Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I do not consider myself a protectionist, nor a free trader, but a balanced trader.

Having said that, I have not been a supporter of so-called free trade agreements in the past. I have been very skeptical of the free trade agreements--FTAs--our country has signed due to the detrimental impact that I believe they've had on our economy, especially the manufacturing industry. Most of the trade agreements we have signed since I have been involved in politics under both Democrat and Republican leadership have put American workers at an unfair disadvantage because they have encouraged trade with countries that have no labor standards, lack environmental and intellectual property laws, and violate agreements under the WTO.

Free trade only works when both countries play fairly. That is why I can support the U.S.-Australian Free Trade Agreement--USAFTA. Australia is a country that holds true to their word and will live up to their commitments in the agreement. Australia lives by the same rules of law that we as Americans live by. By maintaining an equivalent cost of production and standard of living to that of the United States, the USAFTA will improve the competitive advantages of both countries without encouraging the displacement of hard-working Americans.

I am extremely concerned about the negative impacts that unfair trade agreements have had on the manufacturing industry. South Carolina, particularly the textile industry, has been decimated by unfair trade, first with NAFTA and now with the People's Republic of China. We have lost thousands of jobs at home. In the last six years, nearly 230,000 U.S. textile jobs have been lost. Since 1997, the U.S. textile industry has closed more than 250 textile plants in the country. These mass layoffs and plant closings are a direct result of unfairly traded imports, especially from China. China's access to the U.S. textile and apparel market more than doubled in 2002, growing 117 percent and grew an additional 114 percent in 2003, according to the American Textile Manufacturers Institute.

During the negotiations on the Australian Free Trade Agreement, the Bush Administration negotiated a good deal for the textile industry and I appreciate their efforts in this regard. The USAFTA contains a strict yarn-forward rule of origin with no loopholes, exceptions, or carveouts. Therefore, the benefits of the USAFTA are limited to the participating countries only, effectively denying China the loophole through which they annually transship billions of dollars of manufacturing goods into this country. This is the first FTA to contain such a strict yarn-forward rule of origin and I hope that it is the first of many.

While I recognize the need to examine the problems with our current trade agreements, I support the USAFTA because I feel it has the opportunity to serve as a model for future FTAs. Furthermore, the implementation of the USAFTA will further strengthen the U.S. relationship with Australia, one of our most important and reliable strategic partners.

Mr. President, in 2013, our nation will celebrate the 500th anniversary of Ponce de Leon's landing on the east coast of Florida. I am pleased to introduce a bill today that establishes a commission to determine how we can best commemorate his discovery of Florida. For a country as young as ours, a Quincentennial is a rare milestone worthy of tribute.

Juan Ponce de Leon landed on the coast of Florida, south of the present-day St. Augustine, in April of 1513. During the Easter holiday, he explored our coasts, visiting the Florida Keys and the west coast of Florida. The first European explorer to step foot on North American soil, Ponce de Leon opened Florida and the mainland of the Americas to the rest of the world. Florida owes its heritage to Ponce de Leon. Even the name Florida dates back to Ponce de Leon's discovery. When he saw the lush terrain, Ponce de Leon named the area the ``land of flowers'' or ``Florida'' in Spanish.

While there is no doubt that Ponce de Leon is a key part of Florida's history, his landing in Florida is ingrained in our entire nation's early history. Children read in their history books about the myths surrounding Ponce de Leon's voyages. His quest for the fountain of youth has become a myth symbolic of the age of exploration.

Other Europeans were encouraged to make the dangerous journey across the Atlantic toward the Americas, persuaded by the stories of Ponce de Leon's explorations of the new lands of Florida. Ultimately, his discovery opened the path for exploration and colonization of the Americas.

I have drafted this bill with the assistance of a notable scholar accomplished in the field of early Florida history--Dr. Samuel Proctor, Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Florida. I would like to thank Dr. Proctor for all of his efforts in drafting this bill.

Funding authorized by this legislation would support the activities of this commission and would allow for educational activities, ceremonies, and celebrations. Fittingly, the principal office for this operation would be located in St. Augustine, FL.

With the establishment of this commission, my hope is to not only commemorate Ponce de Leon's arrival in Florida but to enhance the American public's knowledge about the impact of Florida's discovery on the history of the United States. I hope that my colleagues will recognize the importance of commemorating this historic event.

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

Mr. President, in 2013, our nation will celebrate the 500th anniversary of Ponce de Leon's landing on the east coast of Florida. I am pleased to introduce a bill today that establishes a commission to determine how we can best commemorate his discovery of Florida. For a country as young as ours, a Quincentennial is a rare milestone worthy of tribute.

Juan Ponce de Leon landed on the coast of Florida, south of the present-day St. Augustine, in April of 1513. During the Easter holiday, he explored our coasts, visiting the Florida Keys and the west coast of Florida. The first European explorer to step foot on North American soil, Ponce de Leon opened Florida and the mainland of the Americas to the rest of the world. Florida owes its heritage to Ponce de Leon. Even the name Florida dates back to Ponce de Leon's discovery. When he saw the lush terrain, Ponce de Leon named the area the ``land of flowers'' or ``Florida'' in Spanish.

While there is no doubt that Ponce de Leon is a key part of Florida's history, his landing in Florida is ingrained in our entire nation's early history. Children read in their history books about the myths surrounding Ponce de Leon's voyages. His quest for the fountain of youth has become a myth symbolic of the age of exploration.

Other Europeans were encouraged to make the dangerous journey across the Atlantic toward the Americas, persuaded by the stories of Ponce de Leon's explorations of the new lands of Florida. Ultimately, his discovery opened the path for exploration and colonization of the Americas.

I have drafted this bill with the assistance of a notable scholar accomplished in the field of early Florida history--Dr. Samuel Proctor, Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Florida. I would like to thank Dr. Proctor for all of his efforts in drafting this bill.

Funding authorized by this legislation would support the activities of this commission and would allow for educational activities, ceremonies, and celebrations. Fittingly, the principal office for this operation would be located in St. Augustine, FL.

With the establishment of this commission, my hope is to not only commemorate Ponce de Leon's arrival in Florida but to enhance the American public's knowledge about the impact of Florida's discovery on the history of the United States. I hope that my colleagues will recognize the importance of commemorating this historic event.

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

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

Mr. President, I, like others of my colleagues, would like to see closure on this issue. Before I got into politics, I was a lawyer. I admire our legal system. In many ways, people have their chance to be judged by their neighbors. I am very respectful of the jury trial. However, in the class action arena of the law, I find more abuses than solutions. I don't believe the Constitution ever envisioned the class action litigation model that we have come up with where you can create your own false diversity and you can run everybody to Illinois or Mississippi because business is involved.

I believe the removal process in this bill where the judge has discretion to remove cases from State court to Federal court will correct some abuses. I believe the coupon cases were never what the law was meant to be about.

The legal reforms in this bill I support. I have an amendment. I hope we can get to it. It would allow a procedure to be had in terms of pursuing settlement. Consumers need to be told about the Pinto case and need to be informed when products are dangerous, but companies need not be required to give proprietary information without having their say.

I have an amendment that would allow the judge in a particular case to rule on whether documents would be subject to seal. I think the South Carolina rule is a very reasonable rule. But whether we get to this, I believe this bill's time has come, and it is now time for the Senate to act. The abuses that are going on in class action are not about treating people fairly, they are about simple greed. These abuses need to be stopped for the betterment of us all. Claimants and businesses find themselves subject to this.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of cloture on S. 2062, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2004. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I supported the bill during committee consideration and I will be voting in favor of cloture and final passage as well.

The need for this bill is pointed out daily by stories of abuse. We hear of attempts to sue McDonald's because people who eat there are getting fat. We hear of lawyers negotiating coupon settlements for their clients, while they receive millions of dollars in fees. We hear of class members actually losing money on settlements.

I am a lawyer and I am not happy with that state of affairs. I don't think anyone is more in favor of a strong legal system than I am. And I define a strong legal system as one where all parties are treated fairly, wrongs are redressed, and justice is afforded equally and without bias.

The Class Action Fairness Bill of 2004 does not weaken our legal system. It rectifies the current imbalance in some areas where some parties are not treated fairly; new wrongs are committed, not redressed; and justice is overlooked, if not outright disregarded.

I say to my friends who oppose this bill that, just as it is important to make sure that victims have an opportunity to be heard in our courts, it is just as important to insure that the defendant is treated fairly. And I don't believe anyone can credibly claim that that is the case today in many areas of our country. Justice requires that we act to remedy that.

Although I may not believe this bill is perfect, and actually have an amendment or two of my own, I do not believe we should delay this bill one moment longer. My amendment is slightly technical, but very simple.

It would merely provide for uniform judicial scrutiny of sealed documents. I have based my amendment on the South Carolina district rule for how to obtain a protective order for trade secrets or other proprietary information. I haven't heard from one person in South Carolina who doesn't like the way it works.

It puts all parties on equal footing and preserves judicial discretion. However, though I firmly believe my amendment would improve the bill, I will be voting for cloture because this bill is more important.

I firmly believe that the Class Action Fairness Act of 2004 is exactly that, fair to all parties.

It is narrowly aimed at some of the most egregious abuses of the class action system. In fact, I have heard from some folds that the bill does not go far enough. However, in my opinion, it is a reasonable first step in the effort to control what are clearly abuses of the system.

It is reasonable because I don't think anyone in the chamber can complain about judges taking a look at settlements to make sure the class members are not being victimized further. I don't think anyone can complain about giving federal judges the power to block worthless settlements based on coupons or other gimmicks.

We have even had some firms sanctioned for filing cases just to settle with no damages for the class, but significant attorneys' fees for them. We have had other lawsuits end with the lead plaintiffs and their lawyers receiving large sums and other class members receiving nothing, but losing their right to legal action in the future.

When the very people class actions are supposed to help are being hurt, it is time to do something different.

This bill is a reasonable step in the right direction. While some of my friends on the other side of the aisle may not like some provisions, they have to admit that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

In closing, I would just like to urge my colleagues to help us move this bill to conclusion. File your amendments, I have one myself, but don't let your personal desire to offer your amendment get in the way of this much needed legislation.

Mr. President, the Authorization for the Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000, which I originally introduced, expires this year. I am introducing a bill to extend this law for five years through Fiscal Year 2009 at an average authorization level of $25 million per year.

Our Nation's water supply needs are great and growing. For instance, each day the State of Florida adds 900 residents. To satisfy the water needs of this daily population increase, Florida must supply 200,000 more gallons of fresh water per day. Furthermore, the additional infrastructure needed to accommodate new residents blocks rainwater penetration into aquifers, lowering the water table. In fact, residents of Florida's west coast are increasingly resorting to drinking desalinated water as fresh water sources no longer suffice. Depletion of fresh water has resulted in saltwater intrusion into inland aquifers tainting water supplies and reducing the ability of soils to grow plants.

Other States are facing similar crises.

In southern New Jersey, water demands are so great that groundwater withdrawals from aquifers have lowered the water table by 200 feet, causing saltwater intrusion.

In Georgia and South Carolina, excessive water demand has significantly lowered water levels causing the upward migration of salt water in the Brunswick area and an encroachment of seawater into the aquifer at the northern end of Hilton Head Island.

On the East Coast, which gets on average 40 inches of rain per year, water resources have long been thought to be inexhaustible. However with changing population patterns and increasing personal and commercial water use, many water-rich areas are finding that the water will not always be there when they need it.

The extension of the Alternative Water Sources Act will provide States with the assistance they need to meet the needs of growing populations without harming the environment. It will also provide funds on a cost-shared basis to States for development of non-traditional water resources that will provide much needed water and prevent future environmental damages.

The bill I introduce today, authorizes the EPA to provide grants, at an average $25 million a year for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009, on a cost-shared basis for alternative water source projects. The EPA administrator is required to take into account the eligibility of a project for funding under the existing programs when selecting

projects for funding under this nationwide program.

This law is critical to the environmentally friendly development of water resources in the United States. It authorizes funds for innovative water reuse, reclamation and conservation projects--helping many States meet current and future water supply.

Populations in water-rich areas are drawing increasingly on limited groundwater supplies. In the past, groundwater users in the East might have been characterized as private wells and small public water systems. Today, as people move away from traditional population centers along major rivers, groundwater use is increasing. In Pennsylvania, about six million people rely on groundwater.

Yet, trillions of gallons of fresh water in the United States are wasted and flood into the sea annually. For instance, in Florida, every year approximately 970 billion gallons of fresh water are diverted into canals that flow into the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic. This precious fresh water would otherwise have replenished aquifers or nourished fragile aquatic ecosystems. If properly captured and stored, this water could be used for industrial or commercial activities, reducing pressure on precious drinking water sources.

Our increasing water needs require immediate attention.

We continue to make progress in conservation. In the South Florida Water Management District, nearly 200 million gallons of water are being reused per day. However, demands remain great. For instance, each resident in South Florida uses nearly 175 gallons of fresh water per day--almost twice the national average. Much of this potable water is used for watering landscaping. We must find ways to reserve potable water for drinking and make better use of other sources of water for agricultural, commercial and outdoor watering purposes.

With innovations in water quantity management, we can curtail such tremendous wastes of water and reuse the water that supply storage facilities now cannot absorb.

In 1999, I sponsored S. 968, the Alternative Water Sources Act, which authorized funding for alternative water projects in States that do not receive funds for water supply projects. In 2000, my bill was incorporated into S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, which became Public Law 106-457. Unfortunately, the authorization for the Alternative Water Sources Act is due to expire this year. With our Nation facing many water quantity management issues, we must act now to renew the authorization.

Congress can provide tools to ensure that Americans have the water they need for a healthy and productive future. The Alternative Water Sources Act is one such tool, and we must not let it expire. I hope that Congress will approve an extension of the Act before the end of the year.

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

Mr. President, the Authorization for the Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000, which I originally introduced, expires this year. I am introducing a bill to extend this law for five years through Fiscal Year 2009 at an average authorization level of $25 million per year.

Our Nation's water supply needs are great and growing. For instance, each day the State of Florida adds 900 residents. To satisfy the water needs of this daily population increase, Florida must supply 200,000 more gallons of fresh water per day. Furthermore, the additional infrastructure needed to accommodate new residents blocks rainwater penetration into aquifers, lowering the water table. In fact, residents of Florida's west coast are increasingly resorting to drinking desalinated water as fresh water sources no longer suffice. Depletion of fresh water has resulted in saltwater intrusion into inland aquifers tainting water supplies and reducing the ability of soils to grow plants.

Other States are facing similar crises.

In southern New Jersey, water demands are so great that groundwater withdrawals from aquifers have lowered the water table by 200 feet, causing saltwater intrusion.

In Georgia and South Carolina, excessive water demand has significantly lowered water levels causing the upward migration of salt water in the Brunswick area and an encroachment of seawater into the aquifer at the northern end of Hilton Head Island.

On the East Coast, which gets on average 40 inches of rain per year, water resources have long been thought to be inexhaustible. However with changing population patterns and increasing personal and commercial water use, many water-rich areas are finding that the water will not always be there when they need it.

The extension of the Alternative Water Sources Act will provide States with the assistance they need to meet the needs of growing populations without harming the environment. It will also provide funds on a cost-shared basis to States for development of non-traditional water resources that will provide much needed water and prevent future environmental damages.

The bill I introduce today, authorizes the EPA to provide grants, at an average $25 million a year for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009, on a cost-shared basis for alternative water source projects. The EPA administrator is required to take into account the eligibility of a project for funding under the existing programs when selecting

projects for funding under this nationwide program.

This law is critical to the environmentally friendly development of water resources in the United States. It authorizes funds for innovative water reuse, reclamation and conservation projects--helping many States meet current and future water supply.

Populations in water-rich areas are drawing increasingly on limited groundwater supplies. In the past, groundwater users in the East might have been characterized as private wells and small public water systems. Today, as people move away from traditional population centers along major rivers, groundwater use is increasing. In Pennsylvania, about six million people rely on groundwater.

Yet, trillions of gallons of fresh water in the United States are wasted and flood into the sea annually. For instance, in Florida, every year approximately 970 billion gallons of fresh water are diverted into canals that flow into the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic. This precious fresh water would otherwise have replenished aquifers or nourished fragile aquatic ecosystems. If properly captured and stored, this water could be used for industrial or commercial activities, reducing pressure on precious drinking water sources.

Our increasing water needs require immediate attention.

We continue to make progress in conservation. In the South Florida Water Management District, nearly 200 million gallons of water are being reused per day. However, demands remain great. For instance, each resident in South Florida uses nearly 175 gallons of fresh water per day--almost twice the national average. Much of this potable water is used for watering landscaping. We must find ways to reserve potable water for drinking and make better use of other sources of water for agricultural, commercial and outdoor watering purposes.

With innovations in water quantity management, we can curtail such tremendous wastes of water and reuse the water that supply storage facilities now cannot absorb.

In 1999, I sponsored S. 968, the Alternative Water Sources Act, which authorized funding for alternative water projects in States that do not receive funds for water supply projects. In 2000, my bill was incorporated into S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, which became Public Law 106-457. Unfortunately, the authorization for the Alternative Water Sources Act is due to expire this year. With our Nation facing many water quantity management issues, we must act now to renew the authorization.

Congress can provide tools to ensure that Americans have the water they need for a healthy and productive future. The Alternative Water Sources Act is one such tool, and we must not let it expire. I hope that Congress will approve an extension of the Act before the end of the year.

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

Mr. President, I have had the pleasure of knowing Bryan Harwell for a very long time. I have always respected his character as well as his legal abilities. Upon hearing of Judge Houck's intention to take Senior Status, I immediately thought of Bryan. He has distinguished himself in private practice since 1984, serving as a pillar of the Florence, SC legal community. Everyone I've talked to about his nomination has been unanimous in their admiration for him and his family.

As most of you know, I have based my judicial recommendations to the President on character, ability, and temperament. Bryan Harwell fulfills all of these criteria with a large measure to spare. Indeed, he has displayed excellence in all of these categories for as long as I have known him. Upon graduation from the University of South Carolina School of Law, where he finished his degree in just over 2 years, Bryan clerked for one of our most respected state Circuit Judges, Rodney Peeples. Finishing his clerkship with Judge Peeples, he then went on to clerk for one of our most accomplished Federal judges, U.S. District Judge G. Ross Anderson. Both have had high praise for Bryan's time in their service.

After his clerkships, Bryan entered private practice with the law firm of Harwell, Ballenger, Barth & Hoefer, where he currently practices. His practice has involved the complete spectrum of South Carolina's laws and he has argued cases before our State Supreme Court as well as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has augmented his litigation practice with a thriving mediation and arbitration practice, an area I personally believe has great promise for addressing a number of our legal system's problems. Last, but certainly not least, he has served his country as a Judge Advocate General officer in the South Carolina National Guard.

In short, like many lawyers in South Carolina, he has represented the working man and the small businessman and he has served his country as well. I have a tremendous amount of respect for that type of lawyer, having been one myself.

While he has excelled in private practice, Mr. Harwell has also shown his deep commitment to his community. He has opened his practice to those who are less fortunate and who need a helping hand by serving as a referral attorney for Carolina Regional Legal Services. He has served as an adjunct business law instructor at Francis Marion University. Bryan has participated in the South Carolina Bar's Ask-a-Lawyer project, an important link between our legal community and our citizens, which often serves as the only opportunity many of our citizens have for knowledgeable advice regarding some of life's most important matters. And, reflecting his varied interests, he has also served on the Board of Trustees at Florence Darlington Technical College.

Bryan Harwell has also gone out of his way to serve South Carolina's legal community. He has served as a lecturer on arbitration and mediation law on a number of occasions for our South Carolina Bar.

In recognition of his accomplishments and service, I am proud that Mr. Harwell received a unanimous ``Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. I am certain that he will be an excellent addition to the Federal bench.

I am pleased that the Senate has voted to confirm Mr. Harwell today.

I appreciate the Senator yielding.

I saw Senator Dodd this morning at breakfast. I am sympathetic to what he was trying to do. I said, put me down. I did not look at the substance. I apologize. The Senator is absolutely right in what he is trying to do.

I agree with the chairman that these people coming out of school are not ready to perform this work. But I promise the Senator from Connecticut you will have a Republican ally if we have a transition period that is more reasonable--if not on this bill, we will do it some other time. It bothers me greatly that our interrogation system is being outsourced. We do not know who is interrogating the people in prison because we do not know who they are and who they answer to.

I apologize to the Senator from Connecticut for not being able to live up to my word. I told him I would support the amendment, but I did not look at the amendment. I will never do that again. However, I do want to help--if not on this bill, we will do it soon.

I send my modification to the desk.

We have 7\1/2\ minutes?

Mr. President, I would like to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, many thanks to a lot of people for resolving an issue important to South Carolina. This amendment is a work product of Senators Crapo, Craig, myself, and others. Senator Crapo has been terrific to work with, along with Senator Craig.

We have now put into place an amendment that well defines what we were trying to do. I am trying to clean up 51 tanks of 37 million gallons of high-level nuclear waste in South Carolina, 23 years ahead of schedule, saving $16 billion. My intent has been to do just that and no more.

The Crapo-Craig-Alexander amendment clearly says the agreement between DOE and South Carolina is South Carolina specific. Senator Alexander's language says the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will always retain the power to determine what high-level versus low-level waste is. The $350 million in question will flow to Idaho and Washington regardless of an agreement or the lack thereof. The Crapo-Graham amendment has been worked with Senator Cantwell, and it does not prevent the disposition plan that has been agreed to in South Carolina.

I thank all Members. There will come a day when Idaho and Washington will need like help, and I will be there. I want the people in South Carolina to know without the help of Washington and Idaho, this would not have happened. There will be a day when they need our assistance, and I will be there. This is a win-win. There is nothing in this amendment that will prevent section 3116 from moving forward.

I yield back any time I have.

Mr. President, very briefly, the amendment has been adopted, and I would like to make a comment or two for those who may still be listening.

The membership has been challenged for 3 weeks now to find a way to deal with the problem. Here is the simple problem: For over a year, South Carolina, Washington, and Idaho have been trying to negotiate with DOE a way to clean up tank farms that have a lot of high-level waste.

In my State, there are 37 million gallons of high-level liquid waste in tanks that are over 50 years old. There are only 51 of them. For about a year now we have been negotiating with DOE to define what is ``clean'' and how we can best close up those tanks. We have been able to take the liquid out of two of the tanks and come up with a plan that has been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that says that the inch and a half of waste left in those two tanks is no longer high- level waste because of scientific treatment.

We want to apply that same concept to the other tanks. What I am trying to do in South Carolina is good for South Carolina's environment. It has been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as being safe. It has been approved by the Defense Waste Policy Board as being safe. It does not prejudice Idaho or Washington that have similar problems.

I do appreciate the fact that the body has allowed this agreement to go forward. South Carolina will save $16 billion, and it will allow the tanks to be closed up 23 years ahead of schedule.

I am willing to work with any Senator from any State who has similar problems. I am not willing to sit on the sidelines and disallow my State to move forward in an environmentally and economically sound fashion to address a real problem South Carolinians face. We have done nothing to prejudice anybody else. We have not changed any standards, given any authority to DOE at the expense of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

A lot of demagoguery is going on here, but it is time to clean up these sites and stop demagoguing. I hope one day Washington can find an agreement to clean up the tanks and alleviate their ground water problems. If they need help from Congress, I will be there. But I urge Idaho and Washington and other States to try to work to get these matters behind us.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish today to commend and congratulate Dr. Henry N. Tisdale on the occasion of the celebration of his 10th anniversary as president of Claflin University and to wish him continued success as he leads this historic institution of higher education.

Dr. Tisdale has positioned Claflin as one of the premier liberal arts institutions in the Southeast, moving the university to the ``Top Tier'' and ``Top Ten'' ranking among comprehensive baccalaureate granting institutions in the South, according to U.S. News and World Report's ``America's Best Colleges 2003.'' Under his guidance, Claflin University has increased enrollment by 60 percent, added a number of new academic majors to include mass communications, black studies, early childhood education, biochemistry, biotechnology, bioinformatics and the masters of business administration, achieved national accreditation for business administration and teacher education, and transformed the campus through the construction of new facilities, such as the Living and Learning Center and Legacy Plaza, and the restoration of many of its historic buildings.

I congratulate Dr. Tisdale on his remarkable and noteworthy achievements. May you and Claflin enjoy continued success for another 10 years and beyond.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to establish a Department of Veterans Affairs War-Related Blast Injury Center. The need for this type of research and treatment facility has become especially pressing in light of the staggering number of veterans returning from the battles raging abroad.

Blasts from such weapons as artillery, mortar shells, and roadside bombs--improvised explosives that blow debris such as broken glass, nails, and gravel upward into the face--have become the most common mechanism of injury in modern warfare. The resulting injuries include those to the lungs, inner ear, limbs, and, quite commonly, the head. In addition to the serious physical wounds, deep psychological wounds also result, including post-traumatic stress disorder.

Despite the fact that injuries from explosive devices currently make up the majority of combat casualties and the most severe, there has never been an established medical program to evaluate, treat, and track the short- and long-term consequences of these specific injuries. This bill is an important first step toward correcting this deficiency. It establishes at least one War-Related Blast Injury Center within VA that would provide comprehensive and specialized rehabilitation programs, as well as targeted education and outreach programs and research initiatives.

The Center would be formed from a collaboration between the Department of Veterans Affairs, (VA) and the Department of Defense, promoting cooperation between the two agencies to reach their respective goals regarding the care of our military personnel. One of the Center's main purposes would be to fill in the gap that now exists in the evidence base for treating victims of blast injuries. Through its specialized evaluation and treatment of the polytrauma that results from blast injuries, the Center would facilitate the identification of trends in those suffering from this trauma and go a long way in determining innovative, more effective treatment approaches.

In addition to its comprehensive rehabilitation program and the conduct of research, the Center will also provide education and training to health care personnel across the care continuum, including first responders, acute-care providers, and rehabilitation staff. It will also develop improved models and systems for the furnishing of blast injury services by VA.

While my legislation does not designate a site for the Center, I mention with pride the work being done at the Tampa VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Florida. The Tampa VAMC has an exceptional Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) Service that serves the largest number of veterans in the Nation. The Spinal Cord Injury, Amputee, and Traumatic Brain Injury Programs are not only VA's largest, but they have also been recognized as providing the highest quality of care in VA by their designation as Clinical Centers of Excellence. The PM&R Service utilizes an interdisciplinary team for patient care that includes physicians, therapists, audiologists, neuropsychologists, and social workers. Among them, this wide-ranging medical staff has access to a broad spectrum of medical and support services to best treat their patients.

In addition, this outstanding hospital serves as one of seven lead centers comprising the Defense/Veterans Brain Injury Center, a cooperative treatment and research program in traumatic brain injury. It also established a Gulf War Program in 1999 and in the past year created a Blast Injury Program. For all these reasons, the Tampa VAMC would serve as an excellent site for a War-Related Blast Injury Center.

An April 2004 article in The Washington Post detailed the experiences of combat surgeons in Iraq currently caring for the heroic men and women serving there. These doctors described their experiences treating an overwhelming flow of soldiers with wounds that probably would have been fatal in previous wars. Increasingly, these wounds involve severe damage to the head and eyes and often leave soldiers brain damaged, blind, or both. This article paints a clear picture of the injuries our soldiers in Iraq are subjected to and must deal with upon their return. I ask unanimous consent that the text of The Washington Post article be printed in the Record following this statement.

In addition, a recent update by VA's Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation National Program Office revealed over a 60 percent increase in rehabilitation patients in 2003 compared to 2002. This means that there were 215 additional brain injury patients and 423 more amputee patients. This sizable increase speaks to the great need for the War-Related Blast Injury Center.

This past April, more than 900 soldiers and Marines were wounded in Iraq, more than twice the number wounded in October of last year, the previous high. On May 2, in a tragic event that hit close to home, 5 reservists from the Jacksonville-based Seabee battalion were killed in a mortar attack in Iraq and an additional 30 suffered injuries resulting from the blast. The Jacksonville-based Seabees were in Iraq to do humanitarian work such as fixing electrical and water systems and sewage problems. These brave men epitomized American courage and selflessness. A War-Related Blast Injury Center would serve to care for servicemembers like the Seabees who suffer this type of horrific wound.

After all that these courageous, selfless soldiers sacrifice and suffer in battle, we owe them a place where they may receive the treatment necessary to mend their wounds, both physical and mental.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to establish a Department of Veterans Affairs War-Related Blast Injury Center. The need for this type of research and treatment facility has become especially pressing in light of the staggering number of veterans returning from the battles raging abroad.

Blasts from such weapons as artillery, mortar shells, and roadside bombs--improvised explosives that blow debris such as broken glass, nails, and gravel upward into the face--have become the most common mechanism of injury in modern warfare. The resulting injuries include those to the lungs, inner ear, limbs, and, quite commonly, the head. In addition to the serious physical wounds, deep psychological wounds also result, including post-traumatic stress disorder.

Despite the fact that injuries from explosive devices currently make up the majority of combat casualties and the most severe, there has never been an established medical program to evaluate, treat, and track the short- and long-term consequences of these specific injuries. This bill is an important first step toward correcting this deficiency. It establishes at least one War-Related Blast Injury Center within VA that would provide comprehensive and specialized rehabilitation programs, as well as targeted education and outreach programs and research initiatives.

The Center would be formed from a collaboration between the Department of Veterans Affairs, (VA) and the Department of Defense, promoting cooperation between the two agencies to reach their respective goals regarding the care of our military personnel. One of the Center's main purposes would be to fill in the gap that now exists in the evidence base for treating victims of blast injuries. Through its specialized evaluation and treatment of the polytrauma that results from blast injuries, the Center would facilitate the identification of trends in those suffering from this trauma and go a long way in determining innovative, more effective treatment approaches.

In addition to its comprehensive rehabilitation program and the conduct of research, the Center will also provide education and training to health care personnel across the care continuum, including first responders, acute-care providers, and rehabilitation staff. It will also develop improved models and systems for the furnishing of blast injury services by VA.

While my legislation does not designate a site for the Center, I mention with pride the work being done at the Tampa VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Florida. The Tampa VAMC has an exceptional Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) Service that serves the largest number of veterans in the Nation. The Spinal Cord Injury, Amputee, and Traumatic Brain Injury Programs are not only VA's largest, but they have also been recognized as providing the highest quality of care in VA by their designation as Clinical Centers of Excellence. The PM&R Service utilizes an interdisciplinary team for patient care that includes physicians, therapists, audiologists, neuropsychologists, and social workers. Among them, this wide-ranging medical staff has access to a broad spectrum of medical and support services to best treat their patients.

In addition, this outstanding hospital serves as one of seven lead centers comprising the Defense/Veterans Brain Injury Center, a cooperative treatment and research program in traumatic brain injury. It also established a Gulf War Program in 1999 and in the past year created a Blast Injury Program. For all these reasons, the Tampa VAMC would serve as an excellent site for a War-Related Blast Injury Center.

An April 2004 article in The Washington Post detailed the experiences of combat surgeons in Iraq currently caring for the heroic men and women serving there. These doctors described their experiences treating an overwhelming flow of soldiers with wounds that probably would have been fatal in previous wars. Increasingly, these wounds involve severe damage to the head and eyes and often leave soldiers brain damaged, blind, or both. This article paints a clear picture of the injuries our soldiers in Iraq are subjected to and must deal with upon their return. I ask unanimous consent that the text of The Washington Post article be printed in the Record following this statement.

In addition, a recent update by VA's Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation National Program Office revealed over a 60 percent increase in rehabilitation patients in 2003 compared to 2002. This means that there were 215 additional brain injury patients and 423 more amputee patients. This sizable increase speaks to the great need for the War-Related Blast Injury Center.

This past April, more than 900 soldiers and Marines were wounded in Iraq, more than twice the number wounded in October of last year, the previous high. On May 2, in a tragic event that hit close to home, 5 reservists from the Jacksonville-based Seabee battalion were killed in a mortar attack in Iraq and an additional 30 suffered injuries resulting from the blast. The Jacksonville-based Seabees were in Iraq to do humanitarian work such as fixing electrical and water systems and sewage problems. These brave men epitomized American courage and selflessness. A War-Related Blast Injury Center would serve to care for servicemembers like the Seabees who suffer this type of horrific wound.

After all that these courageous, selfless soldiers sacrifice and suffer in battle, we owe them a place where they may receive the treatment necessary to mend their wounds, both physical and mental.

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

Mr. President, in terms of my senior Senator, who I respect greatly, there is no doubt in my mind that he loves his State. Secondly, this is not about who loves South Carolina. We have a policy disagreement about what is best for our State. That happens on occasion in politics. Senator Hollings has been more than gracious in terms of helping me adjust to the Senate and coming to my office, and I publicly acknowledge that. I regret that we differ, but we do.

I assure my colleagues that I just did not wake up one day, as the junior Senator from South Carolina, sneaking around everybody to come up with an amendment that would change the whole national policy on nuclear waste for the heck of it. I didn't do that. I have been in Congress now for 10 years and in the Senate for a little over a year and a half. In the House, I represented the Savannah River site, our State's largest employer. It is the facility that was intricately involved in winning the cold war. We have over 50 tanks full of high- level liquid waste.

The Clinton administration and myself had a bumpy road. I think it is fair to say I did not agree with the Clinton administration a lot, but one thing that we did find common ground about in the 1997 timeframe and I think Senator Allard probably remembers this--is that the Clinton administration came up with a new way of looking at high-level waste, how you characterize it.

There was a hearing about this in 2000 in the Senate before I got here. During the Clinton administration, the policy was--and before the Clinton administration--that if the material started out life as high- level liquid waste, no matter what happened in the

intervening time or whatever characterization it had after being treated, it would have to be considered high-level waste--defense material, high-level waste. The Clinton administration said that is not very logical. What we need to do is look at the characterization of the waste at the end, not where it came from. There was a hearing in May of 2000 about that concept. I supported that concept then and I support it now.

In all due deference to my senior Senator, there is nothing in this amendment that changes the definition of high-level nuclear waste. The way you look at high-level nuclear waste and the way you characterize it was changed in the Clinton administration in a logical way. We have cleaned up two tanks. That has been lost in this debate. There are 50- plus tanks of high-level liquid waste. Two of them have been dried up and cleaned up. The procedures to clean up those tanks have worked. That has been several years ago. This amendment allows more money to be put on the table to clean up the rest of the tanks.

Here is what we have been able to do. We have been able to strike an agreement between the environmental regulators in South Carolina and the Department of Energy defining what ``clean'' is in terms of those tanks. All of the liquid waste will be taken out. There will be about an inch and a quarter of material left in the bottom of the tank, like the other two tanks that have already been closed. There will be a process to treat that inch and a quarter. The NRC has been consulted and has blessed this project, saying what is left in the bottom of the tank after it is treated is waste incidental to reposit.

About people and their opinions regarding what is best for the safety of my State, my senior Senator has been an advocate for my State for a very long time. I respect him. I can assure you I share his concerns about what is best for the environment of this region.

I have some letters I would like to introduce. I have a letter from the Governor of South Carolina that I think he has already introduced. Last week, when we talked about this, Senator Hollings said he cannot believe the Governor would support this. He has been a great environmentalist.

Mark Sanford, our Governor, does have a very good environmental record, depending on what scorecard you want to look at. But Mark comes from the coast. I think most people would say he has been environmentally sensitive.

The letter that Senator Hollings read, please do not misunderstand at all, this is an absolute total endorsement of this amendment by our Governor. I am not the type of Senator who would not tell our Governor what we are doing. The Governor was given the language a long time ago.

On April 27, we had a delegation meeting about this language. I have been shopping this language around for weeks. We have been talking about how to clean up Idaho, Washington, and South Carolina for years. We have had hearings in Senator Allard's committee about this very topic, where DOE came in and talked about the plan to clean up these tanks and talked about the two tanks that had already been cleaned up.

There have been negotiations going on between Idaho, Washington, and South Carolina, independent of each other, with the DOE to try to find a common ground in those States as to how to clean up this high-level liquid waste.

To my colleague in Washington, who truly is a friend, and I am sorry we got so off stripped on this, we will get over it and work together for the common good when this is over.

On January 26, 2004, Congressman Hastings, Senator Murray, and Senator Cantwell sent a letter to Governor Locke and Secretary Abraham and asked them to work together to resolve the ongoing dispute over waste classification. They did a very good thing in that regard. I ask unanimous consent to print that letter in the Record.

Mr. President, the letter was an effort by the legislative delegation in the State of Washington to get the DOE to come up with some classification system for Hanford.

Our distinguished Presiding Officer from the State of Idaho has been working for months now for his State to see if they could come up with a classification system for the State of Idaho. In February 2004, the Governor of Washington indicated he would designate someone to enter into discussion on behalf of the State of Washington. Governor Locke's chief of staff called the Deputy Secretary to indicate he was the Governor's designee to hold discussions with the Department of Energy. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Energy shared draft language with the State of Washington.

What has been going on here for a very long time is a collaborative process between the three States and the Department of Energy to remediate the environment when it comes to high-level waste in a manner acceptable to the State. That is the process. That has always been the process, and that must be the process.

But here is what we do not want to do as we negotiate individually. We do not want to, as my senior Senator said, have a State have the ability to define high-level waste because it is a national concern and a national issue. So we have been jealously guarding that concept. This amendment does not give the State of South Carolina the ability to define high-level waste because we would have 50 different versions. What it does do is it requires a collaborative process. We have already closed two tanks, and before those two tanks could be closed, South Carolina had to issue a permit saying: Yes, they are able to be closed. This amendment gives the State of South Carolina permitting authority over tank closure. That is exactly what Washington and Idaho are trying to pursue.

Governor Locke has been working with DOE. The difference is South Carolina has gotten there, and to my friend from Washington, there will come a day--soon, I hope--where you can negotiate classification of waste with DOE satisfactory to Washington. And there will come a day when the Governor of Washington, whoever that may be, will say: That is a good deal. And the regulators in the State will say: That is a good classification with which we can live.

The truth is, if that day ever arrives, because of the way the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is written, you are going to need legislative language to bless that agreement.

Washington has a severe problem with tank leakage. I want to tell my

friends from Washington, if that day arrives to where you can find a standard acceptable to your State--

I ask for 5 more minutes.

If that day ever arrives, the Senator from Washington is going to come to this body, and I am going to help her. I say the same to my friend from Idaho. That day has arrived in South Carolina. We have vetted this proposal with everybody I know.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Speaker of the South Carolina House, David Wilkins, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the deputy commissioner of the South Carolina Environmental Quality Control, Robert King, Jr., be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this letter to me says that the agreement they have achieved with DOE is environmentally sound for South Carolina; we would like to move forward with tank cleanup. Here is why this is so important to my State: It will allow $88 million to be put on the table. It will allow these tanks, now that we have reached an agreement to become dry and safe and secure and closed up, to be closed 23 years ahead of schedule. I invite everybody in this body to come to Aiken, SC, and the surrounding community to enjoy golf, leisure, and fishing. I will take you fishing in the Savannah River, if you would like to go.

I do not want 23 years to go by and the chance of the tanks leaking to grow. I do not want the problem that Washington has. I want Washington to be able to fix their problem, and I will help the State of Washington. But I have a chance to do something in my State that we have not had a chance to do in 10 years. The origin of this being done started in the Clinton administration, and we are building on what happened then.

This amendment is focused only on the agreement in South Carolina. Senator Crapo, Senator Craig, and Senator Alexander have an amendment to make it absolutely certain. I think it already is, but I am not here to put any other State in a bad situation. I am not here to make Washington do what we are doing in South Carolina or to prejudice Idaho at all. I am just simply asking this body to listen to the people who are responsible for the ground water who tell me this is a good agreement, it will help my State if we move forward on it, and it will safe $16 billion, for whatever that is worth.

The attorney general of South Carolina was mentioned by my distinguished senior Senator. I have a letter from him supporting this agreement. I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record.

Mr. President, when we talk about people with agendas, there are all kinds of political agendas when one talks about nuclear programs. That is just politics, and that is the strength of America. There is nothing wrong with that.

I have a letter from the Aiken County, SC, legislative delegation-- Democrat and Republican house members and senators--who say please approve this agreement because it will clean up these tanks ahead of schedule, and it will be a good thing for our community. The difference between them and the New York Times, which is a great paper, is they live there. The Savannah River site is located in Aiken, SC.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have another letter from the mayor of Aiken, Fred Cavanaugh, who worked at this site, supporting this agreement. In addition, I have a letter from Ronnie Young, the chairman of the Aiken County Council, where the council endorses this amendment.

I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce, the people who have to make a living. I can assure you the Aiken County Chamber of Commerce believes this will not poison the area. It will do absolutely the opposite. It will make it more attractive.

I ask unanimous consent to print those letters in the Record.

Mr. President, I have letters from the mayor of Jackson, SC, which is down site; the Aiken Electric Cooperative; the Economic Development Partnership from Aiken; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has blessed this project saying that what is left in the tank is waste incidental to reprocessing; the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has looked at this amendment; the North Augusta Chamber of Commerce, a community on the other side of the site; and the SRS Retiree Association, people who worked their whole lives out there supporting this.

Mr. President, quickly, we will have more time to talk. This is a big deal to my State. Similar efforts are ongoing in other States, and I hope they get there. I am not going to do anything to prejudice their ability to get there on their terms. I am simply asking that the deal struck between the environmental regulators and our Governor in South Carolina be approved so that we can clean up the rest of these tanks, the 49 remaining, in an economically and environmentally sound fashion.

That is all this has ever been about.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

The long and short of this is that all three States--South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington--have been negotiating to define waste classification standards in their States for a long time.

On January 26, 2004, Congressman Hastings, Senator Murray, and Senator Cantwell sent a letter to Governor Locke and Secretary Abraham that asked them to work together to resolve the ongoing dispute over waste classification. Please listen to what I

just said. There has been a process in place in Washington since January 26 to try to find a way to reach an agreement with the Department of Energy to classify waste in that State so cleanup can move forward.

The letter did not say, call Lindsey Graham from South Carolina and see if you can get his permission. It did not say, call Larry Craig and Mike Crapo. It said, call Spence Abraham and see if you all can work together.

The Governor wrote back to the Deputy Secretary of Energy and said that the Governor's chief of staff would be the point of contact for negotiations February 12, 2004. From mid-February to April 13, they have been sending drafts back and forth about how to define cleanup and what is clean in Hanford. They have been doing the same thing in Idaho. We have been doing the same thing in South Carolina. All of us have one thing in common: We oppose the Department of Energy's efforts to unilaterally determine what ``clean'' is and walk away.

That is why we had the lawsuit. That is why South Carolina joined as a friend of the court. The letters my friend from Washington read, about South Carolina objecting to DOE's moving forward, was an objection to a unilateral process where DOE would have the final say about how to clean up the tanks and remove waste.

All of us in all three States believe we should be involved. But it has never been the policy or the process where all three States have to agree to the same standard because, Members of the Senate, that is impossible to achieve because the waste scenario and the waste stream problems in Idaho are completely different.

The film we are trying to leave behind in South Carolina, that inch and a quarter of film that will be left in South Carolina and not sent to Yucca Mountain, doesn't exist in the tanks in Idaho, and the tanks in Washington have a totally different design.

Three States have been working in the defense arena to find a common ground with DOE to make sure the States don't get left holding the bag, and we also made sure no State can take over defining ``high-level radioactive waste.'' That stays with the Federal Government. But the agreement we have achieved said the State of South Carolina has the final permitting authority and you cannot leave those tanks in a condition that will hurt South Carolina.

They are trying to do the same thing in Washington and Idaho. I hope they get there. But if they do get there, they are going to have to do the same thing I am doing today. They are going to need legislative language blessing that agreement. There will be an amendment of the Waste Policy Act. That is going to have to happen. In 1995, legislative language was brought to the Senate to bless an agreement Idaho achieved regarding another waste stream. That is going to have to happen. I hope I will be man enough, Senator enough, not to stand in the way. If the Governor of Idaho, the Governor of Washington, the attorney general, the environmental regulators, the chamber of commerce, the mayor of the Hanford community, the communities involved in Idaho--if they say we have a deal that doesn't affect or prejudice my State or change nuclear policy in any significant way, I hope I will say: Go forward; God bless you; I am glad you were able to reach an agreement to clean up your States because you fought very hard to win the cold war.

For those who are worried about the safety issue in my State, I appreciate the concern. I did not make up this scenario. I am reacting to input from my State. I have been involved in the negotiations. They called me. They drafted the language and they have told me, and sent letters--the Governor and the environmental regulators: We have a deal, Lindsey, that we can live with. We have already closed up two tanks of the 51. So we know in South Carolina, unlike the other two sites, we can extract the liquid waste, grout the tank, and have it not affect the ground water because we have done it twice and we are trying to move forward at a faster rate.

They are telling me: Lindsey, we have a deal that will allow us to clean up the tanks and get the liquid waste out 23 years ahead of schedule and save $16 billion.

I say to my colleagues, I cannot make that happen unless you allow it to happen. If it does happen in Idaho and it does happen in Washington, and I believe it will one day, you are going to have to do the same thing for those States.

To my friends in New York, the waste stream you are discussing and that you talked about on the floor is not remotely similar to the waste stream we are talking about here. This is defense waste.

To my friends in Maine who have spent nuclear fuel, it is covered under a whole different section. Here is what you have to understand. If you have spent fuel rods in your State, defense waste has priority in Yucca Mountain. If we are going to insist the cleanup standards be beyond what good science says and we are going to take that extra 23 years and spend that extra $23 billion, you are going to run out of space in Yucca Mountain to send your spent fuel.

I say to my friend Senator Enzi, thank you. Every State has an obligation to help where it can. South Carolina can retain the film on the bottom of these tanks in a safe and sound manner, and it is not necessary to extract it, take 23 years, and spend $16 billion to send it to Nevada. We can safely take care of it in South Carolina. We have done it twice and we want to do it more so we can get this waste out of the tanks, because the biggest threat to my State and to all the States is seepage and leakage of the waste.

Washington has a problem. Of all the States, Washington needs to reach agreement to make these tanks dry. I don't want to be a Washington. I don't want to look back 10 years from now and have this process slowed down to a crawl and my ground water get contaminated.

The NRC has said this is safe and that what is left in the tank is no longer high-level waste; it meets the definition of low-level waste. About hearings, Senators Allard, Inhofe, Domenici, have been talking about the plans to clean up the tanks in three States for well over 4 years. The Department of Energy has been working with each State with a separate cleanup plan for a long time. They have been negotiating with Washington since January. We have discussed how you would treat South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington through hearings in an exhaustive manner.

If you make us have more hearings, I am going to be right back here asking you to bless this agreement because the agreement has been a collaborative process that has been going on for 2 years and all you are going to do is throw us in chaos because if we can veto each other, then we will never clean up. If you are insisting on a standard that fits all of these sites, it will never be reached.

Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues the transcripts from the Armed Services hearing of February 25, 2004--what we talked about, the waste cleanup process; Senator Domenici's Energy and Water Subcommittee hearing of March 31, 2004, same topics discussed; and pages 1 through 47 of the EPW committee hearing of July 25, 2000.

My colleagues, I need your help. I want to make sure the tanks don't leak. We have a sound plan that will not affect your States. It will only help mine. I want to help you. Please help me.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from the Augusta Chronicle, which is the major newspaper at the Savannah River site, supporting my efforts with this amendment.

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

I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to offer the TRICARE amendment, and I send it to the desk at this time.

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

Mr. President, before we get started discussing the substance of the amendment, I think it is important that I make a comment about how the amendment came about, and that this is the Daschle-Graham amendment. Senator Daschle has been gracious enough to let me offer the amendment, but the truth is, without his support it would never have happened.

I have enjoyed tremendously working with him and others to try to find some common ground in terms of helping our Guard and Reserve communities facing unprecedented problems from the war on terrorism. They are doing a terrific job, just as are our active-duty troops. This has been a bipartisan effort. We worked on this last year. Senator Daschle offered the amendment last year. We made some progress. There was a compromise reached for the uninsured Guard and Reserve members to have $400 million to allow them to have full-time health care through the military health care system. That program was not implemented to my satisfaction. I doubt if Senator Daschle was pleased, but at least we did make some progress.

Chairman Warner has been very gracious in allowing us to offer this amendment and has tried to work with us at every turn. Senator Clinton was one of the original cosponsors, along with Senator DeWine. I could make a fairly lengthy list of Republicans and Democrats who tried to find some common ground when it comes to the Guard and Reserve community and their participation in the war on terrorism. What we have before the Senate today is a result of that bipartisan effort.

I listened to Senator Daschle talk about his visit to South Dakota. I had a similar visit in South Carolina when people kind of urged us to get our act together and do more in common, find some common ground up here. I think we found that today.

Guard and Reserve members, most Americans would assume, are covered in terms of military health care, but they are not. I think most Americans find it surprising that if you join the Guard or Reserve you are not entitled to military health care unless you are activated. The truth is, if you are a Guard or Reserve member, you have to work at least one weekend a month and 2 weeks a year. But the big joke among the Guard and Reserve is, ``What a heck of a one weekend a month, 2 weeks a year job'' because so many of them have been called to active duty for extended periods.

By the end of this year, 40 percent of the people serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will be members of the Guard and Reserve, called to active duty for probably a year or more. The reason that is so is because the Guard and Reserve community possesses unique skills that are essential to winning the war on terror. Mr. President, 75 percent of the people flying the C-130 in Afghanistan and Iraq come from the Guard and Reserve community. These air crews come from Air Guard units and Air Reserve units.

The C-130 is an indispensable asset in the war on terrorism. It is a four-engine prop plane. It was not the leading edge weapons system in the cold war. But when it comes to the war on terrorism, it can land in short spaces and take off in short spaces and haul people and cargo under some pretty adverse conditions. When I toured Iraq last year with fellow Senators, we had nine C-130 flights going in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. All nine flights were manned by Reserve crews.

Ninety percent of the people in the civil affairs component of the military are Reserve or Guard members. What do the civil affairs folks do? They are the ones who go around to Afghanistan and Iraq and teach democracy. They help local government organize at the equivalent of a city or a county level. They are helping judicial systems start. They are civilian lawyers and judges and administrators who leave small towns and big towns and they offer their service to the military. That service is being offered in Afghanistan and Iraq and is completely indispensable. We will never win the war on terror unless we get some democratic principles in the Mideast, and the civil affairs units are the leading edge folks providing that service.

Another group that is highly valuable that is heavily laden in terms of Guard and Reserve participation is military police. I know our Presiding Officer is a former member of the Reserve component, legal officer. He probably has a lot of MPs from Alabama who have been called from active duty to go to Afghanistan and Iraq and Bosnia and perform that function.

The military police force has a way to go. Major combat operations are over, but we know from our PC screens, what we read and hear from what is reported from our troops, Iraq and Afghanistan are very dangerous places. What we are trying to do is create order out of chaos. The military police are not only trained in combat skills but policing skills. High numbers of the military police units that are being activated to thwart the war on terrorism come from the Guard and Reserve communities. Most of them have civilian connection to law enforcement. They come from small towns all over America--from Alabama, South Dakota, and South Carolina. They are two of the five cops deployed because they are military police Reserve or Guard units.

The point of this discussion is to try to inform the body that the reason the Guard and Reserve community is so heavily utilized is because it has unique assets and skills which are essential to win the war on terror. The commitment from this group will continue to grow probably over time--not less.

It is now time for the Senate, the House, and the administration to work together to upgrade the benefits of the Guard and Reserve community.

One of the big problems we find from the war on terror is about 25 percent of the people called to active duty from

the Guard and Reserve community are unable to go on active duty because of health care problems. That percent of the people in the Guard and Reserve do not have health care insurance in the private sector.

In my State, our adjutant general, Stan Speers, who has done a wonderful job leading our National Guard, says about 50 percent of the people in the National Guard in South Carolina have no health care in the private sector. What happens when you are called up? You have rigorous military standards in terms of being activated and sent off to war. The leading disqualifier for going onto active duty after being called from the Guard and Reserve is dental problems.

When you think about it, a lot of private health care plans have very limited dental coverage.

What we have been working on for well over a year is to provide full- time access to Guard and Reserve members and their families to military health care called TRICARE. If you are called to active duty from the Guard or Reserve, or if you join the Active-Duty services, you will became a member of TRICARE. Our chairman, Senator Warner, is the father of TRICARE. It was through his initiative that we created this large network of hospitals and doctors that go beyond the limits of the base. We signed up doctors and hospitals all over the country and the world to provide health care to our military members and their families. TRICARE is getting better every year. It is a free benefit.

But for those who serve in the military, you earn what you are getting because nothing is really free. You are risking your life for our freedom. But there is no contribution required of Active-Duty personnel.

What Senator Daschle, myself, and others have tried to do is cover this problem for the Guard and Reserve community in a creative fashion. Let us allow them to enroll in TRICARE. What would be the benefit of that for their country?

Number one, our Guard and Reserve would have continuity of health care. They would be in a health care system that is providing quality health care. It would be a great recruiting tool. If you join the Guard or Reserve, you and your family would be eligible for military health care. That would be a good attraction to get new people to come in. It would be a great retention incentive for people to stay in who have already signed up because they could get their health care through the military. It would be a great relief to employers.

The unsung hero of this whole operation in terms of the Reserve community is employers. If you go without your employer for a year or greater, many employers pay the difference between active and civilian pay.

More times than not, when a person is called to active duty, they get a cut in pay. Their military pay is less than their civilian pay. Their families suffer because the military members stand in harm's way. The support network for the Guard and Reserve is not nearly what it is for Active-Duty people. They get a cut in pay.

We are trying to lessen the effects on hardships on families. We are trying to make it an incentive for Guard and Reserve participation.

Here is how the program would work. If you join the Guard or Reserve, you and your family would be eligible to enroll in TRICARE, if you chose to. You would be asked to pay a premium. Unlike your Active-Duty counterparts who receive this without any cost sharing, you would be asked to pay a premium. I think that is fair. The premiums we set up, mirror what Federal employees have to pay in terms of their match for their health care. It is a good deal for the Guard and Reserve members and their families. It lessens the cost. It would be a shared responsibility, for the member would have to contribute and the Government would have to contribute.

I didn't know this until I got into this debate. If part-time Federal employees work 16 hours a week for the Federal Government, they are eligible for full-time participation in our health care plan. If you are a temporary employee, after a year you are eligible for full-time participation without a Government match. I think that is a good idea. I think this is fair and balanced for part-time Federal employees.

I think it would be a shame for a part-time citizen soldier not to at least have that benefit. We are not talking about a normal job. Everyone who serves this country by working for the Government is doing a good thing. People in the Guard and Reserve are not only serving their country in a positive way, but they are literally risking their lives. They take a cut in pay. They go from home into harm's way. Last month, the casualty rate among the Guard and Reserve community had a tremendous bite because there are more and more Guard and Reserve people in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is going to stay the same or get worse over time because we can't win the war without these people.

This amendment would allow, if the members chose, a chance to join TRICARE for themselves and their families. They would pay a premium, and the Government would pick up the match.

The committee markup allows the Guard member to join and pay a premium. It requires the employer to pay the remaining amount of the TRICARE premium.

I appreciate that effort, but the reason I think that misses the mark is because a lot of Guard and Reserve members don't have a private health care plan with which to cost share. You are going to have a very convoluted system. And at the end of the day, I feel very strongly we should not outsource the health care needs of the Guard and Reserve family--to be shared by the military member and the private sector alone.

I think it is very important for us in the Senate and in the House to say this is a government responsibility also, that it is fair to ask the Guard and Reserve family and member to contribute. But I think it is incumbent upon us to also have the Government contribute.

I have yet to find a taxpayer who is upset with the idea that we are going to pick up some of the health care costs for our Guard and Reserve members and their families for protecting our freedom.

The cost of the program: It depends on who you ask. But the latest CBO estimate is about $5.4 billion over a 5-year period. I think there are ways to lessen that cost, and I will be very openminded to that. But we are talking about a $2.2 trillion budget, and a defense budget approaching $400 billion.

My question to the body is, Is that $1 billion a year a wise expense of money? The question is, Can we afford not to? This is about two- tenths of 1 percent of the entire military budget; 300,000 families would be affected. These families are being called upon to do more as Guard and Reserve members than at any other time in the history of the Nation. They don't have health care provided to them by the Government, even though they are fighting to make sure we are all free. That is an inequity we need to fix. A cost-sharing arrangement between the Government and the military member is the way to go. It would help our employers greatly.

If you hire a Guard or Reserve member, and if they can sign up for military health care, it is less expensive for you to hire them and they became a more valuable employee. The employer community has suffered greatly in this war. They have gone without key employees for well over a year's time. They have been paying the bills as if the person were still there, and they need some relief.

I hope we can, in a bipartisan fashion, pass this amendment that Senator Daschle, myself, and others have worked on for well over a year. This amendment, simply stated, would allow Guard and Reserve members and their families access to full-time military health care, so when they are called they will be fit to fight, that they will have the security that continuous health care provides families, and they will not be bouncing around from one group to the next.

This is what often happens. If you are in a health care plan in civilian work, you are called to active duty, you leave that health care plan to go into TRICARE. On one of the C-130 crews I was flying with, there were two first-time dads on the crew. One of them had a private plan with Southwestern Bell that continued health care for the family voluntarily. They do not have to do that. The other was a realtor who had private health insurance. When he was

called to active duty, his wife had to change doctors and hospitals. That was very traumatic.

We can lessen that trauma. We can give an option to the military member and their family, the Guard and Reserve military member, to have the same set of doctors and hospitals year round. They do not have to bounce from one group to another. When they are called off active duty, they lose their TRICARE eligibility within less than 6 months and have to change doctors and hospitals twice. It creates a serious disruption. Twenty-five percent have no health care in the private sector. This would solve that problem.

In terms of the money, it is the best deal you will ever find to defend America. It will save money. If 25 percent of the people called to active duty cannot be utilized because of health care problems, a small investment in their health care makes good sense from a business equation.

If necessary, we will find offsets.

I hope the Senate today, in a bipartisan fashion, will extend TRICARE health care benefits to every Guard and Reserve member who chooses to sign up in a cost-sharing fashion to make sure those people are ready to go to war when called, that their families are better taken care of, and that the concerns of continuity of health care will finally be addressed forever.

This is affordable. It is the right thing to do. Our Guard and Reserve families and members have earned it. They have earned this benefit.

I yield for my colleague, Senator Daschle.

Yes.

I just need 10 minutes to speak on the amendment.

Just to conclude this debate, this debate has been going on for a very long time, more than a year, on how to best take care of the Guard and Reserve Forces in terms of their health care needs. It is an honest debate, sincere debate. Mr. President, 85 Members of the Senate voted last year on this very amendment. I think I understand why they voted to extend health care benefits to the Guard and Reserve, full time, and with the premium to be paid for them. It makes sense for our military needs. Forty percent of our people in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be Guard and Reserve members.

Let me explain as best as I can how this works. If you are a member of the Guard and Reserve today, while you are serving in that capacity you have absolutely zero health care benefits offered to you from the military. A part-time Federal Government employee, a temporary Federal Government employee receives health care benefits. So go home and explain that one. You can be a part-time Federal employee, work in the Senate or the House, and you get health care. You can be a part-time citizen soldier, training to defend America, and you get zip.

Now, it is true when you are called to active duty you get everything an Active-Duty person gets. The reason is because you are on active duty. That is not that great of a benefit, to pay you like somebody right next to you and to give you the same benefits because you are doing the same job. The point we are trying to make is, there is a problem in the Guard and Reserve community when it comes to health care. Mr. President, 25 percent of the people called to active duty, as I stated before, from the Guard and Reserve community are unable to go on active duty

because of health care problems. I would argue that we need a better health care network covering our Guard and Reserve members and their families, from a readiness point of view.

Let's talk a little bit about retention. The head of the Army Reserve said yesterday--and this is back in January--that the 205,000-soldier force must guard against a potential crisis in its ability to retain troops, saying serious problems were being masked temporarily because reservists are barred from leaving the military while the units are mobilized in Iraq.

In this prison abuse scandal what we found was that the MPs in that jail, and some of their associates, were due to go home, but they couldn't go back home because they were needed in Iraq, and they had the rug pulled out from under them, causing tremendous morale problems.

``This is the first extended duration war our Nation has fought with an all-volunteer force,'' said LTG James R. Henley, the head of the Reserves. ``We must be sensitive to that and we must provide proactive, preventive measures to prevent a recruiting retention crisis.'' 1-21- 04.

``We got a real retention issue,'' said Republican Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, our Governor and a member of the Air Force Reserve. ``We are going to see it emptying when people's tickets are up and when Guardsmen are not stepping up to the plate.''

You know, I am not sure that is true. Patriotism is high. To prevent them from getting out, we need to be thinking of what we can do to make it a more attractive job. But let's say you stay in. What can you do to honor your service to our country? This Congress has spent $400 billion on Medicare improvements. Let's talk about money for a minute. We are trying to get every senior in the country to sign up for a discount card because we want to help seniors. Great, good idea.

We are trying to spend $1 billion a year for 5 years to give Guard and Reserve members continuity of health care coverage, and we are arguing about the money? We spent $20 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money in Iraq. We gave it to the Iraqi people, to build their hospitals, to build their schools, to build their roads, to build their fire departments, and their police stations, to train their army. Do you know what. The money is needed.

I wanted to loan some of it because they are sitting on $1 trillion worth of oil. I like helping people but I want people to help themselves. So when it came time to write this amendment we did strike a balance. Here is the balance.

Right now, as a Guard and Reserve member, you are a part-time Federal employee. Unlike every other part-time Federal employee, you get nothing. So here is what we are suggesting. If you want to, you can sign up for military health care year round. It will be eligible for you and your family--you will be eligible for that program. But while you are a Guard or Reserve member you are going to have to pay a premium like a Federal employee. I wish we could get the Iraqi people to help pay some of the money back, but we are not. So they are going to make a contribution. This is not a free deal. They have to pay like every other part-time Federal employee. Put them in that same category. They deserve to be in that category.

Here is the difference between an Active-Duty troop and a Guard and Reserve member. No. 1, an Active-Duty troop is doing a great job, and we should pay them more. Senator Warner has done a great job improving benefits for Active-Duty people. Our Armed Services Committee in the Senate has been second to no one in trying to make a better life for those who serve our country. My hat is off to them. We just have a disagreement over this particular amendment. But we are daily improving the benefit package of Active-Duty people. By God, they deserve it.

But here is why it will not affect recruiting. The Pentagon has started this argument. It is the most bogus argument I have ever heard. It is that if you offer TRICARE eligibility for the military members who would have to pay $1,800 a year for the benefit, as a premium for a family, that somehow that will hurt recruiting for active duty.

Here is your choice if you are going to pick between the two programs. You have a Reserve job or a Guard job that allows you to work one weekend a month, 2 weeks a year, and you get to retire when you are 60. The Active-Duty person gets a full paycheck, gets full health care benefits, gets a retirement after 20 years. There is no way that is going to compete and take people away from Active-Duty Forces. How are you going to raise a family working 2 days a month? They are part-time employees in a vital job, to defend America. Unlike every other part- time Federal employee, they are not eligible for Federal Government health care, and they should be. We are asking them to pay a premium unless they are called to active duty.

That is a fiscally responsible balance. We spent $20 billion of the taxpayers' money to make Iraq a better place. We spent $400 billion and counting on a prescription drug program for our seniors. Here we are, trying to get $5.4 billion over a 5-year period to cover 300,000 families who have suffered beyond description, in terms of leaving their homes and their jobs for pay cuts. Most Guard and Reserve members, when called to active duty, leave obligations behind, greater than the military paycheck. They make more money in the civilian world and when they are called to active duty they take a pay cut and we don't make up the difference. But they know that going in.

There are small things that mean a lot to these people, and this is truly small, in terms of money. It is two-tenths of 1 percent of the budget. Mr. President, 25 percent of the people are unable to go on active duty when called to the Guard and Reserve community because of health care problems. This amendment more than pays for itself. The money is well spent. It is affordable, and there are many programs in this budget that cost more than $700 million that, if you ask the taxpayer to choose, I think the Guard and Reserve community would win every time.

How many bills do we pass every year that spend billions of dollars on questionable programs? This is the one area upon which we can all agree. The Guard and Reserve community needs a better benefit package because they are being asked to do more than ever. They are dying at a greater rate this year than last year. What has happened in the year when we first debated this? There are more of them and they are dying at a faster rate.

The father of TRICARE is Senator Warner.

This is why I object to committee markups. No. 1, the entire cost of TRICARE under the committee markup is borne by the employer community and the reservists. The Government doesn't contribute one penny to the health care needs of our Guard and Reserve members. That is wrong.

The unsung hero of this whole war effort, when it comes to the Guard and Reserve community, is the employer. Wouldn't it be nice if we could take a load off of small businesses and large businesses which have guardsmen and reservists and share in the cost of health care along with the Guard members themselves and take them off the payroll? It is a small thing. It would mean a lot to employers.

Employers have paid the difference between active pay and civilian pay voluntarily, and in huge numbers. We have done nothing to thank them. Taking care of the health care needs of our Guard and Reserve Forces is one less problem an employer has to worry about.

I ask the 85 Members of the Senate who voted last year for this very same measure, which is now $300 million cheaper and going down every minute because we are trying to make it cheaper, to step to the plate and say to the Guard and Reserve community: We got it. We understand your sacrifice. We understand your stress. We understand your family is having health care coverage problems. Twenty percent of them have no health care. They are bouncing from one group to the next, and we are going to fix that. We are going to give you an option. We are going to ask you to pay some, but we are going to make your health care life better.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support for this amendment from the National Guard Association of the United

States, the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, the Reserve Enlisted Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, along with the National Guard Association of the United States.

Mr. President, these letters are not just words on paper. I challenge every member of the public and every Senator to go back home and spend a few minutes in a Guard and Reserve unit and ask about TRICARE for those who have been on active duty.

Does it work? Senator Warner deserves great praise because it is working. Ask the question: If you could sign up for TRICARE year round and pay a premium, how many of you would do it? Hands would be raised. It would be a great benefit to the 300,000 forces. It would be good for their families. It would be good for retention. It is affordable, and it is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.

I would like a couple of minutes.

Mr. President, following those eloquent words of the chairman, this is not about who cares about our military; we all do. This is about priorities and what we are going to do when we say we care.

The law of the country is such that, if you are a part-time Federal employee working 16 hours, you are eligible for Federal Government health care. If you are a part-time citizen soldier training to defend your country, answering calls for hurricanes and natural disasters in your State and providing homeland security, you get zero. We need to fix that.

The committee bill puts a proposal on the table that goes as follows: The guardsmen and reservists pay some; the employer pays the other 72 percent. Your Government doesn't contribute 1 penny to the health care needs of the Guard and Reserve community. Mr. President, 25 percent of the Guard and Reserve called to go on active duty can't go because of their lack of health care. We need to invest in their health care because they are keeping us free.

Medicare has a $400 billion prescription drug benefit that has just been passed. I voted no because I am worried about the explosive cost to the future and our grandchildren not being able to afford it. I got outvoted. It is a program that is in existence. You can sign up for a discount card today. You ought to look into it.

We gave $20 billion to the Iraqi people who are sitting on $1 trillion worth of oil and we are not asking for 1 penny back in payment. We are going to build schools, roads, highways; we are going to spend $25 billion--more, probably, before the day is over-- supporting our troops to support Iraq.

Our bill allows Guard and Reserve families and Guard and Reserve members to be part of the military health care system year round. When they are not called to active duty they have to pay a premium of $1,800 a year for their family, just like a part-time Federal employee. People in Iraq are not paying anything back. It is a total gift.

Mr. President, $400 billion to provide discounts for every senior in America--$400 billion. This costs $1 billion a year for 300,000 families. There are bills in this Senate and this House where one bridge costs more than the health care program needs of 300,000 families.

I will take a backseat to no one about trying to save taxpayer dollars. I would argue, if the taxpayers could be here today and if they could vote to spend this $1 billion to make sure the citizen soldier is treated as every other part-time Federal employee, they would say: Here is my wallet, take what you need. This idea we can't afford it is bogus.

Absolutely.

The way the program works, you can be a temporary employee working 16 hours, work a year, then get health care, and you pay a premium. If you work 16 hours a week, you can get full- time health care benefits paying a premium. What a Guard member does, he works 2 days a month, 2 weeks a year, and 40 percent of the people in Afghanistan and Iraq come out of that pool. Now they are getting killed. It is not an average, everyday part-time job. The people who are left behind, the families, take a pay cut. The average Guard and Reserve member, when they get called to active duty their pay goes down, but they don't complain. They go, I say with all due respect.

Yes.

They do, and when they come back home because of what we did last year they get health care for 6 months. But after that 6 months, 25 percent of them go back into the civilian world where they have no health care, zero. That is not right. That is not like every other Federal employee who is part-time. That is not right and we cannot afford to let that continue to happen because we are going to be needing these men and women more than ever. Their families are stressed. This is a chance to spend a little bit of money on people who are giving everything, including their lives and their limbs.

I ask unanimous consent to add the following cosponsors: Senators Allen, Murkowski, Lott, Coleman, DeWine, Leahy, Clinton, Lincoln, Corzine, Dorgan, Bingaman, Murray, and Landrieu.