Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2004. The Perkins Act is a central part of a combination of federal education and training programs that provide opportunities for lifelong learning to our workforce. The Perkins Act, together with the Workforce Investment Act, the Higher Education Act, and other federal education programs, provides the resources that are needed to help adequately prepare students of all ages for jobs in high-wage and high-skilled occupations. In this technology driven, global economy, everyone is a student who must adapt to the changing needs of their jobs and the workforce by continuing to pursue an education in their chosen field. In turn, Congress must ensure that education and training are connected to the needs of business, including small businesses, now and into the future as well.

It is my hope that this body will take the necessary action to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. The Act is an essential part of a combination of federal education and training programs that will strengthen our workforce and enable America to compete--and succeed--in the global economy.

At a hearing held on June 24, 2004, before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, members heard testimonies from leaders in career and technical training emphasizing the importance of constant training, retraining and upgrading of the skills today's jobs require. Many students leaving high school or college and entering the workforce find that they are unprepared for life because they lack the skills they need to succeed in the workforce. This country created over 1 million new jobs since January. That's great news. Unfortunately, the complaint heard from employers is that there are too few skilled workers to meet their needs. We have a strong interest in making sure this is corrected. The Perkins Act, along with the Higher Education and Workforce Investment Act would provide both strong academic and relevant job skill training to promote and sustain the long-term competitiveness of this country.

A unique aspect of the Perkins program that addresses the needs of the changing workforce is that it targets funds to both secondary and postsecondary schools. This unique aspect also provides a good platform from which we can better coordinate workforce preparation policy and training with an emphasis on lifelong learning. It is essential to facilitate a sequence of career or technical education courses that a student can complete before they even get to college, and that they can continue at the postsecondary level, whenever they decide to go on. Dr. Michael Rush, the Idaho Division of Professional-Technical Education, Boise, ID, Administrator, used the example of student Chelsie Lea Marier in his testimony to stress this point. He said Chelsie took professional-technical classes in welding, auto technology, mechanics and power technology at her home high school, Meridian High. As a high school senior, she enrolled in an automotive collision repair program at the Dehryl Dennis Technology Center. During this time, Chelsie took advanced placement academic classes and was President of her Skills-USA chapter. She is now enrolled in the auto body program at the College of Southern Idaho, and she intends to continue her education and become an auto collision forensics investigator. She is an excellent example of how linking academic and technical skills attainment can lead to success in the workforce.

In order to strengthen schools programs at both the secondary and postsecondary level that meet local workforce needs, provisions in the Perkins Act must include the participation of business, including small business. In my home state of Wyoming, a career and technical education instructor by the name of Ted Schroeder is doing a lot of what I've just described. He has met with the local Chamber of Commerce in Rock Springs, WY, to identify workforce needs and matched his programs with industry standards to meet those needs. When the local business community suggested they needed students with computerized accounting skills, he took on the task of designing curriculum to help his students acquire the skills the businesses had requested. His efforts are a good example of what

Perkins funds are intended to accomplish. It is my hope that we can increase the successes of the Perkins program, just like Ted has done in the community of Rock Springs.

I'm pleased to have worked with the Members of the Committee and stakeholders on a bipartisan bill that will improve the Perkins Act to better meet the needs of students, workers, and business. The legislation I am introducing today, with my colleagues Senators Gregg, Kennedy, Alexander, Dodd, Jeffords, Bingaman, Murray, Sessions, Reed and Clinton, will help strengthen the Perkins program by improving accountability, involving businesses in career and technical education programs, emphasizing challenging academic instruction, and advancing the field of career and technical education by linking those programs to advances in industry.

This legislation would also encourage greater collaboration between state agencies responsible for education and workforce activities. This legislation requires state agencies to work together on identifying the needs of the workforce and designing curriculum to match those needs. It also emphasizes the needs of nontraditional students and other lifelong learners, who are returning to school for the first time, or those who are seeking additional skill training.

This legislation also continues to emphasize the need to introduce women and girls to high skill, high wage jobs. It is important that we help expand the vision of our students to ensure they consider all the options that are available to them, not just the ones that fit general, and sometimes erroneous, conceptions.

I hope our bipartisan efforts will continue to produce results as we move the bill through the Senate and into Conference. I do not wish to see another piece of bipartisan legislation lost in the legislative limbo of election year politics. An important step that the Senate must take is to appoint conferees to finish the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. That program offers the resources that are needed to help adequately prepare more than 900,000 unemployed workers find work each year. It passed the Senate unanimously, both in Committee and the floor. Conferees must now be appointed before the August recess. It we are going to help workers in this country, we must send this important legislation to Conference so that it will ultimately reach the President and be signed into law.

I cannot stress enough the importance of federal initiatives like the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act and the Workforce Investment Act to keep American workers and businesses competitive. The Perkins Act can help close the gap that threatens America's long-term competitiveness. It is essential that we take advantage of the opportunity we have during this reauthorization process to improve the link between education and relevant academic and skills preparation. By so doing, we will create a pathway to prosperity for American workers and businesses alike, that both will make good use of for years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2004. The Perkins Act is a central part of a combination of federal education and training programs that provide opportunities for lifelong learning to our workforce. The Perkins Act, together with the Workforce Investment Act, the Higher Education Act, and other federal education programs, provides the resources that are needed to help adequately prepare students of all ages for jobs in high-wage and high-skilled occupations. In this technology driven, global economy, everyone is a student who must adapt to the changing needs of their jobs and the workforce by continuing to pursue an education in their chosen field. In turn, Congress must ensure that education and training are connected to the needs of business, including small businesses, now and into the future as well.

It is my hope that this body will take the necessary action to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. The Act is an essential part of a combination of federal education and training programs that will strengthen our workforce and enable America to compete--and succeed--in the global economy.

At a hearing held on June 24, 2004, before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, members heard testimonies from leaders in career and technical training emphasizing the importance of constant training, retraining and upgrading of the skills today's jobs require. Many students leaving high school or college and entering the workforce find that they are unprepared for life because they lack the skills they need to succeed in the workforce. This country created over 1 million new jobs since January. That's great news. Unfortunately, the complaint heard from employers is that there are too few skilled workers to meet their needs. We have a strong interest in making sure this is corrected. The Perkins Act, along with the Higher Education and Workforce Investment Act would provide both strong academic and relevant job skill training to promote and sustain the long-term competitiveness of this country.

A unique aspect of the Perkins program that addresses the needs of the changing workforce is that it targets funds to both secondary and postsecondary schools. This unique aspect also provides a good platform from which we can better coordinate workforce preparation policy and training with an emphasis on lifelong learning. It is essential to facilitate a sequence of career or technical education courses that a student can complete before they even get to college, and that they can continue at the postsecondary level, whenever they decide to go on. Dr. Michael Rush, the Idaho Division of Professional-Technical Education, Boise, ID, Administrator, used the example of student Chelsie Lea Marier in his testimony to stress this point. He said Chelsie took professional-technical classes in welding, auto technology, mechanics and power technology at her home high school, Meridian High. As a high school senior, she enrolled in an automotive collision repair program at the Dehryl Dennis Technology Center. During this time, Chelsie took advanced placement academic classes and was President of her Skills-USA chapter. She is now enrolled in the auto body program at the College of Southern Idaho, and she intends to continue her education and become an auto collision forensics investigator. She is an excellent example of how linking academic and technical skills attainment can lead to success in the workforce.

In order to strengthen schools programs at both the secondary and postsecondary level that meet local workforce needs, provisions in the Perkins Act must include the participation of business, including small business. In my home state of Wyoming, a career and technical education instructor by the name of Ted Schroeder is doing a lot of what I've just described. He has met with the local Chamber of Commerce in Rock Springs, WY, to identify workforce needs and matched his programs with industry standards to meet those needs. When the local business community suggested they needed students with computerized accounting skills, he took on the task of designing curriculum to help his students acquire the skills the businesses had requested. His efforts are a good example of what

Perkins funds are intended to accomplish. It is my hope that we can increase the successes of the Perkins program, just like Ted has done in the community of Rock Springs.

I'm pleased to have worked with the Members of the Committee and stakeholders on a bipartisan bill that will improve the Perkins Act to better meet the needs of students, workers, and business. The legislation I am introducing today, with my colleagues Senators Gregg, Kennedy, Alexander, Dodd, Jeffords, Bingaman, Murray, Sessions, Reed and Clinton, will help strengthen the Perkins program by improving accountability, involving businesses in career and technical education programs, emphasizing challenging academic instruction, and advancing the field of career and technical education by linking those programs to advances in industry.

This legislation would also encourage greater collaboration between state agencies responsible for education and workforce activities. This legislation requires state agencies to work together on identifying the needs of the workforce and designing curriculum to match those needs. It also emphasizes the needs of nontraditional students and other lifelong learners, who are returning to school for the first time, or those who are seeking additional skill training.

This legislation also continues to emphasize the need to introduce women and girls to high skill, high wage jobs. It is important that we help expand the vision of our students to ensure they consider all the options that are available to them, not just the ones that fit general, and sometimes erroneous, conceptions.

I hope our bipartisan efforts will continue to produce results as we move the bill through the Senate and into Conference. I do not wish to see another piece of bipartisan legislation lost in the legislative limbo of election year politics. An important step that the Senate must take is to appoint conferees to finish the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. That program offers the resources that are needed to help adequately prepare more than 900,000 unemployed workers find work each year. It passed the Senate unanimously, both in Committee and the floor. Conferees must now be appointed before the August recess. It we are going to help workers in this country, we must send this important legislation to Conference so that it will ultimately reach the President and be signed into law.

I cannot stress enough the importance of federal initiatives like the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act and the Workforce Investment Act to keep American workers and businesses competitive. The Perkins Act can help close the gap that threatens America's long-term competitiveness. It is essential that we take advantage of the opportunity we have during this reauthorization process to improve the link between education and relevant academic and skills preparation. By so doing, we will create a pathway to prosperity for American workers and businesses alike, that both will make good use of for years to come.

Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk which are due for a second reading. I ask unanimous consent that the bills be given a second reading en bloc, and then in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings on the measures en bloc at this time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar Nos. 596, 597, and 598, en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4380, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Indian Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2277, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, July 20.

I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period for the transaction of morning business for statements only for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee, and the final 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; provided that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 603, the nomination of William Myers III; provided further that the time until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided for debate only between the chairman and the ranking member or their designees. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party luncheons; provided that at 2:15 p.m. the Senate proceed to the cloture vote on the nomination, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. President, tomorrow, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of William Myers III to be a U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Ninth Circuit. Under the previous order, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination at 2:15 p.m.

Over the next several days, it is the leader's intention to move forward with several important issues. We need to complete action with respect to the Department of Defense appropriations conference report and the conference report to accompany the Tax Relief, Simplification, and Equity Act. The House is expected to act on these items this week, and it is the leader's intention to bring them before the Senate. In addition, the Senate may act on the Morocco free trade bill and any appropriations bills which can be dispensed with in a timely manner. Therefore, Senators are encouraged to expect a busy week with rollcall votes throughout.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I thank the Democratic whip for being here and I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, I cannot support this amendment that would place the regulation of tobacco products under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration.

The question is not whether the Federal Government should regulate tobacco products. It should and it does already, through a variety of agencies. The regulations are based on a variety of laws that Congress has passed over the past few decades.

We have Federal laws to require health warnings on all packaging and in all print and outdoor advertisements. We have prohibited the advertisement of tobacco products on television and radio. We require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to us every 3 years on research findings about tobacco and addiction.

We also require States to prohibit the sale of tobacco products to anyone under age 18. States that do not comply with this requirement risk the loss of Federal block grant funding.

The question again is not whether Federal regulation of tobacco products is appropriate. It is whether the FDA should be responsible for a broad new regulatory scheme that would cover everything from the manufacture of smokeless tobacco to the sale of cigarettes at the corner store.

At a time when the FDA's challenges have never been greater or more significant, the last thing we need is to give the FDA a huge task that will draw attention and focus away from its already considerable responsibilities.

The FDA is already overworked and underfunded. We ask the FDA to be responsible for so many things: ensuring that new drugs and medical devices are safe and effective, safeguarding the Nation's blood supply, regulating the manufacture and distribution of food additives and drugs that will be given to animals, and increasing the security of our food supply. Consumer and industry groups regularly complain that the FDA's budget is inadequate and its mandate is too broad to enable the agency to manage its current workload.

Yet here we are, proposing to give the FDA another huge responsibility, for which it will have to create another huge bureaucracy within its already sprawling structure. Now, more than ever, our families and children need to know that the FDA can meet its current obligations.

I recognize that a number of important voices in the public health community are calling for FDA regulation of tobacco products, but I fail to understand why regulation by this particular agency is so critical.

Those who support FDA regulation of tobacco say that they are not interested in banning cigarettes or other tobacco products. This makes no sense to me. With everything we know about the dangers of tobacco use, how would the FDA arrive at any other conclusion but to ban tobacco products?

One of the purposes of the bill would ``vest the FDA with the authority to regulate the levels of tar, nicotine, and other harmful components of tobacco products.'' Well, we know that nicotine is an addictive drug and by itself may cause health problems. And we also know that tar and other chemicals in tobacco products are very harmful to our health.

How would the FDA remain true to its mission without requiring manufacturers of tobacco products to reduce the level of nicotine to zero? Reducing the level of the addictive drug in tobacco products would effectively result in a ban of tobacco products--after all, how would a smoker get their ``nicotine high'' from a nicotine-free product?

Having said that, I believe an outright ban on tobacco products is impractical. If I thought that banning cigarettes would stop people from smoking, I would say let's pass a law and make it so. Banning cigarettes will not stop people from smoking, though, just like prohibition failed to stop people from drinking.

So if we are not going to ban tobacco products, then what is the point of FDA regulation of tobacco? We already have the necessary tools to address the other concerns that some use to justify giving the FDA this new power.

For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has broad authority to prevent false or misleading claims for consumer products, and Congress has given the FTC the explicit authority to oversee the labeling and advertising of tobacco products.

For health or safety claims in advertising, the FTC generally requires a high level of substantiation, including competent and reliable scientific evidence. The record shows that the FTC has not hesitated to exercise its enforcement authority to prevent or correct false or misleading tobacco product advertising, including express or implied claims about exposure and other health-related issues.

So, if a cigarette manufacturer were to promote a ``reduced-risk'' product

with misleading advertising or unsubstantiated claims, I am confident that the FTC would take decisive action against them. In fact, researchers supported by the National Institutes of Health are already studying ``reduced-risk'' products with a skeptical eye, providing the type of independent scientific review that goes well beyond anything the FDA customarily produces on its own. This suggests to me that manufacturers of ``reduced-risk'' products are not going to be able to count on the Government's silence in response to any advertising claims they may make.

I would rather have the FTC continue its vigorous enforcement against dangerous or deceptive advertising claims rather than set up a regulatory scenario under which the FDA puts its ``stamp of approval'' on a reduced-risk cigarette. Most Americans see the FDA as the protector of the public health, yet everyone agrees that smoking kills, and that there is no such thing as a ``safe'' cigarette. The FDA would send a mixed and confusing message if it were suddenly to begin approving tobacco products that would still kill the user, just at a slower pace.

Another argument for FDA regulation of tobacco products is that we need to involve the FDA if we are going to crack down on illegal sales of tobacco products to children. Right now, this job belongs to State and local governments, and I believe it should stay that way.

Every State has laws against selling tobacco to people under the age of 18, so the issue is enforcing these laws, not creating new ones. And these current laws are working. The number of kids who have purchased tobacco in retail stores has dropped by 50 percent since the implementation of the Federal Synar amendment in the late 1990s.

Working together with States, communities and retailers, we already are making great strides in preventing kids from purchasing tobacco. Our current efforts are working, so it makes no sense to change horses in mid-stream and bring the FDA into every convenience store across America.

To reduce underage access to tobacco, we ought to build upon the successes of the Synar amendment. This Congress is due to reauthorize the agency that oversees the implementation of the Synar amendment. This gives us the perfect opportunity to consider how the Synar amendment is working and what we could do to make it even more effective.

Combining greater education with tougher enforcement is the answer to tobacco prevention. The States that take the most comprehensive approaches to tobacco prevention, particularly those that work closely with local programs and coalitions, have achieved some of the best records, in preventing the initiation of tobacco use by kids.

We should hold these States out as models for others, instead of inserting a new Federal bureaucracy into the equation. Our Federal efforts should support our communities by providing tools and information for adults on the dangers of tobacco use, teaching our kids about these dangers so that they don't start using tobacco, and on enforcing the laws we already have on the books. But our local communities and states should take the lead.

Stopping kids from smoking will require continuing collaboration between State governments, local governments, community organizations, academic institutions, and Federal agencies like the FTC and the Department of Health and Human Services. And this partnership is working. It has successfully reduced the prevalence of smoking in the United States by 22 percent from 1990 to 2002. It also has reduced the prevalence of smoking by high schoolers by 22 percent from 1997 to 2001.

These numbers show that we are making progress. Let's not mess with success. Let's stick with what is working.

I am no fan of tobacco, but I am going to vote against giving a huge new responsibility to the already overburdened FDA. Giving tobacco regulation to the FDA will not stop adults from smoking, and I doubt whether the FDA would to any better at keeping cigarettes out of the hands of kids than our States and communities are doing.

I reject the notion that the way to show you're ``for kids'' and ``against big tobacco'' is by voting for the creation of a new and unnecessary bureaucracy that would operate under a mandate that is simultaneously too broad and too vague.

This vote is not a choice between kids and big tobacco. This vote is about the best way for the Federal Government to continue regulating tobacco products.

I will oppose this amendment because I believe the best role for the Federal Government in tobacco prevention is to focus on education and enforcement. We already have the laws and regulations in place. Let's use them to the fullest before we create new ones.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about patient safety.

There is bipartisan legislation pending in the Senate that is absolutely critical to reducing healthcare errors and increasing healthcare quality. It is S. 720, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act.

The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee reported this bill to the floor in November of last year. It was approved in the committee by a unanimous voice vote, and it is past time for the Senate to vote on and pass this important legislation.

This patient safety legislation is an important step toward building a culture of safety and quality in health care.

The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act would create a framework through which hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers can work to improve health care quality in a protected legal environment. The bill would grant privilege and confidentiality protections to health care providers to allow them to report health care errors and ``near misses'' to patient safety organizations. The bill also would allow these patient safety organizations to collect and analyze the data confidentially.

After analyzing the data, patient safety organizations would report on trends in healthcare errors and offer guidance to providers on how to eliminate or minimize these errors. Some of this takes place today, but much more

information could be collected and analyzed if providers felt confident that reporting these errors did not increase the likelihood that they or their colleagues would be sued for honest mistakes.

This legislation would not permit anyone to hide information about a medical mistake. Under the bill, lawyers could still access medical records and other information that would normally be discoverable in a legal proceeding. However, the bill would ensure that the analysis of that information by patient safety organizations would take place on a separate track in a protected legal environment.

Healthcare providers will be much more likely to share information about honest mistakes and how to prevent them if they have some assurance that the analysis of their information won't result in a tidy package of information that a personal injury lawyer could use against them in court.

Errors in medical treatment take place far too often today. Unfortunately, providers live in fear of our unpredictable and unfair medical litigation system, and this legal fear inhibits efforts to address the root causes of health care errors. Without appropriate protections for the collection and analysis of patient safety data, providers are unwilling to report mistakes and errors, which is one of the reasons that health care quality today is not what it could be.

Litigation does nothing to improve quality or safety. The constant threat of litigation instead stifles honest analysis of why health errors happen. This is just one more reason why we need wholesale reform of our medical litigation system. We need to foster alternatives that restore trust between patients and providers and result in fair and reliable outcomes for both parties. We need to scrap the current system, not just cap it.

But until we do so, we should take whatever steps we can to create an environment that protects the collection and analysis of patient safety data so that providers can learn from their mistakes and prevent them from happening in the future.

The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act is one of these steps. Yesterday, our committee chairman, Senator Gregg, asked for unanimous consent that we move to consideration of this legislation on the Senate floor. This is the third time he has done so. Each time, he has been blocked by our colleagues in the minority, even though the committee of jurisdiction was unanimous in its support for the bill.

My colleagues in the minority keep talking about problems with healthcare quality--just like they keep talking about the loss of American jobs. However, talk is cheap when their actions don't match up to their words. If they are really so concerned about improving healthcare in our Nation, why would they object to a bill that would reduce errors and improve patient safety, particularly a bipartisan bill with unanimous committee support? If they are really so concerned about American workers and jobs, why won't they let a bill improving the Nation's job-training system go to conference?

This is another example of what is happening--or not happening here in the Senate. We have a bill--a bipartisan bill--that will help workers get back to work or find better jobs. This bill will equip our workforce with the skills necessary for America to compete--and succeed--in the global economy. It reauthorizes and improves the Nation's job training and employment system created under the Workforce Investment Act.

The Workforce Investment Act provides job training and employment services to more than 900,000 unemployed workers each year. Just like the patient safety legislation, this bipartisan bill passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously. We passed it on the Senate floor by unanimous consent last November. That is as bipartisan as you can possibly get.

Where is the bill now? We can't get a conference committee appointed to resolve differences with the House. If we really want to take care of jobs and workers in this country, we should appoint conferees for the Workforce Investment Act legislation. I can only conclude that my Colleagues on the other side of the aisle are more concerned with election year politics than helping American workers, or improving patient safety.

There are differences between Republicans and Democrats on most of the big issues facing our Nation. If my colleagues in the minority want to bottle up legislation with which they disagree, that is their prerogative. But that is not what I am talking about.

What we have here are a few members of the minority party holding up bipartisan bills that receive unanimous approval in committee, and holding up conferences on bills that receive unanimous support on the Senate floor.

The only logical conclusion I can make is that these roadblocks are based on politics, not policy, and that is a shame.

Right now, the Senate floor reminds me of the airspace above a busy airport. We have got a number of bipartisan bills lined up for their final approach, but our colleagues in the minority are holding these bills up and won't allow them to land. The tactics of my colleagues in the minority give new meaning to the term ``holding pattern.''

It is time for our Democrat colleagues to break this holding pattern so that we can pass these bipartisan bills like the Patient Safety Act and the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. These are not only bipartisan bills, but they received unanimous committee support.

Let us set election politics aside for a moment. These are bipartisan bills, so no one party can claim credit for their passage. The Patient Safety Act was introduced by the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, who is the lone independent in the Senate. So this bill is more than bipartisan.

My distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, suggested yesterday that we should just approve the House-passed patient safety bill. He suggested that he should just take up the House bill, rather than pass the Senate bill, because the Members of the House are the true experts on complex legislation like this.

I wonder if my colleague's opinion would be the same on medical liability reform. After all, the expert legislators in the House have sent us some excellent legislation to reform our medical litigation system. Perhaps we should stop working on this in the Senate and just approve the House-passed bill.

Or perhaps we could take up the House-passed bill on the Workforce Investment Act. I know my Democrat colleagues with whom I have worked to craft a Senate version are confident that our version is the superior one, but if Senator Reid believes that the Members of the House are superior legislators, perhaps he could convince my Democrat coauthors that we ought to just take up the House bill and pass it. Or, as I have suggested, why don't we just agree to go to conference with the House and come up with the best possible bill we can, one that reflects the expertise of Members of both the Senate and the House?

I hope our colleagues in the minority will agree to take 2 hours of their time to debate and vote on the bipartisan Patient Safety Act. Two hours is not a lot of time, and it is the least we can do on such an important piece of legislation. We have spent hours upon hours working on this bill in committee and crafting a bill that received unanimous bipartisan support. Let us spend 2 more hours on the Patient Safety Act so that we improve the quality and safety of healthcare in America.

Mr. President, when the Supreme Court in Massachusetts issued its ruling on marriage it did what no court ought to do. It set itself apart from and above the State and Federal legislatures, and went so far as to order the Massachusetts Legislature to produce a remedy in a time period it knew was unworkable and unfair. Even if the legislature is able to draft a change in the law that is acceptable to the court it will be impossible to bring the issue before the voters to obtain their consent and approval of the legislature's intrusion on the important tradition of marriage.

Regardless of what we may believe about the institution of marriage, the process of amending the Constitution, or the rights of same-sex couples to marry, there is no question that this is not what the Founding Fathers intended when they originally drafted the Constitution and established the principles of separation of powers and the right of the governed to have a voice in the laws that are written to govern them. The amendment we have before us is an attempt to remedy that situation and provide guidance and direction from the people of the States to the courts on this matter.

As we begin our consideration of this issue, we cannot help but frame the argument in terms of our own experience of marriage and our memories of the marriage of our own mother and father.

I was fortunate to have a pair of remarkable parents who worked hard and did everything they could to raise their family with a strong awareness of the principles and values of the time. One of those principles was undoubtedly the bonds that tied them together as man and wife. I know I am not the only one with such memories of growing up, or later, repeating much of the same modeling when we had families of our own. Now, as a grandfather, I am watching the traditions repeat themselves as my son and his wife raise the next generation of our family.

Simply put, that is what this legislation means to me--providing the generations to come with the same kind of advantages I had in my own life. It is not about denying rights to any group--it is about ensuring marriage, and its importance in our society continues to be encouraged and promoted.

As I have listened to the debate, I have heard it said that this is an issue that the States, not Congress, ought to be deciding. I could not agree more that the States need to be heard on this issue. That is why we are pursuing the remedy of a constitutional amendment in this matter. Even if we were to pass this legislation, however, it would still require the consent of three-fourths of the States.

In other words, the debate we begin here will be finished by the States. That way we will ensure that such a radical departure from our traditions and the norm of the institution of marriage will not be changed by the ruling of a court, but by the will of the people who will make their will known through their State legislatures.

One argument that has been raised in opposition to the legislation before us has to do with the rights of same-sex unions as defined by those States that have established civil unions. This bill will do nothing to change or alter that process. The States can continue to establish these programs as determined by the will of the people of the States that produce them.

This line of reasoning tries to obscure the point that a marriage is quite different from a civil union. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in a partnership aimed at producing children and nurturing their growth and development. It is not about social acceptance, or about economic benefits, or an exercise in civil rights, as some would try to lead us to believe. A civil union, on the other hand, is a legal agreement that establishes a partnership between two people of the same sex to ensure their rights as ``partners'' are preserved in the eyes of the law. A civil union is concerned with matters like the right to an inheritance, retirement, death benefits, health insurance and the like. Marriage is concerned with matters involving the birth and raising of children. That is the main difference between the two. Simply put, life comes from the marriage of a man and a woman. No life can come from a civil union.

Society clearly has an interest in promoting and encouraging marriage

and the life it produces because it is the cornerstone upon which all our institutions are based. The family is also the main building block that helps form the very structure of our society. If all politics is local, you cannot get any more local than protecting and preserving the institution of marriage and the family unit it creates. The family is the basic unit from which neighborhoods are developed and strong communities are created. That is why society must continue to promote marriage and to afford it all the protections it can. Again, marriage is more than just a bond between a man and a woman, it is the basis from which life is created and children become a part of our world.

I have often heard it said that if we do not do a good job of raising our children, nothing else we accomplish during our lives will matter very much. Studies have shown that a child is better prepared for life if that child is raised in a loving, caring environment, with a father and a mother. The bonds that are formed, and the lessons learned about life from mom and dad help a child to understand his or her role in the world. It also helps a child begin to develop relationships with members of the opposite sex. A mother and father serve as role models for a child that help children understand their own role in the world as it shapes their relationships with their peers as they grow up and become adults.

Some may try to respond to those points by promoting the cause of same-sex parents. That argument tries to change the subject because that is not what this legislation is about. It is about protecting the definition of marriage as it was developed and handed down to us for more generations than any of us could count.

If we abandon marriage, we abandon the family. And when we convert marriage into a civil right for the sole purpose of indulging a perceived ``protected sphere of individual sexual autonomy,'' as some courts have tried to do, we abandon hope, not just for ourselves, but especially for future generations. If we lose our connection across the generations that have held marriage dear for so long and, as a result, the hearts of fathers and mothers are no longer turned to their children, and the hearts of children are no longer turned to their fathers and mothers, we will have suffered a great and terrible loss, indeed.

It was just over 10 months ago that I came to the Senate floor to announce the birth of my latest hope for the future, my grandson Trey. I shared my dream of his future and welcomed him into this world of promise and hope and love.

A number of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, came to me after that speech and shared with me their own hopes for the future as seen in the pictures of their grandchildren. My conclusion from those conversations is that all moms and dads, grampas and grammas know what it means to have that connection--the ties that bind each generation of each family together.

From where did that connection come? It was taught to us as we learned about families from our own parents and grandparents who took us under their wing and taught us what it means to be a part of a family. Simply put, they led the best way, by example, and what they taught us continues to guide us and direct us today. As I look back on those days I can see that I was their hope for the future, and they were willing to sacrifice today so that I might have a better tomorrow. It would be a tragedy for the courts to take that same opportunity away from me and my grandchildren.

The legislation we are considering today has one goal in mind--to protect the definition of marriage as it was developed and handed down to us from generation to generation. The enactment of this amendment will ensure that we pass that gift on to our children and our children's children, just as we received it.

I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 3 minutes for a total of 5 minutes.

Mr. President, today I join with my friend and colleague from the State of Colorado to introduce the Bison Nickel Restoration Act of 2004 to bring the image of the American bison back to the 5-cent coin.

The American bison is one of the most powerful symbols of the American West. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark encountered many bison on their western expedition. Native Americans in the Great Plains States have held the American bison as one of the most sacred animals, as it represents a spiritual being supplying everything necessary to survive. The bison also is an enduring symbol of the growth of the United States westward. The symbol of the bison is so powerful that the State of Wyoming has put its image on the State flag and the U.S. Department of the Interior uses the bison image on its official seal.

Many don't realize how close we came to losing this important animal. At one time, the American bison population was conservatively estimated at 60,000,000 strong. In the early 1900's, the worldwide bison population fell below 1000 and was virtually extinct. At that time, less than 100 free-range bison existed and there remained only 29 bison under Federal Government control, 21 in Yellowstone National Park and eight in the National Zoo in Washington, DC.

However, the restoration of the bison herds is one of the most shining examples of conservation efforts of our Nation's history. From the dwindling number of bison in the early 1900's, it is anticipated that the North American bison herd will surpass half of a million in the next year. In addition, the bison herd of 21 in Yellowstone National Park has now grown to more than 4,000 bison. It is the largest free-range bison herd in the United States.

The conservation effort of the bison began in the early 1900's. At that time, the American Bison Society was formed with President Teddy Roosevelt as its honorary president. Soon, we will be celebrating the centennial anniversary in 2008 of the signing into law by President Roosevelt of the creation of the National Bison Range. While Federal efforts to restore the bison have been beyond our expectations, a very large part of the successful restoration of the bison herd is due to the private sector. Today, bison can be found in all 50 States, including Hawaii. Many anticipate that the bison population may pass 1 million by the end of the decade.

Today, the bison ranching sector has become a viable business for many small- and medium-sized ranchers. According to a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture census, Wyoming ranches raised 12,580 bison for agricultural purposes during 2002. Restoring the bison to our coinage is a fitting tribute, especially during this July, which is National Bison Month.

A fitting honor for the American bison would be to restore the image on the back of the nickel. This not only would honor the restoration of the bison herd but it would be a symbol of the West. It is my hope that the millions of bison nickels would inspire school children to recognize the importance of our western heritage, the importance of the bison in Native American culture, and the importance of the public/ private efforts to restore the American bison. While our Nation's symbol is the bald eagle, there is little doubt that the symbol of the west is the American bison.

The Bison Nickel Restoration Act of 2004 would restore the American 5-Cent Coin Design Continuity Act of 2003 to its original three-year time frame. Due to the late passage of this law, the U.S. Mint was unable to mint newly designed nickels for 2003. In addition, our bill would require that one of the new images on the reverse of the nickel be of an American bison. I can think of no more fitting tribute to the restoration of the American bison herd than to restore the image of the bison on the back of the nickel.

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

Mr. President, today I join with my friend and colleague from the State of Colorado to introduce the Bison Nickel Restoration Act of 2004 to bring the image of the American bison back to the 5-cent coin.

The American bison is one of the most powerful symbols of the American West. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark encountered many bison on their western expedition. Native Americans in the Great Plains States have held the American bison as one of the most sacred animals, as it represents a spiritual being supplying everything necessary to survive. The bison also is an enduring symbol of the growth of the United States westward. The symbol of the bison is so powerful that the State of Wyoming has put its image on the State flag and the U.S. Department of the Interior uses the bison image on its official seal.

Many don't realize how close we came to losing this important animal. At one time, the American bison population was conservatively estimated at 60,000,000 strong. In the early 1900's, the worldwide bison population fell below 1000 and was virtually extinct. At that time, less than 100 free-range bison existed and there remained only 29 bison under Federal Government control, 21 in Yellowstone National Park and eight in the National Zoo in Washington, DC.

However, the restoration of the bison herds is one of the most shining examples of conservation efforts of our Nation's history. From the dwindling number of bison in the early 1900's, it is anticipated that the North American bison herd will surpass half of a million in the next year. In addition, the bison herd of 21 in Yellowstone National Park has now grown to more than 4,000 bison. It is the largest free-range bison herd in the United States.

The conservation effort of the bison began in the early 1900's. At that time, the American Bison Society was formed with President Teddy Roosevelt as its honorary president. Soon, we will be celebrating the centennial anniversary in 2008 of the signing into law by President Roosevelt of the creation of the National Bison Range. While Federal efforts to restore the bison have been beyond our expectations, a very large part of the successful restoration of the bison herd is due to the private sector. Today, bison can be found in all 50 States, including Hawaii. Many anticipate that the bison population may pass 1 million by the end of the decade.

Today, the bison ranching sector has become a viable business for many small- and medium-sized ranchers. According to a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture census, Wyoming ranches raised 12,580 bison for agricultural purposes during 2002. Restoring the bison to our coinage is a fitting tribute, especially during this July, which is National Bison Month.

A fitting honor for the American bison would be to restore the image on the back of the nickel. This not only would honor the restoration of the bison herd but it would be a symbol of the West. It is my hope that the millions of bison nickels would inspire school children to recognize the importance of our western heritage, the importance of the bison in Native American culture, and the importance of the public/ private efforts to restore the American bison. While our Nation's symbol is the bald eagle, there is little doubt that the symbol of the west is the American bison.

The Bison Nickel Restoration Act of 2004 would restore the American 5-Cent Coin Design Continuity Act of 2003 to its original three-year time frame. Due to the late passage of this law, the U.S. Mint was unable to mint newly designed nickels for 2003. In addition, our bill would require that one of the new images on the reverse of the nickel be of an American bison. I can think of no more fitting tribute to the restoration of the American bison herd than to restore the image of the bison on the back of the nickel.

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