[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8047-8054]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Martinez, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 2783. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to monitor, restore, and 
protect the resource productivity, water quality, and marine ecosystems 
of the Gulf of Mexico; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have been pleased to join with my 
distinguished colleagues, Senator Martinez and Senator Landrieu, in 
introducing bipartisan legislation that will take a very significant 
step forward in restoring and protecting the Gulf of Mexico.
  I want to highlight how important the Gulf of Mexico is to our 
country. The Gulf of Mexico is the ninth largest body of water in the 
world, and the Gulf region covers approximately 600,000 square miles. 
The Gulf of Mexico contains 7 of this Nation's top 10 ports in terms of 
tonnage or cargo value, 4 of the top 7 fishing ports in the Nation, 
yields more finfish, shrimp, and shellfish annually than the south and 
mid-Atlantic, Chesapeake, and New England areas combined, and supports 
a $20 billion annual tourism industry.
  Sadly, over many years, the resource productivity and water quality 
of the Gulf of Mexico and its watershed have been diminished by 
nonpoint source pollution largely resulting from pollutant transport 
along the nearly 2,300-mile-long Mississippi River. I believe many 
Americans would be surprised to know that the Environmental Protection 
Agency's Gulf of Mexico Program, the only Federal program solely 
focused on protecting the health and productivity of the Gulf of 
Mexico, is neither authorized nor adequately funded to perform critical 
program functions vital to protecting and restoring one of this 
country's greatest natural resources.
  The Gulf of Mexico Restoration and Protection Act will authorize the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Gulf of Mexico Program to undertake 
specific nonregulatory functions, and authorize annual appropriations 
to support activities designed to improve Gulf of Mexico water quality 
and marine resource productivity. With an 18-year track record of 
success, the Gulf of Mexico Program proves that it is not only possible 
but also practical to manage our natural resources through 
collaborative, nonregulatory approaches that leverage support, 
resources, and capabilities from Federal, State, nonprofit, and private 
sector partners. Unfortunately, the Gulf of Mexico Program is 
struggling with a very limited budget and a staff comprised largely of 
people ``on loan'' from other Federal agencies. The historic storm 
season of 2005 gravely worsened the situation by placing increased 
demand on the program's technical services, and I expect this pressure 
will continue to rise as the gulf coast rebuilds.
  I commend the EPA Gulf of Mexico Program and its Federal, State, 
nonprofit, and private sector partners for doing so much with so little 
for so long. However, it is impractical to expect this to continue in 
perpetuity. Now is the time to take actions to ensure the Gulf of 
Mexico is protected for continued economic productivity, recreation, 
and to make certain this great water body remains a place of beauty and 
enjoyment for current and future generations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Alexander, Mr. Allen, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Burns, Mr. Byrd, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Carper, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
        Coleman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Craig, Mr. Dayton, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
        Dodd, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Ensign, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
        Inouye, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Kohl, Mr. Kyl, Ms.

[[Page 8048]]

        Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, 
        Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Martinez, Mr. McCain, 
        Mr. Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Nelson of Florida, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Obama, Mr. 
        Pryor, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Salazar, Mr. 
        Santorum, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Smith, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Specter, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Talent, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
        Vitter, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 2784. A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Tenzin Gyatso, 
the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, in recognition of his many enduring and 
outstanding contributions to peace, non-violence, human rights, and 
religious understanding; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Dalai 
Lama Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2006.
  This legislation would convey upon the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin 
Gyatso, one of Congress' most prestigious awards for his advocacy of 
peace, tolerance, human rights, non-violence, and compassion throughout 
the globe.
  I am deeply honored to be joined today by my colleague, Senator 
Thomas, and wish to express my appreciation to him for his willingness 
to be the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation.
  Senator Thomas has long been an advocate for addressing the plight of 
the Tibetan people, and in 2001 joined with me in introducing the 
Tibetan Policy Act, the first piece of legislation outlining U.S. 
policy toward Tibet and its people. He was truly instrumental in 
helping to advance its passage in the Congress.
  In fact, one of my proudest days as a U.S. Senator was on September 
30, 2002, when President George W. Bush signed the Tibetan Policy Act 
into law.
  Both Senator Thomas and I are also grateful that 73 of our Senate 
colleagues have agreed to be original cosponsors of this legislation 
honoring the Dalai Lama.
  Under the rules, Congressional Gold Medals need the support of at 
least two-thirds, or 67 Senators, in order for the Senate Banking 
Committee to consider such authorizing legislation.
  I look forward to working closely with Chairman Shelby and Ranking 
Member Sarbanes to ensure that the Dalai Lama Congressional Gold Medal 
Act can be taken up and passed out of the Banking Committee in a timely 
and efficient manner.
  In my view, there is no international figure more deserving of the 
Congressional Gold Medal than His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
  This is a man who has dedicated his life to the betterment of 
humanity as a whole. As one of the most respected religious figures in 
the world today, the Dalai Lama's teachings on peace, non-violence and 
ecumenical openness have been embraced by millions.
  One of his greatest contributions has been his promotion of harmony 
and respect among the different religious faiths of the world.
  In his own words: ``I always believe that it is much better to have a 
variety of religions, a variety of philosophies, rather than one single 
religion or philosophy. This is necessary because of the different 
mental dispositions of each human being. Each religion has certain 
unique ideas or techniques, and learning about them can only enrich 
one's faith.''
  As the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, he has worked arduously 
for nearly 50 years to increase understanding between China and the 
people of Tibet.
  He has also dedicated his life to the preservation of the Tibetan 
culture, religion, and language.
  The Dalai Lama's story is a fascinating one.
  In 1959, as a teenager, he fled his Tibetan homeland for neighboring 
India, where he established a government-in-exile that eventually 
settled at Dharmasala--in the Himalayan foothills.
  While he admittedly once espoused independence for Tibet--
particularly in the face of the heavy-handed oppression of the Tibetan 
people by the Chinese Communists--the Dalai Lama foreswore this 
position nearly two decades ago.
  Alternatively, he began to pursue a reasonable and flexible ``Middle 
Way Approach'' that would provide for cultural and religious autonomy 
for Tibetans, within the People's Republic of China.
  In 1989, the Dalai Lama was the recipient of the Noble Peace Prize 
for his consistent and unfailing advocacy for the rights of the Tibetan 
people, along with his promotion of non-violence and peace throughout 
the globe.
  In their recommendation, the Nobel Committee wrote:

       The Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai 
     Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently 
     has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated 
     peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in 
     order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his 
     people.

  In April 1991, when the Congress welcomed the Dalai Lama in a 
ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda that was attended by the entire 
Congressional leadership, he offered a moving anecdote about receiving 
a small gift from President Franklin Roosevelt when he was a young boy.
  That gift--a gold watch showing phases of the moon and the days of 
the week--became very special to him.
  ``I marveled at the distant land which could make such a practical 
object so beautiful,'' he said.
  ``But what truly inspired me were your ideas of freedom and 
democracy. I felt that your principles were identical to my own, the 
Buddhist beliefs in fundamental human rights freedom, equality, 
tolerance and compassion for all.''
  I have been blessed to be able to call the Dalai Lama a friend for 
almost three decades. I first met him through my husband Richard during 
a trip to India and Nepal in the fall of 1978.
  Incidentally, our first stop was in Dharmasala, where we met with His 
Holiness and invited him to visit San Francisco where I was mayor.
  The Dalai Lama was grateful for the invitation. At that time, he had 
never even been to the United States.
  For political reasons, the Chinese objected to his visiting the 
United States, and our government, which at that time was in the 
process of normalizing relations with the People's Republic of China, 
was sensitive to these concerns.
  While the trip was postponed temporarily, as mayor I was delighted to 
receive the Dalai Lama and present him with a key to the city upon his 
arrival in San Francisco in September 1979.
  During our many conversations over the years, His Holiness has often 
reiterated that, at its core, Buddhism espouses reaching out to help 
others, particularly the less fortunate. And it encourages us all to be 
more kind and compassionate.
  The Dalai Lama's persona exudes these qualities. He has a great sense 
of humor, responds quite spontaneously, and his philosophies cross all 
religions, cultures, and ethnic lines.
  I have visited with him many times since 1978, and while his 
principled beliefs have never wavered, his teachings have become more 
expansive. His message has never been more relevant in our troubled 
world.
  At the same time, I also had the opportunity as mayor of San 
Francisco to become acquainted with several of China's future leaders 
through the San Francisco-Shanghai Sister City Relationship that I 
started with Mayor Wang Daohan in 1980.
  Mayor Wang's immediate successors, Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji, were 
both later promoted to high-level positions in the Chinese Communist 
Party and Central Government after leaving Shanghai.
  Consequently, since 1990, my husband and I have had many discussions 
with Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji, and other Chinese officials about the 
status of the Dalai Lama and the plight of the Tibetans in and outside 
of Tibet.
  On three separate occasions over the past 15 years, I have hand-
delivered letters from His Holiness to the Chinese leadership, asking 
for direct talks and reiterating that he does not seek independence for 
Tibet.

[[Page 8049]]

  I know that at the same time President Bill Clinton, President George 
W. Bush, and many others in the U.S. Government have also encouraged a 
meaningful dialogue. For the most part, these efforts have had little 
success.
  If His Holiness the Dalai Lama were to return to Tibet, his wish is, 
as he says, to be a simple monk and to be involved only in religious 
and cultural matters.
  China will be a better nation when it embraces the aspirations of the 
Tibetan people.
  Through the passage of this legislation, the United States Senate 
would recognize the Dalai Lama's worldwide contributions to peace and 
religious understanding.
  Among past recipients of the Congressional Gold Medal are fellow 
moral and religious leaders, including Pope John Paul II and Mother 
Teresa, and fellow Nobel Peace Laureates, such as Elie Wiesel and 
Nelson Mandela.
  By definition, a Congressional Gold Medal is reserved for the most 
heroic, courageous and outstanding--those who we wish to emulate in our 
life's actions.
  I strongly believe that the Dalai Lama is such an individual.
  I am proud that the U.S. Congress has a long record of showing 
support for the Dalai Lama's message of peace and compassion, and I 
look forward to joining my colleagues in recognizing him with this 
distinguished award.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
California in offering this legislation to award the 14th Dalai Lama 
with the prestigious Congressional Gold Medal.
  Mr. President, the Dalai Lama has been one of the leading voices in 
advocating for peace, tolerance, human rights, nonviolence, and 
compassion throughout the globe. He has worked tirelessly for nearly 50 
years to increase understanding between the Tibetan and Chinese people. 
In these difficult times, I believe it is necessary to recognize those 
who fight to bring people together. There are few international figures 
more deserving of receiving this award.
  In 1959, the Dalai Lama fled his Tibetan homeland for neighboring 
India, where he established a government in exile. Under his ``Middle 
Way'' approach, he has worked arduously for the past two decades to 
find a reasonable and peaceful solution for providing cultural and 
religious autonomy for Tibetans within the People's Republic of China. 
He has also been a steadfast and vigorous advocate for peace and human 
rights for all people across the globe.
  In 1989, he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. In their 
recommendation, the Nobel Committee noted that in his struggle for the 
liberation of Tibet, the Dalai Lama has consistently opposed the use of 
violence, and has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon 
tolerance and mutual respect.
  The Dalai Lama's worldwide contributions to peace, religious 
understanding, and the advancement of human rights are innumerable. He 
has made it his life's work to promote harmony and respect among the 
different religious faiths of the world. In his own words: ``I always 
believe that it is much better to have a variety of religions, a 
variety of philosophies, rather than one single religion or philosophy. 
This is necessary because of the different mental dispositions of each 
human being. Each religion has certain unique ideas or techniques, and 
learning about them can only enrich one's faith.''
  By definition, a Congressional Gold Medal is reserved for the most 
heroic, courageous, and outstanding those who we wish to emulate in our 
own lives. The Dalai Lama is such an individual, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to join Senator Feinstein and myself in honoring him with 
this distinctive award.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Ms. Murkowski):
  S. 2789. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a tax credit to rural primary health providers; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr BURNS. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Murkowski in 
introducing the Rural Physicians Relief Act of 2006. This legislation 
is intended to bring needed relief to doctors in rural America.
  As those of us from rural States are well aware, our constituents 
face many unique challenges when seeking quality health care. Our 
populations are small and spread out across extremely remote areas. 
Incidentally, the costs of operating even the most basic medical 
practice are simply too much for many physicians. As a result, many 
areas of our States tend to be some of the most medically underserved 
areas in the Nation.
  To give you an idea of the situation in Montana, nearly 286,000 or 
one third of my constituents live in what are known as frontier areas. 
According to the United States Census Bureau, these are counties with 
fewer than seven people per square mile. That means that 46 of 
Montana's 56 counties are classified as frontier--24 of those have 
fewer than two people per square mile and 10 of those have less than 
one per square mile. However, what is even more striking is 9 of these 
frontier counties have no doctors at all, and 10 others have fewer than 
3. Consequently, a large percentage of Montanans must travel great 
distances simply to get basic medical treatment.
  The legislation that Senator Murkowski and I are introducing today 
seeks to alleviate this problem. It will provide incentives to 
encourage physicians to practice in these remote and underserved areas. 
Specifically, it would give a physician who is a Primary health 
services provider a $1,000 tax credit for each month that he or she 
provides services in a frontier area. Furthermore, physicians who treat 
a high percentage of patients from frontier areas would also be 
eligible for the tax credit.
  All too often many of our constituents are at a disadvantage simply 
because of where they live. While this legislation will not completely 
solve the problem, it will go a long way toward bringing quality health 
care to those in rural America.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2789

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Physicians Relief Act 
     of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. NONREFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR RURAL PRIMARY HEALTH 
                   SERVICES PROVIDERS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after 
     section 25D the following new section:

     ``SEC. 25E. RURAL PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual 
     who is a qualified primary health services provider for any 
     month during the taxable year, there shall be allowed as a 
     credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for such 
     taxable year an amount equal to $1,000 for each month during 
     such taxable year--
       ``(1) which is part of the eligible service period of such 
     individual, and
       ``(2) for which such individual is a qualified primary 
     health services provider.
       ``(b) Qualified Primary Health Services Provider.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `qualified primary health 
     services provider' means, with respect to any month, any 
     physician who is certified for such month by the Bureau to be 
     a primary health services provider or a licensed mental 
     health provider who--
       ``(1) is primarily providing primary health services, and 
     either--
       ``(A) substantially all of such primary health services are 
     provided in frontier areas (within the meaning of section 
     330I(r) of the Public Health Service Act), or
       ``(B) such primary health services are provided in a 
     practice which includes rural patients from frontier areas 
     (as so defined) in a percentage of the total practice which 
     is at least equal to the percentage of total residents in the 
     State in which such practice is located who reside in 
     frontier areas (as so defined),
       ``(2) is not receiving during the calendar year which 
     includes such month a scholarship under the National Health 
     Service Corps Scholarship Program or the Indian health 
     professions scholarship program or a loan repayment under the 
     National Health Service

[[Page 8050]]

     Corps Loan Repayment Program or the Indian Health Service 
     Loan Repayment Program,
       ``(3) is not fulfilling service obligations under such 
     Programs, and
       ``(4) has not defaulted on such obligations.
     Such term shall not include any individual who is described 
     in paragraph (1) with respect to any of the 3 most recent 
     months ending before the date of the enactment of this 
     section.
       ``(c) Eligible Service Period.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `eligible service period' means the period 
     of 60 consecutive calendar months beginning with the first 
     month the taxpayer is a qualified primary health services 
     provider.
       ``(d) Other Definitions and Special Rule.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) Bureau.--The term `Bureau' means the Bureau of Health 
     Care Delivery and Assistance, Health Resources and Services 
     Administration of the United States Public Health Service.
       ``(2) Physician.--The term `physician' has the meaning 
     given to such term by section 1861(r) of the Social Security 
     Act.
       ``(3) Primary health services provider.--The term `primary 
     health services provider' means a provider of basic health 
     services (as described in section 330(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
     Public Health Service Act).
       ``(4) Only 60 months taken into account.--In no event shall 
     more than 60 months be taken into account under subsection 
     (a) by any individual for all taxable years.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 25D the following new item:

``Sec. 25E. Rural primary health services providers.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2005.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator 
Burns in introducing the Rural Physicians' Relief Act of 2006. This 
important legislation will bring needed assistance to physicians who 
provide primary health services to rural America.
  Physicians who provide health care in the most rural locations in 
America face challenges unlike their more urban counterparts. Often 
great distances, remote locations, limited transportation, and harsh 
climate combine to make health care delivery extremely difficult to say 
the very least. Patient populations are small and spread out across 
extremely remote areas. As a result, many of these areas tend to be the 
most medically underserved areas in the Nation.
  In my State of Alaska, a State that is larger than the States of 
California, Texas and Montana combined, nearly one-quarter of the 
State's population lives in communities and villages that are only 
reachable by boat or aircraft. In fact, Alaska has fewer roads than any 
other State--even fewer roads than Rhode Island. And unlike Rhode 
Island where over 90 percent of the roads are paved, less than 20 
percent of the roads are paved in Alaska.
  This means that approximately 75 percent of Alaskan communities are 
not connected by road to another community with a hospital. This means 
that all medical supplies, patients, and providers must travel by air. 
These remote populations tend to be among the poorest in the State. Air 
travel equates to excessively high health care costs--generally 70 
percent higher than costs in the lower 48 States. In short, ``rural'' 
takes on a new definition in Alaska.
  In Alaska, patient access to health care is exacerbated because our 
State also faces a chilling crisis--we have 25 percent to 30 percent 
fewer physicians than our population needs. In fact, Alaska has one of 
the smallest numbers of physicians per capita in the country. We need a 
minimum of 500 more doctors just to be at the national average of 
physicians per capita. An American Medical News article recently 
declared Alaska's precarious situation: ``Alaska has long ranked among 
the worst states in terms of physician supply.''
  Our physician shortage crisis will only worsen. There is an expected 
retirement of at least 118 physicians in Anchorage alone in the next 10 
years. In the 1990s, there were 130 new doctors each year. Now that 
figure has dropped to only 31 new physicians since 2001. Outside of 
Anchorage, one in every eight physician positions is vacant.
  Additionally, many physicians are forced out of the Medicare and 
Medicaid Programs because reimbursement rates simply do not cover the 
cost to treat those patients. With Alaska's growing population, 
especially of our elderly, this shortage will lead to the severe health 
care access crisis for all Alaskans.
  On top of harsh physical challenges, Alaska's rural population also 
faces significant human challenges. These rural patient populations are 
often in the greatest need for primary health care services. Heart 
disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases are the leading 
causes of death in Alaska. Women in our State have higher death rates 
from stroke than do women nationally; and mortality among Native 
Alaskan women is dramatically on the rise, whereas it is actually 
declining among Caucasian women in Lower 48. The prevalence of chronic 
disease such as diabetes and even tuberculosis is increasing faster in 
Alaska than any other State. Each of these health concerns is magnified 
because access to health care--especially in rural Alaska--remains our 
greatest challenge.
  The legislation that Senator Burns and I introduce today seeks to 
lessen this problem. It will both assist physicians who currently 
practice in rural America and will provide an incentive to encourage 
physicians to practice in these remote and underserved areas. 
Specifically, it would give a physician who is a primary health 
services provider a $1,000 tax credit for each month that he or she 
provides services in a designated ``frontier'' area. Furthermore, 
physicians who treat a high percentage of patients from frontier areas 
would also be eligible for the tax credit.
  Mr. President, my hope is to encourage physicians to practice 
medicine in rural Alaska and throughout rural America. Creating 
incentives that offset the high cost of providing care in the most 
remote areas of the Nation will go far in recruiting physicians to the 
areas that are most in need of their services.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Smith, Mr Burns, Mr. 
        Allard, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Allen, Mr. 
        Graham, Mr. Lott, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Dole, Mr. 
        Talent, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Kerry, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mr. Reed, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Carper, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. 
        Dorgan, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Biden, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Mikulski and Mr. 
        Jeffords):
  S. 2791. A bill to amend title 46 and 49, United States Code, to 
provide improved maritime, rail, and public transportation security, 
and for other purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I introduce a bipartisan 
transportation security bill, which is a joint Commerce and Banking 
Committee bipartisan package co-sponsored by Senators Inouye, Shelby, 
Sarbanes, and 37 of our colleagues. This bill would dramatically 
enhance our Nation's port, rail, and transit security systems. The port 
and rail provisions of this package are identical to provisions of the 
transportation security bill, S. 1052, which was reported unanimously 
by the Commerce Committee last year. The transit provisions of the 
package are identical to those reported unanimously by the Banking 
Committee.
  The events of 9/11 made clear that Congress needed to address the 
vulner-
abilities within the Nation's transportation systems and dramatically 
increase security measures to protect the essential interstate flow of 
commerce.
  Even before 9/11, the Commerce Committee led the Senate's effort to 
achieve the delicate balance between improved transportation security 
and the uninterrupted flow of commerce. In the weeks and months 
following the 
9/11 terrorist attacks, the Commerce Committee developed the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act, which was signed into law by the President 
in 2002. The committee later expanded

[[Page 8051]]

 MTSA by developing the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 
2004.
  In MTSA, the Commerce Committee called on both public and private 
sector entities, including Federal agencies, the port community, vessel 
owners, shippers, and earners, to play a role in dramatically enhancing 
maritime security. The International Maritime Organization followed 
suit with its own improvements, many of which were based on the 
foundation set forth in MTSA.
  The Commerce Committee spearheaded the establishment of a harmonized 
security credential for all transportation workers, authorizing the 
creation of a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, TWIC, 
program in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (2001), and 
twice more in the Maritime Transportation Security Acts of 2002 and 
2004. Additional statutory authority from the PATRIOT Act reinforced 
the importance of such a transportation credential.
  TWIC is intended to improve identity management for all 
transportation workers, ensuring that only authorized personnel gain 
unescorted access to secure areas of the country's transportation 
system. TWIC is designed to mitigate the threat of terrorists 
exploiting certain physical and cyber security gaps in the 
transportation system.
  The bill would require TSA to deliver a rulemaking on the 
implementation of the TWIC program. It has been over three and one half 
years since Congress first required such a card, and this provision 
sets a mandatory deadline of January 1, 2007 for rollout.
  The bill that I propose also would direct the Coast Guard to expand 
the deployment of Interagency Operations Centers to ports throughout 
the United States. These centers, already operating in five cities, 
would bring together all port security and operations stakeholders into 
a single facility at major ports. This approach has proven effective at 
maximizing communication among Federal, State, and local entities 
charged with securing the ports.
  In addition, the provision would require greater standards and 
requirements for cargo screening equipment, and call for additional 
data to be incorporated into the system used to target cargo and 
containers for searches.
  While TWIC, Interagency Operation Centers, and equipment standards 
will help improve security on our shores, we must be cognizant of the 
fact that maritime security begins in foreign ports. We must cast our 
security net as far back into the inbound international supply chain as 
possible.
  Two programs that were authorized by the Commerce Committee in MTSA 
address the need to pre-screen cargo bound for the United States--the 
Container Security Initiative CSI, and the Customs-Trade Partnership 
Against Terrorism, (C-TPAT).
  CSI is a program in which U.S. inspectors are deployed to foreign 
nations to assist their foreign counterparts in the pre-screening of 
U.S.-bound cargo containers. C-TPAT is a voluntary supply chain 
security program that allows companies to seek certification from the 
Federal Government that such companies have taken sufficient steps to 
ensure that their supply chains are secure in exchange for expedited 
cargo clearance benefits at U.S. ports.
  The bill that I introduce with my colleagues would require that basic 
program elements and standards be developed by DHS in order to provide 
CSI and C-TPAT participants a baseline understanding of the security 
standards expected of them.
  Maritime security is not the only improvement that we must make--the 
unfortunate attacks on passenger trains in Madrid and the subways in 
London underscored weaknesses in rail transportation that our bill 
would seek to address. To improve rail security, our bill would require 
TSA to conduct railroad threat assessments and to prioritize 
recommendations. In addition, the legislation would create a rail 
security research and development program to encourage deployment of 
rail car tracking equipment for shipment of hazardous materials, and 
require threat mitigation plans when specific threat information 
exists. The bill also would authorize further studies of necessary 
improvements to passenger rail screening, in an effort to increase 
security in this mode of public transportation.
  Our mass transit systems have pressing security needs, upon which 
our' colleagues on the Banking Committee are focused; as a result, 
transit security improvements are incorporated into our bipartisan 
bill. It is unfortunate that many transit agencies in the U.S. still 
lack sufficient resources to fulfill the post-9/11 recommendations of 
the Federal Transit Administration's security assessment. These needs 
are all the more pressing in light of recent DHS recommendations for 
U.S. mass transit systems to remain alert against the possibility of 
terrorist attacks. In response to this situation, our bill would create 
a needs-based grant program to identify and address risks and 
vulnerabilities within transit systems across the country. The bill 
would authorize $3.5 billion in funding over the next 3 years to 
transit agencies to invest in projects designed to resist and deter 
terrorist attacks, including: surveillance technologies; tunnel 
protection; chemical, biological, radiological, and explosive detection 
systems; perimeter protection; and a variety of other security 
improvements. The bill also would codify the role of an Information 
Sharing Analysis Center, which would provide security information to 
transit systems and ensure better communication among federal, state, 
local, and private sector entities.
  To improve security, we must have clear objectives and methods to 
reach those goals. With limited resources, it is important to pinpoint 
risks and vulnerabilities that exist within our transportation systems, 
and address them accordingly. By combining provisions approved 
unanimously by the Commerce and Banking Committees, respectively, this 
bipartisan bill would make significant targeted improvements to the 
framework now in place to secure the Nation's port, rail, and transit 
environments.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it is hard to believe, but Congress has 
not made any substantive improvements to the Nation's transportation 
security systems since 2002. Yet nearly every day, we are provided 
further reminders that our transportation modes, particularly port, 
cargo, rail, and public transit, remain vulnerable.
  Given the urgent need for further improvements, Chairman Stevens and 
I have joined with the Banking Committee leaders, Senator Shelby and 
Senator Sarbanes, to advance a comprehensive transportation security 
bill that reflects the importance of our transportation infrastructure 
to the quality of life and economic health of the country.
  Our legislation combines the port, cargo, and rail provisions of our 
Committee's Transportation Security Improvement Act with the Banking 
Committee's Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act. Together, 
the combined measure makes significant improvements to our port, cargo, 
rail, and public transit security nationwide.
  It is important to note the level of Senate support for our approach. 
Not only have the elements of our bill been separately and unanimously 
approved by our respective Committees, our legislation has 42 Senate 
cosponsors on introduction. That kind of support demonstrates both the 
necessity of these improvements and the distinct possibility that we 
can move this bill this year.
  The legislation that we introduce today, with its emphasis on the 
Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, is the 
natural counterpart to the port security bill approved by the House of 
Representatives last week. The bills are directly compatible, and if 
the Senate moves quickly on this matter, we can proceed to conference 
and make real progress on transportation security before the session 
concludes.
  This legislation reflects the port, cargo, and rail security 
expertise of the Commerce Committee and the public transit security 
expertise of the Banking Committee. On the Commerce

[[Page 8052]]

Committee, we began examining port and cargo security in 1999 and had 
begun to craft security legislation even before the September 11 
tragedy.
  In 2001, our committee authored the landmark Maritime Transportation 
Security Act, MTSA, which established the foundation for the Nation's 
port and cargo security. Under the MTSA, the Coast Guard became the 
lead agency on port security matters and created the Nation's current, 
international, inter-modal cargo security regime. That expertise and 
perspective is essential as we advance improvements to our maritime 
security laws.
  However, the implementation of MTSA's security improvements has been 
weak and inconsistent. The Department of Homeland Security's budgets 
have not reflected port security's significance to the economy, and the 
Agency has missed numerous internal and legislated security deadlines. 
As a result, vulnerabilities remain.
  Given the recent focus on the Nation's lingering, significant port 
security weaknesses, the country is now far more attuned to port and 
cargo security. The heartland is learning what the coasts have known 
for many years: Our national economy and physical security depend on 
strong port and cargo security.
  Our legislation makes the many enhancements that are long overdue. It 
guides and enhances the Coast Guard's and the Department of Homeland 
Security's, DHS, authorities on maritime security. It improves 
examination of cargo before it reaches U.S. ports, provides a process 
for the speedy resumption of commerce in the event of an attack on a 
seaport, and expands the use of interagency operations centers.
  Specifically, our legislation improves the examination of shipments 
before they reach U.S. shores. It calls upon the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection, CBP, to develop standards for the evaluation, 
screening, and inspection of cargo destined for the U.S. prior to 
loading in a foreign port, and it provides greater targeting and 
scrutiny of high-risk cargo by requiring importers to file entry data 
24-hours prior to loading at a foreign port.
  Also, the legislation authorizes the random inspection of incoming 
cargo--a method which has proven to be 12 times more likely to find 
illicit shipments than traditional inspection methods.
  In the event there is a seaport attack, our bill clarifies the 
requirements for expedited clearance of cargo through the Secure 
Systems of Transportation Program and extends the supply chain review 
to the initial point of loading. The bill also amends MTSA based on 
Government Accountability Office, GAO, recommendations to improve upon 
the Container Security Initiative, CSI, the Customs-Trade Partnership 
Against Terrorism Program, C-TPAT, and Automated Targeting System, ATS.
  It is important to note that while our port security regime has 
significant weaknesses, the agencies involved have also begun to make 
some notable improvements in recent years. According to the Department 
of Homeland Security Inspector General's most recent report on the port 
security grant program, the DHS has made substantial progress on the 
program and is beginning to deliver funding to the Nation's ports 
efficiently and effectively.
  Our legislation builds upon the port and cargo security systems that 
have taken 4 years to develop and provides the resources necessary to 
strengthen port security infrastructure, planning, and coordination. 
Other pending proposals have sought to reorganize the DHS yet again and 
add an additional layer of bureaucracy through a new Office of Cargo 
Policy. Such changes are counterproductive and suggest a lack of 
understanding of local stakeholders' actual needs and given the need 
for immediate improvements, they make little sense.
  Our committee has also brought its transportation security expertise 
to bear on the challenges facing rail security. Consistent with the 
Rail Security Act approved unanimously by the Senate in 108th Congress, 
our legislation requires the Transportation Security Administration, 
TSA, to conduct a railroad sector threat assessment and submit 
prioritized recommendations for improving rail security. It also calls 
for the TSA and the Department of Transportation to clarify their 
respective roles for rail security.
  Our legislation provides grants through TSA to Amtrak, freight 
railroads, and others to upgrade security across the entire railroad 
system. It provides funding through the Department of Transportation to 
make needed security and safety enhancements to Amtrak railroad tunnels 
in New York, Washington, and Baltimore.
  Our bill creates a rail security research and development program 
through DHS and encourages the deployment of rail car tracking 
equipment for hazardous material rail shipments. It so requires 
railroads shipping high-hazard materials to create threat mitigation 
plans to protect high-consequence targets when specific threat 
information exists.
  Finally, the bill authorizes studies to improve passenger rail 
screening and immigration processing along the U.S. northern border, 
creates a security training program for railroad workers, and provides 
whistleblower protections for workers who report security concerns.
  All of these enhancements have been thoroughly vetted over several 
years of meticulous work. They have received the unanimous support of 
our committee membership, and in the case of the rail security 
provisions, the support of the full Senate in 2004.
  In the 108th Congress, the Senate conclusive determined that 
transportation security and transportation safety could not be 
separated. Thus, given its oversight of the Coast Guard, TSA, and its 
general expertise in transportation matters, the Commerce Committee 
maintained jurisdiction over transportation security generally, and 
port, cargo, and rail security specifically. Similarly, the Banking 
Committee's expertise in urban transit has made it the Committee of 
jurisdiction for public transit security.
  This expertise matters, particularly when crafting legislation that 
impacts how these systems operate. Transportation security legislation 
must reflect a balanced understanding of security, safety, and 
commerce. It is not enough to understand just one of those elements. 
Our economy is totally dependent upon efficient and effective 
transportation systems. Thus, our security policies must be robust, but 
they cannot ignore the realities of modern commerce nor the potential 
economic damage that could result from public policies that did not 
sufficiently take into account the resumption of our systems.
  The legislation that we advance today reflects the Commerce and 
Banking Committees' expertise and understanding of this important 
balance. The time has come to advance these improvements, and nearly 
half of this body has already signed-on in support of this bill. Our 
legislation presents an opportunity to make immediate progress on 
transportation security, and it is my sincere hope that the Senate will 
act on this measure as soon as possible.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues 
in introducing legislation to improve security at our Nation's transit 
systems, rail lines, and ports. The transit title in this legislation 
was reported unanimously by the Banking Committee in November of last 
year, and the rail and port titles were reported on the same day by the 
Commerce Committee. Combining these titles into one piece of 
legislation makes extraordinary sense when one considers the urgent 
need to improve security in all areas of our Nation's multimodal 
transportation network.
  As ranking member of the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction 
over public transportation, I will focus my remarks on the transit 
portion of this legislation, though the need for improved security is 
equally great at our rail network and ports. Let me begin by noting 
that during the last Congress, the Senate unanimously passed the Public 
Transportation Terrorism

[[Page 8053]]

Prevention Act of 2004, which is identical to the transit title in the 
legislation we are introducing today. Unfortunately, that legislation 
was never enacted into law, and the threat to transit continues. Just 
last week the Department of Homeland Security issued a new warning to 
transit systems to remain alert against possible terrorist attacks. 
According to the Associated Press, the warning said that four people 
had been arrested over the last several months in separate incidents 
involving videotaping of European subway stations and trains or similar 
activity, which provides ``indications of continued terrorist interest 
in mass transit systems as targets.''
  Last year, the London subway system was the target of a tragic attack 
that left 50 people dead, and in 2004, almost 200 people were killed 
when bombs exploded on commuter rail trains in Madrid. In fact, in 
2002, the GAG reported that one-third of all terrorist attacks 
worldwide are against transit systems. Despite this significant threat, 
security funding has been grossly inadequate, and, as a result, our 
Nation's transit systems have been unable to implement necessary 
security improvements, including those that have been identified by the 
Department of Homeland Security. In an editorial last July, just after 
the London attacks, the Baltimore Sun stated that: Since September 11, 
2001, the Federal Government has spent $18 billion on aviation 
security. Transit systems, which carry 16 times more passengers daily, 
have received about $250 million. That is a ridiculous imbalance.
  The editorial goes on to state:

       How would those in charge of the nation's public transit 
     systems spend the extra money? Chiefly for necessities like 
     security cameras, radios, training an extra security 
     personnel. Those aren't extravagant requests.

  Let me give one example of a critical need right here with respect to 
Washington's Metro. Their greatest security need is a backup control 
operations center. This need was identified by the Federal Transit 
Administration in its initial security assessment and then identified 
again by the Department of Homeland Security in its subsequent security 
assessment. This critical need remains unaddressed because it has been 
unfunded. This legislation would authorize the funding to make this and 
other urgently needed security upgrades at transit systems around the 
country.
  We know that transit systems are potential targets for terrorist 
attacks. We know the vital role these systems play in our Nation's 
economic infrastructure. We can wait no longer to make these security 
investments.
  I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, for 
his excellent leadership on transit security and Senator Reed for his 
strong and continued commitment on this issue. I also commend the 
leadership of the Commerce Committee for their foresight in moving the 
port and rail titles of this legislation. I thank all of our colleagues 
who have joined as cosponsors of this legislation, and I urge the full 
Senate to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG:
  S. 2792. A bill to revise and extend certain provisions of the Public 
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. GREGG. As we seen in recent years, our Nation is not immune from 
major public health and medical emergencies such as the terrorist 
attacks on 9/11 or Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Many of us were living 
under a false sense of security that the United States was not 
susceptible to major terrorist attacks. We also believed that our 
Federal, state, and local governments had all the appropriate emergency 
preparedness measures in place to handle even the worst-case disasters, 
like the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina or a pandemic outbreak 
of avian flu.
  Prior to 9/11, our Nation's public health system provided passive 
surveillance to detect and track the spread of infectious diseases and 
to educate the public on how to better protect themselves. Are we 
better prepared today to handle a national public health emergency than 
we were prior to 9/11? I would say yes. But, we need to do more.
  In the five years since 9/11 our Nation's public health system has 
begun to transform into a health system able to respond to public 
health emergencies, whether it is a terrorist attack, such as the 
anthrax, or a natural event.
  The Bioterrorism and Public Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 
2002, which I co-authored, provided a number of critical provisions to 
strengthen our Nation's public health infrastructure after we were 
attacked on 9/11. The act has authorized almost $8 billion for state 
and local public health and hospital preparedness to increase medical 
surge capacity and surveillance capabilities. The act created the 
Office of Public Health and Emergency Preparedness at HHS to coordinate 
Federal public health and medical emergency preparedness and response, 
such as significant increases of vaccines, antivirals, and medical 
supplies, such as gloves, masks and first-aid equipment for rapid 
deployment anywhere in the U.S. through the Strategic National 
Stockpile. The act also strengthened border protection authorities, 
including quarantine and isolation, and food importation and our water 
supply.
  While the Bioterrorism and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2002 
improved our Nation's public health and medical response 
infrastructure, much work remain. We still cannot say with any 
certainty that states are more prepared than before 9/11 because we 
still do not have meaningful standards to evaluate our level of 
preparedness. Once states develop preparedness plans, we must test and 
evaluate them. Individuals throughout all levels of government and the 
private sector agree that one of the biggest public health weaknesses 
is the lack of adequate testing and evaluation of the response plans 
long before an emergency occurs.
  Now that we've had almost five years to strengthen our capacity to 
respond effectively to a national emergency, we need to now shift our 
focus to areas that are especially at a high risk of a terrorist attack 
or a natural emergency. The Federal government must play a role, but 
cannot stand alone. The state and local public health and medical first 
responders will be on front lines during a national emergency. State 
and local governments have the in-depth knowledge of their own medical 
surge capacity and response plans and must play a significant role in 
their own preparedness preparations.
  We need to do more to encourage states and regions to coordinate and 
share resources, including personnel, hospital beds and medical 
supplies during a major emergency. The public health and emergency 
medical response community agrees that it is critical to establish 
regional agreements among neighboring states. A regional approach will 
greatly increase a state's surge capacity to handle a major public 
health emergency. Incentivizing states to coordinate emergency 
preparedness planning is critical. My state of New Hampshire, along 
with Maine and Vermont, have established memo of understanding to share 
resources, such as medical personnel and hospital beds, during an 
emergency in the region.
  Finally, we must establish coordination among all levels of 
government--from the Federal government all the way down to the city 
and town leaders. The Federal response during a national emergency is 
managed by the Department of Homeland Security and guided by the 
National Response Plan (NRP). The NRP directs the Department of Health 
and Human Services (HHS) to lead the Federal public health and medical 
response and support the state and local first-responders. It is 
essential that clear and robust lines of communication are developed 
between federal agencies to effectively prepare for and respond to 
national emergencies.
  Our Nation has certainly had its share of very difficult 
circumstances to overcome in recent years. I believe these incidents 
have given us a real wake-up call that we must prepare at all levels of 
government to provide a

[[Page 8054]]

rapid and robust response. I believe the bill I am introducing today 
will focus on all levels of government to be accountable and prepared 
to better respond to national public health and medical emergencies.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 2793. A bill to enhance research and education in the areas of 
pharmaceutical and biotechnology science and engineering, including 
therapy development and manufacturing, analytical technologies, 
modeling, and informa-
tics; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Pharmaceutical Technology and Education Enhancement Act. The 
legislation that I introduce today would improve pharmaceutical and 
biotechnological development and manufacturing through education and 
research at our nation's institutions of higher education. By expanding 
pharmaceutical science, technology and engineering research within our 
universities, this bill aims to expedite the drug manufacturing 
process, thereby producing quality pharmaceuticals at a more affordable 
cost to consumers.
  In 1999, 8.2 percent of total health care spending in the United 
States was attributed to prescription drugs. By 2010, prescription 
drugs are expected to account for 14 percent of our nation's health 
care spending. In addition, the average cost of bringing a new drug to 
market has risen 50 percent in the last five years, now costing as much 
as $1,700,000,000.
  The trend of rising pharmaceutical costs is disturbing as it 
discourages innovation and impedes efforts to fight disease and address 
important public health concerns. High pharmaceutical manufacturing 
costs associated with outdated manufacturing processes significantly 
contribute to the rising cost of prescription drugs and overall health 
care in our country.
  This legislation would establish a partnership between the Food and 
Drug Administration and other federal agencies, the pharmaceutical and 
medical industries, and the National Institute for Pharmaceutical 
Technology and Education whose member institutions include Purdue 
University, in my home state of Indiana, and ten other exemplary 
research universities throughout the country. This collaboration will 
expand the ability of those in the academic research field to 
contribute to the medical technology and pharmaceutical industries to 
create better quality products with more efficient, less costly 
manufacturing.
  Without a change in the pharmaceutical manufacturing process, health 
care costs in this country will continue to rise and prevalent public 
health concerns will remain unanswered. Engaging the academic community 
in this process is vital and I urge my colleagues to join me as co-
sponsors of this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, 
        Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 2794. A bill to ensure the equitable provision of pension and 
medical benefits to Department of Energy contractor employees; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Reid, Baucus, Bingaman, 
Harkin, Mikulski and Cantwell join me in introducing legislation to 
protect the pensions and health care of America's nuclear defense and 
energy workers who provide critical services to support our national 
defense and energy security.
  Our bill reverses a policy the Bush administration recently issued to 
eliminate secure pensions and good health care for workers under 
Department of Energy contracts. This policy is bad for workers and bad 
for business. By attacking their secure pensions and quality health 
care benefits, this administration is undermining our government's 
ability to protect our Nation and strengthen our economy. And it is 
broadcasting a message that American workers' secure retirement and 
good health care should be put on the chopping block. The Federal 
Government should be setting a good example with strong benefits for 
workers, instead of leading a race to the bottom.
  By refusing to cover the costs for secure pensions, this 
administration is forcing contractors to put their employees into 
defined contribution plans. Workers will bear the risks of uncertain 
stock markets and the risk of outliving their savings. And businesses, 
instead of being free to choose which type of retirement plan is best 
for their workers, will be forced into a one-size-fits-all model.
  The American Academy of Actuaries, the professionals who understand 
as well as anyone the benefit system in America, strongly objects to 
the Department's new policy, pointing out that it takes away 
contractors' ability to choose the type of benefit plans offered to 
workers and undermines retirement security. They urge that this policy 
be immediately rescinded.
  This is a particular concern given the timing of this announcement. 
Right now we have a pension bill in conference designed to strengthen 
the defined benefit pension system.
  At this critical time, the administration should be supporting the 
growth and expansion of the defined benefit pension system. But instead 
it is going the other way, by forcing businesses to abandon defined 
benefit pension plans. This says to me that this President is not 
committed to a secure retirement for Americans. First he tried to 
privatize Social Security; now he's trying to use our federal 
contracting system to do the same with our Nation's nuclear defense 
workers.
  The administration is also attacking employer-provided health care, 
by saying the government will not pay more than the average in the 
industry for health care costs under Department of Energy contracts. In 
other words, it will pay only the average or below.
  And the quality health care benefits Department of Energy contractors 
offer workers will have to be replaced by limited medical plans that 
unfairly penalize the least healthy workers.
  These high deductible plans don't work for people who need health 
care the most. Persons with chronic health conditions or who are hit 
with illness or injury will have to pay significantly more than they 
would with the comprehensive insurance that the administration's 
proposal eliminates. These individuals will never be able to find the 
funds to cover the care they need before meeting the high-deductible 
needed for their plan to cover them. Is this how we want to treat 
American workers?
  If the President's goal is to cut spending for health care, this is 
the wrong way to go about it. Workers with the kind of high-deductible 
health plan President Bush has mandated for Department of Energy 
contractors are more likely to avoid, skip or delay the care that 
prevents a medical crisis. This means workers will get care when they 
are sicker and may need costly hospital or emergency room care. 
Shifting costs to workers drives up costs instead of cutting them.
  Last week Senator Reid, Senators Baucus, Bingaman, Harkin, Mikulski, 
Cantwell, Murray and I sent a letter to the White House calling on the 
President to overturn this ill-conceived policy and call off his attack 
on the retirement security and health care of these skilled workers. We 
hope that the President will reconsider. But if he does not, we will be 
looking for every opportunity to address this issue through this 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                          ____________________