Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have today asked my colleagues to support the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This important legislation has strong support from both sides of the aisle with more than 50 cosponsors on the original bill, S. 659. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill. I thank my dear friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, for his leadership. He has done yeoman's work on this bill in the drafting, introduction, and shepherding of this bill as it passes on the Senate floor.

The legislation in question will correct a significant injustice that threatens the viability of a lawful United States industry, the firearms industry. An increasing number of lawsuits are being filed against the firearms industry seeking damages for wrongs committed by not them but by third persons who misuse the industry's products.

These lawsuits seek to impose liability on lawful businesses for the actions of people the industry has absolutely no control over. When one stops to think about it, it is really outrageous. Businesses that comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and that produce a product fit for an intended lawful purpose, including elk and duck hunting, target shooting and personal protection, should not be subject to frivolous lawsuits that have only one goal; that is, to put them out of business. It is an outrage.

Montanans particularly are proud of their independence and their outdoor heritage. We are an outdoor people. People in our State, as in the State of the occupant of the Chair, almost honor and cherish the outdoors. We spend so much of our time outdoors. Almost every Montanan regards himself or herself as an outdoorsperson. Hunting, fishing, hiking, even one's job, whether it is raising cattle, growing wheat, grain, the mining industry, forest products--we are outdoors people. We cherish our right to hunt. We cherish our right to fish and enjoy the outdoors. Passing this bill will allow us to protect that right by ensuring the firearms industry stays in business.

Gun owners and sportsmen are an important part of our Nation's economy. Each year they spend nearly $21 billion in our national economy. This in turn generates more than 366,000 jobs. Those jobs pay more than $8.8 billion in wages and salaries. That is no small item, particularly these days when we are trying to get as many jobs in our country, particularly good-paying jobs. The industry also provides about $1.2 billion in State tax revenues.

In addition, excise taxes imposed on firearms in the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act, otherwise known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, generate revenues for State fish and wildlife conservation efforts, and also hunter safety programs. For example, the Pittman-Robertson Act generated more than $150 million in revenue in the year 2002 alone.

In short, the U.S. firearms industry serves America's gun owners and sportsmen well. It provides good-paying jobs. It provides revenues that benefit all Americans. The industry should not be penalized for legally producing or selling a product that functions as designed and intended, but that is exactly what certain groups are trying to do--asking the courts to step in and micromanage the firearms industry when the Congress and most State legislatures have refused to do so.

Let me now list some of the demands that have been made in these lawsuits so we can get a flavor and a picture of just how incredible these lawsuits are. Some would require a one-gun-a-month purchase restriction not required by a State law. That is a one-gun-a-month restriction. Other of these suits would require firearm manufacturers and distributors to participate in a court-ordered study of lawful demand for firearms and, get this, cease sales in excess of lawful demand.

Another request is to require a prohibition on sales to dealers who do not stock at least $250,000 in inventory. And here is still another: require systematic monitoring of dealers' practices by manufacturers and distributors.

These are just a few of the sweeping demands made in the lawsuits the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act seeks to stop. As my colleagues can tell, these suits are asking courts to step well outside their jurisdiction and legislate regulation of the firearms industry. They also have nothing to do with holding accountable those who actually misuse firearms or commit crimes with firearms.

Most courts have dismissed such lawsuits. Some courts have expressed sentiments similar to those of a New York appellate court judge who stated:

The plain fact is that courts are the least suited, least

equipped and thus the least appropriate branch of government

to regulate and micromanage the manufacturing, marketing,

distribution and sale of handguns.

However, the time, expense, and effort that goes into defending those nuisance suits is a significant drain on the firearms industry costing jobs and millions of dollars, increasing business and operating costs and threatening to put a good number of dealers and manufacturers out of business. That is why this bill is so necessary.

Let me be clear about a couple of points, though. This bill will not bar legitimate suits against the firearms industry. It preserves the right of Americans to have their day in court. For example, this bill will not require dismissal of a lawsuit if a member of the industry breaks the law; if a member of the industry acts negligently in supplying a firearm to a person they should have known is likely to misuse that firearm. In addition, it does not require dismissal of a lawsuit if a member of the industry supplies a firearm to someone they had reason to know was barred by Federal law from owning a firearm or designed a defective firearm. So there are safeguards in this bill.

This bill is only intended to protect law-abiding members of the firearm industry from nuisance suits that have no basis in current law, and again are only intended to regulate the industry, harass the industry, or put it out of business, none of which are appropriate purposes of a lawsuit. That is what this legislation is intended to deal with.

We can all agree when a firearm is used in a criminal or careless manner that causes serious injury, such as the loss of life, this is a terrible tragedy. Those responsible for such tragedies should be held accountable, clearly, and held accountable to the fullest extent of the law in both civil and criminal actions.

This includes the firearms industry, obviously, when or if one of its members breaks the law or gives a firearm to a criminal or other person they knew would use the firearm to hurt, kill, or threaten another person.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would do nothing to change this or shield the firearms industry from liability or criminal or other wrongdoing. At the same time, it is not fair and it is not right to hold lawful members of the industry, who produce a legal product, accountable for the independent actions of third parties who use a firearm in the manner the industry never intended.

This is a very simple bill. It has a simple purpose. It is also critically important to a very vital industry and I ask my colleagues to give it their full support.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in my view--and I think it is the view of the vast majority of the Members of the Senate and probably the majority of Americans--this highway legislation is critical. It needs passing immediately. It is critical because our country so much depends upon our highways. The past highway legislation spent a good amount of money to help repair our roads, provide for new roads, bridges, and safety. We know the importance of our infrastructure system.

This bill expired. We are now in an extension period. Because it expired, we desperately need to pass replacement legislation.

It is also a jobs bill. This is a no-brainer. If we have lost--and nobody

disputes this figure--a couple to 3 million jobs in this country in the last couple of years, we need to pass a bill that creates and provides jobs. That is a highway bill. It does not take much brain power to figure that one out.

I urge our colleagues to get on with it and pass highway legislation. We should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. There may be one or two points--and they are not big points--that individual Senators may want to have in this bill, but we should not let that get in the way. We should pass this legislation.

There are some Senators who say, oh, my gosh, this breaks the bank; it spends too much money. Respectfully, our President has suggested this is too expensive and spends too much money. There is even talk of a potential veto. Well, I doubt seriously that the President of the United States is going to veto this jobs bill. It just is not going to happen. First, the President has not vetoed any bill in his Presidency--none. I doubt that his first veto would be the highway bill, a jobs bill.

Also, importantly, this bill does not increase the debt. It does not increase the deficit. All of the revenue that will be spent for highways is already paid for, except for a small portion of general revenue that goes to pay for a portion of mass transit, but that was in the budget resolution, and the budget resolution with respect to highways does not increase our debt.

I urge my colleagues to think very carefully about that because for those who say it breaks the bank, that is just not accurate. This bill does not do that. I might say, in my State of Montana, this is our jobs bill, this is our economic development bill. This creates and maintains about 17,000 jobs in our State. We are a highway State. We do not have a lot of people in our State compared to others and we have great distances to travel, but we would like to have a highway program that enables us to get around in our State.

That is probably true for all of these folks from all around the country who come and visit Montana. They like to be able to travel on roads that do not have potholes. They want to be able to travel to various resorts in Montana to go skiing in the winter and backpacking and fishing, fly fishing, in the summer. My colleagues would be amazed the number of people I meet who tell me they come to Montana, especially in the summers, to go fishing and just have a good vacation. They want the same highways in Montana that they will find in other States of the Nation.

I just cannot say too strongly how much we need this legislation. I might say, too, this has been a product of bipartisanship, which is so important. We all know that most anything of consequence that gets passed in the Senate is passed only when we work together, Republicans, Democrats, House and Senate. That is this bill. That is this legislation.

I take my hat off to the chairman of the EPW Committee, Senator Inhofe, and to the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, who worked very closely together.

I might also say that the money for this bill has to be authorized by the Finance Committee. That is the committee of which I am the ranking member, and the chairman of our committee just spoke preceding me. We have all worked together, all four of us, on a bipartisan basis to get a good highway bill passed. That is the only way we can do legislation, in my view.

The bill also corrects two mistakes. One of them currently--there are a lot of them, but a lot of the money now that goes to the general fund should go to the highway trust fund. For example, interest on the highway trust fund currently goes to the general fund. Well, that does not make any sense. It is interest on the highway trust fund. It should go to the highway program. That is a no-brainer. The same with the ethanol subsidy. There is a 2.5 percent deduction from the ethanol portion of the highway users tax that goes to general revenue. That does not make any sense. Folks who drive cars powered by gasohol drive on highways just like people who drive cars powered by an ordinary gas engine. It seems to me that for anybody who drives on the highway, the excise and gasoline taxes they pay should go to the highway trust fund. A portion of it should not go over to the general revenue. The Finance Committee fixed that and there are some other changes as well.

To summarize, this is a good bill. It is needed. I urge my colleagues to pass it very quickly. The cloture vote was very reassuring. I think only 11 Senators voted against cloture and that was because the remaining Senators who voted for cloture realized we have to proceed. We have to get this bill passed; it is very important. I encourage my colleagues to act accordingly.

I also thank my good friend, Senator Reid, from Nevada. He has worked hard on this bill, in a totally bipartisan way, knowing how important it is for Nevada. Nevada is a huge State. A lot of folks in Nevada live in Las Vegas and Reno, but I am sure the Senator would like to get up to the northern part of the State sometime, and this helps him do so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Nevada. I think he is one of the best Senators in this body and I think his statement indicates--if one reads between the lines, listens to the music--why.

I thank the Chairman for his comments, and I look forward to working with him to resolve this matter.

preserving parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and

historic sites

I concur with the statement of the Chairman of theh Finance Committee, and pledge to continue working to address the concerns of my colleagues from Oklahoma and North Dakota.

Transit funding for Michigan

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Congressional Access to the CMS Chief Actuary Act of 2004.

This legislation provides Congress with greater access to cost estimates and other data produced and collected by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary. The Office of the Actuary is a group of about 50 actuaries, economists, and other health professionals who provide non-partisan analyses of Medicare and other federally financed health care programs.

Recently we learned that the administration's cost estimate of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 is $534 billion over 10 years, nearly $140 billion higher than the estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Contrary to statements by some members of the administration, Congress did not have this estimate when it voted on this bill.

It would be disingenuous of me to state that the higher cost estimate is my biggest concern. I have voted in the past for prescription drug bills estimated to cost more than $534 billion. And in the conference negotiations on this bill, I urged my colleagues to make changes until the final hours of the negotiations that would have added additional costs to the legislation.

My greatest concern with the higher estimate is one of transparency. More specifically, I am concerned about the degree to which access to the CMS career actuaries has been restricted by this administration. Had Congress been able to freely communicate with the career actuaries during last year's Medicare negotiations, it would not have been surprised by the higher estimates. Moreover, I believe that input from the CMS actuaries could have informed the conferees and perhaps improved certain aspects of the bill in a positive way. And why shouldn't Congress have access to all available information on legislation under consideration?

The restrictions placed on congressional access to the CMS actuary is in clear violation of the report language that was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 97). The 1997 BBA established the Office of the Actuary within CMS, which was then called the Health Care Financing Administration. Report language accompanying the legislation stated, ``The independence of the Office of the Actuary with respect to providing assistance to the Congress is vital. The process of monitoring, updating, and reforming the Medicare and Medicaid programs is greatly enhanced by the free flow of actuarial information from the Office of the Actuary to the committees of jurisdiction in the Congress.''

While Congress intended that the Office of the Actuary would provide it with cost and other data as requested, a free flow of information has not occurred--particularly over the past year. I requested, as well as several of my colleagues, information from the Office of Actuary throughout last year's Medicare deliberations; however, our requests were unfulfilled. I do not fault the professionals in the Office of the Actuary. Rather, I believe the lack of response was the result of inappropriate restrictions placed on the office by administration political officials.

In order for Congress to craft good legislation, we need access to the most up-to-date actuarial and cost information. CBO will always remain Congress's official score-keeper. But a second independent assessment is critical, particularly if the two estimates differ, as was the case of the recent Medicare legislation. Congress needs to understand the reasons for the differences, and only then can it make fully-informed decisions. And again, I ask, why shouldn't Congress have access to all available information on legislation under consideration?

The legislation that I introduce today is very simple. It codifies the 1997 BBA report language to require that Congress have direct and open access to information and estimates produced by the independent CMS career actuaries. The bill's purpose is to improve Congress's ability to write good legislation and to make well-informed decisions.

I want to be clear. The administration's higher cost-estimate does not change my support of this Medicare legislation. I continue to be a proud supporter of the bill.

But I have also pledged to work to improve its flaws and to address its shortcomings. Any efforts to improve this bill will require vigilant oversight of its implementation and will require having access to the latest information about the program's participation, payment, and costs. The CMS career actuaries will play a fundamental role in the data collection. The administration's past practices of restricting and censoring this information cannot continue.

This bill is about improving transparency in government and decision making. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Congressional Access to the CMS Chief Actuary Act of 2004.

This legislation provides Congress with greater access to cost estimates and other data produced and collected by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary. The Office of the Actuary is a group of about 50 actuaries, economists, and other health professionals who provide non-partisan analyses of Medicare and other federally financed health care programs.

Recently we learned that the administration's cost estimate of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 is $534 billion over 10 years, nearly $140 billion higher than the estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Contrary to statements by some members of the administration, Congress did not have this estimate when it voted on this bill.

It would be disingenuous of me to state that the higher cost estimate is my biggest concern. I have voted in the past for prescription drug bills estimated to cost more than $534 billion. And in the conference negotiations on this bill, I urged my colleagues to make changes until the final hours of the negotiations that would have added additional costs to the legislation.

My greatest concern with the higher estimate is one of transparency. More specifically, I am concerned about the degree to which access to the CMS career actuaries has been restricted by this administration. Had Congress been able to freely communicate with the career actuaries during last year's Medicare negotiations, it would not have been surprised by the higher estimates. Moreover, I believe that input from the CMS actuaries could have informed the conferees and perhaps improved certain aspects of the bill in a positive way. And why shouldn't Congress have access to all available information on legislation under consideration?

The restrictions placed on congressional access to the CMS actuary is in clear violation of the report language that was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 97). The 1997 BBA established the Office of the Actuary within CMS, which was then called the Health Care Financing Administration. Report language accompanying the legislation stated, ``The independence of the Office of the Actuary with respect to providing assistance to the Congress is vital. The process of monitoring, updating, and reforming the Medicare and Medicaid programs is greatly enhanced by the free flow of actuarial information from the Office of the Actuary to the committees of jurisdiction in the Congress.''

While Congress intended that the Office of the Actuary would provide it with cost and other data as requested, a free flow of information has not occurred--particularly over the past year. I requested, as well as several of my colleagues, information from the Office of Actuary throughout last year's Medicare deliberations; however, our requests were unfulfilled. I do not fault the professionals in the Office of the Actuary. Rather, I believe the lack of response was the result of inappropriate restrictions placed on the office by administration political officials.

In order for Congress to craft good legislation, we need access to the most up-to-date actuarial and cost information. CBO will always remain Congress's official score-keeper. But a second independent assessment is critical, particularly if the two estimates differ, as was the case of the recent Medicare legislation. Congress needs to understand the reasons for the differences, and only then can it make fully-informed decisions. And again, I ask, why shouldn't Congress have access to all available information on legislation under consideration?

The legislation that I introduce today is very simple. It codifies the 1997 BBA report language to require that Congress have direct and open access to information and estimates produced by the independent CMS career actuaries. The bill's purpose is to improve Congress's ability to write good legislation and to make well-informed decisions.

I want to be clear. The administration's higher cost-estimate does not change my support of this Medicare legislation. I continue to be a proud supporter of the bill.

But I have also pledged to work to improve its flaws and to address its shortcomings. Any efforts to improve this bill will require vigilant oversight of its implementation and will require having access to the latest information about the program's participation, payment, and costs. The CMS career actuaries will play a fundamental role in the data collection. The administration's past practices of restricting and censoring this information cannot continue.

This bill is about improving transparency in government and decision making. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Carroll College Fighting Saints and to congratulate them on their second consecutive NAIA National Championship.

The Fighting Saints won their second straight NAIA National Championship by defeating Northwestern Oklahoma State University Rangers. And what was the score? 41 to 28.

We were very worried what kind of game this was going to be, and I was just elated when we broke the game open early and just kept the feet to the fire of the other team and we won by a large margin.

To the Senator from Oklahoma, I am sure this is a very sensitive topic for him and I would be glad to yield to the Senator.

Saints.

Saints generally prevail.

I appreciate that. It is the Carroll College Fighting Saints. I might say the University of Montana has won AA national championships a couple of times in the last several years, too. We love football in Montana. I think--I know as much as people in Oklahoma love football, with the Sooners and the great history Oklahoma has had in football.

I might say, too, although the game was magical--it is always magical when you win--magic really did not play a large part in the Fighting Saints' victory. It was just good old-fashioned hard work and teamwork. Coach Van Diest is one very special guy, a Montanan, a real basic down- to-Earth guy who inspires such teamwork, just working together, hard work, making sure nobody takes credit for anything. This is a team game. We all work together to get this done.

When you meet the coach and see the team practice with him, it is very apparent. They are very humble. That is why we were very worried about this

game with Oklahoma. We don't take anything for granted. I am so proud of the team.

It is hard work on the football field. It is hard work in the weight room. It is hard work in the classroom. These are great guys, led by a group of very honorable young men through a solid season and an incredible string of 12 playoff games. Mike was one of five coaches to receive the American Football Coaches Association Coach of the Year award, one of five in the Nation, because he is such an inspirational, hard-working, no-nonsense, wonderful guy, representing the high caliber of the team and of Carroll College. We are extremely proud.

I might say, too, I am proud because this is my hometown. The Saints are from a college in Helena, MT. I thank the Saints, thank Coach Van Diest, thank them all for their hard work.

We may give Oklahoma a few points the next time we play them. We wish them well, too.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our international trade policy--specifically this administration's selection of free trade agreements.

A year-and-a-half ago, many of us stood on this floor arguing that we should grant the President trade negotiating authority, or fast track. We did so because we believe that good trade agreements can create jobs for American workers and farmers.

I still believe that. And I believe we must move ahead with an aggressive trade agenda--even in an election year.

So what does that mean? Of course, our first priorities should be moving ahead with negotiations in the World Trade Organization and completing the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Those agreements provide--by far--the best opportunities for American workers and farmers.

Unfortunately, both of those agreements are languishing. WTO negotiations broke down last fall in Cancun. And the FTAA has been watered down so much that many are starting to question its value.

The administration, rightly, has chosen not to put all of its eggs in one basket. They have, over the last several years, initiated a number of new free trade agreements.

Now generally, I support this approach. We cannot allow the intransigence of some countries to hold us back from seeking new markets.

But the process by which we select new FTAs is deeply flawed. Initially, there was no process at all. There was no consultation with Congress, no public process, no criteria. To be fair, there's been some improvement--but not much, and only after serious criticism from Congress and the business community.

Mr. President, as a way to try to understand the administration's trade policy, Congressman Cal Dooley and I asked the General Accounting Office to assess the criteria and processes that drive the selection of our free trade agreement partners.

Today, GAO is releasing their report, and its findings confirm a number of serious concerns.

First, the criteria themselves are so broad I question whether they are meaningful. GAO finds that the criteria used within the administration to justify the selection of FTA partners have been a moving target. Different sets of criteria were used, for example, when deciding to go forward with the Central American and Australian FTAs than were used for some of the most recently announced FTAs, such as Thailand, the Andeans, and Panama.

Whatever the criteria considered, they are not weighted by importance. Moreover, the criteria are so broad--and their consideration so open-ended--it is hard to imagine any country in the world that couldn't meet them.

Second, to the extent that the existing criteria and review process set priorities, I question whether they are the right ones. GAO finds that strategic and foreign policy goals dominate the FTA selection process.

In my view, this takes our trade policy down the wrong path. I have long believed that trade agreements should be pursued on their own merits--because they create commercial opportunities for our farmers and businesses, and most critically, because they hold out the prospect of more and better-paying jobs for American workers.

These paramount concerns seem largely lost in the selection process, which looks like more of a throw-back to the Cold War--when trade policy was treated primarily as an instrument of foreign policy.

Third, the entire selection process is woefully lacking in transparency and public participation. GAO finds that, at the time this report was requested, there was virtually no formal process at all for selecting FTAs.

The attention focused on this situation by this investigation has clearly contributed to the development of a more formal interagency process for considering potential FTAs. But the process is still a closed one.

There is no notice of countries under consideration for future FTAs until the choice has already been made. There is no formal process for soliciting the views of Congress, the business community, or the general public. There is no formal public discussion of how to prioritize negotiating resources.

To my surprise, in fact, the administration has insisted until recently that the selection criteria themselves are classified. Important trade policy decisions like these should not be made in secret based on secret criteria.

Mr. President, at a time when manufacturing and other jobs are increasingly moving offshore, we need a trade policy that helps U.S. companies create and keep good jobs in this country. We need to bring the focus of our trade agenda back to commercial benefits and, most importantly, to jobs. We need to have a public dialogue on how choices are made and how resources are allocated. I urge the administration to engage with Congress to address the issues raised by this report.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to spend some time today talking about the issue of Cuba. This was an issue that the Senate spent a lot of time on last year, and I am here today to tell my colleagues we are just as committed this year.

Last year, as most Members know, we made tremendous progress toward eliminating the Cuba travel ban and

easing the four-decade-old embargo. As part of the appropriations process last year, both the Senate and the House passed amendments overwhelmingly that would temporarily suspend enforcement of the Cuba travel ban.

I was, frankly, not only disappointed but outraged that this provision was taken out of the final omnibus bill. It should not have been, especially since the measure passed both bodies by very large margins. In stripping out that provision, the leadership broke the rules of Congress and defied the will of the majority of both Houses. That is simply undemocratic. It is wrong. It is not the way bills should be handled.

While disappointed, I emphasize today that the majority of us who favor ending this embargo will work hard this year to pass legislation, one way or another, through both bodies of the Congress, through conference, and on to the President's desk. Senators Enzi, Dorgan, and I have introduced legislation that would permanently end the travel ban. Last year, that legislation passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 13 to 5, a very large margin. The bill has 33 cosponsors and is now ready for floor consideration. I respectfully ask the majority and minority leaders to make floor time available to consider the legislation.

The fight to end the Cuba travel ban is not over. It has just begun. It is ironic that we finally face this moment at the same time that we are scrutinizing both the war on terrorism and the stretched Federal budget because enforcing the Cuba travel ban means the use of scarce Federal resources.

It is important for Senators to understand that the Cuba travel ban is enforced by the same Federal agency--the Office of Foreign Assets Control or OFAC--that also is charged with rooting out the sources of international terrorist financing and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Somewhere overseas, a massive international financial network routes millions of dollars to Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. Their access to dollars is their lifeline, their sole means of attacking our citizens and our soldiers. Rooting out this network and shutting it down is clearly one of our Nation's top priorities. Yet the very agency that is charged with this crucial task must divert valuable resources to enforce an absurd travel ban that a clear majority of Congress has already voted to terminate. It doesn't make any sense.

By its own estimate, OFAC diverts one-sixth of its employee resources to enforcing a silly travel ban. How can we justify diverting $1 of this limited budget, let alone one-sixth of our resources? Just as disturbing, late last week the Department of Homeland Security announced that it, too, would divert some of its resources to monitoring U.S. citizens who might have traveled to Cuba.

In a post-9/11 world, I do not understand the administration's priorities. I hope this year we can finally change this policy and the Senate will have a chance to fully debate the issue so we can finally make some sense out of the travel policy we do not have with Cuba.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a good friend of mine, Judge Diane Barz, who is retiring from her successful career as a Yellowstone County District Court Judge.

Judge Barz is a remarkable woman who has enjoyed a distinguished and wonderful career as a member of the Montana Bar. Judge Braz' career is notably one of ``firsts.'' She was the only woman in her University of Montana Law Class of 1968, was the first female law clerk to the Montana Supreme Court, started the first ``female'' law firm with her colleague Doris Poplar in 1973, was the first woman district court judge, and youngest, and the first female attorney appointed to the bench of the Montana Supreme Court.

Judge Barz has not only been an exemplary attorney and member of the bench, she has been a role model for women and champion for children. Anyone who has worked with Judge Braz knows that what ever she does, she does it with a leading role. Judge Barz has been instrumental in the development of your court in Montana as we know it today. She doesn't just sit back--she gets the job done! As a member of the bench, she has been gentle and compassionate with children and families when the circumstances required it, but she could be as tough as nails when justice demanded it. Most importantly, Judge Braz always aspired to do what was right for the children and families of Montana. We have all been well served by her.

This amendment provides short-term relief for multiemployer pension plans that are struggling to cope with unprecedented losses on their equity investments in the first few years of this decade. The temporary funding relief would help plans deal with the investment losses they suffered through 2002, by letting them postpone amortization of the portion of those losses that would otherwise be recognized for funding purposes in any two of the plan years beginning after June 30, 2002 and before July 1, 2006.

This amendment specifically addresses the problems faced by the steel and airline industry. However, I also have concerns about other types of companies. Some of these companies should be allowed to access the DRC relief that is in this bill. I believe my colleagues share my concerns, and that is why we have included an application process in this amendment.

Mr. President, is there a time limit?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have an additional 5 minutes. Perhaps it has to be yielded to me by someone.

Mr. President, I simply wish to say thank you. I rise to say thanks to all my colleagues, particularly here in the Senate, my friends and family in Montana and across the country, my wife Wanda and my son Zeno, my mother, and so many others. Thank you for the best wishes, the get-well cards, flowers, phone calls, and e-mails for the past few weeks. It is astounding how much we do live in kind of a global village and how connected we are. I deeply appreciate the concern of so many of my very good friends.

A few weeks ago, I underwent surgery for a condition known as subdural hematoma which was the result of a fall I took in November while running in what is called the JFK 50 Miler in Maryland. You might ask, Why in the world would someone want to run 50 miles? I sometimes ask myself. Nonetheless, it was then that I took a fall, and as a consequence of that fall, I had this condition called subdural hematoma.

I must say I am very grateful to the doctors, nurses, and everyone who was very helpful. They have encouraged me to take my time. They didn't want me to do something stupid or dumb, or to get back to work too quickly. Unfortunately, as you well know, we have 24-hour news service these days. When I was at home, I had an extremely bad case of cabin fever. I could hardly wait to get back to work. The doctor said stay home. Wanda said stay home. My friends said stay home. So I stayed home for a little while.

In all seriousness, I am very delighted to be back in this Chamber and back in the Senate with all of you, doing what I love; that is, representing Montanans and working to make their lives better.

Following the surgery, I have been asked several times if any of this has changed my perspective. Does it give me pause? The answer, obviously, is that it does; clearly, it does. It gives you a deeper sense of perspective. It is humbling. I am sure the response would be different for different people, but for me, it caused me to just think a little more clearly and deeply about what we are all about and what we are doing.

I must say I think it has been very helpful. It makes one deeply appreciate what we have in life--our family, our friends, including our health. It also reinforces one's resolve. It makes you want to keep driving, pushing, working to create change and help people. You realize, even more, that we have only a finite amount of time here to get our work done. It subtly reminds you about the ever-daunting deadline that time imposes on all of us, the sense we have to get as much done as we can in the short time we have been given so as not to waste one day, an hour, or a minute.

It also reinforces what my Indian friends taught me so long ago in Montana--that we have a moral obligation to leave this place in as good or better shape than we found it, to pass on to our kids and our grandkids an America as great as our parents bestowed upon us.

It is written in Scripture that much is expected from those to whom much has been given. As Americans--particularly as Members of the Senate--we have been given an awful lot. We have a lot of work ahead of us.

That is why it is imperative we look to the example of leadership set by so many here in this Chamber--courageous yet humble leaders such as my friend and mentor, former majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Ambassador Mike Mansfield. I don't know of a more gentle, a more strong, or, in a sense, a more profound man than Mike Mansfield. He is a man to whom we should all look up for leadership and try to exemplify, although we may never get there, as much as possible.

We have a big year ahead of us. For my part, I will continue to work together with all of you--my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle--to make America an even better place to live, to work, and to raise a family.

I look forward to passing a new transportation bill that will create jobs and ensure safety on our Nation's roads.

I look forward to reforming our pension system to ensure that workers and their families' life savings are protected.

I look forward to working with my good friend, chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, to pass our JOBS bill, otherwise known as FSC/ETI reform, and to give a boost to domestic manufacturing and create jobs.

I look forward to working together to boost agriculture in our country and get international markets open to U.S. beef as soon as possible.

I look forward to cracking down on tax cheats. There are too many people who cheat Americans by breaking the law in our income tax code. I look forward to making a greater investment in education, something we do not do enough of in this Chamber.

I look forward to working together to curb the rising number of uninsured Americans. I was lucky. I had surgery performed by excellent people. I am fortunate enough to have good health insurance coverage. A lot of Americans do not. An event like this reminds us that the 43.6 million Americans who go without health insurance must have it. We in Congress, who do have the security of good health insurance, must do much more to assure that more Americans and soon all Americans have health insurance. We are not doing enough.

We tend to get all involved in lots of peripheral issues and not spend enough time on the core issues. I daresay that health insurance inadequacy, the cost of health insurance, is probably the first, second, and third most important issue facing Americans. We do not spend enough time on it.

We have an aggressive agenda before the Senate. It is up to us to fulfill the promises we made, set aside partisan differences, and work together--not talk about it but do it. Do what is right for America. Move our country forward. It is up to us to lead. People want Congress to do what is right. Most Americans are not partisan. They are not very rightwing or very leftwing. Most Americans are in the big middle. They want the Congress to do what is right. It is up to us to provide that leadership.

I say thank you. I deeply appreciate my colleagues in the Senate. It is my distinct honor and privilege to serve here.

I also will address the pension bill and the pending managers' amendment that will be before the Senate later today. First, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, and also Senator Kennedy, who gave some very kind remarks a few days ago, and Chairman Gregg for their collective persistence, determination, and their willingness to work together. Here is a good example of the two committees, the leadership from both committees on both sides of the aisle, working together to craft a very important piece of legislation. The amendment before the Senate is truly bipartisan. I also thank again Senator Kennedy for managing the bill in my absence and I deeply appreciate his kind words on the floor a few days ago.

Now let me turn back to the pension bill and the managers' amendment. This legislation helps address the retirement security of literally millions of workers and retirees. It seeks to support the pension benefits they have earned and upon which they rely for their economic well-being. It is an important step to help preserve the embattled defined pension benefit plan. And it is embattled.

The security of our pension system is at stake. Daily we hear employers are dropping out of the defined benefit plan system. The reasons are simple. The defined benefit plans require a commitment on the part of the employer. This is a commitment many employers are no longer willing to make or can afford to make.

A recent survey found that 15 percent of the defined benefit plan sponsors have frozen plans since January 1, 2001. That means these plans will no longer allow workers to earn more benefits. Another 6 percent are actively considering freezing the defined benefit plans. This could mean that more than one in five employees earning a guaranteed retirement benefit will not earn future benefits.

We need to ask what caused this and what can we do. According to the survey, the most common reason for freezing the defined benefit plans is the cost--not just the total cost but also the volatility and unpredictability of the cost. It is one thing to have an obligation you can put in the budget projections. Businessmen love to know what is going on. We understand that. Then business can build a plan to meet certain obligations. It is another thing to have costs that vary wildly from year to year. You do your best to project these costs, but it is difficult. Having cash available for investment in growth and expansion is critical to a successful business. Fluctuating minimum contribution requirements make good business plans very difficult.

In the worst of times, a large unexpected contribution requirement can spell disaster. It can bankrupt an enterprise. That enterprise has to turn the unfunded pension liability over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, known as the PBGC.

Last September, the Finance Committee marked up the National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Guarantee Act, a bill that includes a set of long-term funding changes to address the situation. That bill provides temporary relief for companies that are suffering. It provides a temporary substitute for the 30-year Treasury rate, similar to the provision in the amendment before the Senate today. It also provides temporary relief for the deficit reduction contribution for companies that were well funded in the year 2000. These provisions were designed to give companies relief from large contribution cash demands.

The Finance Committee bill includes provisions to allow companies to put more money into their plans when times are good, and the bill provides for long-term replacement of the 30-year Treasury rate with a yield curve, which is a conservative basis for liability measurement.

We need to look at long-term reforms such as those included in the Finance Committee bill. I hope we will do that later this year.

We have an immediate, more pressing need to deal with the problems we face today: low interest rates, the effects of recent market downturns, and the resulting high contribution requirements that companies will face if we do not take action today. Normally, low interest rates are good, but in this case they tend to exacerbate the problem with respect to defined benefit guarantee plans. Increased payments

would have to be made as early as April 15. We must act quickly to provide the needed relief.

The pending managers' amendment has three important components to deal with the immediate problems we face. First, it substitutes the long-term corporate bond rate with a 30-year Treasury rate. Second, it provides partial relief from deficit reduction contributions from companies that did not make a deficit reduction contribution in 2000. And it provides temporary relief from experience loss amortization payments for multiemployer plans.

These are not long-term solutions. They will provide short-term relief from contribution volatility for employers who have been generous enough to provide defined benefit programs for their employees.

The more important factor in the health of the defined benefit system and of the PBGC, which guarantees the benefits of the system, is the health of the employers in response to the plans. The short-term relief provisions will help. The more employers who stay in the system, the healthier those employers and the stronger the system.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to come up with a long- term solution. But the provisions in this bill cannot wait. The retirement security of millions of workers hangs in the balance. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to express deep frustration with the way congressional leaders have thwarted the will of the majority of Members on Cuba.

Last month, the Senate approved an amendment to the Transportation- Treasury appropriations bill that would suspend enforcement of the Cuba travel restrictions. We passed this amendment 59 to 36--a 23-vote margin. In September, the House approved the same amendment 227 to 188--a 39-vote margin.

So, both Chambers of Congress approved the same amendment to suspend enforcement of the Cuba travel ban and to allow travel by Americans to Cuba. These votes reflected the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of Americans who support ending the utterly ineffectual travel ban.

Opinion leaders, too, in newspapers all across the country, in papers big and small, applauded the Senate and House votes. Orlando, Chicago, New York, Winston-Salem, Tuscaloosa, and San Diego. Papers from every corner of the country commended Congress for its efforts and called for an end to the absurd travel ban.

Then, the Senate Foreign Relations approved by a 13-to-5 margin a bill--S. 950, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2003--that would permanently repeal the Cuba travel ban. Senator Enzi and I, along with 31 other colleagues--fully one-third of the Senate, from both sides of the aisle and representing every region of this country--introduced this legislation because we felt the time had come to end this pointless ban on American liberty. As its vote demonstrates, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agrees.

Given these votes, and given the popular support for our efforts to end the travel ban, one would think the conferees of the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill would not be able to strip out our amendment. When the Senate and House have approved the

same amendment, there ought to be nothing for conferees to reconcile.

But here we are with an omnibus bill that does not include our amendment to suspend enforcement of the Cuba travel ban. How did this happen?

It wasn't the conferees. Thirteen of the 16 Senate conferees were supportive of our amendment. The conferees would not have stripped out the amendment.

But the congressional leadership would. And they did, before even submitting the bill to the conference committee for consideration. They pointed to a phony veto threat--not made by the President--to justify a blatantly political move calculated to improve their standing with a small number of constituents in Florida.

This, despite a recent poll by the Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times that found that most Florida voters favor lifting the ban on travel to Cuba--by better than a 2-to-1 margin.

Is this democracy in action? Is this the example we are setting for the rest of the world? Is this the example of participatory government that we hold to the Cuban dissidents as the beacon of freedom and liberty?

If this ugly episode were the only consequence of this administration's obsession with retaining the failed Cuba travel ban, that would be bad enough.

But it is not the only consequence. Far worse, the administration's pandering to its south Florida allies is undermining U.S. efforts to fight terrorism.

The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC, is charged with enforcing sanctions against foreign countries, terrorist networks, international narcotics traffickers, and those involved in proliferating weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act of 2003 as modified. H.R. 743 is bipartisan legislation developed by Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Matsui. H.R. 743 passed the House by a vote of 396 to 28, and was reported by the Committee on Finance with unanimous support. In keeping with the bipartisan tradition of the Senate Finance Committee and with the bipartisan origins of this legislation, Senator Grassley and I have worked together to further refine this legislation for Senate consideration.

H.R. 743 makes a number of important changes to the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income, SSI, programs. These changes will accomplish a number of important goals: they will enhance the financial security of some of the most vulnerable beneficiaries of these programs, increase protections to seniors from deceptive practices by individuals in the private sector, reduce disincentives to employment for disabled individuals, improve program integrity and thereby save money for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds and for taxpayers, and make the Social Security program more equitable.

One of the most important results of this legislation will be to enhance the financial security of the almost 7 million Social Security and SSI beneficiaries who are not capable of managing their own financial affairs due to advanced age or disability. The Social Security Administration, SSA, currently appoints individuals or organizations to act as ``representative payees'' for such beneficiaries. Most of these representative payees perform their roles conscientiously. However, some do not--indeed there have even been instances of terrible abuse in this program.

It is imperative that Congress take action to guard vulnerable seniors and disabled individuals from such abuse. This legislation increases requirements for SSA to provide restitution to beneficiaries when representative payees defraud the beneficiaries of their benefits. The legislation also tightens the qualifications for representative payees, increases oversight of the program, and imposes stricter penalties on those who violate their responsibilities. Finally, the legislation provides--for the first time ever--that there will be a one-time audit of a representative sample of representative payees to assess the extent to which representative payees are not using the beneficiary's funds for the benefit of the beneficiary.

The legislation expands the protection to seniors and disabled individuals by increasing the list of references to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which cannot be used by private-sector individuals, companies and organizations to give a false impression of Federal endorsement. The legislation also protects seniors from those who deceptively attempt to charge them for services that the seniors could receive for free from SSA.

The legislation eliminates a disincentive to return to work for childhood disability beneficiaries. The provision would make it easier to regain childhood disability benefits for disabled adult children who had returned to work at one time. Additionally, H.R. 743 also includes technical amendments to improve the effectiveness of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, legislation passed in 1999 to help beneficiaries with disabilities become employed and move toward self- sufficiency.

H.R. 743 improves program integrity by expanding the current prohibition against paying benefits to fugitive felons. As part of the 1996 welfare reform law, Congress banned the payment of SSI benefits to these individuals. However, under current law, fugitive felons can still receive Social Security benefits under title II. This legislation prohibits the payment of title II Social Security benefits to fugitive felons.

The bill also makes the Social Security program more equitable by including a provision to make an exemption to the Government Pension Offset more uniform. The Government Pension Offset, GPO, was enacted in order to equalize the treatment of workers in jobs not covered by Social Security and workers in jobs covered by Social Security, with respect to spousal and survivors benefits. The GPO reduces the Social Security spousal or survivors benefit by an amount equal to two-thirds of the Government pension. However, as a GAO report highlighted, State and local government workers are exempt from the GPO if their job on their last day of employment was covered by Social Security. In contrast, Federal workers who switched from the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, a system that is not covered by Social Security, to the Federal Employee Retirement System, FERS, a system that is covered by Social Security, must work for 5 years under FERS in order to be exempt from the GPO. H.R. 743 makes the exemption to the Government Pension Offset similar for State and local government workers as for Federal Government workers.

I believe that each of the provisions of H.R. 743 deserve the support of the Senate. Moreover, in an attempt to expedite Congressional passage of this legislation, the changes that Senator Grassley and I want to make to the bill as reported by the Finance Committee have already been worked out with both the chairman and the ranking member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. Moreover, we have ``report language'' that has been agreed to by the chairman and the ranking member of the Social Security Subcommittee--as well as by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee which will be included in the Congressional Record directly following the legislative language. This statement provides details about each of the provisions of the legislation, as well as the rationale behind each provision.

This legislation contains the types of improvements we can all agree on, as demonstrated by the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House, and the bipartisan, bicameral agreement of the chairmen and ranking members of the committees of jurisdiction. I wholeheartedly urge my colleagues in the Senate to approve these sensible and important changes.

Mr. President, one of the criticisms that some have raised about the conference report is the provision that prevents the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary from interfering in the negotiations between private prescription drug plans, drug manufacturers, and pharmacies.

I also believe it is important that we clarify the purpose of the non-interference language. This language is not intended to pad the pockets of drug manufactures. It is not intended to pad the pockets of the insurance companies.

Yes, that is true. The HHS Inspector General has been urging Congress to end these overpayments for years. The conference report addresses these overpayments, while ensuring fair reimbursements for oncologists and other affected physicians to ensure that patient care remains unaffected. Moreover, I think it is important that members of Congress understand the strong consumer protections that are in place to ensure that they receive access to an affordable drug plan, one that provides access to the prescription drugs that they need.

Yes, this is true. It is also true that the Secretary is prevented from approving a drug plan that charges too high of a premium. The premium must reasonably and equitably reflect the costs of the benefits.

Yes, the same one. And I think it is also important to note that conference report has a requirement for a Government-backed fallback plan if fewer than two plans are available. This Government- backed plan is required to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers. And if the fallback plan is unable to negotiate good discounts on its own, then the Secretary will be able to intervene as appropriate to negotiate to achieve lower prices.

Yes, that is my intent. And I am committed to monitoring this new payment system as it is implemented, in order to ensure access to high-quality cancer care.

That is correct.

That is correct, Senator. One of the things I am particularly proud about in this bill is the strong beneficiary protections that will ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries get access to the appropriate medicine they need. You know, Senator Grassley, that there are certain diseases and conditions--like AIDS, and epilepsy-- where having access to just the right medicine is especially important.

Exactly. The bill asks the US Pharmocopeia to develop model formularies with therapeutic classes that can't be gamed. Then we require drug plans to offer at least two drugs in each therapeutic class. And for drugs that treat AIDS, epilepsy, or mental illness, we would expect that plans would carry all clinically appropriate drugs.

That is correct. These beneficiary protections are crucial for these vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries. I would expect that the Secretary will take into account their special medication needs when he writes regulations on this provision and when he is evaluating plan bids. If a plan can't adequately ensure all of the proper medication for beneficiaries living with HIV/AIDS, epilepsy, and certain mental illnesses, that plan should not be doing business with Medicare.

Absolutely.

My guess is I will consume a maximum of 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend, Senator Byrd, from West Virginia.

There have been many comments about the Medicare bill that just passed, all the time and effort, and the controversies that surround it. My personal view is that it is not just a good bill, it is a very good bill. It will help senior citizens and a lot of others who need help.

I understand some of the criticisms made against the bill. Some of them are overdrawn and exaggerated. But I understand the core points some critics have made. As with all legislation, and as with all things human, there is some truth all the way around. I pledge my time and effort to work to correct any imperfections in this legislation that may arise. But all in all, we have to make decisions. We have made a decision; and that is, to pass this legislation. I think it is a good bill that is going to help a lot of people. It is a major advance to the Medicare Program.

The Medicare Program, which was enacted 38 years ago and signed by President Lyndon Johnson in Independence, MO, has been a tremendous success for our senior citizens.

This bill represents the next major advancement. It is a new entitlement for prescription drug benefits for our seniors not contained in the original Medicare Act that passed 38 years ago.

There are a lot of people to thank. And my point here today is not to dwell on the bill but, rather, to thank people who worked so hard and who ordinarily receive so little credit.

The most noble human endeavor is service. It is service to church, to community, to family, to spouse, to children. It is service in whatever way makes the most sense for each one of us. There are many people who served to the maximum in helping to write good legislation, and I shall mention their names.

Members of the House and the Senate who serve get the benefit of their names in newspapers and shown on TV--usually it is a benefit, sometimes it is not--but at least they get the credit or the blame. But there are other people who work very hard behind the scenes. That is, the staff, who probably work even harder and receive little or no recognition. So I would like to recognize a few of those people who played a central role in this legislation.

First, my Finance Committee health care team, led by the wonderful Liz Fowler. Those of you who have worked with Liz Fowler know what I mean. There is none better. She works so hard, she is so smart, and she has a wonderful disposition, working hard to help provide better health care for Americans.

Jon Blum. He was the ace numbers guy. I think in many cases he knew more about the various intricacies of this bill than anyone else; an amazing man.

Pat Bousliman, the same. Pat worked extremely hard and knew the ins and outs of all the provider positions--the physician and the hospital payment provisions, and home health care, so well.

Andy Cohen, who worked primarily on Medicaid and low-income issues, and then Dan Stein, who was the cleanup hitter--he is wonderful. And I'd like to recognize former staff persons, who also worked so hard on this bill earlier in the process, but have since taken advantage of different jobs or opportunities.

Kate Kirchgraber. Kate was our Medicaid specialist.

Mike Mongan is a young man, who is brilliant. I was able to hold onto him for one extra year before he finally decided to go off to law school.

Those are the members of my Finance Committee health care team who worked so hard.

Others in the Finance Committee who played a very key role are Jeff Forbes, the minority staff director, and Bill Dauster. Many people know both Jeff and Bill. Bill has served the Senate in many capacities, particularly with his expertise in budget matters and Senate procedures. He was invaluable to me.

Russ Sullivan is my top tax person. And Judy Miller. Judy is from my home State of Montana and, she knows pension issues better than anyone I can think of. The two of them worked on the tax provisions in this bill.

Laura Hayes handled press for the Finance Committee.

Tim Punke is my chief trade person. And Brian Pomper, also on the trade staff. There are several trade provisions that came up in this bill, particularly with respect to reimportation from Canada.

Two of my former staff who left a year ago, or less than that, are wonderful people and also deserve recognition. One is my former staff director, John Angell; and my chief counsel, Mike Evans, who, during the course of this bill, would call in. They would call in and give lots of advice.

Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Committee--his health team have all been wonderful to work with. Linda Fishman, Mark Hayes, Colin Roskey, Jennifer Bell, and Leah Kegler--all working so hard. And others on Senator Grassley's team, Ted Totman, who has been with Senator Grassley for many years, and Kolan Davis, who is Chairman Chuck Grassley's staff director.

Senator Breaux, my chief negotiating partner: On his staff is Sarah Walter. Sarah is very smart. She is very good. Michelle Easton and Paige Jennings, both of whom have also contributed significantly to this bill.

Other conference members, of course, were Chairman Bill Thomas and

Chairman Billy Tauzin, Majority Leader Frist, Speaker Hastert, and Majority Leader Tom DeLay in the House played a great role. Their staffs did, too, especially John McManus, who is the chief health staff for Chairman Thomas, and his staff, Madeline Smith, Joel White and Deb Williams; Pat Morrissey, the deputy staff director for Chairman Billy Tauzin, and his staff Kathleen Weldon, Chuck Clapton, Pat Ronan and Jeremy Allen; and then for Majority Leader Bill Frist, Dean Rosen and Liz Scanlon. They are all very able, wonderful, extremely capable people, along with everybody else we have been working with who I have not mentioned by name.

On the administration side, Ziad Ojakli, Matt Kirk, and Jennifer Young all played a significant and helpful role. And Erik Ueland on Senator Frist's staff played a valuable role in the coordinating between the Congress and the White House.

Senator Nickles, Senator Kyl, Senator Hatch, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, and Congressman Mike Bilirakis and their staffs played an immeasurable part in this bill.

Other conferees who were, unfortunately, excluded from the conference--that is, from the working group--played very strong roles in making this bill better than it otherwise might have been: Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Senator Rockefeller, Representatives Dingell, Rangel, and Berry. Believe it or not--they may not believe it--but their views helped to shape this bill; many of the low-income provisions, their views on premium support, and lots of areas where their strong views helped Senator Breaux and I a lot.

I need to mention, also, the Congressional Budget Office and the House and Senate legislative counsel.

The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, as we call it, is headed up by Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He works long hours, as do his top people, Steve Lieberman and Tom Bradley and all of their staffs. Particularly in the final weeks of this bill, when we had to call up and say: What is the CBO estimate for this change? What is the CBO estimate for that change? It is an almost impossible job because we were asking for lots of different changes.

The House and the Senate legislative counsel--Ed Grossman, John Goetcheus, Pierre Poisson, and Jim Scott. Man, oh, man, did they work hard. They probably put in more hours than anybody else. Once we had the concepts, they would have to write the language. And this world, which is run by deadlines, we were always waiting until the very end, unfortunately, before decided on a direction to write the legislation. And Ruth Ernst, who also worked extremely hard.

On my personal staff: Zak Andersen, who is my chief of staff, in helping to coordinate all these matters; Sara Roberts, my legislative director; Farrar Johnston, my scheduler; and Sara Kuban--all in the office here in Washington, DC. And back home in my State of Montana: Barrett Kaiser, Jim Foley, and Melodee Hanes, working all the time to answer tons of telephone calls about this bill and coordinating all of our outreach and education efforts.

Others here in my DC office, two persons who work in the receptionist area, Megan Mikelsons and Rachel Sherouse answered many telephone calls, too, and handled them all very directly and with great grace and civility.

There are many others, Mr. President, on other staffs who I have not mentioned, but I mention these people because I know personally how hard they have worked. I also mention them as representative of all the other people who have worked for Senators, who have worked in different capacities up here in the Senate and over in the House and who have just poured their hearts out. They are here because they want to do the right thing. They are here because they want to help people. They are here because they want to make this a better place. Essentially, they are here because they are fulfilling a very deep moral obligation. I think all of us have an obligation to make this place as good or even better than we found it, in whatever way we do that. For some of us, it is health care legislation, and for some of us it is some other area.

The names I have mentioned are the names of people who I hope are remembered and recognized. I urge everyone to dwell a little more on the people who really do the work, those I have mentioned, and others who work in similar capacities in this body.

Mr. President, 38 years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Medicare Act in Independence, MO. For millions of senior and disabled Americans, the enactment of this legislation heralded an era of hope, health, and improved financial security.

At the signing of the Medicare Act, President Johnson said, ``No longer will older American be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine . . . And no longer will this Nation refuse the hand of justice to those who have given a lifetime of service and wisdom and labor to the progress of this progressive country.''

Over the past 4 decades, the Medicare Program has fulfilled President Johnson's vision. Through Medicare, more than 100 million Americans have received the protection of health insurance during their most vulnerable years. Today, Medicare covers more than 35 million seniors and 6 million disabled Americans. Medicare provides assurances to these millions of Americans that their health care needs will be taken care of.

And Medicare has stood the test of time. Thirty-eight years after its enactment, Medicare remains one of the most extraordinary acts of legislation in the history of Congress.

But we all know that the program is not perfect. It is at times slow to adapt to the evolving health care market place. We owe it to our seniors to ensure that Medicare changes with the times and continues to serve their needs today and into the future.

The practice of medicine has changed dramatically over the past 4 decades. Outpatient prescription drugs were not included in Medicare's original benefit package. In 1965, medical care emphasized hospital- based and physician-provided care. Today, medical care increasingly relies on the use of prescription drugs.

As the role and expense of prescription drugs have grown dramatically over the past several decades, the lack of a prescription drug benefit in Medicare has become a critical flaw.

Seniors will spend an estimated $2,300 on average for prescription drugs this year, with almost $1,000 coming directly from their pockets. And while many seniors are fortunate to have coverage through retiree health plans, Medicaid, Medigap, and Medicare managed care plans--over 35 percent of Medicare beneficiaries currently lack any coverage for outpatient prescription drugs.

The lack of prescription drug coverage in Medicare, coupled with the rising cost of prescription drugs, is forcing seniors across America to make difficult choices. In the wealthiest nation in the world, millions of elderly Americans are forced to choose between much-needed prescription drugs and basic necessities of daily living.

Our seniors deserve better.

With the passage of this bill, we have the opportunity to uphold our commitment to America's seniors. With this conference report, we can deliver on our promise to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

This bill provides seniors with much-needed prescription drug coverage and protection against high out-of-pocket drug expenses. Under the new Medicare Part D, seniors will have access to prescription drug insurance for a modest monthly premium. This benefit will provide up- front coverage for prescription drug expenditures up to $2,250 annually, and catastrophic coverage for out-of-pocket spending above $3,600.

For the millions of seniors with lower incomes and costly medical illnesses, this legislation offers the promise of comprehensive affordable prescription drug coverage through Medicare. Low-income seniors, more than a third of all Medicare beneficiaries, will receive generous assistance for all their prescription drug expenses, including premium subsidies, reduced deductibles, and affordable cost-sharing.

And we have designed a bill that will provide coverage in every part of the country. If private drug plans elect not to participate in any area of the country, our seniors will have guaranteed access to a government fallback, backed by the solemn commitment of Medicare.

Thus, all seniors will have equal access to a drug benefit, regardless of whether they choose to join a managed care plan or remain in traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

This legislation offers more than a Medicare prescription drug benefit. It will finally address many of the Medicare reimbursement inequities that have plagued America's rural health care providers. It will increase payments to local physicians and community hospitals to improve health care services throughout the nation. And this legislation will better foster competition between generic and brand- name pharmaceuticals.

I have heard from many of my colleagues regarding some of the imperfections in the conference report--for example, the gap in coverage, the risk that the bill may cause employers to drop retiree drug coverage, the potential state shortfalls in the early years of the benefit, the increased payments to private plans, and the ``premium support'' pilot program.

While I remain committed to addressing these potential shortcomings in the legislation during the upcoming months and years, we must not forget that this bill creates a $400 billion expansion of the Medicare Program. We must not squander this historic opportunity to fundamentally improve the lives of millions of American seniors.

We would not have this opportunity without the fine leadership in the Senate. Senator Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, skillfully led this effort through the committee, on the floor, and in the conference negotiations. Majority Leader Frist was willing to put aside party differences to focus on achieving bipartisan consensus. Senator Breaux's efforts helped bridge differences. The work of Senator Breaux, my steadfast partner in the difficult negotiations, as well as Senators Snowe, Hatch, Jeffords, and Graham have greatly contributed to the debate over prescription drugs throughout the past several years.

And Senator Kennedy, the health care expert of the Senate. For over 25 years, Senator Kennedy has fought to include prescription drug coverage within Medicare. Through his continued leadership, prescription drugs for seniors are now within reach.

Senator Kennedy played a key role in getting a good bill out of the Senate and throughout the conference. The 76 votes in the Senate are a tribute to his efforts, and whatever is positive in this bill is due to his dedication and hard work.

And there is much that is positive in this bill, in my view. Of course, the conference report is not perfect by any means. There are elements that I would not include if I were writing this bill on my own. But it is a true compromise. It reflects a near evenly split Congress.

Let us not forget that the original Medicare Act also represented a compromise--in the way that the program was financed through a combination of payroll taxes, premiums, and general revenue, and in the way it was organized, with fiscal intermediaries and carriers making payments for separate Part A and Part B benefits.

In the final analysis, let us not forget why this bill is important. Millions of seniors live today without prescription drug coverage. They live in greater pain, and they live shorter lives, because of that.

With this bill, we will take an important step to make their lives better. To help them live longer, fuller lives. That is our purpose here today, and that is why I support this conference report.

For 38 years, Medicare has been a covenant--a pact between the generations. All Americans--young and old, rich and poor--pay into the promise of Medicare. And the Congress has the responsibility to uphold this commitment to those who benefit from it. As part of that responsibility, we must continue to improve the program and keep up with modern medical care.

This conference report represents an historic opportunity to strengthen Medicare. And as elected officials, we have the obligation to take advantage of this opportunity. Of course, we also have the responsibility to ensure timely implementation in a way that fulfills congressional intent.

On the day of this historic vote, we take a step to ensure that Medicare continues to fulfill Lyndon Johnson's vision. We take an important step to deliver on our promise to America's senior citizens.

I yield the Floor, and I again thank my good friend from West Virginia.