Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to pay tribute to our Armed Forces involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thanks to the dedication and valor of more than 200,000 of our brave men and women in uniform, the Iraqi people have been liberated from the oppressive and murderous grip of Saddam Hussein and, I believe, this Nation and the world are safer today than they were a few weeks ago.

The successes of our Armed Forces in Iraq are unprecedented. In 3 short weeks, our troops marched 300 miles to the heart of Baghdad, liberated fortified Iraqi cities along the way, and removed Saddam Hussein's entrenched, brutal regime from power. All the while, they worked honorably to minimize civilian casualties, preserve Iraq's infrastructure, distribute food and medical aid to innocent Iraqis, and treat enemy POWs with dignity and respect. In short, our troops engaged in battle with purpose, determination, and compassion. They not only defended but embodied American values.

Their service on our behalf should make all Americans proud.

Yet we know that this war, like any war, was not won without cost. Despite the unprecedented achievements of Operation Iraqi Freedom, both in terms of a mission accomplished and the relatively few coalition casualties, American lives were lost. More than 100 U.S. soldiers, who volunteered to trade the comforts of family and home for a desert battlefield halfway around the world, will not see the fruits of their sacrifice. They join those brave souls throughout our history who died for freedom's cause. As we salute the members of our Armed Forces for a job well done, we pay solemn tribute to all those whose ultimate sacrifice helped make victory in Iraq possible.

Moreover, Mr. President, as we honor the collective sacrifice by all our military men and women, we remember our fallen heroes as individuals. We recall the lives and legacy of those who died to protect us. Each name represents a life--a mother, a father, a sister, a brother, a son, a daughter, a husband, a wife. Each leaves behind someone who was touched by their goodness and sustained by their love. Each has a story that deserves to be told.

I would like to take a few moments to recall those fallen heroes from my home State of Illinois. Seven young men from various parts of my State have lost their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Marine Captain Ryan Beaupre from St. Anne, IL, age 30, died piloting a helicopter that crashed a few miles from the Iraqi border. Ryan was an honor student and athlete at Bishop McNamara High School and received a bachelor's degree at Illinois Wesleyan College. He left a promising career in the insurance business to serve his country and fulfill his boyhood dream of flying. Ryan lived his dream as a pilot in the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. According to friends and relatives, Ryan was the ``boy next door''--red hair, freckles, and a wide smile. As one friend put it, Ryan ``would be anybody's friend and apparently he was.''

Marine Private Jonathan Lee Gifford from Decatur, IL, age 30, was killed in an ambush in Southern Iraq. Jonathan served in the 1st Battalion, 2nd Regiment, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force, which suffered heavy casualties in the first days of the war. A 1991 graduate of Stephen Decatur High School, Jonathan joined the Marines in 2001, fulfilling an ambition he had harbored since he was a teenager. His loved ones say Jonathan was always for the underdog, an attitude which helped motivate his service in Iraq. He leaves behind friends and family, including a much loved four-year-old daughter.

Marine Corporal Evan James from La Harpe, IL, age 20, was killed trying to cross a canal in southeastern Iraq. CPL James, a recent graduate from La Harpe High School, served with the 6th Engineering Support Battalion based in Peoria, Illinois. Prior to being called to active duty, Evan had been studying at Southern Illinois University to be a physical fitness trainer. According to those who knew him best, Evan was an incredibly giving young man. As one high school friend said, ``Evan was an all-American boy. He would do anything for his country, for his school, for his friends.''

Marine Corporal Brian Matthew Kennedy from Glenview, IL, age 25, was killed when his helicopter crashed south of Iraq. Brian attended Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, where his grit and determination enabled him to be a successful starting offensive lineman for the football team at a mere 170 pounds. That same determination served Brian well throughout his all too brief life. Brian's friends and family describe him as an extraordinarily conscientious young man with a firmly positive outlook on life. As a member of the 3d Marine Aircraft Wing, Corporal Kennedy was the quintessential marine: He took pride in everything he did and met life's challenges with skill and determination.

Army Specialist Brandon Rowe from Roscoe, IL, age 20, was killed in an ambush near the Iraqi city of Najaf. A recent graduate of Hononegah High School, Brandon was the youngest of four siblings. Shortly after his high school graduation, Brandon joined the 101st Airborne Division based in Campbell, KY. Gifted with thoughtfulness and humor, Army SP Rowe was known for using wit and laughter to put others at ease. Brandon's family said he genuinely believed in his mission and knew his service would help liberate oppressed Iraqis.

Staff Sergeant Lincoln Hollinsaid from Malden, IL, age 27, was killed by enemy fire as he led his unit into combat. A soldier in the 11th Engineer Battalion, Lincoln joined the Army in 1995, shortly after graduating from Princeton High School in Malden. Lincoln's father has said his son loved two things: the military and the outdoors. When he wasn't marching for the Army, he was marching through the mountains, hunting and fishing. Never one to shy from duty, SSG Hollinsaid had transferred to a new military unit prior to the war to improve his chances for combat.

First Sergeant Edward Smith, age 38, grew up in Chicago. He died from wounds suffered in battle. Edward had been serving as a reserve police officer in Anaheim, CA before being called to active duty as a member of the 1st Marine Division. Edward's wife Sandy described her husband this way: ``He was an unbelievable man. He had such a good heart. He cared about people. He was just the best man I've ever known.'' Edward leaves behind a loving wife and three young children.

Mr. President, these young individuals were ordinary men who lived extraordinary lives of service to America and the cause of freedom. They had many promising years ahead of them, and they leave behind family and friends who will miss them dearly. As we mourn their loss, we honor their sacrifice. On behalf of the Senate and the proud state of Illinois, I salute these fine young men and all the other soldiers killed in combat, and wish their loved ones comfort, peace, and peace of mind. To them I say on behalf of our country: Your loved ones were truly heroes. Their bravery and dedication will live in our memories for all time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Deformities Act of 2003, which will require insurance companies to cover corrective surgeries for children with congenital or developmental deformities.

According to the March of Dimes, 3.8 percent of babies born annually--about 150,000 babies per year suffer from birth defects. Approximately 50,000 of these babies require reconstructive surgery. Examples of these deformities include cleft lip, cleft palate, skin lesions, vascular anomalies, malformations of the ear, hand, or foot, and other more profound craniofacial deformities.

Plastic surgeons are able to correct many of these problems, and doing so is critical to both the physical and mental health and development of the child. On average, children with congenital deformities or developmental anomalies will need three to five surgical procedures before normalcy is achieved. An increasing number of insurance companies are denying access

to care by labeling the surgical procedures cosmetic or nonfunctional in nature. In some cases, carriers may provide coverage for initial procedures, but resist covering later, necessary procedures, claiming that they are cosmetic and not medically necessary.

Although insurance companies ultimately have decided to cover some of these procedures, families have had to battle through the appeals process of insurance companies for extended periods of time, thereby forcing children to wait unnecessarily for needed surgeries. The treatment plan for children with congenital defects usually requires staged surgical care in accordance with the child's growth pattern. Onerous and time-consuming appeals procedures can jeopardize the physical and psychological health of children with deformities.

The American Medical Association defines cosmetic surgery as being performed to reshape normal structures of the body in order to improve the patient's appearance and self-esteem. In contrast, reconstructive surgery is defined as being performed on abnormal structures of the body, caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, reconstructive surgery is performed in order to improve function and approximate a normal appearance.

The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act of 2003 will prohibit insurers from denying coverage for reconstructive surgery for children. This bill identifies the difference between cosmetic and reconstructive surgery and incorporates the American Medical Association's definition of reconstructive surgery. The measure requires group and individual health insurers and group health plans to provide coverage for treatment of a minor child's congenital or developmental deformity, disease, or injury. The legislation defines ``treatment'' to include reconstructive surgical procedures. These are procedures that are performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease.

The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act of 2003 has been endorsed by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and several other medical organizations. Fifteen States have already enacted legislation that to different degrees require insurance companies to cover treatment of craniofacial and congenital anomalies. While governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed into law legislation that is similar to the legislation I introduce today.

I would like to thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Snowe for cosponsoring this important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill so that children who suffer from congenital deformities or developmental anomalies do not have to wait unnecessarily for needed treatment.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Deformities Act of 2003, which will require insurance companies to cover corrective surgeries for children with congenital or developmental deformities.

According to the March of Dimes, 3.8 percent of babies born annually--about 150,000 babies per year suffer from birth defects. Approximately 50,000 of these babies require reconstructive surgery. Examples of these deformities include cleft lip, cleft palate, skin lesions, vascular anomalies, malformations of the ear, hand, or foot, and other more profound craniofacial deformities.

Plastic surgeons are able to correct many of these problems, and doing so is critical to both the physical and mental health and development of the child. On average, children with congenital deformities or developmental anomalies will need three to five surgical procedures before normalcy is achieved. An increasing number of insurance companies are denying access

to care by labeling the surgical procedures cosmetic or nonfunctional in nature. In some cases, carriers may provide coverage for initial procedures, but resist covering later, necessary procedures, claiming that they are cosmetic and not medically necessary.

Although insurance companies ultimately have decided to cover some of these procedures, families have had to battle through the appeals process of insurance companies for extended periods of time, thereby forcing children to wait unnecessarily for needed surgeries. The treatment plan for children with congenital defects usually requires staged surgical care in accordance with the child's growth pattern. Onerous and time-consuming appeals procedures can jeopardize the physical and psychological health of children with deformities.

The American Medical Association defines cosmetic surgery as being performed to reshape normal structures of the body in order to improve the patient's appearance and self-esteem. In contrast, reconstructive surgery is defined as being performed on abnormal structures of the body, caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, reconstructive surgery is performed in order to improve function and approximate a normal appearance.

The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act of 2003 will prohibit insurers from denying coverage for reconstructive surgery for children. This bill identifies the difference between cosmetic and reconstructive surgery and incorporates the American Medical Association's definition of reconstructive surgery. The measure requires group and individual health insurers and group health plans to provide coverage for treatment of a minor child's congenital or developmental deformity, disease, or injury. The legislation defines ``treatment'' to include reconstructive surgical procedures. These are procedures that are performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease.

The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act of 2003 has been endorsed by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and several other medical organizations. Fifteen States have already enacted legislation that to different degrees require insurance companies to cover treatment of craniofacial and congenital anomalies. While governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed into law legislation that is similar to the legislation I introduce today.

I would like to thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Snowe for cosponsoring this important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill so that children who suffer from congenital deformities or developmental anomalies do not have to wait unnecessarily for needed treatment.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following the conclusion of my remarks.

I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for the excellent work he has been doing on this ban on partial-birth abortion. I am an original cosponsor of Mr. Santorum's bill. I applaud him for his hard work and toil on this issue, not just this year but for several previous years. In fact, Senator Santorum has been working on this issue for some 7 years.

When you reflect that it has taken this long for this body to get to this date where we are close to having a vote and we hope the bill will pass and be signed by the President, you have to wonder what kind of a society have we become that it has taken us so long to get to the point where we are close to banning what to me seems to be a very cruel and inhumane procedure. It has been made abundantly clear, both in this debate and in many Senate committee hearings on prior occasions, that banning partial-birth abortion is a simple step those of us on both sides of the abortion issue should be able to coalesce and find common ground over.

We are talking about banning a specific procedure in which a baby is partially delivered, scissors are stuck in the back of the baby's skull, a vacuum suction tube is inserted into the skull, and the baby's brains are sucked out. We are banning this type of abortion only. Can we not agree this is too cruel and inhumane a procedure to allow in the United States? As Senator Santorum has said, we are not banning other types of abortion.

I am struck that several times in the 4-plus years I have been in the Senate, we have on several occasions had debates on the Senate floor and votes in the Senate about banning cruel and inhumane treatment of animals. In fact, I remember several years ago we had a debate over an amendment brought by Senator Torricelli that would prohibit the use of funds in the Interior budget to facilitate the use of steel-jawed traps and neck snares for commerce or recreation in a national wildlife refuge.

During the debate on this amendment, my friend and colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, described the amendment to ban steel-jawed traps and neck snares as a ``no brainer.'' My colleague went on to say: ``These traps are inhumane. They are designed to slam closed. The result is lacerations, broken bones, joint dislocations, and gangrene.'' In concluding, Senator Reid stated: ``In this day and age there is no need to resort to inhumane methods of trapping.''

Many Members were persuaded. I was persuaded. I voted to protect the animals out West, the coyotes, wolves, and bears that were being inhumanely trapped in these steel-jawed traps and neck snares. Why were many of us persuaded? Why were we all troubled by steel-jawed traps and neck snares? Is it because there is something in our gut that turns and twists over the unnecessary suffering and pain of creatures with whom we share this Earth; the majestic animals who are as much a part of God's wonderful creation as we are; wonderful animals who add richness and texture to our own experience of the planet; animals whom we thank God for allowing us to appreciate and admire?

The suffering of a bear or a deer can lead many of us to say no to a steel-jawed trap or neck snare, but what about the scissor through the head and neck of a child? What about sucking a baby's brains out? We would not treat a mangy raccoon this way.

I remember a couple years back the Senate acted to do more to fight the inhumane treatment of dolphins. I remember supporting an amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, to the fiscal year 2000 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill to force countries to pay their fair share of the expenses of the Tuna Commission and delay the importation of tuna caught using fishing methods that unnecessarily harm and kill dolphin. During debate on this amendment, Senator Boxer spoke eloquently of the thousands of dolphin killed each year by fishing methods that cruelly and unnecessarily harass, chase, circle, maim, and kill dolphin

that happen to be swimming over schools of tuna. I appreciated her efforts and others' efforts in the name of humaneness.

I believe our Maker has touched our human conscience with something that makes us almost instinctively recoil from causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals. I know there is a tender spot in the hearts of some who now oppose a ban on this cruel and inhumane procedure. I know it is there because I have seen it in debates in this body. But I don't understand how those who can hear the howl of the wolf or the squeal of a dolphin can be deaf to the cry of an unborn child.

If people were sticking scissors in the heads of puppies, we would not abide it. In the name of common decency and humanity, I urge my colleagues not to let this happen any longer to our own young. I applaud Senator Santorum for the good work he has been doing. We will keep fighting until we get this ban enacted into law.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would extend the 10-cents-per-gallon small ethanol producers' tax credit to small farmer-owned cooperatives. The measure, if approved by Congress, could help boost ethanol production at a time when domestic energy prices are on the rise and the United States is seeking to reduce its dependence on foreign oil.

Under current law, small ethanol producers, those who make less than 30 million gallons of ethanol per year, are eligible for an additional 10-cents-per-gallon-tax credit for up to 15 million gallons of ethanol each year. While the tax credit is intended to help maximize U.S. ethanol production by aiding small producers that otherwise may not be able to compete with larger companies, an unintended glitch in the law bars small farm cooperatives from passing this credit on to their farmers. Unfortunately, this glitch stifles production and penalizes farmers who join cooperatives.

Farm cooperatives can be an efficient way for farmers to trim costs and maximize income. We must ensure that our tax code does not penalize farmers for pooling their resources in cooperatives. With rising energy prices and a potentiality vast new market for ethanol in the Nation's clean air program, we should encourage, not discourage, greater production by ethanol cooperatives.

This legislation would revise existing tax law to permit farmer-owned cooperatives to pass the small producers' ethanol tax credit on to their members through dividends and allow these producers to treat this income as if they had generated it directly.

The bill would also expand the number of producers eligible for the tax credit by doubling the production limit from 30 million gallons of ethanol a year 60 million gallons. Like most businesses, ethanol production facilities must achieve economies of scale to be viable in a competitive marketplace. Doubling the limit to 60 million gallons simply modernizes the tax credit to reflect current economic realities.

I believe we must approach the new millennium with a renewed commitment to keep our environment clean and safe, and I also believes this objective is consistent with building and maintaining a strong economy. Renewable energy is central to our long-term goal of energy self-sufficiency. By expanding eligibility for the small producers' ethanol tax credit, this bill could stimulate ethanol production and ultimately help lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

Realizing this important benefit, the Senate included this legislation in the comprehensive energy legislation, H.R. 4, which unfortunately, failed to emerge from conference committee prior to the end of the 107th Congress. Additionally, this small ethanol producer tax credit legislation was incorporated into Senator Grassley's ``Tax

Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen, TERFF, Act,'' which we also did not approve prior to adjournment of the last Congress. I look forward to working with our new Finance Committee Chairman and my co-sponsor, Senators Johnson, Hagel, and Harkin, to get this legislation signed into law.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would extend the 10-cents-per-gallon small ethanol producers' tax credit to small farmer-owned cooperatives. The measure, if approved by Congress, could help boost ethanol production at a time when domestic energy prices are on the rise and the United States is seeking to reduce its dependence on foreign oil.

Under current law, small ethanol producers, those who make less than 30 million gallons of ethanol per year, are eligible for an additional 10-cents-per-gallon-tax credit for up to 15 million gallons of ethanol each year. While the tax credit is intended to help maximize U.S. ethanol production by aiding small producers that otherwise may not be able to compete with larger companies, an unintended glitch in the law bars small farm cooperatives from passing this credit on to their farmers. Unfortunately, this glitch stifles production and penalizes farmers who join cooperatives.

Farm cooperatives can be an efficient way for farmers to trim costs and maximize income. We must ensure that our tax code does not penalize farmers for pooling their resources in cooperatives. With rising energy prices and a potentiality vast new market for ethanol in the Nation's clean air program, we should encourage, not discourage, greater production by ethanol cooperatives.

This legislation would revise existing tax law to permit farmer-owned cooperatives to pass the small producers' ethanol tax credit on to their members through dividends and allow these producers to treat this income as if they had generated it directly.

The bill would also expand the number of producers eligible for the tax credit by doubling the production limit from 30 million gallons of ethanol a year 60 million gallons. Like most businesses, ethanol production facilities must achieve economies of scale to be viable in a competitive marketplace. Doubling the limit to 60 million gallons simply modernizes the tax credit to reflect current economic realities.

I believe we must approach the new millennium with a renewed commitment to keep our environment clean and safe, and I also believes this objective is consistent with building and maintaining a strong economy. Renewable energy is central to our long-term goal of energy self-sufficiency. By expanding eligibility for the small producers' ethanol tax credit, this bill could stimulate ethanol production and ultimately help lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

Realizing this important benefit, the Senate included this legislation in the comprehensive energy legislation, H.R. 4, which unfortunately, failed to emerge from conference committee prior to the end of the 107th Congress. Additionally, this small ethanol producer tax credit legislation was incorporated into Senator Grassley's ``Tax

Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen, TERFF, Act,'' which we also did not approve prior to adjournment of the last Congress. I look forward to working with our new Finance Committee Chairman and my co-sponsor, Senators Johnson, Hagel, and Harkin, to get this legislation signed into law.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to reinstate a license surrendered to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, that authorized the construction of a hydroelectric power plant in Carlyle, IL. In order to facilitate the construction of the hydroelectric power plant, the bill also contains a provision that extends the deadline for beginning construction of the plant.

Carlyle, IL, is a small community of 3,406 people in Southwestern Illinois, fifty miles east of St. Louis. Carlyle is situated on the Kaskaskia River at the southern tip of Carlyle Lake, which was formed in 1967 when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed construction of a dam on the river. Carlyle Lake is 15 miles long and 3.5 miles wide, the largest man-made lake in Illinois.

When the Army Corps of Engineers constructed the dam, it failed to build a hydroelectric power plant to capitalize on the energy available from water flowing through the dam. A hydroelectric power facility in Carlyle would produce 4,000 kilowatts of power and provide a renewable energy source for surrounding communities. Furthermore, the environmental impact of adding a hydroelectric facility would be minimal, and such a facility, located at a site near the existing dam, would not produce harmful emissions.

In 1997, Southwestern Electric Cooperative obtained a license from the FERC to begin work on a hydroelectric project in Carlyle. In 2000, Southwestern Electric Cooperative surrendered their license because they were unable to begin the project in the required time period. The City of Carlyle is interested in constructing the hydroelectric power plant and is seeking to obtain Southwestern Electric Cooperative's license.

The bill I am introducing today is required for the construction of the facility. Legislation is necessary to authorize FERC to reinstate Southwestern Electric Cooperative's surrendered license. Because there is not enough time remaining on the license to conduct studies, produce a design for the facility, and begin construction of the project, the bill includes a provision that allows FERC to extend the applicable deadline.

The full Senate passed this bill, during the 107th Congress, on November 20, 2002 without opposition, but, the House

of Representatives was unable to act on this legislation before the 107th Congress adjourned.

This legislation is an easy and environmentally safe approach to meeting the energy needs of Southwestern Illinois. Please join me in supporting this measure to provide a clean alternative energy source for this part of the Midwest.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to reinstate a license surrendered to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, that authorized the construction of a hydroelectric power plant in Carlyle, IL. In order to facilitate the construction of the hydroelectric power plant, the bill also contains a provision that extends the deadline for beginning construction of the plant.

Carlyle, IL, is a small community of 3,406 people in Southwestern Illinois, fifty miles east of St. Louis. Carlyle is situated on the Kaskaskia River at the southern tip of Carlyle Lake, which was formed in 1967 when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed construction of a dam on the river. Carlyle Lake is 15 miles long and 3.5 miles wide, the largest man-made lake in Illinois.

When the Army Corps of Engineers constructed the dam, it failed to build a hydroelectric power plant to capitalize on the energy available from water flowing through the dam. A hydroelectric power facility in Carlyle would produce 4,000 kilowatts of power and provide a renewable energy source for surrounding communities. Furthermore, the environmental impact of adding a hydroelectric facility would be minimal, and such a facility, located at a site near the existing dam, would not produce harmful emissions.

In 1997, Southwestern Electric Cooperative obtained a license from the FERC to begin work on a hydroelectric project in Carlyle. In 2000, Southwestern Electric Cooperative surrendered their license because they were unable to begin the project in the required time period. The City of Carlyle is interested in constructing the hydroelectric power plant and is seeking to obtain Southwestern Electric Cooperative's license.

The bill I am introducing today is required for the construction of the facility. Legislation is necessary to authorize FERC to reinstate Southwestern Electric Cooperative's surrendered license. Because there is not enough time remaining on the license to conduct studies, produce a design for the facility, and begin construction of the project, the bill includes a provision that allows FERC to extend the applicable deadline.

The full Senate passed this bill, during the 107th Congress, on November 20, 2002 without opposition, but, the House

of Representatives was unable to act on this legislation before the 107th Congress adjourned.

This legislation is an easy and environmentally safe approach to meeting the energy needs of Southwestern Illinois. Please join me in supporting this measure to provide a clean alternative energy source for this part of the Midwest.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to pass the extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation, TEUC, Program.

In November, the Senate acted unanimously to extend the TEUC program through the end of March by passing a bill that I cosponsored along with Senators Clinton, Cantwell, Specter, Sarbanes, Kennedy, and Durbin. However, the House and Senate were unable to reach a compromise that would have allowed President Bush to sign the extension into law. This is our last chance to act before there is an interruption in the receipt of benefits pursuant to the TEUC program.

November 2002, the nationwide unemployment level shot up to 6.0 percent from 5.7 percent in October. The law authorizing the TEUC program expired on December 28, 2002. If we do not act now to extend this program, as many as 800,000 workers who are receiving temporary benefits will not receive their full 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. 1.6 million workers will exhaust their regular unemployment benefits between December 28, 2002 and the end of May 2003 if we fail to act. If we act today to extend this important program, we will ensure that these workers will receive their next unemployment check.

The unemployment situation in my home State of Illinois is critical. It would be particularly adversely affected if we do not act. In November 2002, Illinois had a 6.7-percent unemployment rate, tying Mississippi with the third highest unemployment rate in the country behind Alaska and Oregon. Illinois' rate was substantially higher than the nationwide 6.0-percent unemployment rate. Over the 3-month period from September through November 2002, the average unemployment rate in Illinois was 6.6 percent, which is significantly higher than the national average of 5.8 percent over the same period. In November, there were 416,200 unemployed persons in Illinois.

I have introduced legislation that would extend the provisions of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 to allow individuals receiving benefits to continue collecting them until they expire in full. This bill is retroactive, and permits people who otherwise would have had their TEUC benefits cut off on December 28 to receive the full 13 weeks of TEUC benefits. Furthermore, this legislation would make individuals who have exhausted their regular 26 weeks of unemployment insurance eligible for a 13-week extension, and would allow these individuals to apply for such extensions through the end of May. Under my bill, even those who enrolled in the TEUC program just prior to the expiration of the program would be eligible to receive full 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits.

This bill is a more generous extension of the TEUC program than the extension that the Senate approved last November. It provides for 5- month extension of the temporary unemployment insurance program, which is more than the 3 months of benefits provided by the extension that the Senate passed last year. Passing this legislation will help millions of families nationwide, easing the burden that these families might otherwise experience if their unemployment insurance were to have expired on December 28, 2002. It will help unemployed Americans feed their families and pay their bills while giving them an additional 5 months to find new jobs.

I would like to thank the Senators on both sides of the aisle who have helped to negotiate this bipartisan compromise bill that will extend unemployment insurance benefits to the millions of Americans who need them.

President Bush has called upon us to quickly pass legislation that will extend the TEUC program, a program whose benefits fell off a cliff on December 28, 2002. I urge may colleagues in the Senate to support this necessary legislation. I also urge the House of Representatives to take up and pass this bill in an expeditious manner so that President Bush can sign the measure into law by this Thursday and prevent any interruption in the receipt of temporary unemployment insurance benefits.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.