Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to inform our Senate colleagues of the very unfortunate, untimely, and unexpected death of a person last evening who was truly a part of the family of the Senate. Although he was never elected to this body, he served this body with great distinction over a very long period of time and truly was part of the family of this distinguished body. I speak of Joseph Stanley Kimmit, Stan Kimmit, who served this body as Secretary of the Senate with great distinction from 1977 to 1981. Members who served during that period of time know how much he meant to the family of the Senate through his services, through his respect for this institution, for his understanding of the history of how important this institution is to our Nation and to the world.

Prior to that, Stan Kimmit served as Secretary for the majority, as principal floor assistant to Majority Leader Senator Mike Mansfield from the State of Montana from 1966 to 1977. Prior to that, he was the administrative assistant or chief of staff to Senator Mike Mansfield.

Before he served the Senate, he served his country with great distinction in the U.S. Army during World War II. As a captain in the U.S. Army, he was selected to receive the Silver Star medal, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star medal and a number of other awards recognizing his service to our great Nation.

It was unfortunate that this man, who had seven wonderful children and a beautiful wife, passed away in a very untimely fashion, and I would just share it with the Senate family this afternoon. He was at a function where I happened to be receiving an acknowledgment of my service to the Senate, and Stan wanted to be there. He wanted to participate. After the principal person who was responsible for the function, the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, Al From, made his remarks, Stan stood up and said: May I say something? Of course, the answer was: Absolutely.

He said some very kind things about me, and he said some very kind things about the Senate and this institution and how important it had been in his life. He quoted my predecessor in this body, Russell Long, as saying: When I have a friend, I have a friend, and I will fight for him or her until hell freezes over, and then I will fight on the ice.

That was the kind of friend that Stan Kimmit was. He pointed out that he had to correct Russell Long because Russell Long, when he originally made that quote, I say to my colleagues, did not have the words ``or her.'' It was just ``I will fight for him until hell freezes over,'' and Stan had the duty of saying to Senator Long, You should say him or her, and Russell Long certainly followed his advice.

What I will mention in closing is that last night he spent almost a half hour talking to a young staff person who worked for me, a young lady by the name of Jodi Bannerman, and he sat there and talked about his days in the Senate and what this institution had meant to him and some of the things he has seen in this institution and how it has changed over the years.

He said last night that when he was here, the Senate was truly one big family. It was not segregated. When I say segregated, he was referring to the interaction between the two parties, that it was not two armed camps he was talking about last night, that it was one big family. We had our differences. We fought hard. We stood up for the principles of the party, but it was one big family that he was honored to have been able to serve in the capacity of Secretary of the Senate.

He was telling my young staff person he was very concerned about how he has seen things change, and that was unfortunate, in his mind. He told her there were three principles, three truths he knew to be true, and she wrote this down after she spoke to him: Never sacrifice your principles, never ask for more than you deserve, and never quit one thing until you have something better.

He said that twice in her conversation with him last night. Stan quoted to her the Hamlet quote, ``To thine own self be true,'' as advice that he was giving this young person about her own life.

He did not mention any regrets, only great memories of this great institution, and I think anyone who has had the privilege of either working here or serving here and working as a Member, as I have and as we all have, understands what a great honor this has been. Stan Kimmit personalized that last night.

After he made those remarks, he sat down and never got up. We know that he is happy where he is, and I think part of that happiness is the knowledge that he had the great honor and privilege of serving his country and this great institution.

Mr. President. I rise to speak about the Elder Justice Act of 2004, the substitute for S. 333 as reported by the Committee on Finance. This bill is designed to greatly enhance our knowledge about elder abuse, neglect and exploitation, and how to combat it in the 21st Century. First, I would like to take a moment to thank Chairman Grassley, Senator Baucus, and the other Members of the Finance Committee for unanimously reporting this bill. I thank Senator Hatch for his unwavering support for this bill as a lead sponsor. I also thank all 45 bi-partisan Senate cosponsors and over 100 bipartisan House cosponsors and their staff members. All have been instrumental in helping move this legislation forward and I appreciate all of the time and effort each has contributed.

Despite the rapid aging of America, few pressing social issues have been as systematically ignored as elder abuse, neglect and exploitation, as illustrated by the following points:

Twenty five years of congressional hearings on the devastating effects of elder abuse, called elder abuse a ``disgrace'' and a ``burgeoning national scandal.''

To date, we have no Federal law enacted to address elder abuse in a comprehensive manner.

Congress passed comprehensive bills to address the ugly truth about child abuse and crimes against women, yet there is not one full-time Federal employee working on elder abuse in the entire Federal Government.

The cost of elder abuse is high by any measure, including needless human suffering, inflated healthcare costs, depleted public resource, and loss of one of our greatest national assets, the wisdom and experience of our elders.

Abuse of our seniors takes many forms. It can be physical, sexual, psychological or financial. The perpetrator may be a stranger, an acquaintance, a paid caregiver, a corporation and, far too often, a spouse or another family member. Elder abuse happens everywhere, in poor, middle class and upper income households; in cities, suburbs, and rural areas. It knows no demographic or geographic boundaries.

With scientific advances and the graying of millions of baby boomers, last year the number of elderly on the planet passed the number of children for the first time. Although we have made great strides in promoting independence, productivity and quality of life, old age still brings inadequate health care, isolation, impoverishment, abuse and neglect for far too many Americans.

Studies conclude that elder abuse, neglect and exploitation are widely

under reported and these abuses significantly shorten the lives of older victims. A single episode of mistreatment can ``tip-over'' an otherwise independent, productive life, triggering a downward spiral that can result in depression, serious illness and even death.

Too many of our frailest citizens suffer needlessly and cannot simply move away from the abuse. Frequently, they cannot express their wishes or suffering. And, even if they can, often they do not, fearing retaliation.

This amendment will elevate elder abuse, neglect and exploitation to the national stage in a lasting way. We want to ensure Federal leadership to States and to provide resources for services, prevention and enforcement efforts to those on the front lines.

A crime is a crime whoever the victim and wherever it occurs. Crimes against seniors must be elevated to the level of child abuse and crimes against women.

It is clear in confronting child abuse and violence against women that the best method of prevention is three-pronged--through law enforcement, public health and social services. With grant programs in the Departments of Health and Human Services and Justice, this amendment ensures a combined public health-law enforcement coordination at all levels. In addition, because elder abuse and neglect have been virtually absent from the national research agenda, this amendment establishes research projects to fuel future legislation.

These measures lay the foundation to address, in a meaningful and lasting way, a devastating and growing problem that has been invisible for far too long. We can no longer neglect these difficult issues afflicting frail and elderly victims.

This effort takes numerous steps to prevent and treat elder abuse:

It improves prevention and intervention by funding projects to make older Americans safer in their homes, facilities and neighborhoods, to enhance long-term care staffing and to stop financial fraud before the money goes out the door.

It enhances detection by creating forensic centers and developing expertise to enhance detection of the problem.

It bolsters treatment by funding efforts to find better ways to mitigate the devastating consequences of elder mistreatment.

It increases collaboration by requiring ongoing coordination at the Federal level, among Federal, State, local and private entities, law enforcement, long-term care facilities, consumer advocates and families.

It aids prosecution by assisting law enforcement and prosecutors to ensure that those who abuse our Nation's frail elderly will be held accountable, wherever the crime occurs and whoever the victim.

It helps consumers by creating a resource center for family caregivers and those trying to make decisions about different types of long-term care providers.

More and more of us will enjoy longer life in relative health, but with this gift comes the responsibility to prevent the needless suffering too often borne by our frailest citizens.

Let me take a moment to thank so many people who contributed to the development of this legislation. First, I thank Senator Hatch for joining me and working with me as a lead cosponsor of the bill. Without the support of Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, the, chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Finance, this bill could never have advanced to this point. I deeply appreciative of their commitment, and perseverance to seeing this through the committee. I must thank all the members of the committee for their unanimous support of this bill. Further, I thank the 45 bipartisan Senate cosponsors and the 91 bipartisan House cosponsors, lead by Representative Rahm Emanuel, Majority Whip Roy Blunt, and Representative Peter King for their tireless efforts toward passage in the House.

No legislation can advance without the efforts of an immensely dedicated staff. I would like to take this opportunity to mention the many individuals who worked to ensure the passage of this bill. I thank my Staff Director of the Special Committee on Aging, Michelle Easton, for assembling a talented staff and laying the groundwork for this important legislation, and my chief of staff Fred Hatfield for his leadership. I thank my chief investigative counsel, Lauren Fuller, for leading numerous hearings examining the nature and extent of elder abuse that resulted in the development of this legislation and for her tireless efforts to see it through to completion. I thank the following present and former staff of the Special Committee who worked on various aspects of the hearings and legislation, making many sacrifices in the process: Cecil Swamidoss, Janet Forlini, Phil Thevenet, Joy Cameron, Matt Lavigna, Arika Pierce, Dana Dupre, Kori Forster, Elaine Dalpiaz, Scott Mulhauser, Ryan McGinn and Patricia Hameister.

I also thank members of the Committee on Finance who went above and beyond the call of duty to shepherd this legislation: Ted Totman, Kolan Davis, Russ Sullivan, Bill Dauster, Liz Fowler, Mark Hayes, Andrea Cohen, David Schwartz, Emilia DiSanto, Becky Shipp, Chad Groover, Carla Martin and Robert Merulla.

I want to also mention the efforts of staff of other members including Patti DeLoatche, Bruce Artim, Kevin O'Scannlain, and Wan Kim with Senator Hatch; Pete Spiro and Liz Smith with Representative Rahm Emanuel; Kevin Fogarty with Representative Peter King; and Joe Trauger with Majority Whip Roy Blunt. I would particularly like to thank the leadership of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representative Emanuel, Representative King and Majority Whip Roy Blunt for their efforts throughout the process.

There are so many individuals across the country to recognize for their advocacy in passing the Elder Justice Act. However, there are too many to recognize here. So, I thank the 357 strong Elder Justice Coalition, lead by Robert Blancato, for their passionate advocacy on this legislation, and the members of the steering committee: National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, National Association of State Units on Aging, National Association of APS Administrators, and National Association of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs. Last but not least, I would like to extend my sincerest appreciation to Marie-Therese Connolly, Nursing Home Initiative Coordinator at the U.S. Department of Justice who served as a resource and who provided immeasurable assistance in the development of this bill.

I am deeply gratified by how close the Senate came to passing the Elder Justice Act on the eve of my retirement from the Congress and look forward to this bill being passed expeditiously and signed into law in the next Congress so that elder justice can become a reality for those Americans who need it most.

Mr. President and colleagues, the last time anyone does anything in their career or in their life, I think it is a time for a certain degree of sadness and a certain degree of nostalgic remembrance of the times past. This evening will probably be my last opportunity to address this body as a Member, as a Member of the Senate, representing my great and wonderful State of Louisiana.

While some would say, well, it has to be a very difficult time to speak for the last time on the floor of the Senate, looking back at all the great memories, I look back with nothing but great pleasure over the many years I have spent in the Senate as well as in the House of Representatives.

I have been very honored to serve and be elected seven times to the other body, serving 14 years as a Member of the House, representing southwest Louisiana--it was a great and wonderful time--and then moving on to the Senate 18 years ago, representing the entire State of Louisiana.

So when you look back over those years, I think a lot of people would say: Well, it is your last speech, and it must be a very nostalgic time, and you really are sad. I am not. I am pleased. I am happy. I am overwhelmed with the opportunity that was presented to me for those 32 years in the Congress to serve the people of Louisiana in one capacity or another, both in the House, as well as in this Chamber.

Thirty-five years ago, I, with my wife, came to Washington for the very first time as a young staff person, legislative assistant, having just gotten out of law school. I worked in the Seventh Congressional District office for then-Congressman Edwin Edwards. It was a great learning period for me.

Shortly after serving as a staff person, there was a vacancy that was created, and I ran for that vacancy as a young 28-year-old member of the Bar Association in my State. I ran for Congress and had a slogan I remember back then, when I was 28, when I was running for Congress for the first time. My slogan was: ``Experience makes the difference.''

Most of the people I was running against were old enough to be my grandfather or grandparent, certainly old enough to be my parent. Yet I had the audacity to print the slogan on a bumper sticker that ``Experience makes the difference.''

Of course, it aggravated the heck out of all the people I was running against because they said: How dare someone 28 years old talk about experience making the difference; He has none.

Well, I was the only person running who ever worked in a congressional office in Washington. I was the only person who had ever run a congressional office in the district. And I was the only lawyer who was running. I told the people in that first race that we were electing someone to go to Washington and make laws, and I was the only lawyer running. Therefore, they should vote for me.

That went over fairly well for a period of time until all of my opponents realized 98 percent of the people were not lawyers, and about 100 percent of them hated lawyers. So as soon as they started articulating that different viewpoint on the function of lawyers, I started going down in the polls, and thank goodness the election was only a couple weeks later.

To make a long story short, we were elected back in 1972 and came to Washington. I came with my wife Lois and two very small children, John, Jr., and Bill Breaux. I remember we had to rent a U-Haul truck to come to Washington. I had never had an opportunity to be up here. We came up, and I will always remember this: When we left Louisiana, my two sons did not want to go. My youngest son, the night before we left, when he was saying his prayers, said: Goodbye, God. We are moving to Washington.

My oldest son, who was about 4 or 5 at the time, ran away to a neighbor's house and crawled under the house. In Louisiana, the houses are built off the ground. He ran under the house and would not come out. And we had my mom Katie, my dad Ezra, my father-in-law Lloyd, and my mother-in-law Doris who were all there watching us get into the U- Haul to go to Washington, and I had to crawl under the house and literally drag John, Jr., out from under the house and make him get into the U-Haul truck so we could move to Washington. I finally got him here.

We came to Washington. I will always remember we came here on a Saturday. I wanted to go to see the Capitol because I knew it was going to be such an impressive place. I remember that night the Marine Corps Band was playing, how they do in the springtime. They have concerts. They used to do that on the front steps. And they were having a concert. I thought they were playing the concert for me.

We were so delighted as a family to be able to see our first impressions of the U.S. Capitol, with the playing of the band on a wonderful evening. It was a great memory then, and it is still a great memory 35 years later.

In those days when I was in the House, we had an arrangement, if you will. In those days when I arrived here, Carl Albert was Speaker of the House. And then Tip O'Neill became the Democratic leader and Speaker of the House, and Bob Michel was the Republican leader. And Tip O'Neill and Bob Michel probably differed as much as any two people you could possibly know in terms of philosophy in how Government should work. Tip O'Neill was an FDR liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, and Bob Michel was from Peoria, IL, a middle America Republican. They did not agree on how Government should work necessarily from a philosophical standpoint, but they knew how to make Government work.

They spoke more in one day back then than some of the leaders later on spoke in a year because the House changed to a position where now many times leaders do not speak to each other. I would suggest that government was not any worse off when you had a Tip O'Neill and a Bob Michel traveling together, playing golf together, drinking in the evening and having a cocktail together, playing golf together, betting on sporting events together, which I know they did because they had a relationship that allowed them to find out, What do we have to do to accomplish what we both realize is best for this country? They were able to do that in a way that I thought was incredibly effective.

Hale Boggs swore me in to the House of Representatives, a truly great majority leader. I learned a great deal from him and had a great deal of respect for everything he taught me and taught so many.

That was back then. My two sons, who were crawling and saying their prayers before bed, are both 38 years of age. My oldest daughter, Beth, is 34 and is married to a wonderful person named Jeff Shepardson; and now we have three beautiful grandchildren, Anna Kate, Campbell, and C.J. Shepardson, age 2. Also, my youngest daughter, Julie, is now 28.

So after you have been here a while, you wake up one day and say where has all the time gone and how fast it went. I think about that often, but I also think about all of the wonderful things I have been privileged to witness, watch, and participate in, in those 32 years in Congress. It has been a real privilege and pleasure. I have had the honor of serving with three great Senators, including Russell Long, when he was the senior Senator from Louisiana and I was a House Member. I remember coming over to see Russell when I first got into the House of Representatives. I wanted to come and pay my respects. I had been in Congress about a week. So I came over to the Senate and walked up in the Senate office building to see Russell Long. I remember getting on the elevator and it went up to the second floor. The door opened and Senator Jim Eastland from Mississippi got on. He looked at me--and I was on the Members elevator, which shows you the audacity I had even then. He looked at me and said, ``Hey, boy, what are you doing here?'' I said, ``I am a Congressman and I am going to see Russell Long.'' He said, ``You're not a Congressman.'' I said, ``Yes, sir, I am.'' He looked at me and walked off the elevator. Those Members are so wonderful to look back on, and it is interesting to see how things have developed.

I learned a great deal from Russell Long. He taught me how to work with people. He could get more done in the evening over a bottle of bourbon than we can get done by having months and months of hearings and hours of debate because he knew how to bring people together. He had an incredibly great personality and sense of history of where he came from. And he learned from his father who also served in this body.

I also served with Bennett Johnston, a great person who could work both sides of the aisle. He became chairman of the Energy Committee and senior member of the Appropriations Committee. Bennett was outstanding. It was interesting because we never had a cross word politically. A lot of Members, I think, have natural competition between Members of the same State, particularly if they are in different parties. I have had the fortune to serve only with members of the Democratic Party in the Senate. Bennett and I had a wonderful working relationship. He would take the lead on some things, and I would try to take the lead on others. It was a wonderful relationship.

In the last several years, it has been Mary Landrieu, who I have seen develop into one of the greatest politicians and greatest leaders of our State. She comes from a great tradition, a long tradition of outstanding public servants in the State of Louisiana, particularly in the city of New Orleans. She learned from the masters, and the masters were her parents, brothers and sisters. They were all involved and they do a wonderful job in representing our State in so many different capacities.

So I have had a wonderful opportunity to serve with people from my State who have been friends and outstanding colleagues, along with all of the other folks that we have had the opportunity to serve with. I have looked at meeting people in Congress not just as colleagues who were elected to public office, but I looked at each one of them as a potential friend. I learned a long time ago that you have to understand where people come from to appreciate what they are all about. I think many times we take a position automatically that we don't like someone because of where they are from or what party they are in, without delving into their backgrounds, why they say what they say, and who helps develop those ideas.

I remember when I was in the House, I served on the Public Works Committee with Bella Abzug, who many thought was the most liberal person in the Congress. I remember Bella Abzug telling me, you know, where I come from, in my congressional district, they think I am too conservative. She

had the type of district that encouraged her and helped her and pushed her to represent the people as they wanted to be represented in the Congress of the United States. So if you understand where people come from and understand their background and who they represent, I think it helps you understand how people of different positions can be friends, because they are truly trying to represent their States the best they can. It is not just because of their politics but because of where they are from.

Let me say one other thing that I think we need to pay attention to in this body, the Senate. That is, we should not let outside forces dictate to us how we treat each other and how we work together. Many times, when Democrats have a caucus lunch on Tuesday right outside this Chamber, Republicans are having theirs separate from us at the same time. Many times, we hear people call in from the outside who are in public relations, PR men and women and pollsters, who spend an inordinate amount of time telling us how we can take actions that will show how the other side is wrong and we are right. Right across the hall, the Republicans are hearing some of the same type of public relation firms arguing to them how they can posture themselves to be able to blame the Democrats for failure.

Back in the old days, we used to do all this together. People would stand up and give their position, and the other side would give theirs and find out we are trying to accomplish the same thing, coming at it from slightly different venues and in a slightly different direction. I always feel that if you only listen to yourself, you are only going to hear an echo and you are never going to disagree. That is why it is so important to hear the other side, listen to what the other side has to say, understand what they say. You don't have to agree with them, but I think you are a better person if you understand and your position becomes stronger if you know what the other side is going to argue. It makes your position better and stronger.

But you also must realize that neither party has a monopoly on the truth. Both sides have good ideas. The real answer to this body and the House, and for democracies everywhere, is trying to take the best of what both sides can offer and blend them in a package that simply makes Government work for all of us. People back home are not so much concerned about who wins and loses as they are about whether we are getting the job done. Congress does not have to be like a Super Bowl. In the Super Bowl, you have to have one team that is going to win and one that will lose. If there is a tie, they have a playoff and go into overtime until one team wins and one team loses. There is nothing wrong with the Congress trying to find ways to reach agreement and blending the best from both sides and coming up with something so that everybody wins. Then we can argue and fight over which team won. That way, I can go back to Louisiana and tell them look what I did, and somebody from Texas or Illinois can go back to their State and say look what I did. And that is fine, because we can argue about success and not debate over failure and whose fault it was. The American people would be better served if the debate here could be a debate about how we accomplish something as opposed to why we didn't get anything done.

I leave with a great deal of appreciation for everybody who helped me, including my staff, many of whom are in the gallery. They helped me every day over and above the call of duty. I also thank the people on the floor with me, including Diana Bostic and so many of the friends we have worked with, like Lula, who was with Senator Long before, and all of the other people. This has been a joint venture, to say the least. I leave with a great deal of optimism.

I am not leaving because I am unhappy or because I am mad. I have enjoyed every single minute of it. I have to admit that some minutes I have enjoyed more than others, but by and large it has been a great and wonderful experience. I give nothing but the very best to my colleagues and wish them nothing but the very best in the future.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I was going to talk about the tax bill, but after the kind words of both the distinguished ranking member and my colleague from Louisiana, just let me say a very sincere thank you to both for their very generous comments. I will remember and cherish them always.

Russell Long told me one time, when I asked him about a tax bill they were working on over in the Senate--at the time, I was a relatively very young Member of the House--I said: Russell, that thing doesn't look very pretty. He said: It is not supposed to look pretty; it is supposed to be effective, and that is not necessarily pretty.

This bill probably represents that. It is not everything everybody would like to have, but it is effective tax policy. The chairman, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and Senator Baucus have worked very hard under very difficult circumstances to bring this measure to the Senate. It was not an easy task. A lot of compromises had to be made. The House, led by Chairman Bill Thomas, was very strong in its positions and opinions. The fact that we have a final product goes a long way to the good work of both the chairman and the ranking member.

To my colleague from Louisiana, I was not here over the weekend, but she was handling the floor very well and was insisting on her point, as she always does, very eloquently. Hopefully, ultimately she will get what she deservedly should get as a result of her efforts with regard to protecting the National Guard. This fight is far from over. I will have more, perhaps in a lameduck, to say about what I think about this body and how much I have loved it, how much I will always remember it during our period of time in our lameduck session. But to Senator Baucus and my colleague, Senator Landrieu, I thank them very much. They have both been a guide for me in learning the Senate Finance Committee, which has been a wonderful place to serve.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, the oral health of older Americans is in a state of decay. Millions of vulnerable seniors are unable to access the oral health care they need, suffer needlessly, and ultimately require costly and invasive treatments that unnecessarily burden our troubled health care system.

Good oral health care should begin at birth as part of overall health care. This important component of health care should not--and cannot-- end at retirement. Proper dental care must be a lifetime commitment. Unfortunately, for far too many older Americans, oral health care is a luxury. Too many of our ``greatest generation'' suffer from chronic oral pain and disease, severely limiting regular activities of daily living and impeding their independence. Neglect of oral health may result in the deterioration of overall physical health. Lack of access to care for even routine dental cleanings and exams can exacerbate serious and complicated overall health problems that increase with age.

Limited access to oral health care poses one of the greatest crises for the health and well being of America's elderly. Not one older American receives routine dental care under Medicare. Medigap, used by some older Americans as a supplemental insurance to Medicare, is an expensive cavity when it comes to dental coverage. Less than 20 percent of Americans 75 and older have any form of private dental insurance. Under Medicaid, adult dental care is optional and close to 30 States are failing to meet even the most minimal standards of care. Millions suffer, often in silence.

Older adults suffer from the cumulative toll of oral diseases over their lifetime. This results in extensive oral and periodontal disease. Surveys have shown that nursing home residents with teeth suffer particularly from untreated tooth decay, while those without teeth also have a variety of oral health problems. Medications often adversely affect oral health as well. Evidence suggests that periodontal disease can complicate or is linked to diabetes, heart disease, stroke and pneumonia.

Some older Americans--especially those with special needs, the frail, and those classified by the Social Security Administration to be aged, blind and disabled--are often plagued with challenging oral health needs. Being disabled, medically compromised, homebound, or institutionalized increases the likelihood of serious dental problems and limited access to dental care. Dental care for the 1.65 million people in long-term care facilities is problematic at best.

I would like to tell you about Marcia Ball, who lives in a nursing home in Lafayette, LA. She is 64. One morning last July, she awoke to find her cheek swollen up like a balloon. An untreated abscess had run rampant, sending her to the hospital with a raging fever and labored breathing. After a surgical team drained the infection, her heart and lungs suddenly stopped working. She pulled through, but four days later developed pneumonia. A member of the medical team says that the bacteria from untreated tooth decay entered her lungs every time she inhaled. She returned to her nursing home after two weeks at the hospital. Medicaid paid for three rounds of antibiotics, two trips to the emergency room, two days in intensive care, and the remainder of her hospital stay. But Medicaid in Louisiana, like many other States, won't pay for extractions. So she still has badly decayed teeth, but she doesn't have the $60 needed to cover an extraction or insurance for routine dental care.

Marcia Ball's story is not unusual, according to Dr. Greg Folse, a geriatric dentist in Lafayette. Most of Dr. Folse's patients are keeping their teeth as they age, but he says that over 85 percent have moderate to severe gum disease and 60 percent have tooth decay. Medicaid dental services in Louisiana, where Dr. Folse takes his practice to patients in his van, are limited to dentures, which are not much use for people who still have their teeth.

A national report card released in September by the advocacy group Oral Health America before a forum of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging examined seniors' access to key dental services and gave failing or near failing grades to each State and gave the Nation an overall ``D'' grade. When it comes to caring for vulnerable populations, the report said, the country is flat out failing.

This lack of access to oral health care is compounded by a shortage of skilled geriatric dental care professionals, part of a larger national shortage of geriatricians described to the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging by the Alliance for Aging Research in their report, Medical Never Never Land. Just finding a dentist can pose a considerable challenge for older Americans and those with a disability. The good work of community health centers is limited to providing preventative and basic dental care to only about one-in-twelve patients who are fortunate enough to have access to such a facility. In many States that provide a dental benefit, reimbursement rates are too low to attract a sufficient number of dentists willing to treat Medicaid patients.

With scientific advances and the graying of millions of baby boomers, this year the number of elderly on the planet passed the number of children for the first time. Although we have made great strides in promoting independence, productivity and quality of life, old age still brings inadequate health care, isolation, impoverishment, abuse and neglect for far too many Americans.

Oral diseases can impact an otherwise independent, productive life, triggering a downward spiral that can result in malnutrition, serious illness and even death.

In 2000, the Surgeon General's office called oral disease in this country a ``silent epidemic,'' but oral health continues to be an afterthought to other health care issues, and off the radar screen for most national leaders. Congress has never addressed the lack of oral health coverage for older Americans, failing to place these this issue into the national consciousness and addressed the issues at a national level.

We need new infrastructure and funding--focusing resources, creating accountability and changing how we think about oral health in our country, particularly as it affects vulnerable populations. We must lay the foundation to address, in a meaningful and lasting way, a devastating and growing problem that has been invisible for far too long. We can no longer neglect these difficult issues afflicting frail and elderly victims.

This effort needs to take numerous steps to improve access to oral health care:

We need to ensure the provision of oral health screening, diagnostic, and treatment services, particularly for vulnerable individuals, and nursing home and long-term care residents.

We must eliminate the barriers requiring determination of medical necessity. We must ensure that States comply with applied income laws.

We need to ensure greater communication among States and nursing home and long-term care facilities about the need for and availability of oral health services.

More and more of us will enjoy longer, healthier lives with our teeth intact, but with this gift comes the responsibility to prevent the needless suffering too often borne by our frailest citizens.

I appreciate the work of my fellow members and a wide array of excellent groups such as Oral Health America, Special Care Dentistry, and the Alliance for Aging Research, and individuals like Dr. Greg Folse on behalf of oral health and older Americans and look forward to continued support from both sides of the aisle and in both Houses to make oral health a reality for all Americans.

Mr. President, I honor not only a fellow Louisianian, but also an extraordinary Marine, Clester Lenoir. Clester Lenoir is retiring after serving more than 20 years of service in the United States Marine Corps. He was raised in Baton Rouge, LA, where he graduated from Tara High School, Baton Rouge in 1984.

Gunnery Sergeant's first duty station was in his home state of Louisiana where he served with the Fourth Marine Division in New Orleans. He was assigned as the Status of Resources and Training System Noncommissioned Officer, a staff sergeant's billet. He was tasked to assist and inspect various reserve units around the Nation. He excelled at this assignment and was awarded a Navy/Marine Corps Achievement medal for his meritorious service.

Lenoir has served as an Administrative Assistant in the Marine Corps' Office of Legislative Affairs during his last 3 years of service. That office supports Members of Congress, and their committees on matters relating to the Marine Corps and the security of our Nation.

Lenoir has carried the Marine Corps' message to these hallowed halls, providing Members the information necessary to determine how best to equip, maintain and support the United States Marine Corps and ultimately provide and ensure our Nation's security. During this period, he has been responsible for directing, and organizing numerous congressional events in the metropolitan DC area. His attention to detail in making these very important events logistically successful is noteworthy.

Lenoir has made a lasting contribution in the capability of today's Marine Corps and the future shape of tomorrow's Corps. His superior performance of duties highlight the culmination of more than 20 years of dedicated and honorable Marine Corps service. He achieved five Navy/ Marine Corps Achievement medals for his exemplary service throughout his 20-year career. By his exemplary professional competence, sound judgment, and total dedication to duty, he has reflected great credit upon himself and has always upheld the highest traditions of the United States Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

I am proud that Clester Lenoir joined the Marine Corps from the great state of Louisiana, seeking to protect and serve our great Nation. He has done so with great distinction. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I wish to extend my heartfelt thanks and gratitude. May he have many more years of continuing success as he pursues other interests outside of the United States Marine Corps.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3632

Mr. President, today we are honored by the nomination of

Debbie Hersman to serve as a member of the National Transportation Safety Board. Along with Senator Hollings, I have spent a great deal of time over the last 5 years working with Debbie. She has always provided me with excellent counsel and I can count on her to know the facts and understand the points of view of all sides.

Debbie's experience in all modes of transportation qualifies her well for this position. In 1999 she spent countless hours drafting legislation that ultimately resulted in the creation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration at the Department of Transportation, with the primary purposes of reducing large truck fatalities on our nation's highways. In 2001 Debbie and I worked through many legislative issues on the floor along with Senator McCain and his staff to pass a pipeline safety bill. The pipeline safety legislation was prompted by several fatal accidents that were also investigated by the NTSB. We rely on the Board to provide us with independent and honest answers about accidents and what needs to be done to prevent them in the future. I know that we can count on Debbie to understand the import of the Board's work and the interplay between the Board's recommendations and the legislative and regulatory processes.

While it is hard for us to let one of our own go, I have every confidence that she possesses the professionalism, credibility, and with the necessary insight to do the job well. Debbie always sees the big picture yet she pays attention to the details. Her tenacity and ability to hold people's feet to the fire will serve her well in her new position as she sifts through the facts at accident scenes and works through staff recommendations.

It has been a pleasure to work with Debbie on a multitude of transportation issues. I have always been impressed with her diligence and professional demeanor. While I will miss her, on both a professional and personal level, I know that Debbie will serve on the NTSB with distinction. It is my hope that we can move her nomination and get her over to the NTSB quickly.

Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, regarding a provision in the bill that provides needed clarification and helps to insure an accurate reflection of taxpayers' income.

The provision I refer to resolves certain uncertainties that have arisen recently regarding the proper application of the income forecast method, which is the predominant cost recovery method for films, videotapes, and sound recordings. The provision merely reinforces the continued efficacy of existing case law and longstanding industry practice. For example, the provision clarifies that, for purposes of the income forecast method, the anticipated costs of participations and residuals may be included in a property's cost basis at the beginning of the property's depreciable life. This was the holding of the Ninth Circuit in Transamerica Corporation v. U.S. (1993). The provision also clarifies that the Tax Court's holding in Associated Patentees v. Comm., 4 TC 979 (1945), remains valid law. Thus, taxpayers may elect to deduct participations and residuals as they are paid. Finally, the provision clarifies that the income forecast formula is calculated using gross income, without reduction for distribution costs.

I would like to confirm my understanding with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus that by providing these clarifications and eliminating uncertainty the provision was intended to put to reset needless and costly disputes.

I thank both of my distinguished colleagues for this important clarification. I hope this puts to rest any uncertainty and wasteful disputes regarding the proper application of the income forecast method.

kiddie tax

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the time controlled? How is the time yielded?

I would like to ask a question.

I probably should not be getting into this because I have not looked at it, but it seems that the sense of the resolution is the prison should be destroyed. I do not think it was so much a problem with the prison as it was with people who ran the prison. It is not the physical plant that caused the problem. It is the people who were running the prison.

If we do demolish a prison, are we not going to have to build another one? It seems to me what we ought to be advocating is not the demolishing of the prison but the replacement of the people who were running the prison with professional people who understand how to treat prisoners.

The problem is not the physical plant. The problem is the people running it. I am sort of concerned if we demolish the prison we are going to have to end up building another one because we are going to have prisoners who are going to have to be dealt with over there.

With the explanation I think that clears up a great deal of my concern, and I intend to support it. I thank you.

Mr. President, I call up an amendment that is at the desk, No. 3117, Breaux-Feinstein.

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

Mr. President, this is a jobs bill. That is the title of the bill. Presumably a jobs bill is intended to create jobs and hopefully is created to create jobs in America. That is the legislation that is before us. It is absolutely essential that this legislation be adopted.

But one of the provisions in the legislation gives me great concern. I offered an amendment in the Finance Committee. It was unanimously supported by every single Democrat in the Finance Committee and it lost by a partisan vote because our Republican colleagues at that time did not feel they could support the amendment I offered. It was unanimously supported by every single Democrat member of the Finance Committee.

The question deals with how we treat companies that have earnings they have stashed away in foreign countries. These amounts of money, many of them, are in fact earned overseas. Companies know if they bring those earnings back to the United States, the United States, on a worldwide tax basis, will tax those earnings with a deduction for the amount of tax they have paid in the country in which they earned those revenues. They pay the regular corporate rate minus the tax credit they get for having paid taxes on those earnings in the foreign country. However, there is no tax consequence to those companies if the money in fact stays in the foreign country. That is called deferral. We defer any U.S. tax on foreign earnings as long as the earnings stay in the foreign country in which they are earned.

The legislation before this body now says we are going to give a very special break to U.S. companies that have money overseas, in many cases in tax havens. We are going to let you bring that money back, not as other companies in the past have brought it back,

paying U.S. tax minus what they paid overseas, but we are going to cut you a special sweetheart deal. We are going to give you a sweetheart deal of an 85-percent tax credit by reducing the amount of taxes you would pay if you bring it back to the United States--not to pay what every other corporation pays, 35 percent--we are going to ask you to pay 5 percent, 5.25 percent. That is an 85-percent tax reward to companies that have stashed money in tax havens, in many cases overseas, for the sole purpose of avoiding U.S. taxation.

The IRS has recently cited a number of companies that have these types of tax shelters and overseas tax havens, such as in The Netherlands, Barbados, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda--you name the tax havens. Companies that earn money in one country will bring it over to a tax haven and keep it there, avoiding U.S. taxes. But some now say that is such a great idea, we are going to give them a real tax break and ask them to please bring it back over to the United States. If you do so, we are only going to tax you at about a 5-percent rate.

That is what the legislation says. The legislation says bring it back, you get a huge tax reward for keeping money overseas and now bringing it back to the United States, unlike what other companies have had to do.

Every person we have talked to says we are going to bring it back to create jobs. I say, All right, if that is what you are going to do, bring it back to create jobs in the United States of America, we will let you do the 5-percent tax break. We will allow you to do it.

My amendment simply says two things are different from the bill before the Senate. No. 1, it says you can bring it back for job creation, for hiring more people. If you want to use it for that purpose, OK. If you want to use it for research and development-- pharmaceutical industry or other electronic types of industry--OK, we will let you use it for that. If you want to use it for capital expending, you want to build another plant, OK, we will let you use it for that. If you want to use it for your underfunded pension funds, OK, we will let you use it for that.

But we will not let you use it for something as nebulous as financial stabilization of the company, which is in the bill but not defined. What does that mean? Buy another Gulfstream? Yes, that might financially stabilize the company. Stock buybacks? Yes, that might be a good idea for a few people, but it does not create a lot of jobs, if any.

Second, there has to be an enforcement mechanism, more than filing a plan; and there is no responsibility if you do not follow it.

My amendment says: All right, companies, if you bring it back for those purposes, we want proof you actually use it for those purposes. You can use the next 3 years to take these billions of dollars and use it for legitimate purposes, but we would like some proof. We know it by seeing you have actually spent more in the next 3 years in these areas than in the previous 3 years. That is very important.

Here is an interesting statistic from the Joint Committee on Tax. Where is the money like this coming from? From tax havens: Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland. How much money are we going to let flow into the United States at a 5-percent rate when it should come in at the regular corporate rate minus what they pay in the foreign country?

Our legislation, the Breaux-Feinstein amendment, is about responsibility and accountability, about creating jobs in this country, not stock buybacks that enrich a few at the expense of jobs in this country.

There is a legitimate argument we ought to look at the whole tax system and see whether we should go to a territorial system or not, but that is not before the Senate at this time.

This legislation is absolutely essential if we are going to maintain any credibility on creating jobs instead of enforcing or creating tax havens. We have enough tax havens. We should not encourage more. This amendment helps stop that.

How much time remains?

We have an hour equally divided?

I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator, the cosponsor of the amendment.

Will the Senator from Oregon yield for a question?

Mr. President, would the Senator point out anything in the legislation before this body now that would take any action against any companies if they did not abide by what they said they were going to use it for? Do they lose their tax deduction? Is there anything in the legislation, without my amendment, that would say what would happen to companies if they use it for something totally different from what their plans say they are going to use it for?

Suppose they decided to use it for something totally unrelated to job creation. Is there anything, without my amendment, that says what would happen to those companies?

Trust but verify.

Suppose you have somebody who may not do that. Is there any provision in the bill that says what will happen to the company that does not abide by the plan? I believe in trust but verify. If you don't do what you say you are going to do, you should have consequences. Is there anything in the bill that says they would lose their deduction?

How much time do I have remaining?

Are we going to rotate? Are we just going to hear one side?

Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes off the time.

I wonder if anybody in this body remembers Enron. Let's trust that they are going to do right. They are a U.S. corporation that created more tax shelters than the IRS could count. It took a group of Philadelphia lawyers 2 months to even add up the number of tax shelters they had around the world. They had so many the IRS couldn't even follow it.

If you are going to give people who have tax shelters and a stash in income in foreign tax havens a huge benefit to bring the money back into this country, we ought to make sure they are going to use it for job creation. Without my amendment, they have to file a plan that says this is what they are going to spend it on. Suppose they don't spend one nickel more than they did last year on job creation. Suppose they don't spend one nickel more on capital expenditures than they did last year. Suppose they don't spend one more nickel on pensions for the workers than they did last year, but they comply with what they said they were going to do in their little plan. They are fine. They don't have to spend one nickel more under the committee bill, with all this money they are going to bring back at a 5-percent tax rate, in terms of creating jobs than they did before.

The Breaux-Feinstein amendment says: If you want to bring it back for that purpose, you have to show us that is what you are using it for. That, in fact, you have spent more money in the next 3 years than you would have the previous year on job creation. That is not too much to ask.

When we are giving a multinational corporation an enormous tax gift of having to pay not 35 percent but only 5 percent, at least get a requirement that they are using it for something to do with job creation and that they spend at least something more than they did the year before. Without the Breaux-Feinstein amendment, there is no requirement that they spend one nickel more on job creation than they did previously after bringing this money back.

Guess what. You talk about an incentive to locate overseas. There will be a whole group of people saying: We did it for 1 year. Let's do it next year, a third year; let's continue this. How about making this 5 percent permanent so we can put all the jobs overseas, knowing Congress is going to take care of us every time there is a downturn in the economy and there is another amendment to extend the 5-percent tax break

1 more year. We will just move everything over to the Caymen Islands. We will move everything ever over to a Third World country. Because, guess what, Congress is going to let us bring it back at 5 percent because the pressure will be there, because the economy is not doing well, and all the jobs go overseas. The only thing the Breaux-Feinstein amendment says is, if you are going to bring it back for job creation, prove it, tell us you spent a little bit more than you would have ordinarily. Without Breaux-Feinstein, there is no requirement that they spend one nickel more than they did before. That is a big difference in what we are trying to accomplish.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I thank the Chair. I will take 2 additional minutes.

Again, I don't have any basic argument with those who say we ought to let the money come back that has been sitting in tax savings into this country. I will even go along with saying you can bring it back at 5 percent, if you are going to use it for job creation or research and development, for capital expenditures. And If you are going to use it to rebuild your pension fund for workers, OK, let's do it for 1 year at 5 percent. But, by gosh, can't we at least have some standards to be able to enforce it?

Under the committee bill, without the Breaux-Feinstein amendment, there is no obligation that they spend one nickel more on job creation than they did last year or the year before. The only thing they have to do is say, if last year we spent $10 billion on capital expenditures, guess what. We will spend $10 billion this year. They don't have to spend one nickel, one penny more on capital expenditures or job creation or research and development in order to get this huge break. They can spend exactly what they spent last year--no requirement, zip, zero. Yet we are going to give them one of the biggest tax breaks.

We already passed tax cuts of $3 trillion for job creation. Are we much better off today after all of that, some of which I supported? That is a debatable issue. Let's not make the same mistake and say we are going to give them an 85-percent tax cut if they are doing business overseas and if they bring some of that money back and spend it on job creation. And by the way, there is no requirement that you do anything more than you did last year. What kind of nonsense is that, as far as trying to create more jobs in this country, instead of providing a huge incentive to locate overseas, bring workers overseas, and we are going to have Congress let us bring it all back at 5 percent? How unfair is that to the people who play by the rules, to other companies who do business and hire people in this country.

There is no requirement, without the Breaux-Feinstein amendment, that companies that bring this money back at a 5-percent rate spend one dime more than they have in the past on the creation of jobs. They can spend what they spent last year. In fact, they can spend less than they spent last year. The only thing they have to show is they have a plan--no enforcement, nothing.

The Senator from Nevada has a sign up that says 660,000 jobs. Suppose they decide not to create one more job than they did last year. They will still get the 5-percent tax break. There is no requirement that they create six jobs. If they created six last year, they can do that this year. They only have to show that the money is used for job creation. They can take all the money they spent on capital expenditures last year and not spend any of it next year. They can just use this overseas money and not do one thing more than they did the year before. There is no enforcement that they do what the plan says. There is no penalty if they don't. They don't lose their tax deduction. They still get it and they do not have to spend one nickel more in any category without the Breaux-Feinstein amendment.

We say: Look what you did in the last 3 years, and what you are going to do in the future 3 years, and see if you did more than you did in the past. If you did, you get the 5-percent break. But, by golly, if you don't, you don't get it. I think that is fair. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time do we have?

I yield myself 3 minutes.

It is interesting that they said Louisiana would gain 10,000 jobs if this passed. We probably lost 50,000 jobs with people moving overseas. So with this legislation, we are still 40,000 jobs short.

What we are doing in this legislation is rewarding companies that operate overseas. We say, if you operate overseas and you hire foreign workers in foreign countries and put your money in a tax haven, somehow that is good policy, and we are going to let you take those earnings and only pay 5-percent tax on that. What kind of logic is that? That is a huge incentive to continue to hire workers overseas knowing Congress is going to let you bring earnings back, not at 35 percent, which every other company that hires U.S. workers in my State or any other State has to pay. No, if you do it overseas, you are only going to have to pay 5 percent if you give us a plan that tells us you will use the money for the financial stabilization of the corporation, whatever the heck that means.

If we are going to create so many jobs and if we are going to reduce the deficit, when you look at this and score it impartially, why does the Joint Committee on Taxation say this is going to cost the Treasury $3.7 billion? If we are going to create so many more jobs and so many more people are going to pay taxes, why does this provision in the current bill cost the U.S. taxpayers $3.7 billion? That is the score from the Joint Committee on Taxation when they looked at this provision. It is not going to reduce the deficit. It is going to cost the taxpayers almost $4 billion.

When someone makes the point that the IRS will audit these companies, audits are down on corporate America by over 60 percent. They are doing 60 percent fewer corporate audits. One wonders why Enron got away with everything? Because the Treasury does not have the wherewithal to do the audits they need.

The principal argument I have with the Breaux-Feinstein amendment is simply this: If people say they are going to bring it back at a 5- percent rate and they are going to use it to create more jobs, I say, OK, let them do it, but let's have some mechanism to ensure they really do create more jobs than they created in the past. That is all the Breaux-Feinstein amendment really says. It says: Show us, Mr. Corporate America, that, in fact, you are creating more jobs than you did before. And if you did, fine, you are off the hook; you get a 5-percent tax rate, but if you do not create any more than you did in previous years or you create less, then something is wrong with this proposition, and we are not going to let you pay only 5-percent taxes.

It is an enforcement mechanism. I agree, use it for pensions, use it for research and development, use it for capital expenditures, use it for job creation, but please show us that it was used for that purpose.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Parliamentary inquiry: What is the status on remaining time?

I will close on my amendment.

Mr. President, I close on this amendment with the following comments: In this legislation, we are giving U.S. companies that hire foreign workers in foreign countries and putting their money that they earned in tax savings the opportunity, the gift, to bring back to this country those earnings and not pay what every other U.S. corporation pays in taxes but to give them an 85-percent tax cut because they operated overseas and hired foreign workers and made products in foreign countries. We are going to give them an 85-percent tax cut over current law if they bring the money back over here.

The argument is that somehow that is going to create more jobs over here. But there is no requirement that a single additional job be created. They do not have to create one more job or spend one more dollar on research and development than they did last year under the current bill without the Breaux-Feinstein amendment.

The Breaux-Feinstein amendment seeks to install responsibility that says: All right, if corporations want to bring it back for those purposes, even though it is going to cost the taxpayer $3.7 billion-- some people outside of Washington may think that is a lot of money; I think it is a lot of money--$3.7 billion is the cost of this legislation without the Breaux-Feinstein amendment. The bottom line is there is no guarantee that they will spend one dollar more on creating a job, capital expenditures, or research and development than they did last year. The Breaux-Feinstein amendment says, yes, corporations can do this and we will give them this huge tax break if they spend more on job creation and create more jobs than they did in the past. That is our only requirement, and that is not too much of a requirement.

They already say that is what they are going to do. The only thing our amendment says is, yes, they have to do that, and if they do not they are not going to get the break.

Without the Breaux-Feinstein amendment, they do not have to create one single additional job more than they did in previous years. We have an enforcement mechanism that says: Look, if they do not spend it for what they say they are going to spend it, then they are not going to get the tax break. They are going to have to give it back. They are going to have to be treated as any other company that does business in this country.

They call this a poison pill. I think it is more a vitamin pill to a deficient bill to try and help improve it to give it some strength, to give it some credibility, to say, yes, we agree, let's do it for this purpose, but please have a requirement that it is actually used for that purpose.

The legislation does not have that. The only thing they have to do is come up with a description, a domestic reinvestment plan that does not require it be spent. It certainly does not require that they spend more in the future than they did in the past. But if the corporations put what they are thinking about doing in a domestic investment plan, then they are OK, but there is no requirement that they spend a nickel more than they did in the past. That is the real principle that we are trying to address with the Breaux-Feinstein amendment. I think it makes sense.

It still allows money to come back, but it only requires that they, in fact, use those dollars for what they said they were going to use them. If they do that, if they create more jobs, do research and development, make capital expenditures, do things that they say they are going to do with it, let's please have some mechanism in the legislation that really requires them to do what they say they are going to do.

The history of this country with regard to recent scandals in corporate America show that we have to be vigilant and diligent, and we have to have some pretty clear parameters about what people can and cannot do. This legislation, without the Breaux-Feinstein amendment, falls short in that particular provision.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, we are saying if corporate America wants to get this huge tax gift, OK, let's do it. But let's make sure they use it for the right purpose. Let's make sure they actually use it for job creation. Breaux-Feinstein simply says they have to show that they spend more in future years, the next year, and the next year than they did in the previous years in terms of job creation and doing what they said they were going to do.

Without the Breaux-Feinstein amendment, the only thing a company has to do is file a plan. If they do not follow the plan, well, too bad; they do not get audited, too bad. There is no requirement that more money is spent to create jobs, and we are talking about a jobs bill that creates jobs in this country, I thought, not in a foreign country.

I do not think we can go back home to our constituents and say we are going to give corporate America an 85-percent break for money they earned overseas. If they want to bring it back for job creation, OK, but let's make sure that is what it is used for.

I understand there is 1 minute for the proponents of the Breaux-Feinstein amendment.

Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. President, it is interesting that the authors, the Senators who oppose the amendment, say the bill is going to create 660,000 jobs. If it is going to create 660,000 jobs, there is no problem. The people would be able to bring the money back and pay 5 percent. The Breaux-Feinstein amendment simply says if companies are going to get a huge, enormous tax break by bringing money out of tax shelters in foreign countries and saying they want to use it for job creation, fine. Let's make sure that is what it is used for. Let's have a standard by which if more jobs are created, they get 5 percent. But if they don't create more jobs, if they don't spend it for that purpose, they are not going to get the 5-percent tax break. That is all it says.

It says, if you spend the money to create more jobs, you can bring it back at a 5-percent tax rate, and we will allow that to happen. But if you use it for something else, you will not get a 5-percent tax rate. You will pay the regular corporate rate like any other American corporation. Without my amendment, this costs $3.7 billion to the American taxpayer.

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

Mr. President, Senator Landrieu and I rise today to add our voices to those who have been calling for a comprehensive national solution to the asbestos litigation problem. Several members of both parties have recently come to the floor to discuss this very issue and we want to join with them in urging our colleagues to address this matter with immediate legislation.

I have always believed that one of the greatest freedoms in this country is the ability of ordinary citizens to seek redress in an impartial court of law from other citizens or businesses--no matter how large or powerful. However, in the case of asbestos litigation the system no longer is able to meet this goal. The courts are so backed up with asbestos lawsuits, many of which are brought by individuals who are not yet sick or may never get sick, that those victims who are truly suffering from asbestos-related illnesses are not receiving compensation and businesses are going bankrupt in the process.

Asbestos litigation is a serious and growing problem in our home state of Louisiana. For the benefit of victims, union members, and businesses in Louisiana--both large and small--that are suffering the consequences of this crisis, we urge the Senate to resolve this problem as soon as possible. Let me be clear: we want a bill that will provide guaranteed, fair compensation to deserving victims in our state and around the country. And, we want a bill that will provide certainty for victims and businesses in Louisiana and elsewhere that have been caught up in this crisis.

I am becoming increasingly troubled by reports that negotiations between the parties on the asbestos bill are reaching a standstill. Too much work and tireless hours of negotiation have gone into this bill to let it become yet another marker in the growing graveyard of failed legislation. I would like to use this opportunity to urge all parties in this matter to continue working in good faith with one another to find agreement on the issues that are still outstanding.

A final deal on asbestos will not be easy and it will require more concessions from all parties. I know a number of my colleagues have worked unflagging to try and get this issue resolved. I commend them for all their effort and work. However, it is also important that we realize how close we are to not having any bill at all. I am concerned that by hastily pushing forward legislation that only has partial support, we will effectively kill this bill. We cannot stand back and allow the current system to continue to spiral out of control. Another failed cloture vote will not help victims, nor will it help business. This is an issue that we should be able to vote out of the Senate, not by 60 votes, but by 70 or 80. We must continue to work together to this end. The asbestos litigation system is broken and it must be fixed.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Louisiana Assisted Living Association, LALA, which will be celebrating ``Assisted Living Day'' open April 14, 2004 in the State capitol. Both in my home State and in States across the Nation, disabled individuals and older Americans are voicing their demand for a wide range of long-term services. Assisted living represents a significant piece of that continuum of care.

Decades ago, those in need of long-term care had limited options-- family caregivers, skilled nursing homes or institutional care. In many cases, family caregivers cannot provide the proper level of care for their loved one for a variety of reasons. In other instances, the person does not require the high level, around-the-clock care of a skilled nursing facility or institution. Now, many disabled persons and older Americans with functional limitations and/or cognitive impairments are finding the assistance they need and desire in assisted living, and in other home and community-based settings.

Unfortunately, our Federal financing structure has a strong institutional bias and does not reflect Americans' growing desire to be cared for in settings other than nursing homes or institutions. Public preference is not the only momentum driving this need for change--we see this direction in our courts as well. At the Federal level, the landmark Olmstead decision underscored this push toward allowing our countrys' elderly and disabled to live in the least restrictive settings for as long as possible. And, in my home State of Louisiana, this momentum was echoed in the Barthelemy case, in which the court strengthened the rights of people to get assistance in

home and community-based settings. We now know that we are not talking about merely a preference for non-institutional care--but a legal right to it.

In my capacity as ranking member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I have held numerous hearings on long-term care and the importance of supporting the continuum of care options. Assisted living is one of the most significant of these options and offers a real choice to those Americans wanting assistance outside of an institutional setting--a preference that will only grow as more of our baby boomers look for help with long-term care. Today, I salute the Louisiana Assisted Living Association for taking time to educate and improve awareness about a service that I believe can and will improve the lives of many of our Nation's disabled and elderly.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Voinovich, to introduce the Uniting Neighborhoods and Individuals to End Racial Profiling Act, also known as the UNITE Act.

In the fall of 2002, there was a meeting in my office with a number of African-American leaders from Louisiana. They told me that the single most important issue they want to resolve is racial profiling.

I turned to Senator Voinovich, who has been a leader on this in Ohio and in the Senate, to come up with the first, truly bipartisan racial profiling bill to be introduced in the Senate. After more than a year of hard work, we have finally come up with a bill that meaningfully responds to the issue of racial profiling while striking the right balance between the concerns of law enforcement and the minority community. Most importantly, our UNITE Act will begin to end racial profiling in this country.

This bill strives to fix the real incidents of racial profiling through education, public outreach and oversight. It also combats the perception that law enforcement is engaging in racial biased policing. By banning racial profiling, putting safeguards in place and providing the public with a meaningful complaint procedure, this bill responds to the concerns of minority communities and hopefully helps rebuild their trust in law enforcement agencies.

I believe we have crafted the first, reasonable and passable solution to the issue of racial profiling.

I hope as we unveil this legislation publically for the first time today, that both the civil rights and law enforcement communities will see this bill as a good starting point to find a solution to this serious problem. I look forward to working with my colleagues, law enforcement and the civil rights community to get this legislation passed and signed by the President this year.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Voinovich, to introduce the Uniting Neighborhoods and Individuals to End Racial Profiling Act, also known as the UNITE Act.

In the fall of 2002, there was a meeting in my office with a number of African-American leaders from Louisiana. They told me that the single most important issue they want to resolve is racial profiling.

I turned to Senator Voinovich, who has been a leader on this in Ohio and in the Senate, to come up with the first, truly bipartisan racial profiling bill to be introduced in the Senate. After more than a year of hard work, we have finally come up with a bill that meaningfully responds to the issue of racial profiling while striking the right balance between the concerns of law enforcement and the minority community. Most importantly, our UNITE Act will begin to end racial profiling in this country.

This bill strives to fix the real incidents of racial profiling through education, public outreach and oversight. It also combats the perception that law enforcement is engaging in racial biased policing. By banning racial profiling, putting safeguards in place and providing the public with a meaningful complaint procedure, this bill responds to the concerns of minority communities and hopefully helps rebuild their trust in law enforcement agencies.

I believe we have crafted the first, reasonable and passable solution to the issue of racial profiling.

I hope as we unveil this legislation publically for the first time today, that both the civil rights and law enforcement communities will see this bill as a good starting point to find a solution to this serious problem. I look forward to working with my colleagues, law enforcement and the civil rights community to get this legislation passed and signed by the President this year.