Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help provide more affordable health coverage to millions of Americans. This legislation makes commonsense changes that will create tax parity between employer-sponsored insurance and insurance purchased in the individual market.

As we are well aware, the Federal tax code's treatment of medical care has shaped the development of the private third-party system of financing health care in the United States. The tax code treats the self-employed, unemployed, and workers at companies that do not offer health insurance, most of which are small businesses, less generously than it treats workers at companies that do offer health insurance. Employer-sponsored insurance receives a tax subsidy that individually- purchased insurance does not, and as a result two-thirds of non-elderly Americans receive health insurance through their own or a family member's employer.

Of equal concern, the percent of employer-sponsored insurance has dropped from 69 percent in 2000 to 60 percent in 2005 due mainly to the rapid rise in health insurance premiums, which have increased more than 60 percent in real terms over the past 5 years alone. The percent of the non-elderly population with employer-sponsored insurance has correspondingly dropped, from 68 percent in 2000 to 63 percent in 2004. Consequently, more Americans must look to the non-group market for their health insurance needs.

To help rectify this disparity, the legislation I am introducing today would permit premiums for high-deductible plans purchased in conjunction with a qualifying health savings accounts (HAS) on the individual market to be deductible from income taxes. In addition, an income tax credit would offset payroll taxes paid on these premiums. As such, people who purchase their health benefits in the individual market would receive the same tax treatment as those who receive employer-sponsored insurance.

Perhaps one of the most widespread criticisms of HSA plans is that they are only helpful to those who are young, healthy, and wealthy. However, a recent survey conducted by America's Health Insurance Plans reveals this not to be the case. In that survey, it was shown that 50 percent of all people covered by HSA plans in the individual market are 40 years of age or older. Moreover, 31 percent of new enrollees in HSA plans were previously uninsured.

My legislation would provide substantial savings to middle and low income families. For example, a family in the 15 percent income tax bracket, and 15.3 percent payroll tax bracket, would receive a tax subsidy of over $1,500 towards the purchase of a $5,000 family insurance HSA-qualified policy.

Moreover, the income tax credit to offset payroll taxes is designed to help lower income workers. These hard-working Americans are more likely to work for firms that do not offer health insurance, and many have low enough incomes that they are paying no income taxes, but still must pay payroll taxes. My bill helps to give them the affordable and quality health benefits they deserve.

Since being enacted in the Medicare Modernization Act, health savings accounts have helped to provide millions of Americans with an additional option in meeting their health care needs. It is simply not fair that the law does not provide these plans with the same tax treatment provided to employer-sponsored insurance. If we are to seriously begin addressing the rapidly rising cost of health care, it is imperative that we take steps now to ensure that available health care plans are as affordable as possible.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help provide more affordable health coverage to millions of Americans. This legislation makes commonsense changes that will create tax parity between employer-sponsored insurance and insurance purchased in the individual market.

As we are well aware, the Federal tax code's treatment of medical care has shaped the development of the private third-party system of financing health care in the United States. The tax code treats the self-employed, unemployed, and workers at companies that do not offer health insurance, most of which are small businesses, less generously than it treats workers at companies that do offer health insurance. Employer-sponsored insurance receives a tax subsidy that individually- purchased insurance does not, and as a result two-thirds of non-elderly Americans receive health insurance through their own or a family member's employer.

Of equal concern, the percent of employer-sponsored insurance has dropped from 69 percent in 2000 to 60 percent in 2005 due mainly to the rapid rise in health insurance premiums, which have increased more than 60 percent in real terms over the past 5 years alone. The percent of the non-elderly population with employer-sponsored insurance has correspondingly dropped, from 68 percent in 2000 to 63 percent in 2004. Consequently, more Americans must look to the non-group market for their health insurance needs.

To help rectify this disparity, the legislation I am introducing today would permit premiums for high-deductible plans purchased in conjunction with a qualifying health savings accounts (HAS) on the individual market to be deductible from income taxes. In addition, an income tax credit would offset payroll taxes paid on these premiums. As such, people who purchase their health benefits in the individual market would receive the same tax treatment as those who receive employer-sponsored insurance.

Perhaps one of the most widespread criticisms of HSA plans is that they are only helpful to those who are young, healthy, and wealthy. However, a recent survey conducted by America's Health Insurance Plans reveals this not to be the case. In that survey, it was shown that 50 percent of all people covered by HSA plans in the individual market are 40 years of age or older. Moreover, 31 percent of new enrollees in HSA plans were previously uninsured.

My legislation would provide substantial savings to middle and low income families. For example, a family in the 15 percent income tax bracket, and 15.3 percent payroll tax bracket, would receive a tax subsidy of over $1,500 towards the purchase of a $5,000 family insurance HSA-qualified policy.

Moreover, the income tax credit to offset payroll taxes is designed to help lower income workers. These hard-working Americans are more likely to work for firms that do not offer health insurance, and many have low enough incomes that they are paying no income taxes, but still must pay payroll taxes. My bill helps to give them the affordable and quality health benefits they deserve.

Since being enacted in the Medicare Modernization Act, health savings accounts have helped to provide millions of Americans with an additional option in meeting their health care needs. It is simply not fair that the law does not provide these plans with the same tax treatment provided to employer-sponsored insurance. If we are to seriously begin addressing the rapidly rising cost of health care, it is imperative that we take steps now to ensure that available health care plans are as affordable as possible.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15, the Senate proceed to executive session and an immediate vote on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 575, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time to ask for the yeas and nays.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3018

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans' Employment and Training Act of 2006. I am joined in this effort by Senator Pryor. This important legislation will provide expanded benefits for our brave men and women returning from service in the Global War on Terror, while also providing needed workers to growing sectors of our economy.

Under the Montgomery G.I. Bill, the Veterans' Administration currently provides accelerated benefits to assist our service men and women in transitioning to the civilian job market. Through this program, the VA makes short-term, high-cost training programs more attractive to veterans by paying benefits in a lump sum, and by covering up to 60 percent of the cost of some educational programs. However, this program is now only available to men and women who seek training in high-tech programs.

In order to provide this benefit to more of our brave men and women in the armed forces, the Veterans' Employment and Training Act will expand eligibility for accelerated benefits to include industry sectors identified by the Department of Labor as likely to add large numbers of new jobs or require new job training skills in the coming years. These sectors include construction, hospitality, financial services, energy, homeland security, health care, and transportation.

A number of these sectors face critical shortages of employees now or in the near future and are anxious to attract veterans to their professions. The trucking industry, for example, needs an additional 20,000 drivers today and expects to face a driver shortage of 110,000 drivers by 2014. The modest change that I am proposing today will help to provide needed workers to these and other industries.

But more importantly, we must remember the great sacrifices made by those in the Armed Forces. For many of these brave individuals, the transition from military service to civilian life is not an easy one. It is particularly difficult for veterans between the ages of 20 and 24, who currently have an unemployment rate of over 15 percent--nearly double the rate of non-veterans in the same age group. This is simply unacceptable!

We have an obligation to make sure that these individuals are not forgotten when they return from service. One step we can take now is to ensure that those who serve have access to every educational opportunity possible. By expanding eligibility for accelerated G.I. Bill benefits, we will give many of these veterans a new opportunity to get training and find work in some of the fastest growing sectors of our economy.

I urge the Senate to act soon to pass this legislation. We owe it to the men and women of the Armed Forces to act quickly to provide them with this expanded benefit.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans' Employment and Training Act of 2006. I am joined in this effort by Senator Pryor. This important legislation will provide expanded benefits for our brave men and women returning from service in the Global War on Terror, while also providing needed workers to growing sectors of our economy.

Under the Montgomery G.I. Bill, the Veterans' Administration currently provides accelerated benefits to assist our service men and women in transitioning to the civilian job market. Through this program, the VA makes short-term, high-cost training programs more attractive to veterans by paying benefits in a lump sum, and by covering up to 60 percent of the cost of some educational programs. However, this program is now only available to men and women who seek training in high-tech programs.

In order to provide this benefit to more of our brave men and women in the armed forces, the Veterans' Employment and Training Act will expand eligibility for accelerated benefits to include industry sectors identified by the Department of Labor as likely to add large numbers of new jobs or require new job training skills in the coming years. These sectors include construction, hospitality, financial services, energy, homeland security, health care, and transportation.

A number of these sectors face critical shortages of employees now or in the near future and are anxious to attract veterans to their professions. The trucking industry, for example, needs an additional 20,000 drivers today and expects to face a driver shortage of 110,000 drivers by 2014. The modest change that I am proposing today will help to provide needed workers to these and other industries.

But more importantly, we must remember the great sacrifices made by those in the Armed Forces. For many of these brave individuals, the transition from military service to civilian life is not an easy one. It is particularly difficult for veterans between the ages of 20 and 24, who currently have an unemployment rate of over 15 percent--nearly double the rate of non-veterans in the same age group. This is simply unacceptable!

We have an obligation to make sure that these individuals are not forgotten when they return from service. One step we can take now is to ensure that those who serve have access to every educational opportunity possible. By expanding eligibility for accelerated G.I. Bill benefits, we will give many of these veterans a new opportunity to get training and find work in some of the fastest growing sectors of our economy.

I urge the Senate to act soon to pass this legislation. We owe it to the men and women of the Armed Forces to act quickly to provide them with this expanded benefit.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment and to speak on the budget. I congratulate my good friend from New Hampshire who has had this job, and my good friend from North Dakota.

I ask unanimous consent the amendment now before the Senate be laid aside.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my amendment which is at the desk be called up.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this amendment, but first I congratulate the managers of this bill. It is their responsibility to hammer out a budget in very difficult times. I cannot think of two managers who are more capable of doing this.

I understand the need to hold the line in discretionary spending and to make some reasonable modifications to a lot of programs. I support those goals. We need to get a handle on Government spending, but in doing so, we have to make sure we do not ask some folks to bear more than their fair share when it comes time to cutting back.

I speak in two areas today, one in agriculture and agricultural programs. Right now, it has been forecast there will be some cuts there. We want to make sure those are moderated or do not happen. We have a situation in agriculture right now where with the unprecedented amount of dollars we are spending on energy and fertilizer costs, the farm is in dire trouble. We will be talking about that later. In fact, next year when we redo the farm bill, that will be the proper time to start talking about any kind of cuts or modifications to agriculture.

The amendment I am offering today, along with Senator Chafee, is designed to ensure that the U.S. Government keeps our promise to our veterans. There is nothing more important to the American people than this particular item in our budget.

The VA budget proposes $795 million in savings by increasing fees placed on Priority 7 and 8 veterans. The suggested increases includes a $250 annual enrollment fee and more than doubling prescription copays, from $7 to $15. This increased burden placed on our veterans is not acceptable.

Approximately half of these cuts come from the expected collection from fees and the other half is through forcing over a million veterans to opt out of the system. That is not right, either.

Prescription drug costs have risen steadily over the past few years. I have a chart that shows this. On the national average, $634 was the average annual prescription drug cost for veterans in Fiscal Year 1999 compared to what we see instead now, with $762 in prescription drug costs for veterans in the Rocky Mountain region.

Recently, we have also seen spikes in the price of gas. The inflationary pressures add a burden to our veterans and those retirees who live on fixed income.

This budget asks our veterans to pay even more just to be part of the VA health care system. These fees lead us down the road to turn the VA into another HMO, which will make it harder and harder for our veterans to be able to afford basic care.

We need to reject these fees and copays. When we do, we need to ensure that we include the additional $795 million in the budget or we will leave the VA underfunded. This increase I am proposing will be fully offset with no additional taxes or added taxes.

These fees are not what we promised our military folks when they went off to war and when they stood ready to defend this country. For those folks who signed up to fight for this country, this was not their expectation, and it was not our promise at the time, either.

In addition, my amendment includes a $27 million increase in budget requests in the area of medical and prosthetic research. The increase will maintain funding for critical medical research programs.

The budget proposes a decrease in funding for medical and prosthetic research, from $412 million down to $399 million. When inflation is factored in, these programs need to be increased to $426 billion in order for us to maintain the critical research regarding serious injuries for our veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's face it, we have a lot more research to do while we are involved with this particular conflict than any other conflict we have ever faced.

This research funding is critical for unique problems associated with our veterans who are returning from overseas with traumatic amputations, central nervous system injuries, loss of sight or hearing, and other serious injuries which prevent them from returning to a full and productive life. We have to do everything we can to make sure they have the ability to recover. I am a veteran. I know how important VA health care programs are to those who served this Nation.

We have invested a great deal in health care services for veterans. Because of these investments, the quality of care offered at VA facilities has surpassed the care at regular health care facilities. In fact, our satisfaction rate with the veterans today is much better than it was just 5 or 6 years ago.

The VA hospital and our 10 outpatient clinics in Montana are some of the best in the Nation. We must ensure that our veterans can afford the care offered in these great facilities.

We did not used to have outpatient clinics in the VA. We all had to go to the hospitals that were in each State or in each region. Those outpatient clinics have filled a void by helping to cut down on travel and to serve people instead of serving a bureaucracy.

I am committed to doing everything I can to help our Nation's veterans, and this amendment today is a first step to ensure that our veterans get the health care they deserve.

I have never felt so strongly about this as I did after visiting Iraq. Whenever you visit Bethesda Naval Hospital, whenever you visit Walter Reed, you will see our young men and women coming home with injuries we have never seen before because we are saving more lives on the battlefield--lives that would have been lost. Now we save them there, and we are able to bring them home, repair them, and get them ready for public life.

Mr. President, I see no other person on the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

With regard to what my friend from Hawaii has done today, I remind my colleagues that there has already been an increase in this budget since a year ago. We are basically prioritizing our money to be spent where it is supposed to be. If you look at the total budget growth, it has grown from about $72.6 billion to $74.9 billion in the last 5 years, an increase of around 50 percent. The result is a 69- percent increase in veterans health care since President Bush has taken office. So we are not underspending. We are just not doing a very good job of assigning our priorities where the money should be spent.

We asked the VA to look at their costs to give us some idea of how they are being more efficient now. The reporting of the VA has become a lot better. It gives us a better handle on where we should be spending those dollars. My amendment does not shortchange any veteran. We just have to do a better job in our priorities. We have asked the VA to be outcome-oriented, and the outcomes have been improved. Access to health care has increased. The quality of care has increased. Patient satisfaction is up to 83 percent. That was unheard of just 4 or 5 years ago.

By asking for increases over and above, basically we are doing nothing more than engaging in a bidding war. I can use the auction method pretty easily because that is where I cut my teeth. I don't mean to make light of the process, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

I am a veteran. I respect the effort to take care of veterans. In our State of Montana, we now have outpatient clinics that are taking care of our veterans, not just at Fort Harrison but at several other locations where veterans do not have to travel long distances either to get their drugs, be a part of their prescription drug programs or to get their health care. What we are doing with this amendment is putting the money right back into the system where it should be spent. We are paying for it with no impact on the budget and without raising taxes.

I think my good friend from Hawaii raises taxes with his amendment. I thank him for his diligence and his love for veterans. I don't have any opposition to that. What we are doing right now is talking about how we approach taking care of these fine young men and women who find themselves needing medical care that they can get nowhere else in America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Texas in support of my amendment.

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

Mr. President, I assume this is my amendment. Everybody is looking toward me, so I will make that assumption.

Mr. President, this amendment is a responsible method of addressing the essential needs of veterans health care. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Chafee, Hutchison, and Vitter. Also, Senator Hagel and Senator Sessions are on this amendment.

It proposes, we cannot live with a copay and then the additional cost as far as prescription drugs. I realize there is a litmus test that is trying to be imposed into our VA care. I would say that anybody who qualifies for veterans health care has already passed his litmus test; they served. So we should not ask of them who have given so much for this Nation to offer up a copay or any other fees that might come with

Mr. President, I have a letter in support of my amendment from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I ask unanimous consent that the letter in support of this amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on January 27 and 28, a remarkable group of students from Loyola Sacred Heart High School in Missoula, MT, won the State B-C Title for Speech and Debate. This is the 23rd consecutive State championship for this squad. I rise today to congratulate this team on their hard work and success.

Loyola's accomplishment is truly remarkable. Out of 50 schools competing at the State Tournament, Loyola's squad of 26 students scored 167 points. Twenty-one of these twenty six earned medals. And Paul Stergios and Paul Dallapiazza were the State champions in team debate, while Dan Evans took home the gold in extemporaneous speaking.

These events, which focus on current events and policy, are a fantastic educational tool for students to learn about their world and their government. In fact, I have several former Montana team debaters on my staff, including a former State champion in team debate.

By winning its 23rd straight State championship, the Loyola Sacred Heart speech and debate team extends its State record for the most consecutive titles in any division in any activity. A lot of things have changed since they won their first title in 1984, but the success enjoyed by Loyola Sacred Heart in speech and debate has remained consistent. Since 1981, over 1,000 students have competed for Loyola Sacred Heart and the team has produced 34 individual State champions and over 225 medalists.

Students competed in two debate events--team debate and Lincoln- Douglas debate--and seven individual public speaking events-- extemporaneous speaking, impromptu speaking, original oratory, memorized public address, expository speaking, serious oral interpretation of literature, and humorous oral interpretation of literature.

I congratulate head coach Matt Stergios and his team for their continued success in attaining their 23rd consecutive State title. Matt has coached the team since 1981. His daughter Sarah won gold last year, and his son Paul won this year.

Loyola Sacred Heart Speech and debate 39-person divisional and State team roster: Michael Breuer, Mary Callahan-Baumstark, Nick Corn, Paul Dallapiazza, Jason Dark, Justin Dart, Miles Dauterive, Erin Demerle, Jasen Devoe, Liz Diehl, Ryne Dougherty, Brian Doyle, Kyle Doyle, Matt Eddy, John Eikens, Dan Evans, Andrew Fortunate, Brian Geer, Sarah Giuliani, Megan Hess-Homier, Joe Hurd, Julie Hurd, Erik Kappelman, Tricia Karsky, Ian Kefler, Emilie Loran, Kathleen Lowery, Emily Mihalic, Nick Mihalic, Katie Neher, Alice Phoenix, Charlie Pritchard, Mariah Rys-Sikora, Joe Sanders, Paul Stergios, Will Taylor, Madison Unsworth, James Winegart, and Chris Yoder.

Head coach: Matthew Stergios

Assistant coaches: Sarah Jennings, Charles Hansberry, Theresa Stergios and Jessica Weinert.

Mr. President, I am concerned that the President's Department of Veterans Affairs fiscal year 2007 budget request does not include adequate funding for VA health care. Specifically, this budget request would require certain veterans to pay a $250 enrollment fee in order to access the health care system each year. In addition, the budget proposes to more than double prescription copayments from $7 to $15, further burdening the limited resources of those who have served our country.

The VA estimates that these measures will save the Department an estimated $795 million in 2007. This savings estimate is based not only on collections but on increasing the number of veterans who will opt- out of the service due to the higher fees. The VA estimates they will force over 1 million veterans, almost half of the Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans, to drop out of the VA health care system.

Do we really want our veterans to be faced with the difficult choice of either dropping out of the VA health care system or bearing these additional costs? Those who do not drop out of the VA health care system will be forced to pay hundreds more for their health care. Veterans who receive prescription drugs from the VA and who fill a typical number of prescriptions a year could face new fees amounting to nearly $600. I realize that agencies such as the VA must look for ways to save dollars, but our Nation's veterans deserve adequate and affordable health care.

While I understand the need to reduce Federal spending, I urge my colleagues to reject these proposals to reduce spending for VA health care in the fiscal year 2007 budget. I believe it is absolutely critical that the VA health care system be fully funded. The Congress has rejected these proposals in the past, and I hope it will do so again this year. Our veterans should not be faced with these choices nor forced to bear this burden. We must keep our promise to care for the veterans who made so many sacrifices to ensure the freedom of so many.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to curb meth use in the United States. We have often been told that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but this adage is particularly true with methamphetamine addiction. But the problems associated with meth do not end with a one-time high-they are only just beginning. All too often, we hear horror stories about the change in the brain's chemical composition that results from meth use. There's no guarantee that a meth user's brain will be the same after they use meth just once.

The impact of meth, both emotionally and physically, is significant. The individuals that use meth are also not the only ones harmed by this devastating drug--meth problems manifest themselves in family relationships, place strain on treatment facilities and public health needs, and the community. at large must bear the costs associated with meth, such as drug-endangered children and the remediation of meth labs. The most efficient use of Federal dollars should be directed toward prevention--and that is why I have introduced legislation today.

With consideration of the PATRIOT Act and the inclusion of the Combat Meth Act provisions which I fully support, I strongly believe that an emphasis on prevention is essential, and the discussion today is a topical one. We must change the attitude of the consumer. So long as there is a demand for meth, there will always be willing sellers.

My legislation would allow communities to apply for assistance for any campaign which would have a demonstrated reduction of meth use. A 100 percent match is required of all applicants to ensure that the community organization or local government applying for funds has a stake in the outcome. However, my legislation also recognizes the difficulty this matching requirement may have on rural areas, or Indian reservations, which typically have a high level of meth use, but lack the necessary resources. For these applicants, the match will be cut in half.

I hope my colleagues will join me in helping to prevent this public health crisis called meth from becoming any worse. I have seen the Senate's Anti-Meth Caucus start with six members when I created it last year, and membership now stands at over 30 members. In the Senate, we realize the serious nature and scope of the problem facing our States-- now it's time to act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to curb meth use in the United States. We have often been told that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but this adage is particularly true with methamphetamine addiction. But the problems associated with meth do not end with a one-time high-they are only just beginning. All too often, we hear horror stories about the change in the brain's chemical composition that results from meth use. There's no guarantee that a meth user's brain will be the same after they use meth just once.

The impact of meth, both emotionally and physically, is significant. The individuals that use meth are also not the only ones harmed by this devastating drug--meth problems manifest themselves in family relationships, place strain on treatment facilities and public health needs, and the community. at large must bear the costs associated with meth, such as drug-endangered children and the remediation of meth labs. The most efficient use of Federal dollars should be directed toward prevention--and that is why I have introduced legislation today.

With consideration of the PATRIOT Act and the inclusion of the Combat Meth Act provisions which I fully support, I strongly believe that an emphasis on prevention is essential, and the discussion today is a topical one. We must change the attitude of the consumer. So long as there is a demand for meth, there will always be willing sellers.

My legislation would allow communities to apply for assistance for any campaign which would have a demonstrated reduction of meth use. A 100 percent match is required of all applicants to ensure that the community organization or local government applying for funds has a stake in the outcome. However, my legislation also recognizes the difficulty this matching requirement may have on rural areas, or Indian reservations, which typically have a high level of meth use, but lack the necessary resources. For these applicants, the match will be cut in half.

I hope my colleagues will join me in helping to prevent this public health crisis called meth from becoming any worse. I have seen the Senate's Anti-Meth Caucus start with six members when I created it last year, and membership now stands at over 30 members. In the Senate, we realize the serious nature and scope of the problem facing our States-- now it's time to act.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today, and after a discussion over lunch about Libby, MT, and some of the provisions found in this legislation, listening to the distinguished Senator from California, I think we had better answer some of the questions that are being asked about this.

As you know, I am here on the floor again, joining Senator Baucus, my colleague, urging our colleagues not to support this budget point of order. We have to deal with this terrible thing. If the point of order on the bill is successful, the bill dies and we will get no bill at all. There will be nothing to go to final passage, nothing to go to the House of Representatives, nothing to be considered in conference. I do not think that serves the interests of the victims of asbestosis or other asbestos-related diseases.

I want to talk about Libby, MT, I guess, because I live there--not in Libby, but in Montana. Many of my great friends live in Libby, MT. Families are watching this together in their living rooms today, watching this broadcast on C-SPAN. Televisions are set up in restaurants and dining rooms and hotel lobbies so people can continue to see what happens here as they go about their day.

I have been in close contact with the community leaders and people directly affected by health problems on a daily basis. For some of my colleagues, this debate is about technical details of a very complicated bill. For people in Libby, of course, it is life or death.

I want to show some pictures that have been sent to us. We want to give you an idea about how important this is.

Behind me--I don't know whether the cameras are picking it up; I assume they are from somewhere--is a picture of a baseball field. This field was built in 1959. You have to remember, this vermiculite mine started in 1924. For many years we didn't know anything about asbestos. We didn't know anything about the problems it caused. But we know if you are exposed, these diseases develop over time, and it takes a long time.

This baseball field was built in 1959, next to the processing plant. For years, the children of Libby played baseball in asbestos- contaminated fields while their siblings played on actual vermiculite piles of asbestos next to the fields. It is unbelievable. The former Governor of Montana was raised in Libby, MT. They thought it was a lot of fun because it was slick and, boy, you could slide a long way. The high school running track and football field were built on tailings from that mine site. For over 25 years, children have been directly exposed to tremolite-laced tailings which were used to line the track and, of course, the football field.

Maybe I can consider myself lucky; I never had to referee a football game up there and I had some 20 years refereeing that game in that State.

The saddest of all is it is all now coming home. It is now being identified. This is the photo of 250 crosses at Libby, MT, memorializing those residents who have died from asbestos-related diseases. Mr. President, 250 is 10 percent of the entire population of the town. Gayla Benefield told my office recently about how much this matter affected her life:

Slow suffocation from tremolite asbestos is a terrible way

to die but worse yet, watching our parents die and then,

watching the looks on their grandchildren's faces when we

tell them we have the disease is worse than dying.

To watch one person die from the effects of our fiber is

horrific. But to know that your own fate is no better, and

that you cannot

even protect your children or assure them that help will be

there is even worse.

Earlier this week I read a letter I received from Jim Davidson who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma. He is one of many cases in the small town of Libby. His pleas were to get this legislation passed and to do the right thing--get something to conference and get something to the House, because a lot of these folks will not live long enough to ever hear their case pleaded in court.

Jim has been watching these debates with his family. Yesterday, Jim's son, Dr. Steve Davidson, wrote me a letter about some of the statements that have been made here on the floor. He said:

As a past board member of our local hospital and as a past

board member of our federally funded community health center,

I have seen firsthand the impact of asbestos exposure on my

hometown. As a health care provider, I am reminded daily of

the price that has to be paid by my community. And as a son

who is helping his father cope with mesothelioma, I must

watch him struggle with his mortality. My father worked at

the Grace facility for several months in the 1950s.

This is way back in the 1950s. Now, later, this terrible disease surfaces.

We rely on Congress to do the will of the people. Since the

Grace bankruptcy was ignored by Congress, we must now seek a

reasonable remedy.

There exists no empirical medical data to support the

assertion on the Senate floor that ``Libby is like East

Hampton. . . .''

I and my community would appreciate access to any facts to

support such a statement. In their absence, we would

appreciate an apology from the Senate floor. These remarks

seek to minimize the humanity of the crisis in Libby and my

Father's struggle.

It is something when it touches your life.

We are uncertain if your remarks were made from ignorance

or malice. Please help us to understand your position.

He is asking the Senate to clarify some of the statements that were made that seem unfair to some of the folks who are victims of the situation around Libby.

This is a photograph of Vernon Riley putting flowers on his wife's grave. Darlene Riley never worked at the mine or had anything to do with it. She died of the most severe type of asbestosis in 1995.

The fact is, no other asbestos location in the United States created as widespread a catastrophe as is in Libby, MT. To suggest that enclosed asbestos treatment facilities are the same as an open-pit mine that blew dust and the winds took it for miles and miles into the air since 1924, and it rained down on a town--to say that is not different than any other situation in this country is not true.

I think it is important that we pass a bill. That is why I urge my colleagues not to support this point of order because it will kill this piece of legislation. How many hours have all of us put in, trying to pass something that would give justice to people who right now stand to collect nothing for their injuries?

I urge my colleagues to support the motion to waive the budget point of order. It is necessary that we get a bill out of this Senate, send it to the House of Representatives. Let them deliberate. Let them carry on this argument. Let's get to conference and let's do what is right for the people who have been impacted by asbestos and asbestosis and the diseases related to it.

I yield the floor.

I completed. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I don't think we have ever seen anything as complicated as the issue before us. We have a vested interest in this issue in Libby, MT.

I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 10 minutes, not thinking I will use all the 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from New Mexico to add me as a cosponsor of the bill.

As I listened to the statement of my good friend from Texas, I thought I would clear up a few things as the debate on this asbestos bill moves forward. I know that Members have some very real concerns with the size of this trust fund and who may make claim to it. I think the Libby language that we have in the bill now is fair, and I will make the case for that because we think it is perceived to be inequitable in its treatment.

The only inequity for Libby residents will occur if their recovery in this bill is removed. The medical criteria as it currently stands are actually insufficient for Libby victims. So members of this body, in particular, my good friend from Texas, is mistaken to conclude that they confer such enormous benefits on Libby's residents. That is not

really the case as I illustrated yesterday.

The bill as it is currently drafted will exclude 40 percent of the folks that live in Libby, MT. Now, to remedy that problem, I filed an amendment to strengthen the Libby provisions rather than remove them entirely. I felt I had to do that.

While I understand that my colleagues will take issue with specific medical criterion in Libby, I fail to see how the exposure in Libby is equal to the suffering in any other cities. The exposure to asbestos was limited in some of those cities into confined areas. If any community exposures existed, they were the result of a factory worker exposing his family through his clothing.

As I explained yesterday the circumstances in Libby are much worse. The main thing in Libby, MT, is that the community was exposed. The entire community was exposed by the wind from an open pit mine as opposed to communities that had enclosed facilities that processed the ore from the Libby mines. So we are talking about an entire valley, an entire city that was exposed by the wind from an open-pit mine. Not only did family members of the mine workers fall ill, but the entire town was contaminated.

Yesterday I showed a picture of a baseball field of little-guy baseball, and it was contaminated. In fact, the amounts of asbestos meant the asbestos in the playing field were as high as 15 percent in some areas. So it has been reported that concentrations as low as .001 percent in asbestos contamination generates dangerous exposures. So the children that were playing on that baseball field in 1978 are now experiencing health problems, and we believe they were caused by that exposure.

This is a unique incident. It is a unique area. And we are not talking about a structure. And we are not talking about a factory. We are talking about an entire community that was exposed to asbestos.

I think I read yesterday where this Memorial Day they will put up over 200 crosses for people who died from asbestos. They have added 20. Twenty crosses due to asbestos diseases in the last year. So I think we have a unique situation.

And also, the disease is a little bit different, we are finding now from talking to medical people who understand, and pulmonary doctors who under stand this asbestos and the related diseases around it.

So I would ask my colleagues to study this very closely.

I thank my friend from Alabama, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I join Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Talent and Dorgan in sponsorship of legislation instructing the Secretary of the Interior to develop an oil and gas leasing program for Lease Area 181, located 100 miles off the coast of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico.

As oil and natural gas prices continuously increase, many Americans, especially Montanans, are feeling the strain of increased prices for energy use in their homes and businesses. Montana ag producers are particularly hard hit because the costs of fuel and fertilizer have skyrocketed. While I strongly support the idea of renewable energies, it will take years of research and development before there are practicable and affordable alternatives to oil and natural gas. Development of the American-owned offshore Lease Area 181 would provide nearly 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas as a near term solution for our country's growing energy needs. That amount would be enough to heat 5 million homes for 15 years.

In order to strengthen American energy security, it is our obligation to use our own domestic resources whenever we can. Offshore drilling has proven to be a safe, reliable, and valuable technology for oil and gas production. Lease Area 181 is a phenomenal resource, and time after time in energy committee hearings when we ask expert witnesses for their opinions on how to best stabilize and lower natural gas prices, the answer is, ``Open Lease Area 181.'' It is not the entire answer to our energy challenges, but it is an important step forward. I applaud the leadership of the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for acting on this important issue. Next, I hope we examine the potential for additional onshore resource development. I come from an energy producing state, and I can tell you, without reservation, that Montana stands ready to serve the energy needs of this country. We have oil, natural gas, more coal than any other state, and a great potential for wind energy.

I am confident that my fellow Senators will see the value in providing a supply of affordable energy from our domestic resources, and hope the Senate acts quickly on this important legislation.