps program.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that will ensure that cancer patients continue to have access to the treatment and care they desperately need in their communities.

In Missouri alone, the number of new cancer patients is estimated to reach almost 30,000 this year. For the Nation, we're talking well over 1.3 million. And the numbers continue to climb every year. These numbers are in addition to patients currently living with cancer. Many of them are surviving--and thriving--because of new tests, new treatments, and care they receive in community cancer centers across the country.

Many of these patients will turn to hospitals in their communities for lifesaving treatment. Hospital outpatient departments are a critical part of the cancer care delivery system that provide a significant portion of the cancer care across the country.

However, this vital care is in jeopardy because this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has implemented drastic reductions in reimbursements for cancer services, including chemotherapy. These cuts are forcing cancer centers across the country to reconsider how they are providing care or accept reimbursement that fails to cover their costs.

I was recently contacted by Wes Thompson, Director of Radiology at Ray County Memorial Hospital in Richmond, MO. For those of you unfamiliar with Missouri, Richmond is a small town with a population of about 6,100 approximately 50 miles east of Kansas City. Ray County Memorial Hospital is the sole referral center for chemotherapy treatment for the rural residents outside of Kansas City.

In 1999, Wes' wife died of cancer at the age of 26. She happened to be a patient of the pharmacist, Robert Courtney, who has been convicted of diluting thousands of chemotherapy treatments for profit over the last several years. Wes will be receiving a monetary settlement from the legal proceeding involving Robert Courtney and he would like to donate it to the Ray County's oncology program in his wife's name. Unfortunately, cuts in reimbursements by Medicare for chemotherapy treatment will force Ray County Memorial Hospital to discontinue outpatient cancer treatment on January 1, 2004. And, that is devastating news to the community.

This is a department that treats over 250 patients a year across three counties. 60-70 percent of their patients are Medicare beneficiaries and about 40 percent of their patients are indigent. Many of these cancer patients would receive no care at all if Ray County Memorial closed the doors of the cancer program. And yet, that's exactly what they are considering. Their cancer program can't stay afloat when every chemotherapy treatment they give is reimbursed by Medicare at less than their costs. There are a lot of expensive drugs involved in the treatment of cancer. The heavy dependence on drugs has a lot to do with why the cuts are devastating to cancer care in particular.

At Ray County Memorial, the first round of cuts last year meant that hospital overall took a loss of over $150,000. This year's cuts will result in the loss of approximately $200,000-$300,000 for oncology services alone.

As of January 1 of next year 250 patients in rural Missouri will be forced to drive to Kansas City to receive cancer treatment. Oncologists at Ray County Memorial Hospital estimate that 40 percent of the patients they treat will be unable to make the trip to Kansan City area facilities to receive their treatment--either because they lack the transportation or the help to get there and back, or they are too sick or too weak to endure that trip. As a result of this cancer center closing, 80-100 people will die from cancer with no treatment and no hope. Of course Ray Memorial Hospital will continue to give these people loving care and try to make them as comfortable as possible, but they will be unable to treat their cancer anymore.

This is not a problem unique to Ray County Memorial Hospital. Due to cuts in Medicare reimbursement for cancer treatments hospitals across Missouri and across the county that provide outpatient cancer care-- large or small, rural or urban--are struggling to continue to provide this care. These cancer centers work every day to ensure that the thousands of Americans diagnosed with cancer are receiving the best care possible.

I also have the privilege of representing Truman Medical Center, distinguished in its own way--for providing free care to so many. While Truman Medical Center sees only about 300-350 newly diagnosed cancer patients each year, about 70-75 percent of them are indigent. For these patients, they provide some 1,500-2,000 treatments of chemotherapy each year . . . and starting in January of this year, Medicare is reimbursing for many of these at levels dramatically below Truman's costs. And there are so many others.

In rural areas, where it is often hard to recruit physicians, it is the community cancer centers that provide all the chemotherapy and other services that help ensure that cancer patients don't have to travel long distances for the care they need. This is particularly important in cancer treatment, where life saving treatments often result in difficult side effects in the short term.

These cancer centers are also often the early adopters of some of the newest and most complicated drug regimens that cancer patients need today. And not only are they a ``safety net'' for rural patients, they are often the safety net for Medicaid and uninsured patients.

And yet, these are the very institutions that have been suffering under

what is essentially an experiment underway by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. I know that this isn't anyone's favorite agency, but I expect more under a Republican Administration.

For a number of years now, CMS has been trying to bring a new payment system to these hospitals. Each year this experiment brings a new set of rules and payments--for the hospitals to sort through and try to implement.

But this isn't just an administrative burden that takes our caregivers away from their payments. In the last two years, this payment system has resulted in significant payment reductions for a setting of care that can now barely meet its costs.

My own Missouri institutions tell me they're considering closing their indigent care programs or worse, closing their doors altogether.

My office is hearing stories from around the country, about hospital administration arming their doctors with lists of the most expensive drugs and what CMS is now reimbursing them. Why do this if you aren't trying to influence a doctor's decision about what to prescribe? Pharmacists are under pressure to review dosing regimens to see where they can cut corners. Some drugs are just not being given in these community centers. Others that used to be given free of charge until their Medicare codes were assigned now aren't given at all.

In some cases, hospitals are sending patients to the nearest physician's office, where inexplicably, Medicare is paying more for the same drugs. But sometimes theses offices aren't nearby. Other times, hospitals are getting patients returned to them with complications that have arisen--and now have to be admitted for overnight stays and close monitoring.

How scary for a cancer patient? Sometimes with only months to live, to be told that it could take nine months before the next breakthrough drug can be given because it's just too expensive. To be told that the hospital where you've gotten to know your doctors and nurses after weeks of chemotherapy is now closing its doors. To be told that you now have to drive miles for care, away from friends and family who have helped care for you when you return feeling nauseous and weak from treatments.

These stories are accumulating--all because of a failed CMS experiment. So should we terminate the experiment and start over with a payment system that actually reflects that cost of providing this care? Yes, of course.

But that would take time--and while the time honored tradition here in Washington of debate and compromise for long term reform is a worthy one--these community cancer centers around the country continue to rack up the stories of compromised care and reduced access for patients, and time is one luxury many cancer patients simply do not have.

And this brings me to my legislation, which is measured, timely, and focused on the most immediate of needs. And, written so as to recognize the budgetary constraints facing us.

This legislation would set a payment floor for some of the most costly drugs given in the outpatient community centers today. This bill isn't limited to cancer drugs. But cancer is one of those diseases that relies so heavily on new drugs for treatment that tend to be costly drugs, so the impact of this experiment has been felt here more. The bill provides this relief immediately--so that in January 2004, these hospitals can start receiving increased payments that at least cover more of their costs.

This payment floor, by the way, was set not on the basis of these centers' true costs. Instead, recognizing the little time they have and the immediacy of their need, they have settled for payment rates advocated by various members of Congress over the last year--as it began to be clear how devastating an impact this experiment could have.

This bill, for example, wouldn't help them cover the costs of the pharmacy services they provide, so critical to ensuring safe and effective care in the hospitals. Again, these costs are especially significant for cancer patients, where mixing highly toxic chemotherapeutic agents using special equipment and wearing protective gear, reviewing protocols and checking for patient risks and side effects are all more intensive efforts. It recognizes these services by asking for a study of these costs, so that they may be recognized in longer term solutions that we develop over the next year or so.

The legislation I introduce today will provide hospitals like Ray County Memorial Hospital and Truman Medical Center, and so many around Missouri and across the country the immediate relief they need to be able to treat their patients.

I look forward to working with my Finance Committee colleagues to ensure that the provisions of this legislation and the immediate relief that it provides are incorporated in anything we do on Medicare.

We have learned our lessons the hard way in home health. This crisis in community cancer centers promises to reach similar proportions if we don't act now.

I am happy to accommodate my colleague.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his fine statement. Really, the fact that we are here today in a bipartisan effort reflects the good work that has gone on. After intense negotiations between the ethanol and oil industries, agriculture, the environmental community, consumer groups, and the States, we have a historic agreement that is embodied in the Frist-Daschle bill which will provide for significant growth in the renewable fuels industries, including ethanol and biodiesel.

Industry has been working for months to implement these recommendations that are protective of the environment, provide refiners with increased flexibility, and provide agriculture with certain growth in market opportunities for ethanol and biodiesel. Certainly, the occupant of the chair, who is from Missouri, knows how great the growth of the ethanol and biodiesel industry is in our State, as farmers are

coming together in cooperatives to build facilities to meet the need for this clean, renewable fuel. These are tremendous opportunities for improving our environment, reducing our dependence upon foreign oil, and providing a strong economic base for rural America.

The key provisions of the bipartisan agreement, I think most people know, are:

A Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) in which part of our nation's fuel supply, growing to 5 billion gallons by 2012, is provided by renewable, domestic fuels; eliminating the Federal reformulated gasoline, RFG, 2.0 wt. percent oxygen requirement; phasing down the use of MTBE in the U.S. gasoline market over 4 years; and protecting the air quality gains of the reformulated gasoline program.

These provisions will increase U.S. fuels supplies, promote more U.S.-sourced energy, protect the environment, and stimulate rural economic development through increased production and use of domestic, renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

The historic fuels agreement contained in the Reliable Fuels Act, S. 791, provides for a gradual phase-in of the use of renewable fuels, beginning with 2.6 billion gallons in 2005 and growing to 5 billion gallons in 2012. Some have expressed concerns regarding the bill's renewable fuels ``safe harbor provision,'' arguing it provides ``sweeping liability exemptions for damage to public health or the environment resulting from renewable fuels or their use in conventional gasoline.'' This is a clear misrepresentation of the provision.

The safe harbor provision is intended to offer some protection to refiners that are required to use renewable fuels under this bill. It is aimed at as yet unknown and undeveloped renewable fuels, not ethanol. Ethanol has been used in the U.S. safely and effectively for more than 20 years. But without some limited safe harbor, refiners may be reluctant to commercialize new fuels that may otherwise qualify for this program.

Ethanol has received a clean bill of health. According to a report on ethanol's health and environmental fate completed by Cambridge Environmental, Inc., no health threat is expected from increased ethanol use. The report concludes exposure to ethanol vapors coming from ethanol-blended gasoline is very unlikely to have adverse health consequences. Importantly, after an exhaustive study of ethanol's impact on health, air quality and water resources, the California Environmental Policy Council awarded ethanol a clean bill of health.

Ethanol is rapidly biodegraded in surface water, groundwater and soil. Ethanol is a safe biodegradable and renewable fuel that does not harm drinking water resources. A recent study by Surbec Environmental concluded that ethanol poses no threat to surface water and ground water According to the report, ethanol is a naturally occurring substance produced during the fermentation of organic matter and can be expected to biodegrade rapidly in essentially all environments.

The safe harbor provision is very limited. It applies only to claims that a renewable fuel is defective in design or manufacture. These requirements include both compliance with requests for information about a fuel's public health and environmental effects and compliance with any regulations adopted by the EPA. If these requirements are not met, the safe harbor protection does not apply and liability will be determined under otherwise applicable law. This provision does not affect claims based on the wrongful release of a renewable fuel into the environment. Anyone harmed by a release of that kind would retain all the rights he has under current law.

Safeguards are provided for in the bill. The legislation requires EPA to conduct studies of the long-term health and environmental effects of renewable fuels. Under this bill, the Administrator has the authority to control or even prohibit the sale of renewable fuels that may adversely affect air or water quality or the public health. There is no safe harbor if the Administrator's rules are violated.

A vote for the amendment may disrupt the historic agreement. The bipartisan compromise on fuels issues in S. 791 represents a carefully crafted agreement among the oil industry, ethanol producers, agriculture groups, and environmental and public health interests, including the American Lung Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, NESCAUM, among others. An amendment to change or strike the safe harbor provision would effectively dissolve the agreement, resulting in the status quo and continued MTBE use.

MTBE use is a problem. MTBE has been shown to be harmful, and MTBE must be phased out and replaced by the other renewable, benign oxygenate--ethanol.

I will just say generally, on all of these amendments designed to attack ethanol, there are tremendous economic benefits of this renewable fuel standard.

Tripling the use of renewable fuels will have a significant positive impact on both the farm and overall economy, while significantly reducing our foreign imports.

According to an economic analysis of the legislation completed by AUS consultants, over the next decade RFS would reduce the Nation's trade deficit by more than $34 billion in 1996 dollars, increase U.S. gross domestic product by $156 billion by 2012, create more than 214,000 new jobs throughout the entire economy, expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion, increase net farm income by nearly $6 billion per year, create $5.3 billion of new investment in renewable fuel production capacity, and displace more than 1.6 billion barrels of imported oil.

One other canard that is often raised against ethanol is that it is not a positive energy balance. Energy balance refers to the energy contact of ethanol minus the fossil energy used to produce it. In 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Argonne National Laboratories concluded that ethanol contains 34 percent more energy than is used in the production process, including the energy used to grow and harvest the grain, process the grain into ethanol, and to transport the ethanol to gasoline terminals for distribution.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, ethanol produced from biomass generates 6.8 Btu for every Btu of fossil energy consumed. The production of reformulated gasoline without ethanol generates only .79 Btu for every Btu of fossil energy consumed. Therefore, producing ethanol produces roughly eight times more Btu than using energy- produced reformulated gasoline. And it achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy. It provides clean environmental benefits.

With the war we face on terrorism, we have to be more concerned about U.S. energy. We need to reduce imported oil. We can develop and supply that oil from our rich farmlands. It will increase the availability of U.S. fuel supplies while easing an overburdened refining industry. No new oil refineries have been built in the U.S. since 1976, but 68 ethanol production facilities have been built during that time.

As ethanol and biodiesel are blended with gasoline and diesel after the refining process, they directly increase domestic fuel capacity. Blending 10-percent ethanol in a gallon of gas provides an additional 10-percent volume to the transportation fuel market, easing the oil refinery sector that is operating at capacity.

The environmental benefits have already been discussed. It can reduce global warming. In 2002, ethanol use in the U.S. reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 4.3 million tons, the equivalent of removing more than 636,000 vehicles from the road.

There is a long list of organizations that are supporting the fuels agreement. Rather than take the time of my colleagues to read those, I ask unanimous consent that this list of organizations supporting the fuel agreement before us today be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and, just for good measure, I urge them to oppose all of the other amendments which seem to be targeted at ethanol. The manager of the bill, Senator Domenici, has pointed out that we see many attacks coming on ethanol. I ask my colleagues to continue to support ethanol and reject this and the other amendments.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to resolve the unfortunate boundary line disputes in Southwest Missouri that have resulted from conflicting Federal Government land surveys performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Forest Service, USFS, respectively. The land involving these disputed property lines is located in the vicinity of the Cassville District of the Mark Twain National Forest in Barry and Stone Counties adjacent to Table Rock Lake.

During the 1970's, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, through various private land surveyors, surveyed this area around Table Rock Lake. In its surveys, the Corps found that most of the original ``corner monuments'' or boundary lines laid out by the U.S. General Land Office, GLO, in its original land surveys performed in the 1840's were either lost, stolen or had eroded over the years. Because of this, Corps surveyors used existing de-facto land markers in the vicinity of the original GLO monuments as the basis for its new survey. Prior to the Corps surveys, these defacto monuments were recognized by local surveyors as legitimate boundary markers and were used in survey after survey over the decades.

For almost 30 years, private landowners in Barry and Stone Counties bought and sold their land based on the surveys performed by the Corps in the 1970's. However, several years ago, the USFS performed new land surveys using surveying technology that had only recently become available. As a result of these new surveys, the USFS now claims that the boundary lines in its surveys conflict with the boundary lines established in the previous corps surveys. In addition to this, the USFS has announced that the Corps surveys are incorrect and that property lines all over this area are in the wrong place.

Because of these new revelations, many private property owners in the vicinity of the Mark Twain National Forest, who bought and paid for their land in good faith based on a previous Federal Government survey, are now being told that they have encroached on USFS land.

USFS has begun telling these private landowners that their land now belongs to the Federal Government, and that they will have to reimburse the USFS for the Federal land that the landowners now occupy. Naturally, these actions have produced chaos, confusion and anger among landowners in these two counties.

Needless to say, it is inherently unfair and absolutely devoid of any common sense to expect private landowners to compensate the Federal Government for land that they have already purchased simply because the government has changed its collective mind about where Federal property begins and ends.

Over the past 18 months, I have repeatedly asked the USFS and the Army Corps of Engineers to work together to find a solution that would resolve this problem. Unfortunately, after 18 month of debate and disagreement, the Corps of Engineers and the USFS have been unable to agree on a resolution of this problem. In the meantime, the lives of many of these Missouri residents continue to be disrupted.

Therefore, I have concluded that Federal legislation represents the only feasible solution to this boundary problem. This legislation authorize the Secretary of the Agriculture to convey, without consideration, title to land in which there is a boundary conflict, with adjoining federal land, to private landowners, who can demonstrate a claim of ownership because they relied on a subsequent land survey approved by the Federal Government.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to resolve the unfortunate boundary line disputes in Southwest Missouri that have resulted from conflicting Federal Government land surveys performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Forest Service, USFS, respectively. The land involving these disputed property lines is located in the vicinity of the Cassville District of the Mark Twain National Forest in Barry and Stone Counties adjacent to Table Rock Lake.

During the 1970's, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, through various private land surveyors, surveyed this area around Table Rock Lake. In its surveys, the Corps found that most of the original ``corner monuments'' or boundary lines laid out by the U.S. General Land Office, GLO, in its original land surveys performed in the 1840's were either lost, stolen or had eroded over the years. Because of this, Corps surveyors used existing de-facto land markers in the vicinity of the original GLO monuments as the basis for its new survey. Prior to the Corps surveys, these defacto monuments were recognized by local surveyors as legitimate boundary markers and were used in survey after survey over the decades.

For almost 30 years, private landowners in Barry and Stone Counties bought and sold their land based on the surveys performed by the Corps in the 1970's. However, several years ago, the USFS performed new land surveys using surveying technology that had only recently become available. As a result of these new surveys, the USFS now claims that the boundary lines in its surveys conflict with the boundary lines established in the previous corps surveys. In addition to this, the USFS has announced that the Corps surveys are incorrect and that property lines all over this area are in the wrong place.

Because of these new revelations, many private property owners in the vicinity of the Mark Twain National Forest, who bought and paid for their land in good faith based on a previous Federal Government survey, are now being told that they have encroached on USFS land.

USFS has begun telling these private landowners that their land now belongs to the Federal Government, and that they will have to reimburse the USFS for the Federal land that the landowners now occupy. Naturally, these actions have produced chaos, confusion and anger among landowners in these two counties.

Needless to say, it is inherently unfair and absolutely devoid of any common sense to expect private landowners to compensate the Federal Government for land that they have already purchased simply because the government has changed its collective mind about where Federal property begins and ends.

Over the past 18 months, I have repeatedly asked the USFS and the Army Corps of Engineers to work together to find a solution that would resolve this problem. Unfortunately, after 18 month of debate and disagreement, the Corps of Engineers and the USFS have been unable to agree on a resolution of this problem. In the meantime, the lives of many of these Missouri residents continue to be disrupted.

Therefore, I have concluded that Federal legislation represents the only feasible solution to this boundary problem. This legislation authorize the Secretary of the Agriculture to convey, without consideration, title to land in which there is a boundary conflict, with adjoining federal land, to private landowners, who can demonstrate a claim of ownership because they relied on a subsequent land survey approved by the Federal Government.