Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security Fairness Act. This bill repeals two provisions of current law--the windfall elimination provision (WEP) and the government pension offset (GPO) that unfairly reduce earned Social Security benefits for many public employees when they retire.

Individuals affected by both the GPO and the WEP are those who are eligible for Federal, State or local pensions from work that was not covered by Social Security, but who also qualify for Social Security benefits based on their own work in covered employment or that of their spouses. While the two provisions were intended to equalize Social Security's treatment of workers, we are concerned that they unfairly penalize individuals for holding jobs in public service when the time comes for them to retire.

These two provisions have enormous financial implications not just for Federal employees, but for our teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees as well. Given their important responsibilities, it is unfair to penalize them when it comes to their Social Security benefits. These public servants--or their spouses--have all paid taxes into the Social Security system. So have their employers. Yet, because of these two provisions, they are unable to collect all of the Social Security benefits to which they otherwis'e would be entitled.

While the GPO and WEP affect public employees and retirees in virtually every State, their impact is most acute in 15 States, including Maine. Nationwide, more than one-third of teachers and education employees, and more than one-fifth of other public employees, are affected by the GPO and/or the WEP.

Almost one million retired government workers across the country have already been adversely affected by these provisions. Many more stand to be affected by them in the future. Moreover, at a time when we should be doing all that we can to attract qualified people to public service, this reduction in Social Security benefits makes it even more difficult for our Federal, State and local governments to recruit and retain the teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public servants who are so critical to the safety and well-being of our families.

The Social Security windfall elimination provision reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and who receive a government pension from work not covered under Social Security, such as pensions from the Maine State Retirement Fund. While private sector retirees receive Social Security checks based on 90 percent of their first $656 average monthly career earnings, government pensioners checks are based on 40 percent--a harsh penalty of more than $300 per month.

The government pension offset reduces an individual's survivor benefit under Social Security by two-thirds of the amount of his or her public pension. It is estimated that 9 out of 10 public employees affected by the GPO lose their entire spousal benefit, even though their deceased spouses paid Social Security taxes for many years.

What is most troubling is that this offset is most harsh for those who can least afford the loss--lower-income women. In fact, of those affected by the GPO, 73 percent are women. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 200,000 of these individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.

Our teachers and other public employees face difficult enough challenges in their day-to-day work. Individuals who have devoted their lives to public service should not have the added burden of worrying about their retirement. Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked with me about this issue. They love their jobs and the children they teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial security in retirement.

I hear a lot about this issue in my constituent mail, as well. Patricia Dupont, for example, of Orland, ME, wrote that, because she taught for 15 years under Social Security in New Hampshire, she is living on a retirement income of less than $13,000 after 45 years in education. Since she also lost survivors' benefits from her husband's Social Security, she calculates that a repeal of the WEP and the GPO would double her current retirement income.

These provisions also penalize private sector employees who leave their jobs to become public school teachers. Ruth Wilson, a teacher from Otisfield, ME, wrote:

``I entered the teaching profession two years ago, partly

in response to the nationwide pleas for educators. As the

current pool of educators near retirement in the next few

years, our schools face a crisis. Low wages and long hard

hours are not great selling points to young students when

selecting a career.

I love teaching and only regretted my decision when I found

out about the penalties I will unfairly suffer. In my former

life as a well-paid systems manager at State Street Bank in

Boston, I contributed the maximum to Social Security each

year. When I decided to become an educator, I figured that

because of my many years of maximum Social Security

contributions, I would still have a livable retirement

`wage.' I was unaware that I would be penalized as an

educator in your State.''

In September of 2003, I chaired a Governmental Affairs Committee hearing to examine the effect that the GPO and the WEP have had on public employees and retirees. We heard compelling testimony from Julia Worcester of Columbia, ME--who was then 73. Mrs. Worcester told the Committee about her work in both Social Security-covered employment and as a Maine teacher, and about the effect that the GPO and WEP have had on her income in retirement. Mrs. Worcester worked for more than 20 years as a waitress and in factory jobs before deciding, at the age of 49, to go back to school to pursue her life-long dream of becoming a teacher. She began teaching at the age of 52 and taught full-time for 15 years before retiring at the age of 68. Since she was only in the Maine State Retirement System for 15 years, Mrs. Worcester does not receive a full State pension. Yet she is still subject to the full penalties under the GPO and WEP. As a consequence, she receives just $171 a month in Social Security benefits, even though she worked hard and paid into the Social Security system for more than 20 years. After paying for her health insurance, she receives less than $500 a month in total pension income.

After a lifetime of hard work, Mrs. Worcester, is still substitute teaching just to make ends meet. This simply is not fair. I am therefore pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation to repeal these two unfair provisions, and I urge my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 17 minutes.

Mr. President, before the two Senators from Colorado leave the floor, let me just indicate that the legislation they introduced to honor former President Ford would be referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and as the ranking member of that committee, I wish to pledge my cooperation to them in moving this legislation. It is a fitting tribute.

Mr. President, last week, on the very first day of this new Congress, I joined with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Mary Landrieu, in introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act. This is a comprehensive plan which builds on the strengths of our current public programs and private health care system to make affordable health care available to millions more Americans. It is similar to legislation we introduced in the last Congress. I hope, given the urgency of dealing with the cost of health care and health insurance, that this will be the year this legislation moves forward.

One of my priorities in the Senate has long been to expand access to affordable health care. There are still far too many Americans without health insurance or with woefully inadequate coverage. As many as 46 million Americans are uninsured, and millions more are underinsured. The State of Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis, with insurance premiums rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self-employed fisherman, a displaced mill worker, the owner of a struggling small business, or the human resources manager of a large company, the soaring costs of health insurance are a common concern. These cost increases, double digit this past year, have been particularly burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of the Maine economy.

Maine's small business owners want to provide coverage for their employees, but they are caught in a cost squeeze. They know that if they pass on premium increases to their employees, more and more of them will decline coverage altogether because they simply can't afford their share. Yet these small businesses cannot continue to simply absorb the double-digit increases in their health insurance premiums year after year. The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Monthly health insurance premiums in my State often exceed a family's mortgage payment. Clearly, we must do more to make health insurance more available and more affordable.

The legislation Senator Landrieu and I are introducing is a seven- point plan that combines a variety of public and private approaches. The legislation's seven goals are, first, to expand access to affordable health care for small businesses; second, to make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own; third, to strengthen the health care safety net for those without coverage; fourth, to expand access to care in rural and underserved areas; fifth, to increase access to affordable long- term care, a major challenge as our population continues to age; sixth, to promote healthier lifestyles; and seventh, to provide more equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare shortfall which has forced hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers to shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges, which, in turn, drives up the cost of health care premiums.

Let me discuss these points in greater detail.

First, expanding access for small businesses by helping small employers cope with rising health insurance costs. Since most Americans get their

health insurance through the workplace, it is a common assumption, but a false one, that people without health insurance are unemployed. In fact, as many as 83 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance are in a family with a worker or are working themselves. Uninsured working Americans are most often the employees of small businesses. In fact, some 63 percent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger companies, which makes them again less likely to offer coverage.

The legislation we have introduced will help these employers cope with rising costs by creating a new tax credit for small businesses to make health insurance more affordable. It will also encourage small businesses that do not offer health insurance to start doing so with the help of this tax credit, and it will help employers that do offer insurance to continue coverage in the face of escalating premiums.

Our legislation would also provide grants to provide startup funding to States to help businesses join in purchasing co-ops. These co-ops would enable small businesses to band together to purchase health insurance jointly, but this part of the bill does not preempt State law, so it is a different approach than some have taken.

The legislation would also authorize the Small Business Administration grant program for States, local governments, and nonprofit organizations to provide information about benefits of health insurance to small employers, including tax benefits, increased productivity of employees, and decreased turnover. These would also be used to help make employers aware of current incentives under State and Federal laws. It is an interesting fact that one survey showed that 57 percent of small employers did not know they could deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums as a business expense. I want to change that into a tax credit which is far more valuable, but many small businesses don't realize that there is a tax incentive even in our current tax laws.

The legislation would also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 States conducting the innovative coverage expansions such as pooling arrangements or group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals. We know the States are the laboratories for reform. Insurance is regulated at the State level. This would provide for some assistance in conducting some innovative projects to expand coverage.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act would also expand access to affordable health insurance for individuals and families. One of the first bills I sponsored when I first came to the Senate in 1997 was legislation introduced by Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy to create the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the SCHIP program, which provides insurance for children of low-income parents who cannot afford health insurance yet make too much money to qualify for the Medicaid Program. Since that time, this program has contributed to a one-third decline in the number of uninsured children in this country. Today, over 6 million children--including approximately 14,500 in Maine--are receiving health care coverage through this remarkably effective program.

Our legislation would shore up the looming shortfalls in the SCHIP program in 17 States, including Maine. We want to ensure that children currently enrolled in the program do not lose their coverage, and in order to achieve that goal, we need to make up that shortfall. Just prior to adjournment last month, Congress approved legislation which partially addressed that shortfall, but that provides only about one- fifth of the funds needed. Our legislation would help close that gap.

Our bill also builds on the success of the SCHIP program by giving States a number of new tools to increase participation. I won't go through all of the changes we would make, but let me mention one. We would allow the parents of those children enrolled in the SCHIP program to enroll in the health insurance program on a subsidized rate, depending on their income, if the State wants to take advantage of that option. The experts tell us that would help provide coverage for about 6 million more low-income Americans.

So what I am trying to do is take advantage of some existing programs such as SCHIP, expanding them, providing new tax incentives such as the tax credit for small businesses to help piece together a program that builds on the strengths of the existing program that still has a private sector approach and yet fills in the gaps in coverage and helps make health insurance more affordable. Part of that is providing for more funding for community health centers which operate in underserved urban as well as rural communities. They provide critical primary care services to millions of Americans regardless of their ability to pay.

We also know we need to deal with the problem of not enough physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and other primary care providers in underserved areas. We need to revamp the National Health Service Corps, which helps supply doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in rural and inner-city areas. We want to revamp that program to make it more flexible. I was talking to physicians in Holten, ME, just recently who said that program used to be a source of physicians for rural Maine, but over the years it has become rigid and encrusted and not flexible enough and is no longer nearly as valuable as it once was. We would revamp that program.

As Senate cochair with Senator Clinton of the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I am particularly sensitive to the long-term needs of patients with chronic diseases such as Alzheimer's and of the impact on their families. Long-term care is the major catastrophic health expense faced by older Americans today, and these costs will only increase with the aging of the baby boomer generation--our generation.

I have been surprised that many Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or their private health insurance policy will cover the cost of long-term care should they develop a chronic illness or a cognitive impairment such as Alzheimer's. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much loved parent or spouse in a long- term care facility and facing the shocking realization that unless they have long-term care coverage, they have to cover the costs themselves. We need to encourage people to purchase long-term care insurance, to plan for this need.

The bill we are introducing provides a tax credit for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to families struggling with that cost, and it would encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase long-term care insurance.

Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``The future in medicine lies not in treating illness but in preventing it.'' Many of our serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy behaviors: Smoking, the lack of regular exercise, poor diet. These three major risk factors alone have made my State the State with the fourth highest death rate, due to four largely preventable diseases--or at least you can delay their onset--cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, and diabetes. These diseases are responsible for 70 percent of the health care problems in Maine.

Our bill, therefore, contains a number of provisions designed to promote healthy lifestyles. It includes, for example, grants to allow States to assist small businesses in establishing worksite wellness programs for their employees. It also authorizes a grant program to support new and existing community partnerships. There is a great one in Franklin County, in Maine. It is the Healthy Community Coalition, and it has made a difference in promoting healthy lifestyles.

Finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act will promote greater equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system rewards, rather than punishes, States such as Maine that deliver high-quality, cost-effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and subsequent legislation did take some significant steps toward promoting

greater fairness by increasing Medicare payments to rural hospitals and by modifying geographic adjustment factors that discriminated against physicians and other providers in rural areas. Our legislation would build on these improvements by establishing pilot programs that reward providers of high-quality, cost-effective Medicare services.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for reform based on principles upon which I am hopeful that a bipartisan majority of Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the goal of access to health care coverage by bringing millions more Americans into the insurance system and by strengthening the health care safety net. Most of all, it helps address the No. 1 obstacle to health insurance--and that is its cost--through a variety of incentives.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, a comprehensive plan that builds on the strengths of our current public programs and private health care system to make affordable health care available to millions more Americans.

One of my priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to affordable health care. There are still far too many Americans without health insurance or with woefully inadequate coverage. As many as 46 million Americans are uninsured, and millions more are underinsured.

Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis, with insurance premiums rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self-employed fisherman, a displaced worker, the owner of a struggling small business, or the human resource manager of a large company, the soaring costs of health insurance is a common concern.

These cost increases have been particularly burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of the Maine economy. Maine small business owners want to provide coverage for their employees, but they are caught in a cost squeeze. They know that if they pass on premium increases to their employees, more of them will decline coverage. Yet these small businesses simply cannot afford to absorb double-digit increases in their health insurance premiums year after year.

The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Monthly health insurance premiums in Maine often exceed a family's mortgage payment. Clearly, we must do more to make health insurance more available and affordable.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which we are introducing today, is a seven-point plan that combines a variety of public and private approaches. The legislation's seven goals are: one, to expand access to affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net for those without coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural and underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term care; six to promote healthier lifestyles; and seven, to provide more equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare shortfall, which has forced hospitals, physicians and other providers to shift costs onto other payers in the form of higher charges, which in turn drives up health care premiums.

Let me discuss each of these seven points in greater detail.

First, our legislation will help small employers cope with rising health care costs.

Since most Americans get their health insurance through the workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that as many as 83 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance are in a family with a worker.

Uninsured working Americans are most often employees of small businesses. In fact, some 63 per cent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will help these employers cope with rising costs by creating new tax credits for small businesses to make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small businesses that do not offer health insurance to do so and will help employers that do offer insurance to continue coverage for their employees even in the face of rising costs.

Our legislation will also provide grants to provide start-up funding to States to help businesses to form group purchasing cooperatives. These cooperatives will enable small businesses to band together to purchase health insurance jointly. This will help to reduce their costs and improve the quality of their employee's health care.

The legislation would also authorize a Small Business Administration grant program for States, local governments and non-profit organizations to provide information about the benefits of health insurance to small employers, including tax benefits, increased productivity of employees, and decreased turnover. These grants would also be used to make employers aware of their current incentives under State and Federal laws. While costs are clearly a problem, many small employers are simply not aware of laws that have already been enacted by both States and the Federal government to make health insurance more affordable. For example, in one survey, 57 percent of small employers did not know that they could deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums as a business expense.

The legislation would also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 States conducting innovative coverage expansions, such as alternative group purchasing or pooling arrangements, individual or small group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals purchasing coverage. The States have long been laboratories for reform, and they should be encouraged in the development of innovative programs that can serve as models for the Nation.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will also expand access to affordable health care for individuals and families. One of the first bills that I sponsored when I came to the Senate was legislation to establish the State Child Health Insurance Program, which provides insurance for the children of low-income parents who cannot afford health insurance, yet make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Since 1997, this program, which is known as SCHIP, has contributed to a one-third decline in the uninsured rate of low-income children. Today, over six million children--including approximately 14,500 in Maine-- receive health care coverage through this remarkably effective health care program.

First, our legislation will shore up the looming shortfalls in SCHIP funding that 17 states--including Maine--will face in Fiscal Year 2007 to ensure that children currently enrolled in the program do not lose their coverage. Just prior to adjournment in December, the Congress approved legislation to partially address these shortfalls. That legislation, however, provides only about one-fifth of the funds needed. Our legislation will close that gap.

Our legislation also builds on the success of the SCHIP program and gives States a number of new tools to increase participation. The bill authorizes new grants for States and non-

profit organizations to conduct innovative outreach and enrollment efforts to ensure that all eligible children are covered. States would also have the option of covering the parents of the children who are enrolled in programs like MaineCare. States could also use funds provided through this program to help eligible working families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In short, the legislation will help ensure that the entire family receives the health care they need.

And finally, to help make health coverage more affordable for low and middle-income individuals and families who do not have employer- provided coverage and who are not eligible for the expanded programs, our legislation would provide an advanceable, refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals earning up to $30,000 and up to $3,000 for families earning up to $60,000. This could provide coverage for up to six million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured for one or more months, and will help many more working lower-income families who currently purchase private health insurance with little or no government help.

To strengthen our nation's health care safety net, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act calls for a doubling of funding over five years for the Consolidated Health Centers program, which includes community, migrant, public housing and homeless health centers.

These centers, which operate in underserved urban and rural communities, provide critical primary care services to millions of Americans, regardless of their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients treated in Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage and many more have inadequate coverage, so these centers are a critical part of our nation's health care safety net.

The problem of access to affordable health care services is not limited to the uninsured, but is also shared by many Americans living in rural and underserved areas where there is a shortage of health care providers. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act therefore calls for increased funding for the National Health Service Corps, which supports doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in rural and inner city areas.

The legislation will also give the program greater flexibility by allowing National Health Service Corps participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve full-time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some sites may not need a particular type of provider on a full-time basis. Our bill therefore gives the program additional flexibility to meet community needs.

As the Senate co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I am particularly sensitive to the long-term care needs of patients with chronic diseases like Alzheimer's and their families.

Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by older Americans today, and these costs will only increase with the aging of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or their private health insurance policies will cover the costs of long-term care should they develop a chronic illness or cognitive impairment like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover that they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent or spouse in long-term care and facing the shocking realization that they will have to cover the costs themselves.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase long-term care insurance.

Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy behaviors--smoking, lack of regular exercise, and poor diet. These three major risk factors alone have made Maine the state with the fourth highest death rate due to four largely preventable diseases: cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. These four chronic diseases are responsible for 70 percent of the health care problems in Maine.

Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to promote healthy lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows that investments in health promotion and prevention offer returns not only in reduced health care bills, but in longer life and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Maine's Franklin County, to promote healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, healthy food service selections, and programs that promote a healthy and safe school environment.

And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote greater equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system rewards rather than punishes states like Maine that deliver high-quality, cost-effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens.

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and subsequent legislation did take some significant steps toward promoting greater fairness by increasing Medicare payments to rural hospitals and by modifying geographic adjustment factors that discriminated against physicians and other providers in rural areas. The legislation we are introducing today will build on those improvements by establishing State pilot programs that reward providers of high- quality, cost-efficient Medicare services.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for reform based on principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the goal of universal health care coverage by bringing millions more Americans into the insurance system and by strengthening the health care safety net.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in cosponsoring S. 1, a bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process.

The recent elections sent a clear message to Congress that the American people have lost confidence in their government. Without the support of the people, we cannot tackle the difficult issues that this Congress must face. This bill, then, is a critical part of restoring the people's trust by reforming ethics and lobbying rules.

It is important to remember that the conduct of most Members and their staffs is beyond reproach. Likewise, it is important to recognize that lobbying--whether done on behalf of the business community, an environmental organization, a children's advocacy group, or any other cause--can provide us with useful information and analysis that aids, but does not dictate, the decision-making process. Unfortunately, in the minds of many Americans, ``lobbying'' has come to be associated with expensive paid vacations masquerading as fact-finding trips, special access to Members and staff that an ordinary citizen could never hope to have, and undue influence that leads to decisions made in the best interest of the lobbyist and his or her client instead of the American people.

S. 1 which is nearly identical to a bill that was the product of bipartisan efforts by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and that was passed by this Senate just last year-- includes a number of important provisions that will help to restore the public image of the United States Congress.

S. 1 bans gifts from lobbyists. This is clear, brightline rule that diminishes the appearance of impropriety that gifts can create.

S. 1 requires greater disclosure of the sponsors of and the purposes for earmarks included in a bill so that the people can know where tax dollars are being spent and why.

S. 1 eliminates floor privileges for former Members who are seeking to lobby other members. They will enjoy no more access to Senators and Congressmen than any other citizen.

S. 1 will eliminate the practice of anonymous holds in the Senate so that we can bring debate into the open and not simply kill a bill with a secret hold.

S. 1 will require enhanced disclosure of the activities of groups lobbying Congress so that the public can easily find out which interests are trying to influence the decisions we make.

S. 1 will slow the revolving door between the Hill and the private sector by limiting the ability of departing Members and staff to lobby their former colleagues.

While I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill, I also believe strongly that it would be improved by the addition of an independent Office of Public Integrity within the Legislative Branch. This Office would be able to conduct nonpartisan investigations of possible ethics violations. These investigations would help to promote public confidence in the enforcement of any laws that we pass to enhance congressional ethics. During debate on this bill last year, an amendment that Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and I offered to create this Office was defeated. However, I hope my colleagues have taken the lessons of the recent elections to heart and that the idea of an Office of Public Integrity will be approved this year. To that end, I am also cosponsoring Senator McCain's lobbying reform package, which he has introduced today and which contains a number of the provisions of S. 1 as well as creating an independent Office of Public Integrity.

I once again commend my colleagues on recognizing the importance of this issue by making it our first priority in the 110th Congress. I urge the Senate to work quickly to get this legislation finished so that we can move on from the task of governing ourselves and get down to the business of governing our Nation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, a comprehensive plan that builds on the strengths of our current public programs and private health care system to make affordable health care available to millions more Americans.

One of my priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to affordable health care. There are still far too many Americans without health insurance or with woefully inadequate coverage. As many as 46 million Americans are uninsured, and millions more are underinsured.

Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis, with insurance premiums rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self-employed fisherman, a displaced worker, the owner of a struggling small business, or the human resource manager of a large company, the soaring costs of health insurance is a common concern.

These cost increases have been particularly burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of the Maine economy. Maine small business owners want to provide coverage for their employees, but they are caught in a cost squeeze. They know that if they pass on premium increases to their employees, more of them will decline coverage. Yet these small businesses simply cannot afford to absorb double-digit increases in their health insurance premiums year after year.

The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Monthly health insurance premiums in Maine often exceed a family's mortgage payment. Clearly, we must do more to make health insurance more available and affordable.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which we are introducing today, is a seven-point plan that combines a variety of public and private approaches. The legislation's seven goals are: one, to expand access to affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net for those without coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural and underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term care; six to promote healthier lifestyles; and seven, to provide more equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare shortfall, which has forced hospitals, physicians and other providers to shift costs onto other payers in the form of higher charges, which in turn drives up health care premiums.

Let me discuss each of these seven points in greater detail.

First, our legislation will help small employers cope with rising health care costs.

Since most Americans get their health insurance through the workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that as many as 83 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance are in a family with a worker.

Uninsured working Americans are most often employees of small businesses. In fact, some 63 per cent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will help these employers cope with rising costs by creating new tax credits for small businesses to make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small businesses that do not offer health insurance to do so and will help employers that do offer insurance to continue coverage for their employees even in the face of rising costs.

Our legislation will also provide grants to provide start-up funding to States to help businesses to form group purchasing cooperatives. These cooperatives will enable small businesses to band together to purchase health insurance jointly. This will help to reduce their costs and improve the quality of their employee's health care.

The legislation would also authorize a Small Business Administration grant program for States, local governments and non-profit organizations to provide information about the benefits of health insurance to small employers, including tax benefits, increased productivity of employees, and decreased turnover. These grants would also be used to make employers aware of their current incentives under State and Federal laws. While costs are clearly a problem, many small employers are simply not aware of laws that have already been enacted by both States and the Federal government to make health insurance more affordable. For example, in one survey, 57 percent of small employers did not know that they could deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums as a business expense.

The legislation would also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 States conducting innovative coverage expansions, such as alternative group purchasing or pooling arrangements, individual or small group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals purchasing coverage. The States have long been laboratories for reform, and they should be encouraged in the development of innovative programs that can serve as models for the Nation.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will also expand access to affordable health care for individuals and families. One of the first bills that I sponsored when I came to the Senate was legislation to establish the State Child Health Insurance Program, which provides insurance for the children of low-income parents who cannot afford health insurance, yet make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Since 1997, this program, which is known as SCHIP, has contributed to a one-third decline in the uninsured rate of low-income children. Today, over six million children--including approximately 14,500 in Maine-- receive health care coverage through this remarkably effective health care program.

First, our legislation will shore up the looming shortfalls in SCHIP funding that 17 states--including Maine--will face in Fiscal Year 2007 to ensure that children currently enrolled in the program do not lose their coverage. Just prior to adjournment in December, the Congress approved legislation to partially address these shortfalls. That legislation, however, provides only about one-fifth of the funds needed. Our legislation will close that gap.

Our legislation also builds on the success of the SCHIP program and gives States a number of new tools to increase participation. The bill authorizes new grants for States and non-

profit organizations to conduct innovative outreach and enrollment efforts to ensure that all eligible children are covered. States would also have the option of covering the parents of the children who are enrolled in programs like MaineCare. States could also use funds provided through this program to help eligible working families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In short, the legislation will help ensure that the entire family receives the health care they need.

And finally, to help make health coverage more affordable for low and middle-income individuals and families who do not have employer- provided coverage and who are not eligible for the expanded programs, our legislation would provide an advanceable, refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals earning up to $30,000 and up to $3,000 for families earning up to $60,000. This could provide coverage for up to six million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured for one or more months, and will help many more working lower-income families who currently purchase private health insurance with little or no government help.

To strengthen our nation's health care safety net, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act calls for a doubling of funding over five years for the Consolidated Health Centers program, which includes community, migrant, public housing and homeless health centers.

These centers, which operate in underserved urban and rural communities, provide critical primary care services to millions of Americans, regardless of their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients treated in Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage and many more have inadequate coverage, so these centers are a critical part of our nation's health care safety net.

The problem of access to affordable health care services is not limited to the uninsured, but is also shared by many Americans living in rural and underserved areas where there is a shortage of health care providers. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act therefore calls for increased funding for the National Health Service Corps, which supports doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in rural and inner city areas.

The legislation will also give the program greater flexibility by allowing National Health Service Corps participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve full-time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some sites may not need a particular type of provider on a full-time basis. Our bill therefore gives the program additional flexibility to meet community needs.

As the Senate co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I am particularly sensitive to the long-term care needs of patients with chronic diseases like Alzheimer's and their families.

Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by older Americans today, and these costs will only increase with the aging of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or their private health insurance policies will cover the costs of long-term care should they develop a chronic illness or cognitive impairment like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover that they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent or spouse in long-term care and facing the shocking realization that they will have to cover the costs themselves.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase long-term care insurance.

Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy behaviors--smoking, lack of regular exercise, and poor diet. These three major risk factors alone have made Maine the state with the fourth highest death rate due to four largely preventable diseases: cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. These four chronic diseases are responsible for 70 percent of the health care problems in Maine.

Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to promote healthy lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows that investments in health promotion and prevention offer returns not only in reduced health care bills, but in longer life and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Maine's Franklin County, to promote healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, healthy food service selections, and programs that promote a healthy and safe school environment.

And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote greater equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system rewards rather than punishes states like Maine that deliver high-quality, cost-effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens.

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and subsequent legislation did take some significant steps toward promoting greater fairness by increasing Medicare payments to rural hospitals and by modifying geographic adjustment factors that discriminated against physicians and other providers in rural areas. The legislation we are introducing today will build on those improvements by establishing State pilot programs that reward providers of high- quality, cost-efficient Medicare services.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for reform based on principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the goal of universal health care coverage by bringing millions more Americans into the insurance system and by strengthening the health care safety net.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in cosponsoring S. 1, a bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process.

The recent elections sent a clear message to Congress that the American people have lost confidence in their government. Without the support of the people, we cannot tackle the difficult issues that this Congress must face. This bill, then, is a critical part of restoring the people's trust by reforming ethics and lobbying rules.

It is important to remember that the conduct of most Members and their staffs is beyond reproach. Likewise, it is important to recognize that lobbying--whether done on behalf of the business community, an environmental organization, a children's advocacy group, or any other cause--can provide us with useful information and analysis that aids, but does not dictate, the decision-making process. Unfortunately, in the minds of many Americans, ``lobbying'' has come to be associated with expensive paid vacations masquerading as fact-finding trips, special access to Members and staff that an ordinary citizen could never hope to have, and undue influence that leads to decisions made in the best interest of the lobbyist and his or her client instead of the American people.

S. 1 which is nearly identical to a bill that was the product of bipartisan efforts by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and that was passed by this Senate just last year-- includes a number of important provisions that will help to restore the public image of the United States Congress.

S. 1 bans gifts from lobbyists. This is clear, brightline rule that diminishes the appearance of impropriety that gifts can create.

S. 1 requires greater disclosure of the sponsors of and the purposes for earmarks included in a bill so that the people can know where tax dollars are being spent and why.

S. 1 eliminates floor privileges for former Members who are seeking to lobby other members. They will enjoy no more access to Senators and Congressmen than any other citizen.

S. 1 will eliminate the practice of anonymous holds in the Senate so that we can bring debate into the open and not simply kill a bill with a secret hold.

S. 1 will require enhanced disclosure of the activities of groups lobbying Congress so that the public can easily find out which interests are trying to influence the decisions we make.

S. 1 will slow the revolving door between the Hill and the private sector by limiting the ability of departing Members and staff to lobby their former colleagues.

While I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill, I also believe strongly that it would be improved by the addition of an independent Office of Public Integrity within the Legislative Branch. This Office would be able to conduct nonpartisan investigations of possible ethics violations. These investigations would help to promote public confidence in the enforcement of any laws that we pass to enhance congressional ethics. During debate on this bill last year, an amendment that Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and I offered to create this Office was defeated. However, I hope my colleagues have taken the lessons of the recent elections to heart and that the idea of an Office of Public Integrity will be approved this year. To that end, I am also cosponsoring Senator McCain's lobbying reform package, which he has introduced today and which contains a number of the provisions of S. 1 as well as creating an independent Office of Public Integrity.

I once again commend my colleagues on recognizing the importance of this issue by making it our first priority in the 110th Congress. I urge the Senate to work quickly to get this legislation finished so that we can move on from the task of governing ourselves and get down to the business of governing our Nation.

Mr. President, Lincoln Chafee came to the Senate in 1999 under the most difficult of circumstances. He had just lost his beloved father, and was being asked to fill the shoes of one of the most noble and principled Members ever to serve in this Chamber. He rose to that challenge, and I have been honored to work alongside him.

Like the illustrious Senator John Chafee, Senator Lincoln Chafee came from a political tradition I am proud to share--that of the New England moderate. This tradition stands for a strong defense of freedom and for fiscal responsibility, for government that is unobtrusive in people's lives when it can be, yet compassionate and involved when it must be.

Lincoln Chafee was a quiet voice of moderation, but spoke with a strong voice, a voice of conviction and integrity, on such issues of critical importance to our Nation as environmental protection and energy independence. When, in the spring of 2005, the very fabric of the Senate was threatened by a bitter impasse over the issue of judicial filibusters, I was proud to join Senator Chafee in the so- called gang of 14 that forged a productive, bipartisan solution.

I had the opportunity to work closely with Linc in the 109th Congress when he joined the Homeland Security Committee. The committee brought about great progress during that Congress with successful legislation on port security, chemical security, and rebuilding our Nation's emergency management structure after the catastrophic government response to Hurricane Katrina. Linc's steady, thoughtful, and informed approach to the issues greatly aided these endeavors.

I was especially impressed by Linc's understanding that true homeland security begins at home. As the 2006 hurricane season approached, and as we were still struggling to overcome the failures of government in the 2005 season, he called for and organized a Homeland Security field hearing in Rhode Island so his colleagues could better appreciate the daunting challenges faced by our first responders in coastal States and communities. That hands-on approach, devoid of pretense and directed toward results, exemplifies Lincoln Chafee's approach to government.

I know that the father would be proud of the son. And I know that all Americans join me in thanking Lincoln Chafee for 7 years of outstanding service, and in wishing him the very best in the years to come.

tribute to senator frist

Mr. President, As we come to the close of a Congress that has seen too much partisan struggle, it has been heartening to observe the bipartisan outpouring of deep respect and kind regard for the retiring senior Senator from Tennessee, Doctor Bill Frist.

I join in that praise. Senator Frist has exemplified the collegial traditions of the Senate, balancing forthright advocacy for his views and for his party's positions with courtesy and respect for those who disagreed with him. He has been an effective Senator for his beloved State of Tennessee, a skillful leader for his party caucus, and a gentleman in his dealings with Senate colleagues.

We all know that many of our fellow citizens are cynical about Congress, seeing this branch of government as a haven for politicians fixated on short-term political advantage and personal aggrandizement. They should take note of people like Senator Frist, who is truly an example of a Renaissance man in government.

If a writer created a protagonist with the interests and accomplishments that Senator Frist has shown, an editor would be nervous about taxing readers' credulity. Yet the facts are plain. Our friend from Tennessee is not only a hard-working and successful political leader, but also a surgeon, a teacher, a philanthropist, an author, an aircraft pilot, a marathon runner, and a devoted family man.

Members of Congress have many opportunities to enact measures that will protect, enrich, and save lives. But we usually act at a distance, as agencies use the authorities and carry out the mandates we create. Few of us can take credit for personally saving lives as Doctor Frist has done many times at the operating table. And few of us can bring to bear the combination of professional training and personal dedication that he has displayed on his repeated medical missions to Africa and in his policy work on the HIV-AIDS crisis. He was also the first doctor on the spot for the 1998 shootings of two Capitol Police officers, and he ably served as an informed spokesman for Congress during the 2001 anthrax attacks in the Capitol mail system.

Senator Frist has served his party well. As chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2002, he helped restore the party's majority in the Senate. As the unanimously elected majority leader, he served both his party and his country well on policy matters like tax- law changes that eased burdens on citizens and encouraged growth in business activity and employment.

Senator Frist also supported the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and the creation of Health Savings Accounts--measures that have saved billions of dollars for the elderly and given millions of Americans new opportunities for controlling their health-care costs. These are especially helpful legislative initiatives in States like my native Maine, where the proportions of senior citizens, small-business owners, and the self-employed are significant.

Senator Frist leaves this chamber with an overflowing and bipartisan store of goodwill and gratitude. I am pleased to be among the many Senators offering thanks for his years of service and best wishes for many years of good works to come.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the legislation to extend various provisions of the Nation's tax laws which is now before the Senate includes a 2-year extension of the $250 tax deduction available to teachers who incur out-of-pocket expenses to purchase classroom supplies. This extension builds upon the $250 tax deduction established by legislation which became law in 2001 as part of that year's tax relief package. The tax relief provided by that bill was later extended through the end of last year. I was proud to author that legislation, along with my good friends, Senator Warner and Senator Landrieu.

Providing this deduction for teachers who buy classroom supplies is warranted by the facts. So often teachers in Maine and throughout the country spend their own money to improve the classroom experiences of their students. While many of us are familiar with the National Education Association's estimate that teachers spend, on average, $400 a year on classroom supplies, other surveys show that they are spending even more than that. Indeed, I have spoken to dozens of teachers in my home State who tell me they routinely spend far in excess of the $250 deduction limit--a few even as much as $1,000--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. One such teacher is Debra Walker, who teaches kindergarten and first grade in the town of Milo, ME. She has taught for more than 25 years. Year after year, she spends hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, crayons, construction paper, tissue paper, stamps and inkpads. She even donated her own family computer for use by her class. She described it well by saying, ``These are the extras that are needed to make learning fun for children and to create a stimulating learning environment.''

Another example is Tyler Nutter, a middle school math and reading teacher from North Berwick, ME. After teaching for just 2 years, Tyler incurred substantial ``startup'' fees as he built his own collection of needed teaching supplies. In his first years on the job, he spent well over $500 out of pocket each year, purchasing books and other materials that are essential to his teaching program. This tax deduction is, in Tyler's words, ``a nice recognition of the contributions that many teachers have made.''

The teacher tax relief we have made available since 2001 is a small but significant way of helping teachers shoulder the expenses they incur to do their jobs well. Extending this provision for another 2 years demonstrates our gratitude and sends the right message to our Nation's teachers.

Mr. President, shortly, the Senate will consider H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. As the Presiding Officer is very well aware, since he has been a key player in molding this important legislation, this postal reform legislation has been a long time coming. And it is great news for the U.S. economy.

This legislation represents the culmination of a process that began back in 2002 when a group of constituents came to me, sat down with me in Maine, and taught me the importance of the Postal Service to the viability of their businesses and to the employees they had.

This coalition of groups included a Maine catalog company, a paper manufacturer, a printer, a local financial services company, and a publisher. They all came together and it was from them that I learned just how vital the Postal Service is to our economy.

So shortly after that meeting in the summer of 2002, I introduced a bill to establish a Presidential commission charged with examining the problems of the Postal Service and charged with developing specific recommendations and legislative proposals that the Congress and the Postal Service could implement.

The President appointed the members of the commission. They worked very hard. They came up with an excellent report which provided, in many ways, the basis for the landmark legislation that I believe we will finally clear tonight.

During the next 4 years, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which I had been privileged to chair, worked very hard to craft the most sweeping changes in the U.S. Postal Service in more than 30 years.

Senate passage of this legislation will help the 225-year-old Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st century.

As a Senator representing a large rural State, I want to ensure that my constituents, whether they live in the northern woods or on our islands or in our many small rural communities, have the same access to Postal Services as the people of our cities. If the Postal Service were no longer to provide universal service and deliver mail to every customer, the affordable communications link upon which many Americans rely would be jeopardized. Most commercial enterprises would find it uneconomical, if not impossible, to deliver mail and packages to rural Americans at the affordable rates charged by the Postal Service.

But for several years now, the Postal Service has clung to the edge of an abyss. Under the business model in which it has been forced to operate, the Postal Service has been at great financial risk. In fact, the Government Accountability Office aptly describes it as a potential death spiral in which escalating rates lead to lower volume, which in turn leads to even higher rates, which in turn causes the Postal Service to lose more business.

The Postal Service faces the challenge of the electronic age. It also has been saddled with more than $90 billion in unfunded liabilities and obligations, which has included debt to the Treasury, nearly $7 billion to workers' comp claims, $5 billion for retirement costs, and as much as $45 billion to cover retiree health care costs. The Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, has cited these figures to point to the urgent need for ``fundamental reforms to minimize the risk of a significant taxpayer bailout for a dramatic postal rate increase.'' And it is telling, indeed, that the Postal Service has been on GAO's high-risk list since April of 2001.

With this landmark reform legislation, we will put the Postal Service on a firm financial footing. We endorse the principle of universal service, of affordable, predictable postal rates. This legislation will modernize the Postal Service's rate-setting process and provide much- needed rate predictability for postal customers. Without this reform, postal ratepayers would have faced billions of dollars in higher--much higher--rates over the next several years.

The 750,000 career employees of the Postal Service often labor without anyone really knowing who they are, but their efforts play an absolutely essential role in the American economy. The Postal Service is the linchpin of a $900 billion mailing industry that employs 9 million people in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing, catalog companies, paper manufacturing, publishing, and financial services. The health of the Postal Service, therefore, is essential to the vitality of thousands of companies and the millions of employees they serve.

This bill represents years of hard work. As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction, I held a series of eight hearings, including a joint hearing with our House colleagues, during which we reviewed the recommendations of the President's commission and we heard from a wide range of experts and stakeholders, including representatives of the postal employees unions, the Postal Service itself, administration officials, mailers, the postmasters, postal supervisors, publishers--a wide variety of groups. In fact, there is a broad coalition supporting this bill, including many nonprofit mailers, which rely on affordable postal rates.

There are many people who have worked very hard to craft the very delicate compromise that is before us tonight. I particularly thank Senators Carper, Coleman, and Lieberman for

their assistance but also our House colleagues. I will have more to say about them later.

The compromise legislation before the Senate replaces the current lengthy and litigious rate-setting process with a rate cap-based structure for products such as first class mail, periodicals, and library mail. For 10 years, the price changes for market-dominant products like these will be subject to a 45-day prior review period by the Postal Regulatory Commission. The Postal Service will have much more flexibility, but the rates will be capped at the CPI. That is an important element of providing 10 years of predictable, affordable rates, which will help every customer of the Postal Service plan.

After 10 years, the Postal Regulatory Commission will review the rate cap and, if necessary, and following a notice and comment period, the Commission will be authorized to modify or adopt an alternative system.

While this bill provides for a decade of rate stability, I continue to believe that the preferable approach was the permanent flexible rate cap that was included in the Senate-passed version of this legislation. But, on balance, this bill is simply too important, and that is why we have reached this compromise to allow it to pass. We at least will see a decade of rate stability, and I believe the Postal Rate Commission, at the end of that decade, may well decide that it is best to continue with a CPI rate cap in place. It is also, obviously, possible for Congress to act to reimpose the rate cap after it expires. But this legislation is simply too vital to our economy to pass on a decade of stability. The consequences of no legislation would be disastrous for the Postal Service, its employees, and its customers.

Among other highlights of the compromise, the bill will reform the Postal Service workers' compensation system to require a 3-day waiting period. This is consistent with every State workers' compensation program. The bill introduces new safeguards against unfair competition by the Postal Service in competitive markets, prohibits subsidization of competitive products by market-dominant products, and requires an allocation of institutional costs to competitive products.

I note that we looked at competitive issues with UPS and FedEx, and I think we have come up with the right balance here. The bill transforms the existing Postal Rate Commission into the Postal Regulatory Commission with enhanced authority to ensure that there is greater oversight of the Postal Service as its management assumes greater responsibility.

The bill reaffirms postal employees' rights to collectively bargain. It changes the bargaining process only in small ways and only in ways that have been agreed to by both the Postal Service and the four major unions.

Another significant provision amends the current law to essentially free up $78 billion over 6 years. This is a complicated issue. It has to do with the responsibility for paying for the military retirement credits of postal employees and also money that was put into an escrow account to compensate for an overpayment into the civil service retirement system. These savings will be used to pay off debt to the U.S. Treasury, to fund health care liabilities, and to mitigate future rate increases.

This compromise is not perfect and, indeed, earlier tonight, there were issues raised by the appropriators--legitimate issues--that threatened at one point to derail the bill again. It has been a delicate compromise to satisfy all of the competing concerns. Everyone has had to compromise, but I think we have come up with a good bill. This compromise will help ensure a strong financial future for the U.S. Postal Service and the many sectors of our economy that rely on its services, and it reaffirms our commitment to the principle of universal service that I believe is absolutely vital to this institution.

Finally, there are so many people both within Congress, within the administration, and among the stakeholders who have worked very hard to bring this legislation to a successful conclusion. I cannot name them all, but I want to name some of them.

Senator Carper and his staffer, John Kilvington, have been here every step of the way. Senator Carper was the original cosponsor of the bill and has worked very hard to bring the compromise about.

Senators Lieberman, Coleman, Akaka, and Voinovich also have played very important roles.

Our leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, have been vitally interested and have helped us get this job done.

In the House, Chairman Tom Davis and the ranking Democrat Henry Waxman of the Government Reform Committee, also worked hard to produce a bill and to work with us to bring about the compromise.

A true hero of this effort, a person who worked on postal issues for a decade, is Congressman John McHugh.

The administration has played an absolutely critical role in bringing us to where we are today. The administration often doesn't get credit for that, and they deserve credit. They have worked with us to come up with solutions on the financial issues in this bill, and without the strong support of the administration, we would not be here tonight.

I want to particularly salute OMB Director Rob Portman; Michael Bopp, my former staff director, who is now working at OMB and brought his expertise to bear on this issue; Jess Sharp and Candi Wolff of the White House staff; and of course the staff of the Postal Service itself, which was always there with expertise, particularly Kim Weaver.

But most of all, I thank Ann Fisher of my staff, who has worked for years on this bill. This has been an issue which has meant a great deal to her, and she has been working on postal issues for a long time. She is a recognized expert, and without her expertise, we would not be here tonight.

I finally also want to thank the committee's new staff director, Brandon Milhorn, for bringing his judgment to bear on this issue.

There are so many people who have worked so hard, but the collective effort of everyone has produced a bill of which we can be proud.

It is not a perfect bill, but I am convinced it will put the U.S. Postal Service on a sound financial footing for years to come.

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

Mr. President, I ask consent that the vote on the pending nomination occur at 5 p.m. today, with the time until the vote equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member or their designees; further, that 20 minutes of the chairman's time be allocated to Senator Specter; provided further that immediately following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may call up amendment No. 5123.

Mr. President, that is certainly fine with me. I was trying to follow the direction I got from the chairman and the floor manager when we talked a few minutes ago. But if she wants to pursue this and proceed as she has suggested, I have no objection, and I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Feingold, I call up amendment No. 5123 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators John McCain, Bill Nelson, and Judd Gregg be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment, which the Senator from Wisconsin and I have offered, would ensure continuing vigorous, aggressive oversight of American tax dollars in Iraq by repealing the premature termination date for the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. This office will be prematurely terminated by provisions that were recently enacted as part of the conference report on the Defense authorization bill. Our amendment will restore the special IG's termination date to its previous schedule of 10 months after 80 percent of the funds for the Iraqi reconstruction projects have been expended.

The special IG has been very effective, and the important work of this watchdog must continue as long as American funds are being used for Iraq reconstruction. We should not terminate this mandate to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse by some arbitrary and premature date. In fact, it is inconceivable to me that we would terminate this office which has played such a vital role in spotlighting waste, fraud, and abuse and has more than proven its worth.

The Office of the Special Inspector General has saved the American taxpayers literally millions of dollars. In fact, when one looks at the combined impact of the audits, the investigations, the cost avoidances, and other savings, the potential financial impact of this office has been nearly $2 billion. Yet the office has cost the American taxpayers only $73 million since it was created. So $2 billion in savings, in cost avoidances, versus a cost of only $73 million. This means that for every dollar the special inspector general has spent, there has been a financial impact of $25--an impressive ratio.

There is no question that the inspector general's office has been extremely effective. Its work has led to convictions, to indictments, to the recovery of funds, and to improvement in contracting. It was the inspector general who told us about cost overruns on contracts-- Halliburton contracts, for example. It was the inspector general who highlighted shoddy construction of health clinics, of a special police station. It was the inspector general who made recommendations that have improved contracting oversight and procedures in Iraq.

We are talking about billions and billions of dollars. It makes absolutely no sense at all for this office, which has been such an effective watchdog, to be brought to a premature end.

Some people say: Why can't you just have the regular IG from the Department of Defense or the Department of State or USAID undertake this work? I think in many ways the question answers itself. There are many departments and agencies that are involved in the Iraqi reconstruction projects. We need to have a special IG who has the authority to follow the money no matter from what agency or department it originated. Also, the special IG has proven its worth time and again. The special IG is in Iraq even as we speak and has had a team on the ground in harm's way. Also, the DOD IG's office has not had a team on the ground in Iraq auditing, inspecting, and investigating on an ongoing basis.

I am very pleased to join with the Senator from Wisconsin who has been such a leader in this area, who originated the idea of having a special inspector general in the first place, and I was very pleased to partner with him in that effort years ago.

Let's correct this mistake right off so that the office doesn't have to start shutting down its operations in anticipation of the termination date next October. We can remedy this mistake right now, and we should do so.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I again want to commend the Senator from Wisconsin for his leadership on this issue. It has been a great pleasure to work with him. I mentioned we have 24 cosponsors of the amendment. I did want to acknowledge that Senator Lieberman and Senator Coleman have played important roles in drafting this bill, and both the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, are cosponsors as well.

Finally, I want to thank the two floor managers, Senator Hutchison and Senator Feinstein, for working with us on this bill. Senator Feinstein is also a cosponsor of it, and I very much appreciate Senator Hutchison assisting us to bring this to the floor. So I say thank you to my colleagues.

Mr. President, if there is no further debate on the amendment, I ask that the amendment be brought to a voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5144

Mr. President, today Senator Feingold and I are introducing the Iraq Reconstruction Accountability Act of 2006. This bipartisan legislation, is co-sponsored by Senators Lieberman, Leahy, Coleman, Cantwell, Salazar, Kerry and Coburn, has a single purpose: to ensure continuing, vigorous oversight of American tax dollars in Iraq by repealing the premature termination date for the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR).

This legislation would restore SIGIR's termination date to its previous schedule of 10 months after 80 percent of Iraq reconstruction funds have been expended. It would repeal conference language in the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill that would close SIGIR on October 1, 2007, and transfer oversight to the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Defense, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Departmental and agency Inspectors General perform an important service with dedication and expertise. However, those offices are configured to provide audits, inspections, and investigations of continuing government operations. The traditional approach of IG oversight--extensive inquiries, lengthy preparation and delivery of reports, recommendations for corrective action--is thorough. But it also is time-consuming and can allow wasteful or fraudulent practices to continue for some time.

Iraq reconstruction is a unique situation, with enormous amounts of money being spent in a relatively short period of time on a specific range of programs and operations. A number of agencies across the federal government are active in Iraq reconstruction, including the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Justice and others. Reconstruction managers, and ultimately the taxpayers, do not have the luxury of waiting months to receive recommendations to correct wasteful or fraudulent practices. Oversight of Iraq reconstruction requires that the Inspector General be able to cross departmental boundaries and deliver the results of his work quickly and efficiently.

Effective oversight of Iraq reconstruction requires the unique approach provided by the SIGIR. Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen described this approach in testimony before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in a hearing on August 2. SIGIR's auditors and inspectors provide on-the-spot guidance to managers as soon as problems are discovered, so corrective action can begin immediately. This ``real time'' method allows most of his reports to document not only how problems were detected, but also how they were corrected.

This method works. It should continue as long as American funds are being used for Iraq reconstruction, not terminate on some arbitrary and premature date. As of October 30, 2006, SIGIR estimates that the financial impact of its audit operations is $441 billion, its investigative operations is $20 million and its inspection operations is

$1.44 billion. It has achieved these results while costing the taxpayer $72 million. This means that for every dollar SIGIR has spent there has been a financial impact of $25 dollars, a very impressive ratio. SIGIR has also opened 256 cases thus far, and has either referred for prosecution or cleared 164. SIGIR has an impressive record. The Office has 92 open cases, with 25 of them at the Department of Justice. SIGIR has issued 73 audit reports and 65 project assessments. Its work has led to the arrests of five people, and the convictions of four, with more than $17 million in assets seized. During the current quarter, SIGIR investigators opened 20 new cases and closed 10.

There is no question that SIGIR has proven itself to be a much-needed watchdog, auditing reconstruction contracts in Iraq and spotlighting numerous cases of waste, fraud and abuse. We must keep this watchdog on the job.

In addition, SIGIR has taken on a mission that will benefit our nation long after the Iraq reconstruction efforts conclude. Through its Lessons Learned Initiative, the experience gained in Iraq--and the methods developed to track, evaluate, and correct programs--will provide critical guidance to managers and policymakers in the future. The efficient and speedy SIGIR approach would have helped the initial urgent stages of Katrina recovery immeasurably, and it will be invaluable in the aftermath of new disasters to come.

SIGIR has performed admirably in the most difficult of circumstances. Mr. Bowen and his exemplary staff have put themselves in harm's way numerous times. This incredible dedication is reflected in their work, which provides a high degree of oversight and accountability that is essential for Iraq reconstruction to succeed, and it is creating a template for success in the challenges that lie ahead. I urge my colleagues to support the Iraq Reconstruction Accountability Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today Senator Feingold and I are introducing the Iraq Reconstruction Accountability Act of 2006. This bipartisan legislation, is co-sponsored by Senators Lieberman, Leahy, Coleman, Cantwell, Salazar, Kerry and Coburn, has a single purpose: to ensure continuing, vigorous oversight of American tax dollars in Iraq by repealing the premature termination date for the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR).

This legislation would restore SIGIR's termination date to its previous schedule of 10 months after 80 percent of Iraq reconstruction funds have been expended. It would repeal conference language in the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill that would close SIGIR on October 1, 2007, and transfer oversight to the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Defense, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Departmental and agency Inspectors General perform an important service with dedication and expertise. However, those offices are configured to provide audits, inspections, and investigations of continuing government operations. The traditional approach of IG oversight--extensive inquiries, lengthy preparation and delivery of reports, recommendations for corrective action--is thorough. But it also is time-consuming and can allow wasteful or fraudulent practices to continue for some time.

Iraq reconstruction is a unique situation, with enormous amounts of money being spent in a relatively short period of time on a specific range of programs and operations. A number of agencies across the federal government are active in Iraq reconstruction, including the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Justice and others. Reconstruction managers, and ultimately the taxpayers, do not have the luxury of waiting months to receive recommendations to correct wasteful or fraudulent practices. Oversight of Iraq reconstruction requires that the Inspector General be able to cross departmental boundaries and deliver the results of his work quickly and efficiently.

Effective oversight of Iraq reconstruction requires the unique approach provided by the SIGIR. Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen described this approach in testimony before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in a hearing on August 2. SIGIR's auditors and inspectors provide on-the-spot guidance to managers as soon as problems are discovered, so corrective action can begin immediately. This ``real time'' method allows most of his reports to document not only how problems were detected, but also how they were corrected.

This method works. It should continue as long as American funds are being used for Iraq reconstruction, not terminate on some arbitrary and premature date. As of October 30, 2006, SIGIR estimates that the financial impact of its audit operations is $441 billion, its investigative operations is $20 million and its inspection operations is

$1.44 billion. It has achieved these results while costing the taxpayer $72 million. This means that for every dollar SIGIR has spent there has been a financial impact of $25 dollars, a very impressive ratio. SIGIR has also opened 256 cases thus far, and has either referred for prosecution or cleared 164. SIGIR has an impressive record. The Office has 92 open cases, with 25 of them at the Department of Justice. SIGIR has issued 73 audit reports and 65 project assessments. Its work has led to the arrests of five people, and the convictions of four, with more than $17 million in assets seized. During the current quarter, SIGIR investigators opened 20 new cases and closed 10.

There is no question that SIGIR has proven itself to be a much-needed watchdog, auditing reconstruction contracts in Iraq and spotlighting numerous cases of waste, fraud and abuse. We must keep this watchdog on the job.

In addition, SIGIR has taken on a mission that will benefit our nation long after the Iraq reconstruction efforts conclude. Through its Lessons Learned Initiative, the experience gained in Iraq--and the methods developed to track, evaluate, and correct programs--will provide critical guidance to managers and policymakers in the future. The efficient and speedy SIGIR approach would have helped the initial urgent stages of Katrina recovery immeasurably, and it will be invaluable in the aftermath of new disasters to come.

SIGIR has performed admirably in the most difficult of circumstances. Mr. Bowen and his exemplary staff have put themselves in harm's way numerous times. This incredible dedication is reflected in their work, which provides a high degree of oversight and accountability that is essential for Iraq reconstruction to succeed, and it is creating a template for success in the challenges that lie ahead. I urge my colleagues to support the Iraq Reconstruction Accountability Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleague from Alaska about the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act, or WARN Act, that is part of the SAFE Port Act that is before the Senate. The WARN Act will authorize a wireless alert capability to provide citizens with emergency alerts on their wireless devices. This is an important enhancement to the emergency alert system that FEMA currently operates. I would note that the language in the WARN Act does not alter FEMA's role in the emergency alert system. It is my understanding that this language directing the FCC to develop the wireless capabilities will not interfere with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee considering and reporting legislation next year to further clarify FEMA's role with respect to the emergency alert system and new technologies. Is that correct?

Thank you, Senator. I look forward to your support in addressing FEMA's role in the emergency alert system in legislation next year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent since the Senator from Alaska yields back his 5 minutes that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, shortly this evening, the Senate will adopt the conference report on the SAFE Port Act. This conference report includes all of the major port security improvements that were included in the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006 that passed the Senate just 2 weeks ago. It has been strengthened by including some of the provisions in the companion House bill.

This is a major accomplishment for this Congress that will help to strengthen our Homeland Security in ways that really matter. The original template for the SAFE Port Act was the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act I introduced with Senator Murray, Senator Coleman and Senator Lieberman almost a year ago.

I commend Senator Murray for her steadfast commitment to strengthening port security. I also thank the Presiding Officer, Senator Coleman, for his leadership. He has chaired three hearings on cargo security that helped identify the vulnerabilities and shortfalls in the current systems. That investigation by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, in fact, helped inform our legislation and, indeed, all of the problems that the Presiding Officer identified in his hearings have been addressed in this landmark legislation.

I also commend the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, who helped to shepherd this bill through our committee. This has truly been a bipartisan bicameral effort. It represents the Senate at its best. As a result, we have been able to produce significant legislation.

America's 361 seaports are vital elements in our Nation's transportation network. Last year, some 11 million shipping containers came into this country. Now, when we look at the shipping containers, we hope they simply contain consumer goods or parts or other useful objects. But, in fact, every one of these 11 million shipping containers has the potential to be the Trojan horse of the 21st century.

The vulnerability of our cargo is perhaps best illustrated by an incident that happened in Seattle earlier this year. In April, 22 Chinese nationals were caught as they attempted to leave a shipping container. Those illegal aliens transited in a shipping container all the way from China to our shores to the port of Seattle. This container could have just as easily have contained not people seeking a better way of life but people seeking to destroy our way of life. There could have been a squad of terrorists in that container. There could have been the makings of a dirty bomb. There could have even been a small nuclear device. That is the vulnerability of the current system.

In fact, the containers have been called the poor man's missile because a low budget terrorist could ship one across our oceans to a United States port for only a few thousand dollars. The stakes are very high.

If you visit a port like Seattle, as I have, you see that the port is located in the midst of a large urban population, with two stadiums close by, with ferries bringing thousands of visitors. The loss of life would be devastating.

But there is another impact of a possible attack on our ports; that is, the

economic loss that would ensue. We are aware that many plants and retailers now rely on just-in-time inventories that bring goods to their stores.

I think we should look back at 9/11 and look at what happened to our system of commercial aircraft when we had the attacks on our airplanes. In fact, commercial aircraft were grounded for a number of days. And just as that happened 5 years ago, an attack on any one of our ports would most likely result in the closure of all ports, and the economic consequences would be devastating. It would affect the farmers in the Midwest, who would be unable to ship their crops. It would affect retailers across the country, who would soon have empty shelves. It would affect factories that would be forced to shut down and lay off workers because of the loss of vital parts.

The best example I can give you of what the economic impact would be is to look back at the west coast dock strike of 2002. Unlike any terror attack, that was both peaceful and anticipated, and yet it cost the economy $1 billion a day for each of the 10 days it lasted.

Since the attacks on our country 5 years ago, there have been some actions taken to improve security at our seaports. For example, the Department of Homeland Security instituted several important port security programs such as the Container Security Initiative and what is known as C-TPAT, the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program. Unfortunately, the investigation led by the Senator from Minnesota has demonstrated that those programs have been very unevenly implemented. Some have lagged, and some have not been effective because there has not been the proper verification that has been needed.

What our legislation would do is provide the structures and the resources to strengthen those programs. The legislation before us is a comprehensive approach that addresses all levels and all major aspects of maritime cargo security.

It will require the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for all transportation modes by which cargo moves into, within, and out of U.S. ports.

It requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop protocols for restarting our ports if there were an incident, which we certainly hope this legislation will prevent or help prevent any attack on our seaports, but if one does occur, it is essential the Federal Government have a plan for reopening the ports and releasing cargo as soon as possible. Unfortunately, and in my opinion amazingly, we do not have such a plan today. So we will require the Department of Homeland Security to develop such a plan.

We authorize $400 million for each of the next 5 years in risk-based port security grants. We also authorize training and exercises that we know are key to preparedness and effective response.

We improve and expand several security programs, such as the Container Security Initiative, the C-TPAT Program, and we establish deadlines for action on these programs.

We provide additional incentives for shippers and importers to meet the highest level of cargo-security standards. We also make sure the Department is meeting deadlines for such essential programs as the TWIC Program.

Another critical provision in this bill is the requirement that all containers at our 22 largest ports be scanned for radiation by the end of next year. All the 22 largest ports, which handle 98 percent or virtually all cargo, would be required to have radiation detection devices in place by the end of next year. We also expand the radiation scanning that is done at foreign ports through the CSI program and the Megaports program. Obviously, our goal is to push off our shores and keep the danger from ever getting to our shores in the first place.

Another security measure is the vital transportation Worker Identification Credential, or the so-called TWIC, Program. It has languished for years, and it should not have because the TWIC Program is necessary to control access to port facilities and vessels, and it is a vital program.

We also--I know this has been of great interest to the Presiding Officer--establish a pilot program with real deadlines and real results at three foreign ports to test the feasibility of doing a nonintrusive scan; in other words, sort of an x ray of every container, have that scan actually analyzed, and combine it with a radiation scan.

That is going to allow us, eventually, to get to the goal, once the technology is there, of a 100-percent integrated scanning program.

There is still work to be done to address security for other modes of transportation, such as rail and mass transit. But tonight we should take great pride in the great progress we have made in strengthening the security of our seaports.

Thank you, Mr. President.