Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate father and son John and Jess Roskelley of Spokane, WA, for their successful climb of Mt. Everest. The Roskelleys' achievement is both inspiring and historic. By reaching the summit on Wednesday, May 21, the Roskelleys became the first father and son to climb the world's highest mountain together. Jess also became the youngest American to ever complete the climb.

Throughout history, explorers and adventurers have held a special place in our imaginations. Their vision and determination to explore uncharted territory, and to surmount overwhelming obstacles in fierce conditions and environments remind us of the indomitable power of the human spirit.

Mt. Everest has long captivated mankind as a powerful symbol of the awe the natural world can evoke. Since Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay became the first people to grace its summit 50 years ago, the challenge of climbing Everest has attained an iconic status. Its precipitous slopes, seemingly bottomless crevasses, and thin air are a reminder both of the power of natural forces, and of the fragility of human life.

John Roskelley is an expert climber, with 30 years experience climbing in the demanding Himalayas. He is also an accomplished photographer and author, whose work vividly conveys the challenges and emotions of high-altitude mountaineering. John is a dedicated public servant, as well: he serves as a Commissioner of Spokane County.

Jess Roskelley has clearly inherited his father's mountaineering talents and taste for adventure. Though he is only 20 years old, Jess is already an accomplished climber in his own right. He has climbed Washington State's highest peak, 14,411-foot Mt. Rainier--also an impressive mountaineering feat--a remarkable 35 times.

The Roskelleys' names will long be remembered with those of other magnificent climbers from Washington State--a proud history that includes such giants as Jim and Lou Whittaker, Jim Wickwire, Willi Unsoeld, and Ed Viesturs.

With their accomplishment, John and Jess Roskelley have contributed to this tradition, and to that of all the adventurers and explorers who inspire us to challenge ourselves to realize our dreams, and to persevere in the face of overwhelming odds. They remind us of President John F. Kennedy's affirmation that we pursue some goals ``not because they are easy but because they are hard.''

The Roskelleys' remarkable achievement reminds us what we can accomplish when we set our hearts and minds upon difficult goals. I congratulate them on their success, and wish them a safe trip home.

Mr. President, this amendment is offered by myself, the Senator from Florida, Senator Nelson, and Senator Baucus, to extend the research and development tax credit. What we are saying here today is we will implement a philosophy that has been a proven success in generating jobs in our economy, giving business the ability to deduct research and development costs in an information age when we know there are so many products and services yet to be created.

Since its enactment in 1981, the research tax credit has demonstrated it is a very powerful and effective tool for creating jobs. It should be no surprise to my colleagues that research estimates indicate that agreeing to this amendment could, in the next 5 years, increase our gross domestic product by over $10 billion. There is no better stimulus.

We should make this investment. It is a bipartisan-supported effort, research and development tax credits. Compared to the other stimulus in this bill, this is the tried and true way for the American public. We know there is research and development in biotechnology, in computer sciences, medical research, and this will help us create jobs. I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. President, under section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of the Act for consideration of the pending amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Schumer's amendment to expand the higher education tax deduction. This amendment would make the higher education tax deduction permanent and increase the amount that taxpayers can claim for a deduction. The higher education tax deduction helps families afford a college education at a time when tuition increases are outpacing the cost of inflation. Families need help to be able to give their children the opportunities and support needed for a good solid education.

In our information-based economy, the value of a good education is the key to success. I know this from personal experience. When I left the House of Representatives, I went to work for a high technology company in Seattle, WA. I did not have any expertise or knowledge in this area, but because I had a solid education that gave me the foundation to learn on the job, I was able to learn quickly and thrive in my new environment. That is the value of a good education.

My experience is hardly unique. According to the Department of Labor, the typical worker will change jobs nine times during his or her career.

When workers change jobs, they will find that more and more employment opportunities require a college degree. Eight of the 10 fastest-growing occupations require at least a bachelor's degree. At the same time, jobs for people who have not attended college are quickly disappearing. Twenty-three of the 25 fastest-declining careers do not require a degree.

A college degree is no longer a luxury--it is an imperative.

There is a ``perfect storm'' brewing at colleges across this country that is making it increasingly difficult for families to afford a college education. First, endowment earnings are down, significantly reducing revenue for colleges and universities. Second, the economy has been sluggish for so long that corporate and individual charitable giving has been reduced across the country. Third, the sluggish economy has put State budgets across the country in crisis. All of these factors are contributing to the skyrocketing costs of college tuitions.

In Washington State, the legislature has significantly cut funding for higher education and that means tuition is going up. In just the last 2 years, tuition at 4-year universities and two-year colleges has increased by 12 percent each year. Over the past decade, tuition at the University of Washington has shot up an astounding 103 percent.

This trend is not limited to my State.

The vast majority of American families rely in part on federal aid to help finance their children's college education. A recent General Accounting Office report illustrated this point. It found that more than 75 percent of all undergraduate students receive some form of federal financial assistance. In addition, more than 40 percent of all undergraduate students benefit from a higher education tax credit.

With the cost of tuition on the rise, we can expect that even more families will require aid to send their kids to college.

We cannot let the opportunities of higher education slip out of reach. Expanding access to federal financial aid is a critical long- term investment in our workforce, and in our economy.

amendment no. 575

Madam President, I rise today in support of the Kennedy amendment, and I hope my colleagues will see that the essence of this amendment is about setting priorities in America.

Yes, we are discussing a tax bill that could end up including $350 billion in tax cuts directed at the most wealthy people in America. While we are doing that, we are doing it in the face of the fact that millions of Americans are unemployed and that their unemployment benefits are running out.

So what are we saying by setting this priority, setting a bill in motion out of the Senate that some Members believe is going to help stimulate the economy, that it will really start us on the right track? And instead of paying attention to the very people who have helped build this economy, those in the aviation sector who lost their jobs because of the downturn in aviation after 9/11, those who lost their jobs because of corporate manipulation in the energy crisis, who lost their jobs because of those market schemes and manipulations, and those people who are simply just out of a job because of 9/11 and the economy has not returned, we are saying, we don't have a plan to help you. Instead, we want to propose one of

the biggest tax cuts in history hoping that somehow this will trickle down to help you.

The point is, when in our history as a country have we proposed a dividend tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy? Yet we have had two of the last administrations, a Democrat and Republican administration, which said one of the best things we can do during times of high unemployment is to make sure we extend unemployment benefits. Why is that? Well, it is quite simple. For every dollar spent on unemployment, it generates $2.15 of stimulus. This is a proven economic plan. For my State in Washington, where over 100,000 people would be impacted by this amendment and would qualify, we are talking about real numbers. We are talking about millions of dollars to our economy over the next several months that can help pay mortgage payments, health care costs, and as Senator Kennedy said, keep the lights on at home in a region of our country that has seen some of the highest energy rates in a long time.

What we are doing in this amendment Senator Kennedy is proposing is putting forth an idea of how to help stimulate the economy that has been tested and proven successful by two administrations, both Republican and Democrat. Instead, we are saying we are not going to include this in this package.

I must remind my colleagues that we came to this brink in December of last year. While some of us might think we rectified it when we came in in January, there were people in my State, as those unemployment benefits were curtailed in December, who did lose their health care benefits. They did lose the ability to take care of the health care needs of their families. I am sure there were people who probably even lost their homes because of that time period, because of the uncertainty, because of our lack of commitment for these unemployed workers. So here we are at the same point again, 2, 3 weeks away from having this unemployment benefit extension evaporate on May 31 and no commitment, no commitment to say we will extend unemployment benefits, again at a time when we have had administration after administration say, in times of tough economic situations and no job growth, the best thing we can do is keep the stimulus going by making sure there is unemployment.

So where are we? Well, as we know, the impact over the last 2 years, the private sector has lost more than 2 million jobs. Unemployment has jumped by 50 percent. As a State that has 7-percent unemployment now and as a region, the Pacific Northwest, with Oregon, Washington and Alaska, that has the highest unemployment in the country, this is no simple matter. This is about priorities. This is about whether we are going to take care of the working families who have helped build this economy and sustain them until job opportunities increase again.

We will look for other opportunities to make sure the training programs and the educational opportunities are there to retool the workforce for the jobs of the future.

One of the amendments we were successful in getting on the budget bill earlier in setting our priorities was to say that we should not cut the job training programs. We still have people in Washington State who are willing to hire this workforce that has been laid off, but they want them to be retooled. They want them to gain expertise. What better time to do that than now, as they are working through their unemployment, to offer to give them training benefits, make sure they are retooled for the economy of the future--whether it is in nanosciences, in biotechnology, in new aviation construction, in new IT fields, or in nursing where we have over 130,000 openings for nurses in this country, and the people who want to have those jobs. Instead, we are allowing outside people to come in and take them because we are not willing to take care of American workers. This is not a priority. We are simply saying instead of giving the largest tax cut in history, and passing this out of the Senate, knowing that thousands of workers are going to lose their benefits in 3 weeks, we believe we should give them that helping hand.

Make no mistake. Nobody in America wants an unemployment check. They would rather have a paycheck. But until we can guarantee to these people that we are going to get them that paycheck, we better extend that opportunity, from a trust fund that they have paid into, the things that they and their employers have paid into, the opportunity to sustain them and benefit our economy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 577.

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

Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senator Nelson of Florida and Senator Baucus, to offer an amendment to revise and extend the research and development tax credit.

I know my colleagues will be familiar with this amendment, but I want to clarify three things this amendment does. First, it will extend the research credit through June 30, 2014, which is the end of this reconciliation period. Second, it will increase the rates of the alternative incremental credit; and third, it will create a new alternative simplified credit for qualified research expenses.

This language is identical to the language that was originally included in S. 664, introduced by Senator Hatch from Utah and cosponsored by 27 bipartisan Senators. The amendment pays for this tax credit by eliminating the underlying legislation's section reducing the dividend tax credit.

Since its increment in 1981, the research tax credit, I believe, has demonstrated that it is a powerful incentive for companies to increase research spending. The tax credit lowers the cost of doing research in the United States, so it encourages companies to continue to make investments in critical R&D. The bottom-line benefit is that research and development creates new jobs in the United States.

The current R&D tax credit is expected to expire on June 30, 2004. Many of my colleagues know we play this annual game of continuing to say the R&D tax credit is important, but not renewing it on a permanent basis, thereby saying to companies and organizations: You don't know whether you will actually get this research credit or not. It is important for companies to have access to this information because the kind of planning it takes to do research and development, to increase productivity in America, is not necessarily done in 1 year or 2 years. The major investments in nanotechnology and biotechnology, in software, and in the computer sciences take several years of investments. So what we are talking about is giving businesses the predictability they want to see in research and development so they can move ahead.

The long-term nature of these research projects, I believe, is something Congress should recognize today and make part of a priority package for reinvigorating America. This is a tried and true program, again, for creating jobs in America.

In this tax cut bill--we are trying something that is new, effectively saying, let's cut taxes on dividends for individuals, and hope it trickles down to create jobs in America. We know the R&D tax credit works--it works, and it works effectively.

The point I want to make to my colleagues is, what we need to understand, is the changing nature of businesses today in an information economy. So many of the businesses that have been the great engines of growth in the 1990s are companies that now spend 27 percent of their overall dollars on research and development. So research and development has become a bigger percentage of a company's overall plans, and predictability about that research and development has become more important.

That is why two years ago Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan told a Senate Budget Committee:

Had the innovations of recent decades, especially in

information technologies, not come to fruition,

productivity growth during the past five to seven years,

arguably, would have continued to languish at the rate of

the preceding twenty years.

So here was someone in charge of advising us on Federal investment and tax policy basically saying these companies have been able to invest in R&D, and have gotten us to that productivity rate we are so interested in. So why aren't we including that in this package-- something we know is tried and true, something we know many organizations have come before us to argue for, asking, why not make this permanent? So in my amendment, we expand that tax credit through June 2014--which will help the economy turn around.

I would like to enter into the Record comments--I have no idea where my colleague will be on this particular amendment, but I would like to enter into the Record, or reenter into the Record, I guess--comments from my colleague from Utah, who I think spoke eloquently on this particular issue. As my colleague from Utah said:

As it stands, companies have to take account of the fact

that Congress could allow the credit lapse for a few months,

as it did a number of years ago. So companies hedge their

bets, they spend a little less on R&D, and our economy

suffers as a result. By contrast, permanence helps planning.

The sooner we make this permanent, the sooner companies can

begin to enlarge and expand their research and development

units, and the sooner their innovations will strengthen

economic growth.

He quoted a variety of studies that I think are very important. He went on to say:

A permanent extension of this credit may seem costly in

terms of lost revenue. However, when you consider the value

this investment will create for our economy, it is a bargain.

In fact, one study estimates a permanent research credit

would result in our gross domestic product increasing by $10

billion after 5 years and by $31 billion after 20 years.

The Senator is quoting a study and analysis of various economists who are saying this is really how we get to productivity in our economy. I am quoting the Senator because I believe in what he said.

I understand my colleagues may not think that now is the time for this particular amendment. I argue that it is exactly the time for this amendment because let's think about it. Who has created jobs in the last decade? Who has stimulated our economy to move

forward? It is a lot of companies that have invested in R&D. It is the Microsofts. It is the Amazons. It is the variety of companies from my State and others that have made the investments which increase the productivity of their workforce, where they can then hire new people as new products and services are delivered.

That is something with which we have had good experience. I want to get back to 3.5-percent economic growth. I know the economic engine that will take us there will be these companies and corporations that know about producing product and services in an information age economy. What they tell us is important to them, is making permanent the R&D tax credit. They say this because there is currently no certainty--they come to us every few years to try to understand whether we are going to give them these tax credits.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a statement from the R&D Credit Coalition.

They write:

Growth in our high tech economy depends on solid R&D, and

there is no good reason to delay making the credit permanent.

A permanent tax credit will go a long way to providing the

planners and investors the certainty that they need.

Another document by that same coalition states that research jobs that are created by this R&D are quite significant; that more than 90 percent of the costs eligible for credits from the R&D tax credit go directly into salary and wages of researchers. So the only way for the company to go ahead and increase the credit is to get an R&D payroll. That is what we are talking about, getting the R&D payroll.

We are sitting here discussing how we are going to move forward. I know my colleagues have a variety of ideas. We all probably have ideas that we think are an avenue or path within this tax proposal that will be effective. I know as somebody who has been in the private sector, has seen a company grow from 10 people to 1,000 people in a short time, the major focus of that company was in research and development.

Let's turn our attention to those very companies that we think are the basis for our future. We still see great growth and opportunity in medical devices and research. We see great opportunities in biomedicines, as I mentioned, in nanosciences, in computing sciences, in supercomputing. We see great opportunity in energy technology, in the new energy economy we think will be so important. We certainly see from the State of Washington how the great investment in software and communications technologies can move our country forward.

Let's take this amendment that I believe is a bipartisan amendment supported by many of my colleagues and say that this is a priority. Let's not make these organizations, which have been the engine of job creation, continue to come back to us as we pass the largest tax cut without including something that the very job creators have told us they need to move forward.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Let's make the research and development tax credit permanent.

I retain the remainder of my time.

I yield the Senator from Montana as much time as he needs.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Iowa and his comments about the R&D tax credit amendment and his great work on trying to put together a package to bring before the Senate. It is clear that my colleague from Iowa has had a tough challenge working with a variety of people, and I am sure he will face an even tougher challenge working in conference with the House of Representatives and the White House on their priorities.

I respect his commitment to working on the R&D tax credit expansion or permanency and I take him at his word that he is very earnest and will work towards this.

I guess the reason we are bringing this up today is that we do have a fundamental difference about how to move forward with the economy and where the White House is on this proposal. What I am trying to say is not extension of R&D, but permanent R&D tax credits are a better economic stimulus than what the current underlying proposal gives to the American public.

Let's think about it: A dividend tax cut that would give some money back to investors who may or may not reinvest that versus companies that have proven they have taken the R&D tax credit and turned that into new products and services, and have hired people to, in fact, do the R&D which we are talking about. I think we can easily look at history and say corporations have done a better job of that because they know what products and services can be created in the marketplace and have used this incentive to do that.

The second point I wish to make is that small businesses can take advantage of this credit. In fact, in the past decade we saw a lot of increases in productivity by large corporations because they were able to take advantage of research and development and new technologies, and they were able to deploy that, while small businesses that had less flexibility, not as much revenue, and had smaller operations had a much harder time making those productivity improvements.

I have heard from small businesses throughout our State that said: I am a subcontractor, or I do business with some of the larger companies in the State, but our computer systems and our software do not communicate. The way I now have to talk to my customers and providers of service I work with throughout the State is being challenged by new systems and operations, and I need to upgrade and move forward. So small businesses, to maintain their competitive edge, also need help in the research and development area.

Oftentimes it is the small business that is created prior to becoming a large organization. As I said, the companies that grow from 10 jobs and take advantage of R&D tax credits and then grow to 1,000 jobs are the very companies about which we are talking. So both small and large companies will benefit.

The third point is that this is about priorities. In an information economy, it is very important for us to keep our deficits down and to get access to capital.

Think about it. In the industrial age, when we were making automobiles, Mr. Ford said: Just give me the hands. I do not even need the brain that goes with it.

Why? Because it was about a manufacturing process, that was not necessarily about the worker, and the increase in productivity. The process and system had been set in place.

Well, the information age is just the opposite of that. It is all about new ideas in a global economy where information flows quickly and competition is created quickly, and whether we are going to maintain our competitive edge by making the right levels of R&D investment.

Actually, the U.S. economy is so strong in biotechnology, in pharmaceuticals, and in software. Why? Because we make the investment in R&D that keeps that technological advantage in an information age.

So while some of my colleagues, argue that a dividend tax break is an issue of fairness, I say there are lots of things about our Tax Code that I do not think are particularly fair. But

given the 7 percent unemployment rate in my State of Washington, with over 2 million jobs lost and no sight of what we are going to do to stimulate the economy that will create jobs, it is imperative to make this tax credit permanent now.

My colleague has offered to look at this at another time. But the issue is, are we going to make it permanent at another time? In an information age this is the best thing we could do for companies that are spending almost 30 percent of their company's overall expenses in R&D. An information economy means so many new products and services are going to come into creativity by thousands of ideas floating around, things that we never even imagined before--who thought 20 years ago we were going to be buying our books online or communicating with global media through the Internet? But those are the products and services that have been created. The good news is we are at the infancy of this information age. So let's take advantage of that. Let's harness that information age economy with one of the best tools we have to encourage them, and that is make permanent the R&D tax credits so those products, those services, those job-creating activities, will take place in our economy.

If we asked economists, or asked businesspeople, sure, they would like both. I am sure there are people who would say: Give us the dividend and give us the R&D tax credit. But ask them to prioritize, and I have no doubt they would say the R&D tax credit is more important because they know it will give them certainty and predictability in a time and age where research and development is going to be the way for us to continue the productivity.

Make no mistake, that opportunity for productivity is great. We had great increases during the industrial age--a constant 3\1/2\, 4, 5 percent economic growth in the last decade. If we harness the ability for new products and services by making the right level of investment in research and development, we can have that kind of productivity increase and we can have that kind of GDP.

For all of us here, we want to get back to that. We want to get back to having families who have jobs and communities that are healthy and a government that can own up to its responsibilities in the future for Social Security and Medicare. So let's make the investment now.

This is about making a priority statement today. It is about saying that R&D tax credit has a higher priority and ranking over some of the proposals that are in this bill, and that it will benefit both small and large companies, and ultimately will benefit many Americans by getting them employed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today my colleagues and I introduce the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative. This bill outlines an important initiative that would give our northern border States and counties financial assistance in prosecuting criminal and immigration-related cases that arise because of proximity to the border. I thank my fellow northern border Senators and cosponsors, Senators Crapo, Murry, Murkowski, Leahy, Clinton and Schumer for joining with me to introduce and work to pass this important legislation.

This initiative is modeled on a successful program already in place for southern border States. The Southern Border Prosecution Initiative allows States and counties to apply for reimbursement of costs incurred in any federally initiated or declined-referred criminal case. The program is targeted at immigration-related cases, but is not limited only to cases involving immigration charges. Cases arising out of immigration issues but ranging from a misdemeanor property charge to a felony drug conviction are eligible for reimbursement under the southern border program. The program proposed in the legislation introduced today would be operated in the same way.

Federal agencies--such as the Border Patrol and INS--have ongoing efforts to police the Nation's borders, resulting in hundreds of arrests each year. For many reasons, some of those cases are not pursued by Federal law enforcement authorities and instead are handed off to State or county officials for further prosecution. Instead of asking States to absorb those costs--likely at the expense of other important local law enforcement initiatives--the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative allows States and counties to receive compensation for pursuing these immigration-related cases.

The Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative would be administered by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance. States and counties would be able to apply for reimbursement during an annual application period, with no limit on the number of cases submitted. Under the act, funds distribution is not based on the size or population of a northern border State, but upon the number of eligible cases submitted by each jurisdiction. It is possible for reimbursement to equal 100 percent of costs, though money is distributed on a pro rata basis if applications exceed available revenues. Each of the 14 States along the northern border would be eligible for the reimbursement program: Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

Last year, $40 million was provided to southern border States Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, offsetting the costs of prosecuting immigration-related cases. For 2002, $50 million was allocated to the program. My legislation simply authorizes $28 million for Fiscal Year 2004 be made available to northern border states for the same purpose.

In the years leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, activity along the northern border had shifted primarily from a focus on immigration issues to those related to

trade and commerce. However, homeland security has grown into a paramount concern in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks, and our States and local governments are increasingly bearing an unfair financial burden in protecting and patrolling our national borders. There are hundreds of crossings along the 4,000 mile long northern border between the United States and Canada, and though improvements have been made to tighten security, the northern border has yet to receive the resources it needs to adequately enforce our Nation's immigration laws and border restrictions.

The need for greater enforcement efforts along the northern border became glaringly evident in 1998 when Ahmed Ressam, a terrorist trained at one of Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan, was arrested shortly after crossing the Canadian border into Washington State. Explosives and other bomb-making materials were found in the trunk of Ressam's car. This frightening incident made clear the vulnerabilities we face along the porous northern border, vulnerabilities that became even more concerning after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

In the last two years, the Senate has taken steps to improve northern border security. I have worked with Senators from the 14 States that comprise the northern border--including my colleagues who join me as cosponsors on this legislation today--and we have successfully devoted more resources to northern border security efforts. The 2001 Department of Defense Appropriation's bill included $55.8 million for 500 additional Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors along the northern border--a 105 percent increase in staffing levels. That legislation also provided $23.9 million to transfer 100 border patrol agents and hire 100 new agents. Working to protect our northern border has been a bipartisan effort, enjoying cooperation from senators across the aisle and across the country. Now it is time to take another step toward greater border and national security and approve the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative.

The costs of homeland security are increasingly being borne by States and local governments, an issue that this legislation tackles head-on. Without giving States and counties the necessary resources to pay for cases initiated by Federal authorities, other important local law enforcement initiatives will undoubtedly be shortchanged. States and the Federal Government must work together if our borders are to be truly safe. The Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative is a mechanism by which all of the resources of the criminal justice system--local, State, and Federal--can work in harmony.

Mr. President, today my colleagues and I introduce the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative. This bill outlines an important initiative that would give our northern border States and counties financial assistance in prosecuting criminal and immigration-related cases that arise because of proximity to the border. I thank my fellow northern border Senators and cosponsors, Senators Crapo, Murry, Murkowski, Leahy, Clinton and Schumer for joining with me to introduce and work to pass this important legislation.

This initiative is modeled on a successful program already in place for southern border States. The Southern Border Prosecution Initiative allows States and counties to apply for reimbursement of costs incurred in any federally initiated or declined-referred criminal case. The program is targeted at immigration-related cases, but is not limited only to cases involving immigration charges. Cases arising out of immigration issues but ranging from a misdemeanor property charge to a felony drug conviction are eligible for reimbursement under the southern border program. The program proposed in the legislation introduced today would be operated in the same way.

Federal agencies--such as the Border Patrol and INS--have ongoing efforts to police the Nation's borders, resulting in hundreds of arrests each year. For many reasons, some of those cases are not pursued by Federal law enforcement authorities and instead are handed off to State or county officials for further prosecution. Instead of asking States to absorb those costs--likely at the expense of other important local law enforcement initiatives--the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative allows States and counties to receive compensation for pursuing these immigration-related cases.

The Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative would be administered by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance. States and counties would be able to apply for reimbursement during an annual application period, with no limit on the number of cases submitted. Under the act, funds distribution is not based on the size or population of a northern border State, but upon the number of eligible cases submitted by each jurisdiction. It is possible for reimbursement to equal 100 percent of costs, though money is distributed on a pro rata basis if applications exceed available revenues. Each of the 14 States along the northern border would be eligible for the reimbursement program: Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

Last year, $40 million was provided to southern border States Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, offsetting the costs of prosecuting immigration-related cases. For 2002, $50 million was allocated to the program. My legislation simply authorizes $28 million for Fiscal Year 2004 be made available to northern border states for the same purpose.

In the years leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, activity along the northern border had shifted primarily from a focus on immigration issues to those related to

trade and commerce. However, homeland security has grown into a paramount concern in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks, and our States and local governments are increasingly bearing an unfair financial burden in protecting and patrolling our national borders. There are hundreds of crossings along the 4,000 mile long northern border between the United States and Canada, and though improvements have been made to tighten security, the northern border has yet to receive the resources it needs to adequately enforce our Nation's immigration laws and border restrictions.

The need for greater enforcement efforts along the northern border became glaringly evident in 1998 when Ahmed Ressam, a terrorist trained at one of Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan, was arrested shortly after crossing the Canadian border into Washington State. Explosives and other bomb-making materials were found in the trunk of Ressam's car. This frightening incident made clear the vulnerabilities we face along the porous northern border, vulnerabilities that became even more concerning after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

In the last two years, the Senate has taken steps to improve northern border security. I have worked with Senators from the 14 States that comprise the northern border--including my colleagues who join me as cosponsors on this legislation today--and we have successfully devoted more resources to northern border security efforts. The 2001 Department of Defense Appropriation's bill included $55.8 million for 500 additional Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors along the northern border--a 105 percent increase in staffing levels. That legislation also provided $23.9 million to transfer 100 border patrol agents and hire 100 new agents. Working to protect our northern border has been a bipartisan effort, enjoying cooperation from senators across the aisle and across the country. Now it is time to take another step toward greater border and national security and approve the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative.

The costs of homeland security are increasingly being borne by States and local governments, an issue that this legislation tackles head-on. Without giving States and counties the necessary resources to pay for cases initiated by Federal authorities, other important local law enforcement initiatives will undoubtedly be shortchanged. States and the Federal Government must work together if our borders are to be truly safe. The Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative is a mechanism by which all of the resources of the criminal justice system--local, State, and Federal--can work in harmony.

Mr. President, I have the great honor of being in Washington State today in order to welcome home the USS Lincoln. After a 10-month deployment, including valuable service in the recent war against Iraq, the men and women of the USS Lincoln finally reach Everett and Washington today. Unfortunately in order to be present for this important homecoming in my State it was necessary for me to miss the vote on the confirmation of Cecilia Altonaga to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yea'' to confirm Cecilia Altonaga.

Mr. President, I have the great honor of being in Washington State today in order to welcome home the USS Lincoln and USS Camden. After a 10-month deployment, including valuable service in the recent war against Iraq, the men and women of the USS Lincoln and her carrier strike group will finally reach Everett and Bremerton, WA in the next few hours. Unfortunately, in order to be present for this important homecoming in my State--it was necessary to miss two votes today.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak on the pending business.

Madam President, I rise as a former member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss something that is very important to all of us: How we should proceed on nominees for our Federal court system. And how we make sure we confirm nominees who will enforce the law and not nominees who might seek to bend the law or interpret it to their own desires. The American people deserve judges who hold the mainstream values of our country and our legal system. They deserve a Federal judiciary willing to interpret the laws as they are, rather than as the judges might want them to be.

The American people believe that the Senate needs to do our job. Not to be a rubberstamp on nominees, but to thoroughly evaluate judicial nominees and determine whether they will continue the tradition of the Federal judiciary by being balanced and impartial, and serving as a countercheck for the executive branch and for us, the legislative branch. That was the role the Founding Fathers gave to the Senate, and I believe that is a role the American people think we should play.

That is why I don't think it is surprising, that 74 percent of the public believes that the question of judicial views and judicial philosophy should be something we consider in the Senate confirmation process, and that we should get answers to questions about judicial philosophy from nominees.

More importantly, a majority of Americans also believe we should not vote to confirm a nominee who might otherwise be qualified if we don't think their views on these important issues reflect mainstream American viewpoint. I believe that the nominee we are debating, Justice Priscilla Owen, fails to meet this test.

As a former member of the Judiciary Committee, I attended a hearing on Priscilla Owen that lasted a full day. During that hearing, Owen's record showed a particular disregard for precedent and the plain meaning of the law.

Anyone who walks into a courtroom as a plaintiff or a defendant in this country should do so having the full confidence that there is impartiality on the part of the judge on the bench. They should have total confidence that the rule of law will be followed, and believe the issues will be judged on their merits rather than viewed through the prism of an individual judge's personal values or beliefs.

There is reason to be concerned about the record of Priscilla Owen. Time after time, even her own Republican colleagues, on a predominantly Republican Texas Supreme Court bench, criticized her for failing to follow precedent or interpreting statutes in ways that ignore the clear intent of the law. Just yesterday a key newspaper in her State, the Austin American Statesman, wrote:

Owen is so conservative that she places herself out of the

broad mainstream of jurisprudence. She seems all too willing

to bend the law to fit her views.

I ask unanimous consent to have that editorial printed in the Record.

What some of Owen's colleagues on the bench have said about her opinions I think is important. In a case dealing with a developer seeking to evade Austin's clean water laws, her dissent was called ``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric.''

In another case, her statutory interpretation was called ``unworkable.'' In yet another case, the dissent she joined was called ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.''

Some of our other colleagues have already mentioned that particular quote. One of the reasons we all find it somewhat unbelievable is the fact that it was made by her then-colleague on the Texas Supreme Court, now the White House General Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who is in charge of pushing her nomination.

But the criticism of Owen comes not only from her colleagues but from across the country. The San Antonio Express calls her nomination misguided. The Atlanta Journal called the Judiciary Committee's original objection to her nomination ``the right decision for the American people.'' The New York Times wrote last week that it was abundantly clear at her hearing that her ideology drives her decisions. The Kansas City Star even said there are better nominees and better ways for the executive branch to spend its time than re-fighting these battles.

There is another reason this nomination is so important. I believe this is critical to all the nominees we are considering for appointment to the Federal bench. That is, what is the judicial philosophy and commitment to upholding current law as it relates to a citizen's right to privacy. I asked Justice Owen at her hearing about her beliefs on the right to privacy. I asked her if she believed there was a constitutional right to privacy and where she found that right in the Constitution.

She declined at the time to answer that question without the relevant case information and precedents before her. When Senator Feinstein followed up with a similar question, Owen again would not answer whether she believes a right to privacy does exist within the Constitution.

The question of whether a nominee believes that the right to privacy exists with regard to the ability to make decisions about one's own body is only the tip of the privacy iceberg. I believe that we are in an information age that poses new challenges in protecting the right to privacy. We are facing difficult issues including whether U.S. citizens have been treated as enemy combatants in a prison without access to counsel or trial by jury, whether businesses have access to some of your most personal information, whether the Government has established a process for eavesdropping or tracking U.S. citizens without probable cause, and whether the Government has the ability to develop new software that might track the use of your own computer and places where you might go on the Internet without your consent or knowledge. There are a variety of issues that are before us on an individual's right to privacy and how that right to privacy is going to be interpreted. A clear understanding of a nominee's willingness to follow precedent on protecting privacy is a very important criteria for me, and it should be a concern for all Members.

Of course, some of my concern and skepticism about Justice Owen's views on privacy results from the opinions she wrote in a series of cases interpreting the Texas law on parental notification. In 2000 the State of Texas passed a law requiring parental notification. But they also included a bypass system for extreme cases.

Eleven out of 12 times Owen analyzed whether a minor should be entitled to bypass the notice requirement, she voted either to deny the bypass or to create greater obstacles to the bypass.

Owen wrote in dissent that she would require a minor to demonstrate that she had considered religious issues surrounding the decision and that she had received specific counseling from someone other than a physician, her friend, or her family. Requirements, I believe, that go far beyond what the Texas law requires.

In interpreting the ``best interest'' arm of the statute, Owen held that a minor should be required to demonstrate that the abortion itself--not avoiding notification--was in the individual's best interests. In this particular case, I think she went far beyond what the statute required.

Where does that put us? Women in this country rely on the right to choose. It is an issue on which we have had 30 years of settled law and case precedent. In the Fifth Circuit, there are three States that continue to have unconstitutional laws on the books, and legislatures that are hostile to that right to choose. The Federal courts are the sole protector of women's right to privacy in these states. I do not believe that the rights of the women of the Fifth Circuit can be trusted to Justice Priscilla Owen.

Owen's rulings on privacy and not following precedent raise grave concerns. But this is not the only area where Justice Owen has been criticized. She also has been criticized in areas of consumer rights and environmental law.

The Los Angeles Times singles her out as a nominee who disdains workers' rights, civil liberties and abortion rights. And even a predominantly Republican court--one considered by legal observers and scholars to be one of the most conservative in this country--Justice Owen still seems to go further than a majority on that court. Time after time, Justice Owen has ruled in favor of business interests over working people, against women, against victims of crime and negligence, and against the environment. Over a career a judge can have many controversial cases. But, as the Austin Statesman points out, Justice Owen is widely known as a nominee that ``could usually be counted on to side in any important case that pitted an individual against business interests to side with business.''

I don't think that is the type of representation that we want to have on our courts. Her controversial rulings include an opinion that a distributor who failed to conduct a background check on a salesman was not liable for the rape of a woman by that salesman.

In a case challenging the ability of Texas cities to impose basic clean water control, she held the legislature had the power to exempt a single developer from city water pollution controls by allowing the developer to write their own water pollution plan. The majority called her dissent ``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric.''

There are other cases dealing with Texas public information law which I think are important for all of us, for all of our citizens to have access to public information.

She wrote that a memo prepared by a city agency about an employee should not be subject to disclosure under the Texas Public Information Law because it discussed ``policy,'' an exemption that a majority of others on the board said would be ``the same as holding there is no disclosure requirement at all.''

In another similar case about public information laws, she held that a report prepared by the city of Houston and financed by taxpayers could not be disclosed under the Texas Public Information Act. Again, her colleagues criticized her decision not only as ``contradicting the spirit and language of the statute, but gutting it.''

It is possible to find cases or points to argue in the record of almost any judge, but because of the reaction of her own colleagues to her decisions. I find the constant criticism and rebukes that run through the opinions of

Owen's colleagues surprising. They consistently indicate that they think she has overstepped or misinterpreted the law to such a degree that they have used the words ``gutting'' or ``judicial activism'' or ``overreaching.''

As do many of my colleagues, I believe that we should move off this nomination and on to more important matters. We in the Northwest have an economy that has failed to recover. We in America are looking for an economic plan to move our country forward. There are many issues of national security that we must continue to debate.

I think that we could do better than renominating Priscilla Owen, and others who have already been rejected by a previous Senate Judiciary Committee. The fact that we are even debating this nominee is unprecedented. While I respect the President's right to renominate her, I find his decision to do so given the breadth of opposition and genuine questions that have been raised by her troubling.

The American public cares about us doing our job on nominees. It cares about us asking the right questions. It cares about us making sure that judicial nominees are following important laws that are already on the books. I believe the majority of Americans are becoming more and more concerned about their right to privacy and how it might be protected in the future.

With all the issues that we are facing on our judicial nominees, I say to my colleagues that it is time to move off this nominee--not to move forward on it and instead to the important business that needs to be done for this country and specifically for the Northwest.

I ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to proceed to a vote on this nomination and turn instead to the business that the people of America want us to address: our economic livelihood and how we can all work together to provide better opportunities for Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Holocaust Memorial Day, known in Hebrew as ``Yom Ha Shoa.''

Seventy years ago, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. In

1933, the German Government adopted numerous discriminatory policies against Jews. Jews were prohibited from working as newspaper editors or owning land, and many Jewish immigrants had their citizenship revoked. These actions fueled anti-Semitic sentiments among the general public. Seventy years ago this month, German citizens marched through the streets of Leipzig with signs that read: ``Don't buy from Jews--Shop in German businesses!''

It was a dark time for Germany, but many throughout the world thought that the situation would improve. The 1936 Olympic Games were held in Berlin, even against the backdrop of the rise of Hitler, the Gestapo, state-sponsored Aryan qualifications and the construction of the first concentration camps at Dachau and Buchenwald. In 1939, Jews were relocated into Jewish ghettos, placed under curfews and banned from most professions. The world still ignored the problem; in May of that year, a ship packed with 930 Jewish refugees was turned away by several countries and forced to return to Europe. One of those countries was the United States.

By late 1939, Polish Jews were forcibly placed in labor camps and required to wear yellow stars for identification at all times. Mass killings--called pogroms--took tens of thousands of lives, and Jews from conquered states were deported to German concentration camps. Following the German invasion, France signed an armistice with Hitler on June 22, 1940. Exactly 1 year later, Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

All the while, the world ignored the extermination of the Jewish people, and the United States wrapped itself in the flawed doctrine of isolationism. It took far too long for our Nation to grasp its responsibility and stake in World War II. When the war ended, Germany had murdered over 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. Pastor Martin Niemoller described his reluctance to stand up and help people in Germany, and I believe his critique can apply to individuals and countries:

First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists,

and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then

they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and

there was no one left to speak out for me.

Today we remember those who suffered. We remember those who were murdered. We remember those who spoke out. We will never forget them. This history informs the difficult choices that we face today.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act substitute offered by Senator Grassley. This legislation is a critical step towards full tax fairness for our military personnel and Foreign Service officers.

The American people and Congress stand with our men and women in uniform, and this is the right time to advance tax parity.

Last Congress, I was proud to cosponsor the Foreign and Armed Services Tax Fairness Act of 2002, which included many of the provisions that we are passing today. I was pleased to cosponsor the bill again this Congress when it was reintroduced.

This legislation will bring some commonsense changes to the way military and Foreign Service families are treated under the Tax Code. It will allow military and Foreign Service families to exclude up to half a million dollars in capital gains from home sales; make death gratuity benefits tax exempt; exclude compensation from the Homeowners Assistance Program; provide a deduction for the National Guard's unreimbursed travel expenses; clarify that dependent care assistance for military families is exempt from taxation; and support education individual retirement accounts for students at service academies.

The legislation also extends these benefits to the families of the victims of the space shuttle Columbia tragedy. The Columbia provisions address many of the goals in the Assistance for Families of Space Shuttle Columbia Heroes Act, which I cosponsored with Senator Baucus.

Finally, I would like to emphasize a crucial provision addressing IRS treatment of terrorist organizations. Currently, when the United States designates an entity a terrorist organization, there is a long delay before the IRS revokes its tax-exempt status. There is no reason to postpone the action, but it takes time to update these lists. This bill will automatically suspend the tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations, expediting the consequences of the designation. Last Congress, Senators Grassley and Johnson introduced bills with this practical remedy, but we have yet to pass it into law. The House version of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act does not contain this language, but I will work with my colleagues in both bodies to ensure that when we send this bill to the President, this important provision is included.

Mr. President, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act supports our men and women in uniform during these trying times. I urge my colleagues to give it their full support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to support Senate amendment No. 341, an amendment to provide partial concurrent receipt for veterans.

I would like to thank my colleague from Nevada for his unwavering and tireless support of veterans throughout the country. My constituents are aware of his advocacy for full concurrent receipt and appreciate his support.

Mr. President, as you know, our current military benefits system requires disabled military retirees who have a service-connected disability to deduct their disability compensation from the funds they would otherwise receive as retirement pay. This requirement unfairly merges two distinct programs and forces many disabled retirees to forfeit a significant portion of their well-deserved retirement pay.

The retirement benefit is an entitlement granted to all members of the U.S. Armed Forces who dedicate 20 or more years to providing our Nation's defenses. Disability compensation, on the other hand, is awarded as a compensation for personnel who are injured in the line of duty. I believe veterans should receive each payment separately. Allowing disabled veterans to receive their full military retired pay and disability compensation will restore fairness and common sense to U.S. military retirement policy.

Last year, President Bush signed compromise legislation that provides concurrent receipt to two veterans groups: one, any retiree receiving disability compensation, of at least 10 percent, whose disability was combat-related and for which the retiree was awarded the Purple Heart; and two, any retiree with a service-connected disability rated at 60 percent or higher incurred as a direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war.

Although this compromise was an important first step, it remains an insufficient remedy to a persisting inequity in our veterans benefits system. Senate Amendment No. 341 would expand concurrent receipt to include veterans who have a service-connected disability of at least 60 percent. This is another important step in what will continue to be a long battle to provide concurrent receipt to all eligible veterans--a battle that I remain committed to fighting.

Again, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his leadership on this issue. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and look forward to working with them to provide full concurrent receipt for all veterans.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 382.

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

Madam President, this is a very important amendment that would restore $678 million to workforce training programs that is vital to America in a time of high unemployment. The underlying bill basically cuts these funds and, instead, gives them to a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

What is really important for us to understand is that we have had report after report that in the Information Technology area there are more jobs to be had if we had skilled workers who had the training to work in this areas, and the same is true for the nursing and health care fields. According to the American Hospital Association there are over 126,000 openings in nursing, yet we are cutting the training programs that could retrain thousands of unemployed workers who could fill these openings. By cutting funding for workforce training, we are eliminating the opportunity for 65,000 Americans to receive training.

So where do these jobs go instead, I know because I have had firsthand experience as an employer. You go find the workers and sometimes they are from overseas. So by cutting workforce training, we are sending a message that instead of retraining our dislocated and unemployed workers we would rather have the Department of Labor issue more labor certifications so that these jobs can be filled by foreigners.

Please vote for this amendment to restore the funds so that the workforce level in this country will at least be at 2002 levels.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Dorgan prescription drug amendment to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution.

The fact is, when Medicare was designed in 1965, the system relied on inpatient hospitalization and seldom on outpatient services, preventive care, or patient drug therapies. At that time, prescription drugs only accounted for 4 percent of all personal health care expenditures.

But as we enter the 21st century, the cutting edge of health care has shifted. Every day, as new preventive and therapeutic drugs replace outdated inpatient procedures, Medicare falls further and further behind in providing basic care.

Medicare was written to cover the most basic health care for seniors. When the original bill passed, the legislation's conference report explicitly stated that the program was designed to provide adequate ``medical aid . . . for needy people, and should ``make the best of modern medicine more readily available to the aged.''

Well, we are not making the best use of modern medicine when millions of seniors cannot afford the prescription drugs they need. Prescription drugs that had not even been developed when Medicare was enacted are now an essential aspect of basic health care. We owe it to our seniors to live up to Medicare's original mandate and provide them the best medical care.

Unfortunately, today, beneficiaries' current drug coverage options are often expensive and unreliable. And as a result, nearly 7 out of 10 Medicare beneficiaries lack decent, dependable coverage for their prescription drug needs, and more than one-third have no coverage at all. Prescription drug expenditures for the average senior in my home state of Washington are over $2,100 every year--over 122,000 of my seniors spend more than $4,000 a year.

On average, $1 out of every $5 of every Social Security check to Washington State's seniors is spent on prescription drugs. And seniors with the most serious illnesses spend nearly 40 percent of their Social Security check on prescription drugs.

Senator Dorgan's amendment would ensure a fair and adequately funded Medicare prescription drug benefit. The budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 23, currently reserves up to $400 billion for the Finance Committee to report legislation that strengthens and enhances Medicare, improves the access of beneficiaries under that program to prescription drugs, or promotes geographic equity payments.

This amendment would first increase the Medicare reserve fund by about $220 billion, for a total of $620 billion. The amendment also specifies that beneficiaries in traditional Medicare should receive a drug benefit equal to that of beneficiaries who enroll in private health plans.

The $400 billion that is proposed in the committee resolution for the Medicare reserve fund is not adequate to provide prescription drug coverage for all seniors, because this funding could be used for other Medicare ``reforms''--leaving even less for prescription drugs.

The Dorgan amendment would ensure adequate funding for a reliable prescription drug benefit in Medicare for all beneficiaries. Seniors should not have to abandon traditional Medicare--and join an HMO or other private health plan--to receive the prescription drug coverage they need. The Dorgan amendment ensures fairness: all beneficiaries would have a prescription drug benefit without being forced into HMOs and other private health plans.

In addition to providing a comprehensive, affordable, and adequately funded prescription drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries, the amendment would be fiscally responsible by including language to decrease the deficit by $250 billion and reduce the proposed tax cut by roughly $400 billion.

As I visit senior citizen centers in my State of Washington and discuss a prescription drug benefit, my constituents repeatedly tell me the same thing: They want prescription drug coverage to be comprehensive, simple to administer, guaranteed, stable, and based on the very best medical technology. And most importantly, seniors do not want their prescription drug benefit run through an HMO or other private insurance company.

In fact, according to a June 2002 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Kennedy School of Government, 67 percent of American people believe we should expand Medicare to pay for part of prescription drugs, but only 26 percent say we should help seniors buy private insurance to pay for prescription drugs costs.

Seniors want a prescription drug benefit run through Medicare--a program they understand and upon which they depend. The Dorgan amendment would ensure that seniors have this choice.

Despite basic Federal standards included in Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug plan, a private delivery model means that insurers can vary premium costs, benefit design, and the availability of drug coverage across the country. They can create strict formularies that limit access to prescribed drugs and bar access to local pharmacies. That's too much flexibility in a program that is supposed to guarantee help for seniors.

The very basic issue here is that the private market will not cover such a high-risk population--especially a population at such risk for adverse selection. I don't want to see this benefit be a repeat of the Medicare+Choice program. And if the private insurance model hasn't worked for the full Medicare benefit, it certainly won't work for a single benefit where utilization is expected to be high.

For seniors who choose to remain in the traditional Medicare program, the Bush plan proposes a prescription drug discount card. The GAO estimates that the prescription drug discount cards will provide less than a $3.50 discount per prescription. However, the National Association of Chain Drugstores estimates that the average retail cost for an outpatient prescription drug in 2001 was $54.55.

Clearly, the prescription drug discount cards do not offer a viable prescription drug benefit for America's seniors. In addition, the low- income subsidy of $600 to supplement the prescription drug discount cards is a false promise of assistance for seniors, who spend an average of $2,317 on prescription drugs each year.

Seniors account for 12.6 percent of the general population--but a third of all prescription drug expenditures. And while prescriptions are expensive--in some cases, prohibitively so--these are the very same prescription drugs that keep people out of the hospital, out of the nursing home, and living vibrant and happy lives. And while it is difficult to quantify in economic terms, prescription drugs preserve health and eliminate unnecessary hospitalization--which is by far most expensive segment of the health care.

Americans are becoming increasingly reliant on more effective--and more complicated--drug therapies. Total health care spending in the United States will total more than $1.5 trillion this year, an increase of 8.6 percent over last year, according to a March report released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Prescription drug expenditures are the fastest growing segment of the health care market--with spending on outpatient prescription drugs by Medicare beneficiaries alone increasing by 12 percent annually. CMS predicts that prescription drug expenditures will continue to increase faster than any other category of health care spending throughout the next ten years.

In 1970, drug expenditures in the United States were about $5.5 billion. Now, for Medicare beneficiaries alone, the CBO projects that total drug spending will grow from $95 billion in 2003 to $284 billion in 2013. This is a total of $1.8 trillion on prescription drug costs over the next ten years. Medicare beneficiaries alone will spend $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs over the next ten years.

But while we discuss the potential cost of a new benefit, we also need to discuss national priorities. I believe we can do a fair and adequately funded prescription drug benefit while living within our budget, and we can do so by having a clear vision for our country's priorities. One of my top priorities is getting a new prescription drug benefit to the Medicare beneficiaries in Washington State. But this may mean making other tough choices.

I strongly believe that we need to include a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program and I will continue to fight to ensure that all Washingtonians have access to the prescription medications they need.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electricity Market Manipulation Prevention Act--legislation I believe is critical in ensuring our Nation's consumers will never again have to suffer from the type of energy price manipulation that has so devastated the economy of my home State of Washington. This bill is simple yet powerful in concept. In essence, it requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to do its job--protect consumers from energy price manipulation.

This bill says that where FERC gives companies the authority to charge market-based wholesale electricity rates, the Commission must also actively ensure that effective competition--the only kind of competition that benefits consumers and businesses--actually exists. It says that if FERC finds that an entity has attempted to manipulate power markets, the Commission will revoke or modify the company's ability to sell power at market-based rates, and the company will be on the hook to pay back revenues in excess of the average regional cost of generating the power. And lastly, it says that FERC will not be allowed to change the legal standard for

reviewing whether consumers deserve relief from market manipulation.

I first want to make a very important point about this legislation. In large part, it does not expand FERC's existing authority under the Federal Power Act. It simply articulates more explicitly how Congress intends for FERC to exercise its existing authority.

Now why is this an important point? As many of my colleagues may know, FERC--under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act--is already given the responsibility of ensuring just and reasonable wholesale electricity rates, and fixing those rates when market activity has gone awry. So why do we need clarification? Because despite overwhelming and undisputed evidence that any number of energy companies--Enron and its ilk--engaged in activities designed to manipulate power markets in the west, FERC has to date failed to take action on behalf of consumers.

While prices started skyrocketing out of control during the summer of 2000, it took the Commission nearly a year to step in and reign in those prices throughout the west. The provisions of this legislation that require FERC to perform annual reviews of how well markets are functioning would help ensure the Commission's active oversight, and prevent the type of price gouging from which consumers and businesses in my sate continue to suffer.

While the Commission did finally step in to cap prices--under intense congressional pressure, I might add--it has, almost 2 years later, failed to decisively act on the billions of dollars' worth of refund and long-term contract complaints resulting from the crisis. What's more, the Commission's Administrative Law Judges have taken every opportunity to throw additional hurdles in the path of the Northwest consumers, who have suffered more than any as a result of California's ill-fated restructuring scheme. That's why this legislation specifically articulates what legal standard should apply to the Commission's review of complaints for relief.

Even in the face of admitted market manipulation--in the most brazen of cases, where Enron has described its own schemes to drive up prices and Reliant's transcripts quote company traders explicitly voicing their plans to drive up prices throughout the west by withholding power--FERC has, more than two years later, failed to use all the tools at its disposal to send a message that such activities will not be tolerated, levying fines that are clearly inadequate compared to the economic devastation these activities have caused.

This bill makes the remedies for market manipulation far more transparent, doing away with the multiple years of arcane proceedings in which we are currently embroiled. The protracted cases resulting from the western energy crisis have yet to benefit anyone--certainly neither the industry nor consumers--except, perhaps, for energy attorneys.

This legislation tells energy companies that if they are going to attempt to manipulate markets, there will be harsh and immediate consequences. It says that if the commission finds that an entity has attempted to gouge consumers, it will revoke or revise its market-based rate authority, set a just and reasonable rate going forward, and order the refund of revenues collected above the average wholesale generation cost within the relevant regional power market. Concrete, explicit consequences--commensurate with the level of damage caused by marketplace shenanigans--should provide a powerful disincentive for companies tempted to engage in the types of behavior that have crippled the economy of Washington and other western states.

Now, I can already hear the outcry from some--but not all sectors--of the energy industry. They will claim that putting concrete remedies on the books--transparent mechanisms for consumer relief, and tangible penalties for companies that endeavor to gouge consumers--will breed too much uncertainty for participants in energy markets.

To those who would make that argument, I would simply say, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that energy companies can't make money unless they retain their legal rights to rip off the ratepayers of this country. Ensuring that FERC--which is supposed to be, in Chairman Pat Wood's own words, ``the tough cop on the beat''--takes swift and decisive action when energy companies attempt to manipulate markets is an issue of simple fairness and common sense. Afterall, it is our Nation's ratepayers--residential and industrial customers alike--who pay the price for FERC's inaction, and FERC is the only cop on the beat.

I have stood on this floor many times to speak of the economic train wreck created in my state by FERC's inaction in the face of the western energy crisis, which we now know resulted in large part from bad actors who decided to take advantage of a near-historic drought and tragically flawed market rules in California. Today, retail rates in many parts of my State of Washington have risen almost 50 percent, our unemployment is consistently among the top five in the nation, the demand for low- income energy assistance is at record levels, we are struggling to stave off yet another regional rate increase, and there is no end in sight--unless FERC takes long-overdue action.

This bill sends a clear signal to FERC: we expect you to right the wrongs from which consumers throughout the west continue to suffer, and we expect you to use your authority to ensure a repeat of the western energy crisis never occurs. There is no other competitively traded commodity aside from electricity--soy beans, wheat, pork bellies, metals--for which a prolonged price run-up can single-handedly cripple industries as diverse as aluminum smelting, microchip manufacturing, irrigated agriculture, paper production or aerospace. Clearly, the economic stakes are exceptionally high when it comes to electricity, and as such, Congress must demand a greater degree of accountability from both the industry itself and those who regulate it.

With this bill, we make Congress' intent perfectly clear: FERC must protect consumers; there will be swift and decisive action against those who endeavor to manipulate markets; and the deck will not be stacked against the consumers and businesses who are the victim of Enron-like schemes.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce--along with my colleagues Chairman Domenici, and Senators Bingaman and Murray--the Genomes to Life Research and Development Act.

This bill capitalizes on the enormous success of the Human Genome Project, and promises to take this important research to the next level. While the mapping of the human genome is an unparalleled accomplishment on its own, this new initiative will allow researchers to go beyond the science of description, and begin to explore the complex interactions of the elements within cells.

It is those intracellular dynamics that truly hold the key to finding solutions to some of our most difficult scientific problems--from detection of biological and chemical agents and nuclear waste clean-up to figuring out new and more efficient ways to produce hydrogen, so crucial in attaining energy independence for this Nation. Where the Human Genome Project has provided researchers with the range and description of musical notes, Genomes to Life will enable scientists to begin to understand the way these notes are arranged to produce music-- the essential process of life.

The Genomes to Life Act sets out an aggressive path for DOE, to make this area a high priority for the Office of Science. Of course, none of this would be possible without the successes of the Human Genome Project, and I want to acknowledge the vision of this legislation's other sponsor, Chairman Domenici, in making that a reality. As some of my colleagues may be aware, the senior Senator from New Mexico laid the foundation for the Human Genome Project with legislation he first introduced in 1987.

I am thus extremely pleased to be working with him on this bill, which I believe is the Human Genome Project's logical successor. Our legislation would authorize the Department of Energy to design and establish national research centers to investigate proteomics and genomics. Proteomics refers to the study of proteins, how they are modified, when and where they are expressed, how they are involved in metabolic pathways, and how they interact with each other. Genomics refers to the study of three-dimensional structures of thousands of proteins--all of the proteins produced by a species.

These are exciting research fields that combine the discipline of physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, and advanced computational and mathematical modeling. The Department of Energy's Office of Science has a long history of success in large scale, cross-discipline scientific research and is thus well suited to manage this program. In addition, a significant component of the Human Genome Project has been the transfer of technology to the private sector, which has in turn catalyzed the multi-billion dollar U.S. biotechnology industry and fostered the development of new medical applications.

The Genomes to Life Act that Chairman Domenici, Senators Bingaman, Murray and I are introducing today provides a coordinated and comprehensive plan for the next generation of biotechnology research facilities. The functions and dynamics of all living cells are determined by the complex interactions of the constituent proteins. We do not yet understand these interactions, but the Genomes to Life Act will give us the best tools to investigate these microscopic mysteries. Put in simple terms, teams of American scientists will try to answer the fundamental question, ``How do cells work?'' This bill will ensure that state of the art facilities, leading edge equipment, and the next generation of commuters are available to map and model these complex interactions, as we strive to answer this critical question.

The promise of biotechnology research is especially important to my state of Washington--home to many world-class research facilities. Washington has over 190 biotechnology companies employing more than 11,000 people. In 2001, the annual revenue of these companies exceeded $1.2 billion. Nearly one half of these companies were based on technologies developed at research and development institutions and over 40 percent of the companies have been established in the past six years.

This legislation's provisions--ensuring that research with its origins at the Department of Energy provides the science and technology basis for new industries in biotechnology, and that DOE continues to identify appropriate commercial applications--will help this important economic sector continue to grow in Washington state and across the country.

The Genomes to Life Research and Development Act that Sens. Domenici, Bingaman, Murray and I have introduced today will strengthen our national security and our national economy. Additionally, the integrative and predicative understanding of biological systems will improve our ability to respond to the energy and environmental challenges of the 21st century. The Genomes to Life laboratories will attract top researchers and push the envelope of present technologies. The Genomes to Life Act will help the U.S. to maintain our premiere position in the world in the fields of science and technology.

I look forward to working with my colleagues during this session to ensure passage of this legislation. I believe that the United States must continue to invest in scientific research to maintain our standing in the world and I am confident that this short-term investment will pay long-term dividends to our health, our security, and to our economy.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electricity Market Manipulation Prevention Act--legislation I believe is critical in ensuring our Nation's consumers will never again have to suffer from the type of energy price manipulation that has so devastated the economy of my home State of Washington. This bill is simple yet powerful in concept. In essence, it requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to do its job--protect consumers from energy price manipulation.

This bill says that where FERC gives companies the authority to charge market-based wholesale electricity rates, the Commission must also actively ensure that effective competition--the only kind of competition that benefits consumers and businesses--actually exists. It says that if FERC finds that an entity has attempted to manipulate power markets, the Commission will revoke or modify the company's ability to sell power at market-based rates, and the company will be on the hook to pay back revenues in excess of the average regional cost of generating the power. And lastly, it says that FERC will not be allowed to change the legal standard for

reviewing whether consumers deserve relief from market manipulation.

I first want to make a very important point about this legislation. In large part, it does not expand FERC's existing authority under the Federal Power Act. It simply articulates more explicitly how Congress intends for FERC to exercise its existing authority.

Now why is this an important point? As many of my colleagues may know, FERC--under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act--is already given the responsibility of ensuring just and reasonable wholesale electricity rates, and fixing those rates when market activity has gone awry. So why do we need clarification? Because despite overwhelming and undisputed evidence that any number of energy companies--Enron and its ilk--engaged in activities designed to manipulate power markets in the west, FERC has to date failed to take action on behalf of consumers.

While prices started skyrocketing out of control during the summer of 2000, it took the Commission nearly a year to step in and reign in those prices throughout the west. The provisions of this legislation that require FERC to perform annual reviews of how well markets are functioning would help ensure the Commission's active oversight, and prevent the type of price gouging from which consumers and businesses in my sate continue to suffer.

While the Commission did finally step in to cap prices--under intense congressional pressure, I might add--it has, almost 2 years later, failed to decisively act on the billions of dollars' worth of refund and long-term contract complaints resulting from the crisis. What's more, the Commission's Administrative Law Judges have taken every opportunity to throw additional hurdles in the path of the Northwest consumers, who have suffered more than any as a result of California's ill-fated restructuring scheme. That's why this legislation specifically articulates what legal standard should apply to the Commission's review of complaints for relief.

Even in the face of admitted market manipulation--in the most brazen of cases, where Enron has described its own schemes to drive up prices and Reliant's transcripts quote company traders explicitly voicing their plans to drive up prices throughout the west by withholding power--FERC has, more than two years later, failed to use all the tools at its disposal to send a message that such activities will not be tolerated, levying fines that are clearly inadequate compared to the economic devastation these activities have caused.

This bill makes the remedies for market manipulation far more transparent, doing away with the multiple years of arcane proceedings in which we are currently embroiled. The protracted cases resulting from the western energy crisis have yet to benefit anyone--certainly neither the industry nor consumers--except, perhaps, for energy attorneys.

This legislation tells energy companies that if they are going to attempt to manipulate markets, there will be harsh and immediate consequences. It says that if the commission finds that an entity has attempted to gouge consumers, it will revoke or revise its market-based rate authority, set a just and reasonable rate going forward, and order the refund of revenues collected above the average wholesale generation cost within the relevant regional power market. Concrete, explicit consequences--commensurate with the level of damage caused by marketplace shenanigans--should provide a powerful disincentive for companies tempted to engage in the types of behavior that have crippled the economy of Washington and other western states.

Now, I can already hear the outcry from some--but not all sectors--of the energy industry. They will claim that putting concrete remedies on the books--transparent mechanisms for consumer relief, and tangible penalties for companies that endeavor to gouge consumers--will breed too much uncertainty for participants in energy markets.

To those who would make that argument, I would simply say, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that energy companies can't make money unless they retain their legal rights to rip off the ratepayers of this country. Ensuring that FERC--which is supposed to be, in Chairman Pat Wood's own words, ``the tough cop on the beat''--takes swift and decisive action when energy companies attempt to manipulate markets is an issue of simple fairness and common sense. Afterall, it is our Nation's ratepayers--residential and industrial customers alike--who pay the price for FERC's inaction, and FERC is the only cop on the beat.

I have stood on this floor many times to speak of the economic train wreck created in my state by FERC's inaction in the face of the western energy crisis, which we now know resulted in large part from bad actors who decided to take advantage of a near-historic drought and tragically flawed market rules in California. Today, retail rates in many parts of my State of Washington have risen almost 50 percent, our unemployment is consistently among the top five in the nation, the demand for low- income energy assistance is at record levels, we are struggling to stave off yet another regional rate increase, and there is no end in sight--unless FERC takes long-overdue action.

This bill sends a clear signal to FERC: we expect you to right the wrongs from which consumers throughout the west continue to suffer, and we expect you to use your authority to ensure a repeat of the western energy crisis never occurs. There is no other competitively traded commodity aside from electricity--soy beans, wheat, pork bellies, metals--for which a prolonged price run-up can single-handedly cripple industries as diverse as aluminum smelting, microchip manufacturing, irrigated agriculture, paper production or aerospace. Clearly, the economic stakes are exceptionally high when it comes to electricity, and as such, Congress must demand a greater degree of accountability from both the industry itself and those who regulate it.

With this bill, we make Congress' intent perfectly clear: FERC must protect consumers; there will be swift and decisive action against those who endeavor to manipulate markets; and the deck will not be stacked against the consumers and businesses who are the victim of Enron-like schemes.