Floor Statements

Mr. President, the death of Bob Hope is a great loss for all Americans. At 100 years old, Hope was truly a legend in his own time. His famous wit and generous spirit endeared him to generations of Americans.

For more than 50 years, Bob Hope headlined USO tours, performing for America's Armed Forces around the world in times of war and peace. While serving on board of directors of the World USO and as president of the USO, I was privileged to have worked with Bob Hope. His selfless commitment to entertaining the men and women of our Armed Forces was unmatched. In 1997, Congress voted to recognize Bob Hope as an honorary veteran. Hope is the only person to ever receive this honor.

For decades, Bob Hope brought American troops laughter and warmth around the globe. We are all grateful for his tireless service and spirited humor. Bob Hope will remembered not only as a gifted comedian and patriot, but as a humanitarian who used his tremendous talents to lift the spirits of millions of men and women. There will be another like him.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for not more than 10 minutes on the pending legislation, to be followed by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for 20 minutes.

Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin.

I rise this afternoon to support the legislation that the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has brought to the Senate floor today. I also wish to acknowledge his strong leadership, along with that of the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Biden. They have done a particularly effective job at a historic time in the history of this country and the world. This country, the world, and this body will continue to look to their leadership as we go forward into the next challenging year.

I also rise this afternoon to support the Lugar-Hagel compromise regarding

authorization for expanded development assistance through President Bush's initiative to establish the Millennium Challenge Account--MCA, as the distinguished Chairman mentioned, as part of the substitute to the Foreign Relations Authorization bill which is now before the Senate.

America faces no greater challenge in the world today than assisting global development and helping eliminate poverty. The security and prosperity of America and our allies cannot be disconnected from stability in the developing world. There are approximately 6.3 billion people in the world and roughly half of them live on less than $2 per day. An estimated 2.4 billion of them are 19 years old or younger.

The next generation hangs in the balance. Global threats and connections to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, poverty, despair, oppression and infectious disease are not always apparent, but this combination of threats presents complex challenges for America and her allies. Global economic development is a shared interest and must be a shared responsibility.

The Millennium Challenge Account represents a significant new direction in economic development. Linking American development assistance to good governance, democracy, human rights, transparency, and rule of law, will help support the transition to more stable and democratic political systems in the developing world.

The Lugar-Hagel compromise on Millennium Challenge assistance addresses the concerns of myself, Senator Biden, and some of my colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the organization and management of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the new agency that will be established to administer this program.

There was unanimous support in the committee for the goals of the President's program--the innovative evaluations and indicators that will be used to assess a country's eligibility for assistance, and the need for more funding for economic development. But I shared the concern of Senator Biden and other colleagues that this initiative should complement and expand, not constrain or complicate, the authority of the Secretary of State to manage foreign assistance.

This is a particularly critical time in the history of our Country and the world.

Given the many challenges we face in the world, the secretary's role as America's chief diplomat must not be undercut or compromised. The Lugar-Hagel compromise places the management of the MCA directly under the authority of the Secretary of Sate, who chairs the board of the corporation.

We have the potential to bring a new dynamic to American government interagency cooperation and coordination on economic development on a large scale. The board of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, chaired by the Secretary of State, would also include the Secretary of the Treasury, the USAID Administrator, and the U.S. Trade Representative, as well as the CEO of the corporation, who will report directly to the Secretary of State. This type of coordination, if managed properly, will bring new energy and creativity to our development programs.

America remains the world's indispensable leader in working with others to help promote global stability and prosperity and help eradicate poverty and disease. We need to do more. We will do more. And we need to do it better, smarter and wiser in meeting the challenges of global poverty.

That means our programs and the management of those programs must be more efficient and accountable. Establishing the Millennium Challenge Account is clearly in the interest of the United States. Millennium challenge assistance can play a creative and important role in helping shape a new approach to development policy.

Global development is not a zero-sum game.

As economies stabilize and grow, the citizens of those countries prosper, as well as citizens from all countries. Trade-based growth is the most effective approach to long-term economic stability and prosperity. America's development policies should reflect these economic development fundamentals.

America's credibility will much depend on our ability to continue to assist the developing world. Our power and influence is not defined solely by our military might. President Bush's Global AIDS initiative, his trip to Africa, and the MCA proposal all reflect dynamic and new commitments to security and development.

September 11, 2001 reminded Americans that we face a dangerous world with complex connections and enormous responsibilities for U.S. leadership. The world is inter-connected. Global development, prosperity and stability are directly connected to America's future.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Lugar, myself, and others in supporting this compromise management approach to the Millennium Challenge Assistance program.

As the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee indicated, this approach, this amendment, this compromise, is also being supported by the White House and the State Department.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to address the underlying bill for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. President, rapid increases in the cost of medical liability insurance are forcing many physicians to stop performing high-risk procedures, limiting the kind of patients they will see, moving to another State where the liability climate is more favorable, or, simply, they take the option of early retirement. When this occurs, who wins? Who benefits? No one. Everyone loses.

Twenty-six States, including my State of Nebraska, have instituted some sort of cap on noneconomic damages. However, some States have had their caps overturned by the courts and other States are barred by their State constitutions from enacting a cap. Medical liability and access to quality health care are national problems. Medical liability reform is needed to help preserve the ability of health care providers to obtain affordable malpractice insurance so we can remain in practice and deal with the health care needs of America. At the same time, we must ensure that victims of medical malpractice continue to have access to the courts and jury awards.

This is not an either/or issue. S. 11, the Patients first Act of 2003, is a responsible solution. It is a balanced approach to maintaining access to quality care while preserving the rights of both patients and providers.

S. 11 does not cap actual damages. S. 11 caps non-economic damages but defers to current or future state caps. It limits punitive damages to two times actual damages, or $250,000, whichever is greater, but does not preempt existing state caps. It does not preempt State law with respect to compensatory or punitive damages, regardless of the limit.

S. 11 limits attorney contingency fees so that awards go to victims, not to trial lawyers.

No provisions in the House-passed bill or in S. 11 would limit awards for actual damages.

This legislation is important to ensuring access to quality health care for our citizens, and retaining our healthcare workforce.

As an example of what providers face and the impact on patients, consider the fact that annual medical liability insurance premiums for OB-GYNS range from a low of $12,000 a year in Nebraska, to a high of $208,000 in certain areas of Dade and Broward Counties in Florida. Women in rural areas have historically been particularly hard hit by the loss of obstetric providers.

Practicing obstetrics is already economically marginal in rural areas due to sparse population, low insurance reimbursement for pregnancy services and growing managed care constraints. An increase in liability insurance rates will force rural physicians to stop delivering babies.

This is happening now. With fewer obstetric providers, women's access to early prenatal care will be reduced.

This is happening now.

Greater availability of prenatal care over the last several decades has resulted in this country's lowest infant mortality rates ever.

Providers' ability to maintain this standard will be threatened because the cost of insurance places a major additional strain on our maternal health care system.

Dr. Daniel Rosenquist, family practitioner in Columbus, NE who has been in practice 16 years, has delivered babies across Nebraska. However, if Nebraska's medical liability cap is overturned, he may have to give up that part of his practice. In the months before the cap was finally upheld, Dr. Rosenquist had to tell his patients that he wasn't sure if he would be able to continue seeing them.

Dr. Rosenquist is not alone. The Harris Interactive for Common Good Poll of April 11, 2002 states that 432 percent of physicians said they have considered leaving the medical profession because of changes brought about by the threat of malpractice liability.

Because of a liability cap, Nebraska is able to recruit physicians into rural areas by keeping medical malpractice insurance premiums at the fifth lowest in the Nation. It is important to note that even with a cap in place, medical liability premiums in Nebraska rose 36 percent in 2002.

Dr. Christopher Kent, one of four neurosurgeons in Lincoln, NE, who has come to view Nebraska as a great place

to practice medicine, initially came to Nebraska to practice because of its reasonable medical liability structure.

If Nebraska's cap were to be overturned, he says he would have to leave the State, probably within a year. One of his partners would also leave Nebraska and another would retire. This is equivalent to losing 75 percent of the neurosurgeons in Lincoln, and 15 percent of the neurosurgeons statewide. Dr. Kent and his colleagues have already begun restricting their practice, and worry that they will have to restrict care further if the cap is overturned.

According to a study by the Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, States that have enacted limits on non-economic damages in medical lawsuits have about 12 percent more physicians per capita than states without such caps.

Medical liability reform is about quality of care and access to care.

Caps on non-economic damages help keep premiums down, and keep doctors in practice all over our State. S. 11 will provide security to States like Nebraska facing the uncertainty of legal challenges to existing caps, and will result in a faster, fairer, simpler medical liability system that protects both patients and doctors.

The economic benefits of medical lability reform are substantial.

CBO estimates that if legislation such as S. 11 is signed into law, Medicare, Medicaid and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Programs would save $14.9 billion in Federal spending over the next 10 years.

State and local governments would save about $8.5 billion. State spending for Medicaid would decrease by $2.5 billion over that period-- again putting that money where we need it the most, where health care is most urgent.

The Joint Economic Committee in a May, 2003 report, estimates an additional $16.7 billion will be saved over 10 years due to reductions in the practice of defensive medicine. According to a July 2002 Health and Human Services report, States with reasonable caps on noneconomic damages saw premium increases of 12 to 15 percent in 2002 compared to 44 percent in States without caps on noneconomic damages.

Dr. Daniel Kessler, a professor at the Stanford Business School, and Dr. Mark McClellan, a former Stanford University economist who is currently FDA Commissioner, in a February 2000 study, looked at spending cuts after tort reform, beyond claim payouts and insurer expenses.

They concluded that States adopting direct reforms exhibited reductions in hospital expenditures of 5 percent to 9 percent, but this did not result in higher patient mortality rates or an increase in serious medical complications.

If these savings were generalized to all medical spending, a $50 billion reduction in national health spending could be achieved through such reforms, in addition to that sense of confidence that would be increased across America because these dollars would be focused in areas that need the health care the most--productive uses for $50 billion.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this responsible legislation, S. 11, the Patients First Act of 2003. I urge my colleagues to give it serious consideration and support S. 11.

Thank you and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, in the last 2 weeks the Senate has engaged in an historic effort to reform and strengthen Medicare. When we opened this debate 2 weeks ago, I said that what we would do here debating this bill would affect every American and future generations.

Health care is a defining issue for our Nation and future generations. Just a reminder: When Medicare was enacted in 1965, the Federal Government's lead actuary at that time projected that the hospital program, Medicare Part A, would grow to $9 billion by 1990. In fact, the program, in 1990, had then cost the taxpayers $66 billion. So we have some sense of how these programs can get out of hand if not defined clearly at the front end.

In addition to the internal problems of the changing realities of health care, Medicare is facing a looming external problem. The largest generation in American history, the baby boomers, are aging. These Americans--over 75 million of them--will be added to the Medicare rolls over the next few years. The baby boom generation has changed and shaped every market it has ever entered. Medicare will be no exception. We have a responsibility to address this demographic pressure now or risk the system collapsing under its own weight in the future.

Senator Ensign and I have come to the floor to offer an amendment to substitute only title I of the Finance Committee's bill, providing a prescription drug benefit for seniors. We believe any Medicare drug benefit must be sustainable for future generations. The benefit must deal with the realities that people are living longer and better and have higher health care expectations than ever before. We believe we can do better with our amendment.

Our amendment is a simple amendment. Seniors will be able to understand it clearly. Unlike the underlying bill, our amendment contains no premiums, no deductibles, and no gaps in coverage. Our modified amendment addresses three of the major issues we have tried to deal with in constructing this plan. First, it helps low-income seniors, those who need it the most. Two, it protects seniors from high out-of-pocket expenses, and it eases the burden prescription drug costs have placed on the States.

Our modified amendment would replace the prescription drug benefit in the Finance Committee plan with, No. 1, a prescription drug discount card for all seniors on Medicare with $30 billion in added funds for low-income seniors; No. 2, catastrophic coverage for all seniors; No. 3, $35 billion in cost-sharing for catastrophic drug costs with the States for the lowest income seniors eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.

We give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the discretion to divide $65 billion for seniors and for help with drug costs at the State level. With our amendment, the Secretary will provide low-income seniors with money on a drug discount card to help defray their drug expenses.

States would also benefit under our amendment, and $35 billion is available to help States cover the catastrophic drug expenses for the dual eligibles. These are the very poorest of seniors.

These modifications to the amendment make it stronger by targeting aid to those who need it the most. This bill has been scored. We fall within the $400 billion budget number that is required.

This is a commonsense plan that is workable and responsible, and it addresses prescription drug concerns in the right way.

Amendment No. 1026, As Modified

Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk to amendment No. 1026. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified.

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

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand I have 4 minutes 20 seconds.

I yield to my colleague whatever time he requires from my time.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, in addition to what my colleague from Nevada has said in response to the distinguished Senator from Montana, there is nothing new about this bill except two features.

This bill, the Hagel-Ensign bill, last year received more bipartisan votes on the floor of this Senate than any other bill. There is nothing new in this bill except two features. One is the $30 billion for low- income seniors' additional coverage, and the other is the $35 billion in cost sharing for catastrophic drug costs with Medicare and Medicaid to dual eligibles. That is what is new in the bill.

To say this is new and we have just sprung this on the Senate is a bit disingenuous. This bill has been around for almost 4 years in its current form.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield back all of my time.

Amendment No. 1111

Mr. President, to summarize our amendment is simple: It helps those who need it most. It helps the States provide a discount drug card. It is affordable, with no monthly premiums, no deductibles, catastrophic coverage, and accountable market-based tools. It is a complete, affordable, discount drug plan that the next generation of this country can support. We can be proud of what we are doing for our seniors.

I yield the floor.

Senator Ensign and I are teaming up on a couple of amendments. We will follow the distinguished Senator from Illinois.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending unanimous consent be modified so I be allowed to offer an amendment in the slot allocated to the Senator from Nevada, since we are cosponsor, and I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to offer two amendments.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and the Senate proceed to the consideration of amendment No. 1012.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and the Senate proceed to the consideration of amendment 1026.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Bethphage and Martin Luther Homes, which will join hands to become Mosaic on July 1, 2003. For a combined 168 years, Bethphage and Martin Luther Homes have been dedicated to helping disabled children and adults achieve their full potential. Together as Mosaic, will they serve 900 Nebraskans.

By merging their resources and expertise to form Mosaic, Bethphage and Martin Luther Homes will strengthen their reach to the disabled. Mosaic will support and advocate for more than 3,700 people with disabilities in 16 States, Great Britain, and Latvia. Through participation in an international alliance called IMPACT, Mosaic will work with the disabled in emerging democracies around the world.

Guided by the principle that ``every individual is a person of worth,'' Mosaic will continue the work begun by Bethphage and Martin Luther Homes by serving disabled individuals at every stage of life.

Mr. President, I congratulate and thank Mosaic for its service to the disabled.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge my colleague, the distinguished Republican assistant majority leader, for his remarks.

I see Senator Kennedy in the Chamber.

Senator Kennedy, thank you for your leadership.

I have a statement, and my understanding is that we will then rotate statements on both sides for the rest of the afternoon.

Over the next 2 weeks, the Senate will begin a historic effort to reform and strengthen Medicare. What we do here over the coming weeks will affect every American and future generations. Health care is a defining issue for our Nation. We must take the long view and recognize that if we do it right, the changes we make in health care, in the delivery of that care, will result in improved access to quality care and lower costs for Americans well into the future. This must be our objective.

The Senate Finance Committee bill represents a good solid beginning. The Senate Finance Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Minority Member Baucus, deserves great credit for its hard work and efforts in bringing the bill to the floor of the Senate. Over the next 2 weeks, the Senate will work with members to improve upon their bill.

Medicare is one of the two largest programs in the Federal Government. Today, Medicare covers over 40 million Americans, including 35 million over the age of 65 and nearly 6 million younger adults with permanent disabilities.

Medicare serves all eligible beneficiaries without regard to income or medical history. It is projected to pay out $269 billion in both Part A and Part B benefits this year. This accounts for 13 percent of the Federal budget and $1 out of every $5 spent in America on health care.

In 1965, when Medicare was created, only about half of America's seniors had health insurance and fewer than 25 percent had adequate hospitalization insurance. Now, because of Medicare, nearly all seniors have coverage. Medicare has been good for seniors and has become a dominant part of the U.S. health care system.

But Medicare does more for seniors than protect their health. Medicare improves their quality of life. Since Medicare was enacted, people are living longer and living better. Life in America has changed dramatically over the last 40 years, especially health care.

Medicine today addresses all conditions and diseases, with a special emphasis on preventive medicine and management of chronic conditions. This includes an emphasis on prescription drugs, diet, exercise, and lifestyle--health dynamics that were not given much consideration when Medicare was enacted in 1965.

Medical technology has exploded, and we have experienced a revolution in the development of new and effective pharmaceuticals. Outpatient treatment and prescription drugs have become mainstays of medical care, but the Medicare Program does not reflect these changes in health care. Like medicine itself, the Medicare Program must adjust and reform to address these new realities in health care delivery, consumer demand, and costs. Medicare is a 1960s model trying to operate in a 21st century world. Our goal in this debate is to bring this valuable program in line with today's health care needs in a responsible and sustainable program and prepare for the future.

As we look forward, we should also heed the lessons learned when Medicare was created. When Medicare was enacted in 1965, the Federal Government's lead actuary at the time projected that the hospital program, Medicare Part A, would grow to $9 billion by 1990. But the program actually ended up costing more than $66 billion by 1990. Even after adjusting for inflation and other factors, the cost of Medicare Part A in constant dollars was 165 percent higher than the official Government estimate according to the actuary who produced those numbers. In unadjusted dollars, actual costs were 639 percent above estimates.

A 1968 Tax Foundation study found that public spending on medical care had nearly doubled in just the first 3 years of Medicare. A recent example of these accelerating costs is that since 1999, drug prices have risen about 20 percent. The average cost of these lifesaving pharmaceuticals will likely continue to increase, placing further pressure on seniors with fixed incomes.

In addition to the internal problem of the changing realities of health care,

Medicare is facing a looming external program. The largest generation in American history, the baby boomers, is aging. These Americans--over 75 million--will be added to the Medicare rolls over the next few years. The baby boom generation has changed and shaped every market in which it has ever participated. Medicare health care will be no exception. We have a responsibility to address this demographic pressure now or risk the system collapsing under its own weight in the future.

The task before us is immense but so is the opportunity. Although Congress has been working with health care professionals, we must continue to listen carefully to those who know most about health care. We need to assure the American people that the promises made to them will be kept and that seniors on Medicare today will not be forced to change or lose their benefits, but for the future enhancement and viability of Medicare, changes will be required. The American people must have confidence in the medical reform process, the process we use to reform Medicare. This is important because as we move forward, all Americans, especially seniors, must then have confidence in the results.

Facing these challenges will require difficult decisions. There will be no perfect solutions. There will always be imperfect solutions at the end of the day. At the same time, we must be responsible with our efforts. We are adding a costly new benefit to America's largest health entitlement program. In making decisions, we must not discount or minimize what we know has worked and what has not worked.

Much of the debate over the next 2 weeks will focus on prescription drugs. Medicare does not currently cover outpatient prescription drugs. Adding a responsible, sustainable, and meaningful drug benefit is a top priority for most in the Senate. Seniors are expecting to spend nearly $1.9 trillion on drugs over the next 10 years. Clearly, the Federal Government simply cannot take on all of that expense. But seniors need help. They need help now. More than one-third of Medicare beneficiaries have no prescription drug coverage.

Mr. Joseph Antos of the American Enterprise Institute was quoted in the New York Times on Saturday as saying:

These seniors are the last people in America who are paying

retail. When I turn 65, I'd hate to be the only one in the

pharmacy line who's not in some kind of pain.

Also in Saturday's New York Times, Mr. Dana Goldman of the RAND Corporation, said:

What you really want to do is insure against very high

expenditures. A catastrophic plan would be a cautious

approach to sticking your toe in the water.

We should heed their advice as we move forward.

Any Medicare drug benefit must be sustainable. The benefit must deal with the realities that people are living longer and better, and have higher health care expectations than ever before.

A new drug benefit should strengthen public/private partnerships that work. Any new drug benefit must pay particular attention to those in greatest need who have no options today, but this should not be at the exclusion of other seniors.

We must take care that we do not inadvertently stifle innovation in the private pharmaceutical, medical research, and healthcare sectors.

We know advances in research and medicine have been the critical factors in our increased lifespans, better health, and improved quality of life. The public/private relationship in these areas has been essential to that success.

The United States leads the world in medical innovation. Our actions over the next 2 weeks must not jeopardize that continued innovation but, rather strengthen it for the future.

The special healthcare needs of rural areas are of great importance to me and many of my colleagues. What we do in this body over the next 2 weeks should enhance rural healthcare as well as urban healthcare.

Tough choices and difficult decisions will have to be made. Not everyone will agree with the choices we make, but we owe it to the American people to face these challenges and produce a reformed Medicare program that will take America's seniors well into the 21st Century. That is doable, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in this important effort.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to wish the United States Army ``happy birthday.'' It was 228 years ago tomorrow, June 14, 1775, that the Continental Army of the United States was formed. The United States Army has had a monumental impact on our country.

Millions of men and women over the past 228 years have served in the senior most branch of our military forces. The Army is woven in the culture of America.

For 228 years, the Army has protected the American values of liberty, freedom and democracy. Many people around the globe enjoy these freedoms because of the U.S. Army.

The principles of ``Duty, Honor, Country'' are the foundation of the U.S. Army. It is America. Every generation of Americans who have served in the U.S. Army--from the Continental army to today's fighting men and women--have been shaped by these principles. It has molded lives in ways that are hard to explain, just as the Army has touched our national life and history and made the world more secure, prosperous, and a better place for all mankind.

On this 228th birthday of the U.S. Army, as a proud U.S. Army veteran, I say happy birthday to the Army veterans of our country. We recognize and thank those who have sacrificed and served and those whose examples inspired those of us who have had the opportunity to serve in the U.S. Army.

On this, the 228th birthday of the Army, I say ``Happy Birthday'' and, in the great rich tradition of the U.S. Army, I proclaim my annual Senate floor . . . ``HOOAH''

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

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Hagel pertaining to the introduction of S. 1076 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Education Center Bill. I am joined by my colleagues and fellow Vietnam veterans, Senators McCain and Kerry, in sponsoring this bill that would authorize the construction of an Education Center near the site of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Twenty-one years ago, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was built as a permanent testament to the sacrifice of over 58,000 veterans who died during the Vietnam War. It is a place of remembrance for Vietnam veterans and their families.

As the Vietnam War draws further into America's past, it is important for future generations to remember the sacrifices of those who gave their lives in Vietnam, and to understand the lessons learned in Vietnam.

Most visitors to the Wall today were not alive during the Vietnam War. The Education Center would serve as an access point for the next generation. By collecting historic documents, artifacts and the testimony of Vietnam veterans, the Education Center would provide visitors with a better understanding of the Memorial.

The Memorial was designed to accommodate expansion. Over the last two decades, the Wall's reach has extended; names of fallen soldiers have been added to the black granite. Building the Education Center underground would expand the memorial in a new direction--one that does not distract from the natural beauty of the Mall.

The names on the Wall must never become simple, empty etchings. Their individual and collective power must remain connected to the real human sacrifices of war. The Education Center would help preserve this bond. It would affirm the meaning of the Wall, not just as an acknowledgment of a war or a date to be remembered, but as a living memorial with lessons to offer those who come to learn.

Many educators, veterans, lawmakers and organizations have voiced strong support for the proposed Education Center. Like the Wall, the Center would be funded entirely by private donations--evidence of its broad-based public support. There would be no tax payer money involved in building the Center.

Building an Education Center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial would affirm the belief that we can inspire peace by educating our young people about the consequences of war. For there is no stronger advocate for peace than one who knows war.

I am proud to sponsor this bill authorizing the construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Education Center. I ask my colleagues to join me and Senators Kerry and McCain in support of this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Education Center Bill. I am joined by my colleagues and fellow Vietnam veterans, Senators McCain and Kerry, in sponsoring this bill that would authorize the construction of an Education Center near the site of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Twenty-one years ago, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was built as a permanent testament to the sacrifice of over 58,000 veterans who died during the Vietnam War. It is a place of remembrance for Vietnam veterans and their families.

As the Vietnam War draws further into America's past, it is important for future generations to remember the sacrifices of those who gave their lives in Vietnam, and to understand the lessons learned in Vietnam.

Most visitors to the Wall today were not alive during the Vietnam War. The Education Center would serve as an access point for the next generation. By collecting historic documents, artifacts and the testimony of Vietnam veterans, the Education Center would provide visitors with a better understanding of the Memorial.

The Memorial was designed to accommodate expansion. Over the last two decades, the Wall's reach has extended; names of fallen soldiers have been added to the black granite. Building the Education Center underground would expand the memorial in a new direction--one that does not distract from the natural beauty of the Mall.

The names on the Wall must never become simple, empty etchings. Their individual and collective power must remain connected to the real human sacrifices of war. The Education Center would help preserve this bond. It would affirm the meaning of the Wall, not just as an acknowledgment of a war or a date to be remembered, but as a living memorial with lessons to offer those who come to learn.

Many educators, veterans, lawmakers and organizations have voiced strong support for the proposed Education Center. Like the Wall, the Center would be funded entirely by private donations--evidence of its broad-based public support. There would be no tax payer money involved in building the Center.

Building an Education Center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial would affirm the belief that we can inspire peace by educating our young people about the consequences of war. For there is no stronger advocate for peace than one who knows war.

I am proud to sponsor this bill authorizing the construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Education Center. I ask my colleagues to join me and Senators Kerry and McCain in support of this effort.