Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Dr. Scott Obenshain, of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, for his commitment and services to the University and to the people of his State.

In his 32 years at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Dr. Obenshain has provided the leadership for many innovative educational programs that have contributed to the

school's reputation as a national and international leader in the field of medical education. His loyalty to generations of students, combined with his respect for them as adult learners, is truly commendable. In addition, Dr. Obenshain's commitment to education is evidenced in his pioneering work to improve learning by creating a curriculum that is student-centered and problem-based.

The leadership that Dr. Scott Obenshain has demonstrated at the University of New Mexico School of medicine has also had a wide impact on the quality of undergraduate medical education. Students are treated with the highest respect, and Dr. Obenshain has set a tone of excellence in the education of our students. His example has left a lasting impression on innumerable graduates of our medical school. The innovations he began at the University of New Mexico have served as models for other schools both in the United States and around the world, and many institutions have benefited from the leadership that Dr. Scott Obenshain has provided over the years.

Finally, Dr. Obenshain has demonstrated continuing dedication to meeting the needs of poor, rural, and underserved communities in New Mexico, and has steadfastly achieved this by including such populations in the primary care curriculum. For example, he implemented the rural clinical practice component for fourth year medical students in 1974, which became a requirement for all students soon thereafter.

Dr. Scott Obenshain is honored today in the Senate because he has served selflessly and widely, and because he has led with distinction.

Mr. President, I am introducing today the Medicare Indian Health Fairness Act of 2003 with Senators Inouye, Daschle, Murray, Dayton, Johnson, Cantwell, and Stabenow. This legislation would take a number of steps to improve the delivery of health care to Native Amerians through Medicare and the Indian Health Service, IHS, system.

First and foremost, Indian Health Service and tribal hospitals and clinics, which provide health care to American Indians on or near reservations and to Alaska Natives, are currently unable to bill for all Medicare Part B services. In effect, the Indian Health Service is subsidizing the Medicare program because those services, which would otherwise be paid for by Medicare, are instead paid for by IHS, which is horribly underfunded.

In 2000, IHS hospitals and clinics were made eligible to bill Medicare for certain Part B services for the first time, including services delivered by physicians and certain other practitioners, but those services were limited and denied payment for Part B items and services, such as the following: Durable medical equipment--this includes such items as wheelchairs, as well as blood testing strips and blood monitors for diabetes patients, which is a severe problem among Native Americans; home and some institutional dialysis supplies and equipment--since the prevalence of diabetes in American Indians--Alaska Natives is three times the rate in the general U.S. population, Indian people experience a high rate of renal disease, including end state renal disease; cancer screening; pap smears; glaucoma screening; clinic or hospital-based ambulance services; prosthetic devices; covered vaccines, including hepatitis B, pneumococcal and influenza chemotherapy drugs; and clinical laboratory services.

This legislation would simply make these Indian health facilities and providers eligible for payment for all Part B Medicare-covered items and services to the same extent that any other provider would be eligible for payment.

Furthermore, the bill assures that Native Americans should have the same access to Medicare services as any other American. If IHS providers are unable to bill for such Medicare services, IHS budget shortfalls may result in rationing and delays in treatment. For some, it means going out of the IHS system to get prompt service, as other providers are able to bill the Medicare program. Native Americans and IHS providers should not be subject to such barriers to care and payment. Nor should they be subject to such complexity, as they are only prohibited from billing and receiving payment for certain Part B services.

There is absolutely no policy rationale for limiting the payment to IHS, tribal hospitals and clinics to only certain Medicare Part B services. I urge the Senate to end this unfortunate disparity.

Fortunately, identical language has been included in S. 1, the Medicare prescription drug bull that passed the Senate earlier this month. I offered an amendment with Senator Daschle, amendment No. 973, on the Senate floor and was pleased that it was accepted by Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus accepted it as part of the manager's amendment prior to final passage of the bill.

In addition to that important provision, the ``Medicare Indian Health Fairness Act'' includes another provision that was adopted as part of S. 1 as a Bingaman amendment during the Finance Committee mark-up. This provision requires Medicare providers to charge no more than Medicare rates for inpatient hospital services provided to Indians who are eligible for contract health services from the Indian Health Service, tribally operated health programs, and urban Indian organizations.

This allows IHS to maximize its purchase of contract health services, just as is done by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense. Since the contract health services, CHS, account is chronically underfunded, IHS and the tribes seriously ration and often exhaust those funds before the end of the fiscal year. In fiscal year 2001 alone, the Indian Health Service had insufficient funding to provide services for over 100,000 cases that met its medical priority criteria and denied 22,000 other cases of medically necessary care which did not meet IHS medical priorities. Therefore, this section of the bill would enable IHS and tribes to achieve greater economy for the provision of contract health services.

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General's Cost-Saver Handbook has annually made this recommendation. As per its 2003 Red Book or cost-saver handbook reads:

As a federal purchaser of inpatient health care from the

private sector, IHS should receive rates commensurate with

those received by other federal agencies that engage in

similar purchases [such as the VA and DOD].

The Inspector General adds:

If the favorable Medicare rates were legislatively

required, the dollars saved could be applied to the backlog

of patient services that cannot be accommodated in the

Contract Health Services program.

And last, the legislation includes a section intended to bring a measure of consistency, rationality and efficiency to the Medicare payment rate for all clinics in the Indian Health Service-supported health care system. This language creates a uniform payment methodology that would be available to all IHS and tribal clinics and corrects the current situation where payment rates differ widely--based not on the nature of the services a clinic provides, but on whether the facility is operated by the IHS or operated by a tribe, and whether the clinic is considered provider-based or free-standing. Since all clinics provide primary patient care and arrange for secondary, tertiary and specialty care on a referral basis, there is no rational reason for the wide disparity in the Medicare payment methodologies for these facilities.

The legislation would give all Indian clinics the ability to collect reimbursement from the same IHS-CMS all-inclusive rate. Application of the same

all-inclusive rate to all clinics would have the added value of being efficient and economical to use at the clinic level and would apply the same payment method in Medicare, by which IHS-funded clinics are reimbursed, as they receive in Medicaid.

This section of the bill was the only one not included in S. 1, but the rationale for it makes it an important component of this bill and something we hope to see passed into law as well.

Although these provisions address a diversity of problems IHS providers and clinics have with respect to the Medicare program, they are critical and we should pass all of these provisions either as part of a conference agreement on S. 1, as part of the ``Indian Health Care Improvement Act,'' or on their merits through passage of this freestanding bill.

I would like to thank Senators Inouye, Daschle, Murray, Dayton, Johnson, Cantwell, and Stabenow for being original cosponsors of this important legislation. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing today the Medicare Indian Health Fairness Act of 2003 with Senators Inouye, Daschle, Murray, Dayton, Johnson, Cantwell, and Stabenow. This legislation would take a number of steps to improve the delivery of health care to Native Amerians through Medicare and the Indian Health Service, IHS, system.

First and foremost, Indian Health Service and tribal hospitals and clinics, which provide health care to American Indians on or near reservations and to Alaska Natives, are currently unable to bill for all Medicare Part B services. In effect, the Indian Health Service is subsidizing the Medicare program because those services, which would otherwise be paid for by Medicare, are instead paid for by IHS, which is horribly underfunded.

In 2000, IHS hospitals and clinics were made eligible to bill Medicare for certain Part B services for the first time, including services delivered by physicians and certain other practitioners, but those services were limited and denied payment for Part B items and services, such as the following: Durable medical equipment--this includes such items as wheelchairs, as well as blood testing strips and blood monitors for diabetes patients, which is a severe problem among Native Americans; home and some institutional dialysis supplies and equipment--since the prevalence of diabetes in American Indians--Alaska Natives is three times the rate in the general U.S. population, Indian people experience a high rate of renal disease, including end state renal disease; cancer screening; pap smears; glaucoma screening; clinic or hospital-based ambulance services; prosthetic devices; covered vaccines, including hepatitis B, pneumococcal and influenza chemotherapy drugs; and clinical laboratory services.

This legislation would simply make these Indian health facilities and providers eligible for payment for all Part B Medicare-covered items and services to the same extent that any other provider would be eligible for payment.

Furthermore, the bill assures that Native Americans should have the same access to Medicare services as any other American. If IHS providers are unable to bill for such Medicare services, IHS budget shortfalls may result in rationing and delays in treatment. For some, it means going out of the IHS system to get prompt service, as other providers are able to bill the Medicare program. Native Americans and IHS providers should not be subject to such barriers to care and payment. Nor should they be subject to such complexity, as they are only prohibited from billing and receiving payment for certain Part B services.

There is absolutely no policy rationale for limiting the payment to IHS, tribal hospitals and clinics to only certain Medicare Part B services. I urge the Senate to end this unfortunate disparity.

Fortunately, identical language has been included in S. 1, the Medicare prescription drug bull that passed the Senate earlier this month. I offered an amendment with Senator Daschle, amendment No. 973, on the Senate floor and was pleased that it was accepted by Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus accepted it as part of the manager's amendment prior to final passage of the bill.

In addition to that important provision, the ``Medicare Indian Health Fairness Act'' includes another provision that was adopted as part of S. 1 as a Bingaman amendment during the Finance Committee mark-up. This provision requires Medicare providers to charge no more than Medicare rates for inpatient hospital services provided to Indians who are eligible for contract health services from the Indian Health Service, tribally operated health programs, and urban Indian organizations.

This allows IHS to maximize its purchase of contract health services, just as is done by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense. Since the contract health services, CHS, account is chronically underfunded, IHS and the tribes seriously ration and often exhaust those funds before the end of the fiscal year. In fiscal year 2001 alone, the Indian Health Service had insufficient funding to provide services for over 100,000 cases that met its medical priority criteria and denied 22,000 other cases of medically necessary care which did not meet IHS medical priorities. Therefore, this section of the bill would enable IHS and tribes to achieve greater economy for the provision of contract health services.

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General's Cost-Saver Handbook has annually made this recommendation. As per its 2003 Red Book or cost-saver handbook reads:

As a federal purchaser of inpatient health care from the

private sector, IHS should receive rates commensurate with

those received by other federal agencies that engage in

similar purchases [such as the VA and DOD].

The Inspector General adds:

If the favorable Medicare rates were legislatively

required, the dollars saved could be applied to the backlog

of patient services that cannot be accommodated in the

Contract Health Services program.

And last, the legislation includes a section intended to bring a measure of consistency, rationality and efficiency to the Medicare payment rate for all clinics in the Indian Health Service-supported health care system. This language creates a uniform payment methodology that would be available to all IHS and tribal clinics and corrects the current situation where payment rates differ widely--based not on the nature of the services a clinic provides, but on whether the facility is operated by the IHS or operated by a tribe, and whether the clinic is considered provider-based or free-standing. Since all clinics provide primary patient care and arrange for secondary, tertiary and specialty care on a referral basis, there is no rational reason for the wide disparity in the Medicare payment methodologies for these facilities.

The legislation would give all Indian clinics the ability to collect reimbursement from the same IHS-CMS all-inclusive rate. Application of the same

all-inclusive rate to all clinics would have the added value of being efficient and economical to use at the clinic level and would apply the same payment method in Medicare, by which IHS-funded clinics are reimbursed, as they receive in Medicaid.

This section of the bill was the only one not included in S. 1, but the rationale for it makes it an important component of this bill and something we hope to see passed into law as well.

Although these provisions address a diversity of problems IHS providers and clinics have with respect to the Medicare program, they are critical and we should pass all of these provisions either as part of a conference agreement on S. 1, as part of the ``Indian Health Care Improvement Act,'' or on their merits through passage of this freestanding bill.

I would like to thank Senators Inouye, Daschle, Murray, Dayton, Johnson, Cantwell, and Stabenow for being original cosponsors of this important legislation. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak for just a few minutes about the need for the so-called Healthy Forests initiative that was discussed earlier this week.

Earlier this week, there was a unanimous consent request made to proceed to H.R. 1904, the so-called Healthy Forests initiative. The unanimous consent request sought to limit debate on the bill to a specified list of amendments to be offered by particular Senators.

Included in that list were two amendments that were purported to be offered or suggested to be offered by me. I have never spoken to anybody about my intent with regard to offering amendments. And I certainly have not agreed to any particular amendments that I wanted to offer. Therefore, I have real concerns with that unanimous consent request because the proposed unanimous consent request would have limited me to offering certain amendments that I had not previously heard about. Obviously, I would have objected had not other Senators done so.

This is an important issue that the Senate needs to try to address this year. I do not favor delaying that consideration. There is always a threat that we have seen in the West, particularly in recent years, of unnatural, intense, catastrophic wildfire. That is a threat to many of our communities, to millions of acres of public land and forests in the West.

It was alleged early this week by some who were supporting moving ahead with that unanimous consent request that those who did not favor the unanimous consent request did not favor active management of the national forests. I want to be clear in my statement this morning that I certainly do not fall in that category.

I do not think we should just let nature take its course. I do think we should pursue active management. What I want to be sure of is that the bill we finally enact provides meaningful new authority to our land managers; that it is focused on the communities that are most threatened by wildfire; and that it does not unduly restrict the public's right to participate and have oversight in the management of these lands.

I am aware that a deal of some sort has been developed by certain of the Senators who are concerned on the issue. I was not involved in that set of negotiations that led to that deal. The provisions, as I understand them, that have come out of that are complicated, complex.

I have a number of questions about the ramifications of some of those provisions, especially the ones dealing with administrative appeals, judicial review, and such issues.

I think there should be a hearing. That would be the right way to proceed. We have new legislative language. The right way to proceed would be to have a hearing where we can get testimony on these provisions and better understand them. I have asked for such a hearing. I hope that will occur.

I believe having a clearer understanding of what the amendment means and encouraging constructive suggestions would be a preferable course for us to pursue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. President, to conclude my statement, I do think there are serious questions regarding this new language. It differs substantially from the bill that was reported by the Agriculture Committee. Some of the major issues raised by the amendment include a lack of any new funding to reduce hazardous fuels; failure to eliminate the harmful agency policy of borrowing from proactive forest restoration accounts to pay for firefighting; the curtailment of public participation in the management and oversight of public lands, including the establishment of a new so-called predecisional review process, which I do not, frankly, understand; and also, of course, as I mentioned before, limitations on judicial review.

It also appears to create some new standards for injunctions that might be issued by the Federal court, both preliminary and permanent injunctions. There is no protection that I can see for national monuments and roadless areas and other environmentally sensitive areas in the bill.

I am not aware how some of these issues have been adequately addressed in the proposed amendment. For that reason I think we need to have an opportunity to offer amendments.

I hope the Senate can consider this forest health legislation this year. As do many Senators, especially those from Western States who have suffered in recent years from catastrophic wildfire, I very much want to see us resolve these issues as best we can. But we should do so under conditions that allow for amendments and allow for full debate. And that is my purpose at this stage.

So I hope we can proceed and do so in a way that all of us get to participate in the process.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, over 6 weeks ago, the Senate appointed 13 conferees to the conference with the House on the Energy bill. Six of those conferees are Democrats. They were appointed to represent the 49 Democrats who serve in this body.

The day after our appointment, there was one meeting of the conference to allow for opening statements. Since then, there has been no opportunity for Democratic conferees to actually act as conferees. Some of the proposed text for the conference report, which was written without our involvement, has been circulated to us for comment by our staff.

On the most important issues before the conference--that being electricity and ethanol--we have not yet seen a draft text. Our concern about the way the conference has been conducted is not new information to this body. I have conveyed those concerns directly to the chairman of the conference. I have been joined publicly in expressing those concerns by other Democratic conferees, both in the Senate and House.

The blackout on information about the conference became even more complete during this past weekend. We understand there are agreements on most of the issues involved with the Energy bill. In fact, the settled energy provisions probably represent well over 500 pages of legislative text.

This text contains many details and it is important that we be able to view the text before we are called into a final conference meeting for an up-or-down vote. Our staff was standing by all weekend in hopes of getting to see this text. We were not able to do so. I personally cannot think of any valid reason why the completed text--those portions that have been completed by the Republican conferees--should not be distributed to the rest of the conferees immediately.

There are numerous new sections on topics that have not been yet dealt with, as we understand it. We need to see those. Some of those may be provisions that were neither in the House nor the Senate bill. Others may entail spending of which we previously have not been informed.

I have spoken to the chairman of the conference in the last few minutes. He has informed me that he and our majority leader are insisting that this conference not be concluded until we are given the full text of this bill and until we have at least 24 hours to review the text and have a final meeting at which we can raise objections and offer amendments. I appreciate that courtesy.

This is far short of what I think would be required in an appropriate conference, but it is certainly some effort to accommodate, which I very much appreciate.

I do believe the sections that have not yet been released--that being the sections on electricity and ethanol--need to be released at the earliest possible moment, and hopefully today. These are very important sections. They are going to affect Americans in their pocketbook in very real ways. It is very important we get the provisions out so we can understand them, debate them, and consider them before we are called upon to finally pass on this conference.

The right thing to do is to make the documents--that is, the text of this proposed Energy legislation--public as soon as possible. There is no doubt in anybody's mind that this is what the Democratic conferees continue to ask for. I hope this is the course of action that will be taken by the leadership of the House and Senate at the earliest possible moment.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to voting on this, voting at 20 minutes to 6. I would like a chance to speak for 4 or 5 minutes on the amendment, if I could.

Mr. President, that is correct. I have no opposition to the amendment. I just want to speak to and explain my views on it.

Mr. President, let me speak very briefly on the pending McConnell amendment which Senator McConnell, Senator Warner, and Senator McCain have offered.

First, I congratulate them. I think this is a very constructive amendment. It gives recognition to the men and women who are serving overseas in various locations. It puts the Senate on record, even though it is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, in support of the issuance of appropriate medals to these individuals.

I believe, as I was arguing the day before yesterday when we had the other debate on this issue, that the appropriate course is either on the initiative of the Pentagon or through action by the Congress that at some stage fairly soon we authorize combat medals for those who serve in Iraq and for those who perhaps serve in Afghanistan. That seems to me to me to be consistent with the course we followed previously. We had a medal of that sort for those who served in the first gulf war. We had a medal of that sort for those who served in Kosovo. There is ample precedent for that.

To lump all military engagements that we have after 9/11 under this large umbrella of the global war on terrorism and say we are going to give you one medal for whatever military engagements you serve in after that date I think is inadequate. I think the men and women serving in Iraq today deserve special recognition for that.

I have seen the suggestions being considered at the Pentagon for putting a star on some designation--on a generic kind of a medal dealing with the global war on terrorism, some kind of star indicating services in Iraq. To me, that would not be consistent with what we have done before. I hope we won't go that route.

Obviously, this is a step forward. I commend the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from Arizona, and the Senator from Kentucky for putting forward this amendment. I intend to support it. I hope all Senators will support it.

But I hope we will find a way or that the Pentagon will find a way to do

more to recognize the service of these individuals both in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

I yield the floor.

I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of significant importance to our Nation's health: The Better Eating for Better Living Act of 2003.

Today, heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are responsible for two-thirds of the deaths in the United States. The major risk factors for these diseases and conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy eating habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use. Obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in adolescents over the last 2 decades. Today 1 in 7 young people are obese and 1 in 3 are overweight. This is not a problem. This is a crisis with potentially dire consequences that demands our immediate attention.

Obese children are twice as likely as non-obese children to become obese adults. Overweightness and obesity can result in physical, psychological, and social consequences, including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, decreased self-esteem, and discrimination. Obesity is a complex multi-factorial disease that is difficult to prevent but even more difficult to treat. Our best bet at improving the lives of children who currently are obese and preventing more from joining the ranks is to encourage environments that foster healthy eating and activity in our communities, in our homes, and in our schools.

It is the need to improve the nutritional environment of our schools that I want to address today. Our school breakfast and lunch programs were originally designed to combat hunger in our nation. They have been and continue to be a vital component of the food security safety net. However, today we have another problem: obesity and overweight, and the child nutrition programs need to be updated to meet the needs of our current health challenges while maintaining their role securing healthy food for all children.

Only 2 percent of children currently consume a diet that meets the five main recommendations for a healthy diet from the USDA Food Guide Pyramid. Three out of four high school students in the U.S. do not eat the recommended 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day and 3 out of 4 children consume more saturated fat than it recommended in the dietary Guidelines for Americans. Although the school lunch and school breakfast programs have made great strides in improving health by meeting these guidelines, our work in creating healthy school environments is not yet done.

Since obesity is a complex issue, stemming the tide will take a myriad of interventions. I commend Senators Harkin, Leahy, Kohl, Dole, and others who have introduced bills that would improve the Child Nutrition programs and the children and schools they serve while preserving its mission to provide nutritionally sound meals to the young people who need them.

Today I am introducing another bill vital to improving our children's health: The Better Eating for Better Living Bill. This bill has four key components.

First, the bill increases the reimbursement rates for school lunch. School food service directors have been expected to improve the quality of their meals without any concurrent funding increase for years, and it's time that changes. An additional 10 cents per meal may not sound like much but it will offer school food service directors significantly greater flexibility in purchasing quality food including leaner meats, fresh vegetables, and fresh fruits.

Second, the bill requires the secretary of agriculture to evaluate the nutrition guidelines for school meals every five years. The science of nutrition is a dynamic and rapidly changing field. Guidelines are appropriately based on the best science of the time but as that science evolves, so should the guidelines regulating school meals. Our children deserve the benefit of the most current science. Thus, updates are to be based on current and sound scientific evidence, current public health concerns, and cultural appropriateness.

Next the bill will liberalize the current milk guidelines so as to only require schools to require low fat or no fat milk as is appropriate for school-age children. Schools would have the option of providing other milk products so long as they are cost and nutritionally equivalent.

Finally, serving healthy food is an important first step, but accompanying that food with adequate nutrition education is vital to growing a generation of healthy eaters and active adults. Thus, the bill provides increased funding for nutrition education. Specifically, it would provide guaranteed funding at the state level for implementation and administration of the Team Nutrition Program. This is a program that has existed in statute for years, but because its administration has rarely been funded, it has not been implemented. It is time we commit to nutrition education as part of making a strong commitment to our children's health and well-being.

Now is the time to take action toward improving the health and well- being of our nations' youth. Let us implement these vital advances in the child nutrition program now while we are reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act. The cost of improving the health of our children will be far less than the cost of the health consequences to come if we do nothing.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of significant importance to our Nation's health: The Better Eating for Better Living Act of 2003.

Today, heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are responsible for two-thirds of the deaths in the United States. The major risk factors for these diseases and conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy eating habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use. Obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in adolescents over the last 2 decades. Today 1 in 7 young people are obese and 1 in 3 are overweight. This is not a problem. This is a crisis with potentially dire consequences that demands our immediate attention.

Obese children are twice as likely as non-obese children to become obese adults. Overweightness and obesity can result in physical, psychological, and social consequences, including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, decreased self-esteem, and discrimination. Obesity is a complex multi-factorial disease that is difficult to prevent but even more difficult to treat. Our best bet at improving the lives of children who currently are obese and preventing more from joining the ranks is to encourage environments that foster healthy eating and activity in our communities, in our homes, and in our schools.

It is the need to improve the nutritional environment of our schools that I want to address today. Our school breakfast and lunch programs were originally designed to combat hunger in our nation. They have been and continue to be a vital component of the food security safety net. However, today we have another problem: obesity and overweight, and the child nutrition programs need to be updated to meet the needs of our current health challenges while maintaining their role securing healthy food for all children.

Only 2 percent of children currently consume a diet that meets the five main recommendations for a healthy diet from the USDA Food Guide Pyramid. Three out of four high school students in the U.S. do not eat the recommended 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day and 3 out of 4 children consume more saturated fat than it recommended in the dietary Guidelines for Americans. Although the school lunch and school breakfast programs have made great strides in improving health by meeting these guidelines, our work in creating healthy school environments is not yet done.

Since obesity is a complex issue, stemming the tide will take a myriad of interventions. I commend Senators Harkin, Leahy, Kohl, Dole, and others who have introduced bills that would improve the Child Nutrition programs and the children and schools they serve while preserving its mission to provide nutritionally sound meals to the young people who need them.

Today I am introducing another bill vital to improving our children's health: The Better Eating for Better Living Bill. This bill has four key components.

First, the bill increases the reimbursement rates for school lunch. School food service directors have been expected to improve the quality of their meals without any concurrent funding increase for years, and it's time that changes. An additional 10 cents per meal may not sound like much but it will offer school food service directors significantly greater flexibility in purchasing quality food including leaner meats, fresh vegetables, and fresh fruits.

Second, the bill requires the secretary of agriculture to evaluate the nutrition guidelines for school meals every five years. The science of nutrition is a dynamic and rapidly changing field. Guidelines are appropriately based on the best science of the time but as that science evolves, so should the guidelines regulating school meals. Our children deserve the benefit of the most current science. Thus, updates are to be based on current and sound scientific evidence, current public health concerns, and cultural appropriateness.

Next the bill will liberalize the current milk guidelines so as to only require schools to require low fat or no fat milk as is appropriate for school-age children. Schools would have the option of providing other milk products so long as they are cost and nutritionally equivalent.

Finally, serving healthy food is an important first step, but accompanying that food with adequate nutrition education is vital to growing a generation of healthy eaters and active adults. Thus, the bill provides increased funding for nutrition education. Specifically, it would provide guaranteed funding at the state level for implementation and administration of the Team Nutrition Program. This is a program that has existed in statute for years, but because its administration has rarely been funded, it has not been implemented. It is time we commit to nutrition education as part of making a strong commitment to our children's health and well-being.

Now is the time to take action toward improving the health and well- being of our nations' youth. Let us implement these vital advances in the child nutrition program now while we are reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act. The cost of improving the health of our children will be far less than the cost of the health consequences to come if we do nothing.

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

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

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

Madam President, this amendment relates to the utilization of the National Guard and Reserve as part of our military activities and presence around the world. I think we have all been struck by the fact that in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in many other instances, we are seeing a greater utilization of reservists and National Guard personnel by the Pentagon. I am not being critical of that, but I do think this is a new reality we need to adjust to and understand better.

Since the founding of our Nation we have relied upon the services of citizen soldiers. The National Guard and Reserves have a proud tradition of setting aside their civilian lives to serve our country in times of conflict. Recently, the need for this service has significantly increased. Today, the National Guard and Reserves' commitments overseas are critical to the resolution of several conflicts around the world. The almost 400 soldiers deployed to keep the peace between Israel and Egypt along the Sinai peninsula are members of the Oregon National Guard's 1-186th Infantry Battalion. The only Fighter Squadron operating from Iraq is an A-10 unit from Missouri's 442 Fighter Wing stationed at Tallil Airbase in Southern Iraq. This Reserve unit is the only A-10 Warthawg unit in the Air Force with Precision Guided Munitions delivery capability. Much of the air defense of Washington, D.C., is the responsibility of the D.C. Air National Guard's 113th Fighter Wing and air defense forces of the New Mexico National Guard.

The purpose of this amendment is to require the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to provide a report to the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Armed Service Committee that contains the following:

No. 1, an assessment of the levels utilization of the Guard and Reserves component in the manning of contingency operations, domestically and overseas.

No. 2, Recruitment and retention plans for the National Guard and Reserves in light of increased commitments.

No. 3, and finally, a report from the Department of Homeland Security on the effects of National Guard and Reserves deployments on Homeland Security.

Last week I had the opportunity and honor to meet with families of the 717th Medical Company of the New Mexico National Guard. I cannot tell you how moved I was by the patriotism and commitment of these families and guardsmen. Despite the increased operations tempo members of the New Mexico National Guard remain as dedicated as ever to saving lives in New Mexico and overseas.

For example, last year, CPT Paul Saiz deployed to Kosovo in support of KFOR for 6 months flew dozens of aeromedical airlift missions throughout Kosovo in support of U.S. military and the civilian populace. Upon returning from his deployment he participated in several civil search and rescues in the New Mexico mountains, and when Albuquerque, NM was ravaged by wildfires, Captain Saiz and others flew firefighting missions, dumping water with pinpoint accuracy. I have been told that many firemen were convinced that had it not been for Captain Saiz's efforts, firefighters would have perished. Currently, Captain Saiz and 35 others are deployed to Afghanistan providing Aeromedical Airlift for the entire country. The 717th Medical Company's Commander, MAJ James Fishbourne writes:

The soldiers of the 717th Medical Company (AA) are doing

extremely well. We are very busy and have completed 43 combat

medevac missions to date. I am so proud of our soldiers and

how they are performing in this environment. We are non-stop

here with urgent and priority medevac missions. Last week one

of our crews was called to rescue an infantryman from a 180-

ft canyon near the Pakistan border. Our crews were able to

hoist the soldier to safety and bring him back to the level 1

hospital.

We have also been called to evacuate many mine blast

victims throughout Afghanistan. It is very sad to say, but

most of the mine victims are children. One patient we evaced

to Bagram was a 12-year-old girl with both legs amputated.

The night she was in surgery, the hospital was running low on

O- blood and one of our pilots (CW4 Atkinson) donated several

pints to save her life. Just last night I transported two

children involved in a rollover. What a sight it was seeing

two small Afghan children lying on a stretcher together being

cared for by SSG Esqueivel and CW2 Medina. These children are

very sick or hurt when we are called to rescue them.

I can't tell you about all the missions our fine soldiers

have accomplished but I will say that there is no medevac

mission that we

have had to turn down and no better soldiers than those of

the 717th. Our soldiers were involved with the bomb that went

off near Bagram, we did assist the hospital with recovery of

the local nationals and assisted the doctors and medical

personnel here at the hospital. Please do all you can to tell

the people back home that the soldiers of the 717th Medical

Company are doing great things for the soldiers, airmen, and

marines here in Afghanistan. They are making great sacrifices

being away from their families and jobs back in New Mexico.

Guardsmen and reservists all over the country are making great sacrifices. We need to examine the long-term impact that prolonged activation has on recruitment and retention of the National Guard Reserves. We must ensure that the administration has a plan to not only retain qualified guardsmen and reservists, but to also attract new members. I find it very hard to believe that the increased operations tempo the Guard and Reserves are experiencing will have no effect on recruitment and retention. I fear that if we ask too much of these men and women, many will decide to leave military service. Therefore, we must ensure that the Department of Defense has prepared an effective strategy to maintain the National Guard and Reserves. it is quite possible that the Department of defense has such a plan, but I am not aware of it.

We must also closely look at the impact that long deployments have on security at home. Many of the young men and women serving overseas as members of the National Guard and Reserves work as first responders at home. How has the absence of Guardsmen and reservists who are civilian policemen, emergency medical technicians and other first responders, hampered the ability of states to respond in times of natural disaster or homeland security emergencies? How will the absence of Guard and Reserves personnel who may ordinarily serve in these capacities as part of their service when they are not otherwise deployed affect these operations? These are questions that must be answered.

There is no doubt that the utilization of National Guard and Reserves, at least at current rates, will continue well into the future. The information these reports will provide will be critical as we move ahead with decisions about manning, procurement, and security.

I understand that portions of this report may have some sensitivity. If there is a requirement for portions or all of this report to be in classified format, then it should be submitted at the appropriate level of classification.

Let there be no doubt that the men and women of the National Guard and Reserves are doing their part to protect us at home and overseas. We must ensure that analysis has been conducted, and plans are in place to preserve the integrity, readiness and force levels necessary for this period of long-term activation.

At the appropriate time I hope we can adopt this amendment--by voice vote, if possible. I do not know a reason why it should be objected to by any Member of the Senate, but obviously I await the opportunity for all Members to review the amendment before I call for a vote.

Madam President, with that, I see nobody else seeking the floor so I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank my colleague from Nevada.

Madam President, so there is no question about the opportunity for others to speak, I was asked if I would describe my amendment first and then at the end of my description I will ask to set aside the pending amendment and send my amendment to the desk. That is how I will proceed.

I intend to offer in a few minutes an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Lugar, Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, Senator Clinton, Senator Durbin, Senator Landrieu, Senator Lincoln, Senator Smith, and Senator Reid. This is an amendment to honor our service men and women in Iraq who are serving far from home, far from family, far from friends.

Let me indicate from the title of the amendment that I intend to send to the desk what it would do: to authorize the award of the Iraqi Liberation Medal as a campaign medal for members of the Armed Forces who serve in Southwest Asia in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom.

These service men and women, as we all know, have left the security of this country and their home behind to provide freedom and security for those who have not known it for many years. The human cost has been substantial, over 300 American fighting men and women will never come home. There are over 1,200 who will return wounded, far higher than previous conflicts.

I have a chart that demonstrates the grim statistics, showing the casualties our military has incurred in recent conflicts. In Operation Desert Storm, with which we are all familiar, the casualties, total deaths were 382, killed in action, 143, and the wounded were 467. In the Kosovo campaign, there were 16 deaths. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, as of last week, there were 196 killed in action, 309 total deaths, and 1,268 wounds.

So the casualties have been significant. This is not a minor military activity. We have over 130,000 troops in the region. They remain to ensure that those who died and those who were wounded did not suffer and die in vain. They are also there to build a new Iraqi nation and to provide stability and freedom in that nation.

The liberation of Iraq is turning out to be the most significant military occupation and reconstruction effort, clearly, since the end of the Vietnam war and perhaps even before that. Despite their sacrifice and courage, these brave men and women will not, under current policy, be specifically recognized for their service in Iraq. Instead, the Department of Defense has decided to award them a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.

This issue was drawn to my attention by an article that appeared in the Army Times and the Navy Times and the Air Force Times called ``One Size Fits All?'' ``The Pentagon plans to award one medal for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for any future campaigns related to the war on terrorism.''

I believe this is a mistake in policy, that our military personnel deserve better. Accordingly, my colleagues and I are offering this amendment to correct the mistake by ensuring there is authorized an Iraqi Liberation Medal in lieu of this Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.

As all who have paid attention in the Senate know, some of us did not agree with the administration's decision to proceed in Iraq when it did, but clearly we have all been united in our support of the troops. Young men and women, both active-duty personnel and National Guard and Reserve, have come forward and done their duty. That is clearly the essence of patriotism, and we all respect that.

They continue to serve even though they do not know when they will be returning to their families and to their communities. They continue to serve despite the tremendous hardships they face and despite the constant threat to their lives.

The President, of course, has agreed entirely with this view of the exemplary service our men and women have provided. He has made many statements to that effect, and there is no partisan disagreement on any of that.

Let me put up another chart in the Chamber.

During Operation Desert Storm, service members received three separate military decorations for their service: the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal; the Liberation of Kuwait Medal, given by the Government of Saudi Arabia; and the Liberation of Kuwait Medal, given by the Government of Kuwait. Those are all three depicted on this chart.

In the case of Kosovo, our service men and women received the NATO Service Medal and the Kosovo Campaign Medal. And those two medals are depicted on this part of the chart.

In the case of this current conflict in Iraq, the proposal by the administration is to give them the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, and that would apply to Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom or any operation in the Philippines or any future global war on terrorism operation.

The policy as it now exists would say that if you are in the military and you are directed to duty in one or more of these operations, you get this generic medal which indicates you are part of the global war on terrorism, which we know is of indefinite duration and which we know is not limited by any geographic limitation.

There is a difference--a substantial difference--between an expeditionary medal on the one hand and a campaign medal. We only need to look at an excerpt from the U.S. Army Qualifications for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and the Kosovo Campaign Medal. In order to receive the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, you do not need to go to war, you only need to be ``placed in such a position that, in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hostile action by a foreign armed force was imminent even though it does not materialize.'' So that is an expeditionary medal.

To earn the Kosovo Campaign Medal, there was a higher standard. A military member had to either ``[b]e engaged in actual combat, or duty that is equally hazardous as combat duty, during the Operation with armed opposition, regardless of time [spent] in the Area of Engagement.''

Many within the military agree there is a significant difference between an expeditionary medal and a campaign medal.

According to the Army Times:

Campaign medals help establish an immediate rapport with

individuals checking into a unit.

An expeditionary medal does not necessarily denote any combat or any real connection to that particular area of potential combat. A campaign medal is designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their lives or are risking their lives in combat.

Obviously, all of us want to see proper recognition given to our young men and women who are in Iraq, including Army SP Joseph Hudson from my home State of New Mexico, from Alamogordo, NM. He was held as a prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated, and particularly people of my State were captivated, as we watched Specialist Hudson being interrogated by the enemy on videotape. Asked to divulge his military occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and said: ``I follow orders.'' Those of us with sons and daughters were united in worry with Specialist Hudson's family. The entire Nation rejoiced when he was liberated. He is just one of many who deserve this special recognition I am arguing for today.

We have also asked much of our Reserve and National Guard personnel. The reconstruction of Iraq clearly would not be possible without the commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 Guard and reservists who are currently on active duty. As recently as this last week, an additional 10,000 troops from Washington State and North Carolina were activated for service in Iraq.

I think this is a straightforward amendment, one for which I hope we can have very strong support. I am very pleased that it is being proposed as a bipartisan amendment. My colleagues and I are committed to appropriately honoring the 200,000 or so heroes who have served to date or are serving in connection with the effort in Iraq. We believe current administration policy does not properly honor those personnel, and therefore we propose that in lieu of this Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, a new decoration that characterizes the real mission in Iraq--one that is distinctive and honors their sacrifice, something in the nature of an Iraqi Liberation Medal--be provided.

Some will argue that Congress has no business legislating in this area. But I point out there is ample precedent for what we are proposing. Congress has been responsible for recognizing the sacrifice and courage of our military forces throughout history. Congress has had a significant and historically central role in authorizing military decorations. Our Nation's highest decorations were authorized by Congress. Those include the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Air Force Cross, the Navy Cross, the Army's Distinctive Service Cross, the Silver Star, and the Distinguished Flying Cross. All of those were authorized by Congress.

We have also authorized campaign and liberation medals similar to what is being proposed here in many cases. A partial list includes the Spanish War Service Medal, the Army Occupation of Germany Medal, the World War II Victory Medal, the Berlin Airlift Medal, the Korean Service Medal, and the Prisoner of War Medal, in addition to the medals I have referred to already.

The men and women of our military are doing their jobs every day in Iraq. We should do our job by honoring them appropriately with a medal that is specific to their sacrifice and to this campaign in Iraq.

Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be immediately considered.

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

Mr. President, I will not ask for the yeas and nays at this point. At an appropriate time, I will ask for the yeas and nays. It is important that the Senate go on record in support of the awarding of a medal of this type. I hope we can have a very strong vote on its behalf.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I will defer to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, in previous military campaigns such as the first gulf war and Kosovo, and many before that, the Pentagon has issued campaign medals to service men and women who served in those conflicts. We need to do the very same in the case of our service men and women who are serving in Iraq.

The amendment I am proposing says the Secretaries of the respective services may issue an appropriate medal or campaign designation to any person who serves in any capacity in the armed services in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom. In my view, this is much preferable to the Pentagon's current policy, which is that everyone should get a Global War on Terrorism Medal instead of a medal that relates to their service in Iraq.

The service men and women who are risking their lives in Iraq deserve to be recognized for their service in that country. This is a major military engagement we have gotten into here and there will be a lot of service men and women involved. We definitely should make this a separate medal.

That is the thrust of the amendment. Senator Lugar is a cosponsor, along with many others. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Byrd, Leahy, and Jeffords to those who are already listed as cosponsors.

Mr. President, this is not intended to prevent the Pentagon from issuing any other awards they wish with regard to Afghanistan or other locations, but it is clear to me that issuing a Global War on Terrorism Medal is not adequate for the service we are calling on our men and women to perform in Iraq. We should give them a medal for that campaign. That is all the amendment does.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have had plenty of time. I suggest we vote.

Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona raises a valid point about the prohibition section, which is subsection (d). And I ask unanimous consent that be deleted from the amendment.

Mr. President, the only argument I have heard against the amendment that, to me, made good sense was a concern about the prohibition provision, subsection (d) of the amendment. I have asked permission to delete that and it has been denied.

So I would just simply suggest to my colleagues that it is more appropriate and more consistent with the policy of this country to give awards for major military conflicts such as what we have been engaged in in Iraq than it is to give a Global War on Terrorism award to everything that happens from 9/11 forward. The reality is, the people who are serving in Iraq deserve to be recognized for that. That is all we are trying to do with this amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, let me say in response to my colleague from Virginia, if he would like to offer an amendment to give an award to those who served in Afghanistan, I will cosponsor and support that.

I have proposed something for the men and women who have served in the conflict in Iraq. And I think it is an appropriate thing for the Congress to do.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, are we going to have more debate on this amendment?

Mr. President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to one of the true educational leaders of our time, Dr. Barbara Lazarus, whose contribution to expanding educational access for women and people of color has been immeasurable. It is not often that a single individual envisions how the world can be more just, has the talent to implement that vision, and conveys the passion that attracts others to the cause. Dr. Lazarus embodied all of these attributes and more, working tirelessly for inclusion and understanding.

Dr. Lazarus, an educational anthropologist, served as the associate provost for academic affairs at Carnegie Mellon University until her untimely death this past July. While at Carnegie Mellon, she became a nationally recognized leader in promoting women in science and engineering, and she won Carnegie Mellon's Doherty Prize, the university's highest honor for educational contributions. Dr. Lazarus touched the lives of hundreds of students and staff through her efforts to give women and minorities increased access to nontraditional occupations. Her commitment to promoting women and minorities in science and engineering has had an important impact throughout American higher education, as programs she created to overcome barriers have been replicated across the country.

Also concerned with reaching children, especially girls, she invented ``Explanatoids,'' short lessons explaining the science behind everyday phenomena, from roller coasters to curve balls. This project, too, is being replicated at playgrounds and other institutions, including the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum.

Prior to joining Carnegie Mellon, Dr. Lazarus was the director of the Center for Women's Careers at Wellesley College where her groundbreaking work focused on the role of professional women in a global, multicultural society. She became the codirector and the only non-Asian member of the Asian Women's Institute Commission on Women and Work. In that capacity, she organized meetings in several Asian countries that brought together women scholars, government leaders, and activists to address the challenge of moving Asian women from traditional to nontraditional roles, particularly in the workplace.

Throughout her career, Dr. Lazarus wrote books, articles, and gave hundreds of talks to share her ideas and inspire others in this work. She will be missed by her family, as well as the hundreds of friends, faculty, and students who were inspired by her counsel. And she will be missed by all of us for her significant contributions addressing important issues of our time, and general improvement of our human condition.

Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes on the pending reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. A conference report on HR 2115 was filed back in July, and since then there has been no further action in either house of Congress.

As I see it, the problem with the bill is that the conferees on the part of the majority chose to conduct a back-room conference without the participation of the minority. This was a flawed process, and the result is a conference report that can't pass either the House or the Senate. The House is now poised to recommit the bill to the conference. Meanwhile, Congress had to pass a short-term extension of FAA's administration just to keep the agency in operation.

I think by now all Senators are aware of the many concerns that have been raised over the FAA conference report. On a number of key measures, the conferees ignored the will of the majority in the House and the Senate and arbitrarily inserted provisions that both houses had voted to oppose. I believe adding such extraneous and objectionable provisions is an egregious violation of the conference process. All Senators should be offended by what the conferees did in this case.

Senator Reid spoke Tuesday about the conferees' rejection of House- and Senate-passed provisions regarding privatization of federal air traffic controllers. I was pleased to support Senator Lautenberg's bipartisan amendment on this issue, which passed the Senate 56 to 41. I want to reinforce what my colleague Senator Reid said yesterday about the air traffic control system. The privatization issue must be dealt with fairly, or the bill will not pass the Senate.

Another particularly egregious violation of the conference process was a provision the conferees added affecting the Essential Air Service program, which helps small, rural communities maintain their vital commercial air service. In my State, five communities participate in EAS: Alamogordo, Carlsbad, Clovis, Hobbs, and Silver City. For these communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation network that would not otherwise exist.

The FAA reauthorization bill originally reported by the Senate Commerce Committee would have required EAS communities for the first time to pay to maintain their commercial air. In my view, this ill- timed proposal would have jeopardized existing commercial air service in many rural areas. Across America, our small communities are facing depressed economies and declining tax revenues and are simply not in a position to pay for their commercial air service.

To help preserve essential air service, Senator Inhofe and I offered an amendment with 13 cosponsors that struck out the mandatory cost- sharing language. Our bipartisan amendment was adopted on a voice vote. In parallel, Representatives McHugh, Peterson of Pennsylvania, and Shuster offered an amendment that struck out similar mandatory cost- sharing language in the House's bill.

As a followup to our amendment, Senator Snowe and I, along with Senators Nelson of Nebraska, Bunning, Schumer, Brownback, Lincoln, Jeffords, Clinton, Inhofe, Leahy, Pryor, Collins, Hagel, Grassley, and Harkin, sent a bipartisan letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee reinforcing our strong opposition to mandatory cost-sharing for EAS communities.

Most students of Government would tell you that when a majority of both houses of Congress have voted against a particular measure, the conferees couldn't arbitrarily put it back in. Well, they did. Section 408 of the conference report basically restores the very cost-sharing language both

Houses one month before had voted to reject.

This week, with the FAA conference report soon going to be recommitted to the conference, 16 Senators wrote to the conferees expressing grave concern over the restoration of the mandatory cost- sharing language and urging them to drop this harmful provision before the conference report is brought back to the full House and Senate. Thirty-five members of the House signed a similar bipartisan letter.

I want to pass an FAA reauthorization bill. The FAA plays an important role in assuring the safety of the traveling public. At the same time, New Mexico's 51 airports are in desperate need of the Federal funding provided under the FAA's Airport Improvement Program. I hope all Senators are aware that AIP was not extended under the first continuing resolution, and all new airport construction projects are on hold pending the reauthorization. With the serious unemployment situation the Nation faces, this is no time to shut down the jobs these vital airport construction projects produce.

I've come to the floor today to urge the conferees to work together in a bipartisan manner to produce a conference report that all Senators can support. Inserting controversial measures in conference that are opposed by both houses has left us with an FAA conference report that is essentially dead. In my opinion, imposing mandatory cost sharing for EAS communities, which a majority in both houses rejected, will only delay further the FAA reauthorization bill.

I do believe that by returning the FAA bill to conference we can begin to work in a bipartisan manner to restore integrity to the conference process that all Senators should demand. When this bill goes back to conference, I urge the FAA conferees to do the right thing for rural communities across America by preserving the Essential Air Service Program.

I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced letters in the Record.

Madam President, I rise today to explain my support for Senator Byrd's amendment No. 1794 to S. 1689. While I support funding the reconstruction of Iraq, I believe in the necessity to consider these two very important issues funding for Iraqi security and Iraqi reconstruction separately.

The purpose of the Byrd amendment was to separate the reconstruction portion from the security portion of S. 1689. Had Senator Byrd's amendment passed we would have been able to take immediate action on the security portion of S. 1689 and passed that portion before we left town this week. We could have then, upon our return, looked more closely at the President's request for reconstruction funding and taken the time to give thorough scrutiny to the administration's request and better examine the ways in which we are prioritizing the spending requests of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act. This bill authorizes the National Park Service, in coordination with the Secretaries of Energy and Defense, to undertake a special resource study to assess the national significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating various Manhattan Project sites and their facilities as a National Historical Park. Specifically, the study will evaluate the historic significance of the Manhattan Project facilities of Los Alamos and the Trinity Site in the State of New Mexico, of the Hanford Site in the State of Washington, and of Oak Ridge in the State of Tennessee. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues from the States of Washington, Senators Cantwell and Murray, are cosponsoring this bill.

The significance of the Manhattan Project to this Nation--and indeed the World--would be difficult to overstate. The project was initiated as a desperate effort in the middle of World War II to beat Nazi Germany to the construction of the first nuclear bomb. The effort was of a magnitude and intensity not seen before or since: in a mere three years, 130,000 men and women went to work on a $2.2 billion mission that furiously pushed science, technology, engineering, and society into a new age.

The magnitude of the effort is easily matched by its legacy. This legacy includes an ending to the Second World War, as well as the foundation for nuclear medicine and great advances in physics, mathematics, engineering, and technology. A number of scholars have argued that it also includes a dramatic change to a sustained era of relative world peace. But this legacy also includes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese, and the sacrifices of the homesteaders that were forced off of the sites to make way for the project, its thousands of workers and their families, and the uranium miners, ``down-winders'', and others. This legacy has been the subject of hot debate for decades, and this debate continues today--as it must.

There are historic facilities at the four Manhattan Project sites that are absolutely essential resources for informing this important debate, and there should be no question that they are of great national and international significance. Pulitzer Prize-winning Manhattan Project author Richard Rhodes has said that ``the discovery of how to release nuclear energy was arguably the most important human discovery since fire--reason enough to preserve its remarkable history.''

But while the enormous significance of the Manhattan Project makes our obligation to preserve and interpret this history abundantly clear, it makes it equally challenging. The greatest challenge has been--and will continue to be--interpreting this history in a sensitive and balanced way. This Nation is blessed with historic assets that praise the best of humanity and some that mourn the worst, some that grace us with glory and some that humble us with anguish, some that impress us with brilliance and some that embarrass us with senselessness, some that manifest beginnings and some that mark ends, some that inspire us with awe and some that fascinate us with curiosities, and some that grip us with the fear of destruction and some that give us the hope of creation. But I don't know of any others that challenge us with legitimate passions for all of these.

Preserving and interpreting this history also includes the challenge of respecting the ongoing missions and responsibilities of the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense at the Manhattan Project sites. Access to some of the historic facilities must be restricted--to some prohibited--and other precautions also may be necessary. The Departments of Energy and Defense have begun to take on these challenges, and they deserve much credit for doing so. The Bradbury Museum in Los Alamos is a good example, as are the biannual tours of the Trinity Site on White Sands Missile Range. They have recognized that preserving this history offers great opportunities not only for the public, but for their employees. Employees who better appreciate this history will be more likely to appreciate their careers, and they certainly will appreciate the boost interested tourists give to their local economies.

This bill asks the question whether we will do better to preserve and interpret the important history of the Manhattan Project by unifying and promoting the various efforts at these sites as a National Historical Park. It is appropriate that our Nation's leader in historic preservation and interpretation--the National Park Service--lead the effort to answer this question. In doing so, they will consult with the Secretaries of Energy and Defense, as well as State, tribal, and local officials, and representatives of interested organizations and members of the public. The Park Service's expertise, experience, and enthusiasm is critical to the endeavor.

In asking this question we are neither celebrating the Manhattan Project nor lamenting it. But we are recognizing our responsibility to society to ensure it is neither forgotten nor misunderstood.

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