Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have an amendment I will send to the desk.

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

How much time do we have on this amendment?

I will try to be brief. I see the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, has come to the floor.

First, I thank Senator Conrad, who has been a good ally in trying to define the problems the country faces. There are about $40-something trillion in promises we have made to the public through different entitlement programs and there is not money to pay those promises. That is what gets us here.

It is time for the country to come to grips with the idea we promised a lot of retirement benefits, we promised a lot of medical benefits, Medicaid benefits for people who are disabled and poor people, and we do not have the revenue streams over time to support those benefits. So 2 years ago Senator Conrad and myself worked on a resolution trying to define the problem. There are many different views of whether it is a problem or a crisis, how to fix it, where the accounts fit in, should we borrow the money, should we raise revenue.

Quickly, I believe that without restructuring benefits and restructuring taxes you cannot get there from here. I know a lot of people do not want to hear that, but in 2018 we begin to pay out more in benefits than we collect in taxes, and it only gets worse over time because when I was born in 1955 there were 16 workers for every retiree. Today there are 3\1/2\, and 20 or 30 years from now there will be 2. So it is nobody's fault. It is not the Democrat or Republican Party's fault.

The fact is, there has been a huge demographic change in the country called the baby boom. It is a big elephant working its way through the system. We need to adjust for it, and we need to make promises in the future, starting now, that we can afford to make and that are honest promises.

My goal, and I believe this about Senator Conrad, is to restructure Social Security and other entitlements in a fiscally responsible way so future generations do not live in fear of the check not coming, the benefit not being there, and we are willing to make some hard decisions. But this amendment is not about those hard decisions. This amendment is about, Where do we stand as a nation vis-a-vis Social Security.

If I may, I will read some of the findings:

(1) Social Security is the foundation of retirement income

for most Americans;

Not only is that a true statement, it is an essential statement for us to make as a body, Republican and Democrat, because half the seniors today who receive a Social Security check would be in poverty if it were not for the Social Security check. So it is the foundation of retirement income for many Americans.

(2) preserving and strengthening the long term viability of

Social Security is a vital national priority and is essential

for the retirement security of today's working Americans,

current and future retirees, and their families;

I think we can all agree on that. We did 2 years ago. The word ``crisis'' or ``problem'' is not in there. ``Vital national priority'' is because for millions of Americans this is what you count on when you retire.

(3) Social Security faces significant fiscal and

demographic pressures;

What does that mean? It means what I said before. Senator Conrad and I agreed 2 years ago that in 1950 there were 16\1/2\ workers for every retiree; in 2002, 3.3. And over time it comes down to two workers per retiree because families are smaller.

(C) without structural reform, the Social Security system,

beginning in 2018, will pay out more in benefits than it will

collect in taxes;

And that 2018 number varies: 6 months, 12 months. That is the right timeframe. What does that mean for average Americans? It means for the first time in the history of this system, the first time ever, we will pay more out in benefits than we collect in taxes. It is true that we have collected more in taxes than we have paid in benefits, and we put them in Treasury notes and borrowed the money to operate the Government. I do not like it. To Senator Conrad's credit, he does not like it either. That has been the practice of both parties here. But that is not the reason Social Security is going to run out of money.

If you took all the notes and redeemed them and put the money back in the system, you buy solvency for a period of time, but by no means do you fix the problem. So 2018 is an important date. It is a historic date. It is the first time in the history of this program we pay out more in benefits than we collect in taxes.

Now, what does that mean over time?

(D) without structural reform, the Social Security trust

fund will be exhausted in 2042, and Social Security tax

revenue in 2042 will only cover 73 percent of promised

benefits, and will decrease to 68 percent by 2078;

Now, the definition of ``bankruptcy'' we can argue about, but it is usually an inability to pay the obligations when they come due. In 2042, it is not bankrupt in terms of no money to be paid. In 2042, according to the Social Security Administration, only 73 percent of the benefits will be paid. So to do nothing means that we start paying more than we collect and eventually we have to cut benefits across the board. And by 2078, 68 percent of the benefits are able to be paid.

There are millions of Americans who could not suffer that in their retirement life because when these cuts come by doing nothing, they come across the board. They do not treat somebody who makes $30,000 differently than they treat somebody who is in the Senate who now makes $160,000. I think we should try to avoid that in a bipartisan way.

(E) without structural reform, future Congresses may have

to raise payroll taxes 50 percent over the next 75 years to

pay full benefits on time, resulting in payroll tax rates of

as much as 16.9 percent by 2042 and 18.3 percent by 2078;

What that means is if you want to restore full benefits, you are going to have to go and get more money because from 2018 to 2042 you tap all the reserves. At 2042 you have a scheduled benefit cut. To avoid it, you have to bring new money to the table. And if you did it by raising payroll taxes, you would have a massive tax increase in payroll tax rates, which would make us less competitive in a global economy against China and everyone else because the payroll tax is a significant problem for business. But it is the way we fund Social Security, and we should not raise it unless we absolutely have to. To do nothing means it is going to be raised in a dramatic fashion.

(F) without structural reform, Social Security's total cash

shortfall over the next 75 years is estimated to be more than

$25,000,000,000,000 in constant 2004 dollars or

$3,700,000,000,000 [in 2004 dollars] measured in present

value terms;

In English that means you need $3.7 trillion of new money today to get this thing solvent to 2075. And we are talking about trying to take 1 percent out of the Medicaid program. How do you get $3.7 trillion of new money put in the system today to keep Social Security solvent for the next 75 years? I

don't know how to do that without some sacrifice. There is a way to do it, and we will talk about that, I guess, down the road. But that is a fact. We are $3.7 trillion short of the money we need to keep this system afloat until 2075.

(G) absent structural reforms, spending on Social Security

will increase from 4.3 percent of gross domestic product in

2004 to 6.6 percent in 2078;

When you add Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security together, it is 25 percent of the gross domestic product.

Now, listen to this: In 2080, 25 percent of the gross domestic product will be spent on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Right now, the entire Federal budget, everything we spend, is 20 percent. These three programs will outpace what we spend on the entire Government if we do nothing. So is this a problem? To me it is. I probably will not be around in 2078, but I don't want to pass on to people who are going to be around in 2078 a huge problem they can never work themselves out of.

(5) the Congressional Budget Office, the Government

Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service,

the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and the

President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security have all

warned that failure to enact fiscally responsible Social

Security reform quickly will result in 1 or more of the

following:

(A) Higher tax rates.

That is one way to avoid the benefit cuts. We talked about that.

(B) Lower Social Security benefit levels.

To not put new money in means you reduce benefits across the board.

(C) Increased Federal debt or less spending on other

federal programs.

That is what you would need to do if you did not raise the taxes: borrow money, cut other programs.

The sense of the Senate--this is what we agreed to by voice vote. Everything I have read to you was agreed to by voice vote 2 years ago. It is not preferring one solution over another. It is not saying where accounts are good or bad or that indexing is good or bad. It is defining the problem in responsible terms, picking dates that other people have told us exist, being honest about the unfunded liability, being honest about the consequences of doing nothing. And from this I hope we can find a way to do something in a bipartisan fashion.

The sense of the Senate says:

(1) the President, the Congress, and the American people

including seniors, workers, women, minorities, and disabled

persons should work together at the earliest opportunity to

enact legislation to achieve a solvent and permanently

sustainable Social Security system;

(2) Social Security reform--

(A) must protect current and near retirees from any changes

to Social Security benefits;

I think we all agree with that.

(B) must reduce the pressure on future taxpayers and on

other budgetary priorities;

(C) must provide benefit levels that adequately reflect

individual contributions to the Social Security system; and

(D) must preserve and strengthen the safety net for

vulnerable populations including the disabled and survivors;

and

(3) the Senate should honor section 13301 of the Budget

Enforcement Act of 1990.

I hope we can still agree on this because this is as true now as it was 2 years ago. It is more important than it was 2 years ago to define the problems in honest terms without prejudicing any solution proposal.

I want to publicly thank Senator Conrad for stepping to the plate, as he has in the past, to put on the table that Social Security has a problem. We have done a joint op-ed piece defining this problem, and for that I am grateful.

I will reserve the remainder of my time.

Using 2004 dollars would be very acceptable.

Yes.

I want to stick with what we did 2 years ago. I will comment why, and I will wait until the Senator gets through.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Mississippi 4 minutes.

I want to leave this debate on a positive note. Senator Conrad has been a pleasure to work with. We have some philosophical differences. Maybe we can bridge those gaps. Senator Lott was talking about my political career. I hope it is secure, but I know Social Security is not. I am not worried about that now, because most people at home have appreciated the effort on my part, and others, to bring honesty to the table.

Why did I pick the word permanent? Why did we pick the word permanent? Everything Senator Conrad said about budget forecasting is absolutely true. I think we need to understand that when we say words such as ``permanent,'' what I am trying to do is give the American public reassurance that we, as Republicans and Democrats, are going to do the same thing with Social Security that happens when you buy life insurance or you buy car insurance or you buy fire insurance; that is, when you need it, if something happens, it is going to be there. You wouldn't buy a policy from some company that could say: You are good for 10 years; After that, I am not so sure.

What we are trying to do is make a pledge and a promise to the American people that we will permanently take care of this program. We will make the adjustments as we need to, whenever they come and however they come. Our pledge is to make honest promises, keep those promises and I want to tell you why it is important.

Senator Boxer commented about her family situation. The good news is that Social Security has affected so many lives in a positive way. When I was 21, my mother died--she was 52--of Hodgkin's disease. When I was 22, a year later, my father died. He was 69. We all thought he would go first, but you never know in life. We owned small businesses, a liquor store, restaurant, and pool hall. Everything I learned about politics I learned there, and it served me well.

But when my parents died, the businesses folded. I had a 13-year-old sister. We moved in with an aunt and uncle who worked in the textile mills; they never made over $25,000. Survivor benefits mattered to my family. Without that money, it would have been tough for our family. So I know as well as anyone in this body that Social Security has a purpose. That is a good purpose. We ought to focus on making sure in the future, families like mine, who are worse off, have what we can afford to give them and what we promise to give them we will give them in a permanent fashion.

As to how we get there, I am openminded. Senator Lott mentioned, if you don't want to go into deficit and set up accounts, I will work with you.

But the accounts make sense to me, because younger workers, born after 1980, get a 1.4 percent rate of return on their Social Security investments. I know we can beat that without becoming a day trader. I know we can do a better job than that. But I am not going to prejudge anybody's plan. My promise to you is if you want to permanently solve the Social Security problem, to make sure that people in the future can count on the benefits when their family needs them, I will work with you.

Senator Conrad has been great to work with. I hope we can build upon what we have done today and find a solution that will protect the safety net.

Amendment No. 152, As Modified

I send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

The Senator from North Dakota's comments are well made. ``Permanent'' to me is to do whatever we need to do at whatever point in time to secure the safety net, starting today. Senator Conrad is right; we should have started yesterday dealing with all these problems. Social Security is only a small slice of it.

This budget sense of the Senate I hope will bring us together in honestly defining the problem. I am not asking anybody to prejudice an outcome, as to how they would solve the problem. But now we have on paper what the problem is for America. Working together, I think we can solve it. If we do not, we know what happens. In that regard I think this is a good step forward.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 15, 2005. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss school nutrition programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony from combatant commanders on their military strategy and operational requirements, in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2005, at 4:30 p.m. in open session to consider the following nomination: Honorable Anthony J. Principi to be a Member of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Identity Theft: Recent Developments Involving the Security of Sensitive Consumer Information.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 2:15 p.m. to hold a Business Meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. on ``SBC/ATT and Verizon/MCI Mergers-- Remaking the Telecommunications Industry.'' The hearing will take place in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The tentative witness list is attached.

PANEL I: Edward E. Whitacre, Jr., Chairman and CEO, SBC Communications, Inc., San Antonio, TX; Ivan G. Seidenberg, Chairman and CEO, Verizon Communications, New York City, NY; David Dorman, Chairman and CEO, AT&T Corp., Bedminister, NJ; and Michael D. Capellas, President and CEO, MCI, Ashburn, VA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2005 at 3:30 p.m. to hold a closed meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Tuesday, March 15, 2005 from 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Army transformation and the future combat system in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 175, a bill to establish the bleeding Kansas and Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area, and for other purposes; S. 322, a bill to establish the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership in the States of Vermont and New York, and for other purposes; S. 323, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the French Colonial Heritage Area in the State of Missouri as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; and S. 429, a bill to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area in the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Critical Mission: Ensuring the Success of the National Security Personnel System.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittees on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Openness in Government and Freedom of Information: Examining the OPEN Government Act of 2005,'' on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 10 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The tentative witness list is attached.

Panel I: Kathering M. ``Missy'' Cary, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, Chief, Open Records, Division, Austin, TX; Walter Mears, former Washington Bureau chief and Executive Editor, Associated Press, Chapel Hill, NC; Marck Tapscott, Director, Center for Media and Public Policy, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC; Lisa Graves, Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC; Meredith Fuchs, General Counsel, National Security Archive, George Washington University, Washington, DC; and Thomas M. Susman, Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution recognizing February 25 as ``National MPS Day.'' This resolution enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Senate. I am also pleased that a similar resolution is being introduced this week in the House of Representatives.

MPS, or Mucopolysaccharidosis, is a devastating disease that affects thousands of families in this country. Most often diagnosed in young children, MPS patients lack certain enzymes to break down complex carbohydrates in their bodies. These complex carbohydrates then are stored throughout the patient's body, causing many of the body's' systems to malfunction and, sadly, makes it difficult for these children to live long enough to reach adolescence.

It is a parent's role to make sacrifices for their child; yet, for the parents of a child diagnosed with MPS, the sacrifices are exceptional. I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of parents of MPS children. These parents exhibit amazing hope, love, grace and humor that can often mask the many trials they undergo in caring for

their children. My staff and I are constantly impressed at their ability to advance their cause while also selflessly caring for their children.

The current president of the National MPS Society, Sissi Langford, is a South Carolinian. She and her husband have two children with MPS, Joe and Maggie. Sissi has been a passionate advocate for her children and all those who suffer from MPS. She has worked with my office for the past two years and has proved herself time and again to be knowledgeable, compassionate and committed to helping those who have been diagnosed with MPS. She worked with others in the National MPS Society to help include language in the latest reauthorization of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to help address the needs of children who have been diagnosed with degenerative diseases. She has met with the National Institutes of Health and other top health policy makers to ensure that diseases in the same class as MPS are given adequate and necessary research attention. I commend Sissi and others like her, for their tireless work on behalf of MPS.

It is my hope that this resolution will help advance the recognition of MPS, and therefore the attention given in the research realm. I am also hopeful that the Senate will pass this resolution marking February 25 National MPS Day.

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

Mr. President, in light of the unanimous consent agreement that will bring this bill to closure, there is something I needed to get on the record. I appreciate getting a few minutes. I intend to vote for the bill. Everything the Senator said about the bill is very much true. The Senator from Utah has been working as chairman for years. The legal abuse that the Senator described is real. This bill really brings it to an end.

I found Federal court to be a fair place to try cases. The Senator is also right about the scope of class action lawsuits. They involve many people from different places throughout the country. We have a good balance in the bill of when you can be removed. Every class action is not going to go to Federal court. If the formula is right, and if it has enough national impact, Federal court will be the place to go because of the abuses described.

Those of us who practiced law for a living before we got here understand that the legal system can be reformed. I admire what the Senator from Utah and Senators Specter and Grassley have done to bring about reform. But we find ourselves in a unique political dynamic with this bill. Our friends in the House say they want it like we have it. We all agree there are amendments that could make the bill better that we would vote for, but the political moment will not allow that to happen. I regret not offering in committee the amendment I am going to speak about. I learned from my mistakes there.

One of the things we have done by federalizing certain class action lawsuits is we have taken the abuse out of the system, and we have gone to Federal court to have a more fair way of

doing business when the formula is right and when there is a national impact to stop home cooking.

The reason the diversity clause exists to begin with is that when you have two people from different States, you want to pick a neutral sight. You do not want to do home cooking. Really, the whole goal of this bill is to get it in a neutral site where people can have their fair day in court. I certainly appreciate that.

But there is another component to class actions that is missing in this bill. Class actions, by their very nature, as Senator Hatch described, involve a lot of people from different places and usually a lot is at stake. Sometimes it is money. Sometimes it is a business practice that does not have a lot of economic effect on one person, but when you add up the economic effect, it is bad for the country. People are cheating. People are nickel and diming folks, getting rich at the expense of the elderly or the infirm, by taking a few dollars here, and it adds up to be a very bad situation for the country. Those type cases lend themselves to class action.

There is another group of cases that could lend themselves to class action, too. That is when products are not designed right. They are consumer cases where consumers throughout the country are affected by the particular behavior in question.

Most States have a procedure, when such cases exist affecting the public at large, where the judge is able to determine what is fair in terms of sealing documents relating to settlements. I had an amendment that was modeled after a South Carolina statute--and over 20 States have a similar statute--that says in cases where the public's interest is present, where there is a consumer case that affects the health or well-being of the community at large, settlements can be sealed, documents can be made secret to protect business interests, but only if the judge determines that the public interest is also being met.

The amendment I proposed would have received well over 50 votes in this body, and I think Senator Hatch would have been friendly to it. But I understand the effect it would have on the bill.

The current chairman, Senator Specter, and I will have a colloquy for the record. This is the point of my seeking recognition.

This bill will leave the Senate and go to the House in a way to solve abuse, but I think it is lacking in consumer protections. The reason I am speaking today is this colloquy for the record with Senator Specter recognizes the value of this amendment and a commitment on his part and the committee's part to allow this amendment to move forward at another date, another time, in another place.

The reason I am agreeing to that is enough of my colleagues who are sympathetic to the amendment do not want to vote for anything that would derail the bill. I very much appreciate that because that is the way politics is, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as we do not lose sight of the goal. And the goal is to have a balance, to take care of abuses, but at the same time protect the public when the public needs to be protected.

What I am trying to say is I will not put my colleagues in a bad spot of having to vote down an amendment with which they agree because I do not have 50 votes. I am mature enough to know when you can win and when you cannot. Sometimes it is OK to lose. Losing is not bad as long as you feel good about what you are doing.

I do not want to offer the amendment, have colleagues vote against it, and create problems unnecessarily, but I do want my colleagues to know--and this colloquy will express this--that this bill needs to be amended and this problem needs to be addressed. We need to have a provision that is married up with the bill that is about to leave the Senate and go to the House that will allow a judge, upon motion of the parties, to determine in a situation where there is a request to keep the settlement secret and seal the documents from public review, to have a judge to determine what documents should be sealed in secret and what documents should be released to the public, balancing the needs of business and the right of the public to know what they should know about their health and their safety.

There were class action cases with the sunshine statute, about which I am talking, in effect. Without that statute, deadly lighters, exploding tires, defective drugs, toxic chemicals, and faulty automobile designs would not have been known if it were not for a procedure for the judge to release certain documents because the request was: We will give you money, but you cannot tell anybody about the underlying problem.

Sometimes that is very much unfair. I have case after case of sunshine statutes allowing the judge to determine what was in the public interest, to inform the public of deadly events, and peoples lives were saved and their health was protected.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. President, I appreciate Chairman Specter taking the time to join me in discussing a concern I have regarding S. 5, the class action bill. I am still prepared to seek a vote on my amendment, but based on my conversations with a number of senators this week, including Chairman Specter, and in a desire to see this bill pass as soon as possible, I have decided not to offer my amendment.

I agreed to support this bill some time ago because I believe we are long overdue for reform in the class action area. Over the last few years, I have worked to support this bill in both the Judiciary Committee and on the senate floor.

While I have fully supported this reform, I have also noticed some areas where the bill could be improved. I had hoped to offer an amendment on the floor regarding protective orders during discovery. I am confident that the amendment that I had hoped to introduce with Senator Prior of Arkansas would have made a significant improvement in the area of class action discovery.

Our amendment is very simple. It is based on the local rule in South Carolina Federal Courts for obtaining protective orders for documents. All it says is, if you want a protective order, you must make a motion at the beginning of trial, explain why it is necessary for the court to seal your documents, and provide public notice of the motion and a description of the documents. that's it.

At least 20 states have taken action to limit secrecy agreements. This type of scrutiny should be extended throughout the nation, especially where we are removing parties from the protections afforded them by their States.

And let me be clear. This is not an onerous burden to place on those seeking protective orders. It is not that far a departure from the current discovery rules. We could have gone a lot further; with higher standards, a presumption against sealing, and other controversial discovery reforms. However, we are not seeking to tilt the playing field to one side or the other, just make sure some reasonable, well- thought out ground rules are applied to everyone.

My amendment creates a presumption of openness--it would require the parties in class action lawsuits to justify their requests for secrecy, followed by a medical review of the information they want the court to keep under seal.

They would have to identify the documents or information they want sealed--and most importantly the reasons why it's necessary to keep them secret.

They also would have to explain why a protective order approach is necessary and justify the request based on controlling case law.

The public would be notified of the information that was being put under seal--and a descriptive non-confidential index of the secret documents would be provided.

In the end, however, it is still up to the judge's discretion, albeit with a slightly higher standard than currently exist under the Federal rules of civil procedure.

I am doing this because I am convinced Federal Judges will come down on the side of consumer protection where it's in the public interest and come down on the side of secrecy where merited. In short, while the burden here is on any party that wants to keep

something secret, it is not an onerous task, nor impossible.

Valid trade secrets and proprietary information--sensitive information that goes to the heart of a company being able to compete in the market place should and will be protected. There must be safeguards for businesses--they have a right to protect valid trade secrets--patents and other proprietary information. But this isn't something that can just go on automatic pilot--there has to be some judicial review and I am confident the procedures protect all the parties in a class action lawsuit.

So again, we have merely tried to find a way to balance the legitimate interests of companies, who we want to remain strong competitors in the marketplace, with the public's interest in disclosing potentially harmful products or practices.

Our amendment strikes the right balance because it raises the bar only slightly for companies to justify why they need to impose secrecy, using our courts to do so, but does not force them to open up their companies to every passerby simply because they are defending a lawsuit.

Now there are critics who warn that an amendment like this is going to create a number of problems in the judicial system, making discovery more difficult and deterring settlements.

I do not agree. Take a look at Florida, which has one of the most stringent sunshine laws. I don't think anyone can tell you Florida is a magnet for class actions. In fact, the most recent studies in the 20 States that have sunshine laws show that limiting court secrecy has not led to more litigation or curtailed the number of case that are settled.

In fact I do not believe there is any evidence that supports the proposition that more cases will go to trial and fewer settlements will be reached if some procedural safeguards are put in place.

Also, you have to remember that our amendment only applied to court- ordered secrecy. Parties would still have been free to privately agree upon secrecy between them.

In closing Mr. President, I must say I have been a bit taken aback by all the turmoil this amendment has caused. I am pretty sure we can all agree that ours was a fairly benign procedural amendment, one that serves both the public and those before our courts.

Toward that end, I very much appreciate the understanding I and Senator Pryor have been able to reach with Chairman Specter regarding the substance of our amendment. The chairman has graciously agreed to assist us with this amendment in the Judiciary Committee. I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him to address this issue in the near future.

I thank my chairman for his future assistance.

Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that they will have done a good thing by passing this bill. They will do a very good thing if we can take up this amendment at another time to make this bill more balanced because the abuses as described by Senator Hatch are real. My colleagues have worked a long time to bring about this date. They should be proud of it.

There is a way to make this bill better, and if we do not address this problem, I predict something is going to happen out there without a sunshine amendment. There is going to be a class action case involving consumer interests, and if there is no procedure for the judge to balance the public interests against business interests, we are going to shield the public from something they should know. There is no reason we cannot do both: Stop the legal abuse and help consumers. It is my pledge and my promise to work with everybody in this body to make that happen.

I yield the floor and thank the Senate for its indulgence.

Mr. President, I want to concur with the statement issued earlier by Chairman Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee regarding section 222 of this bill.

I don't understand the reasoning or motivation behind this provision. But it is clear that it could be easily abused.

This is a great example of how the process is inadequate in terms of passing legislation without legitimate input from the Members of this body.

The thought of an individual Member of a legislative body, including this one, having access to tax records of individual Americans is unacceptable and must be changed; but equally importantly the process needs to be changed.

I am not attributing bad motives, but this must be changed and I take the chairman of the Appropriations Committee at his word that it will be changed.

We need to change this process to ensure mistakes like this are not made in the future.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize WHRI-AM and WRHM-FM for their combined 100 years of service to Rock Hill, York County, and the State of South Carolina.

WHRI first signed on the air in the Rock Hill community in December 1944. During its 60-year history, the station has remained dedicated to providing quality programming and has been a committed partner in community development.

WHRI operates under a principle established by its founder, Jim Beaty: ``Never underestimate the audience.'' In doing so, the station provides coverage of local and national news, sports, and events.

WHRI remains an active participant in the community, the station and its staff contribute time and talent to numerous service projects. One of WHRI's greatest success stories has been their involvement with the Shrine Bowl. When this all-star football game featuring high school athletes from North and South Carolina came to Rock Hill in 2001 there were only a handful of stations that carried the game. Three years later the network has been expanded to 50 stations. This increased exposure has also helped bring greater awareness to the cause of the Shriners and helped them raise additional funds for their hospitals.

WHRI has remained dedicated to serving the community in which they live. In keeping with their commitment to service, WHRI purchased WRHM in 1987. WRHM signed on the air in Lancaster more than 40 years ago in July 1964. After a 3-year station upgrade in the late 1980's, WRHM grew to serve a large region of South Carolina. Today, WRHM is broadcast to more than 15 counties in North and South Carolina, and continues the same tradition of excellence and regional service inspired by the success of their sister station.

I wish WHRI and WRHM continued success for years to come.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and Senator Levin for allowing us to use the time, and I appreciate it very much.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I have been listening to the debate. I am sure putting together legislation is a very complex matter right at the end of the session. I need to make a comment and ask a question.

I could not agree more with the state of affairs as has been described by the Senator from Louisiana. The Guard and Reserve are being used in historic fashion. Does the Senator realize that of all the part-time employees who exist in the Federal Government, the Guard and Reserve is the only group that does not have full-time access to health care?

Does the Senator further realize that at least half of the people called to active duty from the Guard and Reserve leave behind civilian jobs and thus have a reduction in pay, sometimes substantial?

Does the Senator agree with me that no matter what happens in the last hours of this session, that next year, because 40 percent of the people serving on active duty in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places are going to come from the Guard and Reserve, that we need to fix this, and whatever excuses exist today why we can't, that the Senate and the House need to understand that thousands of families are going off to get in a fight, getting injured, getting killed, and having their pay cut and no health care, and that the No. 1 priority of the Senate and House along with whomever is the President next year is to rectify some of these problems?

Mr. President, may I inquire as to the parliamentary situation in the Senate?

I thank the Chair. I wish to make some remarks on an amendment that I have filed. I will not ask that that amendment be brought before the Senate this evening, but I look toward doing so at an appropriate time.

Mr. President, 3 years have passed since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Largely because of the anger and the concern and the desire to show that the lives of those 3,000 Americans who were sacrificed on that day had meaning, we are nearing passage of a meaningful intelligence reform plan. But as we commit ourselves to implementing this plan, I remain convinced that we still will not be doing all we can do, all we should do to win the war on terror and to hold our adversaries to account.

Why do I hold those views?

It is my view that we have allowed to escape at least one and possibly more make-believe allies that have and may be today supporting terrorists with financial, logistical, and even diplomatic resources. These allies are saying one thing in their public relations campaign but doing quite another in their palaces, in the halls of government when it comes to nurturing al-Qaida and other terrorist networks.

Let me give a little explanation of why I think this issue is so important. For 19 relatively young men, most of whom were strangers to each other, to be able to come into the United States without much command of the English language and almost no knowledge of American culture and practices, stay in this country for, in some cases, 18 months, to be able to refine a plan that had been developed prior to their entry, to deal with unexpected complications, such as the detaining of the 20th hijacker, and to be able to practice that plan and finally execute it with the tragic consequences of September 11 is not an easy task. Many have asked how could they have done it.

I believe, for one thing, these 19 people were more capable than we may have originally thought, and that itself is a chilling observation, because it says something about the adversary we are going to continue to be facing once we restart the war on terror.

But second, I also believe they were not here alone. In that famous August 2001 briefing which the President received at Crawford, TX, one of the items in that briefing which has, in my opinion, been inadequately observed was that the President was told that al-Qaida had a network inside the United States.

Supplementing that network, I believe the Saudis were given license to take advantage of a network that was already in existence in the United States for another purpose, primarily the purpose of surveilling countrymen who were in the United States to determine if they were fulminating any plots that might be adverse to the interests of the royal family. That network was then made available to at least 2 and maybe more, possibly all, of the 19 hijackers.

I will remind my colleagues again, as I have previously, that much of the information that makes this case is contained in the 27 pages of the final report of the House and Senate inquiry into 9/11, the 27 pages which were censored by the administration and, therefore, have never been made available to the American people. But I can say this: A California-based former employee of the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority, a then 42-year-old Saudi national named Omar al-Bayoumi, had extensive contacts with two of the Saudi national hijackers, Khalid al

Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi. These two men had entered the United States in January of 2000 after having attended a summit of terrorists in Malaysia a few weeks earlier.

Bayoumi was paid $40,000 a year by a Saudi Government subcontractor, but he never showed up for work. He was what is referred to as a ghost employee. Indeed, a CIA agent described him as a spy of the Saudi Government assigned to keep track of Saudi citizens in southern California, particularly the large number of Saudi students studying at higher education institutions there.

The day that al-Bayoumi met the two hijackers at a Los Angeles restaurant, he had first attended a meeting at the Saudi consulate with a Saudi official who subsequently was denied reentry into the United States because of his alleged terrorist background.

He then, over lunch, invited the two terrorists to come from Los Angeles to San Diego where he proceeded to first allow them to live with him until they could arrange for an apartment, he cosigned their lease, paid their first month's rent, hosted a welcome party, and helped them get a variety of services, including driver's licenses and flight school applications. He introduced them to others who served as their translator and other support roles.

This is just one strand in the web of connections between hijackers and the Saudi Government. But, again, I am restricted in terms of how fulsome the details can be.

There is other evidence of Saudi complicity, especially when it comes to financing al-Qaida. In a monograph on the finances of al-Qaida prepared by the 9/11 Commission, staff investigators found government- sponsored Islamic charities had helped provide funds for Osama bin Laden. The monograph states:

Fund-raisers and facilitators throughout Saudi Arabia and

the Gulf raised money for al Qaeda from witting and unwitting

donors and diverted funds from Islamic charities and mosques.

It attributed this thriving network to ``a lack of awareness and a failure to conduct oversight over institutions [which] created an environment in which such activity has flourished.''

The 9/11 Commission investigators concluded:

It appears that the Saudis have accepted that terrorist

financing is a serious issue and are making progress in

addressing it. It remains to be seen whether they will (and

are able to do) enough, and whether the U.S. Government will

push them hard enough, to substantially eliminate al Qaeda

financing by Saudi sources.

At least one other authority body is even more skeptical. The Council on Foreign Relations established a task force on terrorist financing, and representatives of the task force testified last week on the 29th of September before a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee.

Mallory Factor, vice chairman of the Independent Task Force on Terrorist Financing, said this:

The Saudi Government has clearly allowed individual and

institutional financiers of terror to operate and prosper

within Saudi borders.

Let me repeat that statement:

The Saudi government has clearly allowed individuals and

institutional financiers of terror to operate and prosper

within Saudi borders.

He continued:

Saudi Arabia has enacted a new anti-money laundering law

designed to impede the flow from Saudi Arabia to terrorist

groups. However, significant enforcement by Saudi Arabia of

several of these new laws appears to be lacking. . . .

He continued:

Furthermore, even if these laws were fully implemented,

they contain a number of exceptions and flaws which weaken

their effectiveness in curbing terror financing. . . . Quite

simply, Saudi Arabia continues to allow many key financiers

of global terror to operate, remain free and go unpunished

within Saudi borders.

Lee Wolosky, the codirector of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force, added:

There is no evidence . . . that since September 11, 2001,

Saudi Arabia has taken public punitive actions against any

individual for financing terror.

That directly contradicts the statements made by this administration that the Saudis have been cooperating and continue to deserve to be considered as allies.

Despite all of the evidence, President Bush has said nothing to suggest that he is reconsidering the assurance he offered to the American people in the Rose Garden on September 24, 2001, when he said:

As far as the Saudi Arabians go . . . they've been nothing

but cooperative. Our dialogue has been one of--as you would

expect friends to be, able to discuss issues.

On Sunday, like several million Americans, I watched the Sunday interview programs and I saw a lady I admire, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, as she attempted to explain why she and other key members of this administration, aware of the fact that there was a considerable disagreement as to whether aluminum tubes which were destined for Iraq but had been intercepted, but which had been determined by the best experts in the United States, those in the Department of Energy, to not be appropriate for the construction of a centrifuge, one of the preliminary steps in the development of weaponizable material--she said any prudent policymaker would have to take the most conservative view if there was a disagreement, take the view that would best protect the American people.

I say this: If we have the kinds of comments that have come from responsible citizens who served on the 9/11 Commission, statements that have been made by a respected independent task force of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the recommendations of the joint House-Senate task force, why do we not take the same conservative position as relates to Saudi Arabia?

This is what our colleagues in this Chamber and the House said in December of 2002. Recommendation 19 of the final report of the joint inquiry stated: The intelligence community, and particularly the FBI and the CIA, should aggressively address the possibility that foreign governments are providing support to or are involved in terrorist activity targeting the United States and U.S. interests. State- sponsored terrorism substantially increases the likelihood of successful and more lethal attacks against the United States. This issue must be addressed.

If we believe that we should take the stance which is most protective of the security of the people of the United States of America, why have we taken this position of coddling passivity and deference to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with this record of their support of terrorism?

My lack of confidence in both Saudis and the administration, my lack of confidence in their ability to level with the American people, leads me to offer this amendment on behalf of the families of those who died on 9/11.

Several groups of families and survivors have filed lawsuits against the Saudi Government, members of the Saudi Royal Family, other Saudi entities, alleging that they were part of a conspiracy that led to the successful attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.

The Saudi Government, in Federal court, has moved to strike not only the Royal Family, not only individuals but also to strike virtually every entity under the umbrella, that those entities are a part of the sovereign immunity in Saudi Arabia and therefore come under the umbrella of sovereign immunity from their acts.

The effect of this position is to prevent the victims' families from proceeding to the discovery portion of the trial which could yield valuable information about the Saudi Government's activities. This amendment would waive sovereign immunity protections for foreign governments involved in lawsuits related to the September 11 attacks. It would not automatically declare that the Saudi Government or any other government is responsible for the attacks or was complicit in the attacks, but it would give victims' families a chance to have their day in court. While exceptions like this are rare, this is because terrorist attacks of the magnitude of September 11 are rare.

Congress has waived sovereign immunity before. In the case of the Iran hostage-taking, sovereign immunity was waived because there was reason to suspect that the hostage-takers had received support from the Iranian Government. We decided an exception to the law was necessary in this case in order to both get to the truth and see that justice was provided for innocent American families.

I believe the family members of the victims of 9/11 deserve to have an equal opportunity to get to the truth, especially in light of the coverup our Government has engaged in and which has prevented the American people from a full understanding of the extent of that complicity.

For all we know, the network which functioned prior to 9/11 and which contributed to the ability of these 19 people who were new to the United States, woefully deficient in the English language, to be able to hide out for 18 months and then refine, practice, and execute a plan of terror, that infrastructure is still in place. This amendment would help these families and the people of the United States better understand what has happened to us in the past, what the threat might be today, and to hold those responsible and accountable for their actions.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge swift passage of S. 2484, which reflects a compromise agreement on a new system for compensating physicians and dentists in the Department of Veterans Affairs' VA health care system, as well as alternative work schedules for VA nurses. VA doctors and dentists have not gotten a pay adjustment in over a decade. All of these measures are aimed at improving VA's ability to recruit and retain quality health care professionals. I would like to highlight some of the key aspects of this legislation.

The compromise agreement sets forth a three-tiered system for paying VA physicians and dentists. The three tiers consist of base, market, and performance pay. The base pay element is similar to that employed by other Federal agencies, also known as the General Schedule GS-- system. As such, increases are guaranteed for every 2 years a physician or dentist remains employed by VA.

The second component of the new pay system is market pay. This element will be implemented by the Secretary in the form of pay bands that will be determined by surveys of regional salaries in the academic and private sectors. Also relevant to the market pay determinations are factors such as the scarcity--or abundance--of certain specialty physicians, type and years of experience, and board certifications. Finally, the Secretary will consult with professional review panels composed of other physicians or dentists.

The final component is performance pay. Performance pay will be awarded to doctors and dentists if they meet certain goals and measures set forth by the Secretary. Currently, VA has extensive performance measures that it utilizes to motivate its health care providers and ensure quality of care. This element has a maximum of $15,000 or 7.5 percent of the sum of the base and market pay.

One other major section of this agreement establishes alternative work schedules for VA nurses. It is widely known that the entire country is suffering from a nursing shortage. VA anticipates that it will be hit especially hard by the retirement of a significant portion of its nursing workforce over the next 10 years. S. 2484 allows VA to employ different types of working schedules in order to attract more nurses to the system.

I am proud to have worked on this valuable piece of legislation for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. President, as we all know, people from all over the world want to come to America to pursue a better life for themselves and their families.

Unfortunately, however, some people entrust their lives to some very dangerous people in their effort to gain our shores. And, tragically, some people are brought here against their will and kept as human chattel, enslaved in horrible conditions, in the midst of our freedom.

After hearing of the horrible deaths of aliens smuggled into the country and inhumanely abandoned along a Texas highway last year, I wanted to examine whether we are doing all we can to combat these horrible crimes.

In talking with various law enforcement officials and victims, I heard of alien smugglers and traffickers who, through unabashed acts of profiteering, endanger the lives of countless aliens while compromising the integrity of our immigration laws at the same time. Make no mistake, the incentives for human smugglers are enormous. According to the Department of State, human smuggling around the globe generates an estimated $9.5 billion a year.

The commodities involved in this illicit trade are men, women, and children who, for the smuggler, represent substantial profits. The State Department estimates that more than a million women and children are trafficked around the world each year, generally for the purpose of domestic servitude, sweatshop labor, or sexual exploitation. At any given time, the Department estimates that thousands of people are in the smuggling pipeline, with the United States being the primary

target. Smugglers deliver some 50,000 aliens here each year. Alien smuggling is a global problem which requires a systematic and coordinated response. We should do all we can within our criminal laws to combat this terrible problem.

Given the risks associated with these crimes every time they are carried out, the punishment should be appropriate to deter future smuggling or trafficking, and to sufficiently sanction those who are caught. Currently, Title 8 smuggling provisions provide that a person found guilty of alien smuggling where death results is subject to the full range of punishments, including the death penalty. However, if death results from a Title 18 trafficking offense, where the victims are arguably more vulnerable, the defendant is not subjected to the death penalty.

In my opinion, an important component of criminal justice prosecutions is to serve as a deterrent to others who may be disposed to commit a crime. We should ensure that the punishments for smuggling and trafficking crimes are such that the risks of apprehension, prosecution and punishment far outweigh the payday at their delivery point. And, we need to be diligent in making certain that notice of these penalties is conveyed to those who are engaged in this enterprise, up and down the smuggling and trafficking organizational chain. Obviously, in my opinion, the best way to do that is the vigorous prosecution and harsh punishment of those we do catch.

I also want to say a word about the goal of this legislation. Clearly, the smuggling and trafficking problem impacts a host of immigration issues. While we are engaged in the nationwide debate surrounding immigration, we must also ensure that the crimes related to smuggling and trafficking are punished appropriately. We should not wait for the conclusion of debate on the overall issue.

Whatever your feelings are regarding immigration policy, I think everyone can agree that we must not allow otherwise innocent men, women, and children to be abused and killed by those who seek to profit from the desperation of others.

Mr. President, as we all know, people from all over the world want to come to America to pursue a better life for themselves and their families.

Unfortunately, however, some people entrust their lives to some very dangerous people in their effort to gain our shores. And, tragically, some people are brought here against their will and kept as human chattel, enslaved in horrible conditions, in the midst of our freedom.

After hearing of the horrible deaths of aliens smuggled into the country and inhumanely abandoned along a Texas highway last year, I wanted to examine whether we are doing all we can to combat these horrible crimes.

In talking with various law enforcement officials and victims, I heard of alien smugglers and traffickers who, through unabashed acts of profiteering, endanger the lives of countless aliens while compromising the integrity of our immigration laws at the same time. Make no mistake, the incentives for human smugglers are enormous. According to the Department of State, human smuggling around the globe generates an estimated $9.5 billion a year.

The commodities involved in this illicit trade are men, women, and children who, for the smuggler, represent substantial profits. The State Department estimates that more than a million women and children are trafficked around the world each year, generally for the purpose of domestic servitude, sweatshop labor, or sexual exploitation. At any given time, the Department estimates that thousands of people are in the smuggling pipeline, with the United States being the primary

target. Smugglers deliver some 50,000 aliens here each year. Alien smuggling is a global problem which requires a systematic and coordinated response. We should do all we can within our criminal laws to combat this terrible problem.

Given the risks associated with these crimes every time they are carried out, the punishment should be appropriate to deter future smuggling or trafficking, and to sufficiently sanction those who are caught. Currently, Title 8 smuggling provisions provide that a person found guilty of alien smuggling where death results is subject to the full range of punishments, including the death penalty. However, if death results from a Title 18 trafficking offense, where the victims are arguably more vulnerable, the defendant is not subjected to the death penalty.

In my opinion, an important component of criminal justice prosecutions is to serve as a deterrent to others who may be disposed to commit a crime. We should ensure that the punishments for smuggling and trafficking crimes are such that the risks of apprehension, prosecution and punishment far outweigh the payday at their delivery point. And, we need to be diligent in making certain that notice of these penalties is conveyed to those who are engaged in this enterprise, up and down the smuggling and trafficking organizational chain. Obviously, in my opinion, the best way to do that is the vigorous prosecution and harsh punishment of those we do catch.

I also want to say a word about the goal of this legislation. Clearly, the smuggling and trafficking problem impacts a host of immigration issues. While we are engaged in the nationwide debate surrounding immigration, we must also ensure that the crimes related to smuggling and trafficking are punished appropriately. We should not wait for the conclusion of debate on the overall issue.

Whatever your feelings are regarding immigration policy, I think everyone can agree that we must not allow otherwise innocent men, women, and children to be abused and killed by those who seek to profit from the desperation of others.

Madam President, I send to the desk the amendment consistent with the statement I have just made and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I rise in recognition of October as Spina Bifida Awareness Month.

Spina bifida is the Nation's most common, permanently disabling birth defect. It is a neural tube defect that occurs when the central nervous system does not properly close during the early stages of pregnancy. Each year more than 4,000 pregnancies are affected and of these 1,500 babies are born with spina bifida. The most severe form of spina bifida occurs in 96 percent of children born with this disease. However, thanks to the good work that the Spina Bifida Association of America is carrying out to promote prevention and to enhance the lives of all affected by this condition, substantial progress is being made.

During Spina Bifida Awareness Month, a special effort is made to increase public awareness about spina bifida and its prevention. Simply by taking a daily dose of the B vitamin, folic acid, women of childbearing age have the power to reduce the incidence of spina bifida by up to 75 percent. Recent studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, show that 40 percent of women of childbearing age now report taking a vitamin containing folic acid every day. In addition, since the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, decision to fortify enriched grains with folic acid, CDC has documented a 26 percent decline in these birth defects. These simple changes that produce profound effects clearly demonstrate the importance of awareness.

In addition to educating the public about spina bifida, the Spina Bifida Association of America also addresses the needs of the spina bifida community. Founded in 1973, the association is the only national organization solely dedicated to advocating on behalf of the spina bifida community. Today, there are approximately 60 chapters serving over 125 communities nationwide.

I am honored to support the Spina Bifida Association and wish to commend them for all of their hard work to prevent and reduce suffering from this birth defect. I greatly appreciate their efforts to improve the lives of those 70,000 individuals living with spina bifida throughout our country. I wish the Spina Bifida Association of America the best of luck in its endeavors and urge all of my colleagues to support the association's efforts.

Mr. President, I am introducing the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act today.

This legislation would allow States the option to once again provide Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) coverage to legal immigrant children and pregnant women.

Traditionally, Medicaid and SCHIP have served as vital components of our nation's health care safety net. These programs have provided coverage to over 50 million non-elderly, low-income Americans, most of them children, and have helped to dramatically reduce infant mortality and provide health care for millions of poor children whose families cannot afford the high cost of private health insurance.

However, for many low-income families that are income eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP, these safety programs are today little more than a mirage--an illusion to those who need them most. The 1996 welfare reform law arbitrarily barred states from using Federal funds to provide health coverage to low-income legal immigrants during their first 5 years in the United States.

While the goal of welfare reform was to encourage self-sufficiency in adults, the legislation unfortunately has punished children. Today, half of all legal immigrant children from families making less than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level are uninsured. That's over two and a half times the uninsured rate for children who are United States citizens.

In the long term, ignoring the health care needs of legal immigrant children

and pregnant women will prove more costly than providing care today. Children and pregnant women who do not have access to preventive care often use the emergency room as a first resort--an expensive treatment for conditions that could have been treated at a fraction of the cost or possibly even prevented.

The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2000 estimated that $1 spent on prenatal care for immigrant women saved $3 in short- term postnatal costs and $5 in longer-term costs. By spending on prevention today, we can reduce health care costs in the future.

Another result of the 1996 legislation was to push the costs of care to the States. The 20 states with the highest number of legal immigrants all used to have state-financed health care programs for legal immigrant children or pregnant women. States put these programs in place because they recognized the enormous toll the 1996 rules have taken on state budgets, when states have to provide preventable emergency-room care to thousands of uninsured legal immigrants.

But due to the recent State budget crisis, some of these states cannot now afford programs that are exclusively state-financed. In my home state of Florida, for example, new enrollment in the program has been frozen.

This amendment allows states the option to use Medicaid and SCHIP funding to cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women. Over the last 6 years, Senator Chafee and I, along with our colleagues in the House and Senate, have worked to restore this option and we've come very close to achieving our goal.

Last year, a 3-year restoration provision was included in the Senate- passed Medicare prescription drug bill, with 65 Members supporting it. Over 400 national, state, and local organizations have supported this legislation, including the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and numerous immigrant, ethnic, labor, health and faith-based organizations.

Despite this support, Congress has yet to enact legislation that restores health benefits to legal immigrant families.

Why?

Some Members argued it didn't belong on a Medicare bill but instead on a welfare reauthorization bill. That was one of the reasons it was dropped from the Medicare bill. But the same argument has been made when it was discussed in the context of welfare--that it is not a welfare issue, it's a health care issue.

Well, while this volleyball match continues, legal immigrant families in this country continue to work hard and pay taxes, while being denied the benefits of the system they are paying into. Meanwhile, States continue to provide as much care as they can from strapped state budgets. We need to send a clear message about our concern for uninsured children and we need to stop pretending that our federal penny-pinching is cost free to the states or to taxpayers.

Mr. President, legal immigrants pay taxes, serve in the military, and have the same social obligations as United States citizens. Legal immigrant children are, as much as citizen children, the next generation of Americans. It is important that all children start off on the right foot towards good health. This provision can help them do just that.

This legislation is offset by a custom user fee extension included in the President's budget.

I hope that we will begin consideration of this important measure before the August recess. The health and lives of many children is at stake, and there is simply no reason to delay any further.