Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism, COAST, Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic coast.

The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious threats not to our environment, but to our economy, which depends heavily on tourism along our shore.

Until the Bush Administration came into office, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even a remote

possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been included annually in Interior Appropriations acts. In addition, President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS areas on June 26, 1990 under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas.

Given the long-standing consensus against drilling in these areas, I was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North- Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' I believe that the RFP was not only inappropriate, but probably illegal, and I was pleased when at my urging, the Administration rescinded.

But the Administration is at it again in the energy bill now before the Senate. The bill contains provisions that direct the Department of Interior to inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. The bill would allow the use of seismic surveys, dart core sampling, and other exploration technologies, which could negatively impact coastal and marine areas.

These provisions run directly counter to language that Congress has included annually in appropriations bills to prevent leasing, pre- leasing, and related activities in most areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off the New Jersey coast.

In my view, it is time for Congress to act to resolve this question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti-Drilling Act. This bill would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Doing so would ensure the people of New Jersey and neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off their beaches. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to change the way the Veterans' Administration defines low-income veterans by taking into account variations in the cost of living in different parts of the country. The Corzine-Clinton legislation would make the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation just that: Equitable.

More specifically, this bill would replace the national income threshold for consideration in Priority Group 5--currently $24,000 for all parts of the country--with regional thresholds defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This simple but far- reaching proposal would help low-income veterans across the country afford quality health care and ensure that Veterans Integrated Service Networks or VISNs receive adequate funding to care for their distinct veteran populations.

Our Nation's veterans have made great sacrifics in defense of American freedom and values, and we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. The United States Congress must ensure that all American veterans--veterans who have sweated in the trenches to defend liberty-- have access to quality health care.

In 1997, Congress implemented the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system, or VERA, to distribute medical care funding provided by the VA. The funding formula was established to better take into account the costs associated with various veteran populations. Unfortunately, the VERA formula that was created fails to take into account regional differences in the cost of living, a significant metric in determining veteran healthcare costs. This oversight in the VERA formula dangerously shortchanges veterans living in regions with high costs of living and elevated healthcare expenses.

To allocate money to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks, VISNs, VERA divides veterans into eight priority groups. Veterans who have no service-connected disability and whose incomes fall below $24,000 are considered low income and placed in Priority Group 5, while veterans whose incomes exceed this national threshold and qualify for no other special priorities are placed in either Priority Group 7c or Priority Group 8. VERA only reimburses the treating Medical Care facility for the care that they provided to veterans in priority groups 1-5 and does not provide any Federal reimbursement for the care provided to priority group 7 and 8 veterans.

Using a national threshold for determining eligibility as a low- income veteran puts veterans living in high cost areas at a decided disadvantage. In New Jersey, HUD's fiscal year 2002 standards for classification as ``low-income'' exceed $24,000 per year in every single county. And some areas exceed the VA baseline by more than 50 percent. Similarly, HUD's ``low-income'' classification for New York City is set at $35,150, and for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, at $40,150.

As a result, regions that have a high cost of living, like VISN 3, which encompasses substantial portions of New Jersey and New York, tend to have a reduced population of Priority Group 5 veterans and an inflated population of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans.

The fundamental inequity of the VERA formula is apparent when you consider the VERA allocations do not take into account the number of veterans classified in Priority Groups 7c and 8. Because of the costs associated with these Priority Groups 7c and 8 veterans are not considered as part of the VERA allocation, and because high cost of living areas have large populations of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans, high cost regions must provide care to thousands of veterans without adequate funding.

This additional financial burden on VISNs with large populations of non-reimbursable veterans in Priority Group 7c and 8 has had a tremendous impact on VISN 3. Since FY 1996, VISN 3 has experienced a decline in revenue of 10 percent. As a result of the tremendous shortfall in the VISN 3 budget, the VA cannot move forward with plans to open clinics in various locations, including prospective clinics in Monmouth and Passaic Counties. Consequently, veterans in VISN 3 are forced to wait for unreasonably long periods to receive medical care and travel long distances to existing clinics, and those veterans who are able to access care are being treated in facilities operating under tremendous financial difficulty.

Furthermore, miscategorizing which vets quality as Priority Group 5 unjustifiably reduces access to medical care for thousands of veterans. Under existing rules, veterans placed in Priority and Groups 7c and 8 must provide a copayment to receive medical care at a VA medical facility; Veterans placed in Priority Group 5 receive medical care free of charge. Under the existing

framework, low-income vets in high cost areas are often inappropriately placed in Priority Groups 7c and 8, and are forced to provide a copayment.

Recent studies by both the RAND Institute and the General Accounting Office identify this flaw in the VERA formula and recommend a geographic means test like the one provided in our legislation to improve the allocation of resources under VERA. Such a test would ensure that the VERA formula allocation better reflects the true costs of VA healthcare in the various VISNs in the United States.

Our legislation would make a simple adjustment to the VERA formula to account for variations in the cost of living in different regions. The bill would help veterans in high cost areas afford VA health care and guarantee that VISNs across the country receive adequate compensation for the care they provide.

I hope my colleagues will join Senator Clinton and me in supporting this important bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism, COAST, Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic coast.

The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious threats not to our environment, but to our economy, which depends heavily on tourism along our shore.

Until the Bush Administration came into office, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even a remote

possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been included annually in Interior Appropriations acts. In addition, President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS areas on June 26, 1990 under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas.

Given the long-standing consensus against drilling in these areas, I was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North- Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' I believe that the RFP was not only inappropriate, but probably illegal, and I was pleased when at my urging, the Administration rescinded.

But the Administration is at it again in the energy bill now before the Senate. The bill contains provisions that direct the Department of Interior to inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. The bill would allow the use of seismic surveys, dart core sampling, and other exploration technologies, which could negatively impact coastal and marine areas.

These provisions run directly counter to language that Congress has included annually in appropriations bills to prevent leasing, pre- leasing, and related activities in most areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off the New Jersey coast.

In my view, it is time for Congress to act to resolve this question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti-Drilling Act. This bill would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Doing so would ensure the people of New Jersey and neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off their beaches. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to change the way the Veterans' Administration defines low-income veterans by taking into account variations in the cost of living in different parts of the country. The Corzine-Clinton legislation would make the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation just that: Equitable.

More specifically, this bill would replace the national income threshold for consideration in Priority Group 5--currently $24,000 for all parts of the country--with regional thresholds defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This simple but far- reaching proposal would help low-income veterans across the country afford quality health care and ensure that Veterans Integrated Service Networks or VISNs receive adequate funding to care for their distinct veteran populations.

Our Nation's veterans have made great sacrifics in defense of American freedom and values, and we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. The United States Congress must ensure that all American veterans--veterans who have sweated in the trenches to defend liberty-- have access to quality health care.

In 1997, Congress implemented the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system, or VERA, to distribute medical care funding provided by the VA. The funding formula was established to better take into account the costs associated with various veteran populations. Unfortunately, the VERA formula that was created fails to take into account regional differences in the cost of living, a significant metric in determining veteran healthcare costs. This oversight in the VERA formula dangerously shortchanges veterans living in regions with high costs of living and elevated healthcare expenses.

To allocate money to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks, VISNs, VERA divides veterans into eight priority groups. Veterans who have no service-connected disability and whose incomes fall below $24,000 are considered low income and placed in Priority Group 5, while veterans whose incomes exceed this national threshold and qualify for no other special priorities are placed in either Priority Group 7c or Priority Group 8. VERA only reimburses the treating Medical Care facility for the care that they provided to veterans in priority groups 1-5 and does not provide any Federal reimbursement for the care provided to priority group 7 and 8 veterans.

Using a national threshold for determining eligibility as a low- income veteran puts veterans living in high cost areas at a decided disadvantage. In New Jersey, HUD's fiscal year 2002 standards for classification as ``low-income'' exceed $24,000 per year in every single county. And some areas exceed the VA baseline by more than 50 percent. Similarly, HUD's ``low-income'' classification for New York City is set at $35,150, and for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, at $40,150.

As a result, regions that have a high cost of living, like VISN 3, which encompasses substantial portions of New Jersey and New York, tend to have a reduced population of Priority Group 5 veterans and an inflated population of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans.

The fundamental inequity of the VERA formula is apparent when you consider the VERA allocations do not take into account the number of veterans classified in Priority Groups 7c and 8. Because of the costs associated with these Priority Groups 7c and 8 veterans are not considered as part of the VERA allocation, and because high cost of living areas have large populations of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans, high cost regions must provide care to thousands of veterans without adequate funding.

This additional financial burden on VISNs with large populations of non-reimbursable veterans in Priority Group 7c and 8 has had a tremendous impact on VISN 3. Since FY 1996, VISN 3 has experienced a decline in revenue of 10 percent. As a result of the tremendous shortfall in the VISN 3 budget, the VA cannot move forward with plans to open clinics in various locations, including prospective clinics in Monmouth and Passaic Counties. Consequently, veterans in VISN 3 are forced to wait for unreasonably long periods to receive medical care and travel long distances to existing clinics, and those veterans who are able to access care are being treated in facilities operating under tremendous financial difficulty.

Furthermore, miscategorizing which vets quality as Priority Group 5 unjustifiably reduces access to medical care for thousands of veterans. Under existing rules, veterans placed in Priority and Groups 7c and 8 must provide a copayment to receive medical care at a VA medical facility; Veterans placed in Priority Group 5 receive medical care free of charge. Under the existing

framework, low-income vets in high cost areas are often inappropriately placed in Priority Groups 7c and 8, and are forced to provide a copayment.

Recent studies by both the RAND Institute and the General Accounting Office identify this flaw in the VERA formula and recommend a geographic means test like the one provided in our legislation to improve the allocation of resources under VERA. Such a test would ensure that the VERA formula allocation better reflects the true costs of VA healthcare in the various VISNs in the United States.

Our legislation would make a simple adjustment to the VERA formula to account for variations in the cost of living in different regions. The bill would help veterans in high cost areas afford VA health care and guarantee that VISNs across the country receive adequate compensation for the care they provide.

I hope my colleagues will join Senator Clinton and me in supporting this important bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today along with Senators Lautenberg, Specter, Schumer, Dodd, Clinton and Lieberman, I am introducing the Highlands Stewardship Act. I am proud to be joining Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen and other colleagues from the New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut congressional delegations, who are introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives.

This legislation would help to preserve one of the last open space treasures in this country, the Highlands forest region that stretches from northwestern Connecticut, across the lower Hudson River valley in New York, through my State of New Jersey and into east-central Pennsylvania. This region encompasses more than 2 million acres of forests, farms, streams, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs and historic sites. It includes the Green, Taconic and Notre Dame Mountains. It also includes such historic sites as Morristown National Historic Park and West Point.

The value of the ecological, recreational and scenic resources of the Highlands cannot be overstated. One hundred seventy million gallons are drawn from the Highlands aquifers daily, providing quality drinking water for over 11 million people. Two hundred forty seven threatened or endangered species live in the Highlands including the timber rattlesnake, wood turtle, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, great blue heron and eastern wood rat. There also are many fishing, hiking and boating recreation opportunities in the Highlands that are used by many of the 1 in 12 Americans who live within 2 hours of travel of the Highlands.

Unfortunately, much of Highlands is quickly vanishing. According to the most recent study issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, we have lost over 3,000 acres of forest and 1,600 acres of farmland in New York and New Jersey sections of the Highlands annually to development between 1995 and 2000.

This legislation would designate a Stewardship Area amongst the four States in order to protect the most important Highlands projects. It would create a source of funding for conservation and preservation projects in the Highlands to preserve and protect the open space that remains. Two million dollars a year for 10 years would be provided for conservation assistance projects in the four Highlands States. This funding could be used for items such as smart growth initiatives and cultural preservation projects. Twenty-five million dollars a year over 10 years

also would be provided for open space preservation projects in the four Highlands states. The source of this funding would be the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

I am proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that we protect this resource, which is so critical to our quality of life, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today along with Senators Lautenberg, Specter, Schumer, Dodd, Clinton and Lieberman, I am introducing the Highlands Stewardship Act. I am proud to be joining Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen and other colleagues from the New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut congressional delegations, who are introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives.

This legislation would help to preserve one of the last open space treasures in this country, the Highlands forest region that stretches from northwestern Connecticut, across the lower Hudson River valley in New York, through my State of New Jersey and into east-central Pennsylvania. This region encompasses more than 2 million acres of forests, farms, streams, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs and historic sites. It includes the Green, Taconic and Notre Dame Mountains. It also includes such historic sites as Morristown National Historic Park and West Point.

The value of the ecological, recreational and scenic resources of the Highlands cannot be overstated. One hundred seventy million gallons are drawn from the Highlands aquifers daily, providing quality drinking water for over 11 million people. Two hundred forty seven threatened or endangered species live in the Highlands including the timber rattlesnake, wood turtle, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, great blue heron and eastern wood rat. There also are many fishing, hiking and boating recreation opportunities in the Highlands that are used by many of the 1 in 12 Americans who live within 2 hours of travel of the Highlands.

Unfortunately, much of Highlands is quickly vanishing. According to the most recent study issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, we have lost over 3,000 acres of forest and 1,600 acres of farmland in New York and New Jersey sections of the Highlands annually to development between 1995 and 2000.

This legislation would designate a Stewardship Area amongst the four States in order to protect the most important Highlands projects. It would create a source of funding for conservation and preservation projects in the Highlands to preserve and protect the open space that remains. Two million dollars a year for 10 years would be provided for conservation assistance projects in the four Highlands States. This funding could be used for items such as smart growth initiatives and cultural preservation projects. Twenty-five million dollars a year over 10 years

also would be provided for open space preservation projects in the four Highlands states. The source of this funding would be the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

I am proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that we protect this resource, which is so critical to our quality of life, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce my legislation, the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003, to limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week and to provide real protections for patients and resident physicians who are negatively affected by excessive work hours. I feel strongly that as Congress begins to consider proposals to reduce medical malpractice premiums and improve quality of care, we must consider the role that excessive work hours play in exacerbating medical liability problems and reducing quality of care.

It is very troubling that hospitals across the Nation are requiring young doctors to work 36 hour shifts and as many as 120 hours a week in order to complete their residency programs. These long hours lead to a deterioration of cognitive function similar to the effects of blood alcohol levels of 0.1 percent. This is a level of cognitive impairment that would make these doctors unsafe to drive--yet these physicians are not only allowed but in fact are required to care for patients and perform procedures on patients under these conditions.

The Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003 will limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week. Not 40 hours or 60 hours. 80 hours a week. It is hard to argue that this standard is excessively strict. In fact, it is unconscionable that we now have resident physicians, or any physicians for that matter, caring for very sick patients 120 hours a week and 36 hours straight with fewer than 10 hours between shifts. This is an outrageous violation of a patient's right to quality care.

In addition to limiting work hours to 80 hours a week, my bill limits the length of any one shift to 24 consecutive hours, while allowing for up to three hours of patient transition time, and limits the length of an emergency room shift to 12 hours. The bill also ensures that residents have at least one

out of seven days off and ``on-call'' shifts no more often that every third night.

Since I first introduced the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act in the 107th Congress, the medical community and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, ACGME, specifically have taken critical steps to address the problem of excessive work hours. The ACGME's recommendations to reduce resident work hours are commendable. If appropriately enforced, these new work hour guidelines will go a long way toward reducing the number of hours that residents must work, thereby improving the health of our Nation's medical residents and ensuring the safety of the patients.

Despite the medical community's best intentions to reduce work hours, however, I am very concerned that the ACGME's policy lacks the enforcement mechanisms that are essential to ensure compliance with the new work hour rules. Too many hospitals failed to comply with previous work hour requirements mandated by the ACGME because there was insufficient oversight and enforcement. While the new policy establishes more stringent work hours reductions, it fails to create effective enforcement and oversight tools. These rules are meaningless without enforcement.

That is why Federal legislation is necessary. The Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003 not only recognizes the problem of excessive work hours, but also creates strong enforcement mechanisms. The bill also provides funding support to teaching hospitals to implement new work hour standards. Without enforcement and financial support efforts to reduce work hours are not likely to be successful.

Finally, my legislation provides meaningful enforcement mechanisms that will protect the identity of resident physicians who file complaints about work hour violations. The ACGME's guidelines do not contain any whistleblower protections for residents that seek to report program violations. Without this important protection, residents will be reluctant to report these violations, which in turn will weaken enforcement.

My legislation also makes compliance with these work hour requirements a condition of Medicare participation. Each year, Congress provides $8 billion to teaching hospitals to train new physicians. While Congress must continue to vigorously support adequate funding so that teaching hospitals are able to carry out this important public service, these hospitals must also make a commitment to ensuring safe working conditions for these physicians and providing the highest quality of care to the patients they treat.

In closing I would like to read a quote from an Orthopedic Surgery Resident from Northern California, which I think illustrates why we need this legislation.

I quote, ``I was operating post-call after being up for over 36 hours and was holding retractors. I literally fell asleep standing up and nearly face-planted into the wound. My upper arm hit the side of the gurney, and I caught myself before I fell to the floor. I nearly put my face in the open wound, which would have contaminated the entire field and could have resulted in an infection for the patient.''

This is a very serious problem that must be addressed before medical errors like this occur. I hope every member of the Senate will consider this legislation and the potential it has to reduce medical errors, improve patient care, and create a safer working environment for the backbone of our Nation's health system.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce my legislation, the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003, to limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week and to provide real protections for patients and resident physicians who are negatively affected by excessive work hours. I feel strongly that as Congress begins to consider proposals to reduce medical malpractice premiums and improve quality of care, we must consider the role that excessive work hours play in exacerbating medical liability problems and reducing quality of care.

It is very troubling that hospitals across the Nation are requiring young doctors to work 36 hour shifts and as many as 120 hours a week in order to complete their residency programs. These long hours lead to a deterioration of cognitive function similar to the effects of blood alcohol levels of 0.1 percent. This is a level of cognitive impairment that would make these doctors unsafe to drive--yet these physicians are not only allowed but in fact are required to care for patients and perform procedures on patients under these conditions.

The Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003 will limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week. Not 40 hours or 60 hours. 80 hours a week. It is hard to argue that this standard is excessively strict. In fact, it is unconscionable that we now have resident physicians, or any physicians for that matter, caring for very sick patients 120 hours a week and 36 hours straight with fewer than 10 hours between shifts. This is an outrageous violation of a patient's right to quality care.

In addition to limiting work hours to 80 hours a week, my bill limits the length of any one shift to 24 consecutive hours, while allowing for up to three hours of patient transition time, and limits the length of an emergency room shift to 12 hours. The bill also ensures that residents have at least one

out of seven days off and ``on-call'' shifts no more often that every third night.

Since I first introduced the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act in the 107th Congress, the medical community and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, ACGME, specifically have taken critical steps to address the problem of excessive work hours. The ACGME's recommendations to reduce resident work hours are commendable. If appropriately enforced, these new work hour guidelines will go a long way toward reducing the number of hours that residents must work, thereby improving the health of our Nation's medical residents and ensuring the safety of the patients.

Despite the medical community's best intentions to reduce work hours, however, I am very concerned that the ACGME's policy lacks the enforcement mechanisms that are essential to ensure compliance with the new work hour rules. Too many hospitals failed to comply with previous work hour requirements mandated by the ACGME because there was insufficient oversight and enforcement. While the new policy establishes more stringent work hours reductions, it fails to create effective enforcement and oversight tools. These rules are meaningless without enforcement.

That is why Federal legislation is necessary. The Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003 not only recognizes the problem of excessive work hours, but also creates strong enforcement mechanisms. The bill also provides funding support to teaching hospitals to implement new work hour standards. Without enforcement and financial support efforts to reduce work hours are not likely to be successful.

Finally, my legislation provides meaningful enforcement mechanisms that will protect the identity of resident physicians who file complaints about work hour violations. The ACGME's guidelines do not contain any whistleblower protections for residents that seek to report program violations. Without this important protection, residents will be reluctant to report these violations, which in turn will weaken enforcement.

My legislation also makes compliance with these work hour requirements a condition of Medicare participation. Each year, Congress provides $8 billion to teaching hospitals to train new physicians. While Congress must continue to vigorously support adequate funding so that teaching hospitals are able to carry out this important public service, these hospitals must also make a commitment to ensuring safe working conditions for these physicians and providing the highest quality of care to the patients they treat.

In closing I would like to read a quote from an Orthopedic Surgery Resident from Northern California, which I think illustrates why we need this legislation.

I quote, ``I was operating post-call after being up for over 36 hours and was holding retractors. I literally fell asleep standing up and nearly face-planted into the wound. My upper arm hit the side of the gurney, and I caught myself before I fell to the floor. I nearly put my face in the open wound, which would have contaminated the entire field and could have resulted in an infection for the patient.''

This is a very serious problem that must be addressed before medical errors like this occur. I hope every member of the Senate will consider this legislation and the potential it has to reduce medical errors, improve patient care, and create a safer working environment for the backbone of our Nation's health system.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to submit, along with Senators Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry and Murray, a resolution supporting national Child Care Worthy Wage Day. It is my hope that it will bring attention to early childhood education and the importance of attracting and retaining qualified childcare workers.

Every day, approximately 13 million children are cared for outside the home so that their parents can work. This figure includes 6 million of our Nation's infants and toddlers. Children begin to learn at birth, and the quality of care they receive will affect them for the rest of their lives. Early childcare affects language development, math skills, social behavior, and general readiness for school. Experienced childcare workers can identify children who have development or emotional problems and provide the care they need to take on life's challenges. Through the creative use of play, structured activities and individual attention, childcare workers help young children learn about the world around them and how to interact with others. They also teach the skills children will need to be ready to read and to learn when they go to school.

Unfortunately, despite the importance of their work, the committed individuals who nurture and teach our Nation's young children are undervalued. The average salary of a childcare worker is about $15,000 annually. In 1998, the middle 50 percent of childcare workers and pre- school teachers earned between $5.82 and $8.13 an hour, according to the Department of Labor. The lowest 10 percent of childcare workers were paid an hourly rate of $5.49 or less. Only one third of our Nation's childcare workers have health insurance and even fewer have pension plans. This grossly inadequate level of wages and benefits for childcare staff has led to difficulties in attracting and retaining high quality caretakers and educators. As a result, the turnover rate for childcare providers is 30 percent a year. This high turnover rate interrupts consistent and stable relationships that children need to have with their caregivers.

If we want our children cared for by qualified providers with higher degrees and more training, we will have to make sure they are adequately compensated. Otherwise, we will continue to lose early childhood educators with BA degrees to kindergarten and first grade, losing some of our best teachers of young children from the early years of learning.

In order to bring attention to childcare workers, I am sponsoring a resolution that would designate May 1 as National Child Care Worthy Wage Day. On May 1 each year, childcare providers and other early childhood professionals nationwide conduct public awareness and education efforts highlighting the importance of good early childhood education.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of the work and professionalism that childcare workers provide and the need to increase their compensation accordingly. The Nation's childcare workforce, the families who depend on them, and the children they care for, deserve our support.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to the brave men and women from New Jersey, and from throughout the United States, serving our Nation overseas.

Mr. President, words cannot adequately express the debt of gratitude that Americans throughout our country feel for the sacrifices made by the brave men and women serving in the Middle East, and by their families. Many of these families are anxiously awaiting the return of loved ones from overseas, while others are grieving the loss of loved ones who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

At this moment, several thousand News Jerseyans are deployed in Iraq and the surrounding region to participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom. They deserve our support and our prayers. The people of my State are honored by their service.

New Jersey, like many other States, has unfortunately experienced the grim realities of war. On march 29, Cpl Michael Edward Curtin became the first New Jersey resident killed in battle in Iraq. Earlier, Sgt James Riley, another New Jerseyan, was captured by Iraqi forces in an ambush near Nasiriyah.

Mr. President, Cpl. Michael Curtin was only 23 when he was killed in a suicide bombing at a checkpoint in Iraq. His parents, Michael and Joan, had to endure the most terrible loss any parent can imagine: the death of a child--their son. They should take comfort, along with his brother, Daniel, and his three sisters, Katherine, Jennifer and Stephanie, that all of New Jersey mourns with them. The family is proud of Michael and knows he did not die in vain.

Mr. President, Michael Curtin graduated from Howell High School in 1998, where he was a standout on the football team. He then worked at the Petro-Packaging Company in Cranford before joining the Army. He was posted with the Army's 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, where he was part of the spearhead that led the invasion in Iraq. Although I did not know him personally, from those who did, he was an impressive and courageous young man--committed to his family, committed to his country.

Mr. President, along with Senator Lautenberg, I joined Michael's family, friends and community this morning to

attend his memorial. It was a sad and moving experience. I saw a family deep in mourning. A community deep in mourning. And it was hard not to be overwhelmed by the terrible loss they have endured. The love they have for Michael.

At the same time, through all the sadness and the tears, there also was a certain sense of pride. A well-deserved sense of pride. Because as tragic as their loss is and forever will be, it was a loss that was not in vain. It was a loss fought on behalf of an ideal. It was a loss that reflected Cpl. Curtin's commitment to his community. And his sacrifice on behalf of his country.

That commitment represented the best of America. And his family and friends should know that all Americans share in their grief and honor them for their sacrifice, as well.

Mr. President, while the family and friends of the late Cpl Curtin remain in mourning, the family and friends of Sgt James Riley also are suffering, though not without hope.

Mr. President, Athol Riley describes Sgt Riley, his son, as practical-minded, strong and stubborn. And we pray that these traits will fortify him during his captivity in Iraq. James was with the 507th Maintenance Company where he repaired tanks and serviced Patriot missile batteries for the Army. His unit was ambushed near the Euphrates River and he, along with four other soldiers, were taken captive. I know I speak for all of New Jerseyans when I express our deepest hope for his swift and safe return to New Jersey. We pray for his safe return.

Mr. President, Sgt Riley was born in New Zealand and moved to Pennsauken, a town in South Jersey when he was ten years old. He joined the military immediately after high school and has spent the last thirteen years serving his country. Sgt Riley is a man of many talents. He is known as a science fiction buff and has taught himself to play the guitar. We all hope and pray that he will return to his family very soon.

Mr. President, Cpl Michael Curtin and Sgt James Riley are just two of the outstanding individuals serving in our armed services who have made tremendous sacrifices and paid a tremendous price for their country. All of our troops, and all of their families, deserve the thanks of our entire Nation. I know I join all New Jerseyans in praying for our warriors' continued safety, and for a swift, decisive and successful end to the war.

I would like 10 minutes. I might go a few minutes beyond that.

I appreciate it very much.

Mr. President, I appreciate the time from the Senator from North Dakota. I say to both my colleagues, they are laying out for the American people the nature of a budget resolution that really does undermine our future. Before the Senator from West Virginia leaves, I heard one of the most direct analogies about what we are doing dollar for dollar and that it would take 32,000 years to count the deficit if we went to a $1 trillion deficit. We are actually creating a $1.6 trillion deficit, which I think is 50,000 years. It is very hard for any of us to understand the dimensions of the fiscal irresponsibility we are taking on here.

I compliment the Senator in trying to put this debate in terms which people can picture in reality.

Mr. President, I add my strong opposition to this conference report on the budget resolution before us today from a whole host of perspectives. I am certainly no expert on procedural rules, but I have heard a description of an approach to the debates we have had about the budget. It is hard to accept if this is the process by which we want to bring discipline to our budgetary process.

The area I do understand clearly is fiscal matters, and this budget resolution, in my view, is fiscally irresponsible to the extreme. Maybe more important than the accounting issue is it risks enormous harm to our economy in the short term and in the long term. It poses a clear danger to the future of Social Security and Medicare, and it threatens our ability to provide for critical priorities, such as homeland defense and education for our children.

This budget calls for a tax cut of $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years. When we add in the extra interest costs--that is using the assumptions we use now of low interest rates--which are required to pay for that cut, the real cut is $1.6 trillion. It raises the obvious question: Where is the money coming from? It is a question one has to ask when doing budgets: Do we have $1.6 trillion to fund these cuts without raiding the Social Security trust fund or undercutting consensus-driven priorities for the American people?

A few years ago, we had the resources and the ability to evaluate whether we wanted to have tax cuts. We had a $5.6 trillion projected surplus. That surplus was built on sound fiscal policies, ones that accompanied an extremely strong economy for many years. It is hard to understand why we needed to change policies since the economy was doing very well and it had probably the greatest run in the 20th century. But we felt there was a need to tinker with this $5.6 trillion surplus.

Guess what. It has disappeared, and we have added $1.6 trillion--that 50,000 years the Senator from West Virginia talked about if you count $1 a minute. We do not have the extra dimes, nickles, and dollars--a blank checkbook--to fund these tax cuts or increase any of the spending we might want for homeland security, national defense, making sure we invest in our future so that when our men and women come home from the war, they will have an economy that works for their children and their future.

By the way, we are looking at those deficits before these tax cuts, and this proposal in the budget resolution undermines that baseline. So the huge tax cuts proposed in this resolution are going to be relying on payroll taxes that are supposed to be dedicated to Social Security and Medicare. Then they will be financed by putting the remainder on our national credit card.

Who is going to get those credit card charges? It is hundreds of billions of dollars that come with the additional interest we will be paying in the years ahead. As we have heard, it is not this generation, it is the next generation--our children and our children's children. We are laying the burden right out on their shoulders.

I find it completely irresponsible. You certainly would not do that in your own life. That would border on immorality at a family level. This generation, or at least the most fortunate members of this generation, in my view, have no right to transfer the benefits of America for which we all worked so hard and so many have fought for and given their lives for at the expense of future generations.

I do not get it. Just this morning I was at a funeral for a heroic young man in the State of New Jersey who lost his life in Iraq. He made the ultimate sacrifice so we would have a positive future and to protect America. We are doing just the opposite in economic security with respect to this budget.

Beyond the raw, in my view, inappropriateness of this intergenerational transfer of wealth, it is also terrible economic policy. That is why we have had--one of the few times in history--10 Nobel Prize economists--hardly 10 economists can agree on anything--and 500 others signing up to say this does not provide short-term stimulus and really does undermine our long-term credibility, our long-term fiscal health.

It is very simple what it is going to do. It actually creates antigrowth policies in the sense we are going to create deficits, and as the economy takes off, interest rates will rise and there will be this crowding out--which has gone on off and on when we have run these big budget deficits over time--and undermining of private sector initiatives, and that will depress future economic growth. There are many models that verify this and many people making those arguments. We heard that in the group the Senator from West Virginia talked about in the article on Wednesday--a Republican, a Democrat, conservative, liberal. This is not a policy that is in the mainstream of economic thought, of business thought about how we are going to grow the economy over time.

Unfortunately, these negative effects of heavy fiscal deficits are going to last for decades. We have this baby boomer situation where we are going from 40 million 65 and older to 80 million, give or take a couple million on both sides of those numbers, and they are going to raise the cost of Social Security and Medicare in future years.

If we are going to maintain those programs, we have an incredible car crash coming with regard to our fiscal conditions, even before these tax cuts.

It is not as if we do not have a need to do something about the economy now. I could go through the employment situation. We have lost 460-some-odd thousand jobs in the last 2 months. I check these weekly unemployment numbers, and they are startling. We have people out of work, working part time, dropping out of the labor force. It is not a pretty picture. We need stimulus now. We are having serious shortfalls in the ability for the economy to

produce those jobs, and I do not see anyone saying that in the near term this package of proposed tax cuts is going to have much, if any, impact on creating jobs.

It might be talked about in some kind of long-term context. At least there is a legitimate debate about whether that works. I actually think the mainstream comes out and says that does not even work in the long run, but there can be an argument about it. In the short run, it is almost universal it has little, if any, impact.

We have lost 460,000 jobs in this economy in the last 2 months. President Bush could very well end up being the first President in 50 years to preside over a decline in the total number of private sector jobs in the economy. I do not see this in the self-interest of the President and the administration with regard to good economic stimulus programs.

There are plenty of problems we can talk about. Business investment has declined in all but one quarter in the period of time we have been here. The stock market has obviously plummeted. We are now using only about 75 percent of our Nation's productive capacity. We can go on and on. There are just a series of problems.

So we have a continuing sense of lack of direction about dealing with the economic circumstance we have, and just at a time when what we are doing is pushing more of the same policies that we have been following for the last 2 \1/2\ years. At least in the world I come from, when something is not working, you admit it, you change it, you move on; you do something else.

All we are doing is changing the level of the red ink we have already put on the paper, and we are going to have greater red ink. It is going to hurt this country's economic well-being in the years ahead.

Like my colleagues, I hope we will stand back, evaluate this budget resolution, think about that $1.3 trillion that is going to put us deeper in debt--$1.6 billion if we count the interest--and say no to this budget resolution because it undermines the health of the American economy, it does not improve it.

I think we are going to be looked at in the history books as a Congress that has really put us into the tipping point of fiscal red ink for as far as the eye can see, for generations to come, and I think it is just wrong that we are funding it out of Social Security, funding it out of payroll taxes. It is an intergenerational transfer, to future generations, of the obligations. I think historians will say we are not doing what it is our responsibility to do, which is to bring fiscal sanity and responsibility to the American budget.

This is a system that depends on the rising tide lifting all boats. This budget, and particularly the tax cuts that are implied in it, do anything but lift all boats. They are targeted at a very narrow group. I hope my colleagues will stand up and say no to this budget and do the right thing. I really do hope we can reconsider this and move forward.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act, a bill that would provide citizenship relief to many families adversely affected by the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the time since that tragic day, I have met with several of the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks to discuss a variety of measures in the wake of that national calamity. They have been dealing with a personal anguish that many of us can only imagine. In my view, Congress must do more to help the families of the victims of September 11, and the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act should be a part of that effort.

When American citizens, foreign nationals, and immigrants perished in the cowardly terrorist acts of September 11, the immigration status of hundreds of families was thrown into turmoil. The attacks were on American soil on a major American institution and directed at the United States. Yet American citizens were not the only victims. Hundreds of temporary workers and immigrants died shoulder-to-shoulder with thousands of Americans. Their deaths should be acknowledged and their families should be honored.

My legislation would bestow honorary citizenship on legal immigrants and non-immigrants who died in the disaster. This would honor their spirit and their tremendous sacrifice. Perhaps more important, the bill would offer citizenship to surviving spouses and children, subject to a background investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the spirit of fairness and unity, it is appropriate and responsible to offer the privilege of citizenship to families who lost so much because of this attack on the United States.

About 3,000 people lost their lives when four planes crashed on that fateful September morning. Nationals from

some 86 countries perished in the attack, including visitors, non- immigrant workers, and legal permanent residents.

America was not the only country that suffered losses. There was good reason the complex was called the World Trade Center. In the September 11 attacks, 86 countries including England, Germany, Mexico, Colombia, Japan, Canada, Australia, the Philippines, Ireland, South Africa, and Pakistan suffered tragic losses. And there were many more.

In New Jersey, there are dozens of poignant stories of immigrant families who experienced tragic losses in the World Trade Center disaster. These innocent people have lost husbands and wives, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers. Their families have been fractured and their livelihoods jeopardized.

Immigrant families have been forced to grapple with a bureaucratic nightmare, wading through the myriad of programs available to the families of victims in an effort to keep their heads above water. They are often disheartened to learn that, although their loved ones died in the same attack, non-citizens are ineligible for many of the programs designed to assist the surviving families of victims.

Concerns about immigration status have only added to the tremendous burden immigrant families are already confronting. Take the example of one New Jersey woman who came to my office seeking assistance. Her immigration status was directly dependent on the non-immigrant worker status of her husband who died in the attack. Both of her children were born in the United States. They are full citizens and are enrolled in American schools.

She wants to continue to raise her children in the United States. However, under the antiterrorism legislation that was passed in the last Congress, this mother of two is technically deportable right now. My legislation would grant her citizenship immediately, helping her to avoid the burden of removing her children from the only country they have ever truly known, while they are still grappling with the loss of their father. Granting her citizenship is the right thing to do.

This woman's story is but one of many. My office has received numerous inquiries from immigrant families concerned that their immigration status has been undermined by the death of a loved one. Many families were in the process of preparing the necessary paperwork to apply for a change in status, only to have their potential sponsor die alongside thousands of others in the World Trade Center attack. This legislation would ensure that those families would be allowed to become American citizens and avoid undue paperwork and heartache.

When perpetrating their horrific crime, the terrorists did not distinguish between immigrants and American citizens or between undocumented workers and legal permanent residents. They were attacking the United States, and, in the process, killed thousands, citizens and non-citizens alike. In death, citizenship was irrelevant.

The thousands who died did not know it when they went to work, but they were at the front lines in the next American war. Their deaths are a tragedy that every civilized human being wishes could be reversed. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock. However, we can acknowledge the tremendous loss of hundreds of immigrant families by allowing them to take on the full rights and responsibilities of American citizenship.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Landrieu in introducing the Wage Tax Cut Act, legislation that would provide an immediate boost to America's economy by providing wage tax relief to all working Americans and to businesses.

In short, this proposal would give all working Americans a wage tax break of up to $765, equivalent to the payroll taxes they have paid on the first $10,000 of their earnings in the year 2001. Working couples would receive tax relief of up to $1,530. This is a 1-year proposal in which all payments and tax credits would come out of the General Treasury. The Social Security and Medicare trust funds would not be affected in any way.

Every working American and business-owner would benefit from our proposal. This $765 tax cut would help American families make ends meet and stimulate the economy. It would pay for 5 week's worth of groceries for a family of four; more than 2 months of child care; 3\1/2\ months of utility bills; and 7 months of gasoline.

The act would provide business-owners--small and large--a tax credit for up to $765 on the wages of each of their employees. The tax credit for businessowners would put more money in the hands of employers to spur investment in new people, plant, and equipment. By reducing payroll taxes, which amount to a tax on labor, we would encourage more employers to hire new personnel, and to keep those they now have.

That is why the Business Roundtable, which represents 150 of the country's largest corporations with over 10 million employees, has endorsed the concept of payroll-based tax relief that we are proposing today.

This is a simple, fair, and affordable economic stimulus plan that will get money in the hands of consumers and businesses that will be immediately reinvested in our economy.

Unlike the President's proposed tax plan, the Wage Tax Cut Act would provide immediate help to the economy, without being fiscally irresponsible. At $180 billion, its cost is only about 15 percent of the $1.3 trillion in tax cuts included in the conference report on the budget resolution.

At this important time in our Nation's history, when thousands of young men and women are bravely serving their country, we need to ensure that the America to which they return is vibrant and strong. This proposal would help create the jobs they need, and the prosperity they deserve.

In December 2001, when Senator Bill Frist supported--in fact his own Web site articulated--the stimulative impact that payroll tax relief could have. It quoted the senator as saying:

A payroll tax holiday is truly a stimulative, temporary tax

cut that would be welcome news for most Americans, especially

during the holiday season. As economic growth stagnates and

unemployment numbers increase, putting additional money in

consumers' pockets will provide a much needed economic boost.

Senator Frist continued:

The key is for Congress to respond and pass a stimulus bill

now, and I believe that this proposal could provide us with a

bipartisan solution.

Senator Frist was right on the mark about the need, and stimulative impact, of payroll tax relief then. It is my hope that Majority Leader Frist, and the rest of my colleagues, today will stand behind those words and support this proposal to help reinvigorate out economy.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act, a bill that would provide citizenship relief to many families adversely affected by the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the time since that tragic day, I have met with several of the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks to discuss a variety of measures in the wake of that national calamity. They have been dealing with a personal anguish that many of us can only imagine. In my view, Congress must do more to help the families of the victims of September 11, and the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act should be a part of that effort.

When American citizens, foreign nationals, and immigrants perished in the cowardly terrorist acts of September 11, the immigration status of hundreds of families was thrown into turmoil. The attacks were on American soil on a major American institution and directed at the United States. Yet American citizens were not the only victims. Hundreds of temporary workers and immigrants died shoulder-to-shoulder with thousands of Americans. Their deaths should be acknowledged and their families should be honored.

My legislation would bestow honorary citizenship on legal immigrants and non-immigrants who died in the disaster. This would honor their spirit and their tremendous sacrifice. Perhaps more important, the bill would offer citizenship to surviving spouses and children, subject to a background investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the spirit of fairness and unity, it is appropriate and responsible to offer the privilege of citizenship to families who lost so much because of this attack on the United States.

About 3,000 people lost their lives when four planes crashed on that fateful September morning. Nationals from

some 86 countries perished in the attack, including visitors, non- immigrant workers, and legal permanent residents.

America was not the only country that suffered losses. There was good reason the complex was called the World Trade Center. In the September 11 attacks, 86 countries including England, Germany, Mexico, Colombia, Japan, Canada, Australia, the Philippines, Ireland, South Africa, and Pakistan suffered tragic losses. And there were many more.

In New Jersey, there are dozens of poignant stories of immigrant families who experienced tragic losses in the World Trade Center disaster. These innocent people have lost husbands and wives, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers. Their families have been fractured and their livelihoods jeopardized.

Immigrant families have been forced to grapple with a bureaucratic nightmare, wading through the myriad of programs available to the families of victims in an effort to keep their heads above water. They are often disheartened to learn that, although their loved ones died in the same attack, non-citizens are ineligible for many of the programs designed to assist the surviving families of victims.

Concerns about immigration status have only added to the tremendous burden immigrant families are already confronting. Take the example of one New Jersey woman who came to my office seeking assistance. Her immigration status was directly dependent on the non-immigrant worker status of her husband who died in the attack. Both of her children were born in the United States. They are full citizens and are enrolled in American schools.

She wants to continue to raise her children in the United States. However, under the antiterrorism legislation that was passed in the last Congress, this mother of two is technically deportable right now. My legislation would grant her citizenship immediately, helping her to avoid the burden of removing her children from the only country they have ever truly known, while they are still grappling with the loss of their father. Granting her citizenship is the right thing to do.

This woman's story is but one of many. My office has received numerous inquiries from immigrant families concerned that their immigration status has been undermined by the death of a loved one. Many families were in the process of preparing the necessary paperwork to apply for a change in status, only to have their potential sponsor die alongside thousands of others in the World Trade Center attack. This legislation would ensure that those families would be allowed to become American citizens and avoid undue paperwork and heartache.

When perpetrating their horrific crime, the terrorists did not distinguish between immigrants and American citizens or between undocumented workers and legal permanent residents. They were attacking the United States, and, in the process, killed thousands, citizens and non-citizens alike. In death, citizenship was irrelevant.

The thousands who died did not know it when they went to work, but they were at the front lines in the next American war. Their deaths are a tragedy that every civilized human being wishes could be reversed. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock. However, we can acknowledge the tremendous loss of hundreds of immigrant families by allowing them to take on the full rights and responsibilities of American citizenship.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Landrieu in introducing the Wage Tax Cut Act, legislation that would provide an immediate boost to America's economy by providing wage tax relief to all working Americans and to businesses.

In short, this proposal would give all working Americans a wage tax break of up to $765, equivalent to the payroll taxes they have paid on the first $10,000 of their earnings in the year 2001. Working couples would receive tax relief of up to $1,530. This is a 1-year proposal in which all payments and tax credits would come out of the General Treasury. The Social Security and Medicare trust funds would not be affected in any way.

Every working American and business-owner would benefit from our proposal. This $765 tax cut would help American families make ends meet and stimulate the economy. It would pay for 5 week's worth of groceries for a family of four; more than 2 months of child care; 3\1/2\ months of utility bills; and 7 months of gasoline.

The act would provide business-owners--small and large--a tax credit for up to $765 on the wages of each of their employees. The tax credit for businessowners would put more money in the hands of employers to spur investment in new people, plant, and equipment. By reducing payroll taxes, which amount to a tax on labor, we would encourage more employers to hire new personnel, and to keep those they now have.

That is why the Business Roundtable, which represents 150 of the country's largest corporations with over 10 million employees, has endorsed the concept of payroll-based tax relief that we are proposing today.

This is a simple, fair, and affordable economic stimulus plan that will get money in the hands of consumers and businesses that will be immediately reinvested in our economy.

Unlike the President's proposed tax plan, the Wage Tax Cut Act would provide immediate help to the economy, without being fiscally irresponsible. At $180 billion, its cost is only about 15 percent of the $1.3 trillion in tax cuts included in the conference report on the budget resolution.

At this important time in our Nation's history, when thousands of young men and women are bravely serving their country, we need to ensure that the America to which they return is vibrant and strong. This proposal would help create the jobs they need, and the prosperity they deserve.

In December 2001, when Senator Bill Frist supported--in fact his own Web site articulated--the stimulative impact that payroll tax relief could have. It quoted the senator as saying:

A payroll tax holiday is truly a stimulative, temporary tax

cut that would be welcome news for most Americans, especially

during the holiday season. As economic growth stagnates and

unemployment numbers increase, putting additional money in

consumers' pockets will provide a much needed economic boost.

Senator Frist continued:

The key is for Congress to respond and pass a stimulus bill

now, and I believe that this proposal could provide us with a

bipartisan solution.

Senator Frist was right on the mark about the need, and stimulative impact, of payroll tax relief then. It is my hope that Majority Leader Frist, and the rest of my colleagues, today will stand behind those words and support this proposal to help reinvigorate out economy.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the

Microbicides Development Act of 2003. I am very pleased to be introducing this bipartisan bill along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Gordon Smith, Dodd, Leahy, Murray, Durbin, and Lautenberg. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation, which we believe is vital to the pursuit of combating the global HIV/AIDS crisis.

As you know, recently released UN reports paint the most horrendous picture yet of the HIV epidemic, with AIDS continuing to kill more people worldwide than any other infectious disease, and sparing no corner of the world. According to the UN, China could have more than 10 million HIV-infected people by 2010. Infection rates in Russia and Eastern Europe are rising faster than anywhere else. India may soon have the largest number of people living with HIV/AIDS in the world. And Sub-Saharan Africa remains devastated by an epidemic that has lowered life expectancy from 62 years on average to just 47. In hard- hit countries like Botswana, where 45 percent of women attending prenatal clinics are HIV-positive, a 15-year old youth has an 80 percent chance of dying of AIDS.

The UN reports come on the heels of CIA assessments that the AIDS pandemic is entering a ``stage of substantial increases in size and scope.''

Despite alarm bells ringing from the organizations as diverse in mandate as the UN and the CIA, little attention is paid to the reality that the face of the HIV epidemic both at home and abroad is increasingly female. As of the end of 2002, according to the Joint United Nations/World Health Organization Programme on HIV/AIDS, half of the world's HIV/AIDS-infected people were women. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 58 percent of all adult HIV/AIDS cases were found in women, and in hard-hit nations such as Zambia, girls are five times more likely than boys to be HIV positive.

Here in the United States, 30 percent of new HIV infections each year occur among women, most of whom, 64 percent, are African-American. The majority of U.S. women, 75 percent, acquire the disease through heterosexual transmission. My own State of New Jersey has the Nation's highest HIV/AIDS infection rate among women and the sixth highest infection rate among all adults. And here in our Nation's capital, one in three people with HIV now is a woman.

Biologically, women are four times more vulnerable to HIV infection. Their vulnerability increases due to their lack of economic and social power in many societies, where women often cannot control sexual encounters or insist on protective measures such as abstinence or mutual monogamy. The typical woman who gets infected with HIV has only one partner--her husband. This trend devastates families and puts children at risk.

This astounding reality bears restating: The single greatest risk factor for a woman in the developing world of contracting the HIV virus is being married.

Women need HIV-prevention tools that they can control to safeguard their health and that of their families and communities. Unfortunately, there exists absolutely no HIV or STD prevention method that is within a woman's personal control. Condom use must be negotiated with a partner. We are all aware that for too many women, particularly low- income women in the developing world and many in our own country who rely upon a male partner for economic support, there is no power of negotiation. We know these women are at risk--yet, we expect them to protect themselves without any tools.

Today we have the opportunity to invest in groundbreaking research that can produce these tools, and ultimately, empower women. Microbicides are self-administered products that women could use to prevent transmission of STDs, including HIV/AIDS. I say ``could'' because due to insufficient research investments, no microbicides have been brought to market. This legislation would expand federal investments for microbicide research at the National Institutes for Health, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the United States Agency for International Development, USAID.

In addition to encouraging new investments in microbicide research, the Microbicides Development Act will expedite the implementation of the NIH's five-year strategic plan for microbicide research, as well as expand coordination among Federal agencies already involved in this research, including NIH, CDC, and the United States Agency on International Development, USAID.

Perhaps most importantly, the legislation calls for the establishment of a Microbicide Research and Development Branch within the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The National Institutes of Health, principally through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, spends the majority of Federal dollars in this area. However, microbicide research at NIH is currently conducted with no single line of administrative accountability or specific funding coordination. In addition, other federal agencies such as CDC and USAID undertake microbicides research and development activities. Because there is no federal coordination, however, there is the risk that inefficiencies and duplication of effort could result. Through a variety of committees Congress has requested that NIH and its Office of AIDS Research provide Congress with a ``federal coordination plan'' for research and development in this area, but formal submission of this plan has been repeatedly delayed.

A branch dedicated to microbicide research and development at the NIH is essential to providing the appropriate staff and funding for the coordination of these activities at the NIH and across agencies.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the

Microbicides Development Act of 2003. I am very pleased to be introducing this bipartisan bill along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Gordon Smith, Dodd, Leahy, Murray, Durbin, and Lautenberg. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation, which we believe is vital to the pursuit of combating the global HIV/AIDS crisis.

As you know, recently released UN reports paint the most horrendous picture yet of the HIV epidemic, with AIDS continuing to kill more people worldwide than any other infectious disease, and sparing no corner of the world. According to the UN, China could have more than 10 million HIV-infected people by 2010. Infection rates in Russia and Eastern Europe are rising faster than anywhere else. India may soon have the largest number of people living with HIV/AIDS in the world. And Sub-Saharan Africa remains devastated by an epidemic that has lowered life expectancy from 62 years on average to just 47. In hard- hit countries like Botswana, where 45 percent of women attending prenatal clinics are HIV-positive, a 15-year old youth has an 80 percent chance of dying of AIDS.

The UN reports come on the heels of CIA assessments that the AIDS pandemic is entering a ``stage of substantial increases in size and scope.''

Despite alarm bells ringing from the organizations as diverse in mandate as the UN and the CIA, little attention is paid to the reality that the face of the HIV epidemic both at home and abroad is increasingly female. As of the end of 2002, according to the Joint United Nations/World Health Organization Programme on HIV/AIDS, half of the world's HIV/AIDS-infected people were women. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 58 percent of all adult HIV/AIDS cases were found in women, and in hard-hit nations such as Zambia, girls are five times more likely than boys to be HIV positive.

Here in the United States, 30 percent of new HIV infections each year occur among women, most of whom, 64 percent, are African-American. The majority of U.S. women, 75 percent, acquire the disease through heterosexual transmission. My own State of New Jersey has the Nation's highest HIV/AIDS infection rate among women and the sixth highest infection rate among all adults. And here in our Nation's capital, one in three people with HIV now is a woman.

Biologically, women are four times more vulnerable to HIV infection. Their vulnerability increases due to their lack of economic and social power in many societies, where women often cannot control sexual encounters or insist on protective measures such as abstinence or mutual monogamy. The typical woman who gets infected with HIV has only one partner--her husband. This trend devastates families and puts children at risk.

This astounding reality bears restating: The single greatest risk factor for a woman in the developing world of contracting the HIV virus is being married.

Women need HIV-prevention tools that they can control to safeguard their health and that of their families and communities. Unfortunately, there exists absolutely no HIV or STD prevention method that is within a woman's personal control. Condom use must be negotiated with a partner. We are all aware that for too many women, particularly low- income women in the developing world and many in our own country who rely upon a male partner for economic support, there is no power of negotiation. We know these women are at risk--yet, we expect them to protect themselves without any tools.

Today we have the opportunity to invest in groundbreaking research that can produce these tools, and ultimately, empower women. Microbicides are self-administered products that women could use to prevent transmission of STDs, including HIV/AIDS. I say ``could'' because due to insufficient research investments, no microbicides have been brought to market. This legislation would expand federal investments for microbicide research at the National Institutes for Health, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the United States Agency for International Development, USAID.

In addition to encouraging new investments in microbicide research, the Microbicides Development Act will expedite the implementation of the NIH's five-year strategic plan for microbicide research, as well as expand coordination among Federal agencies already involved in this research, including NIH, CDC, and the United States Agency on International Development, USAID.

Perhaps most importantly, the legislation calls for the establishment of a Microbicide Research and Development Branch within the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The National Institutes of Health, principally through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, spends the majority of Federal dollars in this area. However, microbicide research at NIH is currently conducted with no single line of administrative accountability or specific funding coordination. In addition, other federal agencies such as CDC and USAID undertake microbicides research and development activities. Because there is no federal coordination, however, there is the risk that inefficiencies and duplication of effort could result. Through a variety of committees Congress has requested that NIH and its Office of AIDS Research provide Congress with a ``federal coordination plan'' for research and development in this area, but formal submission of this plan has been repeatedly delayed.

A branch dedicated to microbicide research and development at the NIH is essential to providing the appropriate staff and funding for the coordination of these activities at the NIH and across agencies.

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