In This Section...

	Sen. Jeffords [I-VT]: [Introducing S. 1011] Mr. President, I have long been a proponent of measures that support historic preservation and economic development, and it is in keeping with...
	Sen. Kennedy [D-MA]: [Introducing S. 1012] Mr. President, it is time for a new effort in Congress to enact the Patients' Bill of Rights. The Senate has approved major bipartisan...
	Sen. Feinstein [D-CA]: Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Texas, Senator John Cornyn,...
	Sen. Cornyn [R-TX]: Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague, Senator DIANNE FEINSTEIN of California and other of our distinguished colleagues in introducing The Homeland...
	Sen. Snowe [R-ME]: [Introducing S. 1014] Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Supporting Our Patriotic Businesses Act. This bill addresses some key concerns I have regarding the...
	Sen. DeMint [R-SC]: [Introducing S. 1015] Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Health Care Choice Act of 2005, a bill that would help Americans afford health insurance. ...
	Sen. Chafee [R-RI]: [Introducing S. 1017] Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation reauthorizing appropriations for the Water Resources Research Act. The Chairman and Ranking...
	Sen. Sarbanes [D-MD]: [Introducing S. 1018] Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act of 2005, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators...
	Sen. Durbin [D-IL]: [Introducing S. 1019] Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Welcome Home G.I. Bill. Similar to the GI Bill for soldiers returning from World War II, this...
	Sen. Coleman [R-MN]: Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help the United States compete in an increasingly global economy in order to keep and to grow good paying, high...
	Sen. Enzi [R-WY]: [Introducing S. 1021] Mr. President I rise today to introduce the Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2005. I am pleased to be joined in this important effort by...
	Sen. Kennedy [D-MA]: Mr. President, It is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act and increase the opportunities...
	Sen. Smith [R-OR]: [Introducing S. 1022] Mr. President, water and energy are precious resources that we must manage as efficiently as possible. That is why I am joining with my...
	Sen. Landrieu [D-LA]: Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation, The Stewardship for our Coasts and Opportunities for Reliable Energy Act--SCORE Act--which will ensure that...
	Sen. Clinton [D-NY]: [Introducing S. 1028] Mr. President, today I am introducing the Military Personnel Financial Services Education Act of 2005. Senator Collins, my colleague on the Armed...
	Sen. Collins [R-ME]: Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator CLINTON on legislation that will address the persistent problems that we have experienced with the sale of...
	Sen. Reed [D-RI]: [Introducing S. 1030] Mr. President, today I introduce two bills to expand access to college. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators COLLINS, KENNEDY,...
	Sen. Cantwell [D-WA]: [Introducing S. 1031] Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Electric Reliability Act of 2005, which I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senator...
	Sen. Boxer [D-CA]: [Introducing S. 1032] Mr. President, at the end of 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act became law. I was a member of the conference committee on that...
	Sen. McCain [R-AZ]: [Introducing S. 1033] Mr. President, after more than 5 months of work, I am pleased to be joined by Senators KENNEDY, BROWNBACK, LIEBERMAN, GRAHAM, and SALAZAR in...
	Sen. Kennedy [D-MA]: Mr. President, it's an honor to join Senator MCCAIN and Congressmen GUTIERREZ, KOLBE, and FLAKE in introducing our bipartisan legislation to reform the Nation's...

Record Text

Sen. James Jeffords [I-VT]: [Introducing S. 1011] Mr. President, I have long been a proponent of measures that support historic preservation and economic development, and it is in keeping with that tradition that I rise today to introduce the National Historic Country Store Preservation Act of 2005.

This bill establishes a national program to support historic country store preservation that will aid in the revitalization of rural villages and community centers nationwide.

For many Americans, the country store invokes an image of a simpler life before much of this country became stamped with shopping malls and the "big-box" store.

But for thousands of people living in Vermont and for millions more living in rural communities across the United States, a visit to the local country store is a regular part of one's daily life.

They are centers of commercial activity in the towns they serve and embody the core of American small business entrepreneurship.

Many of these vital small businesses have been passed down among family members for generations. They are operated in buildings that have existed for as long as 150 years.

In fact, by one of the more vigorous standards in Vermont, a country store is only considered historic if it was built before the Winooski River Flood of 1927.

In my hometown of Shrewsbury, VT, the Pierce Store was the hub of our small community when my wife Liz and I settled there in 1963.

Run by the four Pierce siblings, Marjorie, Glendon, Marion and Gordon, the store was the place to go for a neighborly chat as much as for your milk and butter.

Children would get off the bus to buy their penny candy. Glendon Pierce could tell a great tale, and the political banter was endless.

With its antique cash register and woodstove, this was the quintessential general store.

Unfortunately, the Pierce Store closed its doors some years back and Shrewsbury lost a vital part of its identity.

There has been a recent attempt to revive the store, and I hope, for the sake of my community, it proves successful.

Despite their small relative size and market share, historic country stores have demonstrated incredible resiliency, surviving floods and fires, overcoming economic downturns, and reformulating their inventories to meet modern needs.

According to the Vermont Grocers' Association, country stores account for an estimated $55 million annually in retail sales in Vermont.

Nonetheless, competition from larger chain stores continues to increase.

When coupled with the additional cost and expertise required to maintain their aging structures and external facades, today's remaining country stores are hard-pressed to overcome these unprecedented challenges.

In Vermont, a handful of historic country stores close each year and the cumulative impact of those losses is experienced throughout the State.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has listed the entire State of Vermont among America's "Eleven Most Endangered Places,"

That is due to the threat that large-scale development poses to Vermont's small, independent retailers.

Yet country stores remain fixtures of Vermont's landscape. The Vermont Alliance of Independent Country Stores estimates that more than 115 historic country stores are scattered about the State.

Across the country, thousands of these establishments help to define the character of rural life.

These country stores draw local customers and tourists alike, offering convenient access to newspapers, groceries and local specialty foods in a typically neighborly atmosphere.

Many stores also double as local post offices or outdoor camping and home hardware goods suppliers. It is not unusual, and highly recommended, that customers buy a fresh whole wedge of cheddar cheese from a 38-pound wheel next to the cash register.

Fathers can buy earthworms and tackle and take their daughters to the nearby fishing hole for an afternoon excursion.

The National Historic Country Store Preservation Act of 2005 is designed to build upon the momentum that country store preservation work has generated in Vermont and to gather useful models and information to develop a program that supports historic, rural country stores nationwide.

My legislation authorizes the U.S. Economic Development Administration to make grants to national, State and local agencies and non-profit organizations to support historic country store preservation efforts.

The bill promotes the study of best practices for preserving structures, improving profitability and promoting collaboration among country store proprietors.

In addition, the bill establishes a revolving loan fund. The fund will be used for research and restoration work.

It will be used to improve our understanding of existing needs and provide the assistance required to address them.

This bill seeks to sustain America's rural heritage by uniting small business development and historic preservation.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in my efforts to protect our Nation's historic country stores and revitalize our rural communities.

I ask that a summary of the legislation be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]: [Introducing S. 1012] Mr. President, it is time for a new effort in Congress to enact the Patients' Bill of Rights. The Senate has approved major bipartisan legislation to end the abuses of managed care and HMOs before, but final enactment of this important measure was blocked by the HMOs and the vested interests of the corporate world that deny working Americans their basic rights and a needed voice in challenging decisions that deny them basic medical care. It was blocked too by an administration that professes to support patients' rights, but does all it can to block legislation to guarantee those rights.

Despite our outstanding researchers and professionals, families across the country are overwhelmingly and justifiably concerned that medical decisions are too often made by insurance industry accountants, and not their doctors. HMO profits too often take priority over patient needs. It is time for Congress to end the abuses of patients and physicians by HMOs and the insurance industry. Too often, managed care is mismanaged care. No amount of distortions or smokescreens by insurance companies can change the facts.

The Patients' Bill of Rights can stop these abuses. For millions of Americans who rely on health insurance to protect them when serious illness strikes, the Patients' Bill of Rights is literally a matter of life and death.

It's important to remember what this debate is really about. It's not about lawyers. It's not about insurance companies. It's about patients--mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, sisters and brothers. It's about families around the country who will someday face the challenge of serious illness and deserve the best in health care--the same care that all members of the Senate want for ourselves and our loved ones. But too many families are denied the care they need and deserve because of abuses by HMOs and other insurance companies.

The legislation we are introducing today will end those abuses. Several of its provisions are especially important--specialty care, clinical trials, and prescription drugs.

In each of these areas, care is too often delayed or denied by insurance companies more interested in profits than patients. Access to specialty care for serious and complex illnesses is a critical element of good health care. Yet denial of needed specialists is one of the most common abuses in the current system.

Patients with cancer and other serious illnesses need specialty care. Often, their best hope for a cure or for precious extra years of life is participation in a clinical trial. But too often, both are lacking. Patients with cancer or other serious illnesses and their physicians must fight HMOs to take advantage of this opportunity.

Traditionally, insurance companies have paid for the routine costs of doctors and hospitals in clinical trials. But HMOs frequently refuse to do so, with devastating effects on patients and research alike. Our legislation will end this abuse.

Another abuse that will be ended by our plan is the denial of medically necessary drugs not on an HMO plan's list. One group that suffers from this denial is the mentally ill. Some of the most dramatic advances in medicine in recent years have been the development of effective drugs to treat persons with serious mental illness. Too often, however, they're told to settle for older, cheaper, less effective drugs with harmful side effects, because an HMO refuses to pay for the best standard of care.

Our legislation guarantees that patients can get medically necessary drugs, even if they are not on the HMO's list. Equally important, our bill guarantees that these drugs will be provided at a cost no greater than the normal cost-sharing for other medications. Access to needed drugs is a concern for every family, particularly when new cures are increasingly based on new drugs today.

The list of abuses goes on and on. People across the country know these abuses are wrong. Managed care practices that cause these tragedies cost lives, and ending these abuses is a matter of simple justice and common decency.

The Patients' Bill of Rights will protect families from insurance company bureaucracies that rob them of their peace of mind, their health, or even their lives. The bill is a guarantee that medical decisions will be made by doctors and patients, not managed care accountants. It is actively supported by doctors, nurses, patients, small businesses, religious organizations, and working families. The support is impressive in its breadth, its depth and its diversity.

It is time to guarantee these basic rights for patients. It is time for Congress to pass this bill. Every doctor knows it. Every nurse knows it. Every patient knows it. And every Senator knows it too.

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

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]: Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Texas, Senator John Cornyn, as well as Senators Lautenberg, Hutchison, Boxer, Corzine, Schumer, Clinton and Senator Nelson of Florida.

It is time that Congress ensures that funding to bolster the security of our nation goes to where the threat is the greatest.

Unfortunately, billions of dollars in homeland security funds to states and local communities--including $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2005--are now being distributed to areas that are not at the greatest risk of terrorist attack.

To do this, we need to adopt risk-based analysis to determine where our homeland security funding goes, rather than continue with the present system of ad hoc determinations, "small-state minimums" and poorly understood decision-making, that leave some targets exposed to threats while sending resources to places where there is little chance of terrorist attack.

This legislation will ensure that priorities are set according to analysis of risk and threat. Specifically it directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate funding to homeland security grants based on risk analysis.

This is the core of the bill, and I believe it is so important that I will quote in full the operative language, which appears in the very first substantive section of the legislation: "The Secretary shall ensure that homeland security grants are allocated based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent practicable."

This direction covers the four major first-responder grant programs administered by Department of Homeland Security in addition to grants for seaport and airport security--called "covered grants" in the bill, including: 1. the State Homeland Security Grant Program; 2. the Urban Area Security Initiative; 3. the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program; and 4. the Citizens Corps Program.

Reduces the "small state minimum" to 25 percent per State. Current practice requires each state to get .75 percent of much of the grant funding. That means 37.5 percent of the funds are marked for distribution before any risk analysis.

Requires grants be designed to meet "essential capabilities." Essential capabilities are what we get for the money spent--the ability to address the risk by reducing vulnerability to attack and by diminishing the consequences of such an attack by effective response.

Ensures that States quickly and effectively pass on Federal funds to where they are needed so that Federal funds are not held back.

The bottom line is this: if Federal funds are going to be distributed to improve our national ability to "prevent, prepare for, respond to, or mitigate threatened or actual terrorist attacks," those funds should be distributed in accordance with a risk-based analysis.

In this post-Cold War world of asymmetric threat there are two fundamental principles we should apply to efforts to make our nation more secure against a terrorist attack: the first is that understanding and predicting what terrorists will do requires risk analysis.

It is an uncomfortable fact that, even with the best intelligence, we will never know exactly how, when and where terrorists will strike--the best we can do is try to assess risks and threats, and make predictions.

The second principle is that our defense resources are finite.

The total amount of money, time and personnel that can be devoted to homeland security is limited. That means tough choices have to be made by both the Congress, and by Executive Branch officials at the Federal, State and Local level.

Together these two principles define what we need to do for our Nation: accurately assess the risks of an array of possible terrorist attacks; measure the vulnerability of all of these possible targets, and then allocate our resources based on that assessment.

Three years ago, we created the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to create an institution that could perform this task.

The core element of the new Department was to be the Information Assessment and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, which would "merge under one roof the capability to identify and assess current and future threats to the homeland, map those threats against our vulnerabilities, issue timely warnings and take preventive and protective action."

We are failing in this effort.

The 9/11 Commission agreed, finding that "nothing has been harder for officials--executive or legislative than to set priorities, making hard choices in allocating limited resources."

The Commission concluded, "Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities."

This bill does just that.

The New York Times, an editorial published last month, titled "Real Security, or Politics as Usual?" agreed:

Any terrorist who has followed how domestic security money is distributed in this country must be encouraged by the government's ineptness ..... The current formula is based in part on population, rather than risk, and contains state minimums, so even sparsely populated states that hardly have a plausible terrorism target are raking in money. This is the formula that gave Wyoming seven times more domestic security money per capita than New York ..... If there were a successful attack on Wall Street or the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, it would be a blow to the whole nation. Defending places where the terrorist threat is greatest is not parochialism; it is defending America.

Despite these recommendations, we find again and again that scarce resources are allocated based on factors unrelated to real security.

For instance, Congress has established a "small State minimum" designed to ensure that every State gets a substantial portion of scarce resources, regardless of the measure of risk or vulnerability.

As a result, in fiscal year 2004 Wyoming spent $37.52 per capita with homeland security grants, while California and Texas spent $8.75 and $6.93 respectively.

The problem is not just in Congress. For example, a recent Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's report found that in the critical area of port security, grants are "not well coordinated with the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection."

The result is the "funding of projects with low [risk and vulnerability] scores."

A recently issued report from the Center for Security Studies and the Heritage Foundation found that there is:

no funding formula that is based on risk analysis and divorced from politics ..... [w]ith only limited resources available to achieve the almost limitless goal of protecting the entire United States ..... it is critical that we set priorities.<p>

This bill is a first step to reducing threats of terrorist attack, but Congress can not do it alone.

The Department of Homeland Security must embrace not only the concept of risk-based allocation, but also the practical aspects of the discipline. That means improving the intelligence analysis and vulnerability assessment functions of the Department.

We also need to follow through on last year's intelligence reform efforts, since the product of the Intelligence Community--analysis of the plans, intentions and capabilities of terrorist groups--is the key element in an effective risk analysis.

This will not be easy. There are lots of vested interests who will oppose such efforts. But our nation's safety is at sake. It is time to put aside pork-barrel politics and a Cold War mentality and get to work.

Last year Representatives COX and TURNER, the Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the other body's Homeland Security Committee put forth similar legislation.

That effort passed the House of Representatives as part of the Intelligence Reform Bill, but was dropped at conference--that bill has been reintroduced, and is scheduled for consideration on the floor of the House this week.

This bill is based on Chairman COX'S efforts, and with a few exceptions tracks it closely.

However, unlike the House bill, this bill makes an across-the-board reduction of the small-State minimum to .25 percent--the House bill retains a sliding scale that I believe will have the effect of undercutting its risk-based approach.

In this body, Senators COLLINS and LIEBERMAN have been working to craft risk-based legislation, which was recently reported favorably by the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

I hope that the bill introduced today will be accepted by Senators COLLINS and LIEBERMAN in the spirit in which it was drafted--as a reasoned alternative to their approach, and as a starting point for further discussions.

It is my hope that Congress will act quickly to pass this legislation. We cannot afford to wait until it is too late.

Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]: Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague, Senator DIANNE FEINSTEIN of California and other of our distinguished colleagues in introducing The Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005.

I would like to thank Senator Feinstein for her collaboration in crafting this legislation. I know that she has thoughtfully examined the current state of our Homeland Security Funding and the many other interrelated issues, and I thank her for her fine leadership as we work together exploring ways to better protect our country.

We say it often, and it is true: "9/11 changed everything." The attacks of that day were unprecedented in our history, and they brought with them the need for similarly unprecedented security measures. In an effort to respond quickly to the devastation that was wrought upon our country, the Federal Government created a system that worked to raise overall national emergency preparedness to ensure we could better guard against another such terrorist attack.

And so we embarked on the task of shoring up our airline, transportation, border, and port security. We worked to protect our critical infrastructure, to protect our cyber security, our agriculture and food supply systems.

But taxpayer dollars are not limitless, and Congress must work to ensure every penny be directed where it will do the most good. It is imperative that we guard the places across our nation where terrorists may strike and where such strikes could do the most damage to our people, our government, and our national economy. We believe this is the most responsible way to prepare for any future terrorist attack.

We need to have a system that will protect our most vulnerable population centers, and that recognizes the need to protect the critical infrastructure and vital components of our national economy. I am reminded of a recent tour I took of several Texas seaports. I visited with port directors, industry leaders, and emergency responders in and around the ports of Houston, Beaumont, and Corpus Christi. They have enormous security needs and the consequences of a terrorist attack on any of these facilities would be devastating, not only to the local communities, but to the economic engine of the whole country.

The legislation that Senator Feinstein and I now propose would require that Federal Homeland Security funds be allocated to states according to a risk-based assessment. It is vital that we better allocate our limited resources to the vulnerable places in the country we most need to protect, and that that these funds are distributed in an efficient and timely manner.

Senator Feinstein and I have evaluated the 9/11 Commission recommendations that call for allocation of money based on vulnerabilities, and our legislation provides for a distribution formula for homeland security grants based on three main criteria: Threat, vulnerability, and consequence. This would require states to quickly pass on federal funds to where they are most needed. This bill is inspired by the hard work and examination done on this issue by our colleagues in the House and Senate. We have also taken input from stakeholders in our respective States and from across the country. It is our hope and intention that by introducing this bill we can contribute and enrich the public discourse on this critical issue and help move the Nation toward a more rational and effective distribution of our homeland security resources.

Key provisions of this bill include: establishing a First Responder Grant Board, consisting of Department of Homeland Security leadership, that will rank and prioritize grant applications based on threat and vulnerability. Enabling a region that encompasses more than one State to apply for funds. The money would still pass through the States, but would go to the region to better enable coordination and planning. Provides greater flexibility in using the funds, allowing a State to use them for other hazards consistent with federally established capability standards. And it allows States to retain authority to administer grant programs, but there are penalties for States that do not pass funds to local governments within 45 days, and if a State fails to pass the funds through, local governments may petition the Department of Homeland Security to receive the funds directly.

Continuing to spread Homeland Security funds throughout the Nation irrespective of the actual risk to particular States and communities would be to ignore much of what we have learned as part of our effort to assess our vulnerabilities since the attacks of September 11. So I would urge that we swiftly work to pass this legislation, to better ensure the safety of our citizens.

Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]: [Introducing S. 1014] Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Supporting Our Patriotic Businesses Act. This bill addresses some key concerns I have regarding the impact that military call-ups have on our Nation's small businesses.

Today, I am offering my legislation in conjunction with the release of a Congressional Budget Office Report entitled "The Impact of Reserve Call-ups on Civilian Employers." I commissioned the Report a year and a half ago, because I believed then, as I do now, that our country is not doing enough for the patriotic small businesses that are owned by or employ our Guard and Reserve members; and which are negatively effected when these workers are called up in defense of our Nation.

Although I am still analyzing the Report, three key findings immediately caught my attention. For instance, the Report concludes that: 1. Thirty-five percent of Guard and Reserve members work for small businesses or are self-employed, twenty-six percent work for large businesses, thirty-six percent work for the government, Federal, State, or local, and the remainder work for non-profit organizations. Therefore, the majority of non-government employed Guard and Reserve members are either self-employed, or work for small businesses. 2. Over the past decade, the military has dramatically increased its reliance on Guard and Reserve forces. This trend has accelerated since the terrorism attacks of September 11, 2001. Guard and Reserve members make up about thirty-three percent of deployed service members supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 3. I am particularly troubled

As members of this institution charged with the duty of preserving the public trust, we should work together, on a bipartisan basis, to help diminish the unfair burden these employers and self-employed businesses shoulder.

It is difficult enough to leave friends and family behind and enter harm's way, but asking our military personnel to also jeopardize their livelihood is unconscionable. By assisting these businesses and the self-employed, we are helping to diminish important concerns of our military personnel, improving their morale and positively affecting retention.

The legislation that I offer today contains multiple provisions in support of self-employed Guard and Reserve members and the patriotic businesses that employ Guard and Reserve members.

First, it authorizes increased appropriations for the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Veteran Business Development, which offers vital services to our Nation's small businesses that are owned or employ our veterans. For instance, the office has prepared and distributed pre- and post-mobilization packets for small businesses, offers loans, and provides targeted business advice to meet the needs of our veterans and small businesses.

My bill permanently extends the authority and duties of the SBA's Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, which has served as an invaluable independent source of advice and policy on veterans' business issues.

My legislation provides that a service member does not need to satisfy any continuing education requirements, imposed with respect to their profession or occupation, while they are called up, or within the 120-day period after they are released from the call-up.

I have also included a provision which amends the Small Business Act by allowing small businesses owned by veterans and service-disabled veterans to extend their SBA program participation time limitations by the length of time that their owners are called up in defense of our Nation. Currently, small business owners who are called up to active duty in the Guard or Reserve are effectively penalized for serving because their active duty time is counted against the time limitations on participation of the Small Business Administration's programs.

Finally, my bill requires that the Department of Defense take measures to counsel Guard and Reserve members concerning the importance of notifying their employers in a timely manner after they receive Orders that they will be called up to active duty. The legislation further requires that the DoD investigate ways to diminish the lag between the time when military personnel are notified of their call-up and the time that military personnel notify their employers.

Enacting this legislation is an important first step in the right direction toward assisting the brave men and women who serve in our Guard and Reserve and the businesses that employ them. However, I realize that this legislation is merely one of many steps that can and should be taken to this end and welcome new ideas to help this constituency.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and to continue to work with me, as well as veterans, policymakers, businesses, and others, to find additional solutions to address these vital issues.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and that a section-by-section summary of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to discuss this pressing matter.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Jim DeMint [R-SC]: [Introducing S. 1015] Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Health Care Choice Act of 2005, a bill that would help Americans afford health insurance.

Approximately 45 million Americans lack health insurance. These uninsured Americans face significant hurdles in entering the insurance marketplace, including limited choices of insurers and inflexible benefit options. For most, the high cost of health insurance is the biggest impediment to getting coverage. In fact, nearly two-thirds of the uninsured are the working poor, and they cite the high cost of insurance as the primary barrier to accessing health coverage.

The cost of insurance is often increased by excessive State regulations. These State mandates raise the cost of insurance which, in turn, increases the number of Americans who are priced out of the health insurance market.

The Health Care Choice Act will allow consumers to shop for health insurance the same way they do for other insurance products--online, by mail, over the phone, or in consultation with an insurance agent in their hometown. The Act empowers consumers by giving them the ability to purchase an affordable health insurance policy with a range of options.

Consumers will no longer be limited to picking only those policies that meet their state's regulations and mandated benefits. Instead, they can examine the wide array of insurance policies qualified in one State and offered for sale in multiple states. Consumers can choose the policy that best suits their needs, and their budget, without regard to State boundaries. Individuals looking for basic health insurance coverage can opt for a policy with few benefit mandates, and such a policy will be more affordable. On the other hand, consumers who have an interest in a particular benefit, such as infertility treatments, will be able to purchase a policy which includes that benefit.

The Health Care Choice Act will help the uninsured find affordable health insurance, while also providing every American with more and better health insurance choices. The bill harnesses the power of the marketplace to allow Americans to tailor their insurance choices to their individual needs.

I am grateful to Congressman Shadegg for introducing the Health Care Choice Act in the House today, and I urge my Senate colleagues to support this bill.

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

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Lincoln Chafee [R-RI]: [Introducing S. 1017] Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation reauthorizing appropriations for the Water Resources Research Act. The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senators INHOFE and JEFFORDS, respectively, as well as Senators CLINTON, LAUTENBERG, BAUCUS, MURKOWSKI, CRAPO, ENZI and CORZINE have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation to address our nation's water resource concerns.

Originally enacted in 1964, the Water Resources Research Act authorizes the establishment of a nationwide, State-based network of Water Resources Research Institutes. These Institutes represent a partnership among State universities; Federal, State, and local governments; and stakeholders aimed at solving problems of water supply and water quality. They are located at the land-grant universities in each of the 50 States, the territories and the District of Columbia.

The 54 Water Resources Research Institutes are charged with conducting competent research to develop new technologies and more efficient methods for resolving local, State and national water-resources problems; fostering new research scientists into water resources fields; and facilitating water research coordination and the application of research results through information dissemination and technology transfer.

The Institutes provide important support to the States in their long-term water planning, policy development, and management. A significant portion of the Institutes' work is intended to help State and local water managers implement Federal regulations in ways that are tailored to local and State institutions and natural conditions. Water quality regulations, drinking water standards, wastewater treatment, and water reuse programs are examples of areas in which the Institutes provide research and information transfer.

In my own State, the Rhode Island Water Resources Center is located at the University of Rhode Island. The Center's recent activities have included working with the Rhode Island Airport Corporation to develop a plan for mitigating runoff contamination due to deicing and anti-icing operations at T.F.Green Airport. Other work conducted by the Center has encompassed evaluating the scour potential of streams and river banks in the State to study how they may be affected by land use and other changes; developing a statewide public water-supply GIS coverage program; and working with communities to evaluate MTBE drinking water contamination.

In addition to research, the outreach and information transfer activities of the Institutes are highly valued by multi-level stakeholders at the local, State and regional levels. The Institutes are the training grounds for the next generation of the Nation's water scientists, economists and engineers. This nationwide network of water institutes provides an efficient and effective method to meet the diverse water resource needs in different parts of our country.

Another key component of the program is the importance of its small Federal grants for leveraging funding from non-federal sources to identify and address local and State needs for water research. Without this Federal seed money, many institutes would lose a valuable resource and the visibility within their universities and among Federal, State and local water agencies for working on challenging water resource problems. The Federal grants allow immense leverage capacity for conducting water research activities and are the key to maintaining a valuable national network.

The legislation I am introducing today reauthorizes $62 million in funding through fiscal year 2010 for the Nation's Water Resources Research Institutes and $32 million for the Act's Interstate Research Program. I look forward to working with the bill's original cosponsors as well as my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to ensure this national network of university-based research institutes continues to support the water resources needs of the Nation.

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

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Paul Sarbanes [D-MD]: [Introducing S. 1018] Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act of 2005, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators MIKULSKI and WARNER. This bill will guarantee transit benefits to all Federal employees in the National Capital Area and will remove a restriction that currently forbids Federal agencies from providing employee shuttles to and from transit stations. This measure is an important step forward in our efforts to encourage transit ridership and improve the quality of life for federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region and throughout the Nation.

All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impact, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 2003 Americans in 85 urban areas spent 3.7 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $64.8 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. In response, Americans are turning to alternative transportation in record numbers. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that Americans now take over 9 billion trips on transit per year, the highest level in more than 40 years. The Texas Transportation Institute has estimated that without transit, the 85 urban areas they studied would have suffered an additional 1.1 billion hours of delay, a 27 percent increase, which would have added $18 billion to the national cost of congestion.

Transit benefit programs are playing a vital role in increasing transit ridership, which benefits both transit users and drivers. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century amended the tax code to allow financial incentives related to commuting costs for both employers and employees. These transit benefits allowed employers to offer a tax-free financial incentive toward the costs of transit commuting, starting at $65 per month and raised in 2005 to $105 per month.

Based upon the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are clear improvements to congestion, energy efficiency, and air quality from transit benefit programs. According to their findings, an employer with 1,000 employees that participates in a combination of transit benefits, carpool, and telecommuting programs can take credit for taking 175 cars off the road, saving 44,000 gallons of gasoline per year, and cutting global warming pollution by 420 tons per year on average.

In April 2000, an Executive Order was signed requiring all executive branch agencies in the National Capital Region to offer transit benefits to their employees. As a result, Federal employees commuting to Washington, D.C. from Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, several counties in Northern Virginia, and as far away as West Virginia, are encouraged to choose transit as their means to get to work.

According to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation, more than 150,000 employees--more than one-third of all Federal employees in the National Capital Region--joined the Federal transit benefit program created by the Executive Order. These program participants alone have eliminated an estimated 12,500 single-occupancy vehicles from Washington, D.C. area roads, helping to reduce congestion and improve air quality for our region.

The Executive Order, however, is limited. It does not cover employees in the legislative and judicial branches, for example, or in dozens of independent agencies. While many of the employers in those organizations provide transit benefits to their employees, the implementation and level of benefit is up to the discretion of individual offices. As such, many of these organizations provide limited benefits or do not provide any benefits at all. Guaranteed transit benefits would give these employees more choice in their commuting options and provide an additional incentive to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit.

Of course, such incentives will be ineffective if employees lack access to transit services. In my own state of Maryland, the United States Food and Drug Administration planned to use its own resources to provide a shuttle service for its employees from its new White Oak facility to an area Metro station. When they investigated providing this service, FDA officials found that the current law does not allow federal agencies to use their own vehicles to shuttle employees to mass transit stations.

The potential impact of this restriction on regional congestion is not insignificant. By the middle of this year, FDA expects to have 1,850 employees located at the new White Oak facility, and plans have been made to eventually house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at the new facility. The lack of access from FDA's new campus to a transit station represents a lost opportunity for reducing congestion, improving our environment and elevating the quality of life for employees.

This type of lost opportunity occurs across the nation. Nationally, the Federal Government employs more than 2.6 million civilian workers at more than 3,000 Federal Government office buildings. At Federal offices throughout the country, transit use is often limited as a commuting option due to lack of employee access to a transit station or a bus stop.

The Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would address both of these issues faced by Federal employees. First, the bill would put into law the Executive Order's requirement that transit pass benefits be made available to all qualified Federal employees in the National Capital Region. The bill also extends the requirement beyond executive branch agencies to include the legislative and judicial branches and the independent agencies, providing guaranteed transit benefits to thousands of additional federal employees in the Washington, DC region.

Second, the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would remove the restriction that prohibits a Federal agency from operating a shuttle service to a public transit facility. With this legislation, any Federal agency, anywhere in the United States, can choose to provide a transit shuttle service for their employees. By providing access to commuting alternatives, Federal agencies will be able to provide a benefit to their employees that can make getting to work easier, more affordable, and more employee-friendly. It will also provide an opportunity to help reduce congestion and improve air quality across the Nation.

Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown 20 percent, but the time spent by commuters in traffic has grown by over 200 percent. Each year, traffic congestion wastes nine billion gallons of fuel. By encouraging federal employees to look to transit and by providing access to transit stations, we can help reduce congestion, improve the environment, and promote an improved quality of life.

I am introducing the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act because of the opportunities it will give federal agencies to support public transportation, both by providing employee access to transit facilities across the nation, and by providing transit benefits to federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by encouraging the use of transportation alternatives. This legislation is strongly supported by federal employees, transit providers, and local elected officials, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with letters of support, be printed in the RECORD. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act.

There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]: [Introducing S. 1019] Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Welcome Home G.I. Bill. Similar to the GI Bill for soldiers returning from World War II, this Welcome Home G.I Bill establishes a program of benefits designed to reward returning veterans and ease their transition into civilian life.

These benefits would be available to troops who deployed for six months or more outside the United States for combat, contingency, peacekeeping or humanitarian operations after September 11, 2001. The bill also covers troops who do not meet the six-month service requirement because they were discharged earlier for medical or hardship reasons.

This bill provides our returning heroes with improved health care, education and job training assistance, and help with a down-payment on a home.

Returning troops deserve better health care coverage. Currently, upon separating from the military, active duty service members receive six months of healthcare coverage as a "transition" benefit and thereafter may enroll for an additional 18 months under the Continued Health Care Benefit Program provided they pay required premiums. Reservists released from active duty can pay premiums to obtain a year of coverage for every three months they were mobilized.

Under the Welcome Home G.I. Bill, a returning veteran who is unable to secure health care coverage from an employer would be entitled to exactly the same medical care they received while in the service. Veterans would be entitled to this benefit for up to five years.

Our troops also deserve better medical screening before and after deployments. Current law establishes a system of pre-deployment and post-deployment medical examinations, including an assessment of mental health and the drawing of blood samples, to accurately record the medical condition of members before and after their deployment.

The Welcome Home G.I. bill improves the quality of pre-deployment and post-deployment medical screening by requiring that the pre-deployment exam include disease screening and the collection of clinical data such as vital signs, immunization history and past physical or mental health conditions. It also requires post-deployment medical screening to include a self-administered survey in which the service member may report information about any relevant exposures during the period of deployment. These provisions will help identify war-related ailments so the information will be available to answer any future questions about the ailment's connection to military service.

Returning warriors need access to educational opportunities that can enhance their employment prospects in civilian life after they depart military service. Currently active duty troops have the option of enrolling in the Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits program, under which the service member contributes $100 per month for 12 months while in service and then later may receive up to $1,004 per month in education benefits for up to 36 months. Currently, mobilized reservists receive some portion of the active duty benefit depending on the length of their activation. Under the Welcome Home G.I. Bill, our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans both active duty and mobilized reserve component troops would receive education or job training benefits worth a maximum of $75,000 over 48 months. So

Finally, the Welcome Home G.I. Bill helps our returning veterans realize the American dream of owning their own home. For a 5-year period after completion of their qualifying service, returning veterans may receive a tax-free $5,000 down payment for the first-time purchase of a home.

Our veterans who have endured the burdens of war, under the most trying conditions, at tremendous personal risk and sacrifice, deserve more than they are currently provided by this Nation upon their return. They deserve the improved health care, education and job training, and home-ownership assistance which this bill provides. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. PRYOR):

S. 1020. A bill to make the United States competitive in a global economy; to the Committee on Finance.

Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN]: Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help the United States compete in an increasingly global economy in order to keep and to grow good paying, high quality jobs here at home. I am very pleased to be joined by my very good friend and colleague, Senator MARK PRYOR, who cares as deeply about these issues as I do.

In recent years much has been written about globalization--especially the "outsourcing" of American jobs overseas. In fact, my hometown paper, the St. Paul Pioneer Press recently ran an editorial highlighting a survey done by the Federal Reserve that shows despite all the talk of "outscouring" and "lost jobs", globalization has resulted in more jobs and more money for Minnesota's workers. I ask unanimous consent that this article be included in the record along with my statement. However, that same editorial warned that as China, India and the European Union work to expand their own market opportunities by modernizing their infrastructure and improving the skills of their workforce, there is no guarantee that the world's best companies will continue to invest here at home.

Yet, at the same time that the Labor Department has projected that new jobs requiring advanced science, engineering and technical training will increase four times faster than the average national job growth rate, only 36 percent of 9th-12th graders in Minnesota are taking upper level math courses, and only 22 percent of are taking upper level science. Moreover, in a high tech economy that values knowledge and ideas as much as the products they produce the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has reported that the time it takes someone to get a patent is exploding. The facts read loud and clear: in order to maintain our place as the leader in tomorrow's economy, America must act now to maintain our competitive advantage and remain ahead of the curve.

That is why we are introducing the Collaborative Opportunities to Mobilize and Promote Education, Technology, and Enterprise Act of 2005 or the COMPETE ACT of 2005. The COMPETE Act is based on three simple, fundamental ideas: 1. The U.S. needs to maintain its competitive advantage in robust technology and innovation; 2. We must continue to "upskill" our workforce to ensure they have the skills necessary to remain competitive in a global economy that is more reliant on technology than ever before; and 3. We must utilize private-public partnerships to help improve education in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

America's economic strength is rooted in its ability to innovate, and so the COMPETE Act strengthens and expands the R&D tax credit. Expanding the R&D tax credit will help American companies to stay on the forefront of the technological revolution. This credit helps fuel job creation here at home and enables companies to bring more products and services to market.

The COMPETE Act also reforms and improves the U.S. Patent Trademark Office (PTO). It is no secret that patents and trademarks are the currency that drives America's high-tech economy. Unfortunately, the PTO estimates that it will take an average of 49 months by 2009 for it to issue a patent. This is a lifetime when you are innovating, and discourages new ideas. Furthermore, the current backlog on patent applications now totals almost a half million--the highest ever. Fortunately, the PTO has come up with a solution to this problem. However, it does not have the money to implement it. The COMPETE Act provides the PTO with the crucial funding necessary to reform the patent and trademark process so that U.S. companies remain on the forefront of the technological revolution.

Today, our employers need more than just raw materials; they need a highly skilled workforce who adds that extra value to their product. That is why the COMPETE Act establishes a tax credit that will help "upskill" America's workers so that they can compete in an economy increasingly more dependent on information, communication and technology (ICT) skills. Indeed, ICT skills are today's newest raw material and are the infrastructure America needs to be a leader in today's global market.

To help close the math and science gap, the COMPETE Act creates a public-partnership that will leverage the expertise and resources of the private sector and those in the university community to establish joint regional training and research centers. These centers will provide training and technical assistance to teachers so they will be better equipped to get students interested in math and science at an early age.

The COMPETE Act rewards high performing schools in math and science and at the same time provides an incentive for businesses to get more involved in helping high-need schools to improve in the areas of math and science. Finally, the COMPETE Act establishes a matching grant program where federal and private resources will be used to help graduate students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics meet the cost of getting a graduate degree. This grant program will also support outreach and mentoring activities to increase the participation of underrepresented groups in these fields at every level of education.

Today is the time to prepare for tomorrow and the COMPETE Act represents an important step in helping to prepare the U.S. to succeed in meeting the challenges of a rapidly changing world. The COMPETE Act will help the U.S. remain ahead of the curve when it comes to competing in today's global economy. That is why a number of diverse organizations, including the R&D Credit Coalition, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA), American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Association of State Universities & Land-Grant Universities, ASSE Engineering Deans Council, Council of Graduate Schools, American Society for Training & Development, Association of American Universities, and the Intellectual Property Owners Association support one or may of tile provisions of the COMPETE Act.

I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the RECORD.

Today our economy is both more vulnerable and more successful than it has ever been. To ensure that we are maximizing our chances for success, we need to help employees and individuals innovate. We need to have a workforce that has the skills necessary to compete in a worldwide economy that is increasingly dependent on technology. We need to focus on math and science education to ensure that America continues to produce the best engineers and scientists in the world. And above all, we need to do those things necessary to make the U.S. the best place to do business in the world. The bottom line is we all want America's moms and dads to enjoy good paying jobs here at home so they can do what every mom and dad wants to do and that is give our kids a better life than we had. That's what the COMPETE Act is all about.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Michael Enzi [R-WY]: [Introducing S. 1021] Mr. President I rise today to introduce the Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2005. I am pleased to be joined in this important effort by Senator KENNEDY, the Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA), together with the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, which we passed earlier this year, and the Higher Education Act, which we will consider in the next few months, will provide the important resources that are needed to adequately prepare our workforce with the skills that are necessary for jobs and careers in high wage and high skilled occupations.

We are facing an economic challenge that threatens our ability as a nation to compete in the global economy. As we heard from the witnesses who testified at a hearing held on April 14, 2005, before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, we have too few workers with too few skills. The skill and literacy requirements of today's and tomorrow's workplace cannot be met if we do not provide everyone access to lifelong education, training and retraining.

Sixty percent of tomorrow's jobs will require skills that only 20 percent of today's workers possess. About half of our current workforce does not have a postsecondary education degree or credential, when all projections are that job growth over the next decade will be in jobs that require some postsecondary education or training.

Technology is demanding that everyone continue to learn and gain skills. In January of this year the labor force participation rate for individuals over the age of 16 who are willing and able to work was 68.8 percent, the lowest in over 15 years, as more Americans conclude that they cannot meet the skill demands of today's workplace and choose to no longer participate in the workforce.

The legislation I am introducing today helps meet these challenges. It is the result of a bipartisan process that began in the 108th Congress. It gives States and local areas the flexibility to provide training for jobs in high skill, high wage, and high demand occupations. It strengthens connections with the private sector, postsecondary education and training, and economic development systems to prepare the 21st century workforce. It improves the existing structure of one-stops to ensure an effective response to the changing needs of employers and workers in a new economy. It includes a new focus on entrepreneurial skills and micro-enterprises, addresses unique needs of small businesses and rural areas, and encourages collaboration locally and regionally with economic development and education.

This legislation also amends the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. These amendments encourage coordination with K-12 schools, postsecondary education and the workforce system so that individuals with barriers to workforce participation will have an opportunity to gain the literacy, language or core skills they will need to enter and advance in the workplace.

I hope that our bipartisan efforts will continue to produce the results that are needed as we move this bill through the Senate and into Conference. This legislation is critical to meeting the workforce challenges of the 21st century. It sends a clear message that we are serious about helping our workers and employers remain competitive and closing the skills gap that places America's long-term competitiveness in jeopardy.

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

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]: Mr. President, It is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act and increase the opportunities for workers to obtain the services and training they need to hold good jobs in the years ahead.

This bill strengthens the current One-Stop system we established in 1998, so that many more people can be served. The bill creates stronger partnerships with businesses to recruit new workers, collaborate in training current workers, improve career ladder opportunities, and work with local leaders to meet the changing needs of their community.

The One-Stop system is needed more than ever now, to serve hard-working Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own as we struggle to rebuild our economy and adjust to the new century and the globalization forces that are transforming our society and our workforce. Current employees, especially the growing number of manufacturing workers, need effective training to be eligible for the available jobs in their area.

We have also worked to remove the sequencing of services for persons entering the workforce who face barriers to employment. Providers can move adults directly to skills training, or create training programs that include literacy and language skills as well, so that job training is not delayed.

The bill also encourages local providers to continue the training programs until employees can be self-sufficient. For those who start on the minimum wage, the support system should be there to help them qualify for the better-paying jobs that will enable them to support their families. Some men and women may obtain their first job through the system, and continue to participate as they move up their career ladders.

The bill will also help young people. Last summer, the youth unemployment rate rose to 17 percent and we were all acutely aware of the special challenges that young workers face in this economy. The youth program will continue to work with both in-school and out-of-school young men and women to help them obtain the education and the real job experience they need to be competitive.

The bill pays particular attention to the needs of people with disabilities. Their access to the program is essential if the system is to be truly universal. It's unacceptable today that hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities are unable to find employment. Workforce training programs must coordinate with vocational rehabilitation programs to provide many more opportunities for those with physical and mental challenges.

For over thirty years, since the Vocational Rehabilitation Act was first enacted in 1973, state vocational rehabilitation programs have brought new hope to individuals with disabilities throughout the country, so that they can reach their full potential and actively participate in their communities.

Through vocational rehabilitation, individuals with disabilities can obtain the training, counseling, support and job opportunities they need in order to have independent, productive, and fulfilling lives. For millions of these Americans, vocational rehabilitation is the difference between dependence and independence, between lost potential and a productive career.

In 1998, vocational rehabilitation became part of the state-wide workforce system in each state. This reauthorization will strengthen that partnership, so that many more working-age individuals with disabilities, even those with the most significant challenges, have realistic opportunities to obtain the services and support they need to reach their employment goals.

The legislation also strengthens other aspects of independent living, so that students and adults with disabilities can receive the services and support they need for community-based living.

Our goal in this reauthorization is to see that the talents and strengths of all individuals with disabilities are recognized, enhanced, and fairly rewarded in communities and workplaces across the nation.

The bill also contains the Adult Literacy Act, which funds critical programs for states to assist adults in obtaining the basic reading, writing, numeracy and English language skills that they need to be full participants in the workplace and in society.

We all know that education is the great equalizer. Improving basic literacy is a key component of job training. Large numbers of persons are on waiting lists across the country to be served under this program--25,000 people in Massachusetts alone--and we need to do more to serve adults who recognize their need to improve these skills in order to improve their lives.

I commend my colleagues and the many organizations representing governors, mayors, county officials, youth, women, and low-income persons who were so actively involved in preparing this legislation. We have tried to listen carefully to the many leaders who have practical experience in implementing these laws.

I look forward to continuing this bipartisan effort and to the early enactment of this needed legislation.

Sen. Gordon Smith [R-OR]: [Introducing S. 1022] Mr. President, water and energy are precious resources that we must manage as efficiently as possible. That is why I am joining with my colleagues Senator LINCOLN and Finance Chairman GRASSLEY to introduce the "Resource Efficient Appliance Incentives Act of 2005." This bill would provide for manufacturers' tax credits of varying levels for certain energy and water efficient home appliances.

Under this bill, for the first time, water efficiency is included in the eligibility criteria for the tax credits for clothes washers. This bill provides graduated credits to appliance manufacturers. The more efficient the dishwasher, clothes washer or refrigerator, the higher the credit.

To spur increased production, the bill provides that these tax credits would apply only to production that exceeds historical production levels, and requires a three-year rolling average to calculated this production baseline. The bill only applies to appliances manufactured in the United States. This will encourage innovation and investment in domestic manufacturing facilities, which employ about 95,000 Americans.

Energy savings from this bill would be significant. Super-energy efficient and water conserving clothes washers would have to use at least 65 percent less energy than the 2004 federal standard to qualify for the higher credit. Refrigerators must exceed the 2001 energy conservation standards for comparably sized models by at least 15 percent to receive a credit under this bill.

This bill will not only save energy, and reduce the consumers' energy bills over the life of the appliance. It is estimated that, over twenty years, the credit would reduce the amount of water used to wash clothes by approximately a trillion gallons, the amount used in two years by a city the size of Phoenix, Arizona.

In several parts of the country, development is constrained by the lack of good quality water and water infrastructure. Having dealt with the water crisis in the Klamath Basin in 2001, when 1,200 farmers and ranchers had their irrigation water cut off, I can tell you firsthand that the conflicts between competing human and environmental needs are real and are growing.

As Benjamin Franklin observed, "When the well is dry, we know the worth of water." In many parts of the arid west, the well is running dry on a regular basis. The 10-year drought in the Colorado River Basin, which has seen relief this year, had produced the lowest flows on record last year, straining an important resource for millions of people. The Columbia River Basin has also experienced below average flows in recent years.

The daily per capita water use around the world varies significantly. The U.N. Population Fund cites that, in the United States, we use an estimated 152 gallons per day per person, while in the United Kingdom they use 88 gallons. Africans use 12 gallons a day.

According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, 47 percent of all water supplied to communities in the United States by public and private utilities is for residential water use. Of that, clothes washers account for approximately 22 percent of residential use, while dishwashers account for about 3 percent.

I firmly believe that we can use technology to improve our environmental stewardship. Water efficiency can extend our finite water supplies, and also reduce the amount of wastewater that communities must treat.

I would urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important bill to provide incentives for water and energy efficient residential appliances. I ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]: [Introducing S. 1023] Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]: Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation, The Stewardship for our Coasts and Opportunities for Reliable Energy Act--SCORE Act--which will ensure that offshore energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf--OCS--continues to serve our nation's needs, create opportunities for new development on the OCS as well as the use of alternative resources such as renewable energy.

Since the energy frontier of the OCS was officially opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region has contributed nearly as much to our Nation's energy production. Today, the OCS represents more than 25 percent of our Nation's natural gas production and more than 30 percent of our domestic oil production and it is estimated that 60 percent of the oil and natural gas still to be discovered in U.S. will come from the OCS.

An average of more than $5 billion in revenues from oil and gas production are returned to the federal treasury each year from the OCS--$145 billion since production began. That is the second biggest contributor of revenue to the Federal Treasury after income taxes.

But just as the Western frontier once represented a great unknown to our Nation's policymakers, the impact and reality of the OCS seems lost in a time warp. While much of the OCS has been off limits for decades, technological advancements have developed in that time to better target the resources and dramatically reduce the environmental footprint. These innovations will continue to allow crucial exploration and production to take place but in an environmentally responsible way. For example, we have produced three times as many resources on the OCS as we thought existed 30 years ago.

In fact, the Minerals Management Service--MMS--estimates that from 1985 to 2001, OCS offshore facilities and pipelines accounted for only 2 percent of the oil released into U.S. waters. In fact, 97 percent of OCS spills are one barrel or less in volume. Serving America's energy needs and being good stewards of the environment need not be mutually exclusive goals.

However, despite our technological prowess and responsible exploration, we have yet to fully realize the potential the OCS has to offer. Today only 2.5 percent of the 1.76 billion acres that make up the OCS are leased. Most of the Pacific Coast and the eastern Gulf of Mexico are off limits as is the entire Atlantic seaboard.

Almost all of the area on the OCS that is currently leased is in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas, where 98 percent of total OCS production occurs. However, we cannot continue to take without giving something back in return. A significant portion of OCS revenues must be returned to the coastal producing states off whose coasts they are generated.

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 shares automatically with states 50 percent of revenues from mineral production on Federal lands within that State's boundaries. These funds are distributed to States automatically, outside the budget process and not subject to appropriations. In fiscal year 2004, the State of Wyoming received $564 million as a result of this law and the State of New Mexico received $365 million. However, there is no similar provision in law for coastal producing states to share federal oil and gas revenues generated on the OCS.

For both onshore and offshore production, the justification for sharing with the state is the same: the state serves as the platform which enables the Federal Government to support a basic element of our daily lives--turning on our lights, heating our homes and running our commuter trains. In light of the OCS' vital contribution to our Nation's energy needs, economy and national security, it seems only fair and logical that we should return a portion of these revenues to the few states that are providing this crucial supply of energy.

The SCORE Act would automatically distribute a significant portion of OCS revenues to the five coastal producing States without moratoria off their coasts Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama based on each state's production, with 35 percent of each State's allocation directed to coastal counties and parishes.

When Hurricane Ivan struck back in September of last year, it should have been a wake up call to us all. Although the storm did not hit Louisiana directly, its impact on the price and supply of oil and gas in this country could still be felt four months later. One can only imagine what the impact would have been had Ivan cut a more Western path in the Gulf. How many more hurricane seasons are we going to spend playing Russian roulette with our oil and gas supply?

Returning a portion of OCS revenues to coastal producing states is crucial to restoring and preserving the vital wetlands and the billions in energy investments they protect. It will also help further strengthen our national economic security by maintaining our current energy supply and continuing to provide the platform for us to go further in our quest to develop domestic resources while attempting to reduce our reliance on foreign energy supplies.

In addition to ensuring that the vital offshore energy development that has served our Nation's needs for 50 years can continue, the SCORE Act also seeks to establish opportunities for new development on the OCS.

The legislation would direct the Secretary of Interior to establish seaward lateral boundaries for all coastal States by regulation. Coastal States with a moratoria currently in place off their coasts would have the option, through their Governor with the consent of the State legislature, to explore the possibility of offshore energy development off their coasts.

These coastal States could petition the Secretary of Interior for a resource assessment of energy sources located within their seaward lateral boundaries. With these assessments in hand, the State legislature of the State could request that any or all of the area within their boundaries, but only beyond 20 miles from their coastline, be made available for leasing. If the Secretary permits leasing within the requesting State's boundary, the State qualifies to receive a portion of revenues generated from any production that takes place within their seaward lateral boundary.

Finally, SCORE would provide the opportunity for innovative, alternative uses of the OCS, including renewable energy projects such as wind, wave and solar. A portion of revenues from this production would be shared with the State off whose coastline the production took place.

Next week the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman, will begin marking up comprehensive energy legislation. I am hopeful that some aspects of the proposal I have laid out today will be included as part of the bill reported out of committee. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee over the next few weeks to further discuss these concepts and make them a reality.

Quite simply, SCORE allows our country to continue to utilize the tremendous and vital natural resources of the OCS while also providing us the opportunity to further explore the unlimited potential of this vast frontier. It is time to base our decisions on modern successes rather than out-dated worries.

Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]: [Introducing S. 1028] Mr. President, today I am introducing the Military Personnel Financial Services Education Act of 2005. Senator Collins, my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, has agreed to cosponsor this legislation. This bill will directly address a problem that has plagued military servicemen and women for years: a lack of general knowledge about the insurance and other financial services available to them. This deficiency in information has led to many of our brave men and women in uniform being taken advantage of by unscrupulous companies that have targeted and preyed on junior members of our military.

Last year, a series of articles in the New York Times uncovered a serious problem: there were a number of companies using misleading sales practices to sell expensive life insurance policies to Iraq-bound recruits and other uniformed personnel. These articles led to investigations by the Department of Justice, reports by the GAO, and legislation by Congress. Earlier this year, I joined with Senator Enzi to introduce the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act. That legislation goes a long way toward tracking unscrupulous companies, and eliminating investment schemes which take advantage of our men and women in uniform.

But we also need to address our more fundamental responsibilities to our servicemen and women, and their families, to ensure that we provide them with adequate financial education so that they can make informed decisions about their future.

This bill will require the Department of Defense to provide consumer education for members of the armed forces and their spouses. It instructs the Secretary of Defense to carry out a comprehensive education program for military members regarding public and private financial services, including life insurance and the marketing practices of these services, available to them. This education will be institutionalized in the initial and recurring training for members of the military.

This bill also requires that counseling services on these issues be made available, upon request, to members and their spouses. I think it is very important to include the spouses in this program, because we all know that investment decisions should be made as a family. Too many times, a military spouse has to make these decisions alone, while their husband or wife is deployed. This bill will require a permanent, trained counselor at military bases with at least 750 assigned personnel, and a part-time, equally capable counselor available at smaller bases with less than 750. By our calculations, this means about 230 installations will have full-time counselors.

Finally, regarding life insurance, this bill will take existing legislation and DoD policy one more step in the military member's favor. During counseling of members or spouses regarding life insurance, counselors must include information on the availability of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance--SGLI--as well as other available products. It requires that any enlisted member in the grades of E1-E4 must provide confirmation that they have received counseling from their approved counselor or commander before entering into any new contract with a private sector life insurer. Our legislation will keep the current rule of a 7 day waiting period for allotments to take effect to facilitate time for counseling. Existing policies will not be impacted by our legislation.

I am pleased to be working on this issue with Senator Collins, my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, who has taken such a strong interest in ensuring proper financial education for our servicemembers.

In closing, I want to reiterate the importance of this bill to military families. If implemented, this legislation will ensure our military families are fully equipped to make informed decisions that will best meet their financial and insurance needs. In my view, this is a provision long overdue. Thank you.

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

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]: Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator CLINTON on legislation that will address the persistent problems that we have experienced with the sale of inappropriate life insurance and investment products to our servicemen and women. Although these issues were newly publicized last year in a series of articles in the New York Times, these problems actually go back for decades according to a 2002 Defense Department report.

According to that report, deceptive practices have been employed to sell unnecessary and inappropriate financial products to our military for more than thirty years. Furthermore, these sales have been in violation of DoD's policies aimed at regulating the sale of commercial products on military bases.

One of the report's most alarming findings is that these practices have a "clear and present" effect on morale, discipline and unit integrity. It states:

Service members who have been coerced or deceived into buying insurance on a military installation blame not only the sales agents. The victims blame their military superiors for placing them in a position to be misled. The trust and respect that military leaders seek to instill in their subordinates are clearly reduced among those who have bought insurance that is of little or no value to them. This adversely affects the unit integrity.

The author of this study, an Army General and lawyer, spoke to numerous victims of these deceptive sales practices. He stated in his report that these soldiers told him that they had less trust in their military superiors after these incidents. They also expressed a reduced interest in reenlisting.

With so many of our troops in harm's way, it is time for Congress to take decisive action on this matter. Although DoD has issued another set of draft regulations, it is barred by statute from implementing these reforms until this fall. Moreover, I am not convinced that merely tightening the regulation of such sales on base will have the desired outcome of significantly reducing the sale of inappropriate insurance products.

The Clinton-Collins legislation would: establish a requirement that DoD provide real financial education for service members and their spouses; provide for financial counselors at military bases; and require that junior enlisted personnel receive information on their federally provided life insurance before allotting part of their pay toward the purchase of private life insurance products.

These provisions reflect the problems and deficiencies identified by DoD's own report. Specifically, the report concluded that DoD's current personal financial education programs were inadequate, noting particularly that the education provided enlisted personnel was "substantially less than that provided to junior officers." It is our belief that providing military personnel with a sound financial education and access to information is the best method of providing them and their families with the protection that they deserve.

While that report went much further in its recommendations, even recommending that such sales be barred, our legislation provides for more moderate measures in the hope that we can make real progress on this matter without resorting to extreme measures that would unfairly punish the countless ethical insurance agents who responsibly serve the military life insurance market. Instead, our legislation would give our troops the tools to protect themselves against those who engage in these abusive and deceptive sales practices.

Sen. John Reed [D-RI]: [Introducing S. 1030] Mr. President, today I introduce two bills to expand access to college. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators COLLINS, KENNEDY, and MURRAY.

We are slated to reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress, after being unable to do so in the 108th Congress. Over the course of this time, the discussions on higher education have not focused on proposals that would help the neediest students attend college. This is troubling, particularly as more and more students are being priced out of college, which shortchanges their future and that of our Nation.

An individual's climb up the economic ladder is directly related to the amount of education he or she receives. Given the strong correlation among educational attainment, employment, and wages, the cost of not going to college is just too high.

And yet, too many college students are underprepared, underfinanced, and overworked. Those who make it through are saddled by huge loans. But as reports such as Empty Promises by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance have shown, many more cannot afford the cost of college at all.

Even though there have been gains due to the Higher Education Act, the current approach to student aid is not working to close the gap in college attendance between our lowest and highest income students or the gap between the aid low-income students receive and the actual cost of attendance. Indeed, about seven times as many students from high-income families graduate from college by age 24 as students from low-income families. Low-income, college-qualified high school graduates have an annual

A decline in real dollars spent on grants and sharp increases in the cost of college have been key causal factors of this unfortunate situation. Indeed, there has been a steep decline in the purchasing power of the Pell Grant, which was established by my predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell, to ensure higher education was not an "unachievable dream." According to the State PIRGs' Higher Education Project, the maximum Pell Grant covered 84 percent of average four-year public tuition costs in 1976. Today, the maximum Pell Grant of $4,050 covers only about 39 percent.

Over the last 10 years, tuition and fees at public and private 4-year colleges rose 51 percent and 36 percent, respectively, (after adjusting for inflation), which is a more rapid growth rate than consumer prices. Students have felt the bite as states have drastically cut funding for public colleges.

In 2008, the largest number of students in our history will graduate from high school. Another demographic reality is that our nation will need to ensure a steady stream of replacement workers as college-educated baby boomers begin to retire in increasing numbers.

This crisis calls out for action. An educated citizenry and a world class workforce should be a national imperative. Our nation cannot afford to lose out on the countless returns from a robust education investment.

Today we introduce two bills to expand college access.

The first bill, the ACCESS--Accessing College through Comprehensive Early Outreach and State Partnerships--Act, focuses on a program I have long worked with Senator Collins and the other cosponsors to save, reinvigorate, and fund the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership or LEAP program. LEAP is the only program in which the federal and state governments are partners in extending higher education opportunities to financially needy students.

The ACCESS Act forges a new Federal incentive for States to do even more to help low-income students by creating within LEAP an access and persistence partnership program. States will be rewarded--via higher levels of federal matching dollars--for creating vibrant partnerships with colleges, early intervention and mentoring programs, foundations, and businesses and providing cohesion and coordination among these entities. Access and persistence partnerships have three main goals: to provide low-income students with a grant that fills the gap of their unmet need; to increase participation of low-income students in early information, intervention, mentoring, and outreach programs; and to provide early notification to low-income students of their eligibility for financial aid. Research has shown that successful college access programs

The second bill we introduce today, the FAFSA--Financial Aid Form Simplification and Access Act--has several key components designed to make the college application process both simple and certain. As the advisory committee's recent report, The Student Aid Gauntlet, has shown, students today confront an overly burdensome and complex financial aid application process. Our legislation would simplify this process by allowing more students to qualify for an Automatic-Zero--auto-zero--Expected Family Contribution by aligning its eligibility with the standards of other federal means-tested programs, like free school lunch, SSI, and Food Stamps. Students and families should not have to prove over and over again that they are low-income, and asking students to fill out lengthy forms when they already meet the eligibility level for Pell Grants is a burden we should ease.

In a similar vein, the legislation establishes a short, paper EZ-FAFSA application form for students qualifying for the auto-zero; phases out the printing of the long paper form and utilizes the savings to bridge the digital divide for students without web access; requires the utilization of smart technology to create a tailored web-based application form that ensures students answer only the questions needed to determine financial aid eligibility in the State in which they reside; and creates a free telefile system for students without Internet access. Additionally, the FAFSA Act requires the Secretary, in cooperation with states and colleges, to develop a system for students to get early estimates of aid from multiple sources, learn if they qualify to fill out an EZ FAFSA, and notify those participating in Federal means-tested programs of their potential eligibility for a maximum Pell

The FAFSA Act also expands college access for low-income students, in part by simplifying the application process for students with special circumstances, including students in foster care and emancipated youth; ensuring the equitable treatment of prepaid tuition and college savings plans; and reducing the work penalty. The current income protection allowance levels are unrealistically low, creating a disincentive for students to work in order to pay college costs.

We must act on these bills and others to make sure that every student who works hard and plays by the rules gets the opportunity to live the American Dream.

I was pleased to work with the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance and a host of other higher education organizations and charitable foundations on these bills.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these bills and work for their inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]: [Introducing S. 1031] Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Electric Reliability Act of 2005, which I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senator CLINTON and Senator JEFFORDS. This legislation would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--FERC--authority to devise a system of mandatory and enforceable standards for the reliable operation of our Nation's electricity grid.

Enactment of this bill is long overdue. The provisions of this bill have passed the United States Senate many times. They represent crucial steps forward in the effort to modernize our Nation's electricity grid and reform the rules by which it is operated. I believe this body can and must make necessary progress in upgrading our electricity grid.

As surely my colleagues recall, in August of 2003 much of the Northeast and Midwest suffered a massive power outage, affecting 50 million consumers from New York to Michigan. This blackout, the biggest in our Nation's history, has underscored the need for mandatory and enforceable reliability standards--as envisioned in the Electric Reliability Act of 2005. To date, the system has operated under a set of voluntary guidelines, with no concrete penalties for those that break the rules and jeopardize the reliable energy service that is the foundation of our Nation's economy.

Following the August 2003 blackout in the NE, a joint report issued by the United States and Canada the following April recommended a number of policy changes on both sides of our shared border. The first recommendation in that report was to make reliability standards mandatory and enforceable with penalties for non-compliance. The Electric Reliability Security Act of 2005 does exactly that.

While the August 2003 blackout was certainly a potent reminder, the call for reliability legislation dates back at least another 5 years. In 1997, both a Task Force established by the Clinton administration's Department of Energy and a blue ribbon panel formed by the North American Electric Reliability Council--NERC--determined that reliability rules for our Nation's electric system had to be made mandatory and enforceable.

These conclusions resulted, in part, from an August 1996 blackout in the Western Interconnection, where the short-circuit of two overloaded transmission lines near Portland, OR, caused a sweeping outage that knocked out power for up to 16 hours in 10 States, including my home State of Washington. The blackout affected 7.5 million consumers from Idaho to California, resulting in the automatic shut-down of 15 large thermal nuclear generating plants in California and the Southwest--compromising the West's energy supply for several days, even after power had mostly been restored to end-users.

As outlined in Economic Impacts of Infrastructure Failures, a 1997 report submitted to the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, the blackout was estimated to exact between $1 billion and $4 billion in direct and indirect costs to utilities, industry and consumers. The report also detailed the risks the outage posed to public health and safety, including an exponential increase in traffic accidents, hospitals forced to rely on emergency back-up power generation, and the grounding of more than 2,000 airline passengers.

While it took time to develop consensus, the Senate recognized the human and economic stakes associated with the reliable operation of the electricity grid. Stand-alone legislation very similar to what I have introduced today passed this body in June 2000, when this Chamber was under Republican control. And even as the majority has twice changed hands since then, the United States Senate has twice passed the very provisions included in the Electric Reliability Act of 2005 as part of comprehensive energy legislation.

Today I am introducing the Electric Reliability Act of 2005 as I believe it is time for this body to take concrete steps towards ensuring the continued reliable operation of our electric grid. This legislation would mark a substantial achievement in the effort to upgrade the reliability of our Nation's grid and insulate our economy from the disastrous impacts of electricity outages.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA]: [Introducing S. 1032] Mr. President, at the end of 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act became law.

I was a member of the conference committee on that bill, and I think it was a good first step in improving security at our Nation's ports.

It had many good provisions, such as the creation of national and regional maritime transportation/port security plans to be approved by the Coast Guard; better coordination of Federal State, local, and private enforcement agencies; and the establishment of a grant program for port authorities, waterfront facilities operators, and State and local agencies to provide security infrastructure improvements.

The problem with the bill was that it had no guaranteed funding mechanism. As a result, we are underfunding port security. Since the passage of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Department of Homeland Security has awarded approximately $625 million in port security grants. This is not enough. The Coast Guard has estimated a need for $5.4 billion over 10 years for port facility upgrades, and $7.3 billion over 10 years for all port security. At the same time, the administration only requested $600 million for infrastructure protection in fiscal year 2006, and this meager figure does not even specify a dedicated portion for port security grants.

With over 40 percent of the Nation's goods imported through California's ports, a terrorist attack at a California port would not only be tragic but would be devastating for our Nation's economy.

So, today, I am reintroducing a bill to provide more funding to the ports. Specifically, it will create a Port Security Grant Program in the Department of Homeland Security; provide $800 million per year for 5 years in grant funding; and--this is very important to California's ports--allow the Federal Government to help finance larger multi-year projects similar to what is done with many of our airports for aviation security.

I hope that the Senate will act on this bill. Now is not the time to slow down or delay our efforts to increase and improve transportation security. The job is not done, and it must be done.

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: [Introducing S. 1033] Mr. President, after more than 5 months of work, I am pleased to be joined by Senators KENNEDY, BROWNBACK, LIEBERMAN, GRAHAM, and SALAZAR in introducing the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. This bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform legislation is designed to fix our Nation's broken immigration system. This landmark legislation would bring common sense to the current system and promote our national security interests. I am equally pleased by the effort of Congressmen KOLBE, FLAKE, and GUTIERREZ who are introducing the House companion bill.

While in previous years we worked independently on immigration reform legislation, we are coming together today to introduce what we believe is groundbreaking, comprehensive legislation. Over a year ago, the President laid out a framework for what comprehensive immigration reform should look like. We have used the President's framework to craft this package and I applaud the President for his leadership on this issue.

The simple fact is that America's immigration system is broken. Recent vigilante activities along the southwestern border have shown that the current situation is not sustainable. Americans are frustrated with our lack of border security and our inability to control illegal immigration. We have spent billions of dollars on border enforcement. We have sent more, but still not enough, Federal agents to the border equipped with sophisticated technology. We have worked to harden the border in key places. And yet, illegal immigration continues.

I would like to mention some startling statistics that demonstrate the critical need for immigration reform. I think the numbers speak for themselves: Over 300 people died last year trying to cross the border; about 200 of those deaths occurred in Arizona's desert. Last year 1.1 million illegal immigrants were caught by the Border Patrol in 2004. Fifty-one percent of those were caught in Arizona. The Border Patrol is currently apprehending over 1,000 undocumented immigrants a day in Arizona. According to the FBI, an increasing number of these individuals are OTMs, Other Than Mexicans, from "countries of interest."

Homeland security is our Nation's number one priority, and this legislation includes numerous provisions that together will make our nation more secure. This bill includes provisions to strengthen border security, both on our side of the border and throughout this hemisphere. Through the establishment of a new electronic employment verification system, the bill will create a more secure mechanism to better enforce our nation's immigration laws within our borders. Additionally, the bill enhances the authority of the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security to conduct random audits to ensure that employers are holding up their end of the bargain. And if they aren't, they face double fines.

Make no mistake, this is not an amnesty bill. We are not here to reward law-breakers, and any accusations to the contrary are patently untrue. This bill recognizes the problems inherent in the current system and provides a logical and effective means to address these problems. The reality is, there are an estimated million undocumented people living and working in this country. It would be impossible to identify and round up all 10 to 11 million of the current undocumented, and if we did, it would ground our Nation's economy to a halt. These millions of people are working. Aliens will not come forward to simply "report and deport." We have a national interest in identifying these individuals, incentivizing them to come forward out of the shadows, go through security

Part of the failure of the existing system is its inability to provide sufficient legal channels to pair willing workers with willing employers. This bill establishes a new market-based temporary worker program so that when there is no U.S. worker to fill a job, employers will be able to hire willing and able foreign workers who have gone through security background checks, medical exams, and paid a fee for their visa. And, by doing away with outdated numerical caps on this program, this bill recognizes that the needs of the U.S. economy are constantly in flux, and our immigration system must match those needs.

I don't believe there is another issue that is more important to our Nation than immigration reform. For far too long, our Nation's broken immigration laws have gone unreformed, leaving Americans vulnerable. We can no longer afford to delay reform.

The complex and difficult problems associated with immigration reform will not be solved overnight, but they are among the most difficult challenges facing our Nation today. That is why it is so important that the President shares our commitment to comprehensive reform. Together with the President, I am committed to this process and remain very hopeful that we will succeed.

I want to especially express my appreciation to Senator Kennedy and his staff for their sincere commitment to this critical issue. Also, the contributions to the bill as recommended by Senator Brownback have been invaluable to this effort. I would also like to thank Senator Lugar, who allowed us to incorporate critical international border enforcement provisions from his legislation, the North American Cooperative Security Act.

Through the collective efforts of a wide range of bipartisan interests in both Houses of Congress, not to mention immigration advocacy groups, representatives of our Nation's businesses, and several labor unions, this comprehensive legislation provides a meaningful direction for how our immigration system should be reformed, and our border security strengthened.

I look forward to working with all interested parties in the important and necessary effort to once and for all reform our broken immigration system.

Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]: Mr. President, it's an honor to join Senator MCCAIN and Congressmen GUTIERREZ, KOLBE, and FLAKE in introducing our bipartisan legislation to reform the Nation's immigration laws. The status quo is unacceptable, and legislation is urgently needed to deal with all the inadequacies in our current law, to end the suffering of long-separated families imposed by the broken system, and to do so in a way that reflects current realities.

We must modernize our broken immigration system to meet the challenges of the 21st century. And we need policies that continue to reflect our best values as a nation--fairness, equal opportunity, and respect for the rule of law.

One of the mistakes of the past is to assume that we can control illegal immigration on our own. A realistic immigration policy must be a two-way street. Under our plan, America will do its part, but we expect Mexico and other nations to do their part, too, to replace an illegal immigration flow with regulated, legal immigration.

Our bill will make our immigration policies more realistic and enforceable, restore legality as the prevailing norm, and make it easier for immigrants to cooperate with local authorities. It will protect the labor rights of all workers, and create an even playing field for employers. It will strengthen our economy, restore control of our borders, and improve national security.

Much of the Nation's economy today depends on the hard work and the many contributions of immigrants. Many industries depend heavily on immigrant labor. These men and women enrich our Nation and improve the quality of our lives. Yet, millions of today's immigrant workers are not here legally. They and their families live shadow lives in constant fear of deportation, and easy targets for abuse and exploitation by unscrupulous employers and criminals as well. Many risk great danger, and even death, to cross our borders.

Our bill offers practical solutions to deal with these basic problems. It contains an earned legalization program for immigrants who have been working in the United States for at least 6 years, a way to reduce the enormous backlog of petitions to unify immigrant families, and a revised temporary worker program. The bill also contains strict border security and enforcement provisions, and measures to ensure that other countries do their part by requiring them to help control the flow of their citizens to jobs in the United States.

We feel the bill is a realistic and practical solution to the complex immigration challenges facing the Nation for so long, and we've worked closely with as many interested groups as possible to make it fair to all.

Despite our compromises and bipartisan solutions, there are some who oppose these reforms. They misleadingly categorize our efforts as "immigrant amnesty." They refuse to accept that these reforms simply create a legalization program for U.S. workers who have already been residing and working in the U.S. It is not a guarantee of citizenship, but an opportunity to continue working hard, start playing by the rules, and earn permanent residency.

And by bringing immigrants out of the shadows so they can earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, we are protecting American workers' rights and wages, too.

The legal status must be earned by proving past work contributions, making a substantial future work commitment, and paying of $2,000 in penalties.

First, workers will receive temporary resident status, based on their past work contributions. To earn permanent residence, they must work 6 more years. Otherwise, they will be dropped from the program and required to leave the country.

It's not an amnesty for them, because they have to earn it. We offer a fair deal: if they are willing to work hard for us openly, then we're willing to do something fair for them. It is the only realistic solution.

If there's any amnesty involved, it's what they have today--an acquiescence in their presence, because countless businesses could not function without them since no American workers can be found to fill their jobs. To be eligible for legal status, applicants must have no criminal or national security problems. All will be required to undergo rigorous security clearances. Their names will be checked against the government's criminal and terrorist databases, and the applicant's fingerprints will be sent to the FBI for a thorough background check.

It's long past time to put the underground economy above ground, and recognize the reality of immigrants in our workforce. It's the only way to achieve effective enforcement rules to protect and strengthen our labor system, and to stabilize our workforce for employers.

Our bill allows long-term, tax-paying immigrant workers to apply for earned adjustment of status. Studies show that there are now millions of illegal immigrants working in the U.S., and it would be irresponsible to continue to ignore this hidden past of our economic landscape.

Our bill is also about fairness. It ensures that the rights of all workers are protected--that the rights to organize, to change jobs between employers, and to have fair wages, fair hours, and fair working conditions--cannot be denied. Through this legislation, America can be proud again that our Nation protects the safety and rights of all our workers.

Our legislation is also about protecting families. Family unity has always been a fundamental cornerstone of America's immigration policy. Yet, millions of individuals today are waiting for immigrant visas to join with their families.

Our bill will allow these families to be reunited more quickly and humanely. It also removes and amends unnecessary obstacles in current law that separate families, such as the affidavit-of-support requirements and the rigid bars to admissibility. Our bill contains provisions that will expedite visas to reunite spouses and children of legal immigrants with their loved ones. It also provides measures to clear up the backlog of employment-based visas.

In addition, this bill recognizes the need for strong border protection and enforcement as part of immigration reform. It directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and implement a National Strategy for Border Security to coordinate the efforts of Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities on border management and security. The Strategy will identify the areas most in need of enforcement and propose cost-effective ways to defend the border, including better ways of technology, improved intelligence-sharing and coordination. It also includes plans to combat human smuggling.

To further improve border enforcement, the bill improves the security of Mexico's southern border and assesses the needs of Central American governments in securing their borders. It provides a framework for better management, communication, coordination, and immigration control for all our governments, and encourages other governments to control alien smuggling and trafficking, prevent the use and manufacture of fraudulent travel documents, and share relevant information.

The bill also encourages so-called circular migration patterns. It provides for unprecedented cooperation with the governments of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and other Central American countries on issues of migration. It asks foreign countries to enter into agreements with the U.S. to help control the flow of their citizens to jobs in the U.S., with emphasis on encouraging the re-integration of citizens returning home.

It also encourages the U.S. government to partner with Mexico to promote economic opportunity back home and reduce the pressure for its citizens to immigrate to the U.S. It encourages partnership between the U.S. and Mexico on health care, so that we are not unfairly burdened by the cost of administering health care to Mexican nationals.

Further, the bill mandates that immigration-related documents issued by DHS be biometric, machine-readable, and tamper-resistant. It creates an Employment Eligibility Confirmation System, so that employers can verify an employee's identity and employment authorization, and an improved system to collect entry and exit data to determine the status of aliens after their arrival to and departure from the U.S. It protects against immigration fraud by improving regulations on who may appear in immigration matters.

Another important component of our bill is its State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, to reimburse states for the direct and indirect costs of incarcerating illegal aliens.

We know that these reforms are long overdue. The illegal workers here today are not leaving, and new ones continue to come in. A significant part of the workforce in many sectors of the economy, especially agriculture, is undocumented. Massive deportations are unrealistic as policy, impractical to carry out, and unacceptable to businesses that rely heavily on their labor.

Americans want and deserve realistic solutions to the very real immigration problems we face. They don't want open borders, and they don't want closed borders. They want smart borders, which mean fair and realistic immigration laws that can actually be enforced, immigration laws that protect our security, respect our ideals, and honor our heritage as a Nation of immigrants.

America has been the Promised Land for generations of immigrants who have found haven, hope, opportunity and freedom here. Immigrants have always been an indispensable part of our Nation. They have contributed immensely to our communities, created new jobs and whole new industries, served in our armed forces, paid their taxes, and help make America the continuing land of promise it is today.

It's obvious why the Nation's founders chose "E Pluribus Unum"--"out of many, one" as America's motto two centuries ago. These words, chosen by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, referred to their ideal that tiny quarreling colonies could be transformed into one Nation, with one destiny. That basic ideal applies to individuals as well. Our diversity is our greatest strength.

We are a Nation of immigrants, and we always will be, and our laws must be true to that proud heritage. Our bipartisan bill attempts to do that, and I look forward to working with the Administration and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact it into law.