Floor Statements

What is the pending business at this time?

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

I rise today to offer an amendment directly relevant to the most important national security priority before this country today. That, of course, is the fight against international terrorist networks that have murdered Americans.

We have heard a good deal recently about some questionable assertions made by the administration in the lead-up to the military action in Iraq. We still have not satisfactorily resolved concerns that I and some of my colleagues raised in the lead-up to the war in Iraq that I referred to and have referred to for almost a year as the ``ever shifting justifications for United States action in Iraq.''

Congress is right to keep asking questions. The American people are right to demand answers. They deserve a complete and public accounting of how a piece of intelligence that was removed from a Presidential speech last fall because of doubts of its veracity then found its way into this year's State of the Union Address.

I rise to point out the administration's shifting justifications and flawed intelligence are not the only problems. There is another problem, and I argue it is as alarming or even more alarming. The problem is while all of this was underway--that is, the Iraq activities--while we were hearing less-than-accurate information as part of the administration's hard sell, we may well have been dropping the ball when it comes to addressing the most urgent threat to our national security; that is, combating the al-Qaida terrorist network and other international terrorist networks of global reach.

Of course, the horror of September 11, 2001 is seared into the memory of all Americans, but there have been other horrors: The African embassy bombings of 1998 and, yes, there was the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. On October 12, 2002, the USS Navy destroyer Cole was attacked by a small boat laden with explosive during a brief refueling stop in the harbor of Aden, Yemen. The attack killed 17 members of the ship's crew, including a sailor from my home State of Wisconsin, and wounded 39 others. The evidence clearly indicates al-Qaida was responsible for the attack on USS Cole.

However, how many people know on April 11, 2003, just a few months ago, 10 men suspected of involvement in the Cole bombing escaped from a prison building in Aden, Yemen? How many people have heard about that? It is not only the basic information that has been in short supply; explanations for this escape of these al-Qaida suspects is also hard to come by.

In early May, the Yemeni foreign minister suggests in remarks made to the BBC that ``part of the problem is the long period of time during which they [the suspects] were held.'' The Yemeni government called for sending them to court, but Washington also asked for postponement until the conclusion of its investigations into the Cole explosion or the file of terrorism in general.

The comments continue: ``Incidents like this happen, especially when prisoners spend a long time in one place and guards become reassured that the prisoners have become used to prison and will not escape.''

This Yemeni statement suggests the U.S. Government was certainly aware of the detainees and involved in the issue. That is, of course, something we

would expect in this case, about people who were in prison in Yemen whom we knew to be the likely people involved in the bombing of our USS Cole.

On May 15, the Justice Department unveiled a 51-count indictment against two of the escapees, Jamal al-Badawi and Fahd al-Qusaa. The two were indicted on various terror offenses, including murder of United States nationals and murder of United States military personnel. The indictment said Badawi was recruited by senior members of Osama bin Laden's inner circle and he bought the attack boat in Saudi Arabia and obtained the trailer and truck used to tow the boat to Aden harbor. The press conference at which the indictments were announced underscored the seriousness of this matter. Obviously, given the press conference held by the administration official, this is not a small or a marginal issue.

We are talking here about the escape of operatives of Osama bin Laden. We are talking about people here who murdered 17 Americans. Fighting those forces, the forces of al-Qaida, must be our first priority.

When I wrote to the State Department and the Justice Department to gain some answers about just what happened here, I have to tell my colleagues, the answers were not satisfying in the least. In fact, a number of questions remain.

What were the circumstances surrounding the detention of the suspects? Where were they held? Were they moved? Where were they moved? What steps did the administration take to ensure the United States was familiar with the status of people suspected of involvement in a terrorist attack on our sailors? Did anyone representing the United States Government ever question these suspects? Did anyone ever visit the facility where they were being held? Did anyone even bother to visit the facility after the escape to try to understand how they escaped? Was the U.S. Government involved in any way in monitoring these detainees prior to their escape?

Again, I am talking about al-Qaida operatives. The indictment of Jamal al-Badawi indicates he was recruited by members of Osama bin Laden's inner circle. If he was a known al-Qaida operative, why didn't the United States take steps to monitor the detention facility where he was held? What do we know about the circumstances surrounding their escape? What kind of help did they have? Do the facts tell us anything about whether the decisions to facilitate the escape were taken only at a low level or were they taken at a higher level? If these escapees had help, what happened to the people who helped them? What does the U.S. Government know about these people and about what they are doing now? What steps have we taken to urge that those people be held accountable for their actions? What steps are currently being taken to find and detain the escapees? What steps are being taken to ensure they do not reach United States soil?

It is not unreasonable to expect answers to these questions. My very modest amendment simply expresses the sense of the Senate that the administration should provide them in the form of a report on this incident. If such a report needs to come in a classified format, I understand that, of course, and that is fine. What is not fine, though, is the prospect of letting this issue go unexamined. This escape occurred just as our brave troops were entering Baghdad, at least in part, in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism.

We cannot afford to be easily distracted, incapable of focusing on a global effort to stop terrorists because of our intense focus on other issues with only a nebulous connection to this most important priority of stopping international terrorist networks. I fear we have wondered far afield from the urgent task at hand. I am troubled that the same administration that was recklessly threading together any and all justifications for a war with Iraq a few months ago may have at the same time been complacent about the status of the USS Cole attackers.

This past Sunday on Meet the Press, Secretary Rumsfeld suggested that finding Saddam Hussein was more important in terms of providing, in his words, ``closure'' than finding Osama bin Laden. I know the al-Qaida network consists of far more than one man, but I fear the Secretary's remarks are emblematic of the problem. First and foremost, I believe the American people want to defeat the forces that attacked us. But this administration is leading us in some unrelated directions. We should be focused on stopping al-Qaida, stopping other terrorist networks, and denying terrorists access to resources, opportunities, and safe havens.

We all deserve to know what happened with this escape. All of us should join together in determining what lessons we can learn from this incident and what it tells us about where we have been placing our national security focus and priorities.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I intend to withdraw the amendment at this time, but we will certainly be revisiting this issue. I hope the administration will hear those words and respond to the need for the answers to these questions. The legislative option certainly remains available on other, perhaps more appropriate, vehicles. But given my inability to get answers to these questions thus far, I believe it is necessary to begin the process of raising this matter in the legislative process itself.

Amendment No. 1279 Withdrawn

Mr. President, I ask at this time to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1281 offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia to H.R. 2658.

I am disappointed that the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota was tabled yesterday. I have been a consistent advocate of transparency in our budgeting practices, and this amendment would have gone a long way to promoting such good practices. I am happy that we have a second chance to address this issue with the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia.

The Office of Management and Budget recently announced that they expect this year's budget deficit to reach $455 billion and predict a $475 billion deficit for fiscal year 2004. The estimates for fiscal year 2004 do not even include the cost of operations in Iraq. Such a dire fiscal picture makes it even more important that we get a better sense of the costs of future operations and make our decisions accordingly.

When we are conducting military operations or know that such operations are imminent, the budget must reflect it. We should not blithely go along as if it were a time for business as usual. We should budget responsibly for what is happening.

I would like to remind my colleagues about how much trouble we have had trying to get realistic figures from the administration about the cost of the Iraqi operations. We should not be operating in the dark. We must be presented with all of the facts so that our judgments on these tough issues are sound. Honest budgeting demands it.

As my distinguished colleagues have noted, we are no longer in the situation where the costs of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are unknown. The Secretary of Defense recently told us that we can expect to be spending almost $4 billion a month in Iraq and almost $1 billion a month in Afghanistan. The Pentagon comptroller has publicly stated that the administration has a good idea of what our overseas military operations will cost over the next year. Why are we pretending otherwise?

It is interesting to note that before the operations in Iraq, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that occupation costs would be between $1 billion and $4 billion a month, showing that we can get reasonable estimates. We can use those estimates to better the budgeting process.

We should continue to try to improve the process to ensure that we in the Senate and the American people can clearly see the facts and set priorities accordingly.

This amendment is not limited to this year or to the operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. Some may say that budgeting for potential future operations is not possible. I agree that predicting an exact cost is difficult, but that does not mean we cannot prepare a rough estimate. In fact, doing so will help us better analyze our options and make better decisions about any future engagements. The Senate wisely chose this path with the recent budget resolution when it adopted the amendment offered by myself and the senior Senator from New Jersey setting aside $100 billion of the tax cut for operations in Iraq.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. When we ask the American people to support future operations they should know what we expect the operations to cost. We owe the American people this honesty. I commend the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for offering this amendment and for repeatedly raising important questions about the administration's policy on Iraq. He has performed a valuable service, and I thank him for it.

Mr. President, I have long advocated the creation of 23 additional full-time National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams and have supported the location of at least one team in each state and territory of the United States. I am pleased that last year the Congress passed--and the President signed into law--a defense authorization bill that required that these important teams be created.

I am also pleased that earlier this year the Senate passed a defense authorization bill that includes $88.4 million for 12 new teams in fiscal year 2004. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee for their support on this issue, and for including language in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2004 DoD authorization bill urging the Pentagon to include funding for the remaining eleven teams in its fiscal year 2005 budget request.

I also want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for their work on this issue. I wonder if the managers would engage with me in a brief colloquy on this subject.

It is my understanding that the bill as amended by the Chairman includes the full $88.4 million authorized by the Armed Services Committee for 12 new Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams. I ask the Chairman of the Committee and the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] if that is the case?

So it is your understanding that the funding included in the bill currently before the Senate includes sufficient funding to man, equip, and train 12 new civil support teams?

I thank the managers.

Abrams System Enhancement Program

Mr. President, I rise to explain my vote on the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia to

Mr. President, I rise to add my thoughts to the debate on the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank all our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and members of the Coast Guard for their hard work in the ongoing fight against terrorism, their efforts in Iraq, and the many other missions to which they have been assigned. These dedicated men and women have volunteered to undertake, often at great personal sacrifice, the task of protecting the American people and our way of life. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the members of the United States Armed Forces for their selfless service.

I am pleased that this bill appropriates an average pay raise of 4.15 percent for military personnel and lowers servicemembers' out-of-pocket housing costs from 7.5 to 3.5 percent.

I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has fully funded at the authorized level the 12 additional full-time Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, WMD-CST, included in the Senate-passed Department of Defense authorization bill. These teams, which are staffed by full-time members of the National Guard, will play an integral part in aiding first responders in their crucial work in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack. I have been a longtime supporter of the creation of these teams and am encouraged that we are well on our way to assuring that every State will have at least one full-time WMD-CST.

I am also pleased that funding for controversial data-mining programs, like the Terrorism Information Awareness Program and the Combat Zones That See Program, have been zeroed out in this bill. The untested and controversial intelligence procedure known as data-mining is capable of maintaining extensive files containing both public and private records on each and every American. Most Americans believe their private lives should remain private. Data-mining programs run the risk of intruding into the lives of individuals who have nothing to do with terrorism but who trust that their credit reports, shopping habits, and doctor visits would not become a part

of a gigantic computerized search engine, operating without any controls or oversight.

Unfortunately this enormous spending bill also contains many unnecessary items. I continue to be deeply concerned about the priorities of the Pentagon and about the process by which we consider the Department of Defense authorization and appropriations bills, a concern I have voiced every year that I have been a Member of this body. This bill includes $9.1 billion for missile defense, despite the fact that it is an unproven program. We also continue to pour billions of dollars into duplicative fighter aircraft programs. These are just two of many examples of excess.

Despite the almost $370 billion appropriated, this bill still does not accurately reflect the true cost of the defense budget. This bill stays within the Department of Defense allocation only by rescinding $3 billion from prior supplemental appropriations and counting those funds against this year's spending. Even worse, this bill contains absolutely no funding for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, relying instead on future supplemental appropriations. These accounting tricks will not stop the ballooning of the national debt.

I was also disappointed that the Senate tabled the amendment to fully fund the President's AIDS initiative. I was thrilled by the commitment to fighting AIDS articulated by President Bush in his State of the Union Address, and I believe that the Congress should follow through on his historic and admirable pledge. Because I recognize that the AIDS pandemic is so devastating, because the pandemic causes the kind of instability and social collapse that present real security problems, I supported this amendment. But before I did, I studied it carefully because I needed to be certain that the offset would not diminish the resources available to the men and women of our armed forces currently deployed in dangerous missions in Iraq and elsewhere. Close scrutiny gave me confidence that the senior Senator from West Virginia had carefully crafted the offset to ensure that it would not do harm to our troops.

I will vote for this bill. This legislation includes good elements, such as the pay increases for military personnel and the funding for the establishment of much-needed WMD-CSTs. However, poor fiscal practices and accounting gimmicks cannot hide the fact that expensive, unproven, and redundant weapons programs continue to drain away scarce resources.

Furthermore, is it the Senator's understanding that for facilities falling under the ``Exception'' provision, language speaking to the number of ``beds'' would relate to the number of beds a facility currently under development expects to license upon completion? When fully operational, The Wisconsin Heart Hospital will operate a maximum of 52 inpatient beds. State regulation requires the facility to be open and operational before any beds can be licensed.

Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S. J. Res. 17, the resolution of disapproval introduced yesterday by Senator Dorgan and a bipartisan group of Senators who are very concerned about the media ownership rules issued recently by the Federal Communications Commission. When the FCC issued those rules, it ignored the public. It ignored hundreds of thousands of public comments, and it ignored the calls of elected representatives for more careful consideration of these issues that are crucial to the future of information and entertainment in our country.

Over the past several weeks, many Senators have been doing what the FCC failed to do: listening to the American people. What we have heard is not applause for the new rules but great disappointment, and even anger. The American people are outraged by these new media ownership rules. They do not want new media ownership rules that legitimize eliminating local community voices in exchange for homogenization and uniformity. They do not want fewer and fewer choices, and less and less local control.

Those of us who support this disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act want to right the wrong done by the FCC. We believe that the people, not powerful media conglomerates, ultimately own the airwaves. The will of the people must be reflected in the rules that govern media ownership in this country. The strong public support for this resolution is demonstrated by the fact that there are already 35 Senators, from both sides of the aisle, who have signed a petition to bring this matter to the floor, as the CRA contemplates. It is now clear that we will have a vote on this matter in the Senate in the next few months. That is good news for the public.

The FCC's rules threaten to undermine the diversity of voices in the television and newspaper industries, just as diversity in the radio industry has been diminished. In a marketplace limited by only these new rules, our major media outlets will begin to look and act like radio, with absentee owners, standardized programming, and less local news and community involvement.

Thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which loosened the ownership rules for radio, we have seen the future of media consolidation, and we know that it offers a lot more to big media companies than it does to consumers. In some cases, it can be downright dangerous. The five giant media conglomerates that already dominate the airwaves will expand their reach and further stifle localism and diversity.

By invoking the Congressional Review Act, Congress can wipe out these new rules altogether, and the FCC will have to go back and redraft them. We plan to make it clear that the new draft should include some of the positive proposals contained in the recent media bill sponsored by Senator Ted Stevens that passed out of the Commerce Committee. The CRA specifically contemplated that agencies may have to redo regulations required by court or congressional mandate. If this disapproval resolution is passed by the House and the Senate, the preexisting rules will again be in effect until the FCC goes back to the drawing board and promulgates new regulations that are not substantially similar to the rules that Congress has disapproved.

In promulgating these new rules, the FCC ignored its primary responsibility--to serve the public interest. But fortunately, the FCC doesn't have the final word here. The people do. It is our duty in the Congress to listen to the people and give voice to their concerns. By passing the resolution of disapproval, we will do just that. I want to thank the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, for his leadership and the other Senators from both sides of the aisle who are working on this. This is an important effort and I believe we will be successful in taking this action on behalf of the public interest.

Madam President, I rise today to express my concern over recent events in Laos. As a member of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I have consistently monitored the human rights situation in Laos and other East Asian nations. Recent news reports indicate that the human rights situation continues to deteriorate in Laos, specifically for the Hmong ethnic group.

As many of you may know, two European journalists and their translator, a Hmong-American pastor from Minnesota, were captured by the Lao government on June 4, 2003 and sentenced to 15 years of prison. After serious diplomatic negotiations between the governments of Belgium, France, the United States and Laos, they were released from prison on Wednesday. While I am relieved that the Lao government has freed these people, I remain concerned about the continuous allegations of human rights violations by the Lao government. Amnesty International reports that Lao nationals who accompanied the journalists remain in detention without legal representation and are being tortured with sticks and bicycle chains, which I find horrifying. I also find troubling reports by the freed journalists regarding the ``sham'' trials they experienced.

In addition, Time magazine has recently released two articles that accuse the government of waging a war against the Hmong ethnic community within Laos. The articles state that the Lao government attacked a Hmong village in October, killing 216 people and has threatened to ``eradicate'' the population of Hmong. Time magazine also claims that ``no political dissent has been allowed in [Laos for] 28 years, nor any right of assembly. Scores of political prisoners and youths have been detained for years in dark cells without trial; many have been tortured.''

While I cannot confirm the specific allegations of the article, many of my Hmong constituents have raised similar concerns about the human rights conditions in Laos and the welfare of their families and friends who are living there. I strongly believe that the United States cannot ignore violations in Laos. I have consistently supported efforts to promote human rights and democracy in Laos, and in the 106th Congress, sponsored a resolution calling upon the Government of Laos to recognize and to respect the basic human rights of all its citizens, including ethnic and religious minorities.

Once again, I ask the Lao government to allow international humanitarian organizations to have access to areas in which Hmong and other ethnic minorities have resettled, to allow independent monitoring of prison conditions, and to release prisoners who have been arbitrarily arrested because of their political or religious beliefs. These violations must not continue.

Madam President, I am pleased to join with my partner in reform, the senior Senator from Arizona, to introduce the Federal Election Administration Act of 2003. When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed into law, Senator McCain and I and Representatives Shays and Meehan said we would continue our partnership to make sure that the law we passed is properly enforced. Much of what we tried to do in BCRA was caused by failures of the federal Election Commission to enforce the law. In particular, the soft money loophole was created by FEC rulings in the late 70s and early 80s, and exacerbated by failures to stop the wholesale evasion of the law in the 90s.

We wanted to give the FEC a fair chance to implement the new law. In BCRA itself, we provided deadlines for promulgating regulations so parties, candidates, and outside groups would know and understand the new rules of the game by the time the new law went into effect the day after the last election. We participated in those rulemakings throughout last summer

and fall, giving the FEC our very best effort to answer questions that were raised about the meaning and effect of BCRA.

The FEC met the deadlines, but not our expectations. Time after time, the FEC opened loopholes or potential loopholes rather than trying to faithfully discern the intent of the law. It acted as a super legislature, substituting its policy judgments for those of the Congress.

So the seeds of the bill that we are introducing today were sown in the weeks and months following enactment of the McCain-Feingold/Shays- Meehan bill. After careful consideration, it is our judgment that the current structure of the FEC cannot meet the challenges of enforcing the election laws in the 21st century. A new start is needed, and this is a good time to do it, with the recent enactment of BCRA and a presidential election just around the corner.

In this bill, we replace the FEC with a new agency, the Federal Election Administration. The FEA will continue performing the reporting and disclosure function of the FEC in largely the same way. With respect to enforcement, we have followed the model of other successful regulatory agencies such as the EPA, the NLRB, and the SEC. The new Federal Election Administration will have a strong Chair and a corps of Administrative Law Judges to adjudicate complaints that the Administration's professional staff will bring. The new agency will have the power to determine violations of the election laws and assess penalties, subject, of course, to judicial review.

Our bill envisions a smaller body than the FEC, three members instead of six, with an odd number of members to try to avoid the gridlock that the current equal number of Democratic and Republican Commissioners allows and even encourages. The Chair will have a ten-year term to encourage independence. The other members of the FEA will have staggered six-year terms. Our hope is that the new agency will not be the captive of the political parties, but instead, led by a strong and independent Chair, will be the respected watchdog that the American people want to see.

It is sad when the agency charged with enforcing the election laws is jokingly referred to as the Failure to Enforce Commission. The American people urged Congress to enact the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and they support it now. They want to see candidates and parties abide by it and by punished if they don't. This new agency will provide a new and better structure for achieving that goal. I want to thank my friend Senator McCain for all of this work on campaign finance reform over the last eight years, and I look forward to working closely with him again to pass this bill.

Madam President, I am pleased to join with my partner in reform, the senior Senator from Arizona, to introduce the Federal Election Administration Act of 2003. When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed into law, Senator McCain and I and Representatives Shays and Meehan said we would continue our partnership to make sure that the law we passed is properly enforced. Much of what we tried to do in BCRA was caused by failures of the federal Election Commission to enforce the law. In particular, the soft money loophole was created by FEC rulings in the late 70s and early 80s, and exacerbated by failures to stop the wholesale evasion of the law in the 90s.

We wanted to give the FEC a fair chance to implement the new law. In BCRA itself, we provided deadlines for promulgating regulations so parties, candidates, and outside groups would know and understand the new rules of the game by the time the new law went into effect the day after the last election. We participated in those rulemakings throughout last summer

and fall, giving the FEC our very best effort to answer questions that were raised about the meaning and effect of BCRA.

The FEC met the deadlines, but not our expectations. Time after time, the FEC opened loopholes or potential loopholes rather than trying to faithfully discern the intent of the law. It acted as a super legislature, substituting its policy judgments for those of the Congress.

So the seeds of the bill that we are introducing today were sown in the weeks and months following enactment of the McCain-Feingold/Shays- Meehan bill. After careful consideration, it is our judgment that the current structure of the FEC cannot meet the challenges of enforcing the election laws in the 21st century. A new start is needed, and this is a good time to do it, with the recent enactment of BCRA and a presidential election just around the corner.

In this bill, we replace the FEC with a new agency, the Federal Election Administration. The FEA will continue performing the reporting and disclosure function of the FEC in largely the same way. With respect to enforcement, we have followed the model of other successful regulatory agencies such as the EPA, the NLRB, and the SEC. The new Federal Election Administration will have a strong Chair and a corps of Administrative Law Judges to adjudicate complaints that the Administration's professional staff will bring. The new agency will have the power to determine violations of the election laws and assess penalties, subject, of course, to judicial review.

Our bill envisions a smaller body than the FEC, three members instead of six, with an odd number of members to try to avoid the gridlock that the current equal number of Democratic and Republican Commissioners allows and even encourages. The Chair will have a ten-year term to encourage independence. The other members of the FEA will have staggered six-year terms. Our hope is that the new agency will not be the captive of the political parties, but instead, led by a strong and independent Chair, will be the respected watchdog that the American people want to see.

It is sad when the agency charged with enforcing the election laws is jokingly referred to as the Failure to Enforce Commission. The American people urged Congress to enact the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and they support it now. They want to see candidates and parties abide by it and by punished if they don't. This new agency will provide a new and better structure for achieving that goal. I want to thank my friend Senator McCain for all of this work on campaign finance reform over the last eight years, and I look forward to working closely with him again to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I recognize that we have a problem in this country with malpractice insurance premiums. I would like very much for Congress to address that problem. It is my judgment that S. 11 will not solve that problem, and it will harm innocent Americans who have suffered horrible and permanent injury at the hands of negligent medical practitioners. I will therefore vote no on the cloture motion.

Mr. President, there are many provisions of S. 11 with which I have serious disagreement. Let me just mention a few. In a provision called the fair share rule, the bill eliminates joint and several liability in medical malpractice cases. What that means is that if one responsible defendant is insolvent and has no insurance coverage, the victim of malpractice ends up without a full recovery of his or her damages. This is not fair. Most State laws provide that the risk of one defendant being insolvent or judgment-proof is borne by the other responsible defendants. There is no reason to change this longstanding principle of law.

Another problem with this bill is the new statute of limitations that the bill imposes on medical malpractice claims. Shorter statutes of limitation don't discourage frivolous claims, they encourage them. Lawyers facing a looming statute of limitations have to file lawsuits to protect their clients' options. Imposing a statute of limitations of as little as 1 year, as this bill does, does not allow adequate time to investigate a claim and determine if it is really worth filing.

I am also concerned that this bill has been drafted to protect not only doctors but medical device manufacturers and drug companies from liability claims. There is no evidence that suits against these defendants are contributing to rising medical malpractice insurance premiums. So this bill is not just a medical malpractice bill, it is a product liability bill.

But the most ill-advised provision in this bill is the cap on noneconomic damages of $250,000. At the one hearing held on this issue this year, the Judiciary and HELP Committees heard from Linda McDougal, a 46-year-old Navy veteran from Woodville, WI. Last year, Ms. McDougal underwent a double mastectomy after her biopsy results were switched with those of another patient. She didn't have cancer, she never had cancer. We can be thankful for that. But her life, and her family's life, will never be the same.

I hope everyone in the Senate will read Linda McDougal's testimony and learn about her experience. It is a powerful cautionary tale for those of us who are charged with voting on legislation concerning medical malpractice.

I find it hard to believe that anyone in this body can look Linda McDougal or any of the thousands of victims of catastrophic medical malpractice in the eye and say, ``$250,000 is all your pain and suffering are worth.'' Would any of us be able to tell our mothers or our wives or our daughters that their damages should be limited to $250,000 if they were the victims of the unspeakable pain and lifelong sadness that Linda McDougal will endure? Remember, Linda McDougal didn't have extraordinary medical bills or lost wages. Her damages are noneconomic. But her loss is real, it is permanent, it is unfathomable.

There is no question that we have a problem in this country over the cost of malpractice insurance. But the solution cannot be to penalize innocent victims like Linda McDougal, to prolong and extend this suffering by denying them adequate compensation.

We have virtually no evidence that caps on economic damages will actually lower insurance rates. Indeed, as Senator Durbin noted in this debate, in

States that have caps on noneconomic damages, insurance premiums increased 48 percent from 1991 to 2002. But in States without caps, the insurance has been only 36 percent. So the case has just not been made that the caps in this bill will lower malpractice premiums. But more importantly, the case has not been made, and in my view cannot be made, that these caps are fair to victims like Linda McDougal.

There very well may be solutions that we in the Senate can develop to addrsess the cost of medical malpractice insurance in this country and the effect on patient care that rising premiums are causing. And there certainly are things we can do to address the disturbing problem of medical error in this country. The Institute of Medicine estimates that between 44,000 and 98,000 adverse medical events occur in hospitals every year.

If we want to reduce malpractice insurance premiums we must address these problems as well as looking closely at the business practices of the insurance companies. What we shouldn't do is limit the recovery of victims of horrible injury to an arbitrarily low sum.

This is obviously a complicated issue. This is the kind of issue that needs to be explored in depth in our committees so that a consensus can emerge. It is not the kind of issue that should be brought directly to the floor with such a great gulf between supporters and opponents. So I will vote ``no'' on cloture today, and I hope that the bill will go through the HELP Committee and/or the Judiciary Committee before we begin floor consideration of this important topic.

Madam President, if I could ask, when I am recognized, that my statement be as in morning business, rather than as part of this subject.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak at this point and for the excellent experience of serving on the committee during his tenure as chairman.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on the urgent crisis in Liberia, and on my conviction that the United States has a role to play in its resolution. I also rise to call for the kind of information and clarity that we need if we are to take effective action.

In recent days the newspapers have reminded Americans of the special relationship that exists between America and the west African Republic of Liberia, a country founded by freed slaves from the United States in 1820. But it is important to note the more recent historical links between our countries as well.

During the cold war, eager for reliable client states in Africa, the United States supported Samuel Doe when he seized control of Liberia in a 1980 coup, and kept supporting him even when he stole the 1985 elections. In fact, in the first five years of the Doe regime, the United States contributed nearly $500 million in economic and military aid--effectively bolstering the government's staying power. The Doe regime was an extraordinarily brutal one that not only disenfranchised many Liberians, it also effectively erased the boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate political action. When the cold war was over and Charles Taylor's band of rebels--some of them children-- clashed with government forces and other ethnic militias in the streets, the resulting conflict was so frighteningly gruesome that for many it was almost impossible to understand.

And the United States, no longer concerned about Communist influences in Monrovia, simply evacuated American citizens and then watched the country tear itself apart from the sidelines. In the end, Taylor essentially held the country hostage to his desire for power, and war- weary Liberians elected him President in the hopes of avoiding conflict. Taylor's desire for power and wealth turned out to extend beyond his own borders, however, and he became a primary patron of the brutal Revolutionary United Front, or RUF, force in Sierra Leone, which provided his regime with riches from Sierra Leone's diamond mines in exchange for military support and protection.

On November 2, 2001 the Washington Post ran a front-page article about alleged connections between al-Qaida's financing and the illicit sale of diamonds mined by Liberian-backed rebels in Sierra Leone-- rebels who, you may recall, are best known for cutting off the limbs of civilians, including children, to make a political statement. Reports have also linked illicit diamond sales to Hezbollah. Additional articles focused on notorious arms dealer Victor Bout, whose deliveries to the region may have been paid for in diamonds. Law enforcement officials have suggested that Bout has been involved in arming international terrorists and the forces that harbor them worldwide. These reports have been the subject of controversy, and the connections and relationships involved are murky at best, but the issue that they expose--the vulnerability of weak states to exploitation by international criminals--is not in doubt.

Meanwhile, Taylor's criminal enterprise has proved the rule that order, when imposed through injustice and repression, tends to crumble, and the forces currently challenging the regime for power--the LURD and MODEL--appear to be have learned their abusive tactics from their enemies. Criminality rules, chaos threatens, and the civilians of Liberia--the people with a real interest in building a stable future, the people who simply want a chance to send their children to school, are once again likely to be caught in the crossfire.

It is time for the international community to stand up and say, ``no more'' to this cycle of chaos in west Africa. No more deals with thugs, no standing by as observers to cycles of slaughter, no more watching the predictable fomenting of instability across borders, no more standing by as organized crime expands its reach from the very seat of government, no more opportunities for terrorists. Enough--because more of the same threatens our interests and denies our basic humanity.

The United States should take a leadership role in responding to the Liberian crisis. And that means that we need to clarify the costs and commitments entailed in a response now, so that we can take informed and responsible action.

Recently the distinguished chair and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee indicated that they believe Congress should vote on any commitment of substantial forces in the region. I believe that they are right, and that United States troops must always be deployed in a manner consistent with the War Powers Act of 1973. But I also know that watching and waiting is not an option that will serve United States interests.

In Liberia, we can and should act in concert with the international community. In 2000, the British made a courageous decision and helped to bolster peacekeeping efforts in Sierra Leone, bringing an end to a violent spectacle that had outraged the world without provoking an effective response for years.

The French deployed to Cote d'Ivoire when it fell victim to the forces of disorder, are trying to reverse the trend toward violence and chaos that recently gripped that once-stable place. African states have mobilized as well, and they continue to work feverishly to resist the spread of misery, deprivation, and violence that has spread throughout this region. For historical reasons, most in the international community looks to the United States for commitment and leadership in stabilizing Liberia, which is the country that is at the heart of this regional decline in West Africa. In fact, unlike the situation we recently faced in Iraq, virtually the entire international community is urging the United States to act: from our closest allies in Britain to the Secretary General of the United Nations. And most importantly, west Africans themselves are asking for our help. Liberians are frantically waving U.S. flags, hoping to get our attention, praying we will come to their aid. This is a not a situation that involves antagonizing allies in the fight against

terrorism--instead, it calls for cooperating with the diverse actors around the world who are already committed to fighting for stability in the region.

And make no mistake, the United States is already among those actors. This is not some new issue that just emerged over the last month, and we are not at the precipice of deciding whether or not to get involved. Let us take just one example:

As of January 1 of this year, the United States had spent over $515 million on the peacekeeping mission in Sierra Leone and on Operation Focus Relief, which was devised to support that mission. Hundreds of millions more have been appropriated and requested for this purpose in 2003 and 2004. From the point of view of the United States taxpayer, we are already in quite deep.

There is no denying that Sierra Leone's long-term stability depends upon resolving the problem in Liberia. Over the July 4 recess, I sent a member of my staff to Sierra Leone, and to the region in the east that borders Liberia and which was formerly a RUF stronghold, to assess the situation. And I can tell you, from her report, that senior military experts in the region have recently underscored this point.

The question before us now is whether or not we will protect our investment and our interests by addressing the foremost underlying cause of instability in the region; and that is, the criminal enterprise currently governing Liberia, and the violent and abusive movements that have sprung up in resistance to it.

I have been to Liberia, and I have been to Cote d'Ivoire, and I have been to Sierra Leone. I have served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs since I came to the Senate in 1993. For over 7 years now I have served as either the chairman or ranking member of the subcommittee. In this role, and in Africa, I have met with amputees, refugees, widows and orphans. I have spoken with west African heads of state and west African civil society leaders about Liberia's influence on the region. I have no doubt in my mind that the humanitarian catastrophe and the dangerous instability in the region will not be resolved until Liberia is stabilized--and that means more than replacing one thug with another.

During my chairmanship of the subcommittee last year, we held a series of hearings focusing on the very real security threats that are posed by weak or failed states in Africa, including criminal networks like those in Somalia or west Africa which can provide a safe haven for terrorist activities. After the horror of September 11, 2001, consensus built across the political spectrum, acknowledging that the United States was shortsighted when we disengaged from Afghanistan and Pakistan once we no longer had cold war-related interests in those countries. So what happened? What happened was that America left a vacuum in its wake, and some of the forces that moved to fill that vacuum came to threaten our security in ways we could not have imagined.

The very same thing is true in sub-Saharan Africa. Manifestations of lawlessness such as piracy, illicit air transport networks, and trafficking in arms, drugs, gems and people simply beckon to those who would operate in the shadows, beyond the reach of the law.

It only takes one look at the war-ravaged state of Congo today, or the porous borders of west Africa, to see opportunities for those who would do us harm. In 1998, al-Qaida seized that opportunity, perpetrating attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 223 people--Kenyans, Tanzanians, and Americans--and wounded thousands more. And unless we take action to make African societies less vulnerable to this kind of lawlessness rather than continuing our post-cold-war pattern of neglect, we may well reap the terrible consequences here at home.

But a word of caution and a clarification are in order here. It is difficult to verify links between west African chaos and international terrorism, in part because illicit diamonds are such effective money- laundering instruments. And I am not saying that al-Qaida is in league with Charles Taylor or the LURD or MODEL, and therefore we should go marching into Monrovia for that reason. I have not seen any information that would lead me to believe that to be true, and, frankly, I am not interested in harnessing the power and the emotion bound up in the fight against terrorism to every other policy issue for the sake of political convenience. My goal here is to protect the American people and to ensure that our international action is responsible.

And I am not saying that the United States military should stand poised to intervene throughout the continent wherever disorder reigns. Of course not. But just as Australia, backed up by the international community, responded to crisis in East Timor; just as Britain, backed up by the international community, responded to crisis in Sierra Leone; so too, sometimes, it falls to the United States to take a leadership role.

Unlike the issue of Iraq that came before us last year, I am not talking about starting a war with anyone in the face of widespread international opposition. Instead, I am talking about working with the international community to help stabilize a country that has fallen into the hands of undisciplined bands of thugs. For unilateral action in the face of massive global opposition, I set the bar very high. For action in concert with others that will be widely welcomed, I still set a high bar. It must be in our interest. And there are questions that must be answered to my satisfaction before any intervention can meet with my approval. And I remain very, very concerned about our overextension militarily around the world. I am neither a promilitary intervention Senator nor an antimilitary intervention Senator. Attaching ourselves to such labels is a mistake. I simply try to look at each situation and exercise my judgement. After years of studying this situation, my judgement tells me that the United States has a meaningful role to play here in Liberia.

And let us not forget that we are also talking about a human tragedy unfolding before our eyes. Tens of thousands are already displaced; hundreds died in fighting in Monrovia a few days ago. The quality of life of civilians in Liberia contends for the title of worst in the world. At some point, this has to matter. Common decency suggests that the international community should act to stop the downward spiral.

It is time to say: no more. After visiting the region, I called Charles Taylor a war criminal here on the Senate floor in 2001, saying publicly what many had said privately for a long time. The Special Court for Sierra Leone unsealed an indictment to this effect just last month. Like many of my colleagues, I strongly support the court. West Africa must break the cycle of violence and impunity, and all of us in the international community have a role to play in that effort. And I support President Bush, who is right to call on Charles Taylor to step down, just as the Special Court for Sierra Leone was right to indict him. But, let us be clear. Taylor should have no veto over internationally backed U.S. action. His days of dictating the destiny of the west African people are over.

U.S. action may involve sending American troops. But before making that decision, we need answers to several critical questions.

I have not seen the scenarios or projections for any kind of action or intervention that have surely been worked up by the administration. I should see them. We should all see them. And we should see them sooner rather than later. And we need answers to the questions: Will United States participation and leadership overstretch our resources? What are the costs? What commitments are we making? What is our exit strategy? And, what are our plans for the coordination of long-term stabilization efforts?

Of course the answers should inform any decision about what we should and should not do. No one should understand my remarks today as some sort of ``anything goes'' endorsement of any and all proposals that may emerge. But I do believe that we must do something, and that we need to confront these questions quickly. As I have noted, American inaction and indifference is not an option. We are already deeply involved. The success of any action we take cannot be guaranteed, but we know that the costs of inaction are very high and very dangerous.

I urge the administration to begin undertaking consultations urgently so

that we can move forward with an informed, effective, and timely response.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nicolaas Corneliss, a fellow on my staff, be granted privileges of the floor for the duration of the Congress.

Mr. President, I joined my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, in offering an amendment to promote better care for frail elderly and disabled. This amendment will allow the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to designate health plans that disproportionately serve special needs beneficiaries as specialized Medicare Advantage plans.

A number of States have successfully chosen to serve seniors and the disabled by combining Medicare and Medicaid services through a waiver approved by the Department of Health and Human Services that integrates services under Medicare and Medicaid capitated financing arrangements. These programs provide beneficiaries with a comprehensive benefit package that combines the services traditionally provided by Medicare, Medicaid, and home and community based waiver programs.

In my home State of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Partnership Program is one such success, a community-based program that has improved the quality, access, and cost-effectiveness of the care delivered to its beneficiaries. Perhaps most important to the beneficiaries, these programs help the disabled and the frail elderly remain in their own community, and avoid institutionalized care. Wisconsin is lucky to have four such programs across our State: Elder Care and Community Living Alliance of Dane County, Community Care for the Elderly of Milwaukee County, and Community Health Partnership Eau Claire, Dunn, and Chippewa Counties.

In order to qualify for these programs, a person must be Medicaid- eligible, have physical disabilities or frailties of aging, and require a level of care provided by nursing homes. Through programs such as the Wisconsin Partnership Program, these frail elderly and disabled beneficiaries are able to receive quality preventive care upfront, which allows more beneficiaries to stay in their communities and reduces the rate of hospitalization.

In Wisconsin, about 26 percent of all Medicaid recipients age 65 or older are in nursing homes. This rate drops dramatically for those enrolled in the Wisconsin Partnership Program, where only 5.9 percent of recipients age 65 or older are in nursing homes.

While the Wisconsin Partnership Program is a success, we must ensure that the Federal Government continues to support these State-based solutions to our long-term care needs and other specialty managed care programs that focus on frail, chronically ill seniors. Last year I introduced the Frail Elderly Act of 2002, which promoted specialty managed care programs and helped those already in existence to continue to operate. This amendment will work to accomplish both goals by providing a population-based designation that allows plans to be recognized for specialization in services for special needs beneficiaries. By establishing this specialized designation, we hope to be able to more easily move specialized plans from demonstration status to mainstream provider status, helping to promote a more effective way of caring for the frail elderly and disabled.

Mr. President I also want to point out that this amendment does not change payments, does not change administrative rules, and therefore doe not have a fiscal effect.

Fundamental long-term care reform is vital to any health care reform that

Congress may consider. As part of these reforms, we must support State and local efforts to encourage care for the most vulnerable populations. We must provide our seniors and disabled with real choices. They are entitled to the opportunity to continue to live in the homes and communities that they helped build and sustain. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will help provide a measure of support for the most frail elderly and disabled to allow them to stay in their own homes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters of support for this amendment, from the Community Health Partnership and Elder Care of Dane County be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will vote for passage of the Medicare prescription drug bill that has been debated over the past several weeks.

I do so, however, with great reservations about many of the provisions in the bill.

I am voting for this measure for two principal reasons.

First, I believe that we owe our seniors a Medicare prescription drug benefit. I believe such a benefit is long overdue for our Nation's seniors. For years we have promised them we would give them the crucial help they need with their skyrocketing prescription drug costs. And I believe that it is finally time to deliver on that promise.

It has taken Congress too many years to act on this pressing need. We have been debating for years about the best way to provide this benefit, and I am afraid that if we do not take the opportunity in front of us today, it will take us even longer to provide seniors the help they deserve. Our seniors cannot wait any longer.

The costs of prescription drugs are soaring, and the financial toll they take on our seniors means that too often seniors must choose between eating and taking the medication that will help them live productive, healthy lives. Our seniors should not have to make that choice. They contributed to the Medicare system over their lifetimes. That system, which is supposed to provide health care to all seniors, needs to be able to help them obtain the prescription drugs they need to preserve their health.

The second reason I am voting for this benefit is that it takes a big step in addressing what I see as one of the biggest flaws of the current Medicare system--the geographic inequities within the Medicare reimbursement system. We need to end Medicare's continued discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors. As I have previously discussed on this floor, Wisconsin seniors already receive the short end of the stick when it comes to Medicare. Wisconsinites pay the same payroll taxes to Medicare as all American workers do, but receive fewer benefits in return. Instead, Wisconsinites' Medicare dollars are used to subsidize higher reimbursements in other parts of the country.

Wisconsin Medicare beneficiaries receive on average $4,318 in Medicare benefits per year, the eighth lowest in the country. By contrast, beneficiaries in the State with the greatest per capita reimbursement receive $7,209. This distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair to Wisconsin. I thank the leadership of the Finance Committee for including provisions to begin to address this inequity in this prescription drug bill. But I know that we still have more to do to reverse the Medicare discrimination against States like Wisconsin.

I am pleased that key provisions have been accepted that greatly improve this bill. The Senate adopted the Gregg-Schumer-McCain-Kennedy amendment, which I was proud to cosponsor and support, which will bring more competition to the prescription drug market by preventing pharmaceutical companies from blocking generic drugs from entering the market. This amendment is one of the only provisions that will help to bring cost savings to seniors.

By adopting Senator Dorgan's amendment relating to the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada, the Senate will help seniors obtain affordable prescription drugs. This legislation helps both consumers who buy prescription drugs and businesses which sell them. I supported this provision, both in its earlier legislative form and in this amendment, because it is the right thing to do. Our seniors and other Americans in need of affordable prescription drugs deserve no less.

I also supported Senator Enzi's amendment, which passed overwhelmingly, that will make sure that community pharmacies, like the ones in my home State of Wisconsin, can still operate within this new prescription drug program. Smaller pharmacies will be protected from being shut out by larger pharmacies through this amendment, and that means helping seniors to access the prescription drugs they need in their own communities.

I also worked with Senator Allard on an amendment to provide regulatory relief for home health care providers that the Senate adopted. Our amendment enables home health care providers to spend more time with patients and less time on paperwork. This is particularly important at a time when some home health care providers are leaving the home health industry because of burdensome paperwork requirements.

And I am pleased that an amendment I offered to bring some clarity to the Medicare Program for our seniors was adopted. The Medicare Program is already full of bureaucratic red tape, often creating barriers for seniors looking for basic information about their health care options. This prescription drug benefit is the biggest expansion of the Medicare Program since its inception in 1965. We are adding an entire new part to the program, and we need to help guide our seniors through it.

My amendment is simple. It establishes a Medicare Beneficiary Advocate Office within the Department of Health and Human Services, with the sole function of providing clear information to all Medicare beneficiaries. The office will serve as a one-stop information source on all of Medicare for our seniors.

This new office will provide a toll-free phone number, a regularly updated website and regional publications that will give our seniors all of the information they need to make informed health care decisions.

That is the good news. But as I said earlier, I have many reservations about this bill. This is not the bill I would have proposed.

This bill does not go far enough to deliver on our promise to give seniors a meaningful prescription drug benefit. It fails to provide any assistance after a senior's prescription drug costs total $3,450, until they spend another $1,850 on prescription drugs, or $5,300 total. And it adds insult to injury by making beneficiaries continue to pay a premium even during the time they receive no benefit.

I am also troubled that this bill does not provide clear, uniform benefits and premiums for all seniors. Many aspects of the benefits provided in the bill remain uncertain, and will continue to remain uncertain after the plan goes into effect. Under this bill, the premiums are not defined. The premiums for the Medicare prescription drug plan will be dictated by the private insurers who will offer the plans. The only thing we know for sure is that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the national average for premiums will be $35. However, those premiums may vary dramatically. Just look at Medicare HMO premiums. Medicare HMO premiums in Connecticut are $99, but in Florida they are only $16.

Who will offer the plans is also uncertain. There is no guarantee that plans will be offered in regions where there may not be enough profit. History again shows us that private companies do not always find rural and smaller urban areas profitable enough to move in. All too often, private companies that do move into less desirable Medicare markets end up deciding to leave the region, leaving Medicare beneficiaries scrambling to figure out where they will turn for coverage.

Furthermore, my understanding is that this plan only offers a guaranteed Medicare-administered plan, or ``fallback plan,'' if there are less than two private plans in a region. This means that, if only one private plan offers a prescription drug benefit in the region that includes Almena, WI, a Medicare beneficiary living in Almena may instead choose the Medicare-administered fallback plan. While on the fallback plan, my Almena constituent would become familiar with the medications that are included in their formulary and the cost of their premiums. If a second private plan subsequently decides to move into that region, my understanding is that my constituent will be dropped from the Medicare fallback plan, and forced to join one of the private plans even if those plans have higher premiums, or do not include their prescriptions in their formularies.

Further, my Almena constituent can be forced to leave the plan that he or she has come to know, if that plan leaves the region. This leads to instability and uncertainty for seniors.

Benefits are also uncertain under this proposal. Again, benefit packages will be determined by the private insurers who offer the plans. And we can assume, from experience with the Medicare+Choice Program, that the benefits will vary widely. I am concerned about what this may mean for States like my home State of Wisconsin, States that have had a difficult time attracting and keeping private Medicare plans. Some Medicare prescription drug plans may be able to offer more brand name drugs at a lower cost to beneficiaries, while others in less profitable areas may limit the amount of brand name drugs they can offer at affordable rates.

I fear that as with Medicare HMOs, Wisconsin seniors may be faced with little choice with Medicare prescription drug plans.

And I am concerned that the uncertainty in this bill regarding monthly premiums, the possible differences in benefits packages and the stability of private plans that will deliver these benefits may lead to more inequity for Wisconsin seniors.

I was disappointed that Senator Durbin's amendment, the MediSAVE Act, was not adopted in the Senate. Senator Durbin's amendment, which I strongly supported, would have fixed most of the errors that exist in this bill. The MediSAVE Act would have made this benefit one that would truly help all seniors with all of their prescription drug benefit. Senator Durbin's proposal offered a meaningful, enhanced prescription drug benefit that would have covered all seniors regardless of whether their prescription drug costs are high, low, or somewhere in between.

The MediSAVE Act not only put forth cost controls so that taxpayers as well as seniors could save money, but it also would have given seniors certainty. Seniors would have known exactly what their premiums and benefits were and would have the certainty of knowing that a Medicare-administered prescription drug benefit would be available to them, no matter what private plans were offered to them. Most importantly, the MediSAVE Act provided the certainty that a senior would have assistance with their prescription drug costs year-round and would never be caught in the so-called ``donut hole'' of coverage that this bill provides.

I am voting for this bill because something, some help for our seniors with their pressing prescription drug costs, is better than nothing. I will support this legislation with the intention of working with my colleagues over the next 2 years to improve this bill and finally deliver on our promise to give seniors a meaningful prescription drug benefit under Medicare.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Allard, as a cosponsor of the Chronic Wasting Disease Financial Assistance Act of 2003. This legislation is similar to legislation, S. 1036, the Chronic Wasting Disease Support Act of 2003, that we introduced earlier this year.

The House Resources Committee held a hearing on June 19, 2003 on the issue of chronic wasting disease, or CWD. At that hearing, state agency representatives argued strongly that Congress should create a new grant program to provide assistance to states for the management of CWD. They also expressed an interest in having those funds distributed using an existing distribution mechanism. This legislation responds directly to these comments. In total, the bill directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide $20.5 million in Federal grants to State and tribal governments for CWD management in wild deer and elk, $10.5 million more in resources than were included in the bill Senator Allard and I introduced earlier this year.

The bill creates three new Federal CWD grant programs. The first program is a new nationwide CWD capacity grant, authorized at a total of $7.5 million. This program would provide grants to States so that they can fund CWD management programs. Preference would be given to States with comprehensive and integrated chronic wasting disease management programs involving all relevant state agencies.

The second grant program would provide additional $10 million in grant assistance to states like Colorado and Wisconsin that already have detected chronic wasting disease in their wild deer and elk. These States need additional help. Wisconsin has undertaken significant measures to combat CWD at significant expense, and this program acknowledges that outbreaks are expensive to manage and require Federal financial assistance.

Finally, the bill would create a third $3 million grant program to provide CWD management grants directly to tribal governments. To be eligible for these programs, States and tribes are given the ability under the bill to use an existing mechanism, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Assistance Act procedures to expedite the receipt of grant funds.

This bill is needed because State wildlife departments and tribal governments do not have the financial resources to adequately confront the problem. Their resources are spread too thin as they attempt to prevent the disease from spreading. Federal help in the form of management funding is urgently needed. Federal funding will help States and tribes to protect and safeguard our valued wild deer and elk from this disease.

I look forward to working with the Senate to secure passage of this measure. This is a good bill, and it deserves the Senate's support.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Allard, as a cosponsor of the Chronic Wasting Disease Financial Assistance Act of 2003. This legislation is similar to legislation, S. 1036, the Chronic Wasting Disease Support Act of 2003, that we introduced earlier this year.

The House Resources Committee held a hearing on June 19, 2003 on the issue of chronic wasting disease, or CWD. At that hearing, state agency representatives argued strongly that Congress should create a new grant program to provide assistance to states for the management of CWD. They also expressed an interest in having those funds distributed using an existing distribution mechanism. This legislation responds directly to these comments. In total, the bill directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide $20.5 million in Federal grants to State and tribal governments for CWD management in wild deer and elk, $10.5 million more in resources than were included in the bill Senator Allard and I introduced earlier this year.

The bill creates three new Federal CWD grant programs. The first program is a new nationwide CWD capacity grant, authorized at a total of $7.5 million. This program would provide grants to States so that they can fund CWD management programs. Preference would be given to States with comprehensive and integrated chronic wasting disease management programs involving all relevant state agencies.

The second grant program would provide additional $10 million in grant assistance to states like Colorado and Wisconsin that already have detected chronic wasting disease in their wild deer and elk. These States need additional help. Wisconsin has undertaken significant measures to combat CWD at significant expense, and this program acknowledges that outbreaks are expensive to manage and require Federal financial assistance.

Finally, the bill would create a third $3 million grant program to provide CWD management grants directly to tribal governments. To be eligible for these programs, States and tribes are given the ability under the bill to use an existing mechanism, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Assistance Act procedures to expedite the receipt of grant funds.

This bill is needed because State wildlife departments and tribal governments do not have the financial resources to adequately confront the problem. Their resources are spread too thin as they attempt to prevent the disease from spreading. Federal help in the form of management funding is urgently needed. Federal funding will help States and tribes to protect and safeguard our valued wild deer and elk from this disease.

I look forward to working with the Senate to secure passage of this measure. This is a good bill, and it deserves the Senate's support.

Mr. President, it has been nearly 50 years since the Supreme Court ruled segregation in schools unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Then-Chief Justice Earl Warren said: ``We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.''

This week, the tenet of equality that lies at the foundation of the Brown decision was reaffirmed and strengthened. In fact, it is becoming more and

more infused into our Nation's increasingly diverse identity.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that diversity is a compelling national interest and that race can be a factor in higher education admissions decisions. The Court upheld the admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School in Grutter v. Bollinger.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, on behalf of the 5-to-4 majority and citing Brown, wrote: ``This Court has long recognized that 'education . . . is the very foundation of good citizenship.''

Justice O'Connor and the Supreme Court found the use of race in the Michigan Law School admissions policy consistent with the aspirations of the 1954 Supreme Court in deciding Brown. O'Connor stated for the Court:

In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in

the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to

leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified

individuals of every race and ethnicity. All members of our

heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness

and integrity of the educational institutions with which the

law interacts . . . Access to legal education (and thus, the

legal profession) must be inclusive of talented and qualified

individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members

of our heterogenous society may participate in the

educational institutions that provide the training and

education necessary to succeed in America.

The Court's decision keeps this country on a path toward the day when our children and our children's children will not be able to envision a pre-Brown v. Board America. In fact, Justice O'Connor cites the Brown opinion in writing the Grutter decision. Justice O'Connor's words reflect a powerful American value that is really a strength of our Nation--diversity. It is in the best interest of all Americans to seek diversity in all segments of our society, including educational institutions, the military, and the workplace. To fail to do so, in fact, would be to misrepresent our national identity.

I am heartened, by the large number of amicus briefs filed in support of affirmative action. These briefs showed the Court the deep importance of diversity to so many people and institutions across the Nation. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to join Senator Kennedy and several of our colleagues in signing one such brief, urging the court to uphold the Bakke decision and support Michigan's admission policies.

One of the greatest strengths of our Nation is its guarantee of equal educational opportunities for all students. Our Nation's colleges and universities are the envy of the world for their rigorous courses of study and high-caliber professors, but also for their enriching environment of students from a range of racial, ethnic, and social and economic backgrounds representing every part of America, if not the world. I am proud that the Court has affirmed the importance of campus diversity and deemed it a constitutionally permissible governmental interest.

In the Grutter case, the Court decisively allowed race and ethnicity to be considered in combination with other factors in an admissions decision. I don't believe that the decision striking down the specific point system used in the undergraduate admissions policy will be a serious impediment to the implementation of race-sensitive admissions policies at colleges and universities.

In the 50 years since the walls of segregation began to crumble, we have traveled many miles on the road toward guaranteeing civil rights to all Americans. But this week's decision affirming diversity as a compelling national interest--and thus declaring affirmative action constitutional and viable--confirms our Nation's progress in ways unmeasurable by miles or years. The Court's decision is more than a victory. It is a milestone. It is a testament to the strength of Brown and our Constitution's equal protection guarantees.