Floor Statements

Mr. President, on Friday, July 11, 2003, I was

unavoidably absent from the Senate and missed three rollcall votes. Had

I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote Nos. 272,

273 and 274. I particularly want the record to indicate my support for

the Legislative Branch and Military Construction appropriations

measures.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, in May, after weeks of Democratic efforts, Congress extended unemployment benefits for the 2\1/2\ million Americans who have been laid off due to the economic downturn in this country. So far, our Republican colleagues have refused to include assistance for the 1.1 million Americans who have been hit hardest by this economic crisis--those long-term unemployed who have already run out of their unemployment benefits.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer this amendment before the Senate. The amendment will provide additional unemployment insurance compensation to more than 1 million Americans who have exhausted all of their unemployment insurance benefits.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Daschle, Sarbanes, Clinton, and Reed as cosponsors of my amendment.

The Murray amendment provides an additional 13 weeks of benefits for unemployed Americans who have exhausted all of their Federal unemployment benefits. That means we will be giving additional assistance to American workers who have been out of work for 9 months or more.

My amendment provides 7 additional weeks of benefits for unemployed Americans who have already received 26 weeks of benefits because they live in a State hit hardest by the ongoing recession.

Finally, my amendment provides parity to railroad workers currently ineligible for extended benefits.

The amendment before us would cost $2.5 billion, but it would help more than a million American workers and their families.

Mr. President, we are talking about the people in this country who have been hit hardest by this recession. We are talking about workers who have run out of options but still have to pay their mortgage; they still have to pay their medical bills; they still have college tuition to pay.

One recent study concluded that unemployed workers do not have significant savings to carry their families through an extended period of unemployment. Unemployment rates normally replace less than half--50 percent--of lost wages. What this means is unemployed workers are draining their savings accounts just to survive. The problem is even more acute for the long-term unemployed. Many of those have drained their savings entirely. They have nothing left.

Last week's June 2003 unemployment report clearly demonstrates the need for this amendment at this time: 30,000 jobs were lost in the month of June; jobs have been lost for the last 5 consecutive months in this country; more than 394,000 jobs have been lost since January of this year; 9.4 million Americans are now unemployed; 3.4 million Americans have lost their jobs just since President Bush took office.

Mr. President, we will soon be in the longest job recession since the 1930s and the Great Depression. My State of Washington has the second highest unemployment rate in the Nation. The unemployment rate in my State is 7.3 percent, and that is just the official unemployment rate.

One recent business columnist suggested the actual unemployment rate for the State of Washington could be as high as 11.8 percent if you count all of Washington's unemployed workers.

All across Washington--in every sector and every region--we are continuing to see job losses. One recent economic report predicted it would be 2005 before any real job creation occurs in Washington State. That is a long time for people who have been out of work for 9 months or more.

My colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, is in the Chamber. He and I share the distinction of being in States with the highest unemployment for the last number of years.

We know when we go home that we are going to be faced by neighbors, by friends in every community across our State who will have been on unemployment, through no fault of their own. They want to be at work. They want to support their families. They want to send their kids to college. They want to pay their mortgages. They want to pay for health care. They do not have jobs. They do not have opportunities. And we have a responsibility to make sure they do not lose everything because of a recession that has been no fault of their own.

Despite the rosy projections of economic growth and recovery that we keep hearing from this administration, we have to tell you there are many real Americans who are suffering through this economy every day.

In my State, there are about 20,000 workers who would benefit from the amendment that is now before the Senate. I have met with these workers who are struggling today. We have lost 35,000 Boeing manufacturing jobs in the last 2 years alone. On an almost daily basis, my office gets calls from workers who are desperate, who have lost their benefits or who will soon lose their unemployment insurance compensation. In fact, yesterday I received a phone call from a gentleman named Richard, and I want to read the message he left my office: He said:

I live on Camino Island. I'm a laid off Boeing worker. I

got laid off a year and a half ago. And I'm in school right

now. My unemployment insurance just ran out. I have 8 months

left of school. . . .I'm really concerned right now. . .

.That money would have been a godsend. I worked for Boeing

for over 12 years.

This could be anyone working hard, raising their family, working for Boeing for 12 years and, through no fault of their own, through an economic recession in this country, through September 11, through a downturn in our airline industry, this gentleman was laid off. He is now trying to get his life back together. He is going to school. He does not want to lose everything. He wants to contribute back to this economy and to this country. He needs us to extend unemployment insurance to give him that kind of assurance that this country is there for him in the good times and in the tough times.

There are a lot of workers, such as Richard from Camino Island, in my State who are losing their benefits. Many of these workers are losing hope in this current economy. This amendment gives more than 1 million American workers and their families new hope, new assurance that their country is there for them.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge its adoption this morning on this bill. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Reserving the right to object, is the Senator speaking against the Murray amendment?

The Senator is correct.

Mr. President, how much time remains under the agreement before the vote?

How much time does the other side have?

Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Oklahoma if he intends to use all his time.

Mr. President, I know many Senators are waiting to vote. I will just make a few more comments. I know Senator Nickles intends to raise a budget point of order.

Let me say in response to the comments made in opposition to the Murray amendment that we will be voting on shortly, that we on this side, Democrats, have brought this issue up time and again.

That is because our economy is struggling. That is because we have families at home who have been laid off, who have run out of unemployment insurance. We would love to have a debate on how to increase jobs. Democrats believe investing in transportation that provides infrastructure and new jobs is critical. Democrats believe investing in education, getting our economy going again is an important way to provide jobs for people. And there are other investments we believe would be helpful in providing jobs. We have not had the debates. We have been thwarted at every turn.

As a result, we have people at home who have been laid off. In the last 5 consecutive months we have lost jobs. We cannot continue to ignore those people at home who are out of work, who have run out of unemployment insurance, who cannot pay their mortgage, put food on the table, are becoming even more of a drag on our economy because they can't contribute back. We believe by extending unemployment benefits we will at least help them in the temporary.

We welcome a debate on getting jobs and the economy going again. We have been waiting for that discussion. We have had time to have a tax cut debate. We have seen that has not produced the kinds of jobs we need. In fact, 3.5 million Americans have lost their jobs since this President took office. We want to have a jobs program. But at this point that has not occurred.

What we now have is more than 1 million Americans who have run out of their unemployment insurance. The time is right. We hear this violates the Budget Act. I welcome my colleagues to go home and say to a young family whose father or mother has lost their job, who are struggling every single day with tears in their eyes, that this violates the Budget Act or this is not the right time or the right bill. We can do this, and we can do it now.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I tell our colleagues on the other side as long as this economy struggles, as long as people are losing unemployment insurance benefits, we are going to continue to bring this issue back to the floor. We would like to have a jobs program. We would like to see jobs increased. We want to have the debate. Right now we need to deal with the immediate.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Cantwell and Dayton be listed as cosponsors of the Murray amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, 30,000 jobs were lost in the month of June alone. We have lost jobs in the last 5 consecutive months. A million people have now lost additional compensation under UI. This amendment is extremely important.

I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Kennedy.

Mr. President, there is a health care crisis in this country. Millions of Americans have no health insurance. Insurance companies continue to increase their premiums and doctors and patients are the ones who are paying.

In my home State of Washington, our health care system is in trouble. Some doctors are closing their practices, retiring early, or moving to other States. We have a shortage of nurses and other medical professionals. And one in nine Washington State residents do not even have health insurance.

Doctors in my State are seeing their malpractice insurance premiums increase by 100 and even 200 percent. At the same time, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance companies are reducing their reimbursement amounts. These multiple forces have created a perfect storm for doctors and patients.

In some specialties, like OB GYN, the malpractice insurance market is out of control. Insurance companies keep jacking up their premiums. These insurance company increases are simply not sustainable.

I strongly support legislation to correct these problems and to get skyrocketing insurance premiums back under control. We must help to stabilize our health care system by making sure that doctors are not forced out of business by rising insurance rates.

Unfortunately, the proposal before us is not the answer. There are major flaws with both the process and the substance of the proposal.

First, this bill would preempt State patient rights laws, and give more protection to HMOs and insurance companies at the expense of real people who are hurt.

Second, caps on noneconomic malpractice awards have not been effective at reducing insurance rates in States where they have been tried; and

Third, this bill is being used as a political club, instead of a real attempt to find a meaningful solution.

I am deeply disappointed that some Senators would rather play political games with our Nation's health care instead of trying to find a real solution.

One problem is that this proposal preempts State patients' right laws and protects HMOs and insurance companies rather than doctors and patients.

For the past 3 days Senators have talked about the impact of the medical malpractice crisis on doctors and patients across the country. And those who have been following this debate might assume that this legislation would only provide protection to doctors and hospitals. But this bill goes much further.

S. 11 also extends additional protections to nursing homes, HMOs, drug and medical device manufacturers.

Not only does S. 11 provide liability relief for these groups. In some cases it preempts State patient bills of rights laws and protections--protections that patients and doctors have fought hard to achieve.

Since 1997, I have worked to secure passage of a Federal Patient's Bill of rights to protect patients and to ensure that insurance companies make decisions based on sound medicine, not profit margins.

Working with doctors and hospitals we have twice tried in the U.S. Senate to enact a comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights, but were defeated by special interests. The foundation of any patients' bill of rights legislation is holding HMOs accountable for making medical decisions. Unfortunately, S. 11 would take us in the opposite direction.

Many States, like my home State of Washington, did not wait for Federal action to protect patients and doctors. In March 2000, Washington state enacted a strong Patients' Bill of Rights law that held HMOs and insurance companies accountable and liable for harm caused when insurance plans denied or delayed access to recommended health care services.

The State law also provides a 3-year statute of limitation from the completion of the independent external review process. But, S. 11 would preempt this law. It would impose a Federal noneconomic limitation of $250,000 and would reduce the state of limitation to 1 year.

This is the wrong approach. The Senate leadership is proposing to substitute the judgment of the Federal

Government in Washington, DC for the judgment of the State legislature in Washing State. As insurance has historically been a State, not a Federal, issue, Congress must be careful about this Federal expansion.

The second problem with this proposal is that caps on malpractice awards do not necessarily reduce insurance rates.

I have heard my colleagues refer to California's experience as a model for Federal action, since California has enacted caps. However, recent data shows that average actual premium rates in California are actually higher than States that have no such caps, according to the Medical Liability Monitor.

Across the country, States that have imposed caps on noneconomic damages, are now seeing similar increases in insurance premiums as those States without caps. If the goal is to help insurance companies with their profit margins, then this bill might help. But if the goal is to help doctors afford to pay for insurance, then this bill will not help.

Even if caps did force insurance companies to reduce their rates, are caps fair to patients who were harmed?

We know that as many as 90,000 people a year die from medical errors. Not all of these errors constitute malpractice, but limiting fair and just compensation for even a fraction of these individuals and their families is a major change in our judicial system--and a huge price to pay in the name of reform.

If this legislation had gone through the appropriate committee process, Congress might have gotten some answers to these questions, and the legislation before us might have been helped doctors and patients.

Unfortunately, this bill was brought forward for purely political reasons. This is the greatest tragedy of all for doctors and patients. Some colleagues would use this bill to help their follow partisans rather than the physicians who need it.

This bill did not go through the standard committee process. There were no public hearings to get expert testimony to help shape the legislation. There was no committee markup for the legislation for Senators to weigh in on the issue.

In fact, there are a number of reports indicating that malpractice claims are not necessarily responsible for higher insurance premiums. These reports suggest that it is not the growing number of cases or even the size awards that are driving premium increases, but rather the decline in the value of investments for insurance companies.

Without the opportunity to fully understand the problem--with hearings and markups-Congress cannot develop a real, workable solution.

Instead, some Republicans are exploiting this legislation, according to the Washington Post, ``as an issue for next year's election.''

In fact, even Republicans have acknowledged that this is not a serious proposal, but instead is a ``political document.''

A Republican Senator was quoted in the New York Times this morning discussing this bill. He said the Senate leadership is ``bringing this bill up to get most of my Democratic friends to vote against it, a handful of Republicans to vote against it, and they're going to take it on the campaign trail.''

This is outrageous. Patients are losing their doctors. Doctors are going out of business. And rather than address a critical problem, the Senate leadership is playing political games.

So what is the answer?

Clearly, the medical malpractice insurance rates doctors are facing are untenable. They are a real problem for doctors, for patients, and for our entire health care community. Every week, I hear from doctors throughout Washington State about the challenges that soaring malpractice insurance premiums are causing.

That is why I support the Durbin-Graham proposal to provide immediate relief to doctors.

When insurance markets are dysfunctional--as they certainly are in malpractice--the Federal Government has a tradition of providing needed support. We did that with flood insurance a few years ago, and we did it again with terrorism insurance in 2001. When an insurance market fails, there is certainly precedent for Federal corrective actions.

If we can provide relief for terrorism and flood insurance, we should be able to provide relief for high-risk, critical practices like trauma and OB GYN services.

While we need to examine every way that we might address this crisis, as I look at this idea, I am also realistic. Noneconomic damages are not the only factor impacting insurance premiums. It is not clear to me that capping just noneconomic damages will really solve the problem. In addition, malpractice insurance is traditionally a state issue. If the Federal Government is going to insert itself so dramatically in a State matter, we need to be sure this approach is going to work.

There are still too many unanswered questions to proceed with this bill. We know that the status quo is not sustainable, but we need to recognize that this is a complicated problem and there can be no quick fixes.

It is time to stop playing politics and start working together to find solutions and heal our ailing system.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a great American and a true military heroine who has honorably served our country for over 20 years in the Army Medical Service Corps: MAJ Roberta Kearney Chang. As a resident of Bellevue, WA, MAJ Chang began her career at Fort Benning, GA, home of the Army's infantry, as a medical platoon leader. There, she earned the coveted Parachutist Wings and Expert Field Medical Badge. Following in her father's footsteps, the late First Lieutenant Robert M. Kearney, United States Army, Retired, she quickly rose through the ranks and served at Army bases throughout the world.

MAJ Chang had two overseas tours, one in Honduras, Central America, and one in the Republic of Korea. In Honduras, she participated in humanitarian missions to provide aid and medical care to the people of this country. In Korea, she successfully completed two consecutive company commands for the 121st Evacuation Hospital and Headquarters, 18th Medical Command. MAJ Chang was handpicked to become an instructor at the U.S. Army Academy of Health Sciences, Fort Sam Houston, TX. In this capacity she taught health care administration subjects to over 5,000 officers annually. MAJ Chang also served as the senior patient administrator for the Command Surgeon, United States Army Reserve Personnel Command. She counseled and assisted hundreds of reservists that were injured as a result of service in Operation Desert Storm. Her knowledge of the intricacies of the physical disability system for both the active duty and reserve component soldiers is unsurpassed, and she is considered an expert trainer in these areas. She served as a health care operations officer and the head of communications and customer service at the TRICARE Mid-Atlantic, Lead Agent Office Norfolk, VA for final assignment TRICARE Mid-Atlantic serves over 1 million military beneficiaries.

In each assignment, MAJ Chang excelled and met every challenge, and was rewarded with greater responsibilities and opportunities. Her talent for teaching and mentoring personnel, as well as her creativity and skill in management, were instrumental in providing army medicine the fine cadre of hospital administrators serving today. Above all, she is a stellar officer and leader who always put the welfare of her staff and patients first. MAJ Chang is a committed health care professional, and is an active member of the American College of Healthcare Executives and the American Health Information Management Association. MAJ Chang always went the extra mile to serve her country and her fellow man. Her performance reflects greatly on herself, the United States Army, the Department of Defense, and the United States of America. I extend my deepest appreciation to MAJ Roberta Kearney Chang on behalf a grateful Nation for her over 20 years of dedicated military service. Congratulations, MAJ Chang, and let me be the one of the first to welcome you home to Washington State.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will greatly enhance Federal participation in financing and improving our Nation's ferry transportation system.

Today I am introducing the Ferry Transportation Enhancement Act. I am proud to have Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Corzine, Clinton, Edwards, Feinstein, Hollings, Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Schumer as original cosponsors. This bill will provide significantly more resources to state governments, public ferry systems, and public entities responsible for developing facilities for ferries.

Specifically, the bill would: provide $150 million a year for the Federal Highway Administration's Ferry Boat Discretionary Program for fiscal years 2004 through 2009. This is approximately four times the $38 million a year that is currently being provided under this program; add ``ferry maintenance facilities'' to the list of allowable use of funds under this program; add ``ferries'' to the Clean Fuels Program; establish a Ferry Joint Program Office to coordinate Federal programs affecting ferry boat and ferry facility construction, maintenance, and operations and to promote ferry service as a component of the Nation's transportation system; establish an information database on ferry systems, routes, vessels, passengers and vehicles carried; and establish an institute for ferries to conduct R&D, conduct training programs, encourage collaborative efforts to promote ferry service, and preserve historical information. This will parallel institutes that now exist for highways, transit, and rail.

Currently, the Federal investment in ferries is only one-tenth of one percent of the total Surface Transportation Program. There is virtually no coordination at the Federal level to encourage and promote ferries as there are for other modes of transportation.

We need better coordinated ferry services because it's the sole means of surface transportation in many areas of the country, including Hawaii, Alaska and my home State of Washington.

Ferries are also the preferred, and the only feasible, method of commuting from home to work in places like Washington State, New York/ New Jersey, North Carolina, Hawaii and Alaska.

Finally, in many States--like my home State of Washington--they are an important part of the tourism industry and represent a part of our cultural identity.

The symbol of ferries moving people and vehicles on the waterways of the Puget Sound is as much a part of our cultural identity as computers, coffee, commercial aircraft and the Washington Apple.

Ferry use is growing.

In Washington State our ferry system--the Nation's largest--currently transports 26 million passengers each year and carries 11 million vehicles.

Other systems that serve New York/New Jersey, North Carolina, San Francisco, and Alaska also have significant numbers of passengers using the ferries.

The Nation's six largest ferry systems carried 73 million people and 13 million vehicles last year.

The growth projection for ferry use is very high. For these larger systems, it is projected that by 2009 there will be a 14-percent increase in passengers and a 17-percent increase in vehicles being carried by ferries compared to 2002.

In San Francisco, that projection is a 46-percent increase.

It is clear that many people are using ferries and more will be using them in the future.

This is all with very little help from the Federal Government.

Our investment in ferries pails in comparison to the Federal investments in highways and other forms of mass transit.

Our bill would provide the needed funding for these growing systems for new ferry boat construction, for ferry facilities and terminals, and for maintenance facilities.

The bill also would make ferries eligible under the Clean Fuels Program.

Like busses, ferries are a form of mass transit that is environmentally cleaner than mass use of cars and trucks. Making them eligible for the Clean Fuels Program will encourage boat makers to design cleaner and more efficient vessels in the future. This will make ferry travel an even more environmentally friendly means of transportation than it already is today.

Finally, setting up a Ferry Joint Program Office, keeping track of ferry statistics, and establishing a National Ferry Institute will increase the profile of ferries as part of our Nation's infrastructure and provide a method to analyze and research ways to improve their use.

In the end, I hope this proposal can be included in the TEA-21 Reauthorization.

Ferries are an important part of our Nation's transportation infrastructure.

This bill recognizes their importance by providing the resources and support they need to grow and serve passengers.

I urge the Senate support this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see it passed.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will greatly enhance Federal participation in financing and improving our Nation's ferry transportation system.

Today I am introducing the Ferry Transportation Enhancement Act. I am proud to have Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Corzine, Clinton, Edwards, Feinstein, Hollings, Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Schumer as original cosponsors. This bill will provide significantly more resources to state governments, public ferry systems, and public entities responsible for developing facilities for ferries.

Specifically, the bill would: provide $150 million a year for the Federal Highway Administration's Ferry Boat Discretionary Program for fiscal years 2004 through 2009. This is approximately four times the $38 million a year that is currently being provided under this program; add ``ferry maintenance facilities'' to the list of allowable use of funds under this program; add ``ferries'' to the Clean Fuels Program; establish a Ferry Joint Program Office to coordinate Federal programs affecting ferry boat and ferry facility construction, maintenance, and operations and to promote ferry service as a component of the Nation's transportation system; establish an information database on ferry systems, routes, vessels, passengers and vehicles carried; and establish an institute for ferries to conduct R&D, conduct training programs, encourage collaborative efforts to promote ferry service, and preserve historical information. This will parallel institutes that now exist for highways, transit, and rail.

Currently, the Federal investment in ferries is only one-tenth of one percent of the total Surface Transportation Program. There is virtually no coordination at the Federal level to encourage and promote ferries as there are for other modes of transportation.

We need better coordinated ferry services because it's the sole means of surface transportation in many areas of the country, including Hawaii, Alaska and my home State of Washington.

Ferries are also the preferred, and the only feasible, method of commuting from home to work in places like Washington State, New York/ New Jersey, North Carolina, Hawaii and Alaska.

Finally, in many States--like my home State of Washington--they are an important part of the tourism industry and represent a part of our cultural identity.

The symbol of ferries moving people and vehicles on the waterways of the Puget Sound is as much a part of our cultural identity as computers, coffee, commercial aircraft and the Washington Apple.

Ferry use is growing.

In Washington State our ferry system--the Nation's largest--currently transports 26 million passengers each year and carries 11 million vehicles.

Other systems that serve New York/New Jersey, North Carolina, San Francisco, and Alaska also have significant numbers of passengers using the ferries.

The Nation's six largest ferry systems carried 73 million people and 13 million vehicles last year.

The growth projection for ferry use is very high. For these larger systems, it is projected that by 2009 there will be a 14-percent increase in passengers and a 17-percent increase in vehicles being carried by ferries compared to 2002.

In San Francisco, that projection is a 46-percent increase.

It is clear that many people are using ferries and more will be using them in the future.

This is all with very little help from the Federal Government.

Our investment in ferries pails in comparison to the Federal investments in highways and other forms of mass transit.

Our bill would provide the needed funding for these growing systems for new ferry boat construction, for ferry facilities and terminals, and for maintenance facilities.

The bill also would make ferries eligible under the Clean Fuels Program.

Like busses, ferries are a form of mass transit that is environmentally cleaner than mass use of cars and trucks. Making them eligible for the Clean Fuels Program will encourage boat makers to design cleaner and more efficient vessels in the future. This will make ferry travel an even more environmentally friendly means of transportation than it already is today.

Finally, setting up a Ferry Joint Program Office, keeping track of ferry statistics, and establishing a National Ferry Institute will increase the profile of ferries as part of our Nation's infrastructure and provide a method to analyze and research ways to improve their use.

In the end, I hope this proposal can be included in the TEA-21 Reauthorization.

Ferries are an important part of our Nation's transportation infrastructure.

This bill recognizes their importance by providing the resources and support they need to grow and serve passengers.

I urge the Senate support this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see it passed.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York.

Amendment No. 1019

Mr. President, I have a statement I will give for the Record, but I also want to thank Senator Conrad for his work on the self-injected biologics and the offering of this amendment tonight. I am delighted to be a cosponsor on this amendment. It is something I have worked on for over 2 years. And as Senator Conrad said, we have patients today with MS, with rheumatoid arthritis, who are forced to go to a doctor, a medical clinic in order to get the drugs they need.

This will save us money in the long run because people will be able to stay home. But, most importantly, it will allow people quality of life in the care they need. I thank Senator Conrad and Senator Smith and the other cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Conrad and Senator Smith in offering this amendment to give those on Medicare access to a new, exciting group of drugs known as self-injected biologics.

Senator Conrad offered a similar amendment during the Senate Finance Committee markup and received a commitment from the chair to work with us on this effort.

As a result of this commitment, Senator Conrad withdrew the amendment. We have been working with CBO and Senator Baucus' staff to address any concerns.

Currently, Medicare will only cover biologics if they are administered in a physician's office or clinical setting. That means patients must travel to the physician's office to receive treatment. This is not easy for many patients who have rheumatoid arthritis or MS--two diseases that can severely limit a person's mobility.

Fortunately, there are versions of these drugs that a patient can take in their own home. It is a great innovation that will improve a patient's access.

Unfortunately, Medicare won't cover biologics that are administered in the home. That just doesn't make sense. I have been working to correct this inequity for the past 2 Congresses.

The Murray-Conrad-Smith amendment would provide 2 years of coverage, under Part B, for those self-injected biologics that replace treatments currently available only in a physician's office.

We allow for 2-year coverage to bridge the gap to implementation of a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

We have received a CBO score for the 2 years and believe that we can find room in 2004 and 2005 to provide this important coverage for MS and RA patients.

This legislation is strongly endorsed by the Arthritis Foundation and will provide additional coverage to all four MS self-injected or self- administered treatments.

For MS, only one treatment is covered under Medicare, provided in a physician's office.

I am hopeful that the managers of this legislation will be able to accept our amendment and end this discriminatory practice in Medicare.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, Congress is about to update Medicare to finally help seniors with prescription drugs, and while I have some real concerns about the way this bill would provide drug coverage, I am convinced that after 5 years of stalemate, it is time to pass a drug benefit now to begin to get seniors the help they need.

Mr. President, I have been working to improve this bill by providing additional funding in the Budget Committee, by supporting various amendments, and by offering my own amendment.

I want to make sure that the drug benefit we create will help as many seniors as possible. Before we add a new benefit to Medicare, we have to remember that there's a serious problem with Medicare today that penalizes seniors based on where they live. The problem is in the payment formula that Medicare uses, and it hurts many seniors.

Today under Medicare, some seniors can get fewer services--and pay higher premiums--just based on where they live. Every senior pays the same amount into Medicare, but some seniors get much fewer benefits based on geography. That's not fair to seniors in my State and in other States.

For the past few years, I've been working to fix that problem. Last year, I introduced the MediFair Act to bring all States up to the national average in Medicare payments. We are still working to fix this disparity in Medicare today. The problem is that this new drug benefit would follow that same old, unfair formula. It means that seniors in States such as Washington will have few choices and pay higher premiums.

That's why I'm offering my amendment today--to give seniors more choices and lower premiums as they get healthcare and prescription drugs.

As we improve Medicare, we shouldn't build on the unfair polices of the past. While I am still working to fix the underlying formula that's hurting seniors in my State, we can at least avoid perpetuating an unfair system in this new benefit. I am proud to report that we have made some progress recently to fix the regional disparity that penalizes many Medicare patients. I am pleased to have joined with Senators Grassley and Baucus in closing the rural versus urban gap in reimbursements.

And, earlier this year, the Budget Committee unanimously adopted the Feingold-Murray-Johnson amendment, which modified the Medicare reserve fund to allow legislation to promote geographic equity in Medicare payments.

Back in 1997, when we expanded Medicare+Choice, we took some steps to make it fairer. Since the Medicare+Choice rate was based on the fee- for-service rate, it was important to provide some guaranteed level for states with low reimbursements. We did two things. First, we set a minimum payment--known as a floor--so that no county would fall below a certain level. Second, we tweaked the funding formula to provide greater equity across the country for everyone on Medicare. That approach is known as a ``blend'' because it takes the regional formula and blends it with the national average. Those were both good steps. There was only one problem: Congress never provided the funding to revise the formula. So we put a fix in the law, but we never funded it. We have not been able to fund it until now because it has to be budget neutral.

Today, my amendment would finally fund that technical correction and give seniors better access to care. Specifically, my amendment fully funds the Medicare+Choice blend formula starting in 2006 for determining the Medicare Advantage benchmark. If we don't fix this problem, we will deny many seniors access to coordinated care.

PPO's and HMO's will only go into those regions already at the higher end of per beneficiary reimbursement. We should--at the very least--try to create a level playing field for all regions of the country. It is unfair to talk about competition when some regions will receive hundreds of dollars more per beneficiary than others.

During this debate, I have listened to my colleagues talk about the benefits of PPO's and HMO's as part of their new Medicare Advantage. Senator Frist has spoken several times on the benefit of a coordinated care approach for improving disease management and keeping seniors healthier longer. While I still have some concerns about how these new plans will operate, I want to be sure that seniors in Washington State and other States with low Medicare reimbursement can take advantage of Medicare Advantage. I also want to point out that is not about increasing payments to insurance plans. It's about ensuring that seniors in all regions of the country have access to competitive Medicare Advantage plans.

My amendment is similar to language adopted in the House Ways & Means Committee mark. However, I do not fully fund the blend in my amendment until 2006. The House proposes the change starting in 2004. I also point out that my amendment doesn't force plans in any State or region to do anything. If they want to base Medicare Advantage on either the current fee-for-service rate--or the Medicare +Choice rate--they are free to do so. My amendment gives plans a third option that could be more fair and could help more seniors.

Finally--in an effort to truly measure the cost of providing care to all seniors--my amendment directs the Department of Health and Human Services to determine the costs of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries at DoD or VA facilities. Since Medicare assumes the reimbursement, these beneficiaries should be counted in the equation.

Failing to account for the cost of this care has resulted in lower fee for service per beneficiary costs. Those lower fee-for-service rates means significant inequities in Medicare reimbursement. We should correct this existing flaw before we build a new drug benefit around it.

I have been trying to get HHS to take this step since 1997 and supported language in BIP A2000 directing HHS to report to Congress on recommendations for correcting this inequity. Unfortunately, HHS remains unwilling or unable to properly determine the actual cost of care in any given region or State.

self-injectables

Mr. President, I want to take just a moment to update my colleagues on another amendment that I will be offering soon with Senator Conrad and Senator Smith. It relates to a new, exciting group of drugs known as self-injected biologics, and it's a chance to give Medicare patients access to the benefits these new drugs offer. Senator Conrad offered a similar amendment during the Senate Finance Committee mark up and received a commitment from the Chair to work with us on this effort. As a result of this commitment, Senator Conrad withdrew the amendment. We have been working with CBO and Senator Baucus' staff to address any concerns.

Currently, Medicare will only cover biologics if they are administered in a physician's office or clinical setting. That means patients must travel to the physician's office to receive treatment. That's not easy for many patients who have Rheumatoid Arthritis or MS-- two diseases that can severely limit a person's mobility.

Fortunately, there are versions of these drugs that a patient can take in their own home. It's a great innovation that will improve a patient's access. Unfortunately, Medicare won't cover biologics that are administered in the home. That just doesn't make sense. I have been working to correct this inequity for the past two Congresses. The Murray-Conrad-Smith amendment would provide two years of coverage, under Part B, for those self injected biologics that replace treatments currently available only in a physician's office. We allow for two-year coverage to bridge the gap to implementation of a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

We have received a CBO score for the two years and believe that we can find room in 2004 and 2005 to provide this important coverage for MS and RA patients. This legislation is strongly endorsed by the Arthritis Foundation and will provide additional coverage to all four MS self-injected or self-administered treatments. For MS, only one

treatment is covered under Medicare, provided in a physician's office.

I am hopeful that the managers of this legislation will be able to accept our amendment and end this discriminatory practice in Medicare.

Let me close by returning to the amendment currently before the Senate. For those Senators concerned about the inequities in the current Medicare reimbursement rates, I urge you to support this amendment. Fully funding the blend--as a third option in determining the Medicare Advantage benchmark--will provide greater equity and ensure that all seniors in all regions have access to a competitive, managed and coordinated care approach. Let's finally stop an unfair system and give seniors the access they deserve. It's the right thing to do, and I urge its immediate passage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help rural and underserved communities across the country get connected to the information economy.

Today I am introducing the Community Telecommunication Planning Act of 2003. I am proud to have Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Kennedy, Leahy, and Pryor as original cosponsors. This bill will give small and rural communities a new tool to attract high speed services and economic development.

Representative Inslee from my home State, along with several other members, will soon introduce a companion bill in the House. I appreciate him working with me to meet this challenge.

I am especially proud of how this legislation came about. For the last four years, I've been working with a group of community leaders in Washington State to find ways to help communities get connected to advanced telecommunications services.

I want to take a moment to thank the members of my Rural Telecommunication Working Group for their hard work on this bill. The members include: Brent Bahrenburg, Gregg Caudell, Dee Christensen, Dave Danner, Louis Fox, Tami Garrow, Larry Hall, Rod Fleck, Ray King, Dale King, Terry Lawhead, Dick Llarman, Jim Lowery, Jim Miller, Joe Poire, Skye Richendrfer, Ted Sprague, Jim Schmit, and Ron Yenney.

We met as a working group, and we held forums around the State that attracted hundreds of people. We've tapped the ideas of experts, service providers and people from across the State who are working to get their communities connected. The result is this legislation, which I am proud to say is part of Washington State's contribution to our national effort to connect all parts of our country to the Internet.

The bill was originally introduced in the 107th Congress. I was able to attach a version of it to the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, the provision was removed during Conference.

This bill addresses a real need in many communities. While urban and suburban areas have strong competition between telecommunications providers, many small and rural communities are far removed from the services they need.

We must ensure that all communities have access to advanced telecommunications like high speed internet access and the wireless Internet. Just as yesterday's infrastructure was built of roads and bridges, today our infrastructure includes advanced telecom services.

Advanced telecommunications can enrich our lives through activities like distance-learning, and they can even save lives through efforts like telemedicine. The key is access. Access to these services is already turning some small companies in rural communities into international marketers of goods and services.

Unfortunately, many small and rural communities are having trouble getting the access they need. Before communities can take advantage of some of the help and incentives that are out there, they need to work together and got through a community planning process. Community plans identify the needs and level of demand, create a vision for the future, and show what all the players must do to meet the telecom needs of their community for today and tomorrow. These plans take resources to develop, and my bill would provide those funds.

Providers say they're more likely to invest in an area if it has a plan that makes a business case for the costly infrastructure investment. Communities want to provide them with that plan, but they need help developing it. Unfortunately, many communities get struck on that first step. They don't have the resources to do the studies and planning required to attract service. So the members of my Working Group came up with a solution: have the Federal Government provide competitive grants that local communities can use to develop their plans. I took that idea and put it into this bill.

After determining what services they need, communities must then go out and make a market case to providers. That is why I've added ``market development'' to the list of allowable uses of grant funding.

While this bill deals with new technology, it's really just an extension of the infrastructure support the federal government traditionally provides to communities.

The Federal Government already provides money to help communities plan other infrastructure improvements--everything from roads and bridges to wastewater facilities. Because today's economic infrastructure includes advanced telecom services, I believe the Federal Government should provide similar support for local technology infrastructure.

In summary, this bill would provide rural and underserved communities with grant money for creating community plans, technical assessments and other analytical work, and it would allow these communities to use the funding to market these plans to providers.

With these grants, communities will be able to turn their desire for access into real access that can improve their communities and strengthen their economies. This bill can open the door for thousands of small and rural areas across our country to tap the potential of the information economy.

I urge the Senate to support this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see it passed.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help rural and underserved communities across the country get connected to the information economy.

Today I am introducing the Community Telecommunication Planning Act of 2003. I am proud to have Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Kennedy, Leahy, and Pryor as original cosponsors. This bill will give small and rural communities a new tool to attract high speed services and economic development.

Representative Inslee from my home State, along with several other members, will soon introduce a companion bill in the House. I appreciate him working with me to meet this challenge.

I am especially proud of how this legislation came about. For the last four years, I've been working with a group of community leaders in Washington State to find ways to help communities get connected to advanced telecommunications services.

I want to take a moment to thank the members of my Rural Telecommunication Working Group for their hard work on this bill. The members include: Brent Bahrenburg, Gregg Caudell, Dee Christensen, Dave Danner, Louis Fox, Tami Garrow, Larry Hall, Rod Fleck, Ray King, Dale King, Terry Lawhead, Dick Llarman, Jim Lowery, Jim Miller, Joe Poire, Skye Richendrfer, Ted Sprague, Jim Schmit, and Ron Yenney.

We met as a working group, and we held forums around the State that attracted hundreds of people. We've tapped the ideas of experts, service providers and people from across the State who are working to get their communities connected. The result is this legislation, which I am proud to say is part of Washington State's contribution to our national effort to connect all parts of our country to the Internet.

The bill was originally introduced in the 107th Congress. I was able to attach a version of it to the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, the provision was removed during Conference.

This bill addresses a real need in many communities. While urban and suburban areas have strong competition between telecommunications providers, many small and rural communities are far removed from the services they need.

We must ensure that all communities have access to advanced telecommunications like high speed internet access and the wireless Internet. Just as yesterday's infrastructure was built of roads and bridges, today our infrastructure includes advanced telecom services.

Advanced telecommunications can enrich our lives through activities like distance-learning, and they can even save lives through efforts like telemedicine. The key is access. Access to these services is already turning some small companies in rural communities into international marketers of goods and services.

Unfortunately, many small and rural communities are having trouble getting the access they need. Before communities can take advantage of some of the help and incentives that are out there, they need to work together and got through a community planning process. Community plans identify the needs and level of demand, create a vision for the future, and show what all the players must do to meet the telecom needs of their community for today and tomorrow. These plans take resources to develop, and my bill would provide those funds.

Providers say they're more likely to invest in an area if it has a plan that makes a business case for the costly infrastructure investment. Communities want to provide them with that plan, but they need help developing it. Unfortunately, many communities get struck on that first step. They don't have the resources to do the studies and planning required to attract service. So the members of my Working Group came up with a solution: have the Federal Government provide competitive grants that local communities can use to develop their plans. I took that idea and put it into this bill.

After determining what services they need, communities must then go out and make a market case to providers. That is why I've added ``market development'' to the list of allowable uses of grant funding.

While this bill deals with new technology, it's really just an extension of the infrastructure support the federal government traditionally provides to communities.

The Federal Government already provides money to help communities plan other infrastructure improvements--everything from roads and bridges to wastewater facilities. Because today's economic infrastructure includes advanced telecom services, I believe the Federal Government should provide similar support for local technology infrastructure.

In summary, this bill would provide rural and underserved communities with grant money for creating community plans, technical assessments and other analytical work, and it would allow these communities to use the funding to market these plans to providers.

With these grants, communities will be able to turn their desire for access into real access that can improve their communities and strengthen their economies. This bill can open the door for thousands of small and rural areas across our country to tap the potential of the information economy.

I urge the Senate to support this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see it passed.

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

Mr. President, I rise this evening to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida and commend him on his leadership on this issue. The amendment that is before us tonight will prevent exploration in offshore areas that are currently protected under law. The truth is, we should not need a special amendment to protect sensitive offshore areas that are currently off limits to energy drilling and exploration, but today we find this amendment is needed because the underlying Energy Bill would essentially roll back a longstanding ban on exploration that protects our coastal areas.

This Energy Bill calls for the Department of Interior to inventory oil and gas resources. It does not rule out exploration or drilling in any part of the Outer Continental Shelf and it does not prevent exploration or drilling in areas that are currently protected.

Some may say they just want to allow an inventory of oil and gas off our coasts, but taking an inventory of what lies beneath the sea floor is not like taking an inventory of what is in the kitchen pantry. Looking for oil and gas off our coasts is an invasive process. It carries risks. It harms marine life and it can create serious environmental damage.

If it was just taking an inventory, it would be one set of environmental concerns, but I think we all know what is really going on and it is much more than inventory. This is not just about seeing what is out there. It is really about preparing to drill for oil and gas in areas that have been protected for years, for decades actually, by law.

Let's be clear. Oil companies are not going to spend millions of dollars to inventory our coasts just for the fun of it. They want to begin drilling in areas that are protected, and this Energy Bill would give them the start they want.

I am reminded of that analogy about how if a camel gets its nose under the tent, pretty soon the whole camel will follow. Well, if we do not want the camel in our tent, stop it when it tries to poke its nose in.

Once those oil companies get their equipment down there, they will be steps away from setting up oil rigs and creating a host of dangers on our shores. If we do not want oil companies drilling off our shores, then we cannot let them get started with these so-called inventory projects.

There are good reasons why over the years Congress and past Presidents have agreed to protect parts of our Outer Continental Shelf. In fact, that moratorium that today protects the coast of my State of Washington was passed by Congress in 1990 and protected by an executive order by the first President Bush. Today, the current Bush administration wants to repeal that protection and pave the way for drilling off our coasts.

Those who want to explore for energy off our coasts would like us to believe it is harmless, but it is not. When we consider offshore oil and gas development, we have to be concerned about oil spills and the release of other toxic materials. There are other environmental effects that pose dangers to marine mammal populations, fish populations, and air quality. Seismic testing techniques used by the offshore oil and gas industry can kill marine animals. This is not harmless.

If this administration had a better record on the environment, I might be inclined to give them more leeway, but this administration has shown an eagerness to roll back environmental protections on so many issues that they do not have much credibility when they say they want to just look for oil off our coasts.

Last month, the Bush administration took another disturbing step to undermine our environmental protection related to oil and gas drilling. In fact, on May 26, 2003, the New York Times reported that the administration proposed to defer for 2 years requirements for permits under the Clean Water Act for certain activities of oil and gas producers to prevent contaminated runoff. This is a bad precedent and a step in the wrong direction for protecting our environment. There is no good reason for oil and gas developers to be exempt from requirements that are imposed on other developers to prevent contaminated runoff.

So not only do they want to let the big oil and gas companies start looking for oil in areas that have been protected for decades, this Bush administration is going to free those oil and gas companies from the rules everyone else has to follow to protect contaminated runoff. Not on my watch. We know there is a better way. Congress should be seeking long-term solutions that make sense for energy development and that balance environmental protection and economic growth. The proposal to drill in areas of the OCS that are currently under moratoria falls far short of the balanced approach we need. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to stop an attack on decades of protection for our sensitive coastal areas.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Florida, I have listened to his battles for many years as he has fought to protect the beautiful shores of Florida. I have seen the shores of Florida, and they are gorgeous. He is right, tourism is a critical part of the economy of his State of Florida, as it is to mine. People come to Washington State to see our beautiful mountains, our beautiful forests, and to fish. The last thing they want to see is oil drilling off our coasts.

This underlying bill that allows an inventory is simply a step for the oil companies to then get in and drill. My State would be absolutely appalled to see that happen.

As the Senator from Florida knows well, for all who live on coastal States, our economies are struggling today; the high-tech industry is struggling; Boeing has lost thousands of jobs.

There is still the beautiful environment that people come to visit. The last thing anyone wants in our rain forests, whether in Oregon or Washington, or the beaches of California, the last thing they want to see is an oil rig or, worse, an oilspill in the areas we care so much about.

The Senator from Florida makes an excellent point. Our military needs to be ready for whatever conflicts come to them on the war on terror. They need to be out there training. Certainly at Makah Air Force Base and the other bases we have, they need to know they have a place they can train and not be interfered with.

I add, as the Senator from Florida knows, there are other economies that we count on as well. Fishing is a tremendous economy and part of our economy base in the State of Washington. They would not be excited about having oil rigs out there where people are fishing, as well as tourism, but certainly the military is an important part of my State. We want to make sure they have the space they need for training. The Senator makes an excellent point.

Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Florida, thank you on behalf of all who care about this issue for your longtime battle and diligence. Every time you are right, they keep coming back at you, but you keep winning.

I agree, there are a number of Senators on this floor who are not from coastal States but they should be joining because certainly they all come to our States to see the beautiful coastlines, whether it is Florida, Washington State, California, or Maine. They want to preserve that, too. They want to take their grandchildren and great- grandchildren, some day, to your State. I certainly hope they want to come to ours, too. If we devastate the environment, the tourism will not be there.

I thank my colleague for working on this issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrea Lee, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on S. 14, the Energy Bill.

Mr. President, is the Murray amendment called up?

Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to add cosponsors as follows: Senators Snowe, Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer, Jeffords, Durbin, Lautenberg, Corzine, and Bingaman.

Mr. President, the Senate now has before it a very important amendment. I think all of us know that women have played a critical role in all of our country's recent military actions.

In Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in missions throughout the world, women have demonstrated their skill, their sacrifice, and their courage. We can all be very proud of the women who have served in our military. They are our mothers, our daughters, they are our sisters, and they are our neighbors. They put themselves in harm's way to protect our freedom. They live and work in hostile combat zones under very dangerous conditions. They make sacrifices every day to defend our Nation.

But today, military women are forced to sacrifice their own constitutional rights, as they risk their lives to protect our freedom. No woman----

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, no woman should be forced to surrender her constitutional rights when she puts on a military uniform and volunteers to serve our country overseas. But that is exactly what happens today, and it must stop. The women of our military risk their lives to protect our rights, but if they serve abroad they are being denied access to safe, legal, constitutionally protected health care.

Today I am on the floor of the Senate to offer an amendment to ensure that our military women when they serve overseas have access to the same health care as they get here at home. I again thank all my cosponsors, Senators Snowe, Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer, Jeffords, Durbin, Lautenberg, Corzine, and Bingaman.

Before I go into detail, I want to clarify what this is about and what it is not about. There are four very important aspects to understand.

First of all, this amendment does not require any direct Federal funding of abortion-related services. My amendment simply requires these women to pay for any costs associated with an abortion in a military facility. So no direct Federal funding is involved.

Second, my amendment does not compel a medical provider to perform abortions. All branches of the military allow medical personnel who have moral or religious or ethical objections to abortion not to participate. So this amendment does not change or alter conscience clauses for military medical personnel.

Third, this will not create any significant burden on the military. It will not hinder the military's ability to carry out its missions or to provide medical services.

Finally, do not believe anyone who tells you that our military, the finest military in the world, is not capable of providing these health services or that our military is unable to determine the cost. The truth is that today the Defense Department allows for privately funded abortions in the case of rape or incest. The ultimate proof that this is something our military can do is that, prior to 1988, the Department of Defense did allow privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities.

So, clearly, this can be done. So let's make sure we are all straight on those four points. There is no direct Federal funding. No medical provider would be required to do anything they oppose. No significant burden would be placed on the military. And there is no doubt that our military can do this because it has done it before, prior to 1988, and does it today in cases of rape or incest.

Anyone who comes to the Senate floor and makes any of those claims I have just rebutted is raising red herrings as a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is the health of women who serve our country and respect for their rights and freedom.

The current policy on the books today is an insult to women. It is a rejection of their rights and it is a threat to their health. Under current restrictions, women who have volunteered to serve their country, and female military dependents, are not allowed to exercise their legally guaranteed right to choose, simply because they are serving overseas. These women are committed to protecting our rights as free citizens. Yet they are denied one of the most basic rights afforded all women in this country. This is an important women's health amendment.

Women should be able to depend on their base hospital and military health care providers to meet all of their health care needs. To single out abortion-related services could jeopardize a woman's health. The current policy does not ensure the access women need for four reasons.

First of all, a woman today must seek the approval of her commanding officer for transport back to the United States. That could be very humiliating and can be a deterrent to a woman to getting the care that she needs. We know, from a GAO report that was issued in May of 2002, that many commanding officers--and I quote:

. . . have not been adequately trained about the importance

of women's basic health care. Department of Defense officials

said that lacking this understanding, some commanders may be

reluctant to allow active duty Members, both men and women,

time away from their duty station to obtain health care

services.

So women have to face the humiliation of asking a superior officer for permission over something that the GAO found many commanders do not understand or appreciate.

Second, the current policy jeopardizes a woman's right to privacy because she must disclose her medical condition to her superiors with no guarantee that her medical concerns will be kept confidential. That is a very important point. She would have to disclose her medical condition to her superiors in the Air Force or the Army, in the service, with no guarantee that her medical concerns will be kept confidential.

Third, the woman is not afforded medical leave, so she is further penalized under the current policy.

And fourth, because of these unfair restrictions, many women are forced to seek care off the base, in a foreign country. That country may have different cultural and religious norms and different standards of health care. Many women have little or no understanding of the laws or restrictions in a host country, and there may also be significant language and cultural barriers as well. So let's be honest. Some of the countries our military operates in are not very progressive when it comes to women's issues, and that could threaten our service women.

In addition, these countries may not have adequate safety and medical standards. Here in the United States, we take for granted the safety of our health care service. When we seek care in our doctors' offices or in a clinic, we assume all safety and health standards are adhered to. Unfortunately, that is not the case in many countries.

Under current conditions, we are subjecting women to standards in a foreign country where they may not be safe, where they may not be health standards where we can assure that their basic health care is taken care of.

Finally, because of all these barriers, women may delay getting the care they urgently need. Many women are forced to delay the procedure for several weeks until they can travel to a location where safe, adequate care is available. Each week that an abortion is delayed there are greater risks to a woman's health.

So the current policy is humiliating. It is a threat to women's privacy. It is punitive. It is a threat to women's safety, and it is a threat to women's health. Those are not the types of burdens we should be putting on women who volunteer to serve our country and defend our freedoms.

The current policy is unfair to women. It denies them their constitutional rights. My amendment before the Senate today will correct that.

This amendment is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It is supported by the American Medical Women's Association. It is supported by Physicians for Reproductive Choice in Health. And it is supported by the National Partnership for Women and Families.

The Senate agreed to this amendment. The Department of Defense has followed this policy before. And, finally, let me just say, after the inspiring and courageous work our military women have done in Iraq and in Afghanistan, we owe them nothing less than the same rights they are fighting to protect for all of us.

This is a test for every Senator. Every Senator is going to have to answer to the women who serve our country overseas. Will you stand up for the rights of women who, today, are standing up to ensure your freedom? Either you respect the women who serve our country overseas and you agree that they deserve the same rights and freedoms as women here at home or you do not. That is the choice. Either you respect the women who serve our country overseas and you agree that they deserve the same rights and freedoms as women here at home or you do not. That is the case.

If you vote against the Murray-Snowe amendment, you are simply telling American servicewomen that when they serve overseas protecting our country and risking their lives that they can't be trusted with the constitutional right to health care that women here at home in the United States have. They deserve more respect than that.

I hope my colleagues will vote for the Murray-Snowe amendment.

I retain the remainder of my time.

I am happy to yield 1 minute to the Senator.

How much time remains on our side?

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

This amendment does not require the Federal Government to pay for an abortion. In fact, it will allow the woman herself to pay out of her own personal private funds for an abortion in a military hospital overseas.

That is correct.

That is not correct. The amendment, as I have offered, has a conscience clause for all doctors overseas.

That is absolutely correct. This amendment does not compel any medical provider to perform an abortion.

Would the Senator restate the question?

The Senator is correct. In all military facilities, women who are victims of rape or incest do have the opportunity to receive abortions.

Yes, the Senator is correct.

If the Senator will hold a second, I will check and then respond.

The Senator is correct only in that it would strike the language in the bill which would put us back to the previous language that is in the statute today, which I am happy to provide him, which I accurately described in my statement.

The Senator is correct. I remind the Senator that domestically in the service, a woman has the right to receive health care services at a hospital. So where this affects a woman is when they are serving overseas and they don't have the same access.

Yes, and she would have to pay for it out of her own money.

Under current law, all medical providers in the Department of Defense have a conscience clause.

Mr. President, I will make a couple of points. Under current law, in the case of rape or incest, at a military facility an abortion can be performed. No one is protesting that today. I again advise my colleague that a woman who is in this country has this right, anyway. Where we are concerned, rightfully, is for women who are serving overseas. They don't have a constitutional right today to have an abortion.

Let me tell you what happens to a woman if she finds herself in difficult circumstances and is serving overseas. She has to go to her commanding officer. Believe me, that is very difficult for a woman to do, go to a commanding officer and describe the circumstances she finds herself in, and ask for permission to fly home to have an abortion performed, where it is legal.

Mr. President, that is humiliating, but it is also difficult. She then has to wait for a C-17 to be available. Think about this. We have just seen the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have to make a C-17 available for a woman to fly home. That is ridiculous. They have the medical facilities there already, and the facilities are available. So we are putting the services at risk when we have to fly them home. This is humiliating and she has to ask her commanding officer. A woman serving in the country doesn't have to do that. It is difficult and cumbersome.

This also really jeopardizes a woman's right to privacy because in order to go to her commanding officer, she has to disclose her medical condition. We all would think the officer would respect her rights, but that is not always the case. She has to put that question in her head when she goes to ask them. I don't think it is fair to the

women overseas when they disclose their medical condition with no guarantees that they will be kept confidential. Think of the potential of using that against a woman in the service. I think that is something none of us want to place a young woman in the position of having to do.

We need to remember a woman is not given any medical relief and she is penalized under this policy. She has to wait for a C-17 to be available, fly home, take the time to have the procedure done, and then return to military service. We are taking her out of service when we need her, and we are causing her a tremendous amount of distress, too.

Remember, we are talking about a service that is protected constitutionally for any woman who is here in this country. But these are women who have volunteered to serve us overseas in the military.

Finally, let us not forget what we have done to women today who are serving us in the military and fighting for our freedom. We have put them--if they don't want to ask their commanding officer, wait for a C- 17, and all of the other conditions we put on them--today, they can go to a hospital in a foreign country. Well, think of the difficulties of that, where they don't have the same culture, don't speak the same language, if a woman has a health care procedure done and the doctor cannot tell her what she needs to do in the following 24 hours or weeks to make sure she is taking care of herself correctly, and she cannot understand him because she doesn't understand the language.

Why would we do that to a woman serving us overseas? I think we ought to go back and put in place a provision in the law that has worked before that simply gives women who serve us the same constitutional right women in this country have today. That is what this amendment is about. That is what this vote is about. I hope our colleagues will vote with us in a few minutes when the vote is called.

I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

I yield the Senator such time as she needs.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, the Senator from California has given a very clear reason to vote for this amendment. We have heard no disagreement that this current policy toward women service members is not humiliating. We have heard no disagreement that it is not a threat to privacy, and it is punitive. What this issue is about is whether women in the service overseas have the same constitutional rights, protections, and safety in their health care as those women who are in this country.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to do what should have been done decades ago: fully ban asbestos in the United States. I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 to prohibit this known carcinogen from being used to manufacture products in this country. The bill also bans imports of asbestos products from other countries where asbestos is still legal. I am pleased that Senators Baucus, Boxer, Cantwell, Dayton, Jeffords and Leahy are original cosponsors of this important legislation.

The primary purpose of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 is to require the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to ban the substance within two years. Most people think that asbestos has already been banned. In fact, in 1989 EPA finalized regulations to phase out and ban the substance by 1997. But in 1991, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA's ban, arguing that EPA did not ``first evaluate and then reject the less burdensome alternatives'' under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Unfortunately, the first Bush Administration did not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. While new uses of asbestos were banned, existing ones were not.

As a result, it is still legal in 2003 to construct buildings in the United States with asbestos cement shingles and to treat them with asbestos roof coatings. It is still legal to construct new water systems using asbestos cement pipes imported from other countries. It is still legal for cars and trucks to be made and serviced with asbestos brake pads and clutch facings.

Asbestos is still not banned, and as a result, we're still using it. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, in 2001, businesses in this country consumed 26 million pounds of chrysotile asbestos to make roofing products, gaskets, friction materials and other products. Last month, my staff walked into a local home improvement store and bought off the shelf roofing sealants made with asbestos. In addition, we are still importing asbestos products from other countries, many of which have less stringent environmental and public health standards.

Everyone knows that asbestos is harmful. The term asbestos, like arsenic, lead, mercury or DDT, is synonymous with poison. Asbestos may well be the most regulated toxic substance that federal and state agencies have ever dealt with. At least eleven different Federal statutes address asbestos. The EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, Mine Safety and Health Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission are only some of the Federal agencies tasked with implementing rules to protect workers and consumers from the dangers of this substance.

But the sheer volume of rules and regulations in place does not guarantee that public health and the environment are being adequately protected. We have significant evidence suggesting that because asbestos is still not banned, we're still not safe from its dangers. I'd like to highlight some of this evidence for my colleagues.

First, workers in this country are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. According to OSHA, ``An estimated 1.3 million employees in construction and general industry face significant asbestos exposure on the job. Heaviest exposures occur in the construction industry, particularly during the removal of asbestos during renovation or demolition. Employees are also likely to be exposed during the manufacture of asbestos products, such as textiles, friction products, insulation, and other building materials, and during automotive brake and clutch repair work.''

It is important to remember that there is no known safe threshold level of asbestos exposure. OSHA's permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter is based on technical measurement limitations. OSHA's limit assumes that workers exposed to this concentration have a lifetime exposure risk of 3 to 5 in 1,000 for cancer and 2 in 1,000 for asbestosis. This is a very high risk compared to the cancer risk levels that are considered acceptable for some environmental cleanups.

The extent to which workers are exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos is especially troublesome when one considers the frequency with which OSHA's standards are violated. On July 31, 2001, I chaired a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing on asbestos and workplace safety. At the hearing I learned from OSHA that since 1995, the agency had cited employers for violations of its asbestos standards 15,691 times. This is astounding given the known dangers of asbestos and the high risks of disease even when OSHA's exposure limit is being met.

As follow-up to the hearing, I asked OSHA to provide more information about asbestos-related violations. In an October 17, 2001 letter to me, Mr. John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, wrote that between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2001, OSHA conducted a total of 190,971 inspections generating a total of 427,786 violations. Of these, 3,000 inspections and 15,691 violations involved asbestos. According to Mr. Henshaw, about 2 percent of inspections and 4 percent of violations were asbestos-related. In his letter to me, Mr. Henshaw wrote, ``OSHA does not consider any level to be an acceptable noncompliance level. We strive for 100 percent compliance.'' Despite OSHA's best intentions, workers are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos.

It is also important to consider that the vast majority of workplaces where asbestos exposure occurs, such as construction jobs and auto repair shops, are not regularly inspected by OSHA. The Administration conducts inspections only in response to complaints or as a result of referrals from law enforcement or the media. Many more violations of the standard occur in the real world than are actually recorded by regulators. Many employees likely do not contact OSHA about potential asbestos exposure on the job because they think asbestos has been banned long ago and is no longer a problem.

But asbestos in the workplace is clearly still a problem. Recent news investigations provide more evidence that workers are being exposed to dangerous levels of this mineral. According to an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on November 16, 2000, ``During the past three months, the P-I collected samples of dust from floors, work areas and tool bins in 31 brake-repair garages in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Richmond, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Asbestos, almost exclusively chrysotile, which has been used for decades in brakes, was detected in 21 of the locations. The amount of asbestos in the dust ranged from 2.26 percent to 63.8 percent.''

When dust with these concentrations of asbestos in them is disturbed, airborne concentrations of asbestos occur that are well above OSHA's permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter. Under current OSHA regulations, if airborne asbestos concentrations exceed this level, employers must conduct air monitoring, take measures to reduce asbestos emissions, post warning signs and record concentrations of airborne asbestos. Workers are supposed to wear respirators and protective clothing and are required to undergo long term medical monitoring.

Now I recognize that much of the exposure to asbestos in the workplace comes from asbestos products installed years, and in many cases, decades ago. By one estimate, about 30 million tons of asbestos was used in this country between 1900 and 1980. Asbestos in place, in our buildings, schools and homes, will be with us for decades to come.

But given the known dangers of this mineral, why are we still using it? Why are we still adding it to products on purpose when there are perfectly acceptable substitutes? In retrospect, it is tragic that asbestos was so widely used during the 20th century, for the

economic and public health impacts have been disastrous. One very important step in overcoming the problems caused by asbestos is to stop adding to the problem--however incrementally--by continuing to use this dangerous mineral in products on purpose.

I'd like to point out some additional evidence supporting the need to ban asbestos in the United States and to raise awareness about this issue. Most of my colleagues are familiar with the tragedy in Libby, MT, where hundreds of workers and their families suffer from asbestos- related diseases caused by exposure to asbestos-tainted vermiculite.

For decades, the W.R. Grace mine in Libby supplied about 80 percent of the vermiculite used in this country. W.R. Grace very successfully marketed its product, without any warning labels, even though the company was well aware its product was contaminated with this known carcinogen. Asbestos-contaminated ore was shipped to more than 300 sites around the country for processing and use in industrial and consumer products. According to the EPA, 14 of these sites are so contaminated with asbestos that they still need to be cleaned up, even though the Libby mine closed in 1990. While this is a problem that came from a small mining town in Montana, the ramifications and consequences are clearly national in scope.

In addition, vermiculite from Libby is still around and is still a threat to public health. It is estimated that tens of millions of homes, schools and businesses contain insulation made with Libby vermiculite, known as Zonolite. A recent study conducted for EPA, entitled Asbestos Exposure Assessment for Vermiculite Attic Insulation, found that Zonolite in homes today contains up to 2 percent asbestos. This study included tests on Zonolite insulation from Seattle Public Utilities and from a home in Washington State. It found that when this insulation was disturbed, airborne concentrations of 3.3 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeters were measured. In other words, handling Zonolite asbestos can cause levels of asbestos in the air that significantly exceed OSHA's exposure limit for workers. Even more troubling, perhaps, the study found ``vermiculite that tests non-detect for asbestos by bulk analysis can still generate airborne asbestos concentrations when disturbed.'' When vermiculite without significant amounts of asbestos in bulk was disturbed, concentrations of asbestos in the air up to 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeters were detected. This means that even vermiculite with only trace amounts of asbestos in bulk can generate unhealthy concentrations of asbestos in the air.

Yesterday EPA launched a national consumer education campaign warning people not to disturb Zonolite attic insulation if they have it in their homes. The agency also warned people not to let their children play in attics with vermiculite for fear of asbestos exposure. EPA has developed a consumer education brochure and has created an asbestos hotline for people to call for more information. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have joined EPA in this education effort by creating materials to educate consumers and workers about the dangers of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite.

While we need to ensure that we are no longer adding asbestos to our products on purpose, we also need to ensure that asbestos in harmful concentrations isn't ending up in our consumer products by accident. I am glad EPA, ATSDR and NIOSH are now proactively reaching out to consumers and workers to warn them to stay away from vermiculite attic insulation. This is an important first step in dealing with just one aspect of the legacy created by W.R. Grace in Libby.

There is another important reason to ban asbestos that I would like to share with my colleagues. As I mentioned previously, the United States is still importing products that contain asbestos. Unfortunately, we do not have precise statistics on which products coming into this country contain the deadly mineral. The Department of Commerce's import database does not distinguish between asbestos- containing products and products containing asbestos substitutes. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, in 2002 this country imported more than 44,000 tons of asbestos-cement products, some of which may have contained cellulose instead of asbestos.

With increased globalization and international trade, U.S. imports of asbestos containing consumer and industrial products will continue to rise--unless we prohibit these products from crossing our borders in the first place.

Although we do not have accurate numbers for the extent to which asbestos products are flowing across our borders, we do know that asbestos is being heavily marketed to developing countries. According to an August 2, 1999 USA Today article, ``As asbestos demand has plummeted in the industrialized world the past 25 years, it has soared in many developing nations and formerly communist countries. Its use in these countries is largely unregulated, haphazard and deadly.''

A more recent editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal compares the asbestos industry to the tobacco industry. The February 20, 2001 article by Doctors Joseph LaDou, Philip Landrigan, John C. Bailar III, Vito Foa and Arthur Frank reads:

``The commercial tactics of the asbestos industry are very similar to those of the tobacco industry. In the absence of international sanctions, losses resulting from reduced cigarette consumption in the developed countries are offset by heavy selling to developing nations. In a similar fashion, the developed world has responded to the asbestos health catastrophe with a progressive ban on the use of asbestos. In response, the asbestos industry is progressively transferring its commercial activities and the health hazards to the developing countries.''

Banning asbestos in the United States sends an important message to the rest of the world. The asbestos industry will no longer be able to justify its marketing to developing countries by pointing out that asbestos is still legal in the U.S., and therefore, it must be safe. More than 30 countries have already banned asbestos, and it is time for this country to follow suit. It is our moral responsibility as the world's strongest economy, the most powerful Nation and a leader in environmental protection and public health to ban this harmful substance.

That is why today I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act. The legislation has five main parts. First, this bill protects public health by doing what the EPA tried to do 14 years ago: ban asbestos in the United States. The legislation requires EPA to ban it within two years of passage of the Act. As under the regulations EPA finalized in 1989, companies may file for an exemption to the ban if there is no substitute material available.

Second, the bill requires EPA to convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos policy and to have the National Academy of Sciences conduct an asbestos study. In response to the 2001 EPA Inspector General's report on Libby, Montana, the EPA promised to convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos and non-regulated fibers. But instead of convening a high level panel, EPA hired a non-profit organization, the Global Environment and Technology Foundation, to develop an asbestos policies focus group. Just yesterday EPA released GETF's Asbestos Strategies Report. I am very pleased that the Report recommends several aspects of the Ban Asbestos in America Act, including that Congress pass legislation to ban asbestos.

While the recommendations are certainly helpful in providing guidance to EPA, Congress and other federal agencies on the next steps to address asbestos, the GETF report does not replace a full fledged Blue Ribbon Panel. The Ban Asbestos in America Act codifies creation of a Blue Ribbon Panel as EPA first committed to in 2001. The panel will include participation from the Department of Labor and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It will review the current laws and rules in place to protect workers and consumers, and make recommendations for improving protections within 2 years of passage of the Act.

In addition, the bill calls for EPA to have the NAS conduct a study on the current state of the science relating to the human health effects of exposure to asbestos and other durable fibers. The NAS study shall also include recommendations for a uniform system of asbestos exposure standards and for a uniform system to create protocols to

detect and measure asbestos. As I mentioned previously, asbestos is regulated under multiple statutes. There are different standards within EPA and across Federal agencies, and agencies rely on different protocols to identify the substance. The NAS shall be required to submit the study to EPA, other federal agencies and Congress within 18 months of passage of the Act.

Third, the legislation requires a survey to determine which products contain asbestos, either on purpose or as a contaminant. EPA will be required to conduct this review with input from the Department of Labor, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the International Trade Commission.

The bill directs the EPA to conduct a survey on the status of asbestos-containing products, such as roofing materials, brake pads and gaskets, which contain asbestos on purpose. EPA must also study contaminant-asbestos products, such as some insulation and horticultural products, which contain asbestos as a contaminant of another substance. The study will examine how people use these products and the extent to which people are exposed to harmful levels of asbestos. The study must be finalized within 18 months to inform the Blue Ribbon Panel and the education campaign.

Fourth, based on the results of the study, EPA shall conduct a public education campaign to increase awareness of the dangers posed by asbestos-containing products and contaminant-asbestos products, including those in homes and workplaces. The agency shall give priority to those products posing the greatest risk, as determined by the study required by the bill. The education campaign must be conducted within 2 years of passage of the bill.

EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall still be required to conduct a national education campaign about vermiculite insulation within 6 months of passage of the Act. As many as 35 million homes and businesses may contain asbestos-contaminated insulation made with vermiculite from Libby. This requirement is still in the bill despite EPA's recent announcement of an education campaign about vermiculite attic insulation. This will ensure EPA's long-term commitment to educating the public.

Finally, the Ban Asbestos in America Act increases the federal commitment to finding new treatments for the terrible diseases caused by asbestos. At least 2,000 people per year die from mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lining of the lungs and internal organs caused by exposure to asbestos. The legislation would direct the head of NIH to ``expand, intensify and coordinate programs for the conduct and support of research on diseases caused by exposure to asbestos.'' The Centers for Disease Control would be required to create a National Mesothelioma Registry to improve tracking of the disease, which in many cases goes undiagnosed and thus unrecorded. In addition, the bill creates 10 mesothelioma treatment centers around the country to improve treatments for and awareness of this fatal cancer.

Our hope is that by continuing to work together, we will build support for the Ban Asbestos in America Act. If we can get this legislation passed, fewer people will be exposed to asbestos, fewer people will contract asbestos diseases in the first place, and those who already have asbestos diseases will receive treatments to prolong and improve quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

In the meantime, we should do all we can to ensure that the rules in place to protect workers, consumers and schoolchildren from asbestos are followed and are strengthened if necessary. We also need to make sure that Federal agencies are given adequate resources to fully implement Congress' many mandates.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to do what should have been done decades ago: fully ban asbestos in the United States. I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 to prohibit this known carcinogen from being used to manufacture products in this country. The bill also bans imports of asbestos products from other countries where asbestos is still legal. I am pleased that Senators Baucus, Boxer, Cantwell, Dayton, Jeffords and Leahy are original cosponsors of this important legislation.

The primary purpose of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 is to require the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to ban the substance within two years. Most people think that asbestos has already been banned. In fact, in 1989 EPA finalized regulations to phase out and ban the substance by 1997. But in 1991, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA's ban, arguing that EPA did not ``first evaluate and then reject the less burdensome alternatives'' under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Unfortunately, the first Bush Administration did not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. While new uses of asbestos were banned, existing ones were not.

As a result, it is still legal in 2003 to construct buildings in the United States with asbestos cement shingles and to treat them with asbestos roof coatings. It is still legal to construct new water systems using asbestos cement pipes imported from other countries. It is still legal for cars and trucks to be made and serviced with asbestos brake pads and clutch facings.

Asbestos is still not banned, and as a result, we're still using it. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, in 2001, businesses in this country consumed 26 million pounds of chrysotile asbestos to make roofing products, gaskets, friction materials and other products. Last month, my staff walked into a local home improvement store and bought off the shelf roofing sealants made with asbestos. In addition, we are still importing asbestos products from other countries, many of which have less stringent environmental and public health standards.

Everyone knows that asbestos is harmful. The term asbestos, like arsenic, lead, mercury or DDT, is synonymous with poison. Asbestos may well be the most regulated toxic substance that federal and state agencies have ever dealt with. At least eleven different Federal statutes address asbestos. The EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, Mine Safety and Health Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission are only some of the Federal agencies tasked with implementing rules to protect workers and consumers from the dangers of this substance.

But the sheer volume of rules and regulations in place does not guarantee that public health and the environment are being adequately protected. We have significant evidence suggesting that because asbestos is still not banned, we're still not safe from its dangers. I'd like to highlight some of this evidence for my colleagues.

First, workers in this country are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. According to OSHA, ``An estimated 1.3 million employees in construction and general industry face significant asbestos exposure on the job. Heaviest exposures occur in the construction industry, particularly during the removal of asbestos during renovation or demolition. Employees are also likely to be exposed during the manufacture of asbestos products, such as textiles, friction products, insulation, and other building materials, and during automotive brake and clutch repair work.''

It is important to remember that there is no known safe threshold level of asbestos exposure. OSHA's permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter is based on technical measurement limitations. OSHA's limit assumes that workers exposed to this concentration have a lifetime exposure risk of 3 to 5 in 1,000 for cancer and 2 in 1,000 for asbestosis. This is a very high risk compared to the cancer risk levels that are considered acceptable for some environmental cleanups.

The extent to which workers are exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos is especially troublesome when one considers the frequency with which OSHA's standards are violated. On July 31, 2001, I chaired a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing on asbestos and workplace safety. At the hearing I learned from OSHA that since 1995, the agency had cited employers for violations of its asbestos standards 15,691 times. This is astounding given the known dangers of asbestos and the high risks of disease even when OSHA's exposure limit is being met.

As follow-up to the hearing, I asked OSHA to provide more information about asbestos-related violations. In an October 17, 2001 letter to me, Mr. John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, wrote that between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2001, OSHA conducted a total of 190,971 inspections generating a total of 427,786 violations. Of these, 3,000 inspections and 15,691 violations involved asbestos. According to Mr. Henshaw, about 2 percent of inspections and 4 percent of violations were asbestos-related. In his letter to me, Mr. Henshaw wrote, ``OSHA does not consider any level to be an acceptable noncompliance level. We strive for 100 percent compliance.'' Despite OSHA's best intentions, workers are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos.

It is also important to consider that the vast majority of workplaces where asbestos exposure occurs, such as construction jobs and auto repair shops, are not regularly inspected by OSHA. The Administration conducts inspections only in response to complaints or as a result of referrals from law enforcement or the media. Many more violations of the standard occur in the real world than are actually recorded by regulators. Many employees likely do not contact OSHA about potential asbestos exposure on the job because they think asbestos has been banned long ago and is no longer a problem.

But asbestos in the workplace is clearly still a problem. Recent news investigations provide more evidence that workers are being exposed to dangerous levels of this mineral. According to an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on November 16, 2000, ``During the past three months, the P-I collected samples of dust from floors, work areas and tool bins in 31 brake-repair garages in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Richmond, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Asbestos, almost exclusively chrysotile, which has been used for decades in brakes, was detected in 21 of the locations. The amount of asbestos in the dust ranged from 2.26 percent to 63.8 percent.''

When dust with these concentrations of asbestos in them is disturbed, airborne concentrations of asbestos occur that are well above OSHA's permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter. Under current OSHA regulations, if airborne asbestos concentrations exceed this level, employers must conduct air monitoring, take measures to reduce asbestos emissions, post warning signs and record concentrations of airborne asbestos. Workers are supposed to wear respirators and protective clothing and are required to undergo long term medical monitoring.

Now I recognize that much of the exposure to asbestos in the workplace comes from asbestos products installed years, and in many cases, decades ago. By one estimate, about 30 million tons of asbestos was used in this country between 1900 and 1980. Asbestos in place, in our buildings, schools and homes, will be with us for decades to come.

But given the known dangers of this mineral, why are we still using it? Why are we still adding it to products on purpose when there are perfectly acceptable substitutes? In retrospect, it is tragic that asbestos was so widely used during the 20th century, for the

economic and public health impacts have been disastrous. One very important step in overcoming the problems caused by asbestos is to stop adding to the problem--however incrementally--by continuing to use this dangerous mineral in products on purpose.

I'd like to point out some additional evidence supporting the need to ban asbestos in the United States and to raise awareness about this issue. Most of my colleagues are familiar with the tragedy in Libby, MT, where hundreds of workers and their families suffer from asbestos- related diseases caused by exposure to asbestos-tainted vermiculite.

For decades, the W.R. Grace mine in Libby supplied about 80 percent of the vermiculite used in this country. W.R. Grace very successfully marketed its product, without any warning labels, even though the company was well aware its product was contaminated with this known carcinogen. Asbestos-contaminated ore was shipped to more than 300 sites around the country for processing and use in industrial and consumer products. According to the EPA, 14 of these sites are so contaminated with asbestos that they still need to be cleaned up, even though the Libby mine closed in 1990. While this is a problem that came from a small mining town in Montana, the ramifications and consequences are clearly national in scope.

In addition, vermiculite from Libby is still around and is still a threat to public health. It is estimated that tens of millions of homes, schools and businesses contain insulation made with Libby vermiculite, known as Zonolite. A recent study conducted for EPA, entitled Asbestos Exposure Assessment for Vermiculite Attic Insulation, found that Zonolite in homes today contains up to 2 percent asbestos. This study included tests on Zonolite insulation from Seattle Public Utilities and from a home in Washington State. It found that when this insulation was disturbed, airborne concentrations of 3.3 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeters were measured. In other words, handling Zonolite asbestos can cause levels of asbestos in the air that significantly exceed OSHA's exposure limit for workers. Even more troubling, perhaps, the study found ``vermiculite that tests non-detect for asbestos by bulk analysis can still generate airborne asbestos concentrations when disturbed.'' When vermiculite without significant amounts of asbestos in bulk was disturbed, concentrations of asbestos in the air up to 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeters were detected. This means that even vermiculite with only trace amounts of asbestos in bulk can generate unhealthy concentrations of asbestos in the air.

Yesterday EPA launched a national consumer education campaign warning people not to disturb Zonolite attic insulation if they have it in their homes. The agency also warned people not to let their children play in attics with vermiculite for fear of asbestos exposure. EPA has developed a consumer education brochure and has created an asbestos hotline for people to call for more information. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have joined EPA in this education effort by creating materials to educate consumers and workers about the dangers of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite.

While we need to ensure that we are no longer adding asbestos to our products on purpose, we also need to ensure that asbestos in harmful concentrations isn't ending up in our consumer products by accident. I am glad EPA, ATSDR and NIOSH are now proactively reaching out to consumers and workers to warn them to stay away from vermiculite attic insulation. This is an important first step in dealing with just one aspect of the legacy created by W.R. Grace in Libby.

There is another important reason to ban asbestos that I would like to share with my colleagues. As I mentioned previously, the United States is still importing products that contain asbestos. Unfortunately, we do not have precise statistics on which products coming into this country contain the deadly mineral. The Department of Commerce's import database does not distinguish between asbestos- containing products and products containing asbestos substitutes. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, in 2002 this country imported more than 44,000 tons of asbestos-cement products, some of which may have contained cellulose instead of asbestos.

With increased globalization and international trade, U.S. imports of asbestos containing consumer and industrial products will continue to rise--unless we prohibit these products from crossing our borders in the first place.

Although we do not have accurate numbers for the extent to which asbestos products are flowing across our borders, we do know that asbestos is being heavily marketed to developing countries. According to an August 2, 1999 USA Today article, ``As asbestos demand has plummeted in the industrialized world the past 25 years, it has soared in many developing nations and formerly communist countries. Its use in these countries is largely unregulated, haphazard and deadly.''

A more recent editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal compares the asbestos industry to the tobacco industry. The February 20, 2001 article by Doctors Joseph LaDou, Philip Landrigan, John C. Bailar III, Vito Foa and Arthur Frank reads:

``The commercial tactics of the asbestos industry are very similar to those of the tobacco industry. In the absence of international sanctions, losses resulting from reduced cigarette consumption in the developed countries are offset by heavy selling to developing nations. In a similar fashion, the developed world has responded to the asbestos health catastrophe with a progressive ban on the use of asbestos. In response, the asbestos industry is progressively transferring its commercial activities and the health hazards to the developing countries.''

Banning asbestos in the United States sends an important message to the rest of the world. The asbestos industry will no longer be able to justify its marketing to developing countries by pointing out that asbestos is still legal in the U.S., and therefore, it must be safe. More than 30 countries have already banned asbestos, and it is time for this country to follow suit. It is our moral responsibility as the world's strongest economy, the most powerful Nation and a leader in environmental protection and public health to ban this harmful substance.

That is why today I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act. The legislation has five main parts. First, this bill protects public health by doing what the EPA tried to do 14 years ago: ban asbestos in the United States. The legislation requires EPA to ban it within two years of passage of the Act. As under the regulations EPA finalized in 1989, companies may file for an exemption to the ban if there is no substitute material available.

Second, the bill requires EPA to convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos policy and to have the National Academy of Sciences conduct an asbestos study. In response to the 2001 EPA Inspector General's report on Libby, Montana, the EPA promised to convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos and non-regulated fibers. But instead of convening a high level panel, EPA hired a non-profit organization, the Global Environment and Technology Foundation, to develop an asbestos policies focus group. Just yesterday EPA released GETF's Asbestos Strategies Report. I am very pleased that the Report recommends several aspects of the Ban Asbestos in America Act, including that Congress pass legislation to ban asbestos.

While the recommendations are certainly helpful in providing guidance to EPA, Congress and other federal agencies on the next steps to address asbestos, the GETF report does not replace a full fledged Blue Ribbon Panel. The Ban Asbestos in America Act codifies creation of a Blue Ribbon Panel as EPA first committed to in 2001. The panel will include participation from the Department of Labor and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It will review the current laws and rules in place to protect workers and consumers, and make recommendations for improving protections within 2 years of passage of the Act.

In addition, the bill calls for EPA to have the NAS conduct a study on the current state of the science relating to the human health effects of exposure to asbestos and other durable fibers. The NAS study shall also include recommendations for a uniform system of asbestos exposure standards and for a uniform system to create protocols to

detect and measure asbestos. As I mentioned previously, asbestos is regulated under multiple statutes. There are different standards within EPA and across Federal agencies, and agencies rely on different protocols to identify the substance. The NAS shall be required to submit the study to EPA, other federal agencies and Congress within 18 months of passage of the Act.

Third, the legislation requires a survey to determine which products contain asbestos, either on purpose or as a contaminant. EPA will be required to conduct this review with input from the Department of Labor, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the International Trade Commission.

The bill directs the EPA to conduct a survey on the status of asbestos-containing products, such as roofing materials, brake pads and gaskets, which contain asbestos on purpose. EPA must also study contaminant-asbestos products, such as some insulation and horticultural products, which contain asbestos as a contaminant of another substance. The study will examine how people use these products and the extent to which people are exposed to harmful levels of asbestos. The study must be finalized within 18 months to inform the Blue Ribbon Panel and the education campaign.

Fourth, based on the results of the study, EPA shall conduct a public education campaign to increase awareness of the dangers posed by asbestos-containing products and contaminant-asbestos products, including those in homes and workplaces. The agency shall give priority to those products posing the greatest risk, as determined by the study required by the bill. The education campaign must be conducted within 2 years of passage of the bill.

EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall still be required to conduct a national education campaign about vermiculite insulation within 6 months of passage of the Act. As many as 35 million homes and businesses may contain asbestos-contaminated insulation made with vermiculite from Libby. This requirement is still in the bill despite EPA's recent announcement of an education campaign about vermiculite attic insulation. This will ensure EPA's long-term commitment to educating the public.

Finally, the Ban Asbestos in America Act increases the federal commitment to finding new treatments for the terrible diseases caused by asbestos. At least 2,000 people per year die from mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lining of the lungs and internal organs caused by exposure to asbestos. The legislation would direct the head of NIH to ``expand, intensify and coordinate programs for the conduct and support of research on diseases caused by exposure to asbestos.'' The Centers for Disease Control would be required to create a National Mesothelioma Registry to improve tracking of the disease, which in many cases goes undiagnosed and thus unrecorded. In addition, the bill creates 10 mesothelioma treatment centers around the country to improve treatments for and awareness of this fatal cancer.

Our hope is that by continuing to work together, we will build support for the Ban Asbestos in America Act. If we can get this legislation passed, fewer people will be exposed to asbestos, fewer people will contract asbestos diseases in the first place, and those who already have asbestos diseases will receive treatments to prolong and improve quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

In the meantime, we should do all we can to ensure that the rules in place to protect workers, consumers and schoolchildren from asbestos are followed and are strengthened if necessary. We also need to make sure that Federal agencies are given adequate resources to fully implement Congress' many mandates.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.