Floor Statements

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 come to the floor this afternoon to express, on behalf of Washington State, our prayers and thoughts for the men and women of the United States armed forces that have now been called to duty in service of their country.

I am proud to join my colleagues in the Senate and Americans throughout the country to come together to support our troops and pray that their mission is completed quickly, effectively, and with minimal casualties.

America's deepest hope is for a swift conclusion to this war to liberate Iraq and protect the world from its weapons of mass destruction.

In Washington State, we are proud to be the home to thousands of troops from our State that are currently serving our country in this conflict.

The men and women of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, homeported in Everett, WA, have been deployed in the region since last summer and are a critical element of our efforts as a launching stage for air operations, including 50 missions over Southern Iraq just yesterday.

Air operations will depend heavily on tanker aircraft, many of which are based in Spokane, WA's Fairchild Air Force Base. And almost all air missions will be dependent upon the critical support of EA-6 radar jammers and P-3 aircraft, many of which are based in Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Oak Harbor, WA.

In the ground operations, troops from Fort Lewis, near Tacoma, WA, will be providing critical infantry support. And cargo planes from McChord Air Force Base, also near Tacoma, have and will continue to be crucial in providing transportation support.

We also recognize the important sacrifices being made by the National Guard and reserve units in our State that have been activated, leaving jobs and livelihoods behind to serve the call to duty.

And let us not forget the parents, wives, husbands, friends and children of the men and women of our armed forces, whose support--in the face of fear and anxiety--is admirable and inspirational.

We are enormously proud of our fellow Washingtonians that are serving the Nation. Along with men and women from all 50 States serving in the military, these brave and courageous Americans have volunteered to put their lives on the line to defend the security of our country and the stability of our world.

Our prayers are with them, and we look forward to their speedy success and return home.

I have tremendous confidence in the men and women of our armed services to bring this conflict to a successful conclusion.

Yet, this support for the effort is accompanied by a deep sense of anxiety and concern.

Nobody wants war.

The death, destruction and misery of war are things that we should never ignore and we cannot forget. When our troops are called to defend our Nation and international peace, we do so with a heavy heart but strong confidence that we will prevail.

In reaching our objective of disarmament, we must not forget the plight of the Iraqi people.

Iraqi civilians have been victims of a brutal, harsh and inhumane dictator that has not only stripped away political liberty and free expression, but has combined the tactics of torture, deprivation and murder to maintain his terrible regime.

We must soberly recognize that the Iraqi people will be innocent victims of this conflict, and we must remain dedicated to doing everything in our power to ensure their safety and, ultimately, liberation.

Importantly, this dedication must extend beyond military success. We, in this Chamber, must recognize that the prospect of creating a stable, post-Saddam Iraq will be a huge, expensive and politically volatile endeavor.

This will not be easy, especially given the historic rivalries among Iraq's Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni population.

However, whatever the costs and whatever the commitment, we owe it to ourselves and the world to ensure that the liberation of Iraq our troops are fighting for is not wasted away by a failed post-war strategy.

Our troops are answering the call of duty.

As our hearts go out to their families and loved ones, we are a Nation that is profoundly grateful for their courage, dedication and sense of mission.

We know that our troops will meet the challenge that they have been given.

Mr. President, I rise at this late hour to address an amendment that will be offered tomorrow dealing with the issue of workforce training. I applaud both of my colleagues from New Jersey for being here at this late hour to articulate a variety of needs in Superfund cleanup and infrastructure.

I would like to address an issue about our human infrastructure and our investment in job training and education at a time when we have in the Northwest are experiencing some of the highest unemployment in the country, over 7 percent in the States of Washington, Oregon, and Alaska, and a very high average national unemployment rate.

The question we are debating on the floor this week is how do we move forward with a budget resolution and what should our priorities be? I am here tonight to advocate that our priorities should be about a program that will help put people back to work by making sure they have the skills that are necessary in today's economy.

While we hear a lot about the high unemployment, we also know from employers that they can't find the skill level that they are looking for in the workplace among the employees out there today. Why do they say that? We know for a fact that there are thousands of jobs in our State in the health care field that cannot be filled. There are thousands of jobs in the Information Technology field, but people can't be hired because the skill level just isn't there. Yet we have 110,000 dislocated workers in my State of Washington who would love to have those jobs.

It is about matching those unemployed workers with job opportunities that employers would like to give them. The missing ingredient is funding, as we have in the past, adequate levels of job training dollars to train workers to meet the skills gap.

People consider this issue and think: Isn't this about whether we help an individual worker? And it is. It is about retooling the American workforce. It is about retooling our workforce in an information age economy. But it is also about helping our national economy. Think of it for a second. What happens when you help re-train somebody and they upgrade their skills, as we have done in Washington State?

I know a woman who was working, employed in the timber industry. She went back to a community college, was re-trained, got an Information Technology job, and made twice as much money. That was good for her but what was also good was that firm that hired

her found a needed employee to help improve the productivity and bottom line of that company. That bottom line productivity and improvement in that company also helped our local economy. It produced a better output and a better general economy for the State. So by investing in workforce training we are actually helping our entire national economy.

Why at a time with high unemployment, why at a time when our economy is transitioning and we are trying to come up with a budget that will stimulate growth for the future, would we cut such an economic development tool as job training? I know there will be some people tomorrow who will say we are not really cutting programs, instead we are actually just moving the dollars around.

Earlier in this year we also heard that there were carryover funds to fund these job training program. However, my State has spent those dollars. They have actually committed those dollars to retrain people and upgrade their skills. We will hear tomorrow that, no, the money is there. But, what is really happening is that we are actually decreasing the money to fund important programs like the dislocated worker program or adult training program by as much as $678 million dollars. The President FY 04 budget proposal simply transfers dollars from other existing job training accounts and consolidates them into one adult training account under the Workforce Investment Act and calls that an increase. We are really robbing Peter to pay Paul. What I would like to be advocating is that those job training dollars need to be increased beyond prior years. What we should be talking about is, not the 2002 level, but a much higher level in 2004, if we want to reap the benefits of having a fully employed workforce. That should be our goal.

I would even advocate we ought to be looking at the GI bill for job training and education this year as we reauthorize WIA and the Higher Education Act. That is the best way for us to keep our competitive edge in a global economy.

Think about it. What is going to happen? I have been in the private sector. I hired lots of people for a high-tech firm. What is going to happen when you as an employer can't find the workforce because they are not skilled? You don't stop looking. You can't. You have to ship products. You have to develop your services. You go find the workforce wherever they exist. In this case they might be foreign workers.

What we are really saying tomorrow is this: By cutting the workforce dollars by this budget proposal, we are really saying we would rather have foreign skilled workers in nursing, in Information Technology and other professions. Let foreign workers take these jobs rather than helping American workers to fill these jobs.

I don't think that is what we want. We want to put the best foot forward in an economy that is changing, where companies have to compete in a global environment. Any company will tell you that their workforce has to be robust. By robust they mean well educated and ready to shift to new products and services as they meet the competition from other companies in a world that is changing much more rapidly.

Even in the best of economic times, I would say we should be greatly increasing our investment in the workforce. In bad economic times, we ought to be filling that gap in an even much more aggressive fashion, to make sure we do not fall behind and that more of these jobs do not go, either overseas internationally because the skill level isn't here, or to foreign workers who are coming into our country on green cards and filling these jobs because they are the skilled workers.

Tomorrow we have an important opportunity, with this workforce development amendment I will be offering, to say to people in this country that it is not just a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans that will get our economy growing. I disagree with that. But even if you do make some of those tax cuts to those brackets, you have to be saying to Americans who are unemployed and unable to find work at a time when employers are saying I can't find the workers either, when the health care industry is saying there are thousands of nursing jobs to be filled or there are thousands of Information Technology jobs, just give me the skills and we will hire them. We need to be making that investment.

So I hope that my colleagues will join me tomorrow in supporting this very important amendment, to make the right priorities and the right decisions about where our workforce, our economy needs to go in the future.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from California for her articulate presentation of this issue, not only protecting a very important part of our wildlife refuge system but also for talking about the issue from an energy consumption perspective. Where is the best place for the United States to be investing its time and energy and to get the highest return, particularly at a time when our foreign dependence on oil is very important for us to make those decisions to move forward?

I commend the Senator from California for her time and energy and for her amendment that we will be voting on tomorrow, a very important amendment that, on the one hand, you could say got a lot of attention in a debate last year. This body heard many hours of presentation from a variety of Members and made a decision on that issue. Tomorrow I will support Senator Boxer's amendment, but I question seriously why we have to go to this extent of having Senator Boxer's amendment at all. Why is this issue coming up on a budget resolution when a more appropriate time and place would be for us to take it up as part of our energy discussion, even though we did that last year and decided that it wasn't a priority for us in the Senate?

I support what we are trying to do in protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because by protecting that wildlife, we are protecting as well a great part of what has been the last great wilderness in the United States. Proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge talk about reducing dependence on foreign energy supplies. I also support us focusing on reducing that foreign energy. But the best way to meet that goal is to develop a domestic natural gas resource, particularly looking at Alaska, and also to promote renewable energy technologies and reduce oil consumption through conservation measures.

Alaska is a very important source of domestic energy. Make no mistake about that. The North Slope has trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. We should develop that natural gas on Federal lands, including the National Petroleum Reserve which was set aside for development. I am eager to work with my colleagues, Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski and others, to build that gas pipeline to bring natural gas to the marketplace. Building a gas pipeline and developing the NPRA in an environmentally sound manner will create jobs in Alaska and will benefit the Native communities. It will strengthen our overall energy policy.

We also, though, need to develop renewable energy sources, including domestically produced biofuels, and to focus on energy efficiency technologies, some of which I am sure we will be discussing later in an energy bill. These technologies can reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources.

For example, Senator Boxer showed a chart on what could be done by using low-friction tires. That was an interesting chart because we have seen that in focusing on these new cars to help them comply with fuel standards, these new tires could cut gasoline consumption of all U.S. vehicles by 3 percent. That is a savings to our Nation of about 5 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. As Senator Boxer pointed out, the reason that number is so important is, it is the same amount, 5 billion barrels over the next 50 years, that the U.S. Geological Survey says can be economically recovered from drilling in ANWR.

Why take what is a national treasure in the last great wilderness for these 5 billion barrels when we can do the same thing by moving to a more efficient energy economy?

I believe through a balanced approach, we can demonstrate our commitment both to wildlife conservation and strengthening energy security.

However, this budget resolution is not a balanced approach. Drilling in the Arctic really is a reversal in America of about 100 years of commitment to conservation. I say that because, most importantly, the resolution would violate our duty as stewards of the Arctic Refuge, in the National Wildlife Refuge System as a major system, and would take away what has been one of our most valuable national treasures.

During this debate, we must consider the number of people who have been involved and how we have been involved over the last 100 years to work to protect the sensitive wildlife habitat in this country and specifically the Arctic Refuge. Senator Boxer showed many pictures demonstrating what that wildlife refuge looks like and how pristine it is today and the wildlife that exists there. Everyone in this body wants to see us continue the Wildlife Refuge System.

Last week, we marked our 100th anniversary of establishing the National Wildlife Refuge System. That was done by President Theodore Roosevelt at Pelican Island--the 100-year anniversary. Through that work, countless Americans have helped build a system of over 500 refuges in every State in the country. Tens of thousands of volunteers, several hundred ``friends organizations,'' scores of partnership organizations have worked closely with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain the integrity of the system.

In Washington State, local volunteers have built and helped protect various lands: Willapa Bay, the Nisqually River, the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, and many other locations. Americans have worked to build the system because they love wildlife and because there is the trust that we in Congress will be good stewards of these lands.

Unfortunately, that stewardship is being called into question with this budget resolution as an assault on the system as a whole. This budget undermines the work of millions of Americans, including hunters, anglers, wildlife enthusiasts, and many others.

It is very important that the hard work and focus of maintaining our wildlife, not just in the Arctic but all throughout America, be celebrated this week as we have reached this 100th anniversary, and that we support the Boxer amendment tomorrow, to say there is a wiser way for us to preserve and to move forward our energy conservation and security, and that there is a wiser way for us to get off our foreign dependence on oil, and that wiser way will mean making the right investment in natural gas, in technology, in conservation, and in preserving the Arctic Refuge.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Harkin's Sense of the Senate that Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision recognizing a woman's constitutional right to choose, was rightly decided and should not be overturned; I also want to express my opposition to the underlying legislation.

Thirty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a woman has a constitutional right to privacy when making decisions concerning her personal reproductive choices. That decision, Roe v. Wade, was carefully crafted to be balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women in America paramount in reproductive decisions.

And Senator Harkin's amendment is very simple: it asks the U.S. Senate to reaffirm that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided and should not be overturned. This amendment asks the U.S. Senate to reaffirm a woman's right to privacy in making her own personal medical and reproductive decisions.

Roe v. Wade held that women have a constitutional right to choose, but after the point of viability, the point at which a baby can live outside its mother's body, States may ban abortions as long as they allow exceptions when a woman's life or health is in danger. Yet the legislation before us, which lacks an important health exception, fails to do just that: provide for a woman when her health or her life is in danger.

In June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the importance of a health exception with its decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, which determined that a Nebraska law banning the performance of so-called ``partial birth'' abortions violated the Roe ruling by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that every abortion restriction, including bans on so-called ``partial-birth abortion,'' must contain a health exception. The Court emphasized that, by failing to provide a health exception, the Nebraska law was structured so as to place a woman's life in danger. That's exactly what the legislation before us today does as well: it places a woman's life in danger.

Despite the Supreme Court's very clear mandate, the legislation before us today does not provide an exception for the health of the mother. For this reason, this legislation, like the one struck down in Stenberg, is unconstitutional.

While I assume the author of this legislation is referring to a specific procedure, the legislation is not clear on that fact. In fact the U.S. Supreme Court held in the Nebraska case that even if the statute's basic aim is to ban one specific procedure, its language was so broad that it will also ban other medical abortion procedures.

Moreover, this legislation imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose by banning abortion procedures at any stage in a woman's pregnancy. This bill does not ban post-viability abortions, a limit I would support, but unconstitutionally restricts women's rights regardless of where the woman is in her pregnancy.

This legislation does not have a clear exception for women's health. I fundamentally believe that private medical decisions should be made by women in consultation with their doctors--not politicians. And this includes the methods by which a physician chooses to treat his or her patients. Why should we decide that here on the Senate floor?

And I do not believe that congressional findings make up for medical consultation between a patient and her doctor. But this ban would undermine a physician's ability to determine the best course of treatment for a patient.

Physicians must be free to make clinical determinations, in accordance with medical standards of care, that best safeguard a woman's life and health. Women and their families, along with their doctors, are simply better than politicians at making decisions about their medical care. And I don't want to make those decisions for other women.

Three states, including my home state of Washington, have considered these bans by referendum. All three failed. We considered this debate in my home state in 1998. The referendum failed decisively--by a vote of 57 to 43 percent.

These so-called ``partial-birth'' abortion bans--whether the proposals that have been before the Senate in the past or the one before us today--are deliberately designed to erode the protections of Roe v. Wade, at the expense of women's health and at the expense of a woman's right to privacy.

I also want to say that I am extremely disappointed that my colleagues voted down Senator Murry's women's health amendment yesterday because the easiest way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. One critical way to do this is through better access to contraception, both by improvements in insurance coverage of contraception, as well as by improving knowledge of, and access to, emergency contraception.

The Supreme Court, during the thirty years since it recognized the right to choose, has consistently required that, when a state restricts access to abortion, a woman's health must be the absolute consideration. This legislation flouts the Supreme Court's explicit directive, the advice of the medical community, and the will of the American people. We must continue to ensure that the women of America have the right to privacy and receive the best medical attention available.

I urge my colleagues to support Senator Harkin's Sense of the Senate that Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision recognizing a woman's constitutional right to choose, was rightly decided and should not be overturned.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig Thomas to introduce legislation that would exclude loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps from taxable income. I am pleased that Senators Leahy, Smith, Wyden, Snowe, Durbin, Hagel, Roberts, and Chambliss are also cosponsoring this important legislation.

There have been many developments in the area of health care in the last few years from managed care reform, to increases in biomedical research, the mapping of the human genome, and the use of exciting new technologies in both rural and urban areas such as telemedicine. In fact, it seems that almost every day we hear of astounding new scientific breakthroughs. But unfortunately, while we are making great

strides in the quality of health care, we are losing ground on the access to health care for so many.

The sad truth is that there are currently 38.7 million Americans without health insurance coverage--9.2 million of whom are children. In Washington, before the recession, 13.3 percent of the population, and 155,000 children, lacked health insurance. That is undoubtedly higher today.

Access to health insurance for the uninsured is of the utmost importance--we know that at the very least, health insurance means the difference between timely and delayed treatment and at worst between life and death. In fact, the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care--and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care.

But even insurance isn't enough if there are no available providers. Hospitals and other health care providers across the country are facing an increasingly uncertain future. The sad truth is that it is increasingly more difficult to recruit health care providers to work with underserved communities--especially in rural areas. In addition to economic pressures, rural areas must overcome the environmental issues involved with recruiting a doctor who may have been raised, educated, and trained in an urban setting.

The National Health Service Corps was created in 1970 by Senator Warren Magnuson, one of the most distinguished Senators to come from Washington State. He saw the need to put primary care clinicians in rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods, and developed this program to fill that need.

Since then, the Corps has placed over 22,000 health professionals in rural or urban health professions shortage areas. There is no doubt that National Health Service Corps has been extremely successful. In fact, the most recent available data show that more than 70 percent of providers continued to provide services to underserved communities after their Corps obligation was fulfilled--80 percent of these health care providers stayed in the community in which they had originally been placed.

During the last August recess, I had the opportunity to travel throughout Washington State and held 15 community discussions on health care. I met patients who would not have access to health services but for the providers there through the Corps and I met many doctors who have been living in our rural communities for years because of their Corps' placements. And because it has been so successful--right now in Washington State there are 75 physicians or other health professionals working in underserved areas that would not otherwise be here--we must do everything possible to support this program.

Under current law, the National Health Service Corps provides scholarships, loan repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in urban and rural communities with severe shortages of health care providers. In 1986 the IRS ruled that all payments made under the program are considered taxable income. Understanding the immediate detriment to scholarship recipients, who were forced to pay the tax out of their own pockets, Congress eliminated the scholarship tax in 2001. And while the scholarship program is now not considered taxable income to the IRS, the loan repayments and stipends are.

By statute, the current loan program awards also include a tax assistance payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount, which is to be used by the recipient offset his or tax liability resulting from the loan repayment ``income.'' This means that nearly 40 percent of the Federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income'' alone. If these Federal payments were not taxed, and the funding was freed up, more health professions students could take advantage of the loan repayment program, and could be placed in shortage areas, thereby increasing access to health care in both urban and rural areas.

This is not a new problem. The tax burden that accompanies the National Health Service Corps loan payments is a significant deterrent to increasing the number of clinicians enrolling in the Corps. I do not want to see a situation where, as happened several years ago, over 300 applicants actually left underserved areas because the Corps could not fully fund the loan repayment program.

The legislation we are introducing today, the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act, would address this disincentive, making the Corps available to more medical and health professionals, and thereby bringing more providers into underserved areas. If loan repayments are excluded from taxation, the National Health Service Corps will have greater resources to provide aid to health professionals seeking loan repayment, and will be able to increase the number of providers in underserved areas.

There is no doubt that strengthening the National Health Service Corps is a win-win situation. Corps scholarships help finance education for future primary care providers interested in serving the underserved. In return, graduates serve those communities where the need for primary health care is greatest.

The bill is supported by over 20 national organizations including the National Rural Health Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Medical Student Association. I am especially pleased that the Washington State Medical Association is supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be included in the Record after my statement.

I understand that there are no easy solutions to the health care problems we are facing right now. But we need to do something--even if it is taking small steps forward, and come in at this problem from many different angles.

I urge my colleagues to look at this bill and to join us in expanding this vitally important and immediately successful program.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig Thomas to introduce legislation that would exclude loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps from taxable income. I am pleased that Senators Leahy, Smith, Wyden, Snowe, Durbin, Hagel, Roberts, and Chambliss are also cosponsoring this important legislation.

There have been many developments in the area of health care in the last few years from managed care reform, to increases in biomedical research, the mapping of the human genome, and the use of exciting new technologies in both rural and urban areas such as telemedicine. In fact, it seems that almost every day we hear of astounding new scientific breakthroughs. But unfortunately, while we are making great

strides in the quality of health care, we are losing ground on the access to health care for so many.

The sad truth is that there are currently 38.7 million Americans without health insurance coverage--9.2 million of whom are children. In Washington, before the recession, 13.3 percent of the population, and 155,000 children, lacked health insurance. That is undoubtedly higher today.

Access to health insurance for the uninsured is of the utmost importance--we know that at the very least, health insurance means the difference between timely and delayed treatment and at worst between life and death. In fact, the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care--and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care.

But even insurance isn't enough if there are no available providers. Hospitals and other health care providers across the country are facing an increasingly uncertain future. The sad truth is that it is increasingly more difficult to recruit health care providers to work with underserved communities--especially in rural areas. In addition to economic pressures, rural areas must overcome the environmental issues involved with recruiting a doctor who may have been raised, educated, and trained in an urban setting.

The National Health Service Corps was created in 1970 by Senator Warren Magnuson, one of the most distinguished Senators to come from Washington State. He saw the need to put primary care clinicians in rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods, and developed this program to fill that need.

Since then, the Corps has placed over 22,000 health professionals in rural or urban health professions shortage areas. There is no doubt that National Health Service Corps has been extremely successful. In fact, the most recent available data show that more than 70 percent of providers continued to provide services to underserved communities after their Corps obligation was fulfilled--80 percent of these health care providers stayed in the community in which they had originally been placed.

During the last August recess, I had the opportunity to travel throughout Washington State and held 15 community discussions on health care. I met patients who would not have access to health services but for the providers there through the Corps and I met many doctors who have been living in our rural communities for years because of their Corps' placements. And because it has been so successful--right now in Washington State there are 75 physicians or other health professionals working in underserved areas that would not otherwise be here--we must do everything possible to support this program.

Under current law, the National Health Service Corps provides scholarships, loan repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in urban and rural communities with severe shortages of health care providers. In 1986 the IRS ruled that all payments made under the program are considered taxable income. Understanding the immediate detriment to scholarship recipients, who were forced to pay the tax out of their own pockets, Congress eliminated the scholarship tax in 2001. And while the scholarship program is now not considered taxable income to the IRS, the loan repayments and stipends are.

By statute, the current loan program awards also include a tax assistance payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount, which is to be used by the recipient offset his or tax liability resulting from the loan repayment ``income.'' This means that nearly 40 percent of the Federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income'' alone. If these Federal payments were not taxed, and the funding was freed up, more health professions students could take advantage of the loan repayment program, and could be placed in shortage areas, thereby increasing access to health care in both urban and rural areas.

This is not a new problem. The tax burden that accompanies the National Health Service Corps loan payments is a significant deterrent to increasing the number of clinicians enrolling in the Corps. I do not want to see a situation where, as happened several years ago, over 300 applicants actually left underserved areas because the Corps could not fully fund the loan repayment program.

The legislation we are introducing today, the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act, would address this disincentive, making the Corps available to more medical and health professionals, and thereby bringing more providers into underserved areas. If loan repayments are excluded from taxation, the National Health Service Corps will have greater resources to provide aid to health professionals seeking loan repayment, and will be able to increase the number of providers in underserved areas.

There is no doubt that strengthening the National Health Service Corps is a win-win situation. Corps scholarships help finance education for future primary care providers interested in serving the underserved. In return, graduates serve those communities where the need for primary health care is greatest.

The bill is supported by over 20 national organizations including the National Rural Health Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Medical Student Association. I am especially pleased that the Washington State Medical Association is supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be included in the Record after my statement.

I understand that there are no easy solutions to the health care problems we are facing right now. But we need to do something--even if it is taking small steps forward, and come in at this problem from many different angles.

I urge my colleagues to look at this bill and to join us in expanding this vitally important and immediately successful program.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Black History Month. On February 1, 1960, four brave freshmen from North Carolina A&T conducted the first major sit-i9n protest of the civil rights movement. The ``Greensboro Four,'' as they came to be known, acted on the American principle that all people are created equal. Although the United States was founded on that premise, it is too often denied.

We know that when one person breaks a barrier to equality, the potential opportunities for all Americans are redefined. That is why every February, we teach our students about pioneers like Ralph J. Bunche, the first African American to win a Nobel Peace Prize, and Jackie Robinson, the first African American in the major leagues. We must also remember, however, that individual success does not assure universal progress.

My State is proud that the University of Washington accepted its first Black student in 1874. This was an important step towards equal access to education. At the time, the Puget Sound Dispatch declared, ``Every child of African descent born in this country has the same right of access to our public schools as the children of the most privileged of Caucasian blood. No teacher or school officer has any more legal right to exclude one than the other.'' However, it took 70 more years for the Supreme Court to endorse this standard. Now we face racial inequities in education and the resegregation of our schools. In fact, this year a study found that public schools have been undergoing a ``process of continuous resegregation'' since the early 1990s. We must ensure that our legal ideal of equality is a reality for every American.

Hiram Revels, the son of former slaves, became the first African- American Senator in 1870. He overcame many obstacles and forever changed this institution. Because of leaders such as Senator Revels, this is the most diverse Senate in the history of the United States. And yet at the same time, there is not a single African-American Senator serving in this body.

The American people want leaders who represent their values, ideas, and life experiences. For this reason, I am optimistic that as our country moves forward, we will continue to select leaders who value diversity and the representation of all people. It is the right way to protect our founding principle of equality, and the best way to ensure our prosperity. As Dr. Martin Luther King explained in his letter from Birmingham jail, we are bound by a ``single garment of destiny where whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.'' Our world is even more intertwined today. Like the great Americans before us, from Thomas Jefferson to the ``Greensboro Four,'' this month we reaffirm our commitment to the fundamental premise that all people are created equal, and must be treated equally.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce--along with my colleagues Senators Smith, Murray and Feinstein--the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, REPI, Reform Act.

This bill reauthorizes the REPI program, which was created as part of the 1992 National Energy Policy Act to foster greater renewable energy production and level the playing field for public power utilities, which do not qualify for renewable energy tax credits. The REPI program provides direct payments to publicly- and cooperatively-owned utilities at a rate of 1.5 cents/kWh, indexed for inflation, for electricity generated from wind, solar, certain geothermal and biomass sources.

As some of my colleagues may recall, the Senator from Oregon and I introduced a very similar bill last session, which was subsequently included in the energy bill that passed the Senate last spring. While conferees were ultimately unable to reach agreement on the broader energy bill, reauthorizing the REPI program must remain a priority as we again contemplate energy legislation during the 108th Congress.

Since this program's creation, REPI has become an important incentive for locally-owned, not-for-profit utilities to become involved in the effort to diversify our Nation's generation sources to include clean, sustainable sources of power. Since 1995, more than 36 projects in 17 States have received more than $21 million in REPI incentives and produced more than 3,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year.

In my home State of Washington, where 55 percent of the overall energy load is served by public power, the REPI program had already helped support wood-waste and landfill gas projects, and promises to help locally-owned utilities tap into our tremendous wind resources. Already, the hills south of Kennewick, WA are home to the Nine Canyon Wind project--a 48-megawatt wind farm consisting of 37 turbines-- producing enough energy to serve 12,000 households. This bill will provide continued support for these innovative projects.

The Renewable Energy Production Incentive Reform Act that my colleagues and I have introduced today will do three simple things. It will: reauthorize the program for another 10 years; direct the Department of Energy, which runs the program, to allocate funds on a more equitable basis in years in which the demand for REPI dollars far outpaces available appropriations; and clarifies that landfill gas projects and tribal governments are eligible to receive REPI funding.

One of the key challenges in developing a 21st century energy policy for this Nation is putting in place the proper incentives to add new and sustainable sources of power to the grid. My colleagues and I from the Northwest have learned this lesson well over the past few years, during which prolonged droughts have stretched to the limit the hydroelectric system that has--since the 1930s--formed the basis for our region's economic growth. The new clean energy projects the REPI program supports help relieve some of the stress on our hydro system and position my state and region for the next cycle of innovation in energy technology.

I look forward to working with my cosponsors during this session to ensure this small but important program is reauthorized--whether as stand-alone legislation or part of a broader energy bill. I believe we as a Nation now stand on the cusp of a revolution in clean energy technology. The Renewable Energy Production Incentive program is key in helping public power systems participate, as we work to put in place an energy policy that will meet the needs of our 21st Century economy.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce--along with my colleagues Senators Smith, Murray and Feinstein--the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, REPI, Reform Act.

This bill reauthorizes the REPI program, which was created as part of the 1992 National Energy Policy Act to foster greater renewable energy production and level the playing field for public power utilities, which do not qualify for renewable energy tax credits. The REPI program provides direct payments to publicly- and cooperatively-owned utilities at a rate of 1.5 cents/kWh, indexed for inflation, for electricity generated from wind, solar, certain geothermal and biomass sources.

As some of my colleagues may recall, the Senator from Oregon and I introduced a very similar bill last session, which was subsequently included in the energy bill that passed the Senate last spring. While conferees were ultimately unable to reach agreement on the broader energy bill, reauthorizing the REPI program must remain a priority as we again contemplate energy legislation during the 108th Congress.

Since this program's creation, REPI has become an important incentive for locally-owned, not-for-profit utilities to become involved in the effort to diversify our Nation's generation sources to include clean, sustainable sources of power. Since 1995, more than 36 projects in 17 States have received more than $21 million in REPI incentives and produced more than 3,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year.

In my home State of Washington, where 55 percent of the overall energy load is served by public power, the REPI program had already helped support wood-waste and landfill gas projects, and promises to help locally-owned utilities tap into our tremendous wind resources. Already, the hills south of Kennewick, WA are home to the Nine Canyon Wind project--a 48-megawatt wind farm consisting of 37 turbines-- producing enough energy to serve 12,000 households. This bill will provide continued support for these innovative projects.

The Renewable Energy Production Incentive Reform Act that my colleagues and I have introduced today will do three simple things. It will: reauthorize the program for another 10 years; direct the Department of Energy, which runs the program, to allocate funds on a more equitable basis in years in which the demand for REPI dollars far outpaces available appropriations; and clarifies that landfill gas projects and tribal governments are eligible to receive REPI funding.

One of the key challenges in developing a 21st century energy policy for this Nation is putting in place the proper incentives to add new and sustainable sources of power to the grid. My colleagues and I from the Northwest have learned this lesson well over the past few years, during which prolonged droughts have stretched to the limit the hydroelectric system that has--since the 1930s--formed the basis for our region's economic growth. The new clean energy projects the REPI program supports help relieve some of the stress on our hydro system and position my state and region for the next cycle of innovation in energy technology.

I look forward to working with my cosponsors during this session to ensure this small but important program is reauthorized--whether as stand-alone legislation or part of a broader energy bill. I believe we as a Nation now stand on the cusp of a revolution in clean energy technology. The Renewable Energy Production Incentive program is key in helping public power systems participate, as we work to put in place an energy policy that will meet the needs of our 21st Century economy.

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

Mr. President, last night I sat in my office listening to my colleagues, most on the other side of the aisle, debating the issue of Miguel Estrada's nomination to the second most powerful court in the country, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. Even after all of the debate, some people may not realize that the D.C. Circuit Court is the overseer of all Federal agencies. It is the court that is most likely to make decisions about whether Federal regulations will be upheld or overturned, whether reproductive rights will be retained or lost, or whether intrusive Government actions will be allowed or curtailed.

I understand why some of my colleagues last night may have become heated with the determination of our side of the aisle to filibuster this nomination. Many of my colleagues wanted to know why we believed we had no other choice but to filibuster the nomination.

It is time we quit dancing around the issue. The question that has gotten so many of us concerned is whether this body is going to approve Bush administration nominees to the court of appeals who are out of step with the mainstream views of America.

Someone said last night: Maybe that side of the aisle doesn't want to appoint conservatives.

That is not the issue. What is at issue is we don't want to appoint someone who clearly refuses to answer questions on key issues of the constitutional right to privacy, only later to find out they will not uphold current law on protecting a woman's right to choose!

Upholding a woman's right to choose is an important issue of privacy and something about which we should all be concerned, It is an issue on which we have 30 years of settled law, and women across America count on that right.

But there are other stories and other issues of privacy we should also be concerned about. We are at a unique time in our country's history, a time when U.S. citizens have been treated as enemy combatants and imprisoned without access to counsel or trial by jury. We are at the tip of the iceberg of the information age where businesses may have access to personal information and exploit that information. Where health care industry people might have access to your most personal medical information. Where the Government has established a process of eavesdropping on and tracking U.S. citizens without probable cause. Where the Government has the ability to use and develop software that can track one's use of web sites and information on their personal computer without their consent or knowledge.

These are all important privacy questions that deserve to have the attention of any nominee to the Circuit Court of Appeals. When Miguel Estrada refused to answer the questions my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee posed to him about the issue of privacy, and if he in fact believed in a constitutional rights to privacy, it was troubling to me and to my colleagues who are opposing this nomination. We need to have answers to these questions before Miguel Estrada can be confirmed.

Make no mistake--the public is hearing a lot of bickering in the Chamber about numbers. How many nominees on this side have we pushed through, how many nominees have they pushed through, when a particular party was in charge. I am not sure the public wants to follow that debate.

But one debate I am sure they want to follow is the failure of Miguel Estrada to tell us what he believes. A 2001 poll shows that seventy four percent of the American public believes the question of judicial philosophy should be asked of nominees to the appellate court and that answers should be given. Over 50 percent of Americans, in a survey done in 2001, believe Members should not vote to confirm otherwise qualified nominees if they think their views on important issues are wrong.

Of course we cannot even make that judgement and we aren't left with a lot of options, when Miguel Estrada won't specifically answer the questions.

Some have said that the issue is simply that we don't like his answers to the questions. I do believe that it is important to view this debate in a larger context. This debate is about what this Administration means when it says we should appoint people to the court and who have a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. Like most Americans, I was not entirely sure what that phrase means. So I looked for further clarification. I found some that was very interesting. In January 2000, the President appeared on one of the Sunday talk shows. And he was asked about strict constructionism. He was asked the following:

With regard to strict construction, we will put up on our screens some words from Justice Scalia pertaining to abortion.

[Justice Scalia] said: ``There is no constitutional right to abortion. I reach that conclusion because of two simple facts: One, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it and, two, the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.''

The host then asked the President, ``Would you ask a nominee that question? Do you agree with that?''

The President responded:

I guess you would have to say that is my idea of a strict

constructionist.

So when people talk about a strict constructionist, very often they are talking about someone who doesn't believe in the constitutionality of a woman's right to choose.

An editorial in the Atlanta Journal Constitution makes the point as well when they wrote:

The same spirit of deception is apparent when the topic

turns to abortion. Bush is committed to overturning the U.S.

Supreme Court decision legalizing early term abortion; but in

most settings, he dares not mention the truth because he

understands how unpopular it would be. So instead of being

frank about his stance, he talks in code of appointing judges

who believe in strict construction of the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. President, I don't think that is what this body should support. And in this context I do not think we should approve nominees who will not answer questions about their view on whether the right to privacy is guaranteed in our Constitution.

Make no mistake about it. This is not about someone's political views, this is about each nominees' judicial philosophy. We had a very interesting debate before the Senate Judiciary Committee on a nominee to the Tenth Circuit, Michael McConnell. A man who in private practice and as a law professor had espoused many views in opposition to abortion rights and was very critical of the decision in Roe v. Wade. I do not agree with probably any of the political views of Michael McConnell. Yet he came before our committee and, for hours, outlined his judicial philosophy, his understanding of stare decisis, his view on where the right to privacy exists within the Constitution and how it evolved. He was very specific in saying he thought the issue had been settled. In just one of the many, many answers he gave on privacy he said:

I think most scholars would agree. In Roe, the Court

canvassed several different possible textural bases and said

it didn't matter which one of the bases. It was only in

Planned Parenthood v. Casey that the Court finally came down

to a single methodology and identified the privacy right as

rooted in the substantive due process of the 14th amendment.

Mr. McConnell went on:

Not only was Roe v. Wade decided by the Supreme Court, but

a lot has happened in the 26 to 27 years, or however many it

has been, since Roe v. Wade. That decision has now been

considered. It has been reconsidered and reaffirmed by

justices appointed by Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush,

and Clinton after serious re-argument. At the time when Roe

v. Wade came down, it was striking down State statutes of 45

of the 50 States of the Union. Today it is much more

reflective of the consensus of the American people on the

subject.

I offer this as an example of a nominee who was confirmed! Approved with bipartisan support. Was it because we agreed with his political views on abortion? No. It was because he came before the Senate and answered the question about the constitutionality of people's right to choose.

Now, some may say, well, this particular nominee, Miguel Estrada doesn't want to be that specific. We have all heard about this particular court, the District of Columbia, and how important it is to our country--the second highest court in the land--and the particulars of why this particular nominee may be so important. But again we also have to look at this nominee in context. This is not the first troubling nominee this administration has supported. They have put before us other individuals who, I believe, have been judicial activists in their role on various courts. We have been successful in defeating their nomination. Although we may be going to see them sometime in the future.

Several months ago, the President nominated Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit. In a series of cases interpreting a new Texas law on parental consent, Owen suggested that a minor, even in the case of rape and incest, should be required to demonstrate that she had received religious counseling before receiving medical care.

She insisted that her holding followed Supreme Court precedent, yet she was unable to demonstrate where in the Supreme Court precedent the requirement on religious counseling existed. That is because it doesn't. Our law does not require those seeking abortion to have religious counseling. Her dissent in a similar case was called an ``unconscionable act of judicial activism,'' by White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales.

Another Bush nominee, Charles Pickering, received an unfavorable vote from the Senate Judiciary Committee last year after it became clear he had intervened on behalf of a convicted cross burner, calling prosecutors, including high-level officials in the Department of Justice, in an effort to lower the sentence of the convicted cross burner. The victim in this case said, after learning for the first time about the role that was played by Judge Pickering, that her ``faith in the judicial system had been destroyed.''

This is the context in which we view the nomination of Miguel Estrada. It is not clear where Miguel Estrada stands on the issues. He doesn't have a record like Priscilla Owen, or like Judge Pickering, about which we can ask questions. So the fact that he refuses to answer those questions, and the fact that the administration has proclaimed that they are very interested in nominating people with ``strict constructionist'' views about the Constitution, has left us very concerned about this particular nominee.

Let me be clear. The public doesn't care about our bickering on numbers, but they do care about us doing our job and asking questions about the nominee's views on important issues.

Another survey that was done last year asked whether individuals thought the views of nominees on specific issues should be taken into account, that Senators are expected to have a viewpoint by the people who elect them and not simply rubberstamp the nominees the President sends to the Senate. And 77 percent found that to be the persuasive argument to which they agreed.

The public was also asked whether the views of nominees on specific issues should be taken into account since Federal judges serve for life and are not elected by the people, and no one should be put on the bench if that person holds a position on an important issue that Senators think is simply wrong. Again, 77 percent of the public believed that was a persuasive argument and correct.

The issue is that the public does want us to do our job. They want us to find out the positions of these nominees.

It was not that long ago we had another issue before this body, a nomination to the Supreme Court of Justice Clarence Thomas. At that time, Judge Thomas refused to answer questions on the right to privacy, saying he thought there had been too much controversy on the issue and he did not have a personal view on whether Roe v. Wade had been rightly decided. But then, only one year later, he dissented in Planned Parenthood v. Casey stating that Roe v. Wade should be overturned!

This debate is very alarming to Americans. It is alarming because they want to know that their judiciary represents the views of the mainstream public; they want to know that the judiciary will uphold current law; that they will follow stare decisis. They want to know that the right of privacy, as it has been recognized in the Constitution, will be upheld.

We have to go back and do our homework on this particular nominee. I think most people in America understand if you go to take a pass-fail test and you do not answer the questions, it is very hard for you to pass. We have all heard of oral exams where you have to show and understand the material you have been studying for years. If you do not show the comprehension of that material, you do not pass. I think people here understand that if you come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and fail to answer the questions, you do not pass as well.

Maybe we will not agree on the types of positions this side of the aisle would support for a nominee. Maybe that side of the aisle does support people of strict constructionist views who do believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but let's not put forth and continue to pursue a nominee who refuses to answer the questions. These are questions that deserve an answer. These are questions about which this body should hold its head up high and say, as we continue in an age where privacy is going to become more important, we will continue to fight for the rights of the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize and congratulate one of the eleven winners of the George J. Mitchell Scholarship, Miss Jasmin Weaver. Jasmin is a student at the University of Washington in Seattle and has been awarded this prestigious scholarship based on her academic excellence, leadership, and community service, Jasmin represents the third award winner from the University of Washington in the last three years.

The George J. Mitchell Scholarship, which is administered by the nonprofit U.S.-Ireland Alliance, was created to build bonds between American and Irish leaders and was named in honor of the respected former leader of this body who played an integral part in the peace process of Ireland. This scholarship allows university students the opportunity to do postgraduate study for a year at a university in Ireland. There were a record number of applicants this year, with nearly 300 students applying here in the United States.

This award has been particularly important for my home State, with three recipients of this award from the University of Washington in the last three years. Last year's award recipient was Matt Alexander and the previous year Dawn Hewett. I would like to personally congratulate all three winners of this award from our State and I know Washington students will continue their legacy of excellence through this award in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the seven heroes lost in the tragic explosion of the space shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003.

The seven members of the Columbia crew will be deeply missed by their families, NASA, our entire country, and others following this historic mission.

Though I could recite an astonishing list of accomplishments for each of the seven astronauts, their most important contribution was the example of bravery, courage, and excellence they set for men, women, and children across the land.

I am proud to say that one of these heroes, Air Force LTC Michael Anderson was a beloved son of the Spokane community and a cherished hero for men, women, and children in Washington. But Michael Anderson was a hero long before the accepted the challenge of the Columbia mission.

Lieutenant Colonel Anderson knew he wanted to be an astronaut at the early age of 3. This dream followed him to Washington, when he and his family

moved to the Spokane area at age 11 after his father was assigned to the nearby Fairchild Air Force Base.

Throughout his early education in Spokane area public schools, Anderson remained focused on his goal of being an astronaut, becoming an exceptional science student, and overcoming all of the challenges facing a young African-American man in this country.

He graduated from Cheney High School in Cheney, WA, in 1977 and continued his science education with a bachelor of science degree in physics/astronomy from the University of Washington in 1981, when he was also commissioned as a second lieutenant of the Air Force. Anderson later completed a master of science degree in physics from Creighton University in 1990.

After becoming an astronaut in 1994, Michael Anderson took to heart his responsibility as a role model for children around the country and back home. After his 1998 flight on the space shuttle Endeavor to the Mir Space Station, Anderson visited his alma mater, Cheney High School.

With a crowd of enthralled students listening on, Anderson told the students that they could do what he had done if they set goals and worked hard.

Anderson also left the students a reminder of his achievement, returning a school pennant that he had taken to space with him on the mission. On display in the school's main entrance, this pennant, along with a mission patch and small flag that also went into space, continues to serve as an inspiration to the school's students.

LTC Anderson is an amazing story of courage, achievement against many odds, and sacrifice for this country. He provided a demonstration of excellence and offered a triumphant example of accomplishment for Americans of all color, race, and background. He will be missed, but he will never be forgotten.

The Washington family has also lost another friend in Navy CDR Willie McCool, who made Anacortes, WA, his home during two terms of service at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island.

Commander McCool was not only well regarded during his time at Whidbey, but he continued his tie to the community after he left. Community members remember him for his kindness and professionalism and his love of children; he often returned to Fidalgo Elementary School to discuss his work as an astronaut.

We lost a good friend in Commander McCool and also lost a piece of home; he brought a bit of Anacortes with him on Columbia in the form of a Douglas fir cone from the surrounding forest.

Though the loss of this crew is a sober reminder of the risks involved with human space flight, I join the President and many of my fellow Members of Congress in calling for the continued support of NASA's space shuttle program.

Critically, this support, together with a continued investigation of this tragedy, must be focused on ensuring the safety of future space shuttle flights.

The space shuttle program remains a leading force in scientific research and in stimualting public interest in space exploration.

This leadership is exemplified by the numerous experiments conducted by the Columbia crew before the tragic re-entry, and the interest of scientists, schoolchildren, and people worldwide.

The space shuttle is also critical for the assembly and operation of the International Space Station.

Importantly, the benefits of the experiments conducted on the space shuttle and the International Space Station extend beyond the scientific community to directly enhance the lives of individuals across the globe, whether in finding cures to diseases or helping us understand the origin of the universe.

While the tremendous technical and scientific accomplishments of NASA demonstrate vividly that humans can achieve previously inconceivable feats, the exploration of space also humbles us by exhibiting the miracle of this tiny ``blue marble'' in the cosmos and the wonder and preciousness of human life.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. I am delighted to be joined on this bill by my good friend, Senator Patty Murray. Senator Murray has been a champion for children's health issues throughout her career in the Senate. This important legislation addresses the allocation of budgeted but unspent SCHIP funds that are currently out of reach of States and, under current law, are scheduled to be returned to the Federal treasury. This legislation also helps those States with the highest unemployment rates use more of their SCHIP dollars to provide health insurance coverage for low-income children.

Washington State is in the middle of an economic crisis resulting from a downturn in both our aviation and high-tech sectors. With the jobless rate at seven percent, we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. 214,300 Washingtonians are unable to find work. And just over the last month, our State has lost 2,946 jobs, and over 50 percent of those are in the high-paying manufacturing sector.

In 2000, before the recession began, there were 780,000 uninsured people in Washington State, including 155,000 children. That number has surely grown as the economy has worsened and our population has risen. In fact, in October, the Census Bureau reported that the number of uninsured increased for the first time in two years. Sadly, there are 41.2 million people nationwide without health insurance, 8.5 million of whom are children.

The increasing number of uninsured isn't the only problem facing the health care system. Last September, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported the largest increase in health insurance premium costs since 1990, while the Center for Studying Health System Change found that health care spending has returned to double-digit growth for the first time since that year.

The lack of health insurance has very real consequences. We know that the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care, and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care. Health insurance matters for kids, and coverage today defrays costs tomorrow.

Five years ago, Congress created a new $40 billion State grant program to provide health insurance to low-income, uninsured children who live in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. In most States, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP has been extremely successful. Nearly one million children gained coverage each year through

SCHIP and, by December 2001, 3.5 million children were enrolled in the program.

Unfortunately, however, not all States have been able to participate in this success, and perversely, the States that have been left out are those that had taken bold initiatives by expanding their Medicaid programs to cover low-income children at higher levels of poverty. Sadly, the recession and high unemployment means that the health insurance coverage we do have for children, pregnant women, and low- income individuals is in jeopardy due to State budget crises.

Washington State has been a leader in providing health insurance to our constituents. We have long provided optional coverage to Medicaid populations and began covering children up to 200 percent of poverty in 1994, three years before Congress passed SCHIP.

When SCHIP was enacted in 1997, most States were prohibited from using the new funding for already covered populations. This flaw made it difficult for Washington to access the money and essentially penalized the few States that had led the nation on expanding coverage for kids. This means that my State only receives the enhanced SCHIP matching dollars for covering kids between 200 and 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. Washington has been able to use less than four percent of the funding the Federal Government gave us for SCHIP.

Today, Washington has the highest unemployment in the country, an enormous budget deficit, and may need to cut as many as 150,000 kids from the Medicaid roles. Because it is penalized by SCHIP rules and cannot use funds like other states, Washington State is sending $95 million back to the federal treasury or to other States. This defies common sense, and I do not believe that innovative States should be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of SCHIP.

This is why we are introducing the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. This bill will give States the ability to use SCHIP funds more efficiently to prevent the loss of health care coverage for children. This bill targets expiring funds to States that otherwise may have to cut health care coverage for kids. States that have made a commitment to insuring children could use expiring SCHIP funds and a portion of current SCHIP funds on a short-term basis to maintain access to health care coverage for all low-income children in the State. The bill also ensures that all States that have demonstrated a commitment to providing health care coverage to children can access SCHIP funds in the same manner to support children's health care coverage.

First, as my colleagues know, 1998 and 1999 state allotments ``expired'' at the end of fiscal year 2002 and are scheduled to be returned to the Federal treasury. Our bill allows States to keep their remaining 1998 and 1999 funds, and use these funds for the purposes of this legislation.

Second, unused SCHIP dollars from the fiscal year 2000 allotment are due to be redistributed at the end of fiscal year 2002 among those States that have spent all of their SCHIP funds. Our bill would allow the retention and redistribution of these funds as was done two years ago through the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act P.L. 106-554. However, under our bill, States that had an unemployment rate higher than six percent for two consecutive months in 2002 would be eligible to keep all of their unspent 2000 SCHIP allotment.

Third, at State option, for certain Medicaid expenditures, qualifying States would receive the difference between their Medicaid Federal matching assistance percentage, or FMAP, and their enhanced SCHIP matching rate. This temporary measure would be paid out of a State's current SCHIP allotment to ensure children's health care coverage does not erode as States face enormous budget deficits. States would be able to use any remaining funds from fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 SCHIP allotments, plus ten percent of fiscal 2001, 2002, and 2003 allotments.

Finally, our bill allows States that have expanded coverage to the highest eligibility levels allowed under SCHIP, and meet certain requirements, to receive the enhanced SCHIP match rate for any kids that had previously been covered above the mandatory level.

Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our great Nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies, our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to build happy, healthy and productive lives. During this tough economic time, it is more important than ever to maintain existing health care coverage for children in order to hold down health care costs and to keep children healthy. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. I am delighted to be joined on this bill by my good friend, Senator Patty Murray. Senator Murray has been a champion for children's health issues throughout her career in the Senate. This important legislation addresses the allocation of budgeted but unspent SCHIP funds that are currently out of reach of States and, under current law, are scheduled to be returned to the Federal treasury. This legislation also helps those States with the highest unemployment rates use more of their SCHIP dollars to provide health insurance coverage for low-income children.

Washington State is in the middle of an economic crisis resulting from a downturn in both our aviation and high-tech sectors. With the jobless rate at seven percent, we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. 214,300 Washingtonians are unable to find work. And just over the last month, our State has lost 2,946 jobs, and over 50 percent of those are in the high-paying manufacturing sector.

In 2000, before the recession began, there were 780,000 uninsured people in Washington State, including 155,000 children. That number has surely grown as the economy has worsened and our population has risen. In fact, in October, the Census Bureau reported that the number of uninsured increased for the first time in two years. Sadly, there are 41.2 million people nationwide without health insurance, 8.5 million of whom are children.

The increasing number of uninsured isn't the only problem facing the health care system. Last September, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported the largest increase in health insurance premium costs since 1990, while the Center for Studying Health System Change found that health care spending has returned to double-digit growth for the first time since that year.

The lack of health insurance has very real consequences. We know that the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care, and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care. Health insurance matters for kids, and coverage today defrays costs tomorrow.

Five years ago, Congress created a new $40 billion State grant program to provide health insurance to low-income, uninsured children who live in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. In most States, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP has been extremely successful. Nearly one million children gained coverage each year through

SCHIP and, by December 2001, 3.5 million children were enrolled in the program.

Unfortunately, however, not all States have been able to participate in this success, and perversely, the States that have been left out are those that had taken bold initiatives by expanding their Medicaid programs to cover low-income children at higher levels of poverty. Sadly, the recession and high unemployment means that the health insurance coverage we do have for children, pregnant women, and low- income individuals is in jeopardy due to State budget crises.

Washington State has been a leader in providing health insurance to our constituents. We have long provided optional coverage to Medicaid populations and began covering children up to 200 percent of poverty in 1994, three years before Congress passed SCHIP.

When SCHIP was enacted in 1997, most States were prohibited from using the new funding for already covered populations. This flaw made it difficult for Washington to access the money and essentially penalized the few States that had led the nation on expanding coverage for kids. This means that my State only receives the enhanced SCHIP matching dollars for covering kids between 200 and 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. Washington has been able to use less than four percent of the funding the Federal Government gave us for SCHIP.

Today, Washington has the highest unemployment in the country, an enormous budget deficit, and may need to cut as many as 150,000 kids from the Medicaid roles. Because it is penalized by SCHIP rules and cannot use funds like other states, Washington State is sending $95 million back to the federal treasury or to other States. This defies common sense, and I do not believe that innovative States should be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of SCHIP.

This is why we are introducing the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. This bill will give States the ability to use SCHIP funds more efficiently to prevent the loss of health care coverage for children. This bill targets expiring funds to States that otherwise may have to cut health care coverage for kids. States that have made a commitment to insuring children could use expiring SCHIP funds and a portion of current SCHIP funds on a short-term basis to maintain access to health care coverage for all low-income children in the State. The bill also ensures that all States that have demonstrated a commitment to providing health care coverage to children can access SCHIP funds in the same manner to support children's health care coverage.

First, as my colleagues know, 1998 and 1999 state allotments ``expired'' at the end of fiscal year 2002 and are scheduled to be returned to the Federal treasury. Our bill allows States to keep their remaining 1998 and 1999 funds, and use these funds for the purposes of this legislation.

Second, unused SCHIP dollars from the fiscal year 2000 allotment are due to be redistributed at the end of fiscal year 2002 among those States that have spent all of their SCHIP funds. Our bill would allow the retention and redistribution of these funds as was done two years ago through the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act P.L. 106-554. However, under our bill, States that had an unemployment rate higher than six percent for two consecutive months in 2002 would be eligible to keep all of their unspent 2000 SCHIP allotment.

Third, at State option, for certain Medicaid expenditures, qualifying States would receive the difference between their Medicaid Federal matching assistance percentage, or FMAP, and their enhanced SCHIP matching rate. This temporary measure would be paid out of a State's current SCHIP allotment to ensure children's health care coverage does not erode as States face enormous budget deficits. States would be able to use any remaining funds from fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 SCHIP allotments, plus ten percent of fiscal 2001, 2002, and 2003 allotments.

Finally, our bill allows States that have expanded coverage to the highest eligibility levels allowed under SCHIP, and meet certain requirements, to receive the enhanced SCHIP match rate for any kids that had previously been covered above the mandatory level.

Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our great Nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies, our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to build happy, healthy and productive lives. During this tough economic time, it is more important than ever to maintain existing health care coverage for children in order to hold down health care costs and to keep children healthy. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.