Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to again join my colleague, Senator Cantwell, in introducing the MediFair Act of 2005. My bill will restore fairness to the Medicare program and provide greater equity for health providers participating in Medicare. Most importantly, it will open doors of care to more seniors and the disabled in my State.

Today, in Washington state, unfair Medicare reimbursement rates are causing doctors to limit their care for Medicare beneficiaries. Throughout my State, seniors and the disabled are having a hard time finding a doctor who will accept new Medicare patients.

Unfortunately, the Medicare Modernization Act, enacted in 2003, creates even greater inequities for my State. Prior to enactment, Washington State was 41st in per beneficiary reimbursement costs. When fully implemented, this legislation will push Washington State to 45th in per beneficiary costs. This growing inequity places health care providers in my State at an economic disadvantage and further limits access to health care for Washington patients.

My bill will reduce the regional inequities that have resulted in vastly different levels of care and access to care by ensuring that every state receives at least the national average of per beneficiary spending. This measure will encourage more doctors to accept Medicare patients and will also guarantee that seniors are not penalized when they choose to retire in the State of Washington. The regional inequities in Medicare reimbursement have created a very different program for my seniors, one that offers them fewer benefits.

In addition to ensuring that no state receives less than the national average, my legislation will encourage healthy outcomes and the efficient use of Medicare payments. The current Medicare structure punishes health care providers who practice efficient health care and who produce higher levels of healthy outcomes. Physicians and hospitals in my state are proud of the pioneering role they have played in providing high quality, cost-effective medicine. Unfortunately, instead of being rewarded for their exceptional service, they are being punished with unfair Medicare payments that only cover a fraction of their actual costs.

I applaud recent efforts by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to direct Medicare resources to performance-based medicine. I believe this effort to reward providers who practice performance-based health care is an important step forward. It's a wise investment to shift Medicare from a disease-based program, which rewards over utilization and medical errors, to a prevention-based program that encourages healthy outcomes based on performance. It will mean better care for seniors and will slow the hemorrhaging of Medicare dollars. I am hopeful that CMS will expand these efforts.

Performance-based medicine will also begin to close the gap in Medicare reimbursement. We must invest in this new approach and begin to make changes system wide. In the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, we worked to close the gap between rural and urban providers. I believe it is time to take the next step. When doctors and hospitals work to improve outcomes and lower utilization rates they should not be punished with unfair Medicare payments.

I want to acknowledge the lead sponsor of the MediFair bill in the House, Congressman Adam Smith, as well as the other House cosponsors, Congressman Baird, Congressman McDermott, Congressman Dicks, Congressman Inslee, and Congressman Larsen.

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

Madam President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

Madam President, that would be great. Can I ask the Senator to yield for one question on Social Security?

Madam President, I listened carefully to the discussion of the Senator from Illinois on Social Security, and I am curious, because I heard the President say if you are 55 or older you are fine, you will be OK under his new plan. He is targeting it to everybody else. But as I listened to the Senator talk about the fact that money would be taken out of the payroll tax, and we also would be increasing the debt by substantial amounts, do you think someone who is 55 today is going to be OK under this plan 10 years from now when they retire and money has been taken out of the payroll tax?

Madam President, one week ago we walked across the Capitol to hear President Bush outline his priorities for the Nation when he issued his State of the Union Address. On that night, President Bush told all of us and the Nation that the document reflecting his priorities, his fiscal year 2006 budget, `` . . . substantially reduces or eliminates more the than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities.''

Less than a week after delivering that address, the President unveiled his budget that defines exactly what he sees as those nonessential priorities. What are they? Students; our ports and our borders; accessible health care; nuclear waste cleanup.

In addition, his budget has not one dollar--that is right, not one single dollar--for the two top priorities the President talked about that night. His two top priorities: Social Security transition, and making the tax cuts permanent. Both of those items are completely ignored in his budget. This is a camouflage budget that we have been presented, and it is meant to hide the truth from American families.

What the President should know is that families in my home State of Washington and across the country are concerned about the security of their

jobs, the security of their communities, access to affordable health care, and quality education.

Unfortunately, rather than inspiring confidence, I believe the President's budget leaves too many Americans questioning the future. On issue after issue, this budget falls short of what our communities need today to move forward and to feel secure.

What I would like to focus on is this budget's impact on one group that we absolutely must take care of, and that is our Nation's veterans. We have no greater obligation as elected officials than to take care of those who have taken care of us. Unfortunately, I fear this administration is failing in this most important responsibility. After asking thousands of soldiers to serve us overseas, this administration is not making their health care and their well-being a priority when they cease being soldiers and become veterans.

Access to first-class care should be a reality for all veterans, especially while our Nation is at war. The President's budget may have a few small steps in the right direction, but, sadly, he does not go far enough to meet the needs of all veterans. If this budget and its misguided proposals were enacted, it would devastate veterans' health care. Payroll and inflation increases for doctors, for nurses, for medications cost more than $1 billion. But the President has proposed to give the VA only half what it needs. To make up for the shortfall, the budget forces more than 2 million so-called middle-income veterans to pay more than double for their needed medications and to pay a $250 enrollment fee. That is not what we promised veterans when we asked them to serve us overseas.

In addition, the President's budget actually continues to ban some veterans from coming to the VA for care. So far under this flawed policy, 192,260 veterans have been turned away across the country, including more than 3,000 in my home State. This sends the wrong message to our troops overseas. They need to know we are there for them when they return home.

Sadly, this budget also destroys the relationship between the VA and our States. After the Civil War, the VA has supported the cost of veterans who reside in our State VA nursing homes. But this budget now calls on States to cover the entire cost of care for many veterans in these cost-effective nursing homes.

To make this budget add up, the President calls for $590 million in unspecified efficiencies. Thousands of nurses and other providers will be cut, thousands of nursing home beds will be shuttered, and more than 1 million veterans will no longer be able to afford to come to the VA for care.

You don't have to take my word for this. Listen to the head of the VFW who addressed this issue in Commerce Daily a few days ago. John Furgess, who heads the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said the administration's proposed $880 million increase in veterans health care only amounts to an increase of about $100 million because the budget proposes that veterans shoulder a $250 enrollment fee and an increased copay on prescription drugs in addition to nursing home cuts. Furgess said:

Part of the federal government's deficit will be balanced

on the backs of military veterans, because it's clear that

the proper funding of veterans' health care and other

programs is not an administration priority.

There is more. Before the budget was even sent to Congress, I read this in the New York Times:

Richard B. Fuller, legislative director of the Paralyzed

Veterans of America, said: ``The proposed increase in health

spending is not sufficient at a time when the number of

patients is increasing and there has been a huge increase in

health care costs. It will not cover the need. The enrollment

fee is a health care tax, designed to raise revenue and to

discourage people from enrolling.''

Mr. Fuller added that the budget would force veterans, hospitals, and clinics to limit services. He said:

We are already seeing an increase in waiting lists, even

for some Iraq veterans.

The story went on to say that there are already some hospitals with waiting lists for Iraqi veterans:

In Michigan, for example, thousands of veterans are on

waiting lists for medical services, and some reservists

returning from Iraq say they have been unable to obtain the

care they were promised. A veterans clinic in Pontiac, Mich.,

put a limit on new enrollment. Cutbacks at a veterans

hospital in Altoona, Pa., are forcing some veterans to seek

treatment elsewhere.

And yesterday, in an editorial titled ``Penalizing Veterans,'' the Boston Globe said:

It is a sign of how desperate the Bush administration is to

protect tax cuts for the wealthy while also trying to reduce

runaway deficits that it would call for veterans to pay more

for their health benefits. Congress should reject this

proposal out of hand and put enough money into veterans'

health care to end the inexcusable waiting lists at many

veterans' facilities.

I ask unanimous consent to print the editorial in the Record.

As my colleagues can see, I am not alone in my concern for this budget's tremendous impact on our veterans. Unfortunately, the widespread outrage at this budget is not limited to its impact on veterans. I could speak for much time on this floor about my concern about the other priorities our country faces--health care, education, and nuclear waste cleanup.

As a member of the Budget Committee, I raised some of these concerns yesterday with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I was pretty disappointed with OMB Director Bolten's responses to our questions on energy policy, on veterans, and on a number of other issues that came before the Budget Committee. This morning, Secretary Snow is addressing the committee. I will leave the floor now to attend that hearing. I hope we get better responses from him.

But for now, let me just say that it seems to me that President Bush believes that in his budget veterans are a nonessential priority. That is an insult. It is an insult to them, to their service, and their sacrifice. I know I, along with many of my colleagues, will not stand for this assault on our veterans. They deserve better.

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

Mr. President, I commend my colleague for his leadership on this issue. As I travel around my State, as he does his, too, the No. 1 issue I hear about from people is the cost of health care today.

We had an opportunity when we passed the Medicare prescription drug bill to deal with that issue. We did not. He has introduced legislation today that will focus on that incredibly important issue for our country. I thank him for his leadership.

Mr. President, I commend my colleague for his leadership on this issue. As I travel around my State, as he does his, too, the No. 1 issue I hear about from people is the cost of health care today.

We had an opportunity when we passed the Medicare prescription drug bill to deal with that issue. We did not. He has introduced legislation today that will focus on that incredibly important issue for our country. I thank him for his leadership.

Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate is debating a class action lawsuit bill. This afternoon in Detroit, President Bush said:

Congress needs to pass meaningful class action and asbestos

legal reform this year.

My response is, before we pass something, we better understand how it will affect the rights and the lives of everyday, average Americans.

Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate will unfairly tip the scales of justice against average citizens. It will give big businesses even more power to avoid responsibility for their actions and it will delay justice for many victims who deserve justice.

We do not have to look very far to see why average citizens need access to courts. Look at this morning's newspaper from Seattle, WA. It reports that the Federal Government indicted the W.R. Grace Company for knowingly sickening workers and residents of Libby, MT, where hundreds of people have died from asbestos exposure. The indictment charges that the company officials knew of the dangers to workers in the community and created a conspiracy to hide those dangers.

I hope these indictments will bring a small measure of justice to the thousands of people who have suffered in Libby and around the country. These people worked hard. They provided for their families. But the company they worked for knowingly poisoned them and then covered it up.

The Federal Government is finally going after the company and the executives who made the decisions that put workers and the entire community at risk.

Here is the story from today's Seattle P-I:

Grace indicted in asbestos deaths. Mine Company and seven

executives face criminal charges.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. President, the story of what happened in Libby, MT, is heartbreaking.

Years ago, when I first heard what happened there, I began a campaign to ban asbestos and to protect its victims. In June of 2002, I testified at a hearing about Libby before the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, Risk, and Waste Management. The people of Libby, MT, have been waiting for this day for a very long time.

This indictment tells companies that they are responsible for their decisions and that human lives are more important than profits. The indictment sends a message that if you are putting workers and consumers at risk, if you try to hide the dangers, you will be prosecuted because at the end of the day, this is not about profits, it is about people.

It is about people such as Gayla Benefield, whom I met last summer. Gayla's father worked at W.R. Grace's vermiculite mine and mill in Libby, MT, from 1954 to 1973. Her father died of asbestosis in 1974. Gayla's mother never worked in that mine, but she was exposed to asbestos fibers on her husband's work clothes. Gayla's mother died of asbestosis in 1996. Gayla herself was exposed to asbestos fibers. Why? Because she hugged her dad when he came home from work. And then, in December of 2001, Gayla and her husband David both were diagnosed with lung abnormalities.

In all, about 37 people in Gayla's family have signs of asbestos disease, and only three ever worked in that mine.

Now, as my colleagues know, for the past 4 years, I have been speaking about the dangers of asbestos and the need to ban it in this country. I have stood up for victims and their families. I have introduced legislation to protect workers, educate the public, and improve research and treatment.

Last year, when Congress considered an inadequate trust fund bill, I stood up for the asbestos victims and voted against it. We still have a lot of work to do to take care of the current victims and to prevent future deaths. That is one of the reasons I am so personally concerned about the class action bill that is now before the Senate.

The bill allows companies to move class action lawsuits from State jurisdiction to Federal jurisdiction. That could delay justice for years. In many cases, victims have already been waiting a long time for their day in court. If their cases are moved to Federal court, they will essentially have to start all over at the bottom of the pile. That is because Federal courts already have a massive backlog of cases. It is one of the reasons the Federal bench opposes this bill.

If class action lawsuits are dumped on to our Federal courts, they will fall to the bottom of the list of priorities. Even if they work their way up to the top of the docket after many years, they will not be resolved quickly because they are such complicated cases.

The bill that is before the Senate now could add years to the amount of time it takes to resolve a case. Unfortunately, asbestos victims do not have time on their side. Once a person is diagnosed with mesothelioma, they usually have only about 6 to 18 months to live. So if companies know, they can just play legal games, they can just wait it out, just move the case and hold things up until the victim dies. If that happens, there is no justice.

For someone with the death sentence of an asbestos disease, justice delayed is justice denied. That is why Congress should reject this class action bill.

There are other ways this bill could deny justice. Companies could just wait until a victim's medical bills or lost wages are so high that the victim is forced into an unfair settlement. Once again, that is because this bill tips the scales of justice against average Americans.

I have focused on asbestos victims, but this class action bill would affect many more types of victims. Anyone with a class action lawsuit could find themselves pushed into Federal court at the bottom of the list. Congress should not delay and deny justice for victims.

As for asbestos victims, we still have a lot of work to do. Each year in this country 10,000 Americans die from asbestos disease--10,000 Americans. The first thing we need to do is ban the production and importation of asbestos in the United States. Do you know that each year in this country we put asbestos into 3,000 consumer products, products that you buy at the store regularly? Hair dryers, floor tile, and automobile brakes--we put asbestos in them in this country today. If we know this is deadly, we should stop putting it in consumer products in America.

Again, later this year, I am going to reintroduce my Ban Asbestos in America Act. The first year I introduced it, we only had four cosponsors. Last session, we had 14. We also made progress, including my ban in the asbestos liability legislation that was considered by the Judiciary Committee. My ban is also included in Senator Specter's most recent version of that bill.

But we also need to help victims by investing in mesothelioma research

and treatment. And we need to boost awareness of how consumers--that is all of us--and workers can protect themselves.

Today, up to 35 million homes, businesses, and schools have the deadly Zonolite insulation in their attics. People need to know about the danger so they can protect themselves, so they do not go up in their attic and do their work unknowingly exposing themselves to asbestos.

Many employees are still in danger--from construction workers to auto mechanics. And let's not forget that many asbestos victims were exposed to asbestos when they served our country in the military. About 32 percent of asbestos victims happen to be Navy veterans. Many of them worked in the Bremerton Shipyard in my home State of Washington.

The dangers of asbestos are not just limited to Libby, MT, or to military communities; they are everywhere. This Congress needs to address them the right way. Congress should make sure asbestos victims can get the justice they deserve. That is why I will vote against this class action bill. And that is why I am going to continue to fight to ban asbestos and to help the victims in this country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Feb. 8, 2005]

W.R. Grace Indicted in Libby Asbestos Deaths

Mine company and seven executives face criminal charges

(By Andrew Schneider)

Missoula, Mont.--W.R. Grace & Co. and seven of its current

or former executives have been indicted on federal charges

that they knowingly put their workers and the public in

danger through exposure to vermiculite ore contaminated with

asbestos from the company's mine in from Libby, Mont.

Hundreds of miners, their family members and townsfolk have

died and at least 1,200 have been sickened from exposure to

the asbestos-containing ore. The health effects also threaten

workers, their families and residents everywhere the ore was

shipped, including Seattle, and people living in millions of

homes nationwide where it was used as insulation.

Yesterday, on the steps of the county courthouse here, U.S.

Attorney Bill Mercer announced the 10-count indictment,

alleging conspiracy, knowing endangerment, obstruction of

justice and wire fraud.

``A human and environmental tragedy has occurred,'' he

said. ``This prosecution seeks to hold Grace and its

executives responsible.''

``This is one of the most significant criminal indictments

for environmental crime in our history,'' said Lori Hanson,

special agent in charge of the Environmental Protection

Agency's environmental crime section in Denver.

In a statement released for Grace by a public-relations

firm, the company ``categorically denies any criminal

wrongdoing.''

Grace criticized the government for releasing the

indictment before providing a copy to the company. ``We are

surprised by the government's methods and disappointed by its

determination to bring these allegations. . . . We look

forward to setting the record straight.''

Federal environmental officials began examining the hazards

in Libby after Nov. 19, 1999, when the Seattle Post-

Intelligencer began publishing a series of stories about what

the government has called ``the nation's biggest

environmental disaster.'' Within three days of the P-I's

first report, an EPA emergency team arrived in the tiny

northwestern Montana town.

Present at the announcement yesterday were Libby victims

Lester and Norita Skramstad and Gayla Benefield.

Lester Skramstad has asbestosis, as does his wife, Norita,

and two of their children. He spoke softly but forcefully,

struggling for breath to launch his words into the wind on a

blustery winter afternoon. ``I've waited a long time for

this,'' he said. ``It's a great day to be alive.''

If found guilty, the individual defendants face from five

to 15 years in prison on each count, which for some of the

executives could be as much as 70 years.

Grace could be fined up to twice the profits from its

alleged criminal acts or twice the losses suffered by

victims. According to the indictments, Grace made more than

$140 million in after-tax profits from the Libby mine, which

would mean a fine of up to $280 million. Alternatively, the

court could fine the company twice what it computes the loss

to be from more than a thousand Libby victims. In addition,

the court could order restitution for the victims.

``This criminal indictment is intended to send a clear

message: We will pursue corporations and senior managers who

knowingly disregard environmental laws and jeopardize the

health and welfare of workers and the public,'' said Thomas

Skinner, EPA's acting assistant administrator for

enforcement, yesterday.

The executives charged are Alan Stringer, formerly general

manager of the Libby mine and Grace's representative during

the government's Superfund cleanup; Henry Eschenbach,

formerly director of health, safety and toxicology in Grace's

industrial chemical group; Jack Wolter, formerly Grace vice

president and general manager of its construction products

division; Bill McCaig, also formerly general manager of the

mine; Robert Bettacchi, formerly president of the

construction products division and senior vice president of

Grace; O. Mario Favorito, former Grace general counsel; and

Robert Walsh, formerly a Grace senior vice president.

The 49-page indictment accuses Grace of knowingly releasing

asbestos into the air, placing miners, their families and

townspeople at risk, and of defrauding the government by

obstructing the efforts of various agencies including the

EPA, increasing profits and avoiding liability for damages by

doing so.

P-I's Investigation

Tens of thousands of pages of internal Grace documents and

court papers were the basis of scores of stories in the P-1

on Libby and the deadly ore that Grace shipped throughout the

world. Those documents show years of extensive communication

among Grace's top health, marketing and legal managers and

mine officials in Libby about concealing the danger of

asbestos in the ore and consumer products that were made from

it.

They discussed methods to keep federal investigators from

studying the health of the miners, the potential harm to

Grace sales if asbestos warnings were posted on its products,

and the effort to mask the hazard of working with the

contaminated ore.

``The prosecution cannot eliminate the death and disease in

Libby,'' said John Heberling, a lawyer with McGarvey,

Heberling, Sullivan and McGarvey. ``But there is comfort in

the hope that criminal convictions will say to corporate

America . . . managers will be held criminally accountable if

they lie and deny and watch workers die.''

For years, the Kalispell, Mont., firm has been fighting for

damages from Grace on behalf of the families of the dead and

the dying from Libby.

Mine's huge production

Opened in 1913, the mine is six miles from Libby. Grace

bought it in 1963 and closed it in 1990. In its heyday, the

mine produced 80 percent of the world's vermiculite. The

company still operates smaller vermiculite mines in South

Carolina.

Vermiculite, a mineral similar to mica, expands when heated

into featherweight pieces that have been used commercially

for decades in attic and wall insulation, wallboard,

fireproofing, and plant nursery and forestry products. It was

also used in scores of consumer products, such as lawn and

garden supplies and cat litter.

Exposure to the tremolite asbestos fibers, which

contaminate the vermiculite ore, has caused hundreds of cases

of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma in Libby and an

untold number at hundreds of other sites across North America

where the ore was processed.

Criminal investigators and lawyers from the EPA, the

Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Attorney's offices in

Montana often put in 12- to 15-hour days while preparing the

case.

Investigators and lawyers from the Justice Department and

the EPA's headquarters also assisted. The haste was required

because prosecutors were up against a five-year statute of

limitation, based on the arrival of the first federal team in

Libby after the P-1 stories. They gained a three-month

extension of that limitation.

A troubled past

The EPA said that over the years it had filed several

complaints against Grace over the company's environmental

practices. The only previous criminal charge against the

Columbia, Md.-based corporation was in the mid-'80s. Grace

was indicted on two counts of lying to the agency about the

quantity of hazardous material used in its packaging plant in

Woburn, Mass. In 1988, the company pleaded guilty to one

count and was fined $10,000, the maximum at that time. The

charges were brought after Grace and another company were

sued after being accused of illegally dumping toxic

chemicals, contaminating two wells and, some believe,

resulting in the deaths of five children from leukemia. Grace

paid the families $8 million to settle the suits. The book

and movie ``A Civil Action'' were based on the Woburn case.

Grace, which produces construction materials, building

materials and packaging, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

protection in 2001 because of the ``sharply increasing number

of asbestos claims,'' Paul Norris, Grace's chairman and CEO,

said at the time.

May 2002, the Justice Department intervened in Grace's

bankruptcy, the first time it had entered such a case,

alleging that before Grace filed for Chapter 11, it concealed

money in new companies it bought. Justice Department lawyers

said Grace's action was a ``fraudulent transfer'' of money to

protect itself from civil suits.

In November of that year, just before the trial was to

begin, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the

companies returned almost $1 billion to the bankruptcy judges

holding Grace's assets. Grace is far from out of business.

Norris said the company has annual sales of about $2 billion,

more than 6,000

employees and operations in nearly 40 countries.

Mercer refused comment on whether there would be more

indictments from other locations where Grace had operations.

Hanson said she had been discussing the investigation with

her counterparts in EPA regions throughout the country.

Libby victim Benefield said yesterday that as she watched

the announcement of the indictments, her thoughts were with

her parents, Perley and Margaret Vatland, both of whom died

of asbestosis. She wore on her coat a costume-jewelry pin her

mother, who sold Avon products, bought from Avon for herself.

``Somewhere today they're smiling,'' she said, fingering

the pin. ``I just know it.''

online

Read Uncivil Action, the P-O's award-winning coverage of

the deadly legacy of asbestos mining, beginning with a

November 1999 story about hundreds dead or dying in Libby,

Mont.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am very proud to join the senior Democratic Senator from Maryland, along with all of my Democratic women colleagues, to declare that we are going to fight to make sure we have a guaranteed benefit to keep the security in Social Security.

A few short years ago, just after the 1932 stock market crash and the onset of the Great Depression, one of our Nation's greatest leaders, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, set out to create a program to provide peace of mind and a sense of security to America's retirees. During his crusade to create that program, FDR said there is no tragedy in growing old, but there is tragedy in growing old without means of support.

The program that he created to this day is the single greatest social insurance program in our Nation's history. Social Security has been a resounding success by keeping millions of people out of poverty in this country. We are here today to remind this country that women in particular benefit from the guaranteed benefit that is in Social Security, and we are going to fight to make sure it remains there for the women who follow us.

Months before the new program was enacted, back in the early 1930s, FDR laid out his vision of how important this program was and how it should be implemented. He said:

We can never ensure 100 percent of the population against

100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life. But we

have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of

protection to the average citizen, and to his family against

the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age. This

law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is

being built, but is by no means complete . . . It is . . . a

law that will take care of human needs and at the same time

provides for the United States an economic structure of

vastly greater soundness.

Those were the words of FDR in 1935. But today, this cornerstone, this basic American value, is now under attack.

We are here today to say we are fighting back. President Bush is currently traveling the country, saying Social Security is in crisis and needs to be radically restructured. I rise today to reaffirm the values and the spirit FDR laid out 70 years ago. Social Security has pulled seniors from poverty and put millions of retirees' minds at ease. America's insurance program is a guaranteed benefit all Americans can count on. It is a promise that, if you work hard, you will have some security when you retire or if you become disabled. It is a promise our seniors will not live in poverty. It is a promise if your spouse passes on, you will continue to have the support and the security you need.

Of course, this program is more than just security. It is about community. That is a value we as women share--community. In America, we believe it is important to take care of the generation that came before. It is important to guarantee them a quality of life. It is important that we guarantee benefits after a lifetime of hard work. I am concerned that President Bush's so-called restructuring will imperil the security of all Americans, from young workers who are going to retire decades from now to seniors who are retiring today.

The problem with this plan is it is not a guaranteed benefit. It does nothing to fix the long-term issues this system does face. It adds trillions of dollars to our national debt at a time we cannot do that any longer, and it is dangerous. We cannot and we will not let President Bush tear apart our Social Security system.

While some are trying to enrich Wall Street or push an ideology of market experience on our senior citizens, our priority in this discussion should be to ensure we are doing right by those who are relying on Social Security, from current workers to retirees, from the disabled to widows.

Current and future retirees need someone to stand up for them. If I see something that is going to hurt our workers, our families, our seniors, and women in particular, I want the Senate to know I am going to fight, along with my women colleagues, with everything I have.

Any discussion about Social Security that we have has to meet criteria if it means to be productive. You can call it a test. Any proposal we discuss must pass this test if it wants to move from this body.

First of all, we have to ensure Social Security has a guaranteed benefit. Second, we need to make sure Social Security protects workers when they become disabled. Next, we must protect against benefit reductions for women, minorities, and others. And we have to protect our budget from growing deficits. Anything short of this would be an unnecessary, dangerous gamble, as the Senator from Maryland has pointed out, unworthy of an important insurance program.

While we are at the beginning of this discussion in this body, my female colleagues in this body have worked for years to ensure some basic principles to follow as we move forward. The promise of Social Security is especially important to women because women face unique challenges in retirement. Women make less money than men throughout their lifetimes. Women leave the workforce to raise their families and stay home, something we should value in this country. Women live longer and women are more likely to suffer from chronic health conditions.

Even with those special challenges, today Social Security keeps millions of older women out of poverty. Its benefit formulas are today tilted to give a greater rate of return for lower wage workers such as women and minorities. If the President succeeds in privatizing Social Security, he will destroy the guaranteed benefit that low-wage earners need in their retirement years.

Social Security is not just a retirement program; it is also a program that protects disabled workers and protects their families. That is a value we women want to make sure we protect. If Social Security is privatized, what happens to a worker who is disabled and cannot contribute to her account? Today, under Social Security that worker is protected. But there is no guarantee under the Bush plan. President Bush could undo the progressive structure that older women in this country depend on today, and they should be able to depend on it tomorrow. This is one reform that could have disastrous results and we will not stand for it.

Under this administration, many things we take for granted--from overtime pay, to community police, to safe drinking water--have been threatened. Now President Bush wants to dismantle Social Security. I am here with the women, the Democratic women of the Senate, to say some things are too important to American families. Providing real security to all Americans is a basic value worth protecting. We will make sure President Bush does not gamble that security and break the promise Social Security keeps for millions of women and their families.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Maryland.

Madam President, this past weekend we witnessed a very important step forward in Iraq, as citizens around the country turned out to vote for a new National Assembly. Many Iraqis appear to have embraced the election and I, as so many others, was encouraged to see millions of them exercise their right to vote. But this past weekend's vote also really pushes to the forefront an important question back here, right here at home, about what we are doing to take care of the thousands of American soldiers who are serving us so honorably in this still very dangerous country.

Just before the elections, several news outlets reported that the Army had decided to keep our troops at their current level in Iraq for at least another 2 years. I have one of those stories here from the Tuesday, January 25, edition of the Washington Post. It is headlined, ``Army plans to keep Iraq troop level through '06.''

I want to read a portion of that story. It says:

With the Pentagon having relied heavily on reservists to

fill out deployments to Iraq, military officers have warned

recently that the pool of available part-time soldiers is

dwindling. By later this year, when the Army is scheduled to

begin its fourth rotation of troops since the invasion in

March 2003, all 15 of the National Guard's most readily

deployable brigades will have been mobilized.

Although other Guard troops remain and could be tapped for

Iraq duty, they belong to units that historically have not

received the same priority in equipping and training as the

brigades chosen to go in the rotations so far.

``It doesn't mean that the cupboard is bare,'' Lovelace

said. ``It just becomes a challenge then for the National

Guard.''

As the Army reaches farther down in the reserve force,

Lovelace said, the amount of ``pre-mobilization'' time

necessary to get the troops ready to send to Iraq is likely

to increase.

``We're not going to send anybody into combat who is not

trained and ready'' the three-star general said. But he noted

that already in each rotation, the amount of pre-mobilization

time required has increased.

To continue to be able to draw on the better trained

reservists, Army officials have said they are considering

petitioning Rumsfeld to extend the 24-month limit on the

total time a reservist could be caned to active duty.

Madam President, I ask that the full text of the story be printed in the Record.

Madam President, the effect of that policy is very clear. It means longer deployments, more time away from home, and a further strain on our entire military.

It is no secret that some of our soldiers are hit especially hard by this news. I am talking, of course, about our Guard and Reserve soldiers who have already faced extended deployments and long stretches away from their jobs, away from their homes, away from their families. We honor all of our troops serving overseas, but I am very concerned that these Guard and Reserve soldiers are not receiving some basic services and help that they have earned--basic services and help they most certainly deserve.

Last week I reintroduced legislation to increase services and benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserves when they are called to active duty. I offered this Guard and Reserve Enhancement Benefits Act last year to expand health care, education, financial benefits, and family assistance to help ease the burden on our Guard members and their families.

We made some progress in the Senate last year, but those important provisions were never signed into law. Now, in this new Congress, we have another opportunity to provide for our Guard men and women, our reservists, and all their families. This coincides with the introduction of S. 11, the first Democratic bill for this Congress. It is the first Democratic bill of this Congress to help increase protections for our troops and Reserve members.

Thousands of citizen soldiers from across my home State of Washington have been called to active duty over the past 2 years. These very brave men and women and their families deserve the same support that other military units receive when they sacrifice to serve our country. My bill tells Guard and Reserve members across America that we are committed to providing them and their families with the health, financial, and social support services necessary to get through this difficult time.

According to the Pentagon, 239,000 National Guard members have been called to active duty. Currently, 192,500 Guard and Reserve members are serving on active duty as part of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thousands of Washington State Guard members have been activated over the past 2 years. This is the largest activation since World War II.

Hundreds of Washington State reservists have also been activated, and 150 local Marine Corps reservists will soon be deployed to Iraq as part of the Yakima-based Bravo Company 4th Tank Battalion. That is why this legislation is so important at this time.

As many other Members, I have sat and talked to our reservists as they have been called up, and I have talked with their families who have been left behind. It is critical that we provide the support and services they need so they can do this important job that this country has asked them to do.

My legislation would begin by extending the current Family and Medical Leave Act protections to the spouses of guardsmen and reservists called to extended active duty. This is really important. The families who are left behind are struggling as single parents to try to raise their family. They should not have to worry about losing their jobs and their income when their loved one is sent overseas. So the first part of our bill simply extends the Family and Medical Leave Act protections so these spouses who are left behind can take care of the issues they need to take care of as their spouse is called overseas.

Second, it provides childcare assistance grants to parents or guardians of dependents of guardsmen and Reservists called to active duty. This is really important. Most of these Guard and Reserve members are not on a base, so they don't have access to childcare facilities that Regular Army and other people have on the base. They are out in our communities, across my State and across this country.

So child care is especially important to them when their spouses are sent overseas and they are left with how to deal with child care--an issue that is always critical to families.

It becomes extremely critical when you lose half of your family, when they go to a place that can't help with child care. Childcare assistance grants are an important part of our package.

My bill also expands the GI bill for members of the Guard and Reserves who are called to active duty for 12 consecutive months or 24 months out of a 60-month period.

This is something that is really important. When we send these men and women overseas to serve, they should have access to the GI bill when they return so they can enhance their own lives and get a job and be productive members of our society.

Next, our bill provides relief from interest and defers payments of unsubsidized student loans.

I met with Reserve members before they left. Many of them were students or were just finishing college, and they were extremely worried about how they were going to pay their student loans while they were deployed, or when they returned before they would be able to get back into the job market and have a steady income. We put special help in our bill for these men and women who serve us by providing relief from interest and defer payments of unsubsidized student loans so they can

get their lives back together when they return before they start to pay back their obligation.

Next, our bill requires any college receiving Federal funds to offer students returning from active-duty service readmission without penalty or additional fees.

You can imagine, if you are in college attending classes and you are called up to serve your country as a member of the Guard and Reserve, you are concerned that when you return you will not be able to get back into that school and finish the college degree that you started. Our bill provides assurance to these students who have been called up that they will be readmitted into any college that receives Federal funds, so they will know when they return that they can continue their lives.

Next, we reduce the age for members of the Guard and Reserve to receive retirement pay. This is a critical issue for many of our Guard and Reserve families who face extreme hardship as their family member serves overseas. We want to make sure they can receive retirement pay at an age that benefits them.

Next, our bill requires the Federal Government to cover the pay differential for Federal employees who are called to active duty. When I talked to these Guard and Reserve family members, they were worried about how they were going to make sure their families would be able to pay the mortgage on their home, or how they were going to pay their school costs and put food on the table because of the reduced pay from the Government.

This bill will make sure the Federal Government that is calling these members up to serve pays the differential for our Federal employees so they do not lose income while they serve this country overseas.

Next, our bill allows employers to claim up to $15,000 in tax credits for the pay deferential of Guard and Reserve members. Across this country and in my home State, we have many businesses that have employees who have been called up to go overseas and serve their country. It is especially difficult for small businesses that lose their employees for 6 months, for 12 months, or longer. And this bill provides a tax credit to help them make up the pay of those employees when they go overseas.

Finally, our bill makes access to TRICARE permanent for all members of the Guard and Reserve and their families, regardless of employment or insurance status. This is an extremely important provision of this bill.

I think probably the No. 1 issue I heard from these families as I talked to them was, What do I need to do about our health care? We had our health care under a member who has been called to serve overseas. When we lose that, how do we transition? What do we do about a sick child with ongoing illnesses and family members with health care challenges? How do we get through this?

I think it is important that this year we enact into legislation assurance for the family members of those who serve overseas that their family left behind will have access to TRICARE and health care.

Tours of duty are being extended and new units are being deployed. I believe we have an obligation to ease the burden for these Guard and Reserve families.

Supporting our troops means more than just passing multibillion- dollar supplemental appropriations bills whenever the President asks. Supporting our troops must also mean that we look after the soldier and his family's well-being back at home. It means ensuring they get quality education, it means ensuring they get good health care, and it means access to a job, and childcare for their families.

I have spoken many times on this floor and in every corner of my State about the need to take care of our troops. Oftentimes, that means supplementing our floundering veterans care system. I talked about it on the floor extensively last week.

But with this legislation I am talking about today, we have an opportunity to provide help where it is needed now--help for the thousands of heroes and their families who are dedicating their lives to all of us by serving us around the globe.

I hope my colleagues will support our efforts. I look forward to working with anyone who will help move this legislation this year.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this morning I rise to speak about one of the issues that is facing our country, an issue we need to understand and live up to, a promise that we made to the young men and women who serve us overseas. Since this election, we have heard a lot about the crises that are facing our country and what our obligation is and the discussions that will occur in the Senate and around the country about those as we move forward.

Next week, we will hear from the President on the State of the Union. I will be listening very carefully to hear if he addresses the issue that I think is clearly one of the most important issues our country needs to address, and that is how we treat the young men and women who are coming home, who have served us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the globe, and that we have the services available for them to keep the promise we made to them when they went to serve all of us. I am talking about the veterans who have come home to our country throughout our time, who have served us well, who fought for our freedom, who have been there for every one of us, and who are now facing severe shortages of services. I am taking about the promises we made to them for their health care, to make sure they are reintegrated into society in the United States and given what we have promised them when they went to serve all of us.

This morning we woke up to the news of 30-some Marines who have been tragically lost in an accident. Our hearts go out to their families, to their loved ones, and to all who know them, and we owe them and their families a sincere debt of gratitude. It is a reminder to all of us today of the service that these men and women give us, of the ultimate sacrifice, so we can have the freedoms that are so important to us at home.

It is a reminder to all of us that we owe them more than rhetoric on this floor or promises when they leave but fulfillment of those promises when they come home. We need to fullfil the promise of services available so their health care needs are met and that they are given the full support of this country when they return.

I was involved in working with our veterans many years ago. My own father was a veteran. He served us in World War II. He was one of the first soldiers into Okinawa. He was injured there when they went in. He went to Hawaii for a time, was in a hospital, and then went back to Okinawa to continue his services. He was an injured and disabled veteran all of his life.

I never knew of the sacrifices he gave or what his life story was until he died. We found his journals and read the day-to-day transcripts of what he as a young man, barely 20, did for our country overseas, the injuries he sustained, what he saw on the battlefield. He never talked about that when he came home.

As I read through those diaries day by day, I realized what a tremendous service he and thousands of other men and women have given to all of us so that we have the freedoms we have today, so that my grandson who is growing up in this country today has the freedoms his grandfather fought for.

Today, as I go home and talk to our veterans in Tacoma, Vancouver, and Walla Walla, our veterans who are struggling to get health care in north central Washington, I hear them begging us to help them get the health care services they were promised. We need to step up to the plate.

As I talk to the Army and to our Guard and Reserve members at home, they tell me about the thousands of soldiers who are now returning to Washington State and around the country who will face long lines, who will not have the services they need, particularly mental health and posttraumatic stress syndrome. I am deeply concerned that we are not putting in place the resources these veterans need to be there for them.

In 1972, I served my country in a unique way when I was in college. It was a time of war for our country, the Vietnam War. I volunteered to do my internship at WSU, Washington State University, at the veterans hospital in Seattle, WA. I served on the psychiatric ward. I worked day in and day out with our young men and women who were my age at the time returning from Vietnam. I saw the mental health scars they had.

What I saw inside the VA system was people who understood what they had gone through, who were willing to work with them day in and day out, but as I left that VA hospital every afternoon to go home, I was out on the street with people who did not understand and were not there to support these veterans.

I am committed at this time when our men and women come home from Iraq and Afghanistan and the missions we have sent them to around the world to make sure we are there for them and the support is there to reintegrate them into America.

I look at our budgets today and I see that is not the case. Later this afternoon Ambassador Nicholson, a very fine man, will be confirmed, most likely, on the Senate floor. I have met with him. I have talked with him about the tremendous backlog of services, about my concerns about the members of the services who are coming home today and the services that are not available. I know he is committed to doing the right thing.

What I will be listening to is the State of the Union next week, and the President's budget, more importantly, when it comes to Congress, to see if indeed it has the support we need for our veterans, for the services they so rightfully deserve and need to have in order to be able to reintegrate into this country and to be able to continue to have full and promising lives at home once they return.

I fear we are not going to see a VA budget that has those services. Today in Washington State we are hearing the commitments that have already been made in north central Washington for a clinic in Bellingham may not be able to happen because the budget moneys have been so severely cut back. That is wrong. These are promises these veterans have been given and that they need.

Veterans who live in Wenatchee, WA, should not have to travel 8 hours on icy mountain roads to be able to get the health care services they need. When I go up there and I talk to a wife of a veteran who has health problems and she tells me her husband cannot get to the doctor, I think our country has not fulfilled a promise we made. We have to keep those promises, and where those promises will be seen is in the budget and in the appropriations process this year, whether we put our money behind the rhetoric we hear every day from people who thank the people who serve us overseas.

The Democratic Senators have put forward an excellent bill that I will be talking about in the days and months to come. S. 13 is a bill that will keep our promise to American veterans. It is very important legislation, and I hope we get bipartisan support for it--I hope we get support across the country--and Members sign on to be a sponsor of this legislation to push this forward so we keep our promise to veterans.

S. 13, the bill that has been introduced, begins by expanding mental health care to all of our VA hospitals by 2006. This is extremely important. When I talk to our veterans organizations, they tell me as many as 20 percent or more of our men and women who are serving will come home with posttraumatic stress syndrome or mental health conditions, that we need to make sure they get the help and support they need to deal with that. So the first part of the bill will expand mental health care to all of our VA hospitals by 2006.

Secondly, it will make prescription drugs readily available to veterans. Under current regulations, a veteran who receives a prescription from a private doctor has to complete a physical with a VA physician before the VA will honor their prescription. That kind of redtape costs the VA an estimated billion dollars or more each year. So our bill will overturn that regulation and provide veterans with a quick and easy access to prescription drugs. This will save us money and it will help our veterans who so desperately need it.

This bill will also ensure that no veteran is forced to choose between their disability compensation and their retirement pay by 2006. This is an issue I hear about in every corner of my State from all veterans. Those who served our country should not have to choose between their disability payments and their retirement pay. The Senate has addressed this issue before. In conference, we were not able to move it as far as we needed to. This bill fixes it so veterans no longer face that difficult choice.

This bill also creates a seamless transition from the military to the VA. Many of our veterans who have returned home have encountered obstacles to getting the services they deserve when they leave their active-duty status. While the Defense and Veterans Departments have been trying to iron out the kinks by preventing a seamless transition from military life to the VA system, the agencies have not completed any of the seven recommendations for this that have been offered by the President's task force.

S. 13 will enact each of these seven recommendations, including requiring preseparation medical examinations and disability benefits counseling, removing information-sharing barriers, and requiring greater cooperation between the VA and the DOD in tracking disabilities resulting from occupational exposure to hazardous materials.

Finally, the S. 13 that has been introduced will enact a new GI bill for the 21st century. I hope again all of our colleagues will sign on to this legislation so we can put our words and our reality behind a promise that has been made to the men and women who serve us in this country.

I think this is an extremely critical area and a crisis when we look out across the country at the thousands of men and women who are serving who are going to be facing already long lines at VA hospitals, already decreased services, for whom we need to make sure of mental health services as quickly and efficiently as possible so we do not see later complications in their families, in their communities, or in their own worklife.

Yesterday, the President put out his $80 billion supplemental for the Iraq war. I will, of course, support that supplemental. It is absolutely critical that we make sure those who are serving us have the training, the equipment, and the supplies they need to do what we have asked them to do abroad for all of us, but it is equally important that we keep the promise to them when they

come home. So when that supplemental comes before the Senate I intend to offer an amendment, along with Senator Akaka, the ranking member on the Veterans' Committee, to add $2 billion to the supplemental to make sure our veterans get the services they need.

We cannot rely on rhetoric. We cannot rely on empty promises. We need to make sure that the part of the commitment we have when we go to war includes taking care of those men and women when they return home.

These proposals are not about growing the size of the Government. They are not about expanding what we owe. It is about keeping a promise. It is about living up to the promises we have made to those who have given so much to all of us. Our veterans deserve the best from us. S. 13, this legislation I just talked about, works to make sure those goals become a reality. We have a tremendous responsibility and we have a great opportunity in this Congress to keep the promise President Abraham Lincoln made 140 years ago, and that is to care for the veteran who has borne the battle, his widow and his orphan. Those words ring as true today as they did 140 years ago, and I intend in every way I can, both in my work on the Veterans Committee, my work on the Appropriations Committee, and my work on the floor, to keep the promise we gave to those who are serving us to make sure they are taken care of when they return home.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This landmark legislation will modernize and unify our intelligence community and help ensure the safety of our country.

I strongly support this vital intelligence reform bill. The 9/11 Commission worked incredibly hard to identify how to better protect our country from terrorism and gave us an excellent roadmap to protect our people. We in Washington State are proud of the outstanding work put in by Commissioner Slade Gorton. He has again done his State proud in service to our country.

My colleagues, Senators Collins and Lieberman, deserve a great deal of credit for getting us here today. When some thought that real reform of our intelligence community was just a dream, too complicated to be realized, it was their dogged determination to craft a good piece of legislation that carried us through. And when others threw roadblocks in their path, it was their patience and perseverance that allowed us to come together and put the safety and security of our nation before politics.

I especially commend the September 11 families who bravely stood up and spoke out in favor of creating the Commission. They forced our Government to fully examine the terrorist attacks and to find ways to make our people safer. Their brave advocacy has made a difference, and this bill is a fitting tribute to their loved ones.

As a member of both the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and the Senate's 9/11 Working Group, I have looked closely at these challenges. Over the past few years, I have worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security, including the Coast Guard, FBI, TSA, Border Patrol, as well as the National Guard and local law enforcement throughout Washington State. Through our work together, I have learned first hand the difficulties they face every day in defending our country.

We need clear direction for our country's intelligence community. The Commissioners stressed better coordination between the various intelligence agencies, and this bill accomplishes that and so many other important goals. I am glad that in the same bipartisan spirit that the 9/11 Commission showed throughout their work, we in Congress were able to work through our differences to pass this most important reform bill.

I fully support the steps this bill in taking in several areas, including:

Intelligence--through the creation of a Director of National Intelligence, DNI, this bill restructures and strengthens the intelligence community. The DNI will have the authority and resources to transform the intelligence community into an agile network to fight terrorism.

Information sharing--the 9/11 Commission recommended a new, Government-wide approach to information sharing. This bill will facilitate information sharing among Federal, State, local, tribal, and private sector entities.

Privacy and civil liberties--this bill creates an oversight board that will ensure privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered as laws regulations, and policies are implemented to protect our country against terrorism. This oversight board will safeguard individual's rights.

Transportation security--the 9/11 Commission highlighted several deficiencies in transportation security. This bill will improve passenger prescreening on airlines and cruise ships and require the TSA to develop better technologies for air cargo security.

Border and immigration enforcement--this bill includes provisions to enhance security of our borders and enforce border and immigration laws. It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out a pilot program to test advanced technologies that will improve border security between ports of entry along the northern border of the United States. These technologies would be used for border surveillance and operation in remote stretches along the border where resources are stretched thin.

Since the tragedy of September 11, Congress has passed strong legislation to protect the homeland only to see the President fail to request adequate funding to achieve the homeland security mission. We can not play homeland security roulette forever and expect to successfully defeat terrorism. To best protect the American people, we must fund our intelligence and homeland security efforts to swiftly implement these changes.

Today's action is an important step toward achieving a truly integrated national effort in the global war on terror. This bill makes significant changes necessary to meet current and future national security challenges.

I am proud to support this historic legislation, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the Congress and the administration to provide the critical funding needed to achieve the homeland security mission.

That is correct. Section 219 is intended to provide a vessel buyback program to be financed through a capacity reduction loan for this fishery.

Yes. This section should not be interpreted as requiring the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to rationalize these fisheries. In fact, nothing in this section should interfere with the council process with respect to development of fishery management plans for this fishery or any ongoing work of the council on fishery management plans or ``rationalization'' of other fisheries.

Yes. This language does not prevent the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, National Marine Fisheries Service, or any other agency from enforcing any Federal law with respect to any member of this sector, including the conservation and management provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The act shall not prevent the council from raising the CDQ share of the harvest for this fishery consistent with past Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands rationalization efforts or as part of any eventual rationalization process. And finally, this reference to penalties should never be construed to prevent the council from implementing initiatives to reduce bycatch in this sector, which has historically had the highest bycatch rates in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands.

Mr. President, over the last several hours, much debate has taken place regarding section 222 of division H of this omnibus appropriations bill. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of many of my colleagues that have insisted that this egregious provision be removed. And, I wish to thank the majority leader and minority leader for establishing a path forward that will ensure that this provision will never become law.

Under the agreement announced earlier by the majority leader, the entire

conference report on the omnibus appropriations bill, once passed by the Senate, will be held at the desk and will not be forwarded to the President for his signature until the House has passed a correcting resolution that will nullify section 222. That correcting resolution will also be passed by the Senate today.

With that guarantee in place, and with the knowledge that section 222 of division H of the omnibus bill will never become law, I am pleased to vote in favor of the bill so that the people of my State and all other States can reap the benefits of the important programs funded in this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to see that Section 219 of Title 2 of this Act includes the statutory language necessary to authorize and implement a Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the catcher processor sector of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAI This program represents a positive step forward for the Puget Sound-based commercial fishing industry. Passage of this Act concludes more than a year-long effort to craft an appropriate capacity reduction program for the catcher processor sector of the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries.

Reducing capacity in these fisheries will improve the ability of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to manage the groundfish stock and contribute to the long term economic viability of the many businesses and people involved in the harvesting, processing and delivery of the highest quality seafood products to consumers. This is important not just to the fishermen who take such great risks up in the frigid waters of the North Pacific, but to the myriad of small businesses throughout the Puget Sound region that support this industry: ship repair yards, equipment suppliers, insurance brokers, transportation companies, and marketers.

My predecessor, Warren Magnuson, set out 24 years ago to put in place a system to Americanize and manage our nation fishery resources. His hard work and vision, championed also by a young Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, led to the innovative regional council structure we know today. I am proud that the North Pacific Council has managed the fisheries in its jurisdiction so successfully that it is singled out in this country as a model for maintaining sustainable fisheries.

Despite the success of the North Pacific Council in maintaining healthy fish stocks, there have been problems in the region as a result of overcapacity in the fishing fleets. The North Pacific Council has addressed many issues to help prevent overcapitalization, including license programs and limited entry requirements, but once there are too many fishing vessels it becomes a very challenging problem. These are situations where development of fisheries has outpaced the ability of the resource to support, either biologically or economically, the fleets of fishing vessels built to harvest this national resource. There is a Federal nexus here, when overcapitalization is the result of Federal programs or Federal management decisions. Congress has a record of stepping in when needed to assist in resolving these problems, and this Act follows the American Fisheries Act, the West Coast Groundfish Buyback, and the Crab Buyback in the North Pacific.

I disagree with those who say that this is a problem caused by the fishermen alone, and that they should bear the brunt of any economic consequences of an overcapitalized fishery. Yes, they do have responsibilities, and this bill makes them part of the solution. It is the remaining fishermen who will be responsible for repaying the loans used to reduce capacity in the fleets. That is an investment from them to preserve their future in these fisheries, and it will contribute to the broader economic stability of the Puget Sound region.

I must add that fisheries legislation is never easy to draft. It is a very technical subject overlaid with the very lively history of participants in the fisheries. As Maggie noted on the eve of passage of the original fisheries management act:

We cannot satisfy everybody. I know fishermen pretty well.

They are pretty hard to get to agree on a lot of things. They

are independent people.

This sentiment remains very much true today. We have worked hard to accommodate a variety of perspectives in this bill, and I am satisfied that the results are positive.

The Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the catcher processor sector of the BSAI authorized in this Act is a legitimate use of Federal resources to restore balance in these fisheries and to promote their long term viability. I look forward to working with the people in the fishery and representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the North Pacific Council to implement this program consistent with the intent of Congress.

The purpose of this program is to reduce excess harvesting capacity in the catcher processor sector of the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries. Reducing excess harvesting capacity will contribute to the future rationalization and long term stability of these fisheries. This statement is intended to clarify certain provisions contained in the Act and to facilitate its prompt implementation.

Subsection (a) provides definitions relevant to this Act and defines the four subsectors participating in the capacity reduction program: AFA trawl catcher processors, longline catcher processors, non-AFA trawl catcher processors, and pot catcher processors.

Subsection (b) authorizes a $75 million capacity reduction program for the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries.

Subsection (c) allocates the $75 million in loan authority among the four catcher processor subsectors to reflect their relative participation in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries: $36 million to the longline catcher processor subsector; $31 million to the non-AFA trawl catcher processor subsector; $6 million to the AFA trawl catcher processor subsector; and $2 million to the pot catcher processor subsector. In the event any of the subsectors does not use the funds allocated to them by January 1, 2009, then any remaining funds roll over to a fund available to all four subsectors.

Subsection (d) establishes the basic contractual relationship between members of a subsector who choose to participate in a capacity reduction plan by agreeing to sell their license, their vessel, or both, to the Federal Government. Before the Secretary may disburse funds, a seller must enter into a binding reduction contract with the Federal Government, subject only to approval of a capacity reduction plan pursuant to a referendum described in subsection (e). The binding reduction contract must include provisions governing revocation of all Federal fishing licenses, fishing permits, and area endorsements issued for a vessel, and if relevant, the scrapping of a vessel, that is purchased through a capacity reduction plan authorized by this Act. It is intended that licenses currently attached to a vessel and all associated vessel catch history will be retired.

It is anticipated that the subsectors will use their loan authority to reduce both active and latent capacity. The importance of encouraging the elimination of latent licenses is to prevent the re- capitalization of the fishery from within the fleet. The August 2004

Department of Commerce report on addressing overcapitalized fisheries, U.S. Action National Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity, identifies latent capacity as a serious problem to be addressed in capacity reduction programs. The report cautions that simply targeting active vessels with large catch histories may result in ctivating the latent boats and licenses, and frustrating the intent of the buyback effort. Unless latent capacity is addressed, the goal of the Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishing Capacity Reduction Program will be undermined.

When dealing with active capacity, a participant will sell both a vessel and its qualified licenses. However, when eliminating latent capacity, there may be circumstances where only a license is purchased through the capacity reduction program. This could occur when a vessel has sunk or was otherwise destroyed by fire or accident, and is not presently active in the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries. There also will be circumstances where vessels have little or no catch history, but have qualified for a license. In this situation such vessels and licenses represent another form of latent capacity and should be targeted in specific capacity reduction plans. In some cases there may be no current vessel named on a qualified license. The price paid to purchase such licenses associated with a sunk or destroyed vessel is expected to be less than the price paid for an active vessel and its licenses.

Subsection (e)(1) establishes a framework within which individual subsectors may develop capacity reduction plans. This includes a fee system that will repay the full amount of a capacity reduction loan amount in a timely fashion. The subsectors may use negotiations, bidding systems, a reverse auction, or other methods appropriate for identifying excess capacity to be reduced. This flexible approach is intended to utilize the knowledge and incentives of the participants in a subsector to develop capacity reduction programs that maximize the elimination of excess fishing capacity at the least cost and in the shortest time.

Subsection (e)(2) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to review and approve capacity reduction plans devised by each subsector. Once a subsector completes its capacity reduction plan, it is submitted to the Secretary for review to determine consistency with this Act. Subsection (e)(2)(A-E) sets forth the requirements for Secretarial approval. To approve a subsector capacity reduction plan, the Secretary must determine that plan is consistent with the requirements of subsection (b) of section 312 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, with certain exceptions spelled out in this Act. Each subsector plan must include a fee system for full and timely repayment of the loan, and must achieve the maximum sustained reduction in fishing capacity for the least cost in the minimum amount of time. Maximum sustained reduction may be demonstrated through a showing that the vessels and licenses to be purchased will achieve the greatest reduction in harvest capacity through use of the loan authority available to a subsector. Data related to vessel catch history and performance capabilities may be used to satisfy this provision.

Subsection (e)(2)(E) expressly allows subsectors covered by this Act to upgrade their vessels to achieve efficiencies in fishing operations. This provision does not alter the existing statutory or regulatory restrictions on vessel length, tonnage or horsepower. The North Pacific Council retains authority to tailor vessel upgrades to meet the goals of fisheries management plans within its jurisdiction.

Subsection (e)(3) authorizes the Secretary to oversee referenda by each subsector to approve capacity reduction plans and requires the Secretary to notify subsector participants of an upcoming referendum. Following secretarial review and approval of a subsector capacity reduction plan, the Secretary is required to notify, to the extent practicable, all members of the subsector affected by such plan. The Secretary notice will include information on the proposed fee system, the schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements for participation in a subsector referendum, and an estimate of the capacity to be reduced. This is purely a notice requirement--not a rulemaking--and it is not required to be published in the Federal Register.

Subsection (e)(4)(A) authorizes the Secretary to implement the individual subsectors capacity reduction plans. Within 90 days after a successful referendum, the Secretary is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice that includes the specific terms and conditions governing the purchase of licenses and vessels and a description of the fee system established for repayment of the loan. This is not a rulemaking. The purpose of this notice is to provide a public record of what has been purchased and how the loan is to be repaid.

Subsection (e)(4)(B) expresses the intent of Congress that Section 312(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act not apply to the capacity reduction plans governed by this Act.

Section (e)(5) establishes the authority of the Secretary to collect fees from the remaining members of a subsector necessary to repay the debt obligations incurred as a result of an approved capacity reduction plan. It is intended that the Secretary exercise this authority through regulations that will govern the fee collection system and ensure that the Federal Government can collect such fees. These regulations will bind the remaining members of a subsector and obligate them to repay the capacity reduction loan. Revenues to cover the loan repayment fees will be derived from the sale of fish harvested in the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries.

Subsection (f) establishes the required actions by entities other than the Secretary to impose restrictions on vessels, revoke licenses and associated fishing rights, and scrap vessels. Subsection (f)(1)(A) requires the National Vessel Documentation Center, at the request of the Secretary, to revoke any fishery endorsements issued to a vessel under section 12108 of Title 46, U.S.C. It is expected that the National Vessel Documentation Center will annotate each buyback vessel documentation with language provided by the Secretary to notify future purchasers that they will not be able to receive any fishery endorsements. Subsections (f)(1)(B and C) require the Maritime Administration to restrict a vessel to U.S. flag status and refuse to grant approval for foreign registration or operation under foreign authority by such vessel. Subsection (f)(2) requires that vessels purchased under this Act designated for scrapping conform to the procedures established for a reduction vessel under section 600.1011(c) of Title 50, CFR. Scrapping of vessels pursuant to this provision shall be overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-- NOAA--and performed consistent with NOAA requirements. The cost to scrap a vessel will be paid by the buyback participant.

Subsection (g)(1) specifies the eligibility criteria for participation in the BSAI Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishing Capacity Reduction Program. It also limits participation in the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery to ensure the goal of capacity reduction is achieved.

Subsection (g)(2) expresses the sense of Congress that the North Pacific Council continue with its efforts to rationalize the BSAI non- pollock groundfish fisheries. This statement is intended to reinforce the Council commitment to adopt such management measures necessary to promote stability in these fisheries. This includes final action in a timely fashion on Amendments 80a and 80b, and the development and approval of sector allocations for the BSAI Pacific cod fishery. It is the understanding of Congress that the North Pacific Council will take final action on Amendments 80a and 80b by the fall of 2005, and adopt BSAI Pacific cod sector allocations by the end of 2005. Amendments 80a and 80b are particularly important to the non-AFA trawl catcher processor subsector as this fleet seeks to comply with the North Pacific Council pending Improved Retention/Improved Utilization--IR/ IU--requirements. It is essential that the North Pacific Council take final action on Amendments 80a and 80b prior to implementing new IR/IU requirements.

Subsection (g)(2)(B) makes clear that subsectors who eliminate excess capacity through a capacity reduction plan authorized by this Act not be penalized by the North Pacific Council. This provision is intended to discourage the Council from reducing a subsector

BSAI non-pollock groundfish allocations as a result of that subsector reduction of fishing effort through programs authorized under this Act. This does not preclude the North Pacific Council from exercising its authority to manage these fisheries, including taking actions to address bycatch concerns or changes in stock levels. In addition, this Subsection would not prevent the North Pacific Council from raising the CDQ share of the harvest for this fishery consistent with past Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands rationalization efforts or as part of any eventual rationalization process.

Subsection (h) requires the Secretary to report annually to the relevant Congressional oversight committees on the implementation of this Act. Reports shall include details on the individual capacity reduction plans, an assessment of their cost-effectiveness, and the achievement of the goals set forth in section 312(b) of the Magnuson- Stevens Act.

Mr. President, I will applaud passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. IDEA is based on the American principle of equal opportunity. IDEA recognizes that students have a civil right to a free, appropriate public education, even if they have special needs that require additional resources.

We still have a long way to go to meet the Federal Government's promise to fund 40 percent of special education, and we are working on that challenge. However, this bill that meets my highest priority-- protecting the right of children with disabilities to a free, appropriate public education. In addition, this bill takes critical steps towards improving monitoring, enforcement, and public reporting. Our laws are only meaningful if we are willing to enforce them, and the provisions in this bill will help us do just that. I am pleased that this bill contains provisions that I fought for to provide the additional funding that school districts--especially small, rural districts or districts with major medical facilities--really need to provide FAPE for children whose disabilities result in extremely high costs. The bill also contains important improvements to early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities.

I am particularly pleased that we were able to improve services for homeless and foster children with disabilities and children with disabilities in military families in this bill. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator DeWine, and his staff, Mary Beth Luna, for working with me on these important provisions. These provisions are a major victory for America's most vulnerable disabled students. The bill ensures that a high quality education will follow them whenever they have to move to another school. The bill improves special education services and coordination of services for children with disabilities who transfer school districts; clarifies which appropriate adults can advocate for children with regard to their special education services, including when the parents cannot be located or are uninvolved with the child; improves coordination between McKinney-Vento and IDEA and overall representation of homeless and foster children in IDEA, and strengthens and expands early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities who are homeless, in foster care, or in military families.

While I do believe that this bill takes critical steps to improve special education in this country, I am disappointed that the Federal Government continues to fail to meet the funding promises under IDEA. Nearly 30 years ago, the Federal Government made a commitment of equal opportunity to the Nation's children with disabilities. With that commitment, we promised that the Federal Government would uphold its end of the bargain and pay 40 percent of the average per student cost for every special education

student. Today, however, the Federal Government is paying about half of that cost.

Over the past few years, IDEA has received significant increases. However, according to the Congressional Research Service, at increases of $1 billion each year, the Federal Government will never fulfill the promise of funding at 40 percent. Further, even if annual increases were $1 billion plus inflation, we will not reach the promised level of 40 percent until 2035--more than 30 years from now.

Local schools are already struggling with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, the lack of promised federal funding, and the dismal fiscal picture facing our state and local governments. I know we can do better for America's disabled students. Let's not make them wait another 30 years to fully-fund this law. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the Federal Government fulfills the promises of IDEA next year.

I want to thank Senator Kennedy, Chairman Gregg, Chairman Boehner, and Congressman Miller for their leadership on this bill. I also want to thank their staffs, Connie Garner, Denzel McGuire, Bill Lucia, Sally Lovejoy, David Cleary, Melanie Looney, Alex Nock, and Alice Cain for all of their hard work on this bill. The time and effort that they and their staff have put into this bill really show in the quality of the final product, which I am pleased to support.

Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and General Government, I rise to discuss a matter of great importance to my State and 33 other States--namely, the continuing backlog of claims for the Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief program.

The Military Construction Appropriations conference report that we are currently debating includes a title containing emergency disaster assistance. Within that title, a total of $1.202 billion is made available for the Emergency Relief Program. This appropriation carries with it the necessary language designating the funding as emergency spending.

While I support the overall funding for the Emergency Relief Program, I strongly object to the bill language governing this appropriation. At present, there are 90 projects from a total of 34 States that have been waiting to receive emergency relief funds for road projects stemming from Presidentially declared disasters. A great many of these projects stem from disasters that took place years ago and those States have been waiting an inordinate length of time for reimbursement. Despite this fact, the language governing the appropriation contained in this conference report effectively places the needs stemming from the four recent hurricanes as well as one hurricane that took place 2 months ago to the head of the list. This language makes the $1.2 billion in the bill available only for those five hurricanes and then stipulates that, if there is any funding remaining after those needs are met, that remaining funding can be used for the projects on the backlog list.

To my knowledge, we have never allowed certain natural disasters to get preferential treatment over other disasters under this program. And this new precedent will work a hardship on my state and a great many others. My State of Washington is still waiting for reimbursement of some $19.4 million stemming from six separate disasters dating as far back as the Nisqually earthquake in February 2001. The same can be said for 33 other states that are also owed varying amounts.

Based on my objection and those of several other Senators, I understand that there have been a series of discussions among the appropriate congressional and administration leaders to set forth a plan on how this backlog of emergency relief claims will be addressed in the near future. This plan was discussed during the conference committee deliberations on the military construction bill so I would welcome the comments of the managers of that bill on this matter.

I thank the managers of the bill for their attention to this matter and I'm pleased that they have received assurances that this problem will be addressed fully in the omnibus appropriations act. For the interest of all Senators, I ask unanimous consent that the most up-to-date backlog list provided to me by the Federal Highway Administration be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my ongoing work to protect taxpayers and help students by finally ending a special interest subsidy.

As my colleagues know, I have been working to close a loophole that allows some banks to issue new students loans at outrageously inflated rates. These subsides were supposed to have ended more than ten years ago, but they continue today, and taxpayers are footing the bill.

Just last year, this wasteful subsidy cost taxpayers $1 billion. Imagine how many students we could have helped if that money went to Pell Grants instead of the special interests. I believe we should close this loophole--immediately and permanently--and use the savings to help more students afford a college education.

It is outrageous that taxpayers are paying 30 times what they should for these student loans. Interest rates haven't been at 9.5 percent in years, but new loans--at that inflated rate--are being written every day because of this loophole.

On September 15, in the Appropriations Committee, I offered an amendment to close the loophole. My amendment would have used those savings--about $370 million--to increase grants to college students. My amendment had the support of every Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, but unfortunately the chairman and every Republican opposed it. They said they wanted to deal with it later.

So Senator Kennedy and I came here to the Senate floor and called on the Department of Education to take action, since our colleagues were not ready to act. Unfortunately, the Department of Education refused. As the Government Accountability Office noted, the Department could have closed this loophole with the stoke of a pen. Last week--seeing that neither the Republican Congress nor the administration--were willing to act, I introduced my own bill to permanently and fully close this loophole and help our students.

My bill is called the Student Loan Abuse Prevention Act S. 2861, and I thank Senators Kennedy, Mikulski, Durbin, Reed, Dodd, and Clinton for cosponsoring it.

My bill would use all of the savings to increase Pell Grants for students. The day after I introduced my bill, Senator Gregg offered his own bill, which we are considering today. I am pleased that the Republican leaders have finally offered a proposal. I am disappointed, however, that their plan does not fully close the loophole, expires after 1 year, and will not help today's student afford college.

Let me say a word about each of those shortcomings. First, the Gregg bill does not fully close the loophole. This subsidy would still live on. My bill says that lenders cannot create new loans at 9.5 percent. No new subsidies--period. And that is important because in the past 2 years lenders have used tricks to extend these outrageous subsidiaries, and we need to put an end to it. But the Republican bill is not a real fix. It does not stop these gimmicks entirely. In many cases, lenders could keep writing new loans at 9.5 percent for decades. Under the Republican bill, the outrageous subsidy will live on. So the first problem with the Republican bill is that it does not fully close the loophole and will still overcharge taxpayers for this lender subsidy.

The second problem with the Gregg bill is that it expires after 1 year. My bill will stop the subsidy forever. The Republican bill would expire in a year. I want my colleagues to know that when we work on the Higher Education Act, I will again work for a permanent fix that protects taxpayers--not just for 1 year--but forever.

The third problem with the Gregg bill is that it does nothing to help students who are trying to pay for college today. While there are a lot of good uses for this money, I would also like to see those dollars go straight into the pockets of our students so they can pay for college.

So the Gregg bill before us has three big problems--it doesn't fully close the loophole, it expires after a year, and it doesn't help today's college student. But--after all the work it has taken to get the Republicans to finally address this--the Gregg bill is a step forward and one we should take while we can.

I believe that our students and taxpayers deserve better. They deserve a real fix that is permanent and that helps today's students. But, given the reluctance we have seen so far, given the votes against my amendment last month, and the Bush administration's refusal to act, we should pass this first step and stay on the job until it is done and done right.

And I remind my colleagues that we will revisit the Higher Education Act next year, and I will fight to close this loophole fully and permanently. From coast to coast, the price of college education is soaring and parents and students are struggling. I will continue to fight for policies that put students above special interests and that protect taxpayers from these wasteful subsidies.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the life of Valentin J. Riva--a friend and transportation industry leader that was taken from us at far too young an age. Earlier this month, I was shocked and saddened to learn that Val Riva had passed away suddenly as a result of complications from heart surgery. Val was only 50 years old. I and many of my colleagues who work closely on transportation policy will remember Val as a truly visionary leader and trusted colleague. Moreover, Val was an extraordinarily dedicated father and husband.

Over the last two decades, Val has held leadership positions in several transportation organizations. Throughout, Val has been an articulate advocate for investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. Val served as vice president of government affairs for the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association from 1988 until 1991 and as vice president and general counsel of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association from 1991 until 1997.

From August of 1997 until the time of his unfortunate death, Val Riva served as president and chief executive officer of the American Concrete Pavement Association. And in his most recent position, Val not only continued to be a powerful voice in the fight for infrastructure investment, but he also was a strong proponent of making sure that adequate resources were being dedicated to advancing pavement technology and transportation research. We have often heard Members speak on this floor about the deteriorating condition of our Nation's roads and bridges. Val Riva recognized that we not only need to replace and rehabilitate those crumbling roads and bridges but we also need to conduct the necessary research to create new technologies that will help prolong the lifespan of our infrastructure.

Val Riva was also respected by his peers in the transportation industry. Best of all, Val had the rare gift of being both thoughtful and funny. He was considered a trusted colleague and, more importantly, a loyal friend to those individuals that had the good fortune to work with him. I consider myself extraordinarily lucky to be one of those individuals.

And while Val was very dedicated to his work in the transportation industry, there was no job more important or rewarding to him than being a father to Clare, Michael and David. No one ever had a meeting with Val without hearing about his children and hearing a historical reference. I express my heartfelt condolences to his three children and to his wife, Marti. Val's passing is much more than just their loss. It is a loss to the entire national transportation enterprise and the great many of us that recognized his leadership in it. While we will miss Val's personable nature, his humor and his strength, I and many of my Senate colleagues know that his contributions will live on for a very long time to come.