Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Women's History Museum Act of 2007, a bill that would clear the way to locate a long-overdue historical and educational resource in our Nation's capital city.

In each of the last two Congresses, the Senate has approved earlier versions of this bill by unanimous consent. I appreciate that past support, and I appreciate the cosponsorship today from 18 of my colleagues, Senators Akaka, Bennett, Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Coleman, Durbin, Dole, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lincoln, McCaskill, Mikulski, Murkowski, Murray, Snowe, Stabenow, and Voinovich.

Women constitute the majority of our population. They make invaluable contributions to our country, not only in traditional venues like the home, schools, churches, and volunteer organizations, but in Government, corporations, medicine, law, literature, sports, entertainment, the arts, and the military services. The need for a museum recognizing the contributions of American women is of long standing.

A presidential commission on commemorating women in American history concluded that, ``Efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of women's history in the next millennium should include the designation of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's capital.''

That report was issued in 1999. Nearly a decade later, although Congress has commendably made provisions for the National Museum for African American History and Culture, the National Law Enforcement Museum, and the National Building Museum, there is still no national institution in the capital region dedicated to women's role in our country's history.

The proposed legislation calls for no new Federal program and no new claims on the budget. It would simply direct the General Services Administration to negotiate and enter into an occupancy agreement with the National Women's History Museum, Inc. to establish a museum in the long-vacant Pavilion Annex of the Old Post Office building in Washington, DC.

The National Women's History Museum is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational institution based in the District of Columbia. Its mission is to research and present the historic contributions that women have made to all aspects of human endeavor, and to present the contributions that women have made to the Nation in their various roles in family, the economy, and society.

The Pavilion Annex to the Old Post Office was a commercial failure and remains a continuing drain on Federal maintenance budgets. Putting the building to use as a museum would provide lease payments and establish a new historical and educational destination site on Pennsylvania Avenue that would bring new visitor traffic and new economic activity to the neighborhood.

These are sound reasons for supporting this bill. The best reason, however, is the obligation to demonstrate the gratitude and respect we owe to the many generations of American women who have helped build, sustain, and advance our society. They deserve a building to present their stories, as well as the stories of pioneering women like abolitionist Harriet Tubman, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, astronaut Sally Ride, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

That women's roll of honor would also include a distinguished predecessor in my Senate seat, the late Senator Margaret Chase Smith, the first woman nominated for President of the United States by a major political party, and the first woman elected to both Houses of Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1940, won election to the Senate in 1948, and enjoyed bipartisan respect over her long career for her independence, integrity, wisdom, and decency. She remains my role model and, through the example of her public service, an exemplar of the virtues that would be honored in the National Women's History Museum.

I thank my colleagues for their past support of this effort, and urge them to renew that support for this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Women's History Museum Act of 2007, a bill that would clear the way to locate a long-overdue historical and educational resource in our Nation's capital city.

In each of the last two Congresses, the Senate has approved earlier versions of this bill by unanimous consent. I appreciate that past support, and I appreciate the cosponsorship today from 18 of my colleagues, Senators Akaka, Bennett, Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Coleman, Durbin, Dole, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lincoln, McCaskill, Mikulski, Murkowski, Murray, Snowe, Stabenow, and Voinovich.

Women constitute the majority of our population. They make invaluable contributions to our country, not only in traditional venues like the home, schools, churches, and volunteer organizations, but in Government, corporations, medicine, law, literature, sports, entertainment, the arts, and the military services. The need for a museum recognizing the contributions of American women is of long standing.

A presidential commission on commemorating women in American history concluded that, ``Efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of women's history in the next millennium should include the designation of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's capital.''

That report was issued in 1999. Nearly a decade later, although Congress has commendably made provisions for the National Museum for African American History and Culture, the National Law Enforcement Museum, and the National Building Museum, there is still no national institution in the capital region dedicated to women's role in our country's history.

The proposed legislation calls for no new Federal program and no new claims on the budget. It would simply direct the General Services Administration to negotiate and enter into an occupancy agreement with the National Women's History Museum, Inc. to establish a museum in the long-vacant Pavilion Annex of the Old Post Office building in Washington, DC.

The National Women's History Museum is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational institution based in the District of Columbia. Its mission is to research and present the historic contributions that women have made to all aspects of human endeavor, and to present the contributions that women have made to the Nation in their various roles in family, the economy, and society.

The Pavilion Annex to the Old Post Office was a commercial failure and remains a continuing drain on Federal maintenance budgets. Putting the building to use as a museum would provide lease payments and establish a new historical and educational destination site on Pennsylvania Avenue that would bring new visitor traffic and new economic activity to the neighborhood.

These are sound reasons for supporting this bill. The best reason, however, is the obligation to demonstrate the gratitude and respect we owe to the many generations of American women who have helped build, sustain, and advance our society. They deserve a building to present their stories, as well as the stories of pioneering women like abolitionist Harriet Tubman, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, astronaut Sally Ride, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

That women's roll of honor would also include a distinguished predecessor in my Senate seat, the late Senator Margaret Chase Smith, the first woman nominated for President of the United States by a major political party, and the first woman elected to both Houses of Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1940, won election to the Senate in 1948, and enjoyed bipartisan respect over her long career for her independence, integrity, wisdom, and decency. She remains my role model and, through the example of her public service, an exemplar of the virtues that would be honored in the National Women's History Museum.

I thank my colleagues for their past support of this effort, and urge them to renew that support for this bill.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2340 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, an alert citizenry is one of our best defenses against terrorist attacks. That is why the New York City subway system has signs saying: ``See Something, Say Something.'' That is just what a group of airline passengers did recently in reporting suspicious activity they thought represented a terrorist threat. What was the result? Those passengers, the pilot, the airline, and the airport were all sued. The Collins-Kyl-Lieberman amendment would protect individuals from lawsuits when they, in good faith, report reasonable suspicious behavior that may reflect terrorist activity.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Our amendment would protect from lawsuits individual citizens who report suspicious activity. The report would have to be in good faith. It would have to be reasonable.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, the war in Iraq is the greatest challenge facing our country. Unfortunately, the political debate in Washington has not been conducive to finding a solution, as political divisions have hardened during the past year.

Vitriolic rhetoric and veto threats do not help us pursue a new direction. I believe the way forward must be a bipartisan approach that puts the interests of our country ahead of political gain. Our Nation needs to forge a new bipartisan strategy that will redefine the mission and set the stage for a significant but responsible withdrawal of our troops over the next year.

Fortunately, we do not have to search far and wide to find this new policy. It is already mapped out for us in the unanimous recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. This group was chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton. It has distinguished Americans from both parties who worked hard to forge a unanimous, bipartisan consensus on the road ahead in Iraq.

The Commission's recommendations chart the path forward and remain as viable today as when they were first released last December. The Iraq Study Group report lays out three core principles. First, the report calls for a fundamental change in the mission of our military forces in Iraq, away from combat operations, and instead limited to training and equipping the Iraq security forces, conducting counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations, and securing Iraq's borders.

The Iraq Study Group set a goal of March 2008 for withdrawing those combat forces not needed for this newly defined mission and for force protection.

Shifting the mission of our troops would require the Iraqi military and police to take responsibility for security for their country. It would allow tens of thousands of our troops to start coming home, and it would demonstrate our military commitment to Iraq is neither open- ended nor unconditional.

Second, the Iraq Study Group report recommends that American support for the Iraqi Government should be conditioned on its leaders making progress in meeting specific benchmarks, including the political reforms necessary to quell sectarian violence.

I last visited Iraq in December. After I came home, I told my constituents I had concluded a new direction in Iraq was needed and it would be a mistake to send additional troops to Baghdad, to place them in the midst of a sectarian struggle. The solution was political, not military.

I told my constituents I thought we should be moving our troops out of Baghdad and instead concentrating their effort in Anbar Province, where the local population was starting to support our efforts and joining in the fight against al-Qaida. In Anbar, the violence was not, in December and is not now, primarily sectarian, as it is in

Baghdad and the belt surrounding Baghdad; instead, in Anbar Province the fight is against al-Qaida.

The newly defined mission set forth by the Iraq Study Group in December would call for us to concentrate our efforts on counterterrorism operations, securing Iraq's borders and training the Iraqi security forces. We should not be in the midst of what is indeed a civil war in Baghdad.

Last week, the President released a progress report, a report called for by legislation that I coauthored with Senators John Warner and Ben Nelson. This report verified that the Iraqis have made, unfortunately, very little progress in achieving the most important political benchmarks. This is at a time when the Iraqis have failed to adopt the essential reforms to distribute oil revenues more equitably, to reverse debaathification, and to more fully integrate the Sunni minority into governmental power structures.

It has been our troops that have paid such a heavy price. In fact, American troops suffered more casualties during the past 3 months than at any time since this war has begun. Requiring the Iraqis to make more progress on the political reforms that were part of the strategy, as the Baker-Hamilton Commission recommended, is absolutely essential, and it is in keeping with the Warner-Collins-Nelson benchmark language incorporated into the funding bill.

Third, the Iraq Study Group urges our Government to launch a new diplomatic offensive in the region. Both the international community and Iraq's neighbors are clearly not doing enough to foster its stability, and this must change. Thus, the ISG recommendations recognize that the United States has placed too much emphasis on military actions at the expense of diplomacy. Fourteen of us, eight Democrats and six Republicans, have joined together to offer the Iraq Study Group's sound and well thought out unanimous recommendations as an amendment to the pending legislation, the Defense authorization bill.

Our amendment lays the groundwork for responsible, realistic redeployment of American combat troops and emphasizes the need for more democracy. By adopting the Iraq Study Group recommendations, the Senate can finally chart a new course and move past politics to address the most critical issue facing our country.

I have to tell you I think the debate tonight in many ways has been disheartening. To see signs put up on the Senate floor saying ``Let us vote,'' when our side has not blocked a vote on the cloture motion, we have offered to do it at any point this evening. We have offered to do it earlier today. We have offered to do it tomorrow. It has been disappointing to hear rhetoric that is clearly intended to score political points, as it is disappointing to hear the President be so inflexible in his approach.

I think the Senator from Tennessee put it well earlier this evening when he called for more flexibility on the President's part and more flexibility on the part of the Democrats, particularly the leader of the Senate.

Having vote after vote, where we fail to get to the threshold of 60 votes or even 67 votes, if necessary, to override the President's veto is not getting us anywhere. We are not moving forward. We have got to put aside such a fractious political approach to such a grave crisis.

We need to work together in a bipartisan way. By adopting the Iraq Study Group recommendations, the Senate can chart a new course and move past politics. Despite the heroic efforts of our troops, who make us all so proud, the war in Iraq has been characterized by lost opportunity after lost opportunity due to the misjudgments of this administration. I hope the Senate will not lose this opportunity to change direction in a responsible bipartisan way.

In addition to the Iraq Study Group recommendation amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, and I salute the leadership of Senator Salazar and Senator Alexander in bringing together a new Gang of 14, to work on this proposal, there is also another bipartisan approach that Senator Ben Nelson and I have offered as an amendment to this bill.

Let me briefly explain our proposal to our colleagues. Now, some of our colleagues are looking for a middle ground. Again, in addition to the Iraq Study Group amendment, Senator Nelson and I are proposing another attempt to find a middle ground. Our proposal would require the President to immediately transition to a new strategy. This strategy is very similar to the one laid out by the Iraq Study Group. It would move us away from combat operations and instead focus our efforts on counterterrorism operations, border security, and training of Iraqi security forces.

But it requires, and here is how it differs from the Salazar- Alexander approach, which I also support, it requires the President to immediately begin transitioning to that new strategy. Not in 120 days, not next year, not after September, but immediately. Then it sets a goal that the transition period should be completed by the first quarter of next year, by March 31, 2008.

So it sets forth a mandatory requirement for the President to immediately transition to a new strategy. I think this makes a lot of sense. There are so many people in the Senate who support a new strategy. We ought to be able to get that done, and I respectfully suggest to my colleagues that the Nelson-Collins amendment would move us quickly, the most quickly toward that new strategy.

I sincerely hope tomorrow we will see the dawn of a new approach to our strategy in Iraq. I hope very much that we will see a strong vote for the proposal offered by 14 of us, led by Senator Salazar and Senator Alexander, to adopt the unanimous bipartisan recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Surely, if as diverse a group as James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Larry Eagleburger, Vernon Jordan, Ed Meese, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon Panetta, William Perry, Chuck Robb, and Alan Simpson can come together in the interest of this country, study our dilemma, study the war in Iraq, and produce a report unanimously, surely we in the Senate ought to be able to put aside our partisan concerns, our political divisions, and act together in the best interests of this country.

I hope we will do so tomorrow. I also hope we might adopt the Nelson- Collins amendment which would add a little more force to the recommendations of the changed mission put forth by the Iraq Study Group.

This is our opportunity. Let us not lose this opportunity to forge a new path, a new strategy in Iraq.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the National Agriculture and Food Defense Act of 2007 that my distinguished colleague, Senator Burr, and I are introducing today.

A decade ago, the General Accounting Office report illustrated the danger of lapses in food safety, a single-year toll of millions of cases of food-borne illnesses and 9,100 food-related deaths. I conducted a series of investigative hearings in 1998 that confirmed America faced significant risks from tainted food imports.

In 2003, I also chaired a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing that pointed out new threats. I noted that al-Qaida had announced that the U.S. economy was a target, that hundreds of U.S. agricultural documents had been found translated into Arabic, and that some of the 9/11 terrorists had investigated using crop-dusting planes as weapons of agroterrorism.

Today, food security problems persist, and their potential for death and disruption has been greatly magnified by the terrorist threats against the United States. Ensuring the safety of our food must include considerations of homeland security.

We have all heard the recent news stories of contamination involving food and toothpaste imported from China. But the concerns extend far beyond anyone trading partner. Food and Drug Administration data for 2006 show that hundreds of shipments from India, Mexico, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, and other countries were impounded for defects or safety concerns. Considering that the vast majority of incoming food shipments are not inspected, these facts are troubling. Even more troubling, we must consider how much worse the potential impacts could be if large-scale deliberate contamination were attempted, whether by attacks on domestically produced food or imports or the distribution, production, and processing systems.

Congress has recognized the threats to our seaports, chemical facilities, transportation, and critical infrastructure. We have acted to protect these vital systems that sustain our economy. We must also extend our homeland security vigilance to the food that sustains our very lives.

The National Agriculture and Food Defense Act would integrate and strengthen the federal government's ability to promote food security. With the Department of Homeland Security in a directing role, and with sector-specific leadership roles for the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, the bill would provide

a coherent National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy consistent with our national emergency management plans.

As Congress has already provided in other areas, the national food security strategy would address preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. Its provisions for stockpiling veterinary supplies and establishing a plant-disease recovery program would add vital new Federal capabilities. Coordination of Federal food security budget activity and outreach State, local, and private sector stakeholders are also important features of the bill.

In light of the gravity of the threat to our food security and this measure's thoughtful and promising response to that threat, I encourage my colleagues to support expeditious action on this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the National Agriculture and Food Defense Act of 2007 that my distinguished colleague, Senator Burr, and I are introducing today.

A decade ago, the General Accounting Office report illustrated the danger of lapses in food safety, a single-year toll of millions of cases of food-borne illnesses and 9,100 food-related deaths. I conducted a series of investigative hearings in 1998 that confirmed America faced significant risks from tainted food imports.

In 2003, I also chaired a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing that pointed out new threats. I noted that al-Qaida had announced that the U.S. economy was a target, that hundreds of U.S. agricultural documents had been found translated into Arabic, and that some of the 9/11 terrorists had investigated using crop-dusting planes as weapons of agroterrorism.

Today, food security problems persist, and their potential for death and disruption has been greatly magnified by the terrorist threats against the United States. Ensuring the safety of our food must include considerations of homeland security.

We have all heard the recent news stories of contamination involving food and toothpaste imported from China. But the concerns extend far beyond anyone trading partner. Food and Drug Administration data for 2006 show that hundreds of shipments from India, Mexico, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, and other countries were impounded for defects or safety concerns. Considering that the vast majority of incoming food shipments are not inspected, these facts are troubling. Even more troubling, we must consider how much worse the potential impacts could be if large-scale deliberate contamination were attempted, whether by attacks on domestically produced food or imports or the distribution, production, and processing systems.

Congress has recognized the threats to our seaports, chemical facilities, transportation, and critical infrastructure. We have acted to protect these vital systems that sustain our economy. We must also extend our homeland security vigilance to the food that sustains our very lives.

The National Agriculture and Food Defense Act would integrate and strengthen the federal government's ability to promote food security. With the Department of Homeland Security in a directing role, and with sector-specific leadership roles for the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, the bill would provide

a coherent National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy consistent with our national emergency management plans.

As Congress has already provided in other areas, the national food security strategy would address preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. Its provisions for stockpiling veterinary supplies and establishing a plant-disease recovery program would add vital new Federal capabilities. Coordination of Federal food security budget activity and outreach State, local, and private sector stakeholders are also important features of the bill.

In light of the gravity of the threat to our food security and this measure's thoughtful and promising response to that threat, I encourage my colleagues to support expeditious action on this bill.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment that is being offered by Senator Levin and Senator McCain that will add to this legislation the wounded warriors bill that we worked so hard on in the Armed Services Committee.

I also wish to acknowledge the great leadership of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Larry Craig and Senator Daniel Akaka.

This is an unusual case where two Senate committees worked together in a bipartisan way to produce legislation that will help improve the care of our veterans, our wounded warriors, and their families.

All of us were outraged by the reports of substandard conditions at Walter Reed Hospital. But our investigation of those conditions revealed other problems with the system--disparities in the award of disability ratings, poor treatment of our soldiers and marines after they had left the military hospitals, a lack of a smooth transition into the VA medical system. These are just some of the problems that were uncovered. I believe this legislation contains the reforms that are going to make a real difference in ensuring high quality, consistent medical care for those who have given so much.

I have become particularly concerned about the treatment of those who are suffering from traumatic brain injury. Traumatic brain injury, or TBI, has emerged as the signature injury of the Iraq war. Bomb blasts are the most common cause of injury and death in Iraq. While improvements in body armor and protective gear have enabled our troops to survive attacks that once would have proven deadly, they still do not fully protect against damage from blasts from roadside explosives or suicide bombers.

As many as 28 percent of the 1.4 million troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been exposed to bomb blasts and may have suffered at least some form of traumatic brain injury. Mr. President, 60 percent of the blast victims treated at Walter Reed have been diagnosed with mild, moderate, or severe traumatic brain injury.

I visited one such soldier recently at Walter Reed, a 19-year-old soldier from Maine who is faced with making an agonizing medical decision while he is suffering the effects of a mild case of TBI. I thought: How terribly difficult it was for this brave young man to be faced with making a decision about whether to amputate his foot while his judgment is impaired by a traumatic brain injury, an injury that was not initially diagnosed. And that is one of the problems.

I have worked very closely with the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, to come up with a better system for screening soldiers for TBI because while the evidence of brain injury may be dramatically clear in some cases, in others there may be no outward or visible sign of the trauma. It can take days, weeks, or even months before the symptoms of TBI are readily apparent. As a consequence, as with this soldier, a mild case of TBI may go misdiagnosed or untreated, particularly if the servicemember has sustained more obvious injuries.

Soldiers with TBI often have symptoms affecting several areas of brain function. Headaches, sleep disorders, and sensitivity to light and noise are common. Attention, memory, language, and problem-solving abilities can be affected. Some of the more troubling symptoms can be behavioral: mood changes, depression, anxiety, emotional symptoms. Moreover, sometimes the symptoms of TBI overlap with post-traumatic stress disorder, making it difficult to distinguish between the two.

Sadly, failure to accurately diagnose or treat TBI can result in frustration, inadequate medical treatment, and a series--an endless series--of hardships for our returning veterans and their families.

So I am very pleased the wounded warriors bill includes an expansion of research into TBI and, perhaps most important, provisions authored by Senator Clinton and myself that will address problems resulting from the misdiagnosis, or the failure to diagnose at all, cases of TBI. The bill will improve the screening process that our troops go through before deployment to improve TBI diagnoses after deployment.

While many wounded servicemembers receive cognitive evaluations upon their return, if there is no baseline test conducted prior to the injury, it can be very difficult to assess the injury, and it can lead to questions about the validity of postdeployment assessment. So our amendment requires a baseline assessment to be done prior to the deployment.

I end by saying that the idea for this predeployment assessment came to me from a neurologist in Maine who treated a soldier back from Iraq who had a traumatic brain injury that had been missed. It was severely interfering with his recovery. Fortunately, this neurologist was able to make the correct diagnosis and see that this brave soldier who had sacrificed so much got the care and treatment he needed.

I believe the provisions in the wounded warriors bill, the amendment before us, will greatly reduce the chances of misdiagnosis in the future. There are many other provisions in this bill that are going to improve the treatment and care for those who have served their country so well and sacrificed so much, but I did want to highlight these provisions of special interest to me.

Again, I salute the leaders of the Armed Services Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee for their dedication and hard work. All of us have learned so much, and each and every one of us is committed to ensuring the highest quality of care for those who have sacrificed so much.

Mr. President, I am in strong support of the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation will provide essential resources to our troops as they engage in combat overseas and training at home. It also offers an important opportunity at this crucial time for continued debate as to our Nation's future presence in Iraq. This is the most important challenge facing our country, and I will address this issue in subsequent remarks.

Let me begin by thanking my colleagues, the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin and Senator McCain, for their leadership in crafting this bill and for their strong commitment to our Nation's Armed Forces.

This legislation includes a strong commitment to strengthen Navy shipbuilding by including $13.6 billion for shipbuilding programs. The declining size of our Navy fleet is of great concern to me, and this legislation is an important step toward reversing that troubling decline.

The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mullen, has proposed a 313- ship Navy shipbuilding plan that seeks to address longstanding congressional concerns that Navy shipbuilding has been inadequately funded in recent years. The resulting instability has had a number of troubling effects on the shipbuilding industrial base and has contributed to significant cost growth in Navy shipbuilding programs. The CNO's plan--combined with more robust funding by Congress--will begin to reverse the decline in Navy shipbuilding.

I strongly support the provisions authorizing the funding for construction of destroyers for the 21st century, the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyers. The DDG-1000 represents a significant advance in Navy surface combatant technology. Its capabilities include: superior precision naval surface fire support; advanced stealth technologies; engineering and technological innovations allowing for a reduced crew size; and sophisticated, advanced weapons systems, such as the electromagnetic rail gun.

In addition, it is important to note the tremendous cost savings that will be realized over the lifecycle of a DDG-1000 destroyer compared to that of a DDG-51 destroyer as a result of various innovations and technological advancements.

It is critical that the construction of the first two DDG-1000 destroyers in 2007 and 2008 continue as scheduled without further delays. The dedicated and highly skilled workers at our Nation's surface combatant shipyards, such as Bath Iron Works in my home State of Maine, are simply too valuable to jeopardize with further contracting delays.

That is why I am concerned that the House version of this bill includes a provision to prohibit the start of construction on lead ships until the Secretary of Navy certifies that detailed design is complete. This provision, if enacted, could further delay the Navy's awarding of the construction contract for the first two DDG-1000 destroyers.

The House version would also require that the next-generation class of Navy cruisers, which will be the follow-on to the DDG-1000 destroyer, be powered by nuclear propulsion systems, even though neither of the U.S. Navy's proven surface combatant shipyards, Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipyard, has the facilities or certifications required to construct nuclear-powered surface combatant ships. This provision could dramatically increase the costs of future surface combatants, thereby reducing the overall number of ships built at a time when the Navy is seeking to revitalize and modernize its fleet.

Of further concern is the fact that the Senate version of this legislation, as drafted initially, eliminated all funding for the Littoral Combat Ship Program for fiscal year 2008, despite the fact that this ship is an integral part of the CNO's 313-ship plan. Fortunately, I was able to work with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee during the mark up of this legislation to restore $480 million to ensure continued development of this important program.

I am pleased that the Senate Armed Services Committee also agreed to my request for $50 million in funding to continue the modernization program for the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers. This program provides significant savings to the Navy by applying some of the technology that is being developed for the DDG-1000 destroyer and backfitting the DDG-51, which may reduce the crew size by 30 to 40 people.

The Senate's fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill also includes funding for other defense-related projects that benefit Maine and our national security. Funding is provided for machine guns and grenade launchers, both of which are manufactured by the highly skilled workers at Saco Defense in Saco, ME.

All of the Senate Armed Services Committee members are concerned about improving the protection of our troops in harm's way. As such, this bill includes $4 billion above the President's budget request for accelerated procurement of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, MRAP, vehicles for the Armed Forces and $4.5 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Organization.

In addition, the legislation provides $5 million to the University of Maine's Army Center of Excellence for the production and demonstration of lightweight modular ballistic tent insert panels. The panels provide crucial protection to servicemembers in temporary dining and housing facilities in mobile forward-operating bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The legislation also provides $6.9 million for the Maine Army National Guard to field the Integrated Disaster Management System, developed by Global Relief Technologies in Kennebunk and Portsmouth, in support of critical medivac operations in Iraq. This system provides near real-time data management and analysis to and from field operators via state-of-the-art, hand-held devices.

The bill also authorizes $9.7 million for construction of a Consolidated Emergency Control Center at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. This facility will consolidate all of the shipyard's emergency response entities into one centralized location, which will provide a comprehensive communications and response capability in the event of an emergency.

Finally, I am pleased that this bipartisan Defense bill also authorizes a 3.5-percent across-the-board pay increase for servicemembers, half a percent above the President's budget request. This bill provides the necessary resources to our troops and our Nation and recognizes the enormous contributions made by the State of Maine. The bill provides the necessary funding for our troops, and I offer it my full support.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me start by thanking the Senator from Colorado for his courtesy to me this evening as well as my friend from Tennessee.

I rise today to join my distinguished colleagues from both sides of the aisle in discussing a bipartisan way forward on what is the greatest challenge facing our country; that is, the war in Iraq. I commend the two leaders of this effort, Senator Salazar and Senator Alexander, for their leadership in crafting a well-grounded strategy based on the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

I have repeatedly expressed my strong opposition to the President's strategy of sending tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq. Despite that opposition and the opposition of many others, the administration pushed forward with its plan, arguing that the surge would give the Iraqi Government the time and space necessary to make the political compromises that are necessary to end the continued sectarian violence. Unfortunately, my initial concerns about the surge strategy have proven to be well-founded.

First, there has been a terrible loss of life among our troops over the past few months. In fact, 331 American soldiers were killed from April to June--the highest 3-month level of the war. One such soldier was SGT Joel House, a brave and patriotic Mainer whose funeral I attended in Lee, ME, just last week. Our troops have sacrificed so much.

Second, the fact is that the Iraqi Government has utterly failed to pursue the political reforms necessary to quell the sectarian violence. Our troops have done their part, but the fact is virtually all the experts agree that a solution to the sectarian violence is found in political reforms, not in military action. When you combine the increased sacrifice of our troops and the unwillingness or inability of the Iraqi leaders to act, it is not surprising that more and more Americans are questioning the President's strategy in Iraq.

It is clear our country needs a new direction in Iraq. We need a new strategy that will redefine our mission and set the stage for a significant but gradual withdrawal of our troops over the next year. We do not have to search far and wide for this new policy. It is right before us. It has already been mapped out in the unanimous recommendations of the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. The Iraq Study Group's recommendations chart the path forward and remain just as viable today as they were when they were first released in December.

The Baker-Hamilton report sets forth three core principles for salvaging a measure of stability for Iraq and the surrounding region.

First, the report says the United States must shift the primary mission of its military forces in Iraq from combat to training, with the goal of removing all combat brigades not necessary for training, force protection, and counterterrorism activities against al-Qaida and other foreign jihadists by March of 2008. Shifting the mission of our troops to a new and more defined and narrower set of goals will ultimately encourage the Iraqi military to step up to the plate while lowering U.S. casualty rates, relieving our servicemembers of heavy deployment schedules, and improving the long-term readiness of our military.

Second, the Iraq Study Group Report states that U.S. support for the Iraqi Government should be conditioned on Iraq making progress in meeting specific benchmarks.

In May, Senator Warner and I authored legislation to require the President to provide two reports to Congress--one which will be released tomorrow and the other on September 15--on whether the Iraqis are meeting 18 benchmarks essential to achieving political reconciliation. Although we have not yet seen the report that is scheduled to be released tomorrow, from everything I have heard, the Iraqi Government is extremely unlikely to have met any of the benchmarks we have laid out. The Warner-Collins proposal also included a provision to condition the release of reconstruction funds to progress made by the Iraqi Government. Surely, if the Iraqis are not passing the political reforms that are necessary, the United States should not continue to provide reconstruction funds. This requirement which is in the law now is also consistent with the Iraq Study Group's recommendations.

Third, the Iraq Study Group says the United States must launch a new diplomatic effort in the region to ensure Iraq's long-term stability, or to help ensure its stability. Iraq cannot be addressed effectively in isolation from other major regional issues and interests. Both the international community and Iraq's immediate neighbors are clearly not doing enough to foster its stability, and it is long past time for that to change. Senator Salazar and Senator Alexander have incorporated these recommendations into legislation I have cosponsored and into the amendment we will be offering to the Defense authorization bill. How significant it is that this amendment enjoys widespread, bipartisan support because it is long past time for a new bipartisan approach to the war in Iraq.

Iraqi leaders must reach political agreements in order to achieve reconciliation, and their failure to do so is unfair to our American troops who are making such grave sacrifices. The responsibility for Baghdad's internal security and for halting the sectarian violence must rest primarily with the Government of Iraq and the Iraqi security forces. At the same time, it is important we continue the mission of fighting al-Qaida and the counterterrorism mission. But an open-ended commitment of American forces in Iraq simply does not provide the Iraqi Government with the incentives it needs to adopt the political reforms that give Iraq the best chance of quelling the sectarian violence. Ultimately,

resolving the sectarian violence requires a solution in which the Sunni minority is more fully integrated into the power structures and oil revenues are more equitably distributed among Iraq's citizens.

This war and the way it has been prosecuted has cost our Nation so much over the past 4 years. It has cost us the lives of our men and women in uniform, and it has cost us billions of dollars. While our Nation's Armed Forces have sacrificed gravely, they continue to answer the call of duty. They inspire us, but they have more than done their part. Many of our Nation's soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have been to Iraq more than once. This, of course, has been so hard on them, and it has also been difficult for the families they leave behind.

We especially need to thank our National Guard members and our reservists. Far too much has been asked of these citizen soldiers, their families, and employers. Whether they are from Maine or Michigan or Minnesota or Mississippi, these citizen soldiers have put their lives on the line and their jobs and families aside to answer the call of duty. But we as a nation are asking too much of them given the failures of the administration's policies in Iraq.

We must chart a new course. Now is the time to demonstrate to these servicemembers and their families and to the American people at large that we in Congress can move past politics, partisan politics on the critical issues facing our country as we seek a new direction in Iraq. We must demonstrate that we can build a bipartisan approach to bringing a responsible conclusion to this war, and that is exactly what the Salazar-Alexander amendment would do. It is based on well-thought-out, careful, balanced, bipartisan, and unanimous recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, and I hope my fellow Senators will join us in supporting this measure.

Madam President, again, my thanks to the chief sponsors of this amendment for accommodating my schedule.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friends, Senators Warner, Chambliss, Snowe, Isakson, Lugar, Cornyn, Coleman, and Voinovich, to introduce the Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007.

As we approach the end of the school year, it is appropriate once again to consider tax relief to help cover the out-of-pocket expenses our Nation's teachers incur to improve the education of our children.

Many times in the past, we have come to the floor to offer legislation on this subject. In 2001, Senator Warner and I offered legislation which resulted in the enactment of the existing $250 teacher tax deduction. That deduction expires at the end of this year. Earlier this session, Senator Warner and I offered legislation to make that deduction permanent, raise it to $400, and expand it to cover professional development expenses.

Today, we introduce legislation that would provide teachers with an alternative tax credit for books, supplies, and equipment they purchase for their students, as well as for professional development expenses. The tax credit would be set at 50 percent of such expenditures so that teachers would receive 50 cents of tax relief for every dollar of their own money they spend, up to $300.

Our rationale in proposing a tax credit as an alternative to the existing deduction is simple, deductions only reduce tax liability indirectly, by reducing taxable income. The value of the deduction is equal to the taxpayer's marginal tax rate, or what we call their tax ``bracket.'' For example, for teachers in the 25 percent tax bracket, a $100 deduction would reduce their tax liability by 25 percent, or $25.

By contrast, the tax credit we are proposing would reduce the amount of taxes paid by a teacher by 50 percent for each dollar that a teacher spends on school supplies or professional development expenses, regardless of the tax bracket the teacher is in. A teacher who took the maximum credit amount of $300 would save 50 percent of that amount-- $150--in taxes.

We have made an effort to ensure that the tax benefit we are proposing will make all teachers who use it better off, relative to the current deduction. Let me take a moment to explain how we have done this: first, the tax credit is structured as an alternative teachers can choose either the deduction or the credit, whichever works best for their tax situation. Second, the level of the credit, if adopted in its present form, would provide a net after-tax benefit of $150. This is significantly higher than the net after-tax benefit that most teachers can receive using the current $250 deduction.

It is even higher than the net after-tax benefit that would result from the $400 deduction Senator Warner and I proposed earlier this year. Teachers in the 25 percent tax bracket would get a net after-tax benefit of $100 from a $400 deduction, so they will see an increase of $50 under the credit system that we are proposing today. Even teachers in the highest tax bracket, which is currently set at 35 percent, would see a small increase in the net benefit they would receive under this credit, compared to a $400 deduction.

I should also note that some teachers make so little they do not even have the tax liability to offset this credit. To make sure these teachers are also compensated for the money they spend on classroom supplies and professional development, the credit Senator Warner and I are proposing is fully refundable.

It is remarkable how much the average teacher spends every year out of

his or her own pocket to buy supplies and other materials for their students. Many of us are familiar with a survey of the National Education Association that found that teachers spend, on average, $443 a year on classroom supplies. Other surveys show that they are spending even more than that.

The NEA's data also shows that the average teacher in the U.S. still does not make $50,000, and in many States, including Maine, they average less than $40,000. When you realize that the average teacher is not particularly well paid, it speaks volumes about their dedication that they are willing to make that kind of investment to support the teaching they provide to their students.

Indeed, I have spoken to dozens of teachers in my home State who tell me they routinely spend far in excess of the $300 credit limit on materials they use in their classrooms. At every school I visit, I find teachers who are spending their own money to improve the educational experiences of their students by supplementing classroom supplies. Year after year, these teachers spend hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, crayons, construction paper, tissue paper, stamps and inkpads. For example, Anita Hopkins and Kathi Toothaker, elementary school teachers from Augusta, Maine, purchase books for their students to have as a classroom library as well as workbooks and sight cards. They also purchase special prizes for positive reinforcement for students. Mrs. Hopkins estimates that she spends $800 to $1,000 of her own money on extra materials to make learning fun and to create a stimulating learning experience.

It is important that this credit also be available to teachers who incur expenses for professional development. While this tax relief provides modest assistance to educators, it is my view that students are its ultimate beneficiaries. Studies consistently show that well- qualified teachers, and involved parents, are the most important contributors to student success. Educators themselves understand just how important professional development is to their ability to make a positive impact in the classroom. Teachers in Maine repeatedly tell me that they need, and want, more professional development. But tight school budgets often make funds to support this development impossible to get. By providing a credit for professional development expenses, this amendment will help teachers take that additional course or pursue that advanced degree that will make them even better at what they love to do.

Our bill makes it a priority to reimburse educators for just a small part of what they invest in our children's future. It is both sound education policy and sensible tax policy. I hope our colleagues will join us in support of this important initiative.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friends, Senators Warner, Chambliss, Snowe, Isakson, Lugar, Cornyn, Coleman, and Voinovich, to introduce the Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007.

As we approach the end of the school year, it is appropriate once again to consider tax relief to help cover the out-of-pocket expenses our Nation's teachers incur to improve the education of our children.

Many times in the past, we have come to the floor to offer legislation on this subject. In 2001, Senator Warner and I offered legislation which resulted in the enactment of the existing $250 teacher tax deduction. That deduction expires at the end of this year. Earlier this session, Senator Warner and I offered legislation to make that deduction permanent, raise it to $400, and expand it to cover professional development expenses.

Today, we introduce legislation that would provide teachers with an alternative tax credit for books, supplies, and equipment they purchase for their students, as well as for professional development expenses. The tax credit would be set at 50 percent of such expenditures so that teachers would receive 50 cents of tax relief for every dollar of their own money they spend, up to $300.

Our rationale in proposing a tax credit as an alternative to the existing deduction is simple, deductions only reduce tax liability indirectly, by reducing taxable income. The value of the deduction is equal to the taxpayer's marginal tax rate, or what we call their tax ``bracket.'' For example, for teachers in the 25 percent tax bracket, a $100 deduction would reduce their tax liability by 25 percent, or $25.

By contrast, the tax credit we are proposing would reduce the amount of taxes paid by a teacher by 50 percent for each dollar that a teacher spends on school supplies or professional development expenses, regardless of the tax bracket the teacher is in. A teacher who took the maximum credit amount of $300 would save 50 percent of that amount-- $150--in taxes.

We have made an effort to ensure that the tax benefit we are proposing will make all teachers who use it better off, relative to the current deduction. Let me take a moment to explain how we have done this: first, the tax credit is structured as an alternative teachers can choose either the deduction or the credit, whichever works best for their tax situation. Second, the level of the credit, if adopted in its present form, would provide a net after-tax benefit of $150. This is significantly higher than the net after-tax benefit that most teachers can receive using the current $250 deduction.

It is even higher than the net after-tax benefit that would result from the $400 deduction Senator Warner and I proposed earlier this year. Teachers in the 25 percent tax bracket would get a net after-tax benefit of $100 from a $400 deduction, so they will see an increase of $50 under the credit system that we are proposing today. Even teachers in the highest tax bracket, which is currently set at 35 percent, would see a small increase in the net benefit they would receive under this credit, compared to a $400 deduction.

I should also note that some teachers make so little they do not even have the tax liability to offset this credit. To make sure these teachers are also compensated for the money they spend on classroom supplies and professional development, the credit Senator Warner and I are proposing is fully refundable.

It is remarkable how much the average teacher spends every year out of

his or her own pocket to buy supplies and other materials for their students. Many of us are familiar with a survey of the National Education Association that found that teachers spend, on average, $443 a year on classroom supplies. Other surveys show that they are spending even more than that.

The NEA's data also shows that the average teacher in the U.S. still does not make $50,000, and in many States, including Maine, they average less than $40,000. When you realize that the average teacher is not particularly well paid, it speaks volumes about their dedication that they are willing to make that kind of investment to support the teaching they provide to their students.

Indeed, I have spoken to dozens of teachers in my home State who tell me they routinely spend far in excess of the $300 credit limit on materials they use in their classrooms. At every school I visit, I find teachers who are spending their own money to improve the educational experiences of their students by supplementing classroom supplies. Year after year, these teachers spend hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, crayons, construction paper, tissue paper, stamps and inkpads. For example, Anita Hopkins and Kathi Toothaker, elementary school teachers from Augusta, Maine, purchase books for their students to have as a classroom library as well as workbooks and sight cards. They also purchase special prizes for positive reinforcement for students. Mrs. Hopkins estimates that she spends $800 to $1,000 of her own money on extra materials to make learning fun and to create a stimulating learning experience.

It is important that this credit also be available to teachers who incur expenses for professional development. While this tax relief provides modest assistance to educators, it is my view that students are its ultimate beneficiaries. Studies consistently show that well- qualified teachers, and involved parents, are the most important contributors to student success. Educators themselves understand just how important professional development is to their ability to make a positive impact in the classroom. Teachers in Maine repeatedly tell me that they need, and want, more professional development. But tight school budgets often make funds to support this development impossible to get. By providing a credit for professional development expenses, this amendment will help teachers take that additional course or pursue that advanced degree that will make them even better at what they love to do.

Our bill makes it a priority to reimburse educators for just a small part of what they invest in our children's future. It is both sound education policy and sensible tax policy. I hope our colleagues will join us in support of this important initiative.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it has been said that we all have a birth date

and a death date, with a dash in between. It is what we do with our dash that counts.

Senator Craig Thomas made his count. He was a dedicated public servant, a vigorous advocate, a compassionate leader, a marine, a proud patriot. To the citizens of his beloved Wyoming and to his colleagues in the Senate, he was a cherished friend.

Although my State and his are miles apart, with vastly different geography and history, I am struck by the similarities in the character of our people. Both the rugged Maine Yankee and the tough Wyoming cowboy are steadfast and modest. Both are determined, committed to doing what is right rather than what is easy. An old cowboy proverb says, ``The best way out of a tight spot is to go straight through it,'' and Craig Thomas always faced challenges head-on. I have no doubt that he would have been just as at home on the deck of a lobster boat as he was on horseback, riding the range.

As a Senator representing a large rural State, I deeply appreciate Craig's devotion to preserving and enhancing a way of life that is such a vital part of the American spirit. His tireless work on such issues as agriculture, Indian affairs, natural resources, rural health care, and educational opportunity will help ensure a better future for people in small communities throughout our nation.

The courage and integrity with which he led his life were evident until the very end. Although stricken with a terrible disease, Craig always put his Nation and his State first. There was no time for self- pity or regret while there was still work to be done. He stayed in the saddle.

Craig was a public man, but, first and foremost, he was a loving husband, a devoted father, and a proud grandfather. In this time of sorrow, I know that his wonderful family finds strength in his honorable legacy. Senator Craig Thomas filled his dash with service, courage, and commitment, with life and love. May his memory inspire us all to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act of 2007, which I joined Senator Bingaman in introducing today.

The primary purpose of this bill is to continue our efforts to remedy an unintended consequence of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, which made damage awards that are not based on ``physical injuries or physical sickness'' part of a plaintiff's taxable income. Because most acts of employment discrimination and civil rights violations do not cause physical injuries, this provision means that plaintiffs who succeed in proving that they have suffered employment discrimination or other intentional violations of their civil rights are taxed on the compensation they receive.

Until a few years ago, this problem was compounded by the fact that attorneys' fees awarded in successful civil rights actions were treated as the plaintiff's taxable income, despite the fact that these fees were paid over to the plaintiff's attorney, who was also taxed on the money. Back in the 108th Congress, I joined with Senator Bingaman in offering legislation to correct this inequity, and I am glad to say that this double taxation of attorneys' fees was eliminated as part of the JOBS Act we passed in 2004.

But more remains to be done. Plaintiffs who are successful in employment discrimination or civil rights cases often receive a lump- sum award meant to compensate them for years of employment. Unfortunately, these awards are then taxed at the highest marginal tax rates, as if the award reflected the plaintiff's normal annual salary. As if that were not bad enough, successful plaintiffs can also find themselves subject to alternative minimum tax.

Let me explain how our bill eliminates this unfair taxation. First, the bill excludes from gross income amounts awarded other than for punitive damages and compensation attributable to services that were to be performed, known as ``backpay,'' or that would have been performed but for a claimed violation of law by the employer, known as ``frontpay.'' Second, award amounts for frontpay or backpay would be included in income, but would be eligible for income averaging according to the time period covered by the award. This correction would allow individuals to pay taxes at the same marginal rates that would have applied to them had they not suffered discrimination. Our bill also ensures that these awards do not trigger the AMT.

The Civil Rights Tax Relief Act would encourage the fair settlement of costly and protracted litigation of employment discrimination claims. Our legislation would allow both plaintiffs and defendants to settle claims based on the damages suffered, not on the excessive taxes that are now levied.

This bill is a ``win-win'' for civil rights plaintiffs and defendant businesses. I invite my colleagues to join in support of this commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act of 2007, which I joined Senator Bingaman in introducing today.

The primary purpose of this bill is to continue our efforts to remedy an unintended consequence of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, which made damage awards that are not based on ``physical injuries or physical sickness'' part of a plaintiff's taxable income. Because most acts of employment discrimination and civil rights violations do not cause physical injuries, this provision means that plaintiffs who succeed in proving that they have suffered employment discrimination or other intentional violations of their civil rights are taxed on the compensation they receive.

Until a few years ago, this problem was compounded by the fact that attorneys' fees awarded in successful civil rights actions were treated as the plaintiff's taxable income, despite the fact that these fees were paid over to the plaintiff's attorney, who was also taxed on the money. Back in the 108th Congress, I joined with Senator Bingaman in offering legislation to correct this inequity, and I am glad to say that this double taxation of attorneys' fees was eliminated as part of the JOBS Act we passed in 2004.

But more remains to be done. Plaintiffs who are successful in employment discrimination or civil rights cases often receive a lump- sum award meant to compensate them for years of employment. Unfortunately, these awards are then taxed at the highest marginal tax rates, as if the award reflected the plaintiff's normal annual salary. As if that were not bad enough, successful plaintiffs can also find themselves subject to alternative minimum tax.

Let me explain how our bill eliminates this unfair taxation. First, the bill excludes from gross income amounts awarded other than for punitive damages and compensation attributable to services that were to be performed, known as ``backpay,'' or that would have been performed but for a claimed violation of law by the employer, known as ``frontpay.'' Second, award amounts for frontpay or backpay would be included in income, but would be eligible for income averaging according to the time period covered by the award. This correction would allow individuals to pay taxes at the same marginal rates that would have applied to them had they not suffered discrimination. Our bill also ensures that these awards do not trigger the AMT.

The Civil Rights Tax Relief Act would encourage the fair settlement of costly and protracted litigation of employment discrimination claims. Our legislation would allow both plaintiffs and defendants to settle claims based on the damages suffered, not on the excessive taxes that are now levied.

This bill is a ``win-win'' for civil rights plaintiffs and defendant businesses. I invite my colleagues to join in support of this commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Senator Conrad, Senator Smith, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Inouye, to introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services under the Medicare Program.

Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives, and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by these health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under State law.

Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home health care they need simply because a physician is not readily available to sign the form.

The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only health care professionals available. For example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only health care professional

serving the patient's small rural town, and the supervising physician was located 60 miles away.

A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. As a consequence, the patient experienced a 2-day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to wait 11 days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility.

The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act will help to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care they need when they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. Our legislation is supported by the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America.

I urge my colleagues to sign onto this legislation as cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Senator Conrad, Senator Smith, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Inouye, to introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services under the Medicare Program.

Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives, and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by these health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under State law.

Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home health care they need simply because a physician is not readily available to sign the form.

The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only health care professionals available. For example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only health care professional

serving the patient's small rural town, and the supervising physician was located 60 miles away.

A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. As a consequence, the patient experienced a 2-day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to wait 11 days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility.

The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act will help to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care they need when they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. Our legislation is supported by the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America.

I urge my colleagues to sign onto this legislation as cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.