Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have to respond to the outrageous charges made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle regarding the Medicare statement I delivered yesterday.

I was disturbed by several remarks, especially that seniors have flatly rejected the Medicare prescription drug benefit. How is that even possible when the drug benefit doesn't even go into effect until January 1, 2006?

How is that possible when many Medicare beneficiaries are participating in the Medicare Drug Discount Card and have seen savings in their drug costs up to 20 percent per drug? I do not see that as an outright rejection at all.

My colleagues need to be careful about their charges, especially when they do not have the facts to back them up. I also take issue with my colleague's assertion that our prescription drug law is only a drug law in name. What does he mean by that?

Let me remind the Senator from Illinois that because of this new Medicare prescription drug law, 40 million Medicare beneficiaries will have drug coverage if they want it. The bill provides generous subsidies to low-income Medicare beneficiaries who, today, cannot afford to purchase drugs.

Prior to enactment of the Medicare Modernization Act, these beneficiaries had to make tough choices between buying their prescription drugs and putting gas in their cars. Or buying prescription drugs or putting food on the table. Or buying prescription drugs or paying their rent. Once the Medicare prescription drug plan goes into effect on January 1, 2006, those Medicare beneficiaries will no longer have to worry. And another point that needs to be raised regarding this matter--if there were any proposals that deserve to be recognized as offering a drug benefit in name only, it's the two Democratic plans of two years ago--plans supported by 50 and 45 Democrats respectively, including the Democratic Leader and Senator Kerry.

My colleague, Senator Grassley, described those plans a few days ago, but let me take a few minutes to recap. The first Democratic plan had a drug benefit that lasted just six years. Talk about offering a drug benefit in name only.

The second plan didn't even offer a benefit to the vast majority of beneficiaries. Seventy percent of beneficiaries would not have received any basic coverage. A plan that shuts out the vast majority of beneficiaries--how can you call that a drug benefit? Guess what those 70 percent got.

You are not going to believe this--a five percent discount on their drugs. Once they spent $3,300 out of pocket, they could qualify for catastrophic coverage.

Some have taken issue with the MMA, saying that the ``benefit'' stops after an initial coverage amount. I would like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that their basic benefit would have never even started for 70 percent of beneficiaries! Talk about a doughnut hole; these beneficiaries didn't even get a doughnut!

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 66 percent of beneficiaries wouldn't meet the $3,330 threshold--again, for these folks, the only help they would get was a five percent discount! A five percent discount!

I was also extremely disappointed by the arguments made by the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from California against what some have termed the ``non-interference'' provision. As I outlined, this provision has been included in the most prominent Democrat initiatives, starting with the Clintons' Health Security Act over a decade ago. Despite that fact, here we are again listening to arguments against it. Apparently, what was good in a Democratic administration is bad in a Republican one.

And what was good in a Democratic Senate is bad in a Republican Senate during an election year. It is almost as if my colleagues were not listening to what I said. The argument that there is no authority for the federal government to bargain with the pharmaceutical companies is getting to be a tired argument. Again, let me repeat myself from yesterday.

First, the Democrat-sponsored bill from 2000, introduced by Senator Tom Daschle and supported and cosponsored by 33 Senate Democrats, had a specific provision which stated the following:

In administering the prescription drug benefit program

established under this part, the Secretary may not (1)

require a particular formulary or institute a price structure

for benefits; (2) interfere in any way with negotiations

between private entities and drug manufacturers, or

wholesalers; or (3) otherwise interfere with the competitive

nature of providing a prescription drug benefit through

private entities.

Again, this provision is from S. 2541, the Medicare Expansion for Needed Drugs, a bill that was introduced by Senator Daschle and cosponsored by 33 Democrats, including not only Senator Kerry but also Senator Durbin and Senator Boxer who spoke against it on the floor yesterday.

Now, it is every Senator's right to change his or her mind, but you would think we would hear some discussion about the basis for this flip-flop. Instead, there is much dialogue about the so-called ``evil'' pharmaceutical companies, and virtually no admission that many Democrats, many prominent Democrats, have been on record in favor of the provision they now castigate.

And what is even more outrageous is the fact that they are the ones who first came up with the concept.

When I hear my colleague from California talk about how the Medicare drug law does not do much for seniors, let me just remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that she is sadly mistaken.

On the contrary, the Medicare prescription law improves health care coverage for Medicare beneficiaries by first, giving them the option to have prescription drug coverage, something that they do not have today and something Medicare beneficiaries have wanted for close to 40 years!

In addition, the MMA provides beneficiaries new preventive health benefits including a first-time, Welcome to Medicare Physical Examination, cardiovascular and diabetes screening and improved payments for mammography.

It also provided rural health care providers with increased reimbursement so they may continue to provide Medicare beneficiaries living in rural areas with quality health care. I don't know about California or Illinois, but that is most welcome in Utah!

It also provides beneficiaries with a choice in coverage. Seniors will be able to choose the drug benefit that best suits their needs, rather than be forced in a one-size fits all government plan which is what many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support.

Another important provision in the bill helps all Americans by offering them Heath Savings Accounts, HSAs. HSAs are tax-advantaged savings accounts which may be used to pay for medical benefits. The inclusion of these new accounts is a significant part of the Medicare law.

Allowing individuals to take charge of their own savings for future health care expenses is an important and necessary change in the direction of our health care policy, and is one that I support strongly.

Another point raised by my colleague from California is the doughnut hole. I think she called the doughnut hole a ``benefit shutdown.'' I agree that the MMA law is not perfect and, yes, this is an area I wish we could have improved upon. But calling it a ``benefit shutdown'' is not only wrong, it is deceptive.

The reason it is wrong to call the doughnut hole a ``benefit shutdown'' is that it would not affect the majority of seniors, and since our first responsibility is to take care of the very poor beneficiaries, that is entirely fitting. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office told us that only one-quarter of Medicare beneficiaries will have spending that actually reaches the non-coverage window of the doughnut hole.

Finally, let me remind my colleague from California that the Medicare prescription drug amendment the Democrats brought to the floor in 2002 sunsetted the Medicare prescription drug program. My good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was talking about this irony the other day on the floor.

Let me recap what Senator Grassley said.

When we were considering the Medicare Tripartisan bill on the Senate floor on 2002, the first Graham-Kennedy Medicare proposal was not permanent. Let me read the language from their proposal:

``No obligations shall be incurred, no amounts shall be appropriated and no amounts expended, for the expenses incurred for providing coverage of outpatient drugs after December 31, 2010.''

Isn't that just remarkable? And they are calling the MMA a drug plan in name only? Who are they trying to kid?

The fact that the Graham-Kennedy proposal offered a drug benefit that ended 6 years after it started is unbelievable. But they sunsetted the benefit to hide the true cost of their proposal.

At the time, the Congressional Budget Office said it would cost over $100 billion each year to extend the Graham-Kennedy drug benefit past the sunset--$100 billion a year without a plan to pay for this enormous cost!

And the argument made about the MMA not going into effect until after the election is just more election year political jabber. That is a ridiculous charge, one that does not even warrant a response. But I will respond to it by saying that it takes time to put together a benefit that will cover over 40 million Americans.

It takes time to do it correctly. The agency in charge of the Medicare program needs time to implement the MMA regulations, accept bids from plans that wish to participate in the Medicare Advantage programs and, most important, it takes time to educate Medicare beneficiaries about the options that will be offered to them.

And let me remind all of you that even the Democrat proposals that have been considered in the past did not have the Medicare prescription drug programs go into effect immediately, so that is just a ludicrous charge.

In addition, I will remind my colleagues that both the Democratic plans under consideration in the summer of 2002 didn't go into effect until 2005 because they recognized the same thing we did--that it will take some time to get a new program like this up and running.

And so, there's no subterfuge behind the 2006 date in the MMA. Moreover, at least the MMA offers immediate assistance through the drug card program. Their plans offered nothing until 2005 and then very little after that!

I would also like to respond to my colleague from California's comments about the Veterans Administration system and the deficiencies of which I described this yesterday morning. If she's surprised at the Republicans for not using the VA model, then my only guess is that she's even more surprised that her own party didn't.

No--they wanted to have private plans negotiate with drug companies-- the same approach taken in the MMA. The VA system was not a model for any Medicare prescription drug plans considered on the Senate floor.

Finally, let me address the idea of importing cheap drugs from Canada.

First, nobody has a greater desire than I to make prescription drugs more affordable, particularly for our seniors and the disabled, who depend so heavily upon pharmaceuticals for their quality of life. I co- authored the 1984 bill which, in essence, brought generic drugs to the marketplace to become the force for competition and affordability that they are today.

My colleagues seem to forget that the MMA does include a provision to permit the importation of prescription drugs from Canada once a program is in place that is approved and certified for safety and cost by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The law also calls for the Secretary to establish a 13-member task force that will study proposals to make re-importation safe and cost effective.

HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson has stated he is hopeful the panel's study will be completed by the end of this year. We shouldn't overlook the fact that the FDA has documented many cases of what appeared to be FDA-approved imported drugs that in fact were contaminated or counterfeit, contained the wrong product or incorrect dose, were accompanied by inadequate directions, or had outlived their expiration date.

These drugs would be at a minimum ineffective, and could actually be harmful or fatal.

The FDA is also concerned with the safety of allowing companies which are not licensed by states to practice pharmacy to sell prescription drugs without any limitation on the amount or frequency of drug imports permitted for individuals.

In addition, reimportation legislation as it is written would allow risky drugs that are currently available in the U.S. only under strict safety controls to reimported at any amount or frequency to anyone-- even those who are at high risk to be seriously injured by the medication.

The FDA underscored these concerns in the Judiciary Committee's hearing on drug importation last July. The agency stressed that opening our tightly regulated, closed system of prescription drug distribution will open the door to counterfeit and otherwise adulterated or misbranded drugs being widely distributed to an unwitting American public.

Mr. William K. Hubbard, the Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning for the FDA testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on this important matter. I would like to take this opportunity to read some of his testimony to my colleagues:

FDA remains concerned about the public health implications

of unapproved prescription drugs from entities seeking to

profit by getting around U.S. legal standards for drug safety

and effectiveness. Many drugs obtained from foreign sources

that either purport to be or appear to be the same as U.S.

approved prescription drugs are, in fact, of unknown quality.

Consumers are exposed to a number of potential risks when

they purchase drugs from foreign sources or from sources that

are not operated by pharmacies properly licensed under state

pharmacy laws.

Patients also are at greater risk because there is no

certainty about what they are getting when they purchase some

of these drugs. Although some purchasers of drugs from

foreign sources may receive genuine product, others may

unknowingly buy counterfeit copies that contain only inert

ingredients, legitimate drugs that are outdated and have been

diverted to unscrupulous resellers, or dangerous sub-potent

or super-potent products that were improperly manufactured.

Furthermore, in the case of foreign-based sources, if a

consumer has an adverse drug reaction or any other problem,

the consumer may have little or no recourse either because

the operator of the pharmacy often is not known, or the

physical location of the seller is unknown or beyond the

consumer's reach. FDA has only limited ability to take action

against these foreign operators.

These safety concerns are real, and I strongly believe that if we truly care about seniors and other patients who depend upon prescription drugs, we should not expose them to what currently amounts to pharmaceutical Russian roulette.

Now the FDA is working with some of my colleagues on legislation that would give the FDA greater resources, limit the scope of imports, and provide greater power to the FDA to police imports. In recent public comments, former Commissioner Mark McClellan has said these measures would give the agency the ability to assure the safety of prescription drugs imported by Canada.

In addition to these safety concerns, however, I am also concerned that reimported drugs pose a threat to the innovation Americans--and the rest of the world--have come to expect from our pharmaceutical industry. Canada and other countries with lower drug prices generally import superior American products, but impose price controls to keep costs down.

However, it can cost as much as $1 billion to produce a new drug, test it, win FDA approval, educate doctors, and make the drug available to patients. No pharmaceutical company could go through this immensely expensive process without a chance to recover some of its costs, which will not be possible if we impose in America--however indirectly-- Canadian-style price controls. I do not believe that sacrificing the safety and future supply of our drugs by reimportation is the right answer to the high cost of prescription drugs.

I hope that I have cleared up any misunderstandings that Medicare beneficiaries have about the MMA law. Again, we gain nothing by spreading mistruths about the Medicare bill.

The only thing that results from those types of charges is confusion of Medicare beneficiaries--the very people who all of us are trying to help. And that is regrettable.

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

I cannot make a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 1 hour and after that the quorum be reinstituted.

No, because I am not speaking on the bill.

That is fine.

Fine. Your request is fine.

Fine.

I thank the distinguished minority whip and, of course, my friend from Iowa for their courtesy. I have been wanting to give these Senate remarks as in morning business ever since yesterday.

Medicare Modernization Act

Mr. President, over the past few weeks several of our colleagues on the

other side of the aisle have given rousing statements on health care.

There is no question that health care is of paramount importance on American families. On that we can all agree.

I am sure it will come as no surprise that I disagree with a number of points my colleagues have raised. In fact, some of their allegations are just plain wrong, particularly with respect to the Medicare prescription drug law which I helped to negotiate.

I was a member of the tripartisan group that came up with a bill that I think would have been supported by the 20 Democrats at the time. I have been working on this ever since and was on the conference committee, sat in for days, weeks, and months on that conference committee to negotiate this bill.

It is mind-boggling some Senators seem willing to sacrifice the health and well-being of beneficiaries by spreading mistruths about the law. These mistruths could cause a beneficiary to forego learning more about provisions in the law that could really help, such as the Medicare-approved discount card program which study after study shows is delivering real savings, or the voluntary Part D benefits that begin in 2006.

This continued misinformation and set of damaging attacks are a tremendous disservice to Medicare beneficiaries. So I wanted to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

Opponents have characterized the Medicare law as a failure for beneficiaries. What poppycock. To me, we would have failed had we not passed the Medicare Modernization Act, had we not given beneficiaries what they need, meaningful prescription drug coverage and a stronger Medicare Program.

Let me highlight a few areas in which we need to set the record straight. The first is the cost estimates of the MMA. I will refer to this bill, the Medicare Modernization Act, from here on in as the MMA. That means the Medicare Modernization Act.

Let me talk about cost estimates. The central theme echoed by those who seek to discredit the new Medicare law is the allegation that the administration hid the true cost of the Medicare law from the Congress before the final vote.

This is simply political election year hyperbole.

The opponents of the drug benefit have made this claim because the complete and final cost estimate from the CMS Office of the Actuary was not finished before the vote took place.

Let's be clear, the administration's cost estimate was not withheld from Congress because there was not a final cost estimate from CMS to withhold. The CMS cost estimate was not even completed until December 23, 2003--long after the House and Senate vote, long after the bill was signed into law. So let's get rid of that argument right off the bat because it is a false, fallacious argument.

Rick Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services confirmed these facts to us earlier this year in a Finance Committee briefing and we all know that. Even after that briefing, however, some chose to continue this erroneous attack, perhaps because they did not take the time to attend the briefing. To me, this is but another indication of election year hyperbole.

Let me also be clear that we did have the official cost estimate on the Medicare bill before the vote. That estimate, as my colleagues are well aware, is the one from the Congressional Budget Office, not CMS. That is what binds us. That cost estimate, our official cost estimate, by the entity we rely on in Congress, was available to every Member of Congress before the measure was presented to either the House or the Senate.

No one should doubt that we had the true cost estimate for the prescription drug bill last year, and everyone in this body and the other body had access to it before the vote.

There also have been claims that the administration changes its cost estimate. Again, that is not the case. The President's mid-session review did update the estimates of Medicare outlays, but it did not change the estimate of the Medicare Modernization Act, the MMA.

In fact, Rick Foster, the CMS actuary, has said you simply cannot add the change in estimated outlays to the MMA estimate and declare you have a new estimate.

Apparently, Mr. Foster's words, the words of a trained actuary, don't matter to some of these so-called critics. If opponents of the Medicare bill value his opinion of cost estimates so highly, why do they ignore him now? That is amazing to me. They will quote part of what he said-- but ignore the other part of what he said. Mr. Foster has said that the MMA estimate has not changed; but despite that, opponents of the MMA have wrongly claimed that it did.

Again, it is just political hyperbole. We had--and have--the true cost estimates from CBO. Case closed. That is what we have to rely on in the Senate Finance Committee.

Now let me address the accusations that the bill prohibits Medicare from negotiations with drug companies. This is another one of the fallacious things that enemies of the bill have been spewing forth.

Those who make this charge imply, wrongly, that the price charged to beneficiaries is not subject to negotiation. That could not be further from the truth. The truth is, Medicare prescription drug plans will be negotiating with drug makers. These negotiations are the very heart of the new Medicare drug benefit.

The absurd claim that the Government will not be negotiating with drug makers comes from a non-interference clause in the Medicare law.

This noninterference clause does not prohibit Medicare from negotiating with drug makers. It prohibits CMS from interfering in those negotiations. That is a far cry from some of the fallacious statements that have been made on this floor.

Let me be clear, the non-interference clause is at the heart of the bill's structure for delivering prescription drug benefits. This clause ensures those savings will result from market competition, rather than through price fixing by the CMS bureaucracy. That is what was behind this. Let's not distort these provisions.

What is ironic about the minority charges on this provision--some in the minority; not all in the minority would agree with some of these fallacious charges--but what is ironic about these minority charges by some on this provision is that the same non-interference clause was in the Daschle-Kennedy-Rockefeller bill and the Gephardt-Dingell-Stark bills in the year 2000.

I hate to say this, but if my memory serves me correctly, these are leading Democrats in the Senate and in the House. They are not Republicans. It is the same provision that is being condemned by some in this body through hyperbole, political hyperbole. In fact, I want to read this to you:

In administering the prescription drug benefit program

established under this part, the Secretary may not--(1)

require a particular formulary or institute a price structure

for benefits; (2) interfere in any way with negotiations

between private entities and drug manufacturers, or

wholesalers; or (3) otherwise interfere with the competitive

nature of providing a prescription drug benefit through

private entities.

Now, what is the source of that language? It is from S. 2541, the Medicare Expansion for Needed Drugs, or MEND, Act, introduced in 2000 by Senator Daschle and cosponsored by 33 Democrats, including Senator Kerry. Think about it, some of the very people who are criticizing the MMA, that passed overwhelmingly in both Houses of Congress.

I find it curious that this approach, which is mislabeled as ``preventing Medicare from negotiating,'' was fine in the year 2000 when the Democrats were putting forth a bill, but not fine when enacted into law by a Republican President and a Republican Congress in 2003.

I must remind my colleagues that Senator Daschle, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, once said:

Our plan gives seniors the bargaining power that comes with

numbers. . . . Our plan mirrors the best practices used in

the private sector. For beneficiaries in traditional

Medicare, prescription drug coverage would be delivered by

private entities that negotiate prices with drug

manufacturers. This is the same mechanism used by private

insurers.

Think about that. I think those who advance these arguments that you cannot have competitive work with regard to drug pricing ought to be ashamed of

themselves and ought to quit playing politics with a bill that is so important for senior citizens all over this country.

A related charge I heard one minority Senator make was that this so- called non-interference language contributed to next year's Part B premium increase. Again, this is plain wrong.

The Part B premium reflects the costs of Part B benefits. These include physician services and other outpatient services.

I would like to remind my colleagues that when Medicare was first created, the Government paid 50 percent of the premiums and beneficiaries paid 50 percent of the premiums. That was when Medicare was instituted. Today, the Government pays 75 percent of the premiums and beneficiaries pay only 25 percent of the premiums because we in the Congress were trying to help limit beneficiaries' out-of-pocket costs.

Those who suggest this non-interference language will drive up the cost of implementing the law simply do not have the facts or the legislation on their side.

This is what the CBO said about eliminating the non-interference clause in a letter earlier this year:

[T]he Secretary would not be able to negotiate prices that

further reduce federal spending to a significant degree.

The CBO in that letter went on to say:

CBO estimates that substantial savings will be obtained by

the private plans.

Now, let us be clear: Direct Government negotiation is not the answer. The Government does not negotiate drug prices. That would be price control, and it would, I think, inevitably cause prices to rise as companies would not be able to do business in this country as they have in the past.

The bill's entire approach is to get Medicare beneficiaries the best deal through vigorous market competition, not price controls.

Again, it might be illustrative to quote from the distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, when he outlined the principles for the MEND Act. Now remember, the MEND Act was a Democrat-sponsored act. This is what Senator Daschle said:

[W]e should take a lesson from the best private insurance

companies: Cost-savings should be achieved through

competition, not regulation or price controls.

Now, keep in mind, they had the same provision in their bill that they are criticizing now in the MMA.

This year, even the Washington Post, in a February 17 editorial, stated that:

Governments are notoriously bad at setting prices, and the

U.S. government is notoriously bad at setting prices in the

medical realm.

There is proof of that.

In an August 2000 report, the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, found that drug manufacturers could respond to a mandate that they extend Federal prices to a larger share of purchasers by adjusting their prices to others. The larger the group that would be newly entitled to receive a Federal price, the greater the incentive for drug manufacturers to raise that price.

The GAO stated that with the Medicaid rebate experience, specifically, that following enactment of the rebate program, discounts for outpatient drugs decreased significantly because manufacturers raised the prices they charged large private purchasers. Now, this shows how Federal and non-Federal drug price discounts could change if Medicare beneficiaries had access to the same price discounts available to Federal purchasers.

It is common sense that expanding access to the Medicaid rebate means weaker discounts for everyone. If almost everyone can get the Medicaid ``best price,'' then no one gets a discount.

Another charge we hear frequently is that Congress should give Medicare beneficiaries access to the Veterans' Administration approach. Well, what these critics do not tell beneficiaries about the VA model is that it is a very restrictive formulary and that the drugs are available only through a limited number of VA pharmacies.

The VA has lower prices in part because it has a very restrictive formulary. Now, this puzzles me because many proponents of the VA system also have expressed the concern of ensuring beneficiaries' access to drugs.

In calling for the VA system, Families USA spotlighted 15 drugs commonly taken by Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, of the 15 drugs mentioned by Families USA, only nine are even on the VA formulary. The rest are not even covered.

Sixty-one percent of the drugs on the VA formulary are generic drugs. If a Medicare beneficiary needed a brand-name drug--and the vast majority either do or will--the beneficiary would have to meet a narrow set of exceptions to get that brand-name drug under the VA system.

The drugs are only dispensed at VA facilities. Such a closed system would limit Medicare beneficiaries' access to their neighborhood pharmacy. I am not for limiting beneficiaries' access to their neighborhood pharmacies. And I don't think any of my colleagues are either, in spite of some of the comments that have been made on the floor of the Senate.

So while proposing the VA system might make for a good sound bite or advantageous sound bite, they might think, there are some important facts they are not sharing that could do more harm than good. And those facts were taken into consideration when we wrote this bill.

We did not rely on CMS price fixing, but instead created a new drug benefit that relies on strong market competition and an approach in keeping with the principles of the MEND Act, the Democratic act, as introduced by Senator Daschle and cosponsored by 33 Democrats, including their candidate for President, Senator John Kerry. But that was then, I guess this is now. All of a sudden, this provision they adopted, that they were articulating, that they were pushing, is now suddenly a bad provision for senior citizens.

Moving along, I want to talk about the Part B premium increase. There has been a good deal of criticism on the increase of the Part B premium, and that was understandable as many of us were shocked at so high a jump. Many of us were concerned about the impact this could have on beneficiaries, especially those living on fixed incomes.

But it might be helpful to look at why this increase occurred rather than demagogue about it.

The vast majority of the premium increase resulted from physician payment changes made in a previous year and by those in the Medicare Modernization Act that were needed to ensure beneficiaries' access to care. I can't relate how many letters I have received over the past few years from beneficiaries and providers alike who were concerned about the negative impact of reductions in physician reimbursement. Preventing those cuts was not a partisan issue. Indeed, Republicans and Democrats worked to prevent payment cuts to physicians so access to their services would be protected.

In fact, some of today's most vocal critics of the administration joined with 71 Democrat and Republican Senators to sign a letter to the administration calling for immediate action to prevent payment cuts to physicians. We all knew that had to be done if we were going to be fair to those on Medicare. Virtually all of us hailed the ensuing action to prevent the physician pay cuts.

Yet today many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle criticize the Part B premium increase, four-fifths of which is directly attributable to the actions they requested to prevent the decrease in physician payments. Is that right? I don't think so.

Let's look at another reason the Part B premium increased so much this year.

Congress increased payments made on behalf of beneficiaries who choose a Medicare Advantage plan. The higher payments, like the physician payments, were necessary to preserve access to Medicare Advantage plans and were supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

In a letter to Medicare conferees, several prominent Democratic Senators expressed support for including these higher payments in the final Medicare bill. Senator Kerry, by the way, was a lead cosponsor of an amendment to increase Medicare Advantage funding.

In his floor statement last June, he said:

The Schumer-Santorum-Kerry amendment focuses on protecting

this important option for seniors who have nowhere else to

turn for the quality health care coverage they need.

Senator Kerry went on to state:

I urge my colleagues to support the additional funding that

is urgently needed to strengthen the Medicare+Choice program

for seniors. This should be among our highest priorities in

this year's Medicare debate.

``Among the highest priorities''--that is their nominee for President of the United States. These are the reasons the Medicare premiums went up. It wasn't because of the new Medicare bill. I find it so disingenuous for some of my colleagues to question the premium increase when they, in fact, supported the changes that led to the premium increase. Better medical care and more widespread medical care is being given as a result of the bipartisan work that we did.

There were also six amendments to the Medicare bill introduced by Democratic Senators that, if approved, would have increased the Part B premium even more--six amendments by Democrats that would have increased the Part B premium even more. Yet we hear the persistent minority drumbeat trying to say that this increase was caused by the new Medicare reform bill.

That is pure bunk. The amazing thing is, I guess they don't fully realize it. So I am making this speech to make sure they do realize it and that they understand it. When we hear charges that the new Medicare bill drove up the Part B premium--which as I have noted are largely false--we must also keep in mind the fact that the premium increase will not affect low-income beneficiaries, whose premiums are paid for by the Government.

We must also bear in mind the important fact that the premium also reflects new Medicare coverage for important preventive benefits.

Practically every other American with private health coverage has a wider array of preventive benefits. But Medicare beneficiaries, who could possibly benefit the most from the value of prevention, did not have the benefit of coverage for many of these basic preventive services prior to enactment of the Medicare reform bill.

That didn't make sense. Now Medicare will cover important screenings for cholesterol and diabetes, as well as the initial physical.

Finally, the MMA can save beneficiaries money. Reforms and overpayments for drugs, combined with the new preventive benefits, will lower beneficiaries' out-of-pocket costs by $270 million in 2005.

Beneficiaries deserve to know the facts, not to be fed lines that amount to nothing more than political year potshots. They deserve to know how the new benefit will work, not to be given misleading information that may cause them to forgo learning more about the prescription drug benefit. Quite frankly, I am surprised and dismayed that some who claim to care about seniors and the disabled have unfairly distorted the new law and have spread falsehoods about what it does. To me, their actions are irresponsible and wrong and should be condemned as election year politicking at its very worst.

Beneficiaries deserve much better. I hope my colleagues will think twice about frightening beneficiaries with untruths and distortions. The new Medicare law is a solid attempt to improve some glaring deficits in the Medicare program and should be heralded as what it is: a bipartisan effort to help seniors and the disabled, and not hurt them as some so irresponsibly have charged.

How anybody can say that this new Medicare bill will not help seniors when we are going to spend an additional $400 billion plus over the next number of years that would never have been there without this bill is beyond me. I don't see how anybody can stand up with a straight face and make some of the comments and charges that have been made. In all honesty, it is hard to believe some of these charges. And in the process, we have taken care of more of the poor than was even contemplated by the prior attempts to reform Medicare. The poor are very much helped by that bill. Frankly, virtually everybody is very much helped by that bill. I personally think it is despicable to come on the floor or to speak in public and try to scare our seniors so they don't know what to do. Seniors can have confidence in CMS and have some confidence in the Medicare bill which will be for their benefit.

Judicial Nominations

Mr. President, I rise to speak about four fine judicial nominees that deserve votes before we adjourn this Congress. Three of these four nominees received the ABA's highest rating, unanimously ``well-qualified.'' The Judiciary Committee has thoroughly reviewed their background and qualifications and determined that they would all make fine Federal judges. All four were reported favorably by the committee, three of the four by unanimous vote. They have put forward their good names for the Senate's evaluation, and they deserve our attention before we adjourn. We owe them no less.

Susan Neilson has been waiting a long time for a vote. She was nominated to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, for a seat that has been classified as a judicial emergency, on November 8, 2001. That is nearly 3 years that she has been waiting for this body to consider her nomination. Mr. President, it is time.

Judge Neilson is an outstanding candidate for this post. She received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. She graduated with high distinction from the University of Michigan Honors College in 1977 and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Judge Neilson received her law degree, cum laude, from Wayne State University School of Law in 1980 and was a member of its law review. Following her graduation, Judge Neilson began her legal career as an associate at the Detroit law firm of Dickinson Wright, one of the oldest and most prestigious law firms in Michigan. She became a partner in the firm in 1986 and continued to practice there until 1991. While in private practice, Judge Neilson appeared in court on a regular basis and handled hundreds of cases at both the trial and appellate levels.

In 1991, Governor John M. Engler appointed her to the 3rd Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan, the largest trial court in the State. She was reelected to that post in 1992, 1996, and 2002. She currently is assigned to the criminal division of the court.

Despite her busy schedule, Judge Neilson makes it a priority to give back to the community. She is active in many service organizations including the Catholic Lawyers Society and the Worship Commission of her church. She served as President of her local chapter of Soroptimist International, a worldwide organization working to promote human rights and the status of women.

Judge Neilson is also a prolific writer. She has written numerous articles and was co-editor and author of Michigan Civil Procedure, a two-volume treatise on all areas of Michigan civil practice. This treatise was selected by the Michigan Judicial Institute for purchase on behalf of every trial court judge in the State of Michigan and received the ``Plain English Award'' from the State Bar of Michigan. I also understand that she is currently working on a new book.

Judge Neilson is imminently qualified for the Sixth Circuit. I commend her to my colleagues and urge them to vote for her confirmation.

Micaela Alvarez, nominated to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, is an experienced attorney and trial judge. She began her legal career in 1989 as an Associate Litigation Attorney at the law firm of Atlas & Hall, in McAllen, TX. Her practice focused primarily on insurance defense, employment defense, and wrongful discharge defense. Judge Alvarez later joined the Law Offices of Ronald G. Hole where she expanded her practice to include medical malpractice defense and products liability. In 1995, she was appointed to the 139th Judicial District Court in Hidalgo County, TX, where she served as presiding judge.

Judge Alvarez brings a wealth of experience to the Federal bench, and she will make an excellent addition to the Southern District of Texas.

Keith Starrett, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, is an exceptional nominee with a long and distinguished record both as an attorney and judge. He is a graduate of Mississippi State University and the University of Mississippi School of Law. He is an experienced litigator who has represented plaintiffs, defendants, debtors, creditors, and criminal defendants in both

State and Federal courts. While in private practice he litigated over 400 cases. In 1992 he was appointed to the Fourteenth Circuit Court of Mississippi where he presently serves. The American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest rating of ``well qualified.'' The Mississippi Bar Association awarded him with the Judicial Excellence Award in 2003. Undoubtedly, he will be a wonderful addition to the Federal bench.

Christopher Boyko has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Judge Boyko brings 25 years of legal experience and sterling credentials to the Federal bench. He has served as a judge for the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County for 8 years. He also served on the Parma Municipal Court before joining the Court of Common Pleas.

Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Boyko built a successful law practice, which he coupled with his duties as assistant prosecutor, prosecutor, and director of law, for the city of Parma. He also served as the legal adviser to the local police department's S.W.A.T. team, as a statutory legal counsel for the Parma School District, and as chief legal counsel for the Southwest Enforcement Bureau.

The ABA has recognized this seasoned nominee with a unanimously ``Well Qualified'' rating. In addition, he has received Martindale- Hubbell's highest rating of ``AV.'' He has the distinction of having been elected to ``Who's Who in American Law,'' and the Judicial Candidates Rating Coalition, in Cleveland, unanimously gave him an ``excellent'' rating for 2004.

Mr. President, I think that you will agree that these four fine nominees possess the credentials, reputation, and experience to be Federal judges. I am convinced that each of them would serve with distinction.

Now, let me take a minute to dispense with the old canard that judges aren't confirmed late in an election year. When Senator Thurmond chaired this committee, during a Presidential election year, the Senate confirmed six Circuit Judges after August 1--one in August and five in October. In addition, 12 district judges were confirmed in September and October of that year. So I will follow that Thurmond rule and continue to bring the President's nominees to the committee for action and to the Senate for consideration.

I am only too well aware of the unprecedented and constitutionally suspect tactics my colleagues across the aisle have used to filibuster circuit court judges. So I am under no illusion that Judge Neilson will be given the up-or-down vote that the Constitution requires. Certainly this is unlikely to occur in the closing days of this session. Be that as it may, I hope that the devious tactic of filibustering circuit judges will in no way prevent the Senate from confirming three superbly qualified district judges. I hope they will be included in the final Executive Calendar package along with four commissioners for the Sentencing Commission and four U.S. Attorneys.

I understand time is precious. We are in the waning hours of this Congress, and still much is left to be done. We should not, however, in our haste to adjourn, neglect consideration of all these outstanding nominees. They deserve our attention. They deserve our time. I call on the leadership on both sides of the aisle to move these nominations and urge my colleagues to vote for the confirmation of all these distinguished nominees.

Mr. President, in accordance with the unanimous consent request agreed to earlier, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I object for the moment, but I will come back to it.

Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. President, last week the Senate passed yet another short-term extension of the 1996 welfare law. This marks the eighth temporary extension--and the third year we have been unable to improve this program that serves millions of needy families. I rise today to express my disappointment that improving this legislation has not been realized because of efforts by some of my colleagues to undermine the principles and goals of reform.

I think we can all agree that welfare reform has been one of the most successful social policy reforms in U.S. history. The 1996 welfare reform legislation made remarkable headway in helping welfare dependents move toward self-sufficiency. It dramatically reduced State welfare caseloads, reduced child poverty, and increased employment. But there is still room for improvement.

It is a misfortune that we had to pass yet another short-term extension that doesn't give States the certainty they need to best plan for the future. We passed this welfare extension because we had to--it bought us another 6 months in the hopes that we can finally act on a broader welfare reform bill in the 109th Congress.

We want more welfare recipients to prepare for work, which is the true path off welfare. We want to help more parents marry or stay married, which helps them and helps their children. We want to help more parents get ready for full-time work, which is what it takes to lift families out of poverty. We want to provide more child care, so more parents can go to work knowing their children are cared for and safe.

In 2003, I worked tirelessly with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to produce a comprehensive welfare reform bill that enjoyed substantial Democratic support. Many of the provisions in the bill we should have passed in March reflected the provisions in the 2003 bill. This further underscores my frustration with the Senate Democrats' failure to support a comprehensive reauthorization bill, and in effect, force both bodies to fund welfare programs through a series of short- term extensions, without any further improvements.

Welfare reform has saved taxpayers money, but it has not been free. It will not be free in the future. The welfare reform bill we tried to pass 6 months ago included meaningful reforms and resources needed to help more low-income parents go to work. We understand that parents need to know they have access to quality child care, and the bill included an additional $6 billion--for a total of $7 billion--in child care funding to support the efforts of working families who need help with this essential assistance.

I have seen in my home State of Utah, that many of these parents, hardworking people, young and old, end up finding great self- satisfaction in giving their gift of skill at work, at giving themselves to a task at hand so thoroughly, that they have a meaningful relationship with their work. I think we will all agree that sometimes it isn't easy to dive into your work with enthusiasm. But sometimes this is necessary and appropriate. That is why I would like to talk a little bit about its importance, that work requirements are increased.

The increased work requirements in H.R. 4 would have changed the core work requirement from 20 hours per week to 24 hours per week. Total hours required for a state to receive full credit would have increased from 30 hours per week to 34 hours per week for single-parent families. Now these are sensible, reasonable requirements. Two-parent families would have been required to work 39 hours per week, or 55 hours per week if they received subsidized child care. States would have received partial credit if individuals worked 20 hours per week, and extra credit if they worked more than 34 hours per week. Current law provides full credit only at 30 hours.

Again, I think these modifications could have made real progress. The more a person sets goals and takes responsibility for the career they want, they will better be able to decide if a particular job fits into the scheme of their life. The harder you work, that is the more hours you work, the more you understand why you're working at a particular job and how your hard work is going to benefit you.

Another important provision in H.R. 4 was the establishment of a meaningful State participation rate. For years now, States have had no real Federal requirements to actively recruit adults into industrious work and work related activities. Under H.R. 4, States would have been required to have 70 percent of their caseload involved in approved work activities by 2008. It is important to know that most States currently have less than 50 percent of their caseloads in approved, full-time, work-related activities. Several states are below 25 percent. Requirements would oblige States to significantly ramp up their efforts to engage a much greater number of families in activities that count toward the work participation rate.

Right now, the majority of adults receiving assistance are reporting zero hours of activity. I think it is time we recognize that an effective participation rate, and by the elimination of the caseload reduction credit in the 1996 welfare law, we will encourage people to commit, to careers, to goals, to real recovery. Just half-heartedly trying will not enable a person to succeed, but committing yourself will.

For the sake of the millions of families that remain in the welfare system, we should have been able to come to a final agreement that would have helped Americans achieve independence and a brighter future.

Again, I am very frustrated that we have caved to the passage of another short-term placeholder extension. Unfortunately, the remarkable improvements included in H.R. 4 will remain on hold while we continue to kick the ball down the field.

As time passes, budget pressures will only squeeze tighter and tighter. The additional help we could have offered will become only harder to come by.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paiute Land Adjustments Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey or transfer four small Paiute trust land parcels totaling about five acres. My introduction of this bill at the closing of the 108th Congress is to show my support to the Paiute Tribe, the city of Richfield, UT and to Congressman Chris Cannon's companion measure, H.R. 3982, which has passed the House and has been held at the desk in the Senate.

There are, however, some minor aspects of H.R. 3982 which I believe merit some clarification and may even require future technical amendments. The bill I am introducing today reflects some of the minor changes that have been requested by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and my introduction of the bill is also an effort to get those clarifications on record.

I do strongly support the passage of H.R. 3982, and I am working with Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and Senate leadership to secure its final passage before the close of this Congress.

The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would allow the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to convey at fair market value three acres of trust land to the city of Richfield, UT. This land transfer would allow expansion of the Richfield Municipal Airport and provide the Tribe with proceeds to purchase land that has economic development potential.

The city of Richfield approached the tribe about acquiring this parcel of land adjacent to the airport runway. The tribe agreed and the Paiute Tribal Council passed Resolution 01-36, unanimously agreeing to the conveyance of this parcel of land to the city. In 1974, the private nonprofit Utah Paiute Tribal Corporation acquired the three-acre parcel of land in fee for the purpose of economic development. With the passage of the Paiute Indian Tribe Restoration Act in 1980, the land was placed into trust. The land has not been used by the tribe for more than 20 years. It is not contiguous to the Paiute's Reservation and for nearly 30 years now has had no economic development potential. The tribal resolution expresses the Paiute's desire to accept the city's offer to purchase the land at fair market value and serves as the request to the Secretary of the Interior to convey the trust land. However, only an act of Congress may authorize this land conveyance.

The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would also transfer three trust land parcels, each an acre or less in size, from the tribe to its Kanosh and Shivwits Bands. All parcels would remain in trust status. The first parcel of one acre would be transferred from land held in trust by the United States for the Paiute Tribe to land held in trust for the Kanosh Band. This parcel is surrounded by 279 acres of land that is either owned by the Konosh Band or held in trust for the Konosh Band. For more than 20 years, the sole use of this land has been for the Kanosh Band Community Center. The second parcel, two-thirds of an acre in size, would also be transferred from the tribe to the Kanosh Band. The land has been used exclusively by the Kanosh Band. It was originally intended that the land be taken in trust for the Kanosh Band in 1981 under the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act. However, through an administrative error, the land was mistakenly placed in trust for the tribe. By way of several Band resolutions, the Kanosh Band has formally requested correction of this error.

The third parcel of land, less than an acre in size, would be transferred from the tribe to be held in trust for the Shivwits Band. The land already is surrounded by several thousand acres of land held in trust for the Shivwits Band, and its sole use has been for the Shivwits Band Community Center.

Finally, the bill would eliminate the word ``city'' from the current official name of the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians,'' a name which has never been used by the Band or residents of southwestern Utah. Thus, the bill makes clear that any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians'' shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Cedar Band of Paiute Indians.''

I would like to make part of the record some clarifications with regard to this bill. This bill has language that would allow the city of Richfield to purchase land from the tribe and direct the payment directly to the tribe without the funds being funneled through the Department of the Interior. I support that provision. The bill also has a provision that would make land acquired by the tribe after February 17, 1984, be made part of the reservation. This is an effort to clarify that lands already in possession of the tribe should be part of the reservation. It is not an effort to ensure that every parcel of land purchased by the tribe in the future be made part of the reservation without regard to the parcel's location or proximity to the existing reservation. I would also like to clarify that nothing in this legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make land conveyances for any tribe or band without their official consent to such a conveyance.

This bill will cost U.S. taxpayers nothing, but it will solve the dilemma that the City of Richfield faces as it works to make its airport meet the needs of the citizens of southwestern Utah. Equally important is the fact that this bill will allow the Paiute Tribe to use the proceeds from the land sale to acquire land with economic development potential to facilitate the self-determination of the tribe. The bill also takes care of non-controversial land adjustments and technical corrections. The bill is supported by the Paiute Tribe, its Bands, and the people of southwestern Utah residing nearby. That is why I am introducing this legislation that would convey or transfer these four small Paiute trust land parcels.

Finally, I offer my congratulations and best wishes to the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah. At the tribe's Annual Restoration Gathering over the weekend of June 12, the Paiutes celebrated the 24th anniversary of their restoration as a tribe. The Federal trust relationship with the tribe was restored in 1980 upon enaction of the Paiute Indian Tribe Restoration Act, which I sponsored.

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3982 during the 108th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paiute Land Adjustments Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey or transfer four small Paiute trust land parcels totaling about five acres. My introduction of this bill at the closing of the 108th Congress is to show my support to the Paiute Tribe, the city of Richfield, UT and to Congressman Chris Cannon's companion measure, H.R. 3982, which has passed the House and has been held at the desk in the Senate.

There are, however, some minor aspects of H.R. 3982 which I believe merit some clarification and may even require future technical amendments. The bill I am introducing today reflects some of the minor changes that have been requested by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and my introduction of the bill is also an effort to get those clarifications on record.

I do strongly support the passage of H.R. 3982, and I am working with Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and Senate leadership to secure its final passage before the close of this Congress.

The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would allow the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to convey at fair market value three acres of trust land to the city of Richfield, UT. This land transfer would allow expansion of the Richfield Municipal Airport and provide the Tribe with proceeds to purchase land that has economic development potential.

The city of Richfield approached the tribe about acquiring this parcel of land adjacent to the airport runway. The tribe agreed and the Paiute Tribal Council passed Resolution 01-36, unanimously agreeing to the conveyance of this parcel of land to the city. In 1974, the private nonprofit Utah Paiute Tribal Corporation acquired the three-acre parcel of land in fee for the purpose of economic development. With the passage of the Paiute Indian Tribe Restoration Act in 1980, the land was placed into trust. The land has not been used by the tribe for more than 20 years. It is not contiguous to the Paiute's Reservation and for nearly 30 years now has had no economic development potential. The tribal resolution expresses the Paiute's desire to accept the city's offer to purchase the land at fair market value and serves as the request to the Secretary of the Interior to convey the trust land. However, only an act of Congress may authorize this land conveyance.

The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would also transfer three trust land parcels, each an acre or less in size, from the tribe to its Kanosh and Shivwits Bands. All parcels would remain in trust status. The first parcel of one acre would be transferred from land held in trust by the United States for the Paiute Tribe to land held in trust for the Kanosh Band. This parcel is surrounded by 279 acres of land that is either owned by the Konosh Band or held in trust for the Konosh Band. For more than 20 years, the sole use of this land has been for the Kanosh Band Community Center. The second parcel, two-thirds of an acre in size, would also be transferred from the tribe to the Kanosh Band. The land has been used exclusively by the Kanosh Band. It was originally intended that the land be taken in trust for the Kanosh Band in 1981 under the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act. However, through an administrative error, the land was mistakenly placed in trust for the tribe. By way of several Band resolutions, the Kanosh Band has formally requested correction of this error.

The third parcel of land, less than an acre in size, would be transferred from the tribe to be held in trust for the Shivwits Band. The land already is surrounded by several thousand acres of land held in trust for the Shivwits Band, and its sole use has been for the Shivwits Band Community Center.

Finally, the bill would eliminate the word ``city'' from the current official name of the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians,'' a name which has never been used by the Band or residents of southwestern Utah. Thus, the bill makes clear that any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians'' shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Cedar Band of Paiute Indians.''

I would like to make part of the record some clarifications with regard to this bill. This bill has language that would allow the city of Richfield to purchase land from the tribe and direct the payment directly to the tribe without the funds being funneled through the Department of the Interior. I support that provision. The bill also has a provision that would make land acquired by the tribe after February 17, 1984, be made part of the reservation. This is an effort to clarify that lands already in possession of the tribe should be part of the reservation. It is not an effort to ensure that every parcel of land purchased by the tribe in the future be made part of the reservation without regard to the parcel's location or proximity to the existing reservation. I would also like to clarify that nothing in this legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make land conveyances for any tribe or band without their official consent to such a conveyance.

This bill will cost U.S. taxpayers nothing, but it will solve the dilemma that the City of Richfield faces as it works to make its airport meet the needs of the citizens of southwestern Utah. Equally important is the fact that this bill will allow the Paiute Tribe to use the proceeds from the land sale to acquire land with economic development potential to facilitate the self-determination of the tribe. The bill also takes care of non-controversial land adjustments and technical corrections. The bill is supported by the Paiute Tribe, its Bands, and the people of southwestern Utah residing nearby. That is why I am introducing this legislation that would convey or transfer these four small Paiute trust land parcels.

Finally, I offer my congratulations and best wishes to the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah. At the tribe's Annual Restoration Gathering over the weekend of June 12, the Paiutes celebrated the 24th anniversary of their restoration as a tribe. The Federal trust relationship with the tribe was restored in 1980 upon enaction of the Paiute Indian Tribe Restoration Act, which I sponsored.

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3982 during the 108th Congress.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer a Leahy-Specter-Hatch amendment that would preserve the Judiciary Committee's oversight jurisdiction over the U.S. Secret Service.

The reason for the amendment is not simply the committee's longstanding relationship with the Secret Service, although that relationship is strong and healthy. It is a very good reason why we should retain the status. The Judiciary Committee has had jurisdiction over the Secret Service's title 18 authority since June 25, 1948. I was astonished to hear one of my colleagues say on the floor earlier today that the Judiciary Committee was trying to move jurisdiction to the Judiciary Committee. The committee has had jurisdiction over the Secret Service for the last 56 years.

The more important reason is that a huge percentage of Secret Service operations are authorized by title 18 of the criminal code. That will obviously and appropriately remain under the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction. If the point of this bill is to reform congressional oversight, then it would make no sense to reduce the Judiciary Committee's ability to examine how title 18 of the criminal code authority is used while continuing to rely upon the Judiciary Committee to make sure that title 18 provides appropriate authority to the Secret Service.

A little bit of history may be helpful. The Secret Service was established as a law enforcement agency in 1865. While most people associate the Secret Service with Presidential protection, its original mandate was to investigate counterfeiting of U.S. currency. Today, the primary investigative mission of the Secret Service is to safeguard the payment and financial systems of the United States.

The Secret Service has exclusive jurisdiction for investigations involving the counterfeiting of U.S. obligations and securities. That authority to investigate counterfeiting is derived from title 18 of the United States Code, section 3056. Some of the counterfeited U.S. obligations and securities commonly dealt with by the Secret Service include U.S. currency and coins, U.S. Treasury checks, Department of Agriculture food coupons, and U.S. postage stamps.

The Secret Service combats counterfeiting by working closely with Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies, as well as foreign law enforcement agencies, to aggressively pursue counterfeiters. Secret Service agents commonly work with Federal prosecutors--employees of the Department of Justice, over which the Judiciary Committee retains jurisdiction.

It is important for Congress to keep up with the times when determining the scope of Title 18. Since 1984, the Secret Service's investigative responsibilities under Title 18 have expanded to include crimes that involve financial institution fraud, computer and telecommunications fraud, false identification documents, access device fraud, advance fee fraud, electronic funds transfers, and money laundering.

People who counterfeit things are creative, and so are those who invent new products that are susceptible to being counterfeited. It is important that Title 18 provide the Secret Service with appropriately updated authority, and therefore it is crucial that the Judiciary Committee have the ability to require the Secret Service to report on its use of authority.

Listen to some of the types of criminal investigations that the Financial Crimes Division of the Secret Service plans and coordinates:

Financial Systems Crimes, including bank fraud; access device fraud; telemarketing; telecommunications fraud; computer fraud; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Farm Credit Administration violations.

These are all traditional criminal investigations and they are all governed by Title 18. They are at the core of Judiciary Committee jurisdiction and expertise.

Another division of the Secret Service, Forensic Services Division, FSD, is almost entirely focused on providing analysis for questioned documents, fingerprints, false identification, credit cards, and other related forensic science areas. A main purpose of this division is to investigate crimes and provide evidence for prosecutors to use in court. FSD also manages the Secret Service's polygraph program and coordinates photographic, graphic, video, and audio enhancement.

Here's an example of how the Judiciary Committee's relationship with the Secret Service works: As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, Congress mandated the Secret Service to provide forensic/technical assistance in matters involving missing and sexually exploited children. The Forensic Service Division offers this assistance to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, the Morgan P. Hardiman Task Force and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It is important for the Judiciary Committee to continue its relationship with the Secret Service to make sure that its capabilities are utilized in important areas of law enforcement such as these.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for keeping the jurisdiction where it belongs, with the people who have to deal with these criminal laws all the time. Frankly, it is a tough process. We should not move the Secret Service out of the Judiciary Committee jurisdiction because that is where this very tough anticrime approach has to occur and has to take place.

I hope my colleagues will listen to me. I have no axes to grind here. I am not just trying to preserve jurisdiction; it doesn't make sense to take it out of the hands of the Judiciary Committee as much as some think it may. I don't think it can make a good case that it should be taken out of the Judiciary Committee.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record what looks like 50 or more jurisdictional aspects of the Secret Service investigational approaches.

When you look at these, you cannot conclude anything but this should stick with the Judiciary Committee. I don't have any ax to grind. Everyone knows that. The fact is, this is the right thing to do or I would not be standing here trying to do it. We have had a great relationship with the Secret Service and have done a great deal of work together over my 28 years on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I know this is right, and we have to do this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I don't think there is anybody on this floor who respects the chairlady of the appropriate committee and the ranking

member more than I do. I think the world of both of them. I think they deserve a commendation for what they have done. I just cannot pay enough tribute to them. I know they are sincere.

I want everybody here to know that I don't have an ax to grind. I have a reputation for trying to do what is right. I am very sincere about this. It is not a question of trying to retain jurisdiction for retention's sake. This is really important. I believe we should have a committee on homeland security. I believe it should have jurisdiction over much of the area that applies to terrorism. But I also sincerely believe--and I think the case is overwhelming--that most of what the Secret Service does is pursuant to the Criminal Code.

The Judiciary Committee is specifically and especially geared to handle oversight of those problems. You don't have to completely develop a whole new system of oversight. It has worked marvelously well for 56 years.

At the end of the day, the Secret Service is a criminal investigative agency. Sure, they may have some peripheral and even very important interests in terrorism, but their interests go way beyond that. Almost everything they do comes because of what the Criminal Code tells them to do.

The Secret Service's criminal authority is much broader than homeland security and counterterrorism. Let me review some of the longstanding criminal laws. I will just review some of them. These are criminal statutes and they are important, and the Secret Service works pursuant to these statutes.

It has jurisdiction to investigate acceptance of loan or gratuity by financial institution examiners; punishment for section 213, the prior section I mentioned; section 471, counterfeiting U.S. obligations; section 472, uttering counterfeit securities; section 473, dealing in counterfeiting obligations of securities; section 474, possession of device to counterfeit obligations; section 476, theft of tools used in counterfeiting obligations; section 477, selling of tools for counterfeiting obligations; section 478, counterfeiting of foreign obligations; section 479, uttering counterfeit foreign obligations; section 480, possessing counterfeit foreign obligations. This is all pursuant to title 18 USC. Section 481, possession of electronic images for counterfeiting foreign obligations; section 482, forgery or counterfeiting bank notes; section 483, uttering counterfeit foreign bank notes; section 484, fraudulently combining multiple U.S. instruments; section 485, counterfeiting U.S. coins; section 486, unauthorized passing of U.S. coins; section 487, making or possessing counterfeit dyes for coins; section 488, making or possessing counterfeit dyes for foreign coins; section 489, making or possessing a likeness of U.S. or foreign coins.

I will not read the rest. But it goes right down the Criminal Code where they spend almost all their time. If you ask virtually anybody in the Secret Service, they believe the jurisdiction ought to be kept with the Judiciary Committee.

I do not think there is any question. I know the head of the Secret Service does. There is no question they have overlapping jurisdiction in some areas where they can help with terrorism, but that is a modest amount of what they do.

Most all of what they do involves technical Criminal Code laws, and that is judiciary, and the Judiciary Committee is especially equipped to handle those type of activities.

The Judiciary Committee has a long history of balancing civil liberties with law enforcement obligations. The Secret Service carries out a host of law enforcement activities.

Let's face it, the Judiciary Committee is uniquely qualified and uniquely structured to vigorously oversee and monitor this balance. My office received a letter from organizations from the ACLU to the American Conservative Union expressing civil liberties concerns with this reorganization.

Look, I understand my two colleagues and their desire to try to bring everything together, but if you use this as an excuse to do that--in fact, one agency or another might have something to do with terrorism, but that is not its major obligation--my gosh, you might as well take over the whole Government.

I think this works well. If it ``ain't'' broke, why are we trying to fix it? I believe very sincerely that my two esteemed colleagues, as much as I love and respect them, are wrong on this. I can live with anything the Senate decides to do, but I think it would be tragic if the Secret Service is moved over to this Department and this committee that is not particularly the committee that should have jurisdiction over it and over the work that the Secret Service does.

I do not want to keep the Senate any longer. All I can say is, I would feel badly if this amendment is not agreed to by the Senate. It should be agreed to by the Senate. I am prepared to vote on it.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss H.R. 5107, the Justice for All Act that was just passed by the House, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 393 to 14. The bill is the result of the hard work and dedication of many on both sides of the aisle.

In particular, I would like to commend Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Sensenbrenner and Ranking Democrat, Representative Delahunt for their outstanding leadership in shepherding this groundbreaking crime bill that will allow us to further unleash the evidentiary power of DNA. It will provide law enforcement the ability to find and punish the guilty and give use the comfort of certainty in criminal prosecutions. Moreover, the House attached Senator Kyl's and Senator Feinstein's critical Crime Victims Act that ensures victims' rights are protected in criminal prosecutions. That is very important.

This House passed bill is the result of months of intense negotiations and addresses the concerns raised regarding title III of the former DNA bill, including the major concerns, I believe, of Senators Kyl, Sessions, and Cornyn.

And let me say, the overwhelming support for this bill in the House could not have been achieved without the hard work and dedication of the Department of Justice. I would like to specifically thank Attorney General Ashcroft, Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sean McLaughlin for bringing the parties together to create a truly bipartisan bill that meets the interests of all parties. Without their constructive input we would have never been able to get to where we are. I personally want to thank them for their support.

But our work is not done. I call upon the Senate to act expeditiously to pass this anticrime bill so we can present it to the President for his signature.

So we all know, there has been a tremendous amount of work done in the 22-page memorandum by Mr. Moschella and the Justice Department. I think we have made a monumental effort to address every one of those concerns. We haven't been able to address every case exactly the way the Justice Department requested, but there has been a good-faith effort on the part of the distinguished Senator from Vermont and Congressman Delahunt to be able to bring this Justice for All Act through to completion.

When it passed 393 to 14 yesterday in the House, I think that sent a message to everybody that not only would we get this DNA bill, but we would also get the victims' rights bill for which Senators Kyl and Feinstein have worked so long and hard.

Rather than take the time of my distinguished friend from Arizona and any further time from the bill on the floor, I want to compliment the Justice Department.

I hope we can get the last few things resolved so that this bill can pass, and that means working it out with a few of our colleagues in the Senate. I believe when they look at this bill and read it, they will realize almost every one of those concerns have been addressed in good faith. Senator Leahy and I have worked hand in hand trying to make sure those matters were addressed.

Mr. President, I hope we can get this bill up and out so we can do what should be done for 400,000 rape kits--some of which are 20 years old--to help not only to discover those who are guilty but to put those who are on the streets, who have raped women, in jail where they belong. This bill will do exactly that. It is a very important piece of legislation.

Having said that, however, I want to make it clear that this administration has done a great deal. Thus far, it has committed to doing this, and it is the first administration that has done it. We have known about these rape kits for years. This is the final touch in the bill to help protect women in this country. It will be very important for us to pass it today. I hope we can get it done.

We are working very diligently to try to satisfy the concerns of all of our colleagues. Thus far, we are down to just one major concern, and hopefully when they read the bill they will realize we have addressed that as well and will agree to satisfy this matter.

I thank my colleague from Arizona and my colleague from Kentucky.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senate for passing S. Res. 430, a resolution designating November 2004 as National Runaway Prevention Month. National Runaway Prevention Month is a public education initiative to increase awareness of issues facing runaways. This resolution will sensitize the public about solutions to the runaway dilemma and educate them on the role they play in preventing youth from running away.

Runaway and ``throwaway'' episodes among our Nation's youth are a widespread problem, with one out of every seven children and youth in the United States running away or being turned out of their home before the age of 18. A recent study by the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention estimates that nearly 1.7 million youth experienced a runaway or throwaway episode in a single year. The primary causal factors of running away or being turned out are severe family conflict, abuse and neglect, and parental abuse of alcohol and drugs.

All of the conditions that lead young people to leave or be turned out of their homes are preventable. However, we need to make interventions available to strengthen families and support youth in high-risk situations. Successful interventions are grounded in partnerships among families, community-based human service agencies, law enforcement agencies, schools, faith-based organizations, and businesses.

Preventing young people from running away and supporting youth in high-risk situations are a family, community, and national responsibility. Please join us in increasing public attention to the challenges that youth are facing today and in encouraging all Americans to play a role in supporting the millions of young people who have run away from their home environments or who are at-risk of doing so each year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Paul Kovac, a detailee from the Department of Justice, and Nicholas Rossi, a detailee from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 108th session.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering the Hatch-Leahy substitute to H.R. 1417, the ``Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004,'' which provides a much-needed overhaul of the process by which statutory royalty rates are determined and the manner in which the fees paid pursuant to statutory licenses are distributed to copyright holders.

The extensive reforms made this bill are important to virtual all the participants in the process, and I hope that my colleagues will consent to move this bill without delay.

The measure we are considering today represents a recently-reached compromise which I am hopeful can be enacted without delay.

Because the areas of disagreement with H.R. 1417 were relatively narrow in scope, the Hatch-Leahy substitute to H.R. 1417 retains most of the House-passed bill, but does contain a few important changes that are the product of several months of negotiations and discussions between the Hatch and Leahy offices and various stakeholders. The most significant substantive change involves the scope of available discovery in ratemaking proceedings. The changes to the discovery provisions are self-explanatory, so I will not belabor them here.

This bill responds to widespread dissatisfaction among the participants in the current system involving Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels--or ``CARPs''. I will refrain from going into detail about this highly-technical bill--which many would find about as interesting as watching astroturf grow--and will simply express my firm belief that it addresses many of the legitimate concerns expressed by the stakeholders, the members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and the many others that have provided valuable input and that lent us their expertise during the legislative process. I am content simply to refer my colleagues to the comprehensive and detailed committee report drafted by the House if they desire an explanation of the concerns and problems this legislation addresses.

While we were not able to reach absolute consensus on a few difficult issues, for the most part this legislation reflects broad agreement on the fundamental changes that are required to make the existing CARP process more efficient, logical, and--some would content--bearable by participants.

In conclusion, I would be remiss if I did not publicly recognize that this legislation is the product of some very hard work by our counterparts in the House. Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Smith, and Representative Berman deserve much of the credit for building a near consensus on this bill and for moving it through the House. I commend them for their bicameral, bipartisan approach to this legislation and for the hard work put in by their respective staffs.

In particular, I would like to thank Blaine Merritt, David Whitney, and Alec French for their hard work.

I would also like to thank Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights, and David O. Carson, the General Counsel of the Copyright Office, for providing invaluable technical assistance to members in both chambers of Congress on this complicated bill.

I would be equally remiss if I did not recognize the outstanding efforts of some in the Senate, including Senator Leahy and his staff-- in particular Susan Davies, Rich Phillips, and Dan Fine--for their efforts on this bill. I also commend Mary Foden and Dave Jones of my staff for their hard work and their efforts to build a consensus around the bill in the Senate.

With that, I will urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1417 with the Hatch-Leahy substitute.

Mr. President, September was a hard month for the people of Utah. Three more of our sons were called home into the arms of God. Each was a Marine, each a Lance Corporal, each did not live to see their 23rd birthday. I hope that my colleagues will join me in saluting these brave men of honor, who died to defend this nation and to bring freedom to an oppressed people.

Lance Corporal Michael Allred was a young man who knew he wanted to be in the military. His brother Brad said it best, that Lance Corporal Allred ``was happy to serve, and he knew what he was doing was right . . . he died doing something he loved.''

Ironically, Lance Corporal Allred was killed in the same attack that also took the life of another one of Utah's sons, Lance Corporal Quinn A. Keith. His family asked that I write a few words that were shared at his funeral. While I was learning about his life, I will always remember what his uncle Clyde said about Lance Corporal Keith, ``He was scared to be there, but he knew he had to be there.''

The third name to be added to this list of honor is Lance Corporal Cesar F. Machado-Olmos. His life is also extraordinary, since at the time of his death, he had not yet become an American citizen. Imagine, a young man who loved this country so much that before he even became a citizen he entered into a life of service and chose to earn the title of United States Marine.

Our Nation is truly blessed, not because of our material wealth or our influence across the globe. Our Nation is blessed because the ideas of freedom and liberty still echo in the minds of the young men and women of this country, and in the most selfless of acts, they volunteered to defend our Nation. These three men, Lance Corporal Michael Allred, Lance Corporal Quinn A. Keith and Lance Corporal Cesar F. Machado-Olmos epitomized the sacrifice and devotion to duty that is required to earn the noble title of United States Marine. The United States Senate and I stand in humble tribute to these Marines. They will be missed but never forgotten.

Mr. President. I rise to express my support for S. Res. 447, which asks the President to pardon posthumously John Arthur "Jack" Johnson for Mr. Johnson's racially-motivated 1913 conviction.

As a huge fan of the sport of boxing, I admire the great achievements of Mr. Johnson in his too short career. But I feel a greater need to recognize and pardon Mr. Johnson for the great injustice he suffered. Although it is too late to properly rectify what was done to Jack Johnson, I hope in some small way we can call attention to his remarkable achievements and repair his good name.

Jack Johnson was the first African-American boxer to win the heavyweight title. While this was a landmark achievement for African- Americans, Johnson's achievements unfortunately had the effect of escalating racial tensions and his subsequent victories provoked racial rioting. The effort to dethrone him brought about the search for the "Great White Hope" during his 1908-1915 reign as heavyweight champion.

The consensus is that while Johnson was not defeated in the boxing ring he could be stopped by trumped-up criminal charges. In 1913, Johnson was found guilty of violating the "white-slavery" Mann Act for taking his future wife

out of State. Johnson was convicted and he tried to appeal his sentence. Before the ruling on his appeal, Johnson fled the country and was a fugitive for 7 years before he returned to the United States in 1920. Johnson turned himself over to Federal authorities and served 10 months in Ft. Leavenworth, KS.

Mr. Johnson went on to continue fighting but never returned to the same glory. He was killed in a car accident in 1946 at the age of 68. Eight years later, he became a charter member of the Boxing Hall of Fame.

I am hopeful that the President will accept this petition and issue a posthumous Presidential pardon for Jack Johnson. Mr. Johnson defied the racist standards of his day to become a world champion. He was a hero and example to a greatly oppressed people who had too few public heroes to look to emulate.

Will the Senator yield?

I too would like to thank the senior Senator from Illinois for working with the senior Senator from Delaware and with me on this legislation. I would also like to clarify, however, that the legislation does provide that, if the Drug Enforcement Administration should find that DHEA is being abused by athletes, by youngsters, or by teenagers, DEA can schedule it as a controlled substance.

I will.

Certainly. The legislation clarifies that DEA may schedule DHEA by applying the standards in section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act, including the standard eight factors listed in section 201(c) of that Act.

I will.

The DEA need not find that DHEA meets each of the eight factors before it can be scheduled. For example, if DEA considers that

Certainly.

Yes, I am committed to stepping in to change the law to protect the public health if abuse of DHEA by athletes or by youngsters or teenagers is a problem and DEA fails to take effective action with the authority we have given it. I must add for the record that at the present time I am not aware of sufficient evidence of DHEA abuse among athletes or young people to warrant it being categorized as an anabolic steroid at this time.

Yes.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues for passing by unanimous consent two bills which I sponsored--a bill to extend the pilot program for national criminal history background checks for volunteers who work with children, and the Prevention of Child Abduction Partnership Act.

The first bill extends the pilot program created by the PROTECT Act. The pilot program allows the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, in coorperation with the FBI, to provide a background check process for volunteers working for organizations, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, National Mentoring Partnership, and the National Council of Youth Sports. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children provides its expertise to assist volunteer organizations in evaluating the criminal records of volunteers to determine if the volunteers are fit to interact and provide care for children.

So far, the NCMEC has processed over 2,500 checks. Through these checks the Center has been able to prevent criminals, including child molesters, from applying and securing volunteer positions with youth organizations. Of those applicants whose files showed an offense, over 50 percent of the applicants lied and indicated they did not have a criminal record. Some of the startling examples of people who were found unfit to work with children included: (1) one convicted of manslaughter, (2) one found guilty on charges of Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault as well as domestic battery, (3) one convicted of three charges of endangering the welfare of a child, (4) one convicted of lewdness and was charged for kidnapping, (5) one charged with sexual contact with a child under the age of 16, (6) one charged with 31 counts, including multiple rapes and assaults, indecent liberties, eluding, and prostitution, (7) one charged with aggravated battery of a pregnant woman, and (8) one charged with oral copulation by force, rape by force, and oral copulation by force, in one instance the victim under 14 and in another, 10 years younger. My bill would allow this invaluable program to continue to prevent convicted criminals such as these from working with children.

The Prevention of Child Abduction Partnership Act grants private entities, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, immunity from tort liability when they are assisting the U.S. State Department in carrying out its functions under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act.

Mr. President, as one of the original authors of the CHIP program, I rise to share my strong support for the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. Many are very worried about unspent CHIP dollars for fiscal year 2002 going back to the Treasury after today. I share those concerns. I want that $1.1 billion to remain available so it can be used to pay for health coverage for children. So does the President. So do my colleagues in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. There is no disagreement on that issue. Let me assure you that this will be resolved.

Regardless of what happens on October 1, every State will receive its new CHIP money for fiscal year 2005. Simply put, all States will be given the funds to cover their CHIP expenses while Congress continues to work on ways to use the unspent CHIP money from fiscal year 2002. It is important to remember that Congress has the power to restore these unspent CHIP funds to states once the new fiscal year has begun. In fact, just last year, Congress acted to restore unspent CHIP funds from fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to states several months after these funds went back to the Treasury. And, let me emphasize, once again, the fiscal year 2002 CHIP funds are not needed by any State for its 2005 CHIP program. No child is in danger of losing his or her CHIP coverage.

CHIP has been, for the most part, a great success. Today, there are 5.8 million children enrolled in the CHIP program. We have made good progress in providing health insurance to uninsured children. We have had great successes with the CHIP program since 1997, when it was first created.

However, important issues concerning the program still must be addressed. I believe that the No. 1 issue is reaching out to CHIP- eligible children who currently are not covered by the program. While many States have been successful with their outreach efforts, that is not the case in all States. I am particularly troubled by the difficulties faced by Native American children. Outreach must be addressed by Congress--my primary goal when we were drafting the original CHIP legislation in 1997 was to ensure that CHIP was available for all eligible children.

My biggest concern with one approach for spending the unspent fiscal year 2002 funds is contained in S. 2759, authored by Senators Rockefeller, Chafee, Kennedy and Snowe, is that it does not directly help enroll the millions of uninsured children who are eligible for CHIP program. I have reviewed the Rockefeller-Kennedy bill and I am not convinced that it does anything to increase CHIP enrollment. Providing health insurance coverage under CHIP to uninsured children should be our top priority, not redistributing CHIP funding to states. Congress has redistributed leftover CHIP funds to states more than once and I am sure that the legislation has made a significant difference in increasing CHIP enrollment of uninsured, CHIP-eligible children.

That is why I am advocating a different approach and placing a higher priority on outreach to these uninsured children. I strongly support the President's goal to have a broad outreach effort through community- based entities such as hospitals, schools, Indian Health Service hospitals and clinics, tribes and tribal organizations, non-profit community organizations, and Federally-qualified health centers. I also support performance-based grants for states that are successful in enrolling and covering children. These states should be rewarded for their successes in covering more children, instead of facing higher state costs.

While today marks the end of the fiscal year, it does not mark the end of the CHIP program. It does not mean that the CHIP program is going to lose money. It does not mean that states are going to run out of CHIP funds tomorrow. We all agree that these funds should remain in the CHIP program--we just have different ideas on how that money should be spent. Regardless, I am convinced that we will be able to work together on a solution regarding this important issue. I urge all of my colleagues to work to ensure that all eligible children are covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program.