Floor Statements

Mr. President, on April 26, 2003, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program, a well-known educational program developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by Congress through the U.S. Department of Education.

I am proud to announce that the class from Musselman High School will represent the State of West Virginia in this national event. These young scholars from Inwood, WV, have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating in both local and statewide competitions. As a result of their hard work, they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy.

The 3 day We the People national competition is modeled on hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge.

The We the People program provides curriculum and materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels. The curriculum not only enhances students' understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop the kind of participatory skills necessary for students to become active, responsible citizens.

Independent studies by the Educational Testing Service, ETS, revealed that students enrolled in the We the People program at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels ``significantly outperformed comparison students on every topic of the tests taken.'' Another study by Richard Brody at Stanford University discovered that students involved in the We the People program develop greater commitment to democratic principles and values than do students using traditional textbooks and approaches. Researchers at the Council for Basic Education noted:

[T]eachers feel excited and renewed . . . . Students are

enthusiastic about what they have been able to accomplish,

especially in terms of their ability to carry out a reasoned

argument. They have become energized about their place as

citizens of the United States.

The class from Musselman High School is eager to participate in the national competition in Washington, D.C. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for future generations to understand these values and principles which we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. I believe these young West Virginians have already won a great deal through the knowledge they have gained, but I also wish them every success in the We the People competition.

Madam President, last night, an extraordinary event happened in Iraq: The extraction and rescue of PFC Jessica Lynch of West Virginia who comes from the small town of Palestine in Wirt County with a population of about 5,800. She was in a hospital in Nasiriyah, with others, where she had been held captive.

Through superb coordination of the Navy SEALs, Marines, and Army Rangers, U.S. forces went in, created diversions, rescued her, and brought her to safety. She is now on a C-17 on her way to Ramstein Air Force Base where she will receive treatment. She has many broken bones and other injuries, but none of them are life threatening.

She was part of the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company and was moving with the 3rd Infantry Division north toward Baghdad. It was that classic case where the group made a right turn instead of going straight ahead, and they were captured. Not all of her fellow soldiers were so lucky, but she is known to be in very good spirits. I have seen pictures of her, as I think we all have, and I have spoken with her parents to express my thoughts of her being rescued.

I have to say that in a time of great stress, worry, and loss in this country, there do come high points and this is one of them. This private is 19 years old. She wants to be a teacher. She was rescued by people who showed the most extraordinary skill and heroism.

What is interesting is her desire to be a teacher. Even when she went overseas, she told a kindergarten class in her hometown of Palestine, WV, that she wanted to have a pen pal relationship with them from the field. By having this communication, she believed they could get a better sense of what war was like rather than just watching TV, reading the newspapers, or listening to the radio.

As my senior colleague, Senator Byrd, knows well, Palestine is a very friendly, very proud place where people struggle hard in a rural county to give the best possible life for their daughters and sons. I think Jessica Lynch has already started her role as a teacher. She has taught all of us. The Nation took her to heart because of the innocence and the beauty of her young face. The Nation prayed over her, worried over her, as we all did. She was rescued. She was delivered back to us, so to speak. So I think her career, in being inspiring to all of us, has already begun as a teacher. She has taught us enormously. Then again, so did those who rescued her teach us, because they took extraordinary skill and courage and used the proper techniques. They were under fire and brought her home safely to an ambulance.

There are still others who are missing, of course, and we worry about them. I know she does, even as she hurts with her wounds. For now, for this moment, and in West Virginia for a long time to come, we can rejoice about this extraordinary miracle of Jessica Lynch. She would like to know and surely can know that all Members of the Senate join their colleagues in other bodies of Government, and Americans in general, in offering our warmest congratulations to her as a person, to her family, and to her neighbors who, in fact, became her family and always had been her family.

Jessica Lynch's story has lifted our hearts, and I think her rescue is a cause for rejoicing throughout our land.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to support the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. As I speak, America's military is fighting in the dangerous and inhospitable deserts of Iraq. And when I watch the remarkable news coverage of the progress in Iraq, I am awed by the skills, dedication, and courage of our fighting forces. Passing this legislation is the least that we can do to show those brave men and women that we support them, we are proud of them, and their nation is grateful for their sacrifice.

This Congress ought not to pretend that the bill we are considering is some altruistic gift to the men and women serving our country in the military. Rather, today we will pass legislation that restores basic fairness to the tax code. We demand extraordinary sacrifices of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. They are often stationed far away from their families. They are frequently uprooted and forced to sell their homes on short notice. And in a military increasingly dependent on the National Guard and Reserves, we ask some of our vital troops to travel great distances at their own expense to train with their units.

Often the burden of these sacrifices is increased by the inflexibility of the Tax Code. For example, a serviceman stationed in Saudi Arabia obviously cannot meet the residency requirements associated with the capital gains tax exclusion for his house in the States. It is spectacularly unfair for us to send a soldier away from his home, and then punish him with increased taxes if he decides to sell that home. The bill we will pass today rectifies this problem by suspending the residency requirements for military personnel that are away from home on active duty assignment.

This bill also ensures that the full death gratuity payment made to the survivors of military personnel killed on duty will be exempt from income tax. The death benefits paid to survivors are intended to cover funeral costs and immediate expenses while the family gets back on its feet. The current death benefit is not large; it is $6,000. Inexcusably, half of that benefit is subject to income tax. This legislation excludes the full value of the death benefit from tax. To say that the survivors of those recently killed in Iraq deserve to receive the entire death benefit, tax-free, is an extraordinary understatement.

One of the most important provisions of this bill is the above-the- line-deduction for overnight travel expenses for members of the National Guard and Reserves. Many of these troops travel more than 100 miles to serve with their units. They have to pay the costs of traveling to their base; and many of them also have to pay for their meals and lodging while away from home. Under current law, these expenses can be deducted from income only if the individual itemizes deductions on his or her tax return. This onerous requirement prevents many eligible individuals from taking advantage of the deduction.

The bill we will pass today ensures that the expenses associated with overnight travel to attend National Guard and Reserve meetings can be deducted even if a person does not itemize deductions. This provision is expected to save National Guardsmen and reservists more than $800 million over the next 10 years. We have seen how valiantly these members of our Armed Forces are serving--leaving their homes, families, and regular jobs, to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever their Commander in Chief sends them. It is the least we can do to minimize the financial burden this service places on them and their families.

I have highlighted just a few of the important provisions of this bill. Let me speak for a moment about how important this legislation will be for my own State of West Virginia. West Virginians have a proud tradition of serving in the military. Tens of thousands of West Virginians are serving on Active Duty in our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. More than 3,000 West Virginia members of the National Guard and Reserves have been activated. I am pleased to be able to support legislation that recognizes their sacrifices and rewards their service.

The Senate passed legislation very similar to this bill last year. I was extremely disappointed that the House of Representatives did not act on that bill in the 107th Congress. We should waste no more time. Recently, the House passed a bill to provide tax fairness for members of our Armed Forces. However, the Senate has taken the responsible step of offsetting the costs of these changes to the tax code. The Senate bill will close loopholes that currently allow some individuals to renounce their American citizenship simply to avoid paying income taxes. I can think of no better way to finance tax relief to the brave patriots in our military than by forbidding anyone to shirk income taxes by renouncing citizenship in the United States. The tax loophole that rewards such unconscionable behavior ought to be closed and now is the time to do so. I urge the House of Representatives to approve the Senate bill.

Let me close by thanking all of the members of our Armed Forces. Whether they are currently serving overseas or at home, whether they will see combat this week or provide support from far away, all these brave men and women are making America very proud. This legislation recognizes their sacrifices. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and hope that Congress will send it to the President without delay.

Mr. President, I am proud today to join with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and Senators Thomas, Burns, Durbin, Allard, Dorgan, Bayh, Voinovich, Enzi, Campbell, and Conrad, to introduce the National Coal Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 2003. This is a bill I will work very hard to see enacted, because I believe both that the Nation's economy will grind to a halt without coal, and because sustaining the indispensable role of the Nation's most abundant energy source can only be accomplished by finding environmentally sensitive ways of using it.

This legislation is the byproduct of more than 5 years of effort to foster new scientific research and commercial application of clean coal technologies. This has been a collaborative effort between members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Hill working together with the coal and utility industries, the Department of Energy, the United Mine Workers, and academic and industrial scientists. The legislation we introduce today is substantially similar to legislation introduced in the 107th Congress, which formed the basis of the coal tax and coal R&D provisions of the comprehensive energy bill the Senate passed last year.

I have a particular interest in the clean coal tax provisions. I aggressively argued for them in the Finance Committee, and I was gratified by the willingness of then-Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to work with me to include meaningful coal tax incentives in the bill this body passed by an overwhelming majority and sent to conference with the House. As a tax conferee, I again pushed hard for inclusion of the Senate-passed provisions, over the more expensive and less-inclusive House provisions. Unfortunately, the energy conference and the comprehensive energy legislation it was so close to producing were allowed to die by some who thought this Congress would be a better setting for consideration of a national energy policy.

The R&D provisions, and in fact the entire package we introduce here today, have had no more fervent champion than my colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. Indeed, Senator Byrd has been a stalwart friend of coal far longer than the more than 5-year duration of this effort on clean coal technologies. I would be remiss if I did not commend Senator Byrd for his dedication and diligence in advocating for clean coal. I cannot overstate the importance of coal to our state of West Virginia. I am proud to join Senator Byrd in this effort to improve the environmental performance of coal, and to affirm its critical role in the economy of our State, and of the entire Nation.

When enacted, this legislation will foster crucial, collaborative, and cutting edge scientific research by the Department of Energy and its industry partners into technologies allowing increasingly cleaner and more efficient use of our Nation's most abundant fossil fuel, coal, as a fuel to produce electricity. At the same time, this bill will create tax incentives to help coal-fired utilities defray the high cost of installation of clean coal technologies on coal-fired power plants. We have included incentives for clean coal technologies on both existing power plants and those yet to be built. Clean coal technologies used to repower existing plants will allow them to meet our most stringent Clean Air Act standards for stationary source emissions. Installations of these technologies on existing facilities is important not only to protect the environment. Perhaps as significant for our economy, sustaining energy production from these reliable sources of electricity helps insulate consumers from the kind of extraordinary price shocks we have seen recently in the natural gas and petroleum markets.

New facilities designed and built with next generation, advanced clean coal technologies will be cleaner and more reliable still. Energy experts estimate that to meet our Nation's burgeoning demand for electricity, we may see more than a thousand new electricity generating plants built in the next 20 years. Modest incentives for installation of advanced clean coal technologies will give utilities the ability to choose cheap and abundant coal as a fuel source, and still produce air emissions as clean or cleaner than those produced by natural gas plants.

The two sections of this bill concentrate on different aspects of the coal picture, and will be considered by different committees in the Senate. Yet the programs and commercial development this bill will engender will work hand in hand. The advanced clean coal research and development funded by this bill, augmented by the data industry, academic, and government scientists hope to gain from the performance of the reconfigured existing

plants, will hasten the deployment of a fleet of near-zero emission coal-fired plans in the coming decade or two.

I represent a State that produces a lot of coal, and uses a lot of coal. Between 98 and 99 percent of the electricity in West Virginia is generated with coal. This is higher than any other State in the Nation, but West Virginia electricity consumers are by no means alone in their dependence on coal. The United States is dependent on coal to a degree that I am sure comes as a surprise to most people. Coal produces more than half of the electricity used in this country. It is the primary source of electricity in 32 States, accounting for at least 55 percent of the electricity in 25 of these. Of the remaining 18 States, coal is the second most prevalent source of electricity in six of them, and a close third in two more. So, I thank my fellow cosponsors for their work on this bill, but I say to my colleagues, this is not just important to those of us whose States produce coal. Coal will continue to be a vital economic resource for the entire country. Because of this, and because the future health of our environment depends on good decisions made today, I recommend this legislation to all of my colleagues, and ask for their support in passing it.

Mr. President, I am proud today to join with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and Senators Thomas, Burns, Durbin, Allard, Dorgan, Bayh, Voinovich, Enzi, Campbell, and Conrad, to introduce the National Coal Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 2003. This is a bill I will work very hard to see enacted, because I believe both that the Nation's economy will grind to a halt without coal, and because sustaining the indispensable role of the Nation's most abundant energy source can only be accomplished by finding environmentally sensitive ways of using it.

This legislation is the byproduct of more than 5 years of effort to foster new scientific research and commercial application of clean coal technologies. This has been a collaborative effort between members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Hill working together with the coal and utility industries, the Department of Energy, the United Mine Workers, and academic and industrial scientists. The legislation we introduce today is substantially similar to legislation introduced in the 107th Congress, which formed the basis of the coal tax and coal R&D provisions of the comprehensive energy bill the Senate passed last year.

I have a particular interest in the clean coal tax provisions. I aggressively argued for them in the Finance Committee, and I was gratified by the willingness of then-Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to work with me to include meaningful coal tax incentives in the bill this body passed by an overwhelming majority and sent to conference with the House. As a tax conferee, I again pushed hard for inclusion of the Senate-passed provisions, over the more expensive and less-inclusive House provisions. Unfortunately, the energy conference and the comprehensive energy legislation it was so close to producing were allowed to die by some who thought this Congress would be a better setting for consideration of a national energy policy.

The R&D provisions, and in fact the entire package we introduce here today, have had no more fervent champion than my colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. Indeed, Senator Byrd has been a stalwart friend of coal far longer than the more than 5-year duration of this effort on clean coal technologies. I would be remiss if I did not commend Senator Byrd for his dedication and diligence in advocating for clean coal. I cannot overstate the importance of coal to our state of West Virginia. I am proud to join Senator Byrd in this effort to improve the environmental performance of coal, and to affirm its critical role in the economy of our State, and of the entire Nation.

When enacted, this legislation will foster crucial, collaborative, and cutting edge scientific research by the Department of Energy and its industry partners into technologies allowing increasingly cleaner and more efficient use of our Nation's most abundant fossil fuel, coal, as a fuel to produce electricity. At the same time, this bill will create tax incentives to help coal-fired utilities defray the high cost of installation of clean coal technologies on coal-fired power plants. We have included incentives for clean coal technologies on both existing power plants and those yet to be built. Clean coal technologies used to repower existing plants will allow them to meet our most stringent Clean Air Act standards for stationary source emissions. Installations of these technologies on existing facilities is important not only to protect the environment. Perhaps as significant for our economy, sustaining energy production from these reliable sources of electricity helps insulate consumers from the kind of extraordinary price shocks we have seen recently in the natural gas and petroleum markets.

New facilities designed and built with next generation, advanced clean coal technologies will be cleaner and more reliable still. Energy experts estimate that to meet our Nation's burgeoning demand for electricity, we may see more than a thousand new electricity generating plants built in the next 20 years. Modest incentives for installation of advanced clean coal technologies will give utilities the ability to choose cheap and abundant coal as a fuel source, and still produce air emissions as clean or cleaner than those produced by natural gas plants.

The two sections of this bill concentrate on different aspects of the coal picture, and will be considered by different committees in the Senate. Yet the programs and commercial development this bill will engender will work hand in hand. The advanced clean coal research and development funded by this bill, augmented by the data industry, academic, and government scientists hope to gain from the performance of the reconfigured existing

plants, will hasten the deployment of a fleet of near-zero emission coal-fired plans in the coming decade or two.

I represent a State that produces a lot of coal, and uses a lot of coal. Between 98 and 99 percent of the electricity in West Virginia is generated with coal. This is higher than any other State in the Nation, but West Virginia electricity consumers are by no means alone in their dependence on coal. The United States is dependent on coal to a degree that I am sure comes as a surprise to most people. Coal produces more than half of the electricity used in this country. It is the primary source of electricity in 32 States, accounting for at least 55 percent of the electricity in 25 of these. Of the remaining 18 States, coal is the second most prevalent source of electricity in six of them, and a close third in two more. So, I thank my fellow cosponsors for their work on this bill, but I say to my colleagues, this is not just important to those of us whose States produce coal. Coal will continue to be a vital economic resource for the entire country. Because of this, and because the future health of our environment depends on good decisions made today, I recommend this legislation to all of my colleagues, and ask for their support in passing it.

The President has announced that military operations to disarm and liberate Iraq have begun. For those of us who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, entering into war is one of the most somber moments we face.

When the President sends our troops to battle, the stakes are unmistakably clear: our courageous troops are preparing to risk everything so that our society can continue to live in freedom. At a time like this, our Nation should come together as one to support our troops in battle, and to support the Commander in Chief.

This military action responds to the growing threat to America and our allies posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Here at home and around the world, we have debated how best to disarm Saddam. After 12 years of diplomacy, and 17 different U.N. resolutions, Saddam remains a serious threat to the peace and stability of the region, and to the safety of Americans and our allies.

I, like most of my colleagues, believed we could not live with this threat to America's security. And so I voted last October to give the President authority to make one final attempt to disarm Saddam through the U.N.--to give diplomacy one last chance to work--and to resort to forcible disarmament if that failed.

Five months after we passed our congressional resolution, and 4 months after the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed resolution 1441, Saddam has still refused to disarm.

Now the President has decided, drawing on the authority granted him by the Constitution, by the Congress, and by a series of U.N. resolutions, to send our troops into battle--to forcibly disarm Iraq, end Saddam's rule of terror, and allow the oppressed Iraqi people to have a better life.

And it is our responsibility, here in America, to come together to show our troops, who are fighting to protect our freedoms, that they have all our support, and that we are praying for a quick and successful campaign.

I had the opportunity to visit our troops last month in Kuwait, Qatar, and Afghanistan, and had the privilege to meet our fine young West Virginians serving there. I am always impressed by the commitment and professionalism of our Armed Forces--the brave enlisted men and women who have dedicated their skills and energy to safeguarding America's vital national interests, the officer crops who have honed the most awesome fighting machine the world has ever seen, and the reservists and national guardsmen who willingly disrupt their civilian lives when their country needs them.

To witness their dedication and skill, and their willingness to risk everything to defend the greater good of our Nation, is to be reminded, just as we learned on that fateful September 11, that heroes still walk among us. The Americans who have volunteered to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces are some of the finest individuals our society produces, and we are all in their debt.

We West Virginians have always been particularly proud that while we are a small State, we contribute a significant share of America's Armed Forces. I have here a list of the West Virginia Reserve and National Guard units that have been called up for service overseas in the past 2 years. I realize I can't read the entire list, but I would like to note that it encompasses 28 units based in West Virginia and nearly 2500 servicemembers, as well as thousands of Active Duty servicemembers who hail from West Virginia. I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record.

A war will always involve risk and uncertainty. That is especially the case when we are dealing with a dangerous dictator like Saddam Hussein, who has used illegal; weapons before, and who knows that in this instance, war will not end until he is removed.

We should never be over-confident, and must go into this knowing that our troops will face real risks. But we can take heart that never, in the history of mankind, have there been Armed Forces better prepared to meet the challenges that come their way.

In skill, in technological sophistication, and in fighting spirit, our troops continue to set new benchmarks the world has never seen. Never in modern history has there been a fighting force so clearly superior to all its competitors.

We now stand at an important threshold in our Nation's history, and our national security. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has altered America's security forever. Before 2001, we believed that we could only be threatened by another superpower--and the demise of the Soviet Union made us think that threats to America's homeland had more or less vanished. On September 11, we learned how wrong we were.

In the coming years, the spread of weapons of mass destruction--to rogue governments, and to terrorist groups in the developing world-- will be America's most important national security challenge. And increasingly, the focus of our diplomacy and defense alliances will shift away from our traditional focus on Europe to respond to these emerging threats from developing countries in Asia, in Africa, and even in Latin America.

Indeed, that is already the case today: besides Iraq, the biggest security threats currently facing America aren't major power rivalries but illegal proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by states such as North Korea and Iran. This threat isn't unique to the United States--but our global leadership role makes us a particularly tempting target for the disaffected and resentful.

We cannot allow foreign terrorist or rogue states to threaten our society

with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorism and proliferation can be stopped, but to do so will require a concerted, sustained strategy, rather than ad hoc, relative efforts.

And it will require broad international support--the kind that helped us win the cold war--rather than working alone, or begin dismissive of our allies because they haven't yet recognized the magnitude of the shared threat.

War is always a tragedy. To put human lives at risk--both military and civilian--can only be considered when all other reasonable options have failed.

And in that regard, the significance of this conflict is not just in disarming Iraq. While that is the primary goal, this mission also demonstrates to the world that the spread of weapons of mass destruction is such a grave threat to our security that we Americans are prepared to use the full force of our militry--our fine and brave men and women in uniform--to stop it.

And we are joined in that understanding by the British, and the Australians, and the poles, and many, many allies around the world.

Perhaps some other countries haven't reached that understanding yet. Or they continue to believe the diplomatic processes developed for a cold war environment must be maintained at all costs. But this new threat must be addressed.

If our troops find chemicals or biological weapons in Iraq--and I am confident they will--it will demonstrate to the skeptics around the world that we were right about the threat, and that we had to take action before these illegal weapons were used. And I hold out great hope that a swift victory in Iraq will pave the way for the U.S. and our allies to come together around a strategy to deal with the spread of weapons of mass destruction elsewhere.

I hope, too, that a swift victory in Iraq will provide an opportunity for the U.S. and our allies to come together to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq. As the President has said, we bear no ill-will to the Iraqi people, only to the brutal and corrupt regime that governs them. The reconstruction of Iraq will be a long, costly complicated task, but a vital one--for it will ensure that Iraqis, now and in the future, will understand that America and its allies have come as liberators, not conquerors.

Those are longer-term concerns, and we will have to attend to them. For now, though, we must focus on the task at hand, which is the prompt, safe and humane execution of the military operation the President has commenced.

I join my fellow West Virginians in telling our troops they have our support, our gratitude, and our prayers. They represent the best of our society, and we know they will perform in a manner that makes us all proud.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Landrieu, Specter, Johnson, and Dayton as cosponsors of the amendment.

This amendment is a simple sense-of-the-Senate amendment. That is all it is. It asks that there be no less than $30 billion over the next 18 months of which half must be for Medicaid to be given to the States for fiscal relief within the stimulus package.

Our States are broke. Quite frankly, the $98 billion that States spend on Medicaid today actually turns into $280 billion of fiscal stimulus. So it is fiscal stimulus. If we don't do this, 1,700,000 more people will lose their Medicaid, lose their health care. They are our most vulnerable citizens. I ask that our colleagues support this amendment offered by Senator Collins, Senator Nelson, and myself.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

There will be, I say to the Senator from North Dakota, three Senators speaking on behalf of the amendment. Forty-five minutes would be an outside number.

Eight, nine minutes.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 275 which is already at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors. Cosponsors already are myself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Smith, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Edwards, and Mrs. Clinton. I ask unanimous consent to add Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Corzine, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. DeWine, and the distinguished Presiding Officer, Mr. Coleman, as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I will not talk long, although this is an extraordinarily important subject particularly affecting the stimulus package and affecting a lot of people in all of our States.

The sense-of-the-Senate amendment which we put before the Senate now--and it is that, a sense of the Senate--we did the same thing this past July in the form of an amendment, and it received some 75 votes. It was very bipartisan. But this is a sense of the Senate. It is not an amendment per se.

What we are wanting to do is to add no less than $30 billion over the next 12 months for the State stimulus relief package that should be included in any stimulus package. In fact, I would argue it makes no sense to do this without including the amendment which will then find its way to the Finance Committee where we will work with it.

It is interesting, in fact, that there are many who say the primary problem for our economy at this particular point is not the impending war with Iraq, but is, in fact, the plight of our State governments and our Federal Government--the deficits and debt, in the case of the Federal Government, and the deficits, in the case of the States. We have to address the State budget shortfalls in order for any growth package to be at all meaningful. It is not as colorful and does not have as much pizzazz, but it affects incredible numbers of people.

States obviously have to balance their budgets. Senator Nelson from Nebraska will be speaking shortly. He was a Governor, as was I. Nearly every State, if not every State, faces deficits. They are likely to grow in the upcoming year. The deficits are now $70 billion to $85 billion projected for 2004. This is on top of the $50 billion in deficits that the States already have for 2003.

This constitutes a real crisis for them. They cannot print money, and they cannot do what we can do in the Senate: simply go into deficit and go on. They have to take action to close the deficit. Herein is the problem that affects the stimulus package, States, and people.

They have to cut programs or they have to increase revenues--neither important--but one of the difficulties and responsibilities of being a Governor is that you have to make those decisions--either raise revenues, cut programs, or you do both, which is why Governors often are not terribly popular at the end of 8 years.

It is about $1 out of every $8 of expenditures in the budget that these deficits represent. So it is a very large amount of money. Some 38 States, three out of four States, either cut spending in 2002, are projecting to cut spending in 2003, or do both. That is, raise revenues and cut spending.

One cannot talk about stimulating the States' economies without talking about Medicaid. Medicaid and Medicare--Medicare which we have just been discussing--between those two programs, which are both located in the same Government agency, it is a substantially greater amount of money than resides in the Department of Defense. People have to understand this, it is an enormous amount of money in Medicaid and Medicare.

Families USA, which is well respected, recently did a study on the economic impact of Medicaid. I am not talking yet about people. This is the economic impact of Medicaid. One of their key findings was that in the year 2001, which was the last year their research could cover, States spent almost $98 billion on Medicaid. But that was not the whole point. The point was that the Medicaid amount that they spent generated a threefold increase in the economic impact on the 50 States to the tune of $279 billion.

I submit that is called fiscal stimulus of a large magnitude, because it gets into goods and services, increased business activities, and I do not think I have to go on. I am very happy to say that West Virginia was among the 10 States with the highest rate of return for every dollar spent on Medicaid. So for the State that this Senator represents, it was very meaningful.

This amendment specifies that no less than one-half of the amount; that is, $30 billion, allotted for State fiscal relief must be devoted to a temporary increase in the Federal medical assistance percentage, or FMAP. That is what we voted on in July of last year. That is what passed 75 to 24--tremendously bipartisan.

This is a similar structure to the legislation that Senator Collins, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and I introduced recently involving $20 billion. It was a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching rate, as well as increasing funding for the Social Security block grant.

As I indicated, the legislation is very bipartisan. It puts money into Medicaid, but it also puts money into the Social Security block grant, which, quite frankly, is very good because in the Finance Committee we have been discussing welfare reform. We all know there is a shortage of childcare. Governors have the discretion to take that money and spend it on local projects or on childcare or however they might wish. Obviously, there are restrictions.

This is strongly supported by providers and by--well, I will not go into that, but it is strongly supported. It did get 75 votes, and the National Governors Association wants this more than anything else the Congress can provide, with the exception of homeland security. This will then go on to the Finance Committee.

The stimulus that Medicaid provides to the States--aside from the stimulus, there are now 1,700,000 people who will lose their Medicaid if we do nothing about this problem, if we do not increase FMAP, the Medicaid match matter. There is nothing they can do about it. They will simply have to cut more people. I say to my colleagues, they should know that States have already cut a million people off of Medicaid.

Up until this point, if we do nothing they will then cut an additional 1.7 million people off Medicaid. When one does that, one understands that there are about 47 million people on Medicaid in this country and they are people

who are vulnerable. It is the second largest item in most States' budgets. It is always, therefore, a target for cuts. It cannot be otherwise, and Governors have to do that.

What I need to say more than anything, and more poignantly hopefully, is that Medicaid is an extraordinary safety net which was set up years ago for our most vulnerable Americans, which includes not only our low- income children and working families but also our disabled and our elderly.

This strikes me as an extraordinarily reasonable amendment. Some may argue that the Federal Government is already spending too much on Medicaid and the States need to do a better job, and I would come back vociferously and say that the States are doing a superb job. In fact, they have done as well or better than the private sector on this matter indeed, as Medicare only spends 2 to 3 percent for overhead costs in the administration of the program, in spite of all the fraud and abuse charges that are thrown at it.

Costs are rising in Medicaid because of prescription drugs and long- term care costs. Those are the two fastest growing items in health care. They both reside in Medicaid at this point. Medicaid has prescription drugs. Medicare does not. And so people seek it out.

In conclusion, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. No less than $30 billion of State fiscal relief should be included in anything which we call a fiscal stimulus or an economic growth package. This is the most important action we could take, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield whatever time she may consume to the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.

I ask the Senator from Maine, in the summary before the vote tomorrow, opponents will no doubt ask what is our source of funding. That is a fair question to ask, and it has a very easy answer, in this case in a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.

Would the Senator from Maine be willing to clear up for our colleagues how we will pay for this?

I thank the Senator and ask if she would further yield?

It would be natural, in the nature of this body, for people to come and say--the Senator referred to this in her remarks-- you are talking about making available $30 billion to the States; we have enough problems of our own at the Federal Government level. I pointed out in my remarks the recession we are in right now is more a matter, not of war that we are in, but the State situation and the Federal Government situation.

So people would say just let the States go ahead and pay for this. If they have to make cuts, they have to make cuts. It is their fault they are in this kind of situation.

I was wondering how the Senator would reply to that.

If the Senator will further yield, she leads directly to the question I wanted to ask her. That is, that there are many who have not worked in the bowels of State government, so to speak, who think Medicaid is sort of a gift from the Federal Government to the States. They do not understand that there is a very complex formula wherein all the States have to contribute, the formula is based upon their prosperity, and things of that sort.

So the concept that this is somehow the Federal Government turning over money to the States and there is no cost to them doesn't make any sense, does it?

I thank the Senator from Maine.

How much time, might I ask the Senator, does he require?

The Senator is welcome to that.

Mr. President, I want to talk about the debate in the Senate this week regarding late-term abortion. I am a strong opponent of late-term abortions, and I know many Americans find them as deeply troubling as I do.

As I have done in the past, I voted this week to support a comprehensive ban on late-term abortions. The comprehensive ban I supported--offered as an amendment by Senator Durbin would have put an end to all late-term post-viability abortions, unlike Senator Santorum's proposal, including but not limited to those performed using the procedure known as ``partial birth.'' The Durbin ban also would have included a very narrow exception for the rare case when a woman's life or health is threatened by a troubled pregnancy, as required by the United States Supreme Court and the Constitution.

I want to end unnecessary late-term abortions, and I also agree with the Supreme Court that it is not right for a woman who faces grievous injury, or even death, to have no protection under the law. In those rare cases of a serious threat to a woman's life or health, the Durbin amendment would have allowed the woman, her family and no less than two physicians to pursue the best medical options. Except in an emergency, the two physicians--to include her attending physician and an independent non-treating physician--would have been required to certify in writing that in their medical judgment continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health. Grievous injury was carefully defined as a severely debilitating disease or impairment specifically caused or exacerbated by the pregnancy, or an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life-threatening condition.

I want to emphasize that if we are serious about ending the practice of late-term abortions then we must pass a law that will be upheld by our courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has been quite clear that to be deemed constitutional, any law banning late-term abortions must be narrowly focused and must include an exception for the health of the mother. Several previous bans ignored these tests and were struck down, and consequently there has been no end to this troubling practice. Senator Santorum's bill does not adequately meet the Court's requirements for constitutionality and will almost surely meet the same fate.

The Durbin amendment, on the other hand, was a clear and comprehensive ban that does comply with the constitutionality tests set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. It would have ended the practice of late-term abortions, with a narrow exception for protecting a woman from grievous injury to her life or health. In those rare and extraordinarily difficult situations, the Durbin amendment would have ensured that a woman--not by the dictates of the Congress, but with the private counsel of her family, her doctors, and her clergy--makes the final decision.

I deeply regret that a majority of my Senate colleagues did not recognize the Durbin amendment was a more effective ban than Senator Santorum's proposal. I continue to hope that in the end we will find a way to enact a comprehensive ban on late-term abortions that meets the demands of the U.S. Supreme Court and Constitution by protecting the life and physical health of the mother in extreme situations.

Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to introduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003. Congressman Stark is introducing a companion bill in the House.

This legislation is, without a doubt, ambitious. It is a deliberate effort to try to ignite a national commitment to the goal of insuring all of our children. For some, that is an idealistic proposition that does not seem achievable. With this bill, I want to call on the public and my colleagues to consider once again the clear and convincing case for investing the necessary resources in the health of our children-- and therefore, in the well-being of their families and our entire country. The President and Congress continue to talk about their commitment to America's health. This bill challenges them to take action on their rhetoric.

Our children are not only our future, they are also our present. What we do for them today will greatly affect what happens tomorrow. Yet even though we recognize these facts, we still have not found a way to guarantee health coverage for children. Without health insurance, many of these children go without health care all together.

Children are the least expensive segment of our population to insure. They are also the least able to have control over whether or not they have health insurance. Yet we now have over 9 million uninsured children in this country. And with the downturn in the economy and the rising costs of health care, this number will continue rising.

Our success in expanding Medicaid and passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program was a meaningful, significant start at closing the tragic gap represented by millions of uninsured children. However, Congress cannot point to these programs and declare that our work is done. We still have much more to do. The percent of children in low- income families without health insurance has not changed in recent years. Even with perfect enrollment in S-CHIP and Medicaid, there would still be a great number of children without health insurance.

This is partially due to our increasingly mobile society, where parents frequently change jobs and families often move from State to State. When this occurs there is often a lapse in health coverage. Also, families working their way out of welfare fluctuate between eligibility and ineligibility for means-tested assistance programs. Another reason for the number of uninsured children is that the cost of health insurance continues to increase, leaving many working parents unable to afford coverage for themselves or their families. All of this adds up to the fact that many of our children do not have the consistent and regular access to health care which they need to grow up healthy.

That is why I am re-introducing the MediKids Health Insurance Act. This bill would automatically enroll every child at birth into a new, comprehensive Federal safety net health insurance program beginning in 2004. The benefits would be tailored to the needs of children and would be similar to those currently available to children under Medicaid. A small monthly premium would be collected from parents at tax filing, with discounts to low-income families phasing out at 300 percent of poverty. The children would remain enrolled in MediKids throughout childhood. When they are covered by another health insurance program, their parents would be exempt from the premium. The key to our program is that whenever other sources of health insurance fail, MediKids would stand ready to cover the health needs of our next generation. By the year 2020, every child in America would be able to grow up with consistent, continuous health insurance coverage.

Like Medicare, MediKids would be independently financed, would cover benefits tailored to the needs of its target population, and would have the goal of achieving nearly 100 percent health insurance coverage for the children of this country--just as Medicare has done for our Nation's seniors and disabled population. It's time we make this investment in the future of America by guaranteeing all children the health coverage they need to make a healthy start in life.

The MediKids Health Insurance Act would offer guaranteed, automatic health coverage for every child with the simplest of enrollment procedures and no challenging outreach, paperwork, or re-determination hoops to jump through. It would be able to follow children across state lines, or tide them over in a new location until their parents can enroll them in a new insurance program. Between jobs or during family crises such as divorce or the death of a parent, it would offer extra security and ensure continuous health coverage to the Nation's children. During that critical period when a family is just climbing out of poverty and out of the eligibility range for means-tested assistance programs, it would provide an extra boost with health insurance for the children until the parents can move into jobs that provide reliable health insurance coverage. And every child would automatically be enrolled upon birth, along with the issuance of the birth certificate or immigration card.

As we all know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Providing health care coverage to children affects much more than their health--it affects their ability to learn, their ability to thrive, and their ability to become a productive member of society. I look forward to working with my colleagues and supporting organizations for the passage of the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003 to guarantee every child in America the health coverage they need to grow up healthy.

I stand before you today to deliver a message. That it is time to rekindle the discussion about how we are going to provide health insurance for all Americans. The bill I am introducing today--the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003--is a step toward eliminating the irrational and tragic lack of health insurance for so many children and adults in our country.

Partial solutions to America's ``uninsured crisis'' lie before Congress, and I recognize the sense of realism and care that are the basis for proposing incremental steps towards universal coverage. As someone involved in the tough battles in years past to achieve universal coverage, I will continue to do all I can to make whatever progress can be made each and every year.

But I also believe it is important to not lose sight of the ideal-- and our capacity to reach that ideal--of the United States of America joining every other industrialized nation by ensuring that its citizens have basic health insurance. Until we succeed, millions of children and adults will suffer human and financial costs that are preventable.

Therefore, I offer this legislation to both enlist my colleagues in an effort to insist that all of our Nation's children are insured as quickly as possible and to lay out the steps that would achieve that goal. Some may say that we cannot afford this level of commitment to America's children in a time of war and economic downturn. I strongly disagree. We can fully fund MediKids with the more than $388 billion the President's budget proposes to spend on the dividend tax cut. I believe that choice is clear between providing 100 percent of our children with health care coverage and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of people in our country. I hope this bill will help to build the will and momentum so desperately needed by our children for action that will change their lives and

strengthen our Nation. I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join as co-sponsors.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to introduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003. Congressman Stark is introducing a companion bill in the House.

This legislation is, without a doubt, ambitious. It is a deliberate effort to try to ignite a national commitment to the goal of insuring all of our children. For some, that is an idealistic proposition that does not seem achievable. With this bill, I want to call on the public and my colleagues to consider once again the clear and convincing case for investing the necessary resources in the health of our children-- and therefore, in the well-being of their families and our entire country. The President and Congress continue to talk about their commitment to America's health. This bill challenges them to take action on their rhetoric.

Our children are not only our future, they are also our present. What we do for them today will greatly affect what happens tomorrow. Yet even though we recognize these facts, we still have not found a way to guarantee health coverage for children. Without health insurance, many of these children go without health care all together.

Children are the least expensive segment of our population to insure. They are also the least able to have control over whether or not they have health insurance. Yet we now have over 9 million uninsured children in this country. And with the downturn in the economy and the rising costs of health care, this number will continue rising.

Our success in expanding Medicaid and passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program was a meaningful, significant start at closing the tragic gap represented by millions of uninsured children. However, Congress cannot point to these programs and declare that our work is done. We still have much more to do. The percent of children in low- income families without health insurance has not changed in recent years. Even with perfect enrollment in S-CHIP and Medicaid, there would still be a great number of children without health insurance.

This is partially due to our increasingly mobile society, where parents frequently change jobs and families often move from State to State. When this occurs there is often a lapse in health coverage. Also, families working their way out of welfare fluctuate between eligibility and ineligibility for means-tested assistance programs. Another reason for the number of uninsured children is that the cost of health insurance continues to increase, leaving many working parents unable to afford coverage for themselves or their families. All of this adds up to the fact that many of our children do not have the consistent and regular access to health care which they need to grow up healthy.

That is why I am re-introducing the MediKids Health Insurance Act. This bill would automatically enroll every child at birth into a new, comprehensive Federal safety net health insurance program beginning in 2004. The benefits would be tailored to the needs of children and would be similar to those currently available to children under Medicaid. A small monthly premium would be collected from parents at tax filing, with discounts to low-income families phasing out at 300 percent of poverty. The children would remain enrolled in MediKids throughout childhood. When they are covered by another health insurance program, their parents would be exempt from the premium. The key to our program is that whenever other sources of health insurance fail, MediKids would stand ready to cover the health needs of our next generation. By the year 2020, every child in America would be able to grow up with consistent, continuous health insurance coverage.

Like Medicare, MediKids would be independently financed, would cover benefits tailored to the needs of its target population, and would have the goal of achieving nearly 100 percent health insurance coverage for the children of this country--just as Medicare has done for our Nation's seniors and disabled population. It's time we make this investment in the future of America by guaranteeing all children the health coverage they need to make a healthy start in life.

The MediKids Health Insurance Act would offer guaranteed, automatic health coverage for every child with the simplest of enrollment procedures and no challenging outreach, paperwork, or re-determination hoops to jump through. It would be able to follow children across state lines, or tide them over in a new location until their parents can enroll them in a new insurance program. Between jobs or during family crises such as divorce or the death of a parent, it would offer extra security and ensure continuous health coverage to the Nation's children. During that critical period when a family is just climbing out of poverty and out of the eligibility range for means-tested assistance programs, it would provide an extra boost with health insurance for the children until the parents can move into jobs that provide reliable health insurance coverage. And every child would automatically be enrolled upon birth, along with the issuance of the birth certificate or immigration card.

As we all know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Providing health care coverage to children affects much more than their health--it affects their ability to learn, their ability to thrive, and their ability to become a productive member of society. I look forward to working with my colleagues and supporting organizations for the passage of the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003 to guarantee every child in America the health coverage they need to grow up healthy.

I stand before you today to deliver a message. That it is time to rekindle the discussion about how we are going to provide health insurance for all Americans. The bill I am introducing today--the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003--is a step toward eliminating the irrational and tragic lack of health insurance for so many children and adults in our country.

Partial solutions to America's ``uninsured crisis'' lie before Congress, and I recognize the sense of realism and care that are the basis for proposing incremental steps towards universal coverage. As someone involved in the tough battles in years past to achieve universal coverage, I will continue to do all I can to make whatever progress can be made each and every year.

But I also believe it is important to not lose sight of the ideal-- and our capacity to reach that ideal--of the United States of America joining every other industrialized nation by ensuring that its citizens have basic health insurance. Until we succeed, millions of children and adults will suffer human and financial costs that are preventable.

Therefore, I offer this legislation to both enlist my colleagues in an effort to insist that all of our Nation's children are insured as quickly as possible and to lay out the steps that would achieve that goal. Some may say that we cannot afford this level of commitment to America's children in a time of war and economic downturn. I strongly disagree. We can fully fund MediKids with the more than $388 billion the President's budget proposes to spend on the dividend tax cut. I believe that choice is clear between providing 100 percent of our children with health care coverage and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of people in our country. I hope this bill will help to build the will and momentum so desperately needed by our children for action that will change their lives and

strengthen our Nation. I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join as co-sponsors.

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

Mr. President, as a senior member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to reintroduce legislation today intended to strengthen mental health programs within the Department of Veterans Affairs a key element of caring for those who have served on the battlefield.

Historically, as many as one-third of all veterans seeking care at VA have received mental health treatment, and research suggests that serious mental illnesses affect at least one-fifth of the veterans who use the VA health care system. About 450,000 of the approximately 2.3 million veterans who receive compensation from VA have service- connected psychiatric and neurological disorders.

I remain concerned about the viability of some of the programs developed to care for veterans with mental health needs. I have heard testimony about a number of these programs endangered by budget constraints and a shift in focus from inpatient care to outpatient clinics. Specialized programs particularly for substance use disorders and PTSD shut down, reduced in size, or understaffed--offering little or no care to veterans suffering from these seriously debilitating disorders.

Congress previously enacted a provision to designate $15 million in VA funding specifically to assist medical facilities in their efforts to improve care for veterans with substance use disorders and PTSD. This additional funding has enabled VA to develop better outpatient substance abuse and PTSD treatment programs, outpatient dual-diagnosis programs, more PTSD community clinical teams, and more residential substance abuse disorder rehabilitation programs.

The funds for these mental health programs, mandated by the Millennium Benefits and Health Care Act of 1999, will soon revert to a general fund. The bill I am introducing today ensures that this funding will remain ``protected'' for three more years and increases the total amount of funding identified specifically for treatment of substance use disorders and PTSD from $15 million to $25 million.

Another provision of the legislation I am introducing today concerns VA's Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Centers, called ``MIRECCs. In 1996, Congress authorized VA to establish five of these centers dedicated to mental illness research, education, and clinical activities. This provision will allow VA to establish up to ten more MIRECCs to study and treat mental illnesses. MIRECCs have encouraged research, given VA caregivers more and better tools to treat patients with mental disorders, and increased our fundamental understanding of mental illnesses. Much more can be done in this area if the program is expanded.

Another critical area of VA care involves counseling and treatment for veterans who were victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault during active military service. In 1992, Congress authorized VA to provide counseling to women who experienced sexual trauma during active military service. Two years later, recognizing that sexual trauma is not limited to women, Congress expanded VA's mandate to offer counseling and treatment regardless of gender. The Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999 broadened VA's responsibilities toward victims of sexual trauma even further, strengthening outreach efforts and extending the programs through December 2004. The legislation I am reintroducing today would provide permanent authority to VA for counseling and treatment of veterans who have experienced military sexual trauma, so that veterans and health care professionals can depend upon these critical services.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the expansion of these enormously important mental health programs with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We owe our service men and women no less.

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

Mr. President, as a senior member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to reintroduce legislation today intended to strengthen mental health programs within the Department of Veterans Affairs a key element of caring for those who have served on the battlefield.

Historically, as many as one-third of all veterans seeking care at VA have received mental health treatment, and research suggests that serious mental illnesses affect at least one-fifth of the veterans who use the VA health care system. About 450,000 of the approximately 2.3 million veterans who receive compensation from VA have service- connected psychiatric and neurological disorders.

I remain concerned about the viability of some of the programs developed to care for veterans with mental health needs. I have heard testimony about a number of these programs endangered by budget constraints and a shift in focus from inpatient care to outpatient clinics. Specialized programs particularly for substance use disorders and PTSD shut down, reduced in size, or understaffed--offering little or no care to veterans suffering from these seriously debilitating disorders.

Congress previously enacted a provision to designate $15 million in VA funding specifically to assist medical facilities in their efforts to improve care for veterans with substance use disorders and PTSD. This additional funding has enabled VA to develop better outpatient substance abuse and PTSD treatment programs, outpatient dual-diagnosis programs, more PTSD community clinical teams, and more residential substance abuse disorder rehabilitation programs.

The funds for these mental health programs, mandated by the Millennium Benefits and Health Care Act of 1999, will soon revert to a general fund. The bill I am introducing today ensures that this funding will remain ``protected'' for three more years and increases the total amount of funding identified specifically for treatment of substance use disorders and PTSD from $15 million to $25 million.

Another provision of the legislation I am introducing today concerns VA's Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Centers, called ``MIRECCs. In 1996, Congress authorized VA to establish five of these centers dedicated to mental illness research, education, and clinical activities. This provision will allow VA to establish up to ten more MIRECCs to study and treat mental illnesses. MIRECCs have encouraged research, given VA caregivers more and better tools to treat patients with mental disorders, and increased our fundamental understanding of mental illnesses. Much more can be done in this area if the program is expanded.

Another critical area of VA care involves counseling and treatment for veterans who were victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault during active military service. In 1992, Congress authorized VA to provide counseling to women who experienced sexual trauma during active military service. Two years later, recognizing that sexual trauma is not limited to women, Congress expanded VA's mandate to offer counseling and treatment regardless of gender. The Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999 broadened VA's responsibilities toward victims of sexual trauma even further, strengthening outreach efforts and extending the programs through December 2004. The legislation I am reintroducing today would provide permanent authority to VA for counseling and treatment of veterans who have experienced military sexual trauma, so that veterans and health care professionals can depend upon these critical services.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the expansion of these enormously important mental health programs with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We owe our service men and women no less.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to re-introduce a bill that reauthorizes the landmark welfare reform legislation passed in 1996. It is basically the same bill as I introduced in the last Congress and it is designed to allow States to continue the important work to promote work and personal responsibility. This reauthorization bill is designed to allow States to continue to provide the flexible initiatives that have reduced national welfare caseloads by over 50 percent and moved millions of Americans from welfare to work.

Welfare reform was a bold experiment to dramatically change a major social program. In 1996, Congress ended the entitlement of eligible families with children to cash aid. The results five years later are impressive. Over two-thirds of the people who are leaving the welfare rolls have left for work.

Seven years ago, we agreed that the bipartisan goal of welfare reform should be to promote work and to protect children. We stood here together,

on unchartered ground, and endorsed significant policy changes that we believed would help families gain independence and economic self- sufficiency, while protecting the children. States began to revise welfare service delivery with guidance based on the new reforms. Each State designed and implemented programs that were unique and specific to their populations. While the results have been mixed, I believe that encouraging progress has been made. The challenge this year will be to continue to build on our foundation, and be sensitive to the current economic situation and the fiscal crisis States face today.

When we started welfare reform, we had a strong economy. Now, States are struggling and most of their reserves are gone. I believe we can continue the progress of welfare reform, but I strongly believe we must provide the key investments that help welfare parents make a successful transition from welfare to work, including increasing child care funding.

In West Virginia, welfare reform has brought bold changes. Parents on welfare get extra support as they face new responsibilities and obligations to make the transition from welfare to jobs. In 2001, I hosted a roundtable discussion to meet with individual West Virginians who were undergoing major life transitions. They told me that they were proud to be working, but that it was often still a struggle to make ends meet and do the best for their children. The goal of this legislation is to help those parents, and millions more, to promote the well-being of their children, even as they work.

Today, I am introducing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Amendments of 2003. States need help to continue making progress. We should continue to build on this foundation, and not reduce state flexibility. It is essential that we continue welfare reform, not unravel it, or restructure it.

This bill acknowledges that we must keep the focus on work, by both requiring and rewarding work. To ensure a real focus on helping parents leave welfare rolls for a job, this legislation gradually replaces the caseload reduction credit with an employment credit, designed by Senator Lincoln of Arkansas and Congressman Levin of Michigan. Under this important provision, States will only get a bonus toward their work participation requirement if parents move from welfare to a job. This credit will acknowledge the dignity of all work by providing a bonus for parents who get jobs, both full and part-time. A mother who has never worked in her life and then gets a part-time job has achieved a true accomplishment, and that deserves recognition. It is also the first step toward independence. It is an empowering approach to promoting work and sends the proper message to families who are striving to become self sufficient. I am pleased to incorporate their proposal into my bill, and I look forward to working with them closely throughout the welfare debates during this Congress to develop an employment credit that truly rewards work.

At this point, with a soft economy, I believe it is unwise to significantly change State TANF programs to impose drastically higher work participation rates requiring 40 hours per week of work and activities. Such changes, as suggested by the Administration, would double the work requirement for mothers with children under the age of 6, and that does not seem right. Increasing work requirement without new funding for child care, transportation, and job placement activities would be, plain and simple, an unfunded mandate. It could hinder state efforts to move parents into private sector jobs. It could undermine our progress.

State officials have testified before the Finance Committee that such changes would force states to restructure existing programs that are working and turn their focus away from those who need some assistance with child care or transportation, but are no longer dependent on a welfare check. We should not cut back on necessary child care and work supports for working families who are following the rules we set in 1996.

This comprehensive welfare reform bill makes the right investments. It invests $5.5 billion more in child care, which is the amount supported by the Finance Committee in a bipartisan vote last June.

This bill also increases funding for the basic TANF block grant by $2.5 billion because of state need. It provides full funding for the Social Services at $2.8 billion, which was promised to the states in 1996. My bill also would expand and increase the supplemental grants to help the states with high growth and high poverty deal with the challenges of welfare reform. With these new investments, states will be able to increase investment in the fundamental work supports like child care, transportation, and training, that help a parent succeed in moving from welfare to work. States would have flexibility in allocating the new resources, but I believe much of the funding can and will be directed into child care, which is a major priority.

This bill would continue the transitional Medicaid program so families can keep health care coverage for a year as they move from welfare to work. In 1996, I was proud to work with Senator Breaux and the late Senator John Chafee to protect access to health care for such vulnerable families. I have incorporated Senator Breaux's bipartisan bill to continue transitional Medicaid coverage, and I appreciate his leadership on this and other key issues. Our bill also gives states more flexibility and options to place parents in vocational training and English as a Second Language programs, so parents can get real jobs. In recognition of Maine's success with the Parents as Scholar program, States have the option to follow the Maine model for 5 percent of their caseload to combine work and education.

The bill also invests $200 million to create BusinessLink Grants, competitive grants to support public and private partnerships to help parents get jobs. The Welfare-to-Work Partnership is just one example of how nonprofits working with business leaders can make a real difference. The Partnership includes over 20,000 businesses that have provided more than 1 million jobs to parents moving from welfare to work. I have met with the board members of this group, and we should encourage such partnerships. I know that other groups, like the Salvation Army and Good Will, are doing important work on providing transitional job opportunities, and these organizations would be eligible for grants as well.

A job is the first step, but for welfare parents to make a successful transition to independence, they need a range of supports. To achieve this goal, the bill will create Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Grants to improve the support network for parents. These grants are intended to provide incentives and support to TANF caseworkers and nonprofit organizations to help improve the comprehensive network of supports for working families, including Medicaid, CHIP, child care, EITC, and a range of services. Working mothers deserve to know what type of support will be available so that they do not slip back into welfare.

Work is fundamental, but we also need to be concerned about important aspects of the lives of families and children. This legislation creates a Family Formation Fund to encourage healthy families, reduce teenage pregnancy, and improve child support and participation of parents in children's lives. The bill seeks to end certain discrimination and harsh rules for two-parent families in the current system. If our goal is to support marriage, we should not penalize married couples.

Our legislation also makes a simple, but important change. Under the current TANF program, each welfare parent has an Individual Responsibility Plan that serves as an assessment and work plan. In addition to having a responsibility to work, parents have a responsibility to protect their children's well-being. To emphasize this fundamental point, this bill adds language directing states to incorporate the concept of a child's well-being into each parent's Individual Responsibility Plan. States have great flexibility, but it is important to send a clear message that one of a parent's responsibilities is the well-being of their children.

This legislation builds on the foundation of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. My hope is that this framework will help promote bipartisan discussion about how we can make even more improvements in our welfare system,

while maintaining our partnership with the States, particularly at this time of severe fiscal problems in our States.