Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, before I get into the third branch of Government, I want to remark and associate myself with many of the comments that were stated by Senator Alexander of Tennessee. I do believe this country, for its long-term competitiveness, must interest and encourage more young people to get involved in science, engineering, and technology.

The fact is, 40 to 50 percent of our students in engineering schools are from overseas. That is good. America ought to be a magnet for the best brains in the world. I want this country to be the world capital of innovation, and to be the world capital of innovation, we need more young people interested in engineering, technology, and science.

I have a great concern that we are not matriculating sufficient numbers of students in this country in areas where new inventions and innovations and intellectual property will be created. We have about-- and I think the Senator from Tennessee will corroborate this--50,000 engineers graduating every year. India has about 150,000 engineers graduating every year. The People's Republic of China has 250,000 engineers graduating every year.

There are a variety of things we must do in this country to be more competitive, to make sure young people are getting a good quality education and also develop an interest in science, technology, and engineering. These are great-paying jobs that are important for the security of this country, our standard of living, and our competitiveness. Until we reverse these trends, I believe it is going to be a problem for us in the long term. Indeed, the Senator from Tennessee and I have worked together on a variety of issues, including upgrading the technology capability of minority-serving institutions, whether they are historically Black colleges or Hispanic-serving institutions or tribal colleges.

We also have to recognize in our engineering schools that about 15 percent of the students are women, about 6 percent are African American, and only about 6 percent are Latinos. We need to get more of our country interested in engineering. Meanwhile, of course, we should be attracting more students from overseas because if they come to this country for education--and higher education. It is vitally important for our future and the future of the young people, for these graduates to stay in this country which I hope they do. That will continue to make this country a leader in innovation in the transformative technologies of the future. Whether it is nanotechnology, which is a multifaceted discipline or life sciences or microelectronics or energy applications to also materials engineering.

I associate myself with the remarks and sentiment of Senator Alexander who, of course, more important than being Secretary of Education, was also president of the University of Tennessee. Senator Alexander understands how our very diverse and multifaceted higher education systems in all the different States of the Union are really crown jewels. We must work with our colleges and universities to attract more young people--people of all ages--into technology, engineering, and science, and also be conducive to people coming from overseas.

I recall in our formulations hearing, when Dr. Rice was before us, one of the points I talked with her about getting student visas working better. Students are too queued up overseas. Visa requirements are another impediment for students coming from countries in Europe, Asia, or anywhere else in the world. If they are all queued up, they think, they are not welcome in this country, it is too bureaucratic. Hopefully the State Department will work with our Homeland Security people to make sure quality, well-qualified people from overseas can matriculate to our universities.

With that diatribe or statement on innovation and invention completed, I switch to a place where I do not like invention, and that is in the judiciary. We have entirely too many judges in this country who invent the law rather than apply the law. I speak on this subject that is very timely because the Judiciary Committee is now considering--I know the Presiding Officer has been involved in those hearings--on Judge John Roberts, whom I sincerely hope will soon be on the floor for a vote, and confirmed to be our next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

When I met with Judge Roberts in my office last month, I relayed to him my concern about Federal judges acting as a superlegislative body, acting as legislators. There are judges who seem to be interpreting the laws passed by the elected representatives in a way that they think they know better than the elected people.

This country is a republic. The people of this country are the owners of the Government. Their views, their values, their aspirations are represented by those they elect. Sometimes it is at the local level, whether it is a county, city, or parish in Louisiana, or it will be a State legislature or for national, Federal laws, the people they elect to Congress and, obviously, Governors, as well as mayors, and the President of the United States in this representative democracy.

In so many cases we see Federal judges who are appointed for life making decisions that completely negate and have very little respect for the will of the people as expressed through their legislative bodies.

We see Federal courts striking down parental consent or parental notification laws. These are laws that States passed--we did it while I was Governor of Virginia, and so have other States. These laws say that if an unwed minor daughter is going through the trauma of an abortion, a parent ought to be involved. It makes sense. For ear piercing, tattoos, taking an aspirin, one needs parental consent. Certainly for this surgery, it makes sense, and many legislatures and the people in the States said the parents ought to be involved. Federal judges struck down that law.

There are those who believe parameters ought to be placed on late- term, partial-birth abortion. That law was passed by the Congress and by various States. Federal judges struck that down.

We find Federal judges allowing attacks on the Boy Scouts. We see some judges, not necessarily Federal judges yet, but some judges redefining marriage. We see judges time after time making these decisions. Some folks wonder what is an activist judge. I did not get into specific cases with Judge Roberts when I was talking with him, but one of the prime examples was this Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that was striking down the will of the people in California in certain counties where the Pledge of Allegiance is said in their public schools every day.

The Ninth Circuit struck that down and said, no, the Pledge of Allegiance cannot be recited in public schools in California because of the words ``under God'' being in the pledge. This is a prime example of judicial activism, contrary to the will of the people of these counties in California.

That case got to the Supreme Court. They avoided the decision, saying that the plaintiff did not have standing. That is a way for the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid making a decision.

Just last week we had another Federal district court judge in California striking down or saying that the Pledge of Allegiance cannot be recited in public schools in California because

of the words ``under God.'' This judge was following the Ninth Circuit in which California is located.

I will give some of my colleagues a bit of legal education. When there is a legal analysis of an unconstitutional establishment of religion, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test. This three-pronged test applies to all the States in the country, even these Federal courts in California who strike down laws and misconstrue the Constitution, thwarting the will of the good people of California. Here is the test that the U.S. Supreme Court has applied in such cases.

The test as articulated in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. It is called the Lemon test. The first test is used to determine whether public activity had a primarily secular purpose. In this matter in California, the Pledge of Allegiance is primarily a patriotic event and purpose.

The second test is called the endorsement test. In this California matter, there is no endorsement of any denomination of any religion. So the endorsement test fails because there is no endorsement.

The third test is called the coercion test, and there is no coercion here for students.

The Supreme Court has commented that the presence of ``one nation under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional, as has most recently the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes the circuit of Virginia, the Carolinas, West Virginia, and Maryland. The Fourth Circuit ruled in a case called Myers v. Loudoun County Public Schools that the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional.

If this current decision in California that came down last week is not remedied by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, I surely hope the Supreme Court of the United States will grant review to resolve this dispute between the circuits, because there are sometimes judges who have to be reversed on many occasions before they understand the plain intent of the law, of previous opinions, and the history of our country. These judges must have the proper respect for the people in this country to make laws that make sense, that are constitutional, and indicate their will.

As a resource for both the Ninth Circuit and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court, if this case reaches them. I direct the attention of my colleagues to some outstanding historical analyses prepared by a gentleman from Texas named David Barton. Mr. Barton heads up and is part of an organization called Wall Builders and he noted if reciting the pledge is truly a religious act in violation of the establishment clause, then the recitation of the Constitution itself would be, which refers to ``the year of Our Lord,'' and our Declaration of Independence which contains multiple references to God.

Our Founders claimed the right to dissolve the political bands with Britain based on the laws of nature and of nature's God.

The most well-known passage, of course, is ``all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.''

Subsequently, the signatories of our Constitution and a variety of other documents appealed to the Supreme Judge of the world to rectify their intentions. Our national motto is, ``In God we trust.'' And the singing of the National Anthem actually has a verse and motto ``in God we trust.''

Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States, even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, opens its sessions with a call that says ``God save the United States and this honorable court.'' This is the same court that said: No, you cannot have the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Obviously, we all recognize today as the Senate opened up there was a prayer, and then there was the Pledge of Allegiance.

There is an undeniable and historical relationship between God and our Founders and the Government leaders throughout the history of our country. In fact, it was the Congress in 1837, acting upon the will of the people, that authorized the motto ``In God we trust'' to be printed on our currency.

We can cite the actions of the entire body of the Founding Fathers. For example, in 1800, when Washington, DC, became the capital of the United States, Congress approved the use of this Capitol Building as a church building for Christian worship services. In fact, Christian worship services on Sunday started at the Treasury Building and at the War Office.

A scant review of the legislative history of the States and of the Federal Government reveals the intent of our Founders from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson who lay out the absurdity and even the arrogance of this district court decision.

Everyone knows--maybe not everyone knows. Most of my learned colleagues know one of the things that Thomas Jefferson was most proud of was authoring the Declaration of Independence, founding the University of Virginia, and the third, no, was not the Louisiana Purchase--although that was the best real estate deal ever made--the thing he was thirdly most proudly of and is on his tombstone is ``Author of the Statute of Religious Freedom.''

If one reads the Statute of Religion Freedom--it is in article 1, section 16 of the Virginia Constitution--it is much better than the first amendment in the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights because it goes on for paragraphs. One gets the sense of how there was not to be the establishment of religion, that people would not be forced or compelled to join a church contrary to their views, that they would not have to tithe or pay for a church, and people's rights were not to be enhanced or diminished on account of their religious beliefs.

Mr. Jefferson was elected in 1800. He took office in 1801, at the same time that this Capitol Building was being used for Christian worship services.

If the author of the Statute of Religious Freedom--and it was authored before the Federal Constitution and adopted in part of the Bill of Rights--if he thought that was going to be an establishment of religion or the Government funding religion, or compelling people to worship in a broad Christian sense, not Baptist versus Methodist versus Anglicans or Episcopalians or other denominations. If he saw that as an establishment of religion, he surely would have objected to it because he became President in 1801 right when DC became the Nation's Capital.

That is the sense of history of the foundation of our country, and the law. It is a shame that the majority of justices on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals do not seem to understand this.

Each of us who has the high privilege to serve in this Chamber is aware of the circumstances by which ``one nation under God'' became a part of the pledge in 1954. It was a will of Congress. Where did Congress get the idea, they got the idea from the people. The will of the people. Congress acted and that was made part of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Today it is the will, unfortunately, of a few unelected judges that seek to remove those words from the Pledge of Allegiance.

When one is dealing with Federal judges, they must get into the history, once again, that they are appointed for life. Most States do not have judges appointed for life; they are appointed for terms. The people have recourse from time to time to remove them. California has a way of recourse on State judges who are first appointed, but then there is a retention possibility.

Federal judges, though--unfortunately Alexander Hamilton won this debate with Mr. Jefferson who wanted judges appointed for terms. Hamilton wanted them for life and Hamilton won. These Federal judges get selected and they are on there for life.

Something that I know the Presiding Officer and I and others try to do is try to discern their views. Judges ought to have a greater respect for the will of the people.

The State of California is not unique in encouraging students to engage in an appropriate patriotic exercise.

In my Commonwealth of Virginia, we have a statute requiring a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in every public classroom in our Commonwealth. It is thoughtfully crafted. The Virginia statute provides that no student shall be compelled to recite the pledge if he, his parent, or legal guardian objects on religious, philosophical, or other grounds to his participation in this exercise. Students are thus exempt from reciting the pledge and shall remain quietly standing or sitting at their desk while others recite the pledge.

The reason I talk about this is when I was Governor in 1996, I was able to sign, and happy to sign, this into law. It is a law that has commonsense provisions requiring the Pledge of Allegiance, but also with provisions to develop guidelines for reciting the pledge in public schools. That law has been the law since 1996.

The point is that the pledge is a patriotic exercise. Thomas Jefferson, again, who authored the Statute of Religious Freedom, had no intention of allowing Government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices.

Mr. Jefferson believed, along with our other Founders, that the first amendment had been enacted only to prevent Federal establishment of a national denomination. This patriotic pledge establishes no religious denomination. There is no establishment of any religious denomination. I would fight against any sort of effort, by any State, or by the Federal Government to establish any national denomination.

Understand the history of our country. There was an Anglican Church, the Church of England. There were people who were forced to pay tithes or contribute to this church, even if they did not believe in it. The Baptists were the ones who were the most upset. Mr. Jefferson sent a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, where he was espousing his views and where some of these misinterpretations may have occurred. The point is this is no establishment of religion.

This Federal judge, though, in California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges, are examples of Government overreach in a very different and harmful way. It is judicial activism at its very worst. It is activism by unelected judges. Through this decision and decisions such as this, they usurp the rights of the people, usurp the policymaking role given to this body and also to the people in the States. These are rights that are actually guaranteed to all of the people in the States in our Constitution.

I do not know what the next decision from Federal judges might be, especially if they are relying on this precedent from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Will they ban the singing of God Bless America in our schools? Who knows?

Will they redact, or force the editing of founding documents, which are some of the greatest documents in the history of mankind and civilization, because there are references to God or to our creator? Will the Congress, the Supreme Court, and State legislatures all across the land be prohibited from opening their sessions with the pledge because it might somehow offend the sensibilities of someone watching a legislative body opening with a Pledge of Allegiance, whether it is on a public access channel or C-SPAN or otherwise?

The fact is this is not an argument about God or no God. It is not an argument about the separation of church and State. It is not an argument about the establishment of any particular religious denomination. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance is no more of a religious act than buying food with currency that reads ``In God We Trust.'' It is a patriotic act. If a student does not want to say it, he or she can sit quietly in the classroom. But that should not thwart the desire of the people, whether it is in counties in California or counties in cities and towns in the Commonwealth of Virginia or in the plains of Kansas or in the Rocky Mountains or anywhere else. If that is what they so desire, then the people ought to be able to have that in their public schools.

I sense that most Americans agree that the Pledge of Allegiance should remain in our schools and other public functions. As it is today, it should be voluntary and should be a matter of public conscience.

On this issue, similar to so many others, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is out of touch with the people and flat-out wrong. This errant decision clearly points out the need to put, reasonable, well-grounded judges who have common sense on the Federal bench, rather than these delusional activists who ignore the will of the people of the United States. The promise of America is rooted in one idea, that the direction of our country is, and will always be, determined by the consent and the will of the people.

If there is anything to be understood from our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, it is that the Government is instituted by the people. They may have representative government through the States, but the Bill of Rights is there to protect our God-given rights. Some rights of ours are to have a government, with our consent, that reflects our values.

I hope, in this particular case, which is illustrative of others, that either the Ninth Circuit, or the United States Supreme Court will reverse this egregious decision that bans the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. The will of the people ought to be respected.

I will close by saying this: God bless America; and I am glad I am still allowed to say it. I wish the kids were able to say the Pledge of Allegiance or God bless America in their schools, without worrying about some unelected Federal judge coming in and thwarting the will of the people, the decency and wholesomeness of the people of this country. I am hopeful we will soon have John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and other men and women, whether on the Ninth Circuit or other Federal courts, who understand the foundational principles of this country.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague, Chairman Shelby in a colloquy on the state of our government's funding for aeronautics research and development and the importance of the discipline to our Nation's national security and economic competitiveness.

As my colleague from Alabama may know, aeronautics research at NASA has played an integral role in our country's unrivaled military air power and until recently, our dominance of the commercial aviation market. Specifically, NASA engineers have developed innovations such as shaping for stealth; multi-axis thrust vectoring exhaust nozzles integrated with aircraft flight-control systems; fly- by-wire flight control technologies; high-strength and high-stiffness fiber composite structures; and tilt-wing rotorcraft technology. These breakthroughs have contributed to American security and economic prosperity.

I thank my colleague and would further argue that aeronautics is a vital and important science to our country. The U.S. aerospace and aviation industry employed 2 million workers in 2001. These workers earn incomes that are 35 percent higher that the average income in the U.S. Further, despite a recent decline in market share, U.S. commercial aviation is one of the few areas of U.S. manufacturing where we actually have a positive balance of trade.

I would respectfully request that Chairman Shelby and the other Senate conferees to this bill give all due consideration to the arguments we have made today and to the possibility of adhering to the House provision on fiscal year 2006 for NASA's aeronautics programs.

I offer my sincere appreciation for Chairman Shelby's willingness to work with me on this issue which is vitally important for America's security and leadership in aeronautics innovation. He has been accommodating to my concerns and creative in trying to find a way to address our country's aeronautics needs for the coming fiscal year.

Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to bring the Senate's attention to a bill I introduced today, the Long-Term Care Act of 2005.

Baby boomers will begin to turn 65 years old in 2010 and by 2030, all 77 million baby boomers will have reached retirement age and the over 65 population will have doubled. The practicality of these conditions will require the Federal Government and most State governments to spend more money on health care. Presently, Federal and State Governments are spending billions of dollars to ensure the health and well-being of our fellow citizens.

In one sector of the health care arena where costs are dramatically rising is in the area of long-term care. In 2000, spending on long-term care was estimated at $123.1 billion and it is expected to triple to $346.1 billion by 2040. Currently, 70 percent of long-term care costs are spent on nursing home care. The average cost of nursing home care is $178 per day or $60,000 per year. That is a significant burden on Federal and State Governments as well as the thousands of individuals who pay for that care out of pocket.

In addition, almost 75 percent of nursing home care is publicly funded. Medicaid spends about 58.7 percent on long-term care while Medicare spends 14.7 percent. According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, by the year 2030, Medicaid's nursing home expenditures are expected to reach $130 billion a year.

If more people purchased private long-term care insurance, we could reduce Medicaid's future institutional-care expenses by more than $40 billion each year, while giving those who are insured alternatives to nursing homes, including home care, adult daycare, foster care and assisted living. Congress has taken steps to give individuals more power to pay for their health care services such as long-term care. One such outstanding measure was the creation of Health Savings Accounts, HSAs.

I was pleased to support the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act. This landmark legislation created health savings accounts, which are a new way that people can pay for unreimbursed medical expenses such as deductibles, copayments, and services not covered by insurance like long-term care. Eligible individuals can establish and fund these accounts when they have a qualifying high deductible health plan and no other health plan, with some exceptions. The beauty of these plans is that they have tax advantages such as deductible contributions; tax- exempt withdrawals if the individual uses the money for medical expenses; and tax-exempt account earnings.

I am confident that with the creation of health savings accounts, individuals and families will be encouraged to set money aside for their health care expenses and give individuals the means to pay for health care services of their own choosing, without being constrained by insurers or employers. Unfortunately, health savings accounts are relatively new and most individuals will not have the built up funds in their HSA to pay for a number of costly health care expenses such as long-term care insurance and that is why we need to provide other options to help pay for this important investment.

Currently, thousands of Virginians and millions of Americans are saving in their retirement plans to have a comfortable life once they become seniors, be it 401(k) and 403(b) accounts.

These savings plans help prepare individuals for their future retirement or any unforeseen circumstance that may arise. Indeed, over 47 million Americans have 401(k) accounts with $1.8 trillion saved. In addition, 6.4 million Americans have 403(b) accounts, amounting to over $590 billion saved.

These are untapped funds that individuals should be allowed to use to help pay for their future health care needs. Current tax law and some retirement plans allow individuals, in extreme circumstances, to withdraw funds from their retirement accounts, but more often than not, a 10 percent excise tax applies for early withdrawal. In my opinion, that tax precludes the ability or desirability of individuals to provide for their and their families well-being and that is why I have introduced legislation to provide a new health care option to help address this unfortunate circumstance.

My legislation, the Long-Term Care Act, will allow individuals to use their 401(k) and 403(b) plans to purchase long-term care insurance with pretax dollars at any age and without early withdrawal penalty. Under the Long-Term Care Act, the consumer has the option to purchase long- term care insurance at the most appropriate amounts for their own needs and their spouses.

Today, only 6 percent of Americans own a long-term care policy. One of the reasons behind this dismally low figure is that individuals wait too long to purchase long-term care insurance. In fact, purchasing long-term care insurance at age 65 is about twice as expensive as purchasing it age 55. That is why we must encourage individuals to plan for their future health care needs and purchase long-term care insurance at an early age. By purchasing long-term care insurance at a younger age, individuals will be saving money in the long run and not depleting their life savings.

Our country is heading towards a demographic meltdown on long-term care costs. It is simply unsustainable for individuals and the government to maintain the current rate of spending without further endangering the state of health care in the United States.

Preparing for future costs of health care is something that every American should be doing. Long-term care insurance is one way for Americans to plan for periods of extended disability without burdening their families, going bankrupt, or relying on government assistance.

Every American should be preparing for future health care costs and it is important that we encourage people to take responsibility today for those costs, be it with the purchase of long-term care insurance or investment in a health savings account. If Virginians and Americans fail to act, it will result in an increased and unsustainable financial burden on the Federal Government and taxpayers.

My legislation, the Long-Term Care Act, is a commonsense approach that will encourage individuals to plan for their future health care needs and help make long-term care insurance more affordable. While this may not be the solution for some people, it is another option for the millions of Virginians and Americans to help provide for their health and well-being or the health and well-being of loved ones. I look forward to the Senate's action on this legislation because it not only encourages Americans to plan for their future health needs but will also help sustain the viability of our Nation's health care system. I thank you for your time and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to bring the Senate's attention to a bill I introduced today, the Long-Term Care Act of 2005.

Baby boomers will begin to turn 65 years old in 2010 and by 2030, all 77 million baby boomers will have reached retirement age and the over 65 population will have doubled. The practicality of these conditions will require the Federal Government and most State governments to spend more money on health care. Presently, Federal and State Governments are spending billions of dollars to ensure the health and well-being of our fellow citizens.

In one sector of the health care arena where costs are dramatically rising is in the area of long-term care. In 2000, spending on long-term care was estimated at $123.1 billion and it is expected to triple to $346.1 billion by 2040. Currently, 70 percent of long-term care costs are spent on nursing home care. The average cost of nursing home care is $178 per day or $60,000 per year. That is a significant burden on Federal and State Governments as well as the thousands of individuals who pay for that care out of pocket.

In addition, almost 75 percent of nursing home care is publicly funded. Medicaid spends about 58.7 percent on long-term care while Medicare spends 14.7 percent. According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, by the year 2030, Medicaid's nursing home expenditures are expected to reach $130 billion a year.

If more people purchased private long-term care insurance, we could reduce Medicaid's future institutional-care expenses by more than $40 billion each year, while giving those who are insured alternatives to nursing homes, including home care, adult daycare, foster care and assisted living. Congress has taken steps to give individuals more power to pay for their health care services such as long-term care. One such outstanding measure was the creation of Health Savings Accounts, HSAs.

I was pleased to support the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act. This landmark legislation created health savings accounts, which are a new way that people can pay for unreimbursed medical expenses such as deductibles, copayments, and services not covered by insurance like long-term care. Eligible individuals can establish and fund these accounts when they have a qualifying high deductible health plan and no other health plan, with some exceptions. The beauty of these plans is that they have tax advantages such as deductible contributions; tax- exempt withdrawals if the individual uses the money for medical expenses; and tax-exempt account earnings.

I am confident that with the creation of health savings accounts, individuals and families will be encouraged to set money aside for their health care expenses and give individuals the means to pay for health care services of their own choosing, without being constrained by insurers or employers. Unfortunately, health savings accounts are relatively new and most individuals will not have the built up funds in their HSA to pay for a number of costly health care expenses such as long-term care insurance and that is why we need to provide other options to help pay for this important investment.

Currently, thousands of Virginians and millions of Americans are saving in their retirement plans to have a comfortable life once they become seniors, be it 401(k) and 403(b) accounts.

These savings plans help prepare individuals for their future retirement or any unforeseen circumstance that may arise. Indeed, over 47 million Americans have 401(k) accounts with $1.8 trillion saved. In addition, 6.4 million Americans have 403(b) accounts, amounting to over $590 billion saved.

These are untapped funds that individuals should be allowed to use to help pay for their future health care needs. Current tax law and some retirement plans allow individuals, in extreme circumstances, to withdraw funds from their retirement accounts, but more often than not, a 10 percent excise tax applies for early withdrawal. In my opinion, that tax precludes the ability or desirability of individuals to provide for their and their families well-being and that is why I have introduced legislation to provide a new health care option to help address this unfortunate circumstance.

My legislation, the Long-Term Care Act, will allow individuals to use their 401(k) and 403(b) plans to purchase long-term care insurance with pretax dollars at any age and without early withdrawal penalty. Under the Long-Term Care Act, the consumer has the option to purchase long- term care insurance at the most appropriate amounts for their own needs and their spouses.

Today, only 6 percent of Americans own a long-term care policy. One of the reasons behind this dismally low figure is that individuals wait too long to purchase long-term care insurance. In fact, purchasing long-term care insurance at age 65 is about twice as expensive as purchasing it age 55. That is why we must encourage individuals to plan for their future health care needs and purchase long-term care insurance at an early age. By purchasing long-term care insurance at a younger age, individuals will be saving money in the long run and not depleting their life savings.

Our country is heading towards a demographic meltdown on long-term care costs. It is simply unsustainable for individuals and the government to maintain the current rate of spending without further endangering the state of health care in the United States.

Preparing for future costs of health care is something that every American should be doing. Long-term care insurance is one way for Americans to plan for periods of extended disability without burdening their families, going bankrupt, or relying on government assistance.

Every American should be preparing for future health care costs and it is important that we encourage people to take responsibility today for those costs, be it with the purchase of long-term care insurance or investment in a health savings account. If Virginians and Americans fail to act, it will result in an increased and unsustainable financial burden on the Federal Government and taxpayers.

My legislation, the Long-Term Care Act, is a commonsense approach that will encourage individuals to plan for their future health care needs and help make long-term care insurance more affordable. While this may not be the solution for some people, it is another option for the millions of Virginians and Americans to help provide for their health and well-being or the health and well-being of loved ones. I look forward to the Senate's action on this legislation because it not only encourages Americans to plan for their future health needs but will also help sustain the viability of our Nation's health care system. I thank you for your time and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Contrary to the concept of individual responsibility--for the past decade, the U.S. firearms industry has been under assault by legal activists attempting to hold this industry somehow legally responsible for the criminal conduct of others. Some of these suits are intended to drive gunmakers out of business by holding manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of others. It has been reported to me that to date, the total cost for the firearms industry in defending themselves from these suits exceeds $200 million.

Moreover, these lawsuits seek a broad range of remedies relating to product design and marketing. Their demands, if granted, would create major impediments on interstate commerce in firearms and ammunition, including unwanted design changes, overly burdensome sales policies, and higher costs for purchasers.

S. 397, which we are in the midst of debating, is desirable legislation and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. This legislation will help curb frivolous litigation against a lawful American industry and the thousands of the men and women it employs. Imagine if General Motors or an auto dealer were to be held liable for an accident caused by a reckless or drunk driver in one of their manufactured vehicles or sue Budweiser. Likewise, businesses legally engaged in manufacturing or selling firearms should not be liable for the harm caused by people who use that firearm in an unsafe or criminal manner. This legislation does carefully preserve the right of individuals to have their day in court with civil liability actions for injury or danger caused by negligence on the firearms dealer or manufacturer or defective product, a standard in product liability law.

Moreover, these frivolous lawsuits against honest, legal companies put our national security and our military at risk. Since the late 1960's, the U.S. military has relied on private industry to supply our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and our marines. In 2004-2005 alone, the military has contracted to buy more than 200,000 rifles, sidearms and machine guns. And these numbers do not include new purchases for our Federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, the Army fires about 2 billion rounds of ammunition each year. While the Army does manufacture a portion of that ammunition, it purchases half of its ammunition from private companies.

The bottom line is, these frivolous lawsuits can shut down the very same companies that are supplying our armed forces, our Federal law enforcement agencies, and our local and State police. Even the Department of Defense understands the implications that these lawsuits have on the firearms. In a letter dated July 27, 2005, from the Department to my colleague, Senator Sessions, DoD states, ``We believe that passage of S. 397 would help safeguard our national security by limiting unnecessary lawsuits against an industry that plays a critical role in meeting the procurement needs of our men and women in uniform.'' That is from the Department of Defense, not something created by the NRA or the proponents of this legislation.

This legislation enjoys broad support. In addition to the NRA, business and insurance groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Federation of Independent Business, and the American Insurance Association all support S. 397. These lawsuits pose a threat to any business that makes or sells any lawful, nondefective product that can be misused by third parties.

National and local unions such as the United Auto Workers, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and United Mine Workers support this bill because the firearms and ammunition industry provides good jobs for working Americans.

National hunting and wildlife conservation groups support S. 397, because excise taxes on firearm and ammunition sales fund wildlife management projects in the States. If these lawsuits wipe out the industry, these funds will vanish.

This bill is not a gun control bill; we should save that debate for another time. We should not saddle this lawsuit abuse legislation with anti-gun amendments that seek to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of Virginians and Americans ability to protect themselves and their families. If Senators need to look to gun control, the best gun control measures are to enforce existing gun laws, which do more to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals than passing new and additional burden on the sale of firearms to honest gun-owners. Criminals commit gun-related crimes and we should focus our attention on these criminals rather than further restricting the rights of law- abiding citizens.

S. 397 will stop lawsuits that are designed not to recover damages from criminal or culpable parties, but which are designed to financially damage the industry or force regulatory changes that would restrict their legal business and strangle second amendment rights across the Nation. We have a responsibility to protect those rights and to stop the use of the courts to usurp legislative prerogatives.

I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to oppose extraneous amendments that would weaken or delay it from passing. Please protect the rights of our constituents and the legal business that is unjustly threatened by these reckless lawsuits; and let us preserve the balance between the legislative and judicial branches of government.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize one of Virginia's most dedicated public servants, Delegate Glenn M. Weatherholtz, who is retiring this year after five terms in the Virginia House of Delegates.

Born and raised in Shenandoah County, Delegate Weatherholtz has made a career out of serving his country and his community. His public service includes a two year tour of duty in the U.S. Army. Later, he joined the Virginia State Police, where he served for over 10 years. And I was pleased during my term as Governor to appoint Glenn to be on the Hazardous Materials Commission in Virginia.

Much of Delegate Weatherholtz's career has been spent in law enforcement. In 1971, Glenn was elected sheriff of Rockingham County and Harrisonburg. He was subsequently reelected five times to the position. During his career, he has served as chairman of the Accreditation Committee for the Virginia Sheriffs' Association and the Virginia Chiefs of Police Association.

Glenn's law enforcement record is exceptional. He was named Outstanding Law Enforcement Officer of the Year by the Harrisonburg Moose Lodge, and Outstanding Lawman of the Year by the Harrisonburg Kiwanis Club. As sheriff, he was appointed to be an Honorary United States Deputy Marshal and received the Law Enforcement Commendation by the Sons of the American Revolution. He also graduated from the F.B.I National Academy.

In 1995, Glenn was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates. His committee assignments include: Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources; Courts of Justice; Militia, Police and Public Safety; and Counties, Cities and Towns. As a delegate, Glenn has shown a strong commitment to commonsense business practices, law and order, education, families, and support for those with mental illness.

Delegate Weatherholtz is married to the former Blanche Gordon. The couple has four children together and they are active in the Brown Memorial United Church of Christ, where Glenn sings in the choir; he is also a lay reader and an elder on the church governing board.

The 26th District, and indeed all of Virginia, will surely miss the leadership and talents that Delegate Weatherholtz displayed in the Virginia General Assembly and throughout his career of service. I thank Glenn for his commitment to improve the Commonwealth of Virginia. And I congratulate him on his retirement and wish him many more years of success and happiness.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize one of Virginia's most dedicated public servants, Delegate Allen L. Louderback, who is retiring after serving three terms in the Virginia House of Delegates.

Delegate Louderback has been a strong advocate for lower taxes in Virginia, serving as the ranking majority member of the House Finance Committee, and as the chairman of both the House Subcommittee on Sales Tax Exemptions and the Subcommittee on Tax Preferences. From 2001 to 2003, he also served on the Joint Subcommittee to Reform Commonwealth Tax Structure.

In addition, Delegate Louderback served on the Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee, where he chaired the Chesapeake Subcommittee, and sat on the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. In 2002, he was named Legislator of the Year for the 140-member Virginia General Assembly by the Family Foundation. And in 2003, Allen was awarded the same honor by the Commissioners of Revenue Association. Delegate Louderback is also a member of the Commonwealth Competition Council, the State Procurement Commission, and the State Water Commission, where he chairs the Karst Subcommittee.

Prior to his small business entrepreneurship and public service in Luray, VA, Allen worked in Washington, DC, as an investigator and manager for the U.S. General Accounting Office for 18 years. As a manager at GAO, he was the recipient of the Director's Award for his ``outstanding managerial skills'' in 1979.

Delegate Louderback earned his B.S. from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is a past president of the Luray Rotary Club and the Luray Kiwanis Club. His wife, Nadia, and two sons attend Leaksville United Church of Christ.

The 15th District, and indeed all of Virginia, will surely miss the leadership and talents that Delegate Allen Louderback displayed in the Virginia General Assembly. I would like to recognize and thank Allen for his commitment to bettering the Commonwealth of Virginia. I congratulate him on his retirement and wish him many more years of success and happiness.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize Mayor Ralph Dean of Luray, VA, as he celebrates his silver anniversary this month as the town's highest elected official. Since 1980, Mayor Dean has worked to make the town of Luray a better place to work and live, and I applaud him for such dedicated public service.

For 25 years, Mayor Dean has been a successful advocate for lower taxes and business growth in Luray. His policies have helped to attract industry and investment, which have in turn created more jobs for the local citizens. He has also helped develop recreational opportunities for his town, such as Lake Arrowhead and Luray Recreational Park. And, in 2004, Ralph oversaw the beautiful new renovation of Luray Town Hall. The expansion and revitalization of Luray under Mayor Dean's leadership has helped the town become a more prosperous and enjoyable place to call home.

The mayor has also built a great family with his wife Billie. They have a daughter named Dixie Dean Foltz, and a grandson named Patrick Foltz. Mayor Dean is a member of the Luray Christian Church. He has also been a member of the Luray Lions Club for over 30 years and a Boy Scout Leader for over 20 years. Prior to his tenure as mayor, Ralph served on the Luray town council from 1974 until 1980.

Mayor Dean is an effective leader in Luray because he genuinely enjoys what he does and cares about the citizens of Luray. I congratulate the mayor on 25 years of dedication to public service in Luray, VA, and wish him and his family many more years of happiness and success. Our Commonwealth is fortunate to have a man of his character and leadership leading the way in the town of Luray.

Mr. President, today I would like to honor a wonderful Virginian and American, Mr. Gus Floros, who this year is celebrating his 50th Anniversary of immigrating to America.

Born on May 25, 1928, in Greece, Gus Floros immigrated to the United States in 1955 settling in Harrisonburg, VA. He quickly went to work in his aunt and uncle's restaurant, Jess' Lunch, on Main Street in Harrisonburg. By 1967 he had purchased the restaurant and with a hands on approach and a commitment to excellence, he made Jess' Lunch one of Harrisonburg's finest eating establishments. Gus has expanded Jess' Lunch dramatically and in 2003 even built a sister location called Jess' Lunch 2.

Gus Floros is a fine example of the great American dream coming true. He is an inspiration to many. Upon his arrival in America, Gus had just one dollar in his pocket. Today he owns two successful restaurants in Harrisonburg that attract both local residents and those who are passing by on interstate 81. Through his entrepreneurial spirit, Gus Floros has made Jess' Lunch an eatery known across the Commonwealth. I often stop in to see Gus and have one of his tasty hotdogs or hamburgers whenever I am in Harrisonburg. You can always find quick, friendly service and a satisfying meal at Jess' Lunch and Gus is always there working just as hard as he did back in 1955.

I congratulate Gus Floros on 50 years of prosperity and good fortune, and I wish him continued success as he continues to serve the residents of Harrisonburg with a warm smile and a hearty meal.

I thank the Chair. I thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Graham, for his tremendous leadership on Guard and Reserve matters. Of course, he is the only active member of the Guard and Reserve in this body, and so he understands what families and Guard members are facing.

My experience goes back to the days when I was Governor and saw how important our Virginia Guard troops were when there were times of floods and hurricanes and natural disasters. I also remember visiting many of our Guard troops in Bosnia who had been sent over there. I remember welcoming back some of our Virginia Air Guard who were flying in the no-fly zone in Iraq.

As Senator Coleman said earlier in this debate, and all of us recognize, the Guard and Reserve are being called up more frequently and for greater duration than ever before. In fact, when I was in Iraq back in mid-February, there were some Guard troops I was meeting with at Balad, and four or five of them actually had been in Bosnia. They said: We remember when you were in Bosnia to visit as Governor. In reality, the Guard and Reserve troops who are being called upon so much in this war on terror are generally, compared to the Active Forces, older and therefore more likely to be married and more likely to have children.

So if we are going to retain and recruit Guard members and reservists, we are going to need to show proper reasonable appreciation. We need to address the pay-gap problem. On average, when they get activated, they loose $368 a month, and Senator Landrieu, Senator Graham, and several of us are working on this issue.

This measure on health benefits means a great deal to the Guard members and their families. We did make some progress last year, but nevertheless it wasn't as much--the passage of this measure was 75 to 25--as we thought it would be, and Senator Graham, like the rest of us, is not going to be deterred. We are going to keep fighting, and it is a fight that is worth fighting because it is important to show proper appreciation with fair expansion of health care benefits which are so important for Guard and Reserve families. This, in my view, will help retain and recruit Guard members. I trust my colleagues will again stand strongly with our Guard and Reserve troops and our families and pass this very reasonable, logical legislation to provide health care coverage to all the members of our Guard and Reserve.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, in introducing the Increased Capital Access for Growing Businesses Act. The legislation would help many small businesses address the challenge of accessing capital as they look to grow, develop and create more jobs.

I would like to share with colleagues in the Senate why this legislation is necessary and desirable to update our securities laws for entrepreneurial small business owners. In 1980, Congress passed legislation, the Small Business Investment Incentive Act, which authorized business development companies, or BDCs, to provide financing to small, developing or financially troubled companies. Congress recognized the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy and that such businesses may have a more difficult time obtaining needed capital to grow and develop.

BDCs are publicly traded companies that are required to have 70 percent of their assets invested in eligible assets, or eligible portfolio companies, which are generally to be securities of small developing or financially troubled businesses. In 1980, the definition of a small company for the purposes of a BDC's 70 percent of asset category was tied to the Federal Reserve's rules defining marginable securities. At the time, about two-thirds or 8,000 publicly traded companies were not marginable and were therefore eligible investments for BDCs.

However, there was an unintended consequence of tying the definition of small company to those issuers that do not have marginable securities--the margin rules have been changed several times, which significantly reduced the number of public companies in which BDCs could invest. This was obviously not the original intent of Congress, but the practical impact was that many small, public companies became ineligible to receive BDC financing, even if they could not receive more traditional sources of financing.

Recently, the disqualification of any private company that had issued any debt security has significantly narrowed even further the number of companies that qualify as eligible portfolio companies. Thus, for the first time many companies with no access to the public equity markets cannot access capital through a BDC. These companies are either denied capital access altogether, or are forced to turn to various unregulated sources to meet capital needs. This situation is unfair to the shareholders of BDCs, and unfair to the shareholders of businesses that could grow if only offered capital access opportunities.

That is why this legislation is so important. It will allow more small private and public companies to receive BDC financing and restore the original intent of Congress.

Specifically, the legislation would use a market capitalization standard of $250 million or less to define what is an eligible portfolio company for BDCs. The $250 million market capitalization level approximates the number of public companies that Congress originally intended to qualify as eligible BDC assets. I would note that it is also much lower than the market capitalization levels of small cap indexes, such as the S&P SmallCap 600, which uses a market cap of $300 million to $1 billion for a definition of a small company.

This legislation adds no costs or risks to the government or taxpayers. It will simply correct the unintended consequences of current rules and update the securities laws to allow more small businesses to access capital. This will in turn encourage small business growth, job creation and economic expansion.

That is why, earlier this year the House of Representatives unanimously passed similar legislation to modernize U.S. securities laws and allow more small businesses to be eligible for such financing.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this common-sense legislation for small businesses in America.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, in introducing the Increased Capital Access for Growing Businesses Act. The legislation would help many small businesses address the challenge of accessing capital as they look to grow, develop and create more jobs.

I would like to share with colleagues in the Senate why this legislation is necessary and desirable to update our securities laws for entrepreneurial small business owners. In 1980, Congress passed legislation, the Small Business Investment Incentive Act, which authorized business development companies, or BDCs, to provide financing to small, developing or financially troubled companies. Congress recognized the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy and that such businesses may have a more difficult time obtaining needed capital to grow and develop.

BDCs are publicly traded companies that are required to have 70 percent of their assets invested in eligible assets, or eligible portfolio companies, which are generally to be securities of small developing or financially troubled businesses. In 1980, the definition of a small company for the purposes of a BDC's 70 percent of asset category was tied to the Federal Reserve's rules defining marginable securities. At the time, about two-thirds or 8,000 publicly traded companies were not marginable and were therefore eligible investments for BDCs.

However, there was an unintended consequence of tying the definition of small company to those issuers that do not have marginable securities--the margin rules have been changed several times, which significantly reduced the number of public companies in which BDCs could invest. This was obviously not the original intent of Congress, but the practical impact was that many small, public companies became ineligible to receive BDC financing, even if they could not receive more traditional sources of financing.

Recently, the disqualification of any private company that had issued any debt security has significantly narrowed even further the number of companies that qualify as eligible portfolio companies. Thus, for the first time many companies with no access to the public equity markets cannot access capital through a BDC. These companies are either denied capital access altogether, or are forced to turn to various unregulated sources to meet capital needs. This situation is unfair to the shareholders of BDCs, and unfair to the shareholders of businesses that could grow if only offered capital access opportunities.

That is why this legislation is so important. It will allow more small private and public companies to receive BDC financing and restore the original intent of Congress.

Specifically, the legislation would use a market capitalization standard of $250 million or less to define what is an eligible portfolio company for BDCs. The $250 million market capitalization level approximates the number of public companies that Congress originally intended to qualify as eligible BDC assets. I would note that it is also much lower than the market capitalization levels of small cap indexes, such as the S&P SmallCap 600, which uses a market cap of $300 million to $1 billion for a definition of a small company.

This legislation adds no costs or risks to the government or taxpayers. It will simply correct the unintended consequences of current rules and update the securities laws to allow more small businesses to access capital. This will in turn encourage small business growth, job creation and economic expansion.

That is why, earlier this year the House of Representatives unanimously passed similar legislation to modernize U.S. securities laws and allow more small businesses to be eligible for such financing.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this common-sense legislation for small businesses in America.

Mr. President, today I rise to respectfully urge my colleagues to support S. 432, the Minority Serving Institution Digital & Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003. This legislation will provide vital resources to address the technology gap that exists at many minority serving institutions, MSIs. It establishes a new grant program within the National Science Foundation, NSF, that provides annually for 5 years up to $250 million to help historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, and tribal colleges to close what I often referred to as the ``digital divide'', but is more like an ``economic opportunity divide.''

Since before I was elected to the Senate, my goal has always been to look for ways to improve education and empower all of our young people--regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or economic background--to compete and succeed in life.

Additionally, I have always been one who embraces innovations and advances in technology--especially as a means to provide greater opportunities or security for Americans.

In my view, increasing access to technology provides our young people with an important tool for success both in the classroom and in the workforce.

We all know, the best jobs in the future will go to those who are the best prepared. However, I am increasingly concerned that when it comes to high technology jobs--which pay higher wages--this country runs the risk of economically limiting many college students in our society. It is important for all Americans that we close this economic opportunity gap.

This Nation's economic stability and growth are increasingly dependent on a growing portion of the workforce possessing technological skills.

African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans constitute one- quarter of the total U.S. workforce. Approximately one-third of all students of color in this Nation are educated at minority serving institutions. It is estimated that in 10 years minorities will comprise nearly 40 percent of all college-age Americans.

Yet, members of these minorities represent only 7 percent of the U.S. computer and information science workforce; 6 percent of the engineering workforce; and less than 2 percent of the computer science faculty.

U.S. information technology companies are increasingly relying on foreign workers to fill important IT positions. I am not against legal immigration, but I say let's properly educate and train Americans to get and fill those good-paying technology jobs. Let's make sure all American students are prepared to meet the requirements on the 21st century workforce.

However, minority serving institutions still lack desired information and digital technology infrastructure. A study completed by the Department of Commerce and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education indicated that:

No historically black college or university, HBCUs, requires computer ownership for their undergraduate students;

Thirteen HBCUs reported to have no students--not one--owning their own personal computer;

Over 70 percent of the students at HBCUs rely on the universities to provide computers, however only 50 percent of those universities can provide their students access to computers in computer laboratories, libraries, classrooms or other locations; and

Most of these minority serving colleges do not have the private foundation resources to provide financial support to upgrade their network infrastructure.

So it is not surprising that most HBCUs do not have high-speed Internet access especially the desired ATM or asynchronous transfer mode technology and that only 3 percent of HBCUs have financial aid available to help students close the computer ownership gap.

Access to the Internet is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity. Because of the rapid advancement and growing dependence on technology, being technologically proficient has become more essential to educational advancement.

The fact is 60 percent of all jobs require information technology skills. And jobs in information technology pay significantly higher salaries than jobs in non-information technology fields. Thus, students who lack access to these information technology tools are at an increasing disadvantage. Consequently, it is vitally important that all institutions of higher education provide their students with access to the most current IT and digital equipment.

This technology program will allow eligible HBCUs, HSIs and tribal institutions the opportunity to acquire equipment, networking capability, hardware and software, digital network technology and wireless technology and infrastructure--such as wireless fidelity or Wi-Fi--to develop and provide educational services. Additionally, the funds in this bill could be used to offer students much needed universal access to campus networks, dramatically increasing their connectivity rates or make necessary infrastructure improvements.

There are over 200 Hispanic serving institutions; over 100 historically black colleges and universities and 34 tribal colleges throughout our country.

It is clear that minority serving institutions in the U.S. are providing a valuable service to the educational strength and future growth of our Nation. These institutions must upgrade their technology capabilities for their students. We cannot leave any college student behind!

I am proud to say Virginia is home to five HBCUs--Norfolk State University, St. Paul's College, Virginia Union University, Hampton University and Virginia State University.

I will continue to look for ways to: (1) improve education; (2) create new jobs; and (3) seek out new opportunities to benefit the people of Virginia and America. By improving technology-education programs in minority serving institutions, we can accomplish all three of these goals for students throughout our Nation.

We all recognize the technology requirements on the 21st century workforce call for tangible action, not rhetoric. Our future economic and national security needs depend on and demand all of our young students have the highly technical skills needed to compete and succeed in the workforce.

We must tap the underutilized talent of our minority serving institutions to ensure that America's workforce is prepared to lead the world.

I thank my colleagues for joining me today: Senators McCain, Warner, Burns, Graham, Hutchison, Lincoln, Pryor, Talent, Cornyn, Grassley, Lautenberg, Lott, Murkowski, Santorum, and Thune.

This legislation is a significant, constructive, and positive action to ensure that many more of our college students are provided access to better technology and education, and most importantly, even greater opportunities in life.

want to add my voice in thanking the chairman, Senator Domenici and the ranking member, Senator Reid, for their commitment to help us keep Jefferson Lab at the forefront of scientific discovery. We appreciate their continued interest and look forward to working with them.