Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator DeWine and Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy along with Senators Grassley and Brownback in cosponsoring this important legislation. This bill will take steps to reduce the prevalence of mentally ill individuals in the criminal justice system by providing more effective treatment. Forty percent of the mentally ill in this country come in contact with the criminal justice system, many for minor but repeated offenses. This wastes tremendous law enforcement resources that can be better focused on more urgent responsibilities and results in many of the mentally ill sitting in jail cells with little treatment available to them. My State has already taken some forward looking action in this area, and this legislation is an important next step. The Mentally Ill Crime Reduction Act of 2002 funds new grants that will give States the tools they need to work collaboratively to break the cycle of mentally ill people repeatedly moving through the corrections system. This legislation will allow more jurisdictions to follow Seattle's lead in creating mental health courts that monitor individuals to keep them in treatment and out of jail. It will provide much needed funding to mental health and substance abuse programs, and it will provide critical dollars for treatment of those incarcerated in, or released from, prisons. The legislation has the support of Washington State Corrections Director Joe Lehman and the Washington Department of Social and Health Services as well as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill and the Council of State Governments. I'd like to especially thank the Bazelon Center for their work in this area and their commitment to improving this situation. Earlier this year, the Council on State Governments Criminal Justice/ Mental Health Consensus Project issued a report that detailed the disparate proportions of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system. The Project found that while those suffering from serious mental illness represent approximately 5 percent of the population of this country, they represent over 16 percent of the prison population. Of that 16 percent, nearly three-quarters also have a substance abuse problem, and nearly half were incarcerated for committing a nonviolent crime. In some jurisdictions recidivism rates for mentally ill inmates can reach over 70 percent. Police, judges and prosecutors are usually without options of what to do with mentally ill patients given the lack of health services, and thus many end up in jail for minor crimes. The Los Angeles County Jail alone holds as many as 3,300 individuals with mental illness, more than any state hospital or mental health institution in the United States. Each time a mentally ill individual is incarcerated, his or her mental condition will likely worsen. Once incarcerated, people with mental illness are particularly susceptible to harming themselves or others. This environment exacerbates their mental illness, yet access to effective counseling or medication is severely limited. This in turn brings on depression or delusions that immobilize them; many have spent years trying to mask torments or hallucinations with alcohol or drugs which leads to these individuals, on average, spending more time in prisons. This problem is particularly acute in the area of juvenile offenders. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports that over 20 percent of children in the juvenile justice system, over 155,000, have serious mental health problems. This bill creates specialized training programs for juvenile and criminal justice agency personnel in identifying symptoms of mentally ill individuals that will help identify and treat juveniles at an earlier stage. The prevalence of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system comes at a high price to taxpayers. In King County, WA officials identified 20 people who had been repeatedly hospitalized, jailed or admitted to detoxification centers. These emergency services cost the county approximately $1.1 million in a single year. In contrast, an Illinois Cooperative Program, which brought criminal justice and mental health service personnel together to provide services to those mentally ill patients released from jail, calculated that the 30 individuals in the study spent approximately 2,200 days less in jail, and 2,100 fewer days, in hospitals than they had the previous year for a savings of $1.2 million dollars. In 1997, Seattle Fire Department Captain Stanley Stevenson was murdered by an individual who had been found incompetent by the local municipal court but was released because of the lack of alternative options. This murder was the impetus for the creation of a Task Force that led directly to the formation of the Seattle mental health court in 1999. The primary reason why this Court has been growing more effective in dealing with mentally ill offenders is that it has increased cooperation between the mental health and criminal justice systems, operations that have traditionally not worked closely together. Building on the model of the drug court, the mental health court closely monitors compliance with treatment regimens through a team proficient in dealing with the mentally ill and at using the stick of the criminal justice system to make that treatment work. The vast majority of these individuals are responsive to treatment. This program has progressed well and is becoming an effective means of helping mentally ill offenders, assuring public safety, and running a more cost efficient system. Yet to allow this system to continue to expand in Seattle and other communities in Washington state, as well as to allow other states to begin using these types of programs, federal grant funding is critical. That is what this bill provides. Collaboration between mental health, substance abuse, law enforcement, judicial, and other criminal justice personnel is also critical to the success of our mental health court program in Seattle. It is only through full coordination between the criminal justice and the mental health treatment community at the federal and the local level that these efforts will be successful. Similarly, only through full coordination at the federal and local level will this bill be able to make a critical difference. I believe that some additional improvements can be made to strengthen that critical coordination and I look forward to working with Senator DeWine and Chairman Leahy to accomplish that goal. I welcome the introduction of this legislation and look forward to working with my cosponsors to make this bill law in the next Congress.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. I am delighted to be joined on this bill with my good friend, Senator Patty Murray. Senator Murray has been a champion for children's health issues throughout her career in the Senate. This important legislation addresses the allocation of budgeted but unspent SCHIP funds that are currently out of reach of states and, under current law, are scheduled to be returned to the federal treasury. This legislation also helps those States with the highest unemployment rates use more of their SCHIP dollars to provide health insurance coverage for low-income children. Washington State is in the middle of an economic crisis resulting from a downturn in both our aviation and high-tech sectors. With the jobless rate at 7.2 percent, we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, 202,000 Washingtonians are unable to find work. And over the last 12 months, our State has lost 50,000 jobs, and 60 percent of those are in the high-paying manufacturing sector. In 2000, before the recession began, there were 780,000 uninsured people in Washington state, including 155,000 children. That number has surely grown as the economy has worsened and our population has risen. In fact, just last week the Census Bureau reported that the number of uninsured increased for the first time in two years. Sadly, there are 41.2 million people nationwide without health insurance, 8.5 million of whom are children. The increasing number of uninsured isn't the only problem facing the health care system. In September, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported the largest increase in health insurance premium costs since 1990, while the Center for Studying Health System Change found that health care spending has returned to double-digit growth for the first time since that year. The lack of health insurance has very real consequences. We know that the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care, and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care. Health insurance matters for kids, and coverage today defrays costs tomorrow. Five years ago, Congress created a new $40 billion state grant program to provide health insurance to low-income, uninsured children who live in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. In most states, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, has been extremely successful. Nearly one million children gained coverage each year through SCHIP and, by December 2001, 3.5 million children were enrolled in the program. Unfortunately, however, not all States have been able to participate in this success, and perversely, these are the states that had taken bold initiatives by expanding their Medicaid programs to cover low- income children at higher levels of poverty. Sadly, the recession and high unemployment means that the health insurance coverage we do have for children, pregnant women, and low-income individuals is in jeopardy due to State budget crises. Washington State has been a leader in providing health insurance to our constituents. We have long provided optional coverage to Medicaid populations and began covering children up to 200 percent of poverty in 1994, three years before Congress passed SCHIP When SCHIP was enacted in 1997, most States were prohibited from using the new funding for already covered populations. This flaw made it difficult for Washington to access the money and essentially penalized the few States that had led the nation on expanding coverage for kids. This means that my State only receives the enhanced SCHIP matching dollars for covering kids between 200 and 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. Washington has been able to use less than four percent of the funding the Federal Government gave us for SCHIP. Today, Washington has the highest unemployment in the country, an enormous budget deficit, and may need to cut as many as 150,000 kids from the Medicaid roles. Because it is penalized by SCHIP rules and cannot use funds like other States, Washington State is sending $95 million back to the Federal treasury or to other States. This defies common sense, and I do not believe that innovative States should be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of SCHIP. This is why we are introducing the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. This bill will give States the ability to use SCHIP funds more efficiently to prevent the loss of health care coverage for children. This bill targets expiring funds to States that otherwise may have to cut health care coverage for kids. States that have made a commitment to insuring children could use expiring SCHIP funds and a portion of current SCHIP funds on a short-term basis to maintain access to health care coverage for all low-income children in the State. The bill also ensures that all states that have demonstrated a commitment to providing health care coverage to children can access SCHIP funds in the same manner to support children's health care coverage. First, as my colleagues know, 1998 and 1999 State allotments ``expired'' at the end of fiscal year 2002 and are scheduled to be returned to the federal treasury. Our bill allows states to keep their remaining 1998 and 1999 funds, and use these funds for the for the purposes of this legislation. Second, unused SCHIP dollars from the fiscal year 2000 allotment are due to be redistributed at the end of fiscal year 2002 among those States that have spent all of their SCHIP funds. Our bill would allow the retention and redistribution these funds as was done two years ago through the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act, P.L. 106-554. However, under our bill, States that had an unemployment rate higher than six percent for two consecutive months in 2002 would be eligible to keep all of their unspent 2000 SCHIP allotment. Third, at State option, for certain Medicaid expenditures, qualifying States would receive the difference between their Medicaid federal matching assistance percentage, or FMAP, and their enhanced SCHIP matching rate. This temporary measure would be paid out of a State's current SCHIP allotment to ensure children's health care coverage does not erode as states face enormous budget deficits. States would be able to use any remaining funds from fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 SCHIP allotments, plus ten percent of fiscal 2001, 2002, and 2003 allotments. Finally, our bill allows States that have expanded coverage to the highest eligibility levels allowed under SCHIP, and meet certain requirements, to receive the enhanced SCHIP match rate for any kids that had previously been covered above the mandatory level. Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our great nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies, our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to build happy, healthy and productive lives. During this tough economic time, it is more important than ever to maintain existing health care coverage for children in order to hold down health care costs and to keep children healthy. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss S.J. Res. 46, the Lieberman, Warner Bayh-McCain resolution, and the issue that everyone of my colleagues agree on--that Iraq is in serious violation of its U.S. and U.N. agreements prohibiting its possession of weapons of mass destruction. What my colleagues cannot agree on is how we should go about disarming Iraq. Let me add my views. I believe that the best way to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is to build a multinational coalition and engage the United Nations. But we can't ask the United Nations to disarm Saddam Hussein if we are not willing to disarm him ourselves. Today's vote for S.J. Res. 46 is a statement of national resolve to disarm Saddam Hussein. By showing our unity as a nation, we help the United States unite the world against his continued effort to use weapons of mass destruction. History has shown that we have been very patient with Saddam Hussein. First, let us remember that the United States and 34 other nations were at war with Iraq in 1991. After 3 months of war in which the U.S. coalition lost 556 lives and 502 wounded--including seven young men from my home State--not to mention the estimated 100,000 Iraqis killed--we negotiated a cease-fire agreement with Iraq that ended our military campaign. This cease-fire was approved in return for Saddam Hussein's promise that he would unconditionally accept the destruction and removal of all biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and to allow U.N. inspectors to verify the elimination of these programs. This cease-fire agreement was even signed by the Iraq government. We staked lives, resources, and diplomatic weight on that promise, and yet here we are today because of the non-compliance of that issue. If military action is eventually taken by a UN-backed effort or multinational US effort, that military action would not be a pre- emptive strike, but the enforcement of the Iraqi government cease fire agreement. In fact, I would say we have been in a constant battle of enforcement for 11 years on this enforcement issue. Shortly after the cease-fire agreement in 1991, Saddam Hussein started to thwart the cease fire agreement. For 7 years, inspectors were sent to Iraq to verify his promise to disclose and destroy his cache of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and for 7 years Hussein obstructed the inspectors efforts. Saddam Hussein did hide and inspectors did find weapons of mass destruction--literally tons of them--most of which were unaccounted for in the final reports'' and in clear breach of the cease-fire agreement. Saddam Hussein even bugged the UNSCOM offices in Bahrain and New York, disguised weapons and hid them in various places. He leaked false intelligence and blatantly lied over, and as Sandra Mackey outlines in her book, ``The Reckoning, Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein,'' ``Hussein's tactical war of cheat and retreat with UN arms inspectors gave him power to remain a world figure and gain a hold over his own people.'' What has been our response and the response of the United Nations? We have tried economic sanctions to get Iraq to comply with the disarmament agreement--and they have failed miserably. It is the innocent Iraqi people that feel the effects of sanctions, including hunger and a lack of medical care. Saddam Hussein not only continues to eat well--hoarding much of the aid and food imported into Iraq through the oil-for-food program--but he builds palaces, and he devotes substantial riches toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We have tried sending a strong signal to the United Nations. In 1994, I joined my colleagues in the House of Representatives in calling for the United Nations to take action on Iraq's noncompliance. The House resolution went even further and urged the President and the United Nations to establish a tribunal to charge Saddam Hussein as a war criminal. That vote showed a clear consensus eight years ago when members of the House agreed that Saddam Hussein was neither a legitimate ruler nor an honest actor in the ceasefire and UN agreements. In 1998, we increased military pressure in the region and even conducted a military strike under President Clinton called Operation Desert Fox--hoping that the threat of force and the destruction of military installations would bring Hussein to reason and allow the inspectors back in. While this limited military pressure produced some initial results, as soon as the United States turned down the heat Saddam Hussein went back to his old ways. Where are we today. For 11 years since our cease-fire agreement with Iraq we have tried to stop Iraq's effort to develop weapons of mass destruction. In reality, our efforts have failed to stop his continued build-up of weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations should never have allowed Saddam to negotiate the terms of inspections. When he crossed the line in the sand that separated Iraq from Kuwait, Hussein demonstrated to the world his absolute disregard for international law; and his defiance of the will of the international community. He also displayed, on a world platform, his utter disdain for the principles of human rights and a free society; and revealed to the world a frightening weapons capacity, including chemical and biological weapons and substantial progress towards developing a nuclear weapon-- all of which he intended to use to advance his regional ambitions and threaten enemies. Saddam Hussein is a global menace that we cannot simply wish away. By doing nothing the world is not only failing to enforce the terms of a cease-fire that we fought for; but it is allowing a dangerous threat to grow that deserves renewed immediacy. This immediacy was demonstrated 13 months ago, when we witnessed the devastating steps that terrorists were willing to take and we know that this problem is not going away; and Saddam only increases the danger. Some citizens say there are other countries in the world producing weapons of mass destruction and could be a source of aid to terrorists. Why worry about Iraq? I know of no other country that has posed such a unique threat by: Violating of US/UN cease-fire agreement to stop development of weapons of mass destruction; Using weapons of mass destruction in war or against its own people; and Refusing to help the U.S. in the Afghanistan war on terrorism and actually applauded the efforts of Al Quida of 9/11. We are now considering a resolution that I believe will take a positive step towards effectively dealing with the threat of Saddam Hussein, his failure to comply with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire agreement. The best way to do that is to bolster the President's and the U.S. efforts by sending a message to the U.N. Security Council that we must act. This vote tells the President of the United States we agree Saddam Hussein and his failure to comply with the cease-fire agreement constitutes a serious breach and a threat to global stability. The vote tells the President we firmly support his promise to go to the United Nations Security Council and live up to the responsibilities to enforce a cease-fire agreement that Iraq has continued to try to subvert. This vote is a statement of national resolve that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed by peaceful means, if necessary, but by showing our unity as a nation, that we, the United States, will help eliminate this threat and will unite the world behind it. Some have called this unconditional authorization. That is not the case. Senators Lieberman, Warner, Bayh, and others have made great progress on this legislation. There are conditions. It requires a limited scope of operations in the Iraq theater, continued consultation with Congress on military action, and serious reporting requirements to inform Congress of the commencement progress and plans of both operations and postwar strategies. I make clear this resolution does not endorse a unilateral action. If for some reason the U.N. Security Council does not act, I expect the President to make a major and aggressive diplomatic effort to enlist other partners around the globe in doing the right thing to stop Hussein's efforts. The President has promised Members of Congress, including the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that he would be committed to developing a coalition of allies for military action. We know how important these coalitions are. We expect the President to fulfill this promise. My vote for this resolution does not mean I am convinced the administration has answered all the questions. In fact, I believe the following issues must be addressed--there are several--before the U.N. or the United States takes military action: First, it is clear we need a continued, multilateral approach. The President must continue to make the disarmament of Iraq a global issue. The rhetoric surrounding Iraq earlier this summer was unilateralist. It offended our allies and others who might have been with us. It brandished the view around the world that the United States is an arrogant power, and did serious damage to our relationship with many important powers in the Middle East region. The President's September speech to the United Nations reflected a new chapter and much needed improvement in the administration's efforts to confront Saddam Hussein. He made clear that the priority of the administration was to mobilize an international effort to enforce the cease-fire. Second, we must understand what our successful military strategy is. This vote is not an endorsement of the President's military strategy, mainly because we have not been given what it is. However, there is good reason to believe that this operation, which may require force to enter Baghdad, will prove substantially more complex and difficult and costly than Operation Desert Storm--not only in its economic cost, but most important, in the lives of soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens. This is, indeed, a troubling scenario. And if the administration ultimately acts within the scope of this authorization, it must be up front and honest with Congress and the American people in explaining what we are up against. Third, we must have a postwar commitment strategy. This vote is not an endorsement of the President's postwar scenario either, largely because I have not seen details on that. We have heard some broad outlines, if, in fact, action by the U.N. or U.S. troops were taken. But we need to realize the process of creating a peaceful and stable post-Saddam Iraq will be huge and expensive and politically volatile. If the President does not commit to multilateral military action, we must similarly commit ourself to a serious long-term strategy to bring about freedom, representative democracy, and prosperity to the people of Iraq. This will require a substantial obligation and commitment. Fourth, fighting the broader war on terrorism cannot be left behind. And while the President has made the point that this effort is related, we need to make sure if we commit troops to the Persian Gulf, that we will not be diminishing our other efforts on the war on terrorism. Fifth, and probably the challenge that most of my colleagues have tried to address, maintaining the Middle East stability. I do remain very concerned about the effective military action and the volatile situation that may occur in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains in a disappointing and potentially volatile state. We must be aware that any action in Iraq and the possible extension to Israel poses a serious threat to the future peace in this region. If the administration or the U.N. selects military action against Iraq within the scope of this resolution, we must work aggressively through diplomatic channels to ensure that such action is kept separate and distinct from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And lastly, we must protect Iraqi civilians. We cannot diminish the serious concerns regarding the effective potential military action on that population. They have been the victims of a brutal, harsh and inhumane dictator who has not only stripped away their political liberty and free expression but also distributed to Iraqi populations economic deprivation, malnutrition, lack of medicine, and diverted billions of dollars into other programs. If the President of the United States or the U.N. determines that we should move forward within the framework of this resolution and military action must be taken, it must be used as a last resort. The President needs to take leadership and work with Congress to incorporate the issues I have just mentioned and come back to Congress and consult with them. I take this vote very seriously. The men and women in the Armed Forces from Washington State may very well be called into action. Whether it be our troops at Fort Lewis, our refueling tankers flying out of Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, our cargo planes from McChord, our radio jammers or P-2 aircraft out of Whidbey Island, or even the men and women of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln who were recently in the Persian Gulf, or the thousands of men and women serving in Washington State--I hope our vote tonight with the President's multilateral effort will lead to a successful result where we would not need to use these personnel. But if we do, I know these men and women will be ready to meet the task with conviction, resolve, and professionalism. I do not now, nor have I ever believed, that military action is our preferred method to address international conflict. But I have seen over the last 11 years, Saddam Hussein has consistently failed to live up to the 1991 cease-fire agreement, and his noncompliance is a dangerous failure that this body must address. This problem is not going away. If anything, it will grow increasingly more dangerous as Saddam Hussein increases his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons stockpile. There is no question that we are looking for a strong and effective response from the United Nations Security Council, and I believe this vote sends an important message to the United Nations Security Council and gives the President the domestic backing he needs to get that international support. By being serious, forceful, and resolute in expressing our dissatisfaction with Saddam Hussein for his continued noncompliance, I think we are charting the best course for an international response. We are taking action in this body tonight, and we want the international community to take action with us. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. I am delighted to be joined on this bill with my good friend, Senator Patty Murray. Senator Murray has been a champion for children's health issues throughout her career in the Senate. This important legislation addresses the allocation of budgeted but unspent SCHIP funds that are currently out of reach of states and, under current law, are scheduled to be returned to the federal treasury. This legislation also helps those States with the highest unemployment rates use more of their SCHIP dollars to provide health insurance coverage for low-income children. Washington State is in the middle of an economic crisis resulting from a downturn in both our aviation and high-tech sectors. With the jobless rate at 7.2 percent, we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, 202,000 Washingtonians are unable to find work. And over the last 12 months, our State has lost 50,000 jobs, and 60 percent of those are in the high-paying manufacturing sector. In 2000, before the recession began, there were 780,000 uninsured people in Washington state, including 155,000 children. That number has surely grown as the economy has worsened and our population has risen. In fact, just last week the Census Bureau reported that the number of uninsured increased for the first time in two years. Sadly, there are 41.2 million people nationwide without health insurance, 8.5 million of whom are children. The increasing number of uninsured isn't the only problem facing the health care system. In September, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported the largest increase in health insurance premium costs since 1990, while the Center for Studying Health System Change found that health care spending has returned to double-digit growth for the first time since that year. The lack of health insurance has very real consequences. We know that the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care, and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care. Health insurance matters for kids, and coverage today defrays costs tomorrow. Five years ago, Congress created a new $40 billion state grant program to provide health insurance to low-income, uninsured children who live in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. In most states, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, has been extremely successful. Nearly one million children gained coverage each year through SCHIP and, by December 2001, 3.5 million children were enrolled in the program. Unfortunately, however, not all States have been able to participate in this success, and perversely, these are the states that had taken bold initiatives by expanding their Medicaid programs to cover low- income children at higher levels of poverty. Sadly, the recession and high unemployment means that the health insurance coverage we do have for children, pregnant women, and low-income individuals is in jeopardy due to State budget crises. Washington State has been a leader in providing health insurance to our constituents. We have long provided optional coverage to Medicaid populations and began covering children up to 200 percent of poverty in 1994, three years before Congress passed SCHIP When SCHIP was enacted in 1997, most States were prohibited from using the new funding for already covered populations. This flaw made it difficult for Washington to access the money and essentially penalized the few States that had led the nation on expanding coverage for kids. This means that my State only receives the enhanced SCHIP matching dollars for covering kids between 200 and 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. Washington has been able to use less than four percent of the funding the Federal Government gave us for SCHIP. Today, Washington has the highest unemployment in the country, an enormous budget deficit, and may need to cut as many as 150,000 kids from the Medicaid roles. Because it is penalized by SCHIP rules and cannot use funds like other States, Washington State is sending $95 million back to the Federal treasury or to other States. This defies common sense, and I do not believe that innovative States should be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of SCHIP. This is why we are introducing the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. This bill will give States the ability to use SCHIP funds more efficiently to prevent the loss of health care coverage for children. This bill targets expiring funds to States that otherwise may have to cut health care coverage for kids. States that have made a commitment to insuring children could use expiring SCHIP funds and a portion of current SCHIP funds on a short-term basis to maintain access to health care coverage for all low-income children in the State. The bill also ensures that all states that have demonstrated a commitment to providing health care coverage to children can access SCHIP funds in the same manner to support children's health care coverage. First, as my colleagues know, 1998 and 1999 State allotments ``expired'' at the end of fiscal year 2002 and are scheduled to be returned to the federal treasury. Our bill allows states to keep their remaining 1998 and 1999 funds, and use these funds for the for the purposes of this legislation. Second, unused SCHIP dollars from the fiscal year 2000 allotment are due to be redistributed at the end of fiscal year 2002 among those States that have spent all of their SCHIP funds. Our bill would allow the retention and redistribution these funds as was done two years ago through the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act, P.L. 106-554. However, under our bill, States that had an unemployment rate higher than six percent for two consecutive months in 2002 would be eligible to keep all of their unspent 2000 SCHIP allotment. Third, at State option, for certain Medicaid expenditures, qualifying States would receive the difference between their Medicaid federal matching assistance percentage, or FMAP, and their enhanced SCHIP matching rate. This temporary measure would be paid out of a State's current SCHIP allotment to ensure children's health care coverage does not erode as states face enormous budget deficits. States would be able to use any remaining funds from fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 SCHIP allotments, plus ten percent of fiscal 2001, 2002, and 2003 allotments. Finally, our bill allows States that have expanded coverage to the highest eligibility levels allowed under SCHIP, and meet certain requirements, to receive the enhanced SCHIP match rate for any kids that had previously been covered above the mandatory level. Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our great nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies, our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to build happy, healthy and productive lives. During this tough economic time, it is more important than ever to maintain existing health care coverage for children in order to hold down health care costs and to keep children healthy. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to consider a bipartisan effort to pass legislation on which Senators Kennedy, Clinton, and Wellstone have worked so hard. Their leadership has shown it is critical that we pass this legislation now. No other State, probably, needs this legislation more than Washington. Washington State is in the middle of an economic crisis resulting from a downturn in both our aviation and high-tech sectors. With the jobless rate at 7.2 percent, we are teetering among the highest, if not the highest, unemployment rates in the country. Mr. President, 202,000 Washingtonians are unable to find work. And over the last 12 months, our State has lost 50,000 jobs, and 60 percent of those are in the high-paying manufacturing sector. Just in the last 2 weeks, Boeing announced it would exceed its original projections of 30,000 layoffs that it has already carried out. Last month alone, 56,000 unemployed workers of Washington State received extended unemployment benefits. But all those benefits will expire on December 31, 2002, unless we take the proposal before us today and pass it into legislation. That means if we don't pass this legislation, those 56,000 workers will not be adding to our State's troubled economy. We can no longer wait because things are not getting better. Our State economist Chang Mook Sohn issued a report saying we are not going to see a recovery anytime soon and very little growth in the next 6 months. We understand that unemployment checks are not long-term answers; jobs are. But while people look for new work, extending unemployment benefits will help unemployed workers make mortgage payments, put food on the table, pay utility bills, health care bills, and, in my State, the high cost of energy bills. Extending unemployment benefits will give people a new opportunity to upgrade their skills. As has been pointed out, extending benefits will also boost our economy, injecting into communities that have already been strapped with high unemployment rates a little bit of stimulus. A 1999 Department of Labor study concluded that for every dollar spent on unemployment, it generates $2.15 of economic activity. This proposal for Washington State over the next 6 months would mean over $1 billion in economic stimulus. The cost of extending this program will be paid by the unemployment insurance trust fund, which has nearly $30 billion in it and is a very healthy account. Congress created unemployment insurance in 1935 to help unemployed workers get through the Great Depression. In the 1990s, we expanded that five times and even higher for the States that had high unemployment. So far this year, Congress has only done this once. We, in Washington State, need the support of our colleagues and of the White House in dealing with this economic crisis. It is clearly imperative that we should pass the Kennedy-Clinton-Wellstone legislation and do so immediately so that as our economy continues to struggle, we bridge the gap with a stimulus and a helping hand to working men and women in America. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Byrd amendment to ensure the proper deliberation and congressional oversight in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. While I applaud the chairman and ranking member for working to develop changes in our Federal system to better harden our defenses against potential terrorism targets, and to create effective, integrated protections, we must not allow the task of government reorganization to distract us from our vulnerabilities. I think it is particularly timely that we are on the floor debating how to protect ourselves from the future of any kind of 9/11 attacks while the Intelligence Committee is discussing the implications of its report that demonstrates how the primary weakness is not the fact we did not have a 170,000-person Federal agency. Instead, we are learning that the men and women of our intelligence community neither have the resources nor the adequate mechanisms in place to communicate and to share information and to connect the dots before an attack happened. I urge my colleagues to remember, while creation of a Homeland Security Department is an important step, which I believe is about hardening our targets and creating redundancy, we cannot ignore the primary challenge we are facing in intelligence gathering. Similarly, any forward movement in strengthening our homeland security must not also distract us from our constitutionally mandated responsibilities to provide the necessary oversight and adequate deliberation in the enormous process of creating a new Department. Make no mistake, we are currently considering some giant and unprecedented changes to our Federal system: We are radically reshaping our Federal Government to meet new goals. We are contemplating dramatic--and I think fundamentally unwise-- changes to important civil service laws. We are deliberating substantial changes to the roles and missions of many important agencies that provide important functions for our country. We are even considering unprecedented changes in the relationship between Congress and the administration by handing over substantial aspects of our constitutionally derived authority to shape and form the functions of Government. Despite the enormity of this effort and its implications, some have criticized the Senate for not rushing this legislation through this body. I submit that these critics are wrong. We are accountable to our constituents for good, thoughtful legislation--not the rate at which we pass a bill. Our Founding Fathers created an ingenious system of Government that stresses deliberation as the only rational method to ensure sound decisionmaking. This piece of legislation--perhaps the most important, wide-ranging legislation that has come before the Senate in recent years--deserves thoughtful consideration that is absolutely necessary in putting together this new agency. That is exactly what Senator Byrd is proposing that we do. I thank the distinguished President pro tempore for his effort in stressing the importance of this responsibility. The Byrd amendment will strengthen Senator Lieberman's bill by sending the message that this body is committed to creating a Department of Homeland Security with a mission to protect the American people and with the clear determination that we will act responsibly in doing so because we want to get it right. This is critically important because it would require the implementation of the new Department to be considered by Congress. The Byrd amendment ensures that the important first step is followed by a process that will ensure that Congress and the Nation are involved in asking the right questions when it comes to the specific details of this reorganization, including the specific agencies and responsibilities that need to be transferred, the personnel strategies that need to be implemented, and a wide array of other logistical issues. Any reorganization of this magnitude is difficult and complex. I can tell you, having been in the private sector, I have seen a lot of reorganizations in the private sector that don't go as smoothly as people want them to. And on a much larger scale, this proposal, I believe, deserves the kind of attention this amendment gives it.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I think there are two fundamental examples in this bill. One of them is the Coast Guard--I am sure my colleague from Washington will expound on this--which is being transferred. The critical mission of that agency needs to be secured and understood as that agency is transferred. The other is an important opportunity within the National Institute of Standards and Technology with the Computer Security Division--again, a key mission that is being met for the private sector in creating technology standards that may be transferred, and that mission may be lost. In summary, it is critically important that we not rush to make these changes and then believe we have delivered service to the American people. Let them be sure we are involved in guaranteeing that this agency is hardening our targets and strengthening our redundancy.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the need for a national debate on how best to manage wildfires and improve forest health. I thank my colleague from California for being here this morning to articulate a vision about how we can move forward to protect old growth while being mindful about how much work really needs to be done before we can come up with a solid proposal. That is why I am here to speak this morning. I believe the amendment we will offer today does not further the debate in the direction we need to go but instead focuses on the controversial issues of weakening our environmental protection laws and limiting meaningful public participation. While I appreciate the sense of urgency that this year's fire season has brought us--and I believe the fire seasons in last several years have made all of us anxious--I believe the reasonable way of dealing with this situation is through the legislative committee process. I applaud my colleagues who are on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who have had much discussion about this problem and are very anxious to take the Governors' report that was done on the national fire plan and efforts to better implement it. We need to do that through the legislative committee process where we can hold hearings and talk to the experts and concerned members of our communities. Trying to solve this important issue with a rider to an appropriations bill is unwise. It would be wrong to think that we could reverse hundreds of years of misguided forest fire management suppression policy with a rider on an appropriations bill. One of the most significant concerns I have about the amendment, as my colleague from California mentioned, is that it does waive important environmental laws. Under this amendment, the agencies will no longer be required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Furthermore, the amendment eliminates the administrative appeals process and limits judicial review. We do need to move forward, and I applaud my colleague from Idaho for wanting to take this issue to the next level and for the focus that he has given to the issue. But I believe critical to this debate is the central issue of trust because after decades of documented problems with forest management by the Forest Service, it is no wonder that citizens are now skeptical about the plan before us today, which would allow timber companies to thin on ten million acres might really be motivated more by economics than improving healthy forests. If we go so far as to restrict a citizen's legal right, that is the wrong approach, but I believe working within the existing framework of environmental laws and allowing for the appropriate process for projects in areas near communities is the right approach. This basic step needs to be taken--to prevent the catastrophic wildfires that we have all experienced. This step has already been laid out in the laws of this country. In the 10-year comprehensive strategy on collaborative approach for reducing wild land fire risk to communities and the environment which was issued in May, this strategy was the highest priority. We need to make sure we are treating fires in communities that could be most effective in protecting lives and in protecting homes. The work done in a community in Roslyn, which is in my home State, demonstrates that protecting our forests has little to do with cutting big trees far away from homes but, rather, treating areas adjacent to communities. Now that is not to say we do not have to look at fuel reduction and that fuel reduction is not critically important in other parts of our national forests, but the key thing we have seen in this fire season is the loss of homes and loss of areas that I think are the interfaces on which we need to focus. The joint efforts of local citizens, the local fire department, the Washington Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Forest Service produced a plan in our State to clear brush and other fuel materials from a buffer zone around this town of Roslyn. I support more funding to do thinning, prescribed burns, and hazardous fuel reduction in our efforts to manage our forests. I think all of those need more discussion and more time and energy put into them and, as we will see with the Byrd amendment, more resources financially to obtain that goal since those funds have been subverted in the past. I also support providing the Forest Service and BLM with adequate funding to do the hazardous fuel reduction projects so each year we do not find ourselves in the same situation where the Forest Service diverts the funds from fire accounts in order to pay for fire suppression. So let us make that clear. Let us divide the accounts. Let us make sure we are doing work both for suppression and for the prevention efforts we need. The point is clear, we can protect our communities from fire, and we do not need to waive environmental protection laws or limit public participation to do so. In closing, I would like to urge my colleagues to support Senator Byrd's amendment to provide more funding for fire suppression efforts. However, I add a note of caution, that if we take this approach with the rider my colleague from Idaho is offering, I do not think it is in the best interest of the forests or the American public. This rider is too overreaching to be put on this legislation. Let us go back to the committee process, let us have the hearings, and let us push forward together. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an editorial from the Seattle Times that talks about the need to move ahead but that we cannot have, as this article says: This administration's attempt to confuse and cloud the issue of fire suppression by laughably proposing timber thinning can only mean a return to unregulated clear-cutting on our Nation's forestlands.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, how much time remains?

Ms. CANTWELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time charged equally against both sides.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, the esteemed chair and ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in supporting the withdrawal of the McCain amendment, which would unwisely scuttle an important program that was approved last year on this same bill by the Senate in an overwhelming 94-4 vote. I further applaud the Senator for the amendment that he successfully included into this bill that would require that the transport lease program will be fair, open and competitive and conform to the Competition and Contracting Act. However, I think that the Senator from Arizona is off the mark in his attempts to undermine this particular program. The transport plane lease program approved last year is a much-needed priority, and it has been specifically requested by the Department of Defense and the Air Force. These transport planes are a crucial element of an efficient deployment of our national security strategy and they are in dire need of modernization. At any given time, world events may require the Nation's leaders to be dispatched simultaneously on diplomatic missions. These missions are essential in peace and war when diplomacy and negotiation become critical to the settlement of conflict, whether in the Middle East, the sub-continent, Bosnia, or the myriad other hot spots in which U.S. leadership is necessary to calming conflict and saving lives. To get these leaders to the places, we need transport aircraft that are efficient, modern and up to the task. Both physical and communications security are integral to the mission because principals and their staffs must conduct business en route. In addition, mission protocol dictates the frequent use of civilian airports, which require commercial planes. The Air Force and the Administration needs these planes, and the Air Force and our esteemed colleagues in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee have developed a creative and effective solution that will meet this need: an operating lease. The leasing option would allow the Air Force to amortize the majority of upfront acquisition costs over the life of lease, and at no additional cost, since the leasing money comes from existing operation and maintenance funds. This allows flexibility by allowing the Air Force to purchase the aircraft at any point in the lease, and also accelerates the acquisition while maintaining existing procurement priorities. We need planes, and particularly given the current geopolitical context, including crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and the Middle East, we need them now. The leasing program that was overwhelmingly by this Chamber last year was the right thing to do then and it continues to be the right thing to do.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment regarding our current situation on Medicare prescription drug legislation. I am extremely disappointed that we have not been able to pass a prescription drug benefit, and I believe it is absolutely imperative that the Senate continue to work toward this end. The fact is, when Medicare was designed in 1965, the system relied on inpatient hospitalization and seldom on outpatient services, preventive care, or patient drug therapies. At that time, prescription drugs only accounted for four percent of all personal health care expenditures. But as we enter the 21st century, the cutting edge of health care has shifted. Every day, as new preventive and therapeutic drugs replace outdated inpatient procedures, Medicare falls further and further behind in providing basic care. Medicare was written to cover the most basic health care for seniors. When the original bill passed, the legislation's conference report explicitly says that the intent of the program is to provide adequate ``medical aid for needy people,'' and should ``make the best of modern medicine more readily available to the aged.'' Well, we are not making the best use of modern medicine when millions of seniors cannot afford access to the prescription drugs they need. Prescription drugs that had not even been developed when Medicare was enacted are now an essential aspect of basic health care. We owe it to our seniors to live up to Medicare's original mandate and provide them the best medical care. Unfortunately, today, beneficiaries' current drug coverage options are often expensive and unreliable. And as a result, nearly seven out of ten Medicare beneficiaries lack decent, dependable coverage for their prescription drug needs, and more than one-third have no coverage at all. Prescription drug expenditures for the average senior in my home State of Washington are over $2,100 every year, over 122,000 of my seniors spend more than $4,000 a year. On average, one out of every five dollars of every Social Security check to Washington State's seniors is spent on prescription drugs. And seniors with the most serious illnesses spend nearly 40 percent of their Social Security check on prescription drugs. How in the world are seniors on fixed incomes supposed to do this? What happens to them in an emergency? Last week I visited three senior citizen centers to discuss the current prescription drug debate. This is what my constituents told me: they want prescription drug coverage to be comprehensive, simple to administer, guaranteed, stable, and based on the very best medical technology. And most importantly, they want the benefit run through Medicare, a program they understand and upon which they depend. I think this is the first point I want to make about HMOs versus Medicare as we continue to debate delivery mechanisms for a new benefit. Seniors do not want their prescription drug benefit run through an HMO or other private insurance company. According to a June 2002 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Kennedy School of Government, 67 percent of American people believe we should expand Medicare to pay for part of prescription drugs, but only 26 percent say we should help seniors buy private insurance to pay for prescription drugs costs. A private delivery model gives insurers complete control over whether to offer a benefit, how much to charge, and whether to cover drugs regardless of whether these drugs are medically necessary. That's too much control over a program that is supposed to guarantee help for seniors. The very basic issue here is that the private market will not cover such a high-risk population--especially a population at such risk for adverse selection. I don't want to see this benefit be a repeat of the Medicare+Choice program. And if the private insurance model hasn't worked for the full Medicare benefit, it certainly won't work for a single benefit where utilization is expected to be high. Putting HMOs in charge of prescription drug coverage would be like putting Enron in charge of Social Security. The second point I want to make is that seniors need a benefit that is comprehensive, one that covers their total prescription drug needs. Thirty percent of Washington seniors--212,000 people--will fall into the benefit hole proposed under the Tripartisan bill. But these same seniors will need to continue to pay their monthly premium, whatever it is as determined by the private HMOs or insurance companies, during that benefit gap. My constituents will not stand for this. We need to pay very close attention to the catastrophic coverage in all of these proposals and what it means for seniors. What we're talking about is covering medicines for the very sickest seniors, and we know that the very sickest seniors have the very highest drug costs. In fact, just 14 percent of the elderly population account for nearly half of all prescription drug expenditures. Seniors account for 12.6 percent of the general population, but a third of all prescription drug expenditures. And while prescriptions are expensive, in some cases, prohibitively so, these are the very same prescription drugs that keep people out of the hospital, out of the nursing home, and living vibrant and happy lives. And while it is difficult to quantify in economic terms, prescription drugs preserve health and eliminate unnecessary hospitalization, which is by far most expensive segment of the health care. Americans are becoming increasingly reliant on more effective, and more complicated, drug therapies. Total health care spending in the United States will total more than $1.5 trillion this year, an increase of 8.6 percent over last year, according to a March report released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The other part of this debate concerns the need to get generic medications to the market, and to our Nation's seniors and disabled, more quickly. Generic medicines account for 42 percent of all prescriptions dispensed in America and on average are put on the market at 75 percent of the cost of their name-brand rivals. But we know that the current prescription drug patent system is broken, and I am extremely concerned that pharmaceutical companies may be acting illegally to extend their patents and prevent less expensive generic drugs from entering the market. To fix it, we need to eliminate patent loopholes that drug companies use to prevent price competition from generic alternative drugs. We need to strengthen existing statutes, including antitrust laws. We need to stop drug company abuses that prevent generic competition and lower prices, stop illegitimate patent ``evergreening,'' and stop anticompetitive sweetheart deals between brand name and generic companies. I am pleased that the underlying bill we are considering would get lower-priced generics on the market faster, especially since we know that prescription drug expenditures are the fastest growing segment of the health care market, with spending on outpatient prescription drugs in the U.S. increasing by 17 percent over last year. It is absolutely incredible that outpatient drug expenditures have more than doubled in the last five years. Drug expenditures in the United States rose from about $5.5 billion in 1970 to a projected $161 billion this year, and CMS predicts that prescription drug expenditures will continue to increase faster than any other category of health care spending throughout the next ten years. Medicare beneficiaries alone will spend $1.5 trillion on prescription drugs over the next ten years. Those two factors, great dependency on drug therapies and skyrocketing drug prices, put us on a collision course in our efforts to provide affordable health care. I know that many of my colleagues are concerned that the money isn't there for this benefit, and I, too, have no doubt that a new benefit will be extremely expensive. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the original Graham amendment will cost $576 billion over 10 years, and it spends about $85 billion a year by the end of the decade. This new spending is in addition to the fact that the Medicare budget will reach at least $498 billion by 2012, and will begin spending out more than it brings in by 2016. Sustainable financing of the Medicare program is a looming problem that must be addressed. But while we discuss the potential cost of a new benefit, we also need to discuss national priorities. I believe we can do a prescription drug benefit while living within our budget, and we can do so by having a clear vision for our country's priorities. One of my top priorities is getting a new prescription drug benefit to the Medicare beneficiaries in Washington state. But this may mean making other tough choices. There is no doubt that if we interject all of these issues into the political debate surrounding the need to provide Medicare coverage of prescription drugs for our elderly and disabled, we have a debate to be rivaled by few others. But the reality is that the Senate needs to move past the argument of whether or not to include prescription drugs in the Medicare program. We know there is a problem, and it is up to us to find a solution. Congress is trying to take a reasoned and rational approach to integrating a new prescription drug benefit into the Medicare program. I strongly believe that we need to include a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program and I will continue to fight to ensure that all Washingtonians have access to the prescription medications they need. Finally, I want to briefly address the geographic disparities in Medicare provider payments. I am especially concerned that providers serving a disproportionate number of Medicare and Medicaid patients are facing unsustainable fee reductions. Every day I hear from my constituents that they are facing increasing difficulty in getting primary care services, and from physicians who can no longer afford to take on new Medicare patients. In fact, 57 percent of Washington state physicians are limiting the number or dropping all Medicare patients from their practices. We absolutely must ensure that Medicare providers, hospitals, physicians, home health agencies, physical therapists, nursing homes, are paid enough to cover the cost of providing care to Medicare beneficiaries. I certainly hope that the Finance Committee, working with the Leadership on both sides, will pass a reimbursement package before we adjourn the 107th Congress. It will do us little good to provide a new Medicare benefit if there are no physicians willing or available to write prescriptions for Medicare beneficiaries.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have carefully considered the record of Judge D. Brooks Smith, who has been nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and it is with regret that I will be voting not to elevate Judge Smith. While I believe that he is intellectually qualified and personally respect, the fact remains that when he was confirmed as a judge to the District Court by this committee in 1988, Judge Smith stated under oath that he would follow the ethical rules governing Federal judges and resign from a discriminatory club if he was unable to change the men-only rule. Judge Smith failed to change that rule, but did not resign from the Club until more than a decade later, in December of 1999. Since it became known that Judge Smith had not withdrawn from the club, he has made an attempt to justify his inaction by claiming the club is purely social and is thus does not engage in pervasive discrimination. While I believe that there is little difference between a club that affirmatively denies membership to women, and a club that denies membership to African Americans or to people of a particular religious affiliation, the issue is not whether or not the club's discriminatory membership policies are or are not ``pervasive.'' The issue is that Judge Smith told this Committee under oath that he would resign from the club and he did not do so. Federal judges are appointed to lifetime terms and the confirmation process is the only democratic check on individuals conduct, unless he or she is appointed to a higher position. If a promise to the Committee like the one Judge Smith made can be so broken with no consequence, then promises and assurances made by other nominees to this Committee will mean very little. I am also disturbed by Judge Smith's judicial decisions in the gender discrimination context. In at least two cases, Judge Smith's application of legal and constitutional standards for deciding gender discrimination complaints raises serious concerns about his willingness to reach decisions fairly and in a manner consistent with precedent in the Third Circuit. In Shafer v. Board of Education, Judge Smith dismissed the suit filed by a male teacher challenging his school board's family leave policy which entitled women, and not men, to one year unpaid leave for childbirth or ``childrearing.'' The Third Circuit reversed, finding the policy to be in violation of the father's Title VII rights. In Quirin v. City of Pittsburgh, Judge Smith interpreted the law in a way that made it nearly impossible for the City of Pittsburgh to remedy past discrimination in its hiring of only male firefighters, and he applied the law in a manner inconsistent with established precedent. Judge Smith also has engaged in other questionable conduct. He has exercised dubious judgment in failing to promptly withdraw from a case that involved a bank in which he had a very significant investment, he has attended more corporate funded trips than any other sitting federal judge, and he has given speeches expressing his views of the constitutionality of statutes that could be challenged in cases before him. The combination of these factors suggests that Judge Smith simply has ethical blind spots that call into question his suitability to serve on the Circuit Court. I am concerned by Judge Smith's failure to follow precedent and his troubling record of reversals, and by his actions on the bench that fail to meet the very highest standards of the legal profession. In addition, his failure to promptly abide by the promise given to this Committee in 1988 and withdraw from the Spruce Creek Rod and Gun club is simply a failure that cannot be ignored. Therefore, I cannot support his elevation to the Third Circuit.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the chairman for the tremendous job that he and the members of his subcommittee have done to craft this bill. I support their efforts to ensure that our Nation continues to have the best-trained and equipped military force in the world. As the chairman knows, my State has a long history of achievement in the field of aviation and harbors an enormous pool of talented individuals capable of turning innovative technological discoveries into manufactured reality rapidly and efficiently. We also have one of the most highly skilled pools of aerospace workers in the world. I believe that the security of our Nation and the future of the aviation industry will rely heavily on the development and implementation of highly advanced composite materials. But for the large-scale deployment of existing and future technologies to develop, it is critical that our Nation have the skilled workforce capable of understanding these next generation materials. That is why I appreciate the subcommittee's support of a new initiative to train aerospace workers in the use and manufacturing of composite materials. Edmonds Community College and Central Washington University in Washington State are developing a program aimed at improving the scientific and technical competencies of high school and college graduates in the area of materials used in manufacturing technologies. This program will develop a comprehensive curriculum to meet the growing demand for a workforce trained in materials science and will identify best practices for the industry. We believe that this will become a model teaching and training program for the ever-changing materials technology field, and will involve future integration with advanced, cutting-edge basic research in composites materials and engineering conducted at the University of Washington. Taken together, this collaboration in Puget Sound educational resources in the material sciences will maintain and strengthen our country's foremost position in aerospace research, development and manufacturing. This will provide a wealth of opportunities for incumbent aerospace workers to update their skills in newly developed processes, and may serve to pique the interest of students in material sciences and energize future generations to engage in math, science, manufacturing and engineering careers. So I want to thank the chairman and the subcommittee for their recommendation that the Senate provide $500,000 in this bill to implement the first phase of this program and confirm that it is the committee's intention that the funds provided in the Air Force Materials Science account be used for this program at Edmonds Community College. I further want to ask the chairman if he will work with me to ensure that the funding provided for this program is maintained in conference and expanded in future years to further this effort. I thank the presiding officer and the chairman, and look forward to his response.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I have come to the floor today to discuss an item that is not in the conference report that we will soon vote on, but is critical for our national defense, our future economic vitality, and the ability of our workers to turn this national disaster into new opportunities. As my colleagues know, the Senate supplemental bill contained $400 million for job training and employment assistance for our Nation's workers. These are funds that were requested by the administration and supported by a bipartisan group of Senators, and are critically needed throughout our Nation. Unemployment nationwide has hovered around 6 percent throughout most of this year, and in my State, it is been considerably higher than the national average. With the loss of nearly 20,000 commercial aviation jobs in Washington State and severe slowdowns in other major industries, we are likely to suffer secondary layoffs that extend throughout the next 2 years. But throughout the Nation, we are seeing more and more workers who are unable to find employment for extended periods of time. A report released last week by the National Employment Law Project found that long-term employment is higher now than in any of the last four recessions. The number of workers unemployed for more than 26 weeks has grown over 140 percent from March of 2001, Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin wrote on Sunday in the Washington Post that, to get our economy on a sound footing and restore the prosperity of the '90s, we need to do three things: one, look seriously at our nation's long term fiscal position; two, expand trade by granting trade promotion authority; and three, invest in the training of our workers . . . Mr. Rubin went on to say that ``Budgeting priorities should heavily emphasize preparing our future workforce to be competitively productive in the global economy.'' I have supported this bill and I still believe that we need to get these funds out there to replenish vital defense accounts and to implement immediate improvements in homeland security. But in trimming the bill down to reach the level of spending the President feels necessary, I believe that this bill does a disservice to the workers in this nation trying to upgrade or learn new skills and identify new opportunities, and continues to short-change the systems that we have established to support those efforts. While we are experiencing massive layoffs throughout the nation, businesses continue to find a serious skills shortage in our workforce, which slows our economic recovery. Reducing WIA funding at this time by allowing last year's rescission to be enacted, will seriously impede our ability to get workers the training they need to secure high-paying jobs and strengthen U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. Such cuts would be short-sighted at a time when long-term unemployment is at a record high. So I am disappointed that these funds have fallen through at the eleventh hour. We are facing a tidal wave of demand for job training services. One- stop centers throughout this nation are experiencing record visits by displaced workers and those seeking to upgrade their skills. In my State, the Renton ``Worksource Center'' is serving over 4,500 workers per month; and the Benton-Franklin County center recently served 991 job seekers in a single day last month; And our one-stop systems are already producing results. In Washington, we have estimated that, for every dollar invested in programs for dislocated workers and youth training, we get $8 in participant earnings growth and taxes collected. As these programs get further institutionalized, and as workers get to know the one-stop sites created throughout our States, we will see even greater usage by workers seeking to upgrade their skills or find a more ideal job. But it won't happen if we don't commit to getting the system up and running. If we continue to short-change workforce development systems, the effects will be felt on our economy for years to come. That is why I and over 50 of my colleagues joined together in requesting an increase in funding in the regular Labor-HHS appropriations bill currently under consideration by the committee. Despite my concerns about the immediate needs, I am pleased that the committee has decided to restore last year's rescission and provide increases in job these training accounts. I urge my colleagues on the committee to work with us in ensuring that those funds are protected and maintained as we proceed to moving that bill through both Houses, and that we expeditiously reach consensus on that bill in the interest of our Nation's future. I ask unanimous consent to print the Washington Post article by Robert Rubin in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am joining today with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to introduce the Border Commuter Student Act of 2002. In my State and many other States along our borders, Canadian and Mexican students take advantage of our excellent community colleges and vocational schools. For many years, this system has worked well, providing economic benefits to the schools and to the surrounding communities while also helping Mexican and Canadian students to benefit from educational opportunities in this country. Unfortunately, despite the fact that this is a system that has worked well for both Canadian students and the local communities the Immigration and Naturalization, INS, recently decided to begin enforcing a 50-year-old law that prohibits those students from attending U.S. schools on a part-time basis. As of August 15, students will no longer be allowed to cross the Canadian border to attend classes at Bellingham Technical College. This will result in a significant loss of funds for Bellingham Technical College and the surrounding community in Whatcom County which is already suffering from severely reduced border traffic in the wake of September 11 and the economic downturn in the State as a whole. They will not be allowed to cross the border to attend El Paso Community College, D'Youville College in Buffalo, or Wayne State University in Detroit. In my home State of Washington, Bellingham Technical College currently has many part-time students who commute from Canada, the vast majority of whom are enrolled in nursing, surgical technology, and dental assistant training programs. This action is being taken at the same time we are facing a devastating shortage of nurses and other health care professionals both in the United States and in Canada. This bill will address this issue by creating a new category for students who do not intend to immigrate to this country. It will be limited to Canadian and Mexican commuter students residing in their home country and attending school on a full- or part-time basis at schools in many of our border States. In order to qualify for this visa, students will have to prove that they are who they say they are, and will be subjected to more strict requirements than Canadian visitors entering the U.S. for pleasure. Our educational system is the best in the world, and the INS decision to terminate a system that has been extending that educational opportunity to those who live adjacent to our borders and that has been providing economic benefit to my State and many other States, is the wrong policy. With the introduction of this legislation today, we will address this problem and allow a system that has been working to continue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Border Commuter Student Act of 2002. I would like to thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on the bill and look forward to working with her and my other colleagues to pass this important legislation

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am joining today with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to introduce the Border Commuter Student Act of 2002. In my State and many other States along our borders, Canadian and Mexican students take advantage of our excellent community colleges and vocational schools. For many years, this system has worked well, providing economic benefits to the schools and to the surrounding communities while also helping Mexican and Canadian students to benefit from educational opportunities in this country. Unfortunately, despite the fact that this is a system that has worked well for both Canadian students and the local communities the Immigration and Naturalization, INS, recently decided to begin enforcing a 50-year-old law that prohibits those students from attending U.S. schools on a part-time basis. As of August 15, students will no longer be allowed to cross the Canadian border to attend classes at Bellingham Technical College. This will result in a significant loss of funds for Bellingham Technical College and the surrounding community in Whatcom County which is already suffering from severely reduced border traffic in the wake of September 11 and the economic downturn in the State as a whole. They will not be allowed to cross the border to attend El Paso Community College, D'Youville College in Buffalo, or Wayne State University in Detroit. In my home State of Washington, Bellingham Technical College currently has many part-time students who commute from Canada, the vast majority of whom are enrolled in nursing, surgical technology, and dental assistant training programs. This action is being taken at the same time we are facing a devastating shortage of nurses and other health care professionals both in the United States and in Canada. This bill will address this issue by creating a new category for students who do not intend to immigrate to this country. It will be limited to Canadian and Mexican commuter students residing in their home country and attending school on a full- or part-time basis at schools in many of our border States. In order to qualify for this visa, students will have to prove that they are who they say they are, and will be subjected to more strict requirements than Canadian visitors entering the U.S. for pleasure. Our educational system is the best in the world, and the INS decision to terminate a system that has been extending that educational opportunity to those who live adjacent to our borders and that has been providing economic benefit to my State and many other States, is the wrong policy. With the introduction of this legislation today, we will address this problem and allow a system that has been working to continue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Border Commuter Student Act of 2002. I would like to thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on the bill and look forward to working with her and my other colleagues to pass this important legislation

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the passage of this legislation. Roughly a year ago, about this time of night, my colleague, Senator Murray, and I stood before the Senate in a terrible moment to describe our sympathy for the deaths of four young firefighters: Devin Weaver, Jessica Johnson, Karen Fitzpatrick, and Tom Craven. They lost their lives fighting a forest fire that had been out of control, and, as we found out, these four young people were barely trained. They were on the job, having had training, but were new, and this was their first fire. Since that day on the Senate floor, we have had hearings, investigations, a lot of discussion, and what we found in the report from the Forest Service on the Thirtymile fire is that some of the same issues that had arisen in a fire, the Storm King fire, many years ago were the same issues that were arising again; the fact that maybe there were rules in place but they were not being followed. When the report came back to say that, sadly, the young men and women who perished fighting the Thirtymile fire did not have to die, it was a very painful moment. The fact that they did not have to die meant we were not really implementing the processes and procedures that needed to be in place. Tonight I am glad to say that we are taking a big step forward in assuring the oversight and accountability of the Forest Service, by making sure there is an independent investigation in the case of forest fire fatalities. This legislation will not bring back Devin Weaver, Jessica Johnson, Karen Fitzpatrick, or Tom Craven, but it will say that the Congress-- the House and the Senate--does believe there needs to be accountability, there needs to be oversight, there needs to be protection. There needs to be rules in place not just because we can point to them on a piece of paper but that they are actually being followed. So tonight, even though it has been just 1 year, I feel at least we can go to families and say we do believe accountability is important. I thank my colleague in the House, Doc Hastings, for getting this legislation passed as companion legislation to what we have. I note that the Senate did take action earlier this year. We passed this as an amendment as part of the farm bill, and, unfortunately, it did not make it through the conference process. So we are passing this legislation tonight, to send on to the President for his signature, in hopes he will sign this in fast order and help improve the process to make sure we have accountability in the Forest Service in this particular area. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no further intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3971, Calendar No. 446.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the motion to proceed to the Yucca Mountain resolution authorizing DOE to move forward with the siting of a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Washington State is home to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the most contaminated site in this country. My constituents have a very keen interest in the development of a comprehensive, scientifically-driven national nuclear waste policy. Unfortunately, I don't believe this proposal, the Yucca Mountain policy, represents the needs of Washington State. As far as I can tell, it is neither a comprehensive solution to the fact that we have 54 million gallons of tank waste now stored at Hanford, nor was the decision to recommend the site at Yucca Mountain driven by a preponderance of scientific evidence. This proposal, as billed, is supposed to be a long-term, comprehensive solution for our nation's nuclear waste, yet it would leave as much as 87 percent of the high-level nuclear tank waste in my State. That is right. Under the Department of Energy's plan, as outlined in its Environmental Impact Statement, only 13 percent of the waste from Washington State's underground tanks would move to Yucca Mountain. Only 19 percent of all of Hanford's defense-related waste would move. And that's to say nothing about the increase in the total amount of commercial nuclear waste within our borders. There are capacity issues, as is admitted in the EIS. Yucca Mountain will, by statute, only be able to take up to 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal. And by the time the Yucca Mountain proposed site is open, Washington State will already have 150-percent more commercial nuclear waste than we have today. So where is the waste in Washington State going to go? The Seattle PI recently ran an editorial, ``Yucca Mountain Must Meet Rigorous Standards,'' that talked about how we had created a monster in the amount of nuclear waste in this country and asked what we are going to do about it. I ask unanimous consent to print that in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. So why doesn't the ``trust us'' answer work for us when it comes to nuclear waste--when it comes to trusting the Department of Energy? Washington State has had to fight and battle hard. By some estimates, we have already spent some $35 billion on Hanford cleanup-- without producing a single log of vitrified waste from those underground tanks that are leaking in my State. We will also spend another $50 billion, according to estimates, to finish the job, and we are banking on the development of new technologies that have never been used in projects of this magnitude. Meanwhile, we are spending an average of about $5.1 million per day on this effort. Since starting this project, we have had lots of stops and starts. In 1958, we tried converting our nuclear tank waste to ceramic forms. We tried again later in the 1980s, to turn the tank waste into grout. That plan didn't work, and it was abandoned. Then, in 1998, DOE tried to privatize the construction of the vitrification plant. That didn't work either. After a series of cost overruns, DOE fired the contractor and we moved on to the next phase. So we in Washington State know how hard this process can be. That is why we have a tri-party agreement with the Federal Government and our State agencies to make sure the Department of Energy lives up to its responsibilities. But these are complex problems. So the fact that DOE hasn't answered all the questions about Yucca Mountain on the technical side and on the environmental side before proceeding puts a question in my mind: Why do we have to execute today? Why do we have to move forward today? Even the GAO, in its recent report, says that there was no way that the questions left to be answered at Yucca can be answered in the timeframe that the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act envisioned So, basically, we are saying we will approve this site without conclusively addressing some 293, I believe, different technical questions that are still out there. As the GAO stated in its December 2001 report: On the basis of information we reviewed, DOE will not be able to submit an acceptable application to the NRC within the express statutory time frames . . . The GAO also criticized the lack of reliable cost estimates for Yucca Mountain. How much will American taxpayers spend on this proposal, with so many outstanding technical uncertainties? No one really knows, but likely over $100 billion. That's why this proposal is opposed by so many taxpayer groups. Madam President, my State, more than any, wants a real solution to our nation's nuclear waste problem. But more than anywhere else, my State also knows that that these solutions must be based on sound science and technology, and that the people deserve real answers and not a plan that will do little to nothing for moving waste out of our State. So when the DOE leaves so many questions unanswered and rushes to judgment, I am skeptical. To quote another article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, ``Cart before horse at Yucca,'' it said: Been there, heard those empty promises about sure-bet technological fixes for the past 50 years. That approach hasn't produced a disposal solution so far, and there's no reason to rely on that failed strategy now. We need more specific answers on every aspect of the Yucca Mountain plan--on transportation, technology, and most importantly, from the State of Washington: Where is the rest of the 87 percent of our tank waste going to go? The Yucca Mountain proposal fails to provide that answer. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Smith- Cantwell-Grassley amendment to prohibit the Department of Defense from ordering female military personnel to wear the Saudi abaya garment. Before I begin my statement, I would like to thank Senator Bob Smith for his tremendous work on the issue. For most of the last 8 years, officer and enlisted women who are stationed with the Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Saudi Arabia have been required to wear the abaya when going off base, either for official duties over their uniforms or in their off duty hours. The abaya is the traditional religious garment for Saudi women, similar to the Afghan burqa. On Tuesday, May 14, the House passed, by unanimous voice vote, its prohibition against the Department of Defense requiring or compelling U.S. female service members in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya garment, either on or off duty. Like the House legislation, the amendment we are discussing today prohibits the Department of Defense from forcing or encouraging American servicewomen in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya garment, restricts the Department of Defense from spending taxpayer money to purchase the garment, and protects servicewomen from retaliation should they choose not to wear the garment off base. As a democracy, we should be at the forefront of embracing equality for all of our citizens, and by our actions show that we practice what we preach. The military has gone to great lengths to communicate to the troops that they are respected regardless of race, religion or gender. But encouraging our military women in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya communicates just the opposite viewpoint . . . it reinforces gender stereotypes and sends the message to our soldiers that women are not equally valued. The Department of Defense policy requiring military women to wear an abaya whenever they went off base, and other measures directed exclusively towards women, started shortly after the Gulf War. It is important to note that during the war, General Schwarzkopf worked closely with the U.S. embassy and the consulate in Dhahran on the Gulf coast to set up liaison procedures with the Saudis that would nip problems in the bud. As a result, while women were encouraged to wear the abaya when off base, they were not required to. Nor were they required to sit in the back seat of motor vehicles. Nor were they forbidden from driving, since that rule impeded the military's mission. Why these policies changed in the early 1990s is still unclear. At first, the reason was ``host nation sensitivities.'' As you may recall, although there were many restrictions on the troops during Operation Desert Storm, the relative freedom our military women enjoyed vis-a-vis the local women, prompted a demonstration by defiant Saudi women who drove their cars around Riyadh, saying, in effect, that what U.S. military women could do, Saudi women should be allowed to do, too. This situation, and the fact that Riyadh is one of the most conservative areas of the country, may have been the reason the Joint Task Force Southwest Asia commander acquiesced to these new policies. The consequence of this, however, is a policy that sets up a double standard and denigrates female personnel in the U.S. military. After the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, the primary reason for the restrictive policies towards women changed to ``force protection.'' The Department of Defense states that this policy is for the protection of the military women . . . that if they do not wear this garment they would be subject to beatings and other harassment by the Mutawa, the Saudi religious police. The Department of Defense states that if women do not wear the abaya, they will not blend in, thus making military personnel in Saudi Arabia targets for terrorist attack. Finally, the Department of Defense states that if women do not wear the abaya, male military personnel would be subject to harassment and arrest. Frankly, any action taken against U.S. military personnel--male or female--by the Saudi religious police--the Mutawa--for purported infractions of their strict behavioral codes should be strongly protested by the military and the state department to the Saudi government. Although women have been harassed, both while wearing the abaya and when not wearing the abaya, I have no information that any protest about the Mutawa's actions has ever been initiated either by the State department or the Department of Defense. I understand that the norms for public behavior in Saudi Arabia are extremely conservative. According to our own State Department travel advisory regarding proper attire and behavior when visiting Saudi Arabia, visitors, both male and female, should wear very conservative clothing, and behave so as not to draw attention to themselves. For women, skirts should be ankle length, sleeves wrist length, and necklines above the collarbone. Pants and pantsuits may attract unwanted attention. The Mutawa are charged with enforcing these standards. Although the climate in Saudi Arabia is very hot, and lightweight clothing is recommended for travelers, the abaya consists of a black material that, along with the headscarf, covers the wearer from head to foot. However, I think it is really important to note that the Saudi government does not require non-Muslim women to wear the abaya. While U.S. military women have been required to wear the abaya even when on duty, official State department policy is that its female personnel on official business are expressly forbidden from wearing the abaya because they are representing the United States Government. These women may wear the abaya when off-duty if they choose, and many state department female employees do choose to wear the garment when not on official business, in deference to the Saudi culture. The Department of Defense now says that it will change its policy from explicitly ordering that women wear the abaya while on duty but off base, to a policy that ``strongly encourages'' wearing an abaya. Women in my state who have been stationed with the military in Saudi Arabia tell me that the words ``strongly encourage'' are tantamount to an order. There is no choice. Many other men and women from my home state of Washington have written me supporting changing the Department of Defense policy in Saudi Arabia that strongly encourages women to wear the abaya garment over their clothes when they leave the base. One of my constituents, a veteran from Kent, WA, wrote to say ``women that have served this country honorably and distinguished themselves in battle deserve our respect and support.'' He applauded the willingness to women, especially Lieutenant Colonel Martha McSally, the Air Force Colonel who first brought this attention to national attention, for ``her willingness to stand up and fight the repressive and unreasonable orders for females in the services to wear an abaya and be subject to other demeaning practices when they are stationed in Saudi Arabia.'' Another veteran from Olympia, WA, who writes that he is ``appalled at the treatment of a true American hero . . . [while] the Pentagon demeans her with an embarrassing dress code while in Saudi Arabia.'' Another constituent from Seattle, WA, was a military police officer in the U.S. Army, and wrote that she was ``incensed to learn that our military women in Saudi Arabia are being subjected to'' wearing the abaya and asked that we immediately rescind these regulations. We are not advocating that military women be able to wear tank tops and shorts when off base in Saudi Arabia . . . but we do believe that wearing the recommended conservative clothing maintains a woman's dignity and status among our U.S. troops stationed there. We need to balance host nation sensitivities with our nation's goal to promote American values of democracy and equality abroad. The fact of the matter is that what it comes down to, when you value people, you give them freedom, including the freedom of self- determination. That is who we are and what our country represents across the world. As U.S. Senators, we should strive to ensure that our military men and women are treated fairly wherever we send them to accomplish our country's work. I understand that Americans serving overseas are there by agreement of the host nation, and that the host nation can withdraw that agreement when they see fit. I also understand and believe that Americans should respect and abide by a host nation's laws. Yet, every military member is a representative of our country and a soldier-statesman whether a private or a general. When they represent us, they represent our democratic ideals. Soldiers, both men and women, are fighting for our democratic principles. We want our military personnel to abide by the rules of the country in which they are stationed, but we should not impose stricter rules on only one group of our soldiers, especially when it is not required by the host nation. The Department of Defense has had ample opportunity to rescind this policy, but they have only made token attempts to change its policy in a manner that effectively leaves its original policy in place. There is no doubt that the Department of Defense needs the flexibility to ensure the force is protected and our country's military readiness is not impeded. However, this must not be done at the expense of our female soldiers' civil and religious freedoms. There are approximately 1,000 women stationed in Saudi Arabia. It inconceivable that while we entrust these women and ask them to put their lives on the line, at the same time we are asking them to succumb to outdated ideas about what individuals can or cannot do because of gender. Last month, the House, by voice vote, unanimously approved similar legislation. We are here today to complete the circle and show our support for our women in uniform who not only have to fight our enemies, but also apparently have to fight for their rights within our own military. While there are sometimes conflicts in what the military wants, and what the civilian leadership wants, we must remember that the military answers to its civilian leadership. If Congress didn't use its authority to require the military to change its policies, our service academies would still be all men, our fighter pilots would still be all men, and our ships would still be all men. And our military would be a shell of what it is today, because without women, the military could not function as a professional, all-volunteer force. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the hard work of Darlene Iskra, a legislative fellow in my office. Darlene is a retired Navy Commander; in fact, she is the first woman ever to command a U.S. Navy ship. Her work in my office, and especially on this issue, has been invaluable. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig Thomas to introduce legislation that would exclude loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps from taxable income. I am pleased that Senators Cleland, Snowe, Johnson, Gordon Smith, Landrieu, Hagel, Conrad, Roberts, Durbin, Torricelli, Rockefeller, and Wyden are also cosponsoring this important legislation. There have been many developments in the area of health care in the last few years from managed care reform, to increases in biomedical research, the mapping of the human genome, and the use of exciting new technologies in both rural and urban areas such as telemedicine. In fact, it seems that almost every day we hear of astounding new scientific breakthroughs. But unfortunately, while we are making great strides in the quality of health care, we are losing ground on the access to health care for so many. The sad truth is that there are currently 38.7 million Americans without health insurance coverage, 9.2 million of whom are children. In Washington, 13.3 percent of the population, and 155,000 children, lacks health insurance. Many of the 42.6 million uninsured Americans are lower-income workers who do not have employer-sponsored coverage for themselves, but earn too much to be eligible for public programs like Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Access to health insurance for the uninsured is of the utmost importance, we know that at the very least, health insurance means the difference between timely and delayed treatment and at worst between life and death. In fact, the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care, and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care. But even insurance isn't enough if there are no available providers. Hospitals and other health care providers across the country are facing an increasingly uncertain future. The sad truth is that it is increasingly more difficult to recruit health care providers to work with underserved communities, especially in rural areas. In addition to economic pressures, rural areas must overcome the environmental issues involved with recruiting a doctor who may have been raised, educated, and trained in an urban setting. The National Health Service Corps was created in 1970 by Senator Warren Magnuson, one of the most distinguished Senators to come from Washington State. He saw the need to put primary care clinicians in rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods, and developed this program to fill that need. Since then, the Corps has placed over 22,000 health professionals in rural or urban health professions shortage areas. There is no doubt that National Health Service Corps has been extremely successful. In fact, the most recent available data show that more than 70 percent of providers continued to provide services to underserved communities after their Corps obligation was fulfilled, 80 percent of these health care providers stayed in the community in which they had originally been placed. Under current law, the National Health Service Corps provides scholarships, loan-repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in urban and rural communities with severe shortages of health care providers. In 1986 the IRS ruled that all payments made under the program are considered taxable income. Understanding the immediate detriment to scholarship recipients, who were forced to pay the tax out of their own pockets, Congress eliminated the scholarship tax in 2001. And while the scholarship program is now not considered taxable income to the IRS, the loan-repayments and stipends are. By statute, the current loan program awards also include a tax assistance payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount, which is to be used by the recipient offset his or her tax liability resulting from the loan repayment ``income.'' This means that nearly 40 percent of the federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income'' alone. If these federal payments were not taxed, and the funding was freed up, more health professions students could take advantage of the loan repayment program, and could be placed in shortage areas, thereby increasing access to health care in both urban and rural areas. This is not a new problem. The tax burden that accompanies the National Health Service Corps loan payments is a significant deterrent to increasing the number of clinicians enrolling in the Corps. I do not want to see a situation where, as happened several years ago, over 300 applicants actually left underserved areas because the Corps could not fully fund the loan repayment program. The legislation we are introducing today, the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act, would address this disincentive, making the Corps available to more medical and health professionals, and thereby bringing more providers into underserved areas. If loan repayments are excluded from taxation, the National Health Service Corps will have greater resources to provide aid to health professionals seeking loan repayment, and will be able to increase the number of providers in underserved areas. There is no doubt that strengthening the National Health Service Corps is a ``win-win'' situation. Corps scholarships help finance education for future primary care providers interested in serving the underserved. In return, graduates serve those communities where the need for primary health care is greatest. This bill is supported by over 20 national organizations including the National Rural Health Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Medical Student Association. I am especially pleased that the Washington State Medical Association is supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be included in the Record after my statement. I urge my colleagues to look at this bill and to join me in expanding this vitally important and imminently successful program.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig Thomas to introduce legislation that would exclude loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps from taxable income. I am pleased that Senators Cleland, Snowe, Johnson, Gordon Smith, Landrieu, Hagel, Conrad, Roberts, Durbin, Torricelli, Rockefeller, and Wyden are also cosponsoring this important legislation. There have been many developments in the area of health care in the last few years from managed care reform, to increases in biomedical research, the mapping of the human genome, and the use of exciting new technologies in both rural and urban areas such as telemedicine. In fact, it seems that almost every day we hear of astounding new scientific breakthroughs. But unfortunately, while we are making great strides in the quality of health care, we are losing ground on the access to health care for so many. The sad truth is that there are currently 38.7 million Americans without health insurance coverage, 9.2 million of whom are children. In Washington, 13.3 percent of the population, and 155,000 children, lacks health insurance. Many of the 42.6 million uninsured Americans are lower-income workers who do not have employer-sponsored coverage for themselves, but earn too much to be eligible for public programs like Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Access to health insurance for the uninsured is of the utmost importance, we know that at the very least, health insurance means the difference between timely and delayed treatment and at worst between life and death. In fact, the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care, and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care. But even insurance isn't enough if there are no available providers. Hospitals and other health care providers across the country are facing an increasingly uncertain future. The sad truth is that it is increasingly more difficult to recruit health care providers to work with underserved communities, especially in rural areas. In addition to economic pressures, rural areas must overcome the environmental issues involved with recruiting a doctor who may have been raised, educated, and trained in an urban setting. The National Health Service Corps was created in 1970 by Senator Warren Magnuson, one of the most distinguished Senators to come from Washington State. He saw the need to put primary care clinicians in rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods, and developed this program to fill that need. Since then, the Corps has placed over 22,000 health professionals in rural or urban health professions shortage areas. There is no doubt that National Health Service Corps has been extremely successful. In fact, the most recent available data show that more than 70 percent of providers continued to provide services to underserved communities after their Corps obligation was fulfilled, 80 percent of these health care providers stayed in the community in which they had originally been placed. Under current law, the National Health Service Corps provides scholarships, loan-repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in urban and rural communities with severe shortages of health care providers. In 1986 the IRS ruled that all payments made under the program are considered taxable income. Understanding the immediate detriment to scholarship recipients, who were forced to pay the tax out of their own pockets, Congress eliminated the scholarship tax in 2001. And while the scholarship program is now not considered taxable income to the IRS, the loan-repayments and stipends are. By statute, the current loan program awards also include a tax assistance payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount, which is to be used by the recipient offset his or her tax liability resulting from the loan repayment ``income.'' This means that nearly 40 percent of the federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income'' alone. If these federal payments were not taxed, and the funding was freed up, more health professions students could take advantage of the loan repayment program, and could be placed in shortage areas, thereby increasing access to health care in both urban and rural areas. This is not a new problem. The tax burden that accompanies the National Health Service Corps loan payments is a significant deterrent to increasing the number of clinicians enrolling in the Corps. I do not want to see a situation where, as happened several years ago, over 300 applicants actually left underserved areas because the Corps could not fully fund the loan repayment program. The legislation we are introducing today, the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act, would address this disincentive, making the Corps available to more medical and health professionals, and thereby bringing more providers into underserved areas. If loan repayments are excluded from taxation, the National Health Service Corps will have greater resources to provide aid to health professionals seeking loan repayment, and will be able to increase the number of providers in underserved areas. There is no doubt that strengthening the National Health Service Corps is a ``win-win'' situation. Corps scholarships help finance education for future primary care providers interested in serving the underserved. In return, graduates serve those communities where the need for primary health care is greatest. This bill is supported by over 20 national organizations including the National Rural Health Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Medical Student Association. I am especially pleased that the Washington State Medical Association is supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be included in the Record after my statement. I urge my colleagues to look at this bill and to join me in expanding this vitally important and imminently successful program.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my strong support of the Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001, the ``Hate Crimes Act.'' The Hate Crimes Act is a bill whose time has come. I would like to commend Senator Kennedy for his long, hard work to pass this important legislation, and I am happy to have the opportunity to vote for it today. The Hate Crimes Act creates an intergovernmental assistance program which would provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial and other forms of assistance to state and local law enforcement officials for hate crimes based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and disability. The bill authorizes the Justice Department to award grants of up to $100,000 to state, local, and Indian law enforcement officials who have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. This legislation requires grant applicants to coordinate with affected community groups, schools, and colleges and universities. In addition, this bill gives the Justice Department jurisdiction over crimes of violence involving bodily injury, if motivated by a person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability, if it meets both the interstate commerce and certification requirements in the underlying statute. Lastly, the bill amends the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to include gender and requires the FBI to collect data from states on gender-based hate crimes in the same manner that it currently collects data for race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and ethnicity. The number of reported hate crimes has grown by almost 90 percent over the past decade and we cannot afford to ignore this growing problem. The recent hate-motivated crimes in my state of Washington demonstrate the destructive and devastating impact hate crimes have on individual victims and entire communities. On May 9th, 2002, Patrick Cunningham pled guilty to the September 13, 2001 attack of an Islamic Idriss Mosque in Seattle. Mr. Cunningham doused two cars with gasoline in the mosque parking lot in an attempt to destroy the mosque and harm worshipers inside. Cunningham also shot at the worshipers after being discovered. Just a few days later, on September 18, 2001, Kulwinder Singh, a Sikh cabdriver in Seatac, Washington, was harassed and physically assaulted by a passenger. This legislation takes important steps to ensure that crimes motivated by the victim's race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or religion can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and it removes the artificial limitations that currently keep local law enforcement from getting needed assistance. The Hate Crimes Act provides the necessary complement between state and federal law enforcement officials in order to ensure that perpetrators of hate crimes are brought swiftly to justice. The federal government's resources, forensic expertise, and experience in the identification and proof of hate-based motivations have often provided invaluable addition to the important work conducted by local investigators. One need only remember the brutal killing of James Byrd in Jasper County, Texas to understand the benefits of an effective hate crimes investigative partnership between state and federal authorities. This partnership is also crucial to the work of the National Church Arson Task Force and to the increase in the number of hate crimes solved by arrests and prosecutions. I believe that the Hate Crimes Act is necessary to ensure that violent hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability do not go unpunished. Every year, a significant number of hate crimes are perpetrated across our nation based on anti-gay bias. Current law, however, leaves the federal government without the authority to work in partnership with local law enforcement officials or to bring federal prosecutions when gay men or lesbians are the victims of murder or other violent assaults because of bias based on their sexual orientation. This Act would fix the inadequacies in pre-existing federal law, which became painfully apparent in the vicious murder of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming, and the subsequent investigation and prosecution of his assailants. The lack of federal funding caused significant financial hardships on the local sheriff's department in its efforts to bring Matthew's killers to justice, and, as a result, five law enforcement staff members were laid off. In response, this bill amends the criminal code to cover hate crimes based on sexual orientation and authorizes grants for state and local programs designed to combat and prevent hate crimes. This legislation would have a measurable impact in my state of Washington and help prosecute the growing string of hate-based attacks targeting individuals' sexual orientation. On April 6, 1995 in Olympia, Washington, four young adults brutally assaulted Bill Clayton, an openly bisexual high school student, and his friends who happened to be walking with him. Just two months after the assault, the seventeen- year-old committed suicide. Prior to his suicide he had explained to his mother that he was just tired of coping, and that it was the constant knowledge that any time he could be attacked because he was bisexual, that despite the love of his family and friends, all he could see ahead of him was a lifetime of facing a world filled with hate and violence, going from one assault to another. We cannot let our citizens live in fear for their safety, knowing that their attackers will not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This legislation is necessary to fill the current void to ensure vigorous prosecution of individuals who perpetrate a hate crime. The extra federal resources that this Act would make available in the investigations and prosecutions of hate- motivated crimes would serve as both a significant deterrent and punishment, and would likely bring a greater number of cases to successful resolution through arrest and prosecution. We must do all we can to prevent the incidents that led to Bill Clayton's tragic death. I believe it is important that we recognize from the beginning that not all crimes are hate crimes. The reason behind this is simple. All crimes are not created equal and mental states, in addition to acts, have always played an important role in determining the severity and subsequent punishment of a crime. Recognizing this, it is well established that a legislature can properly determine that crimes committed against certain classes of individuals are different or warrant a stiffer response. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court had unanimously ruled that bias-inspired conduct inflicts greater individual and societal harm. I share Senator Kennedy's concerns regarding hate crimes, and I have consistently supported hate crimes legislation, from the time I was in the Washington state House of Representatives to now. There are nearly 8,000 hate crime incidents reported annually each year. The Hate Crimes Act sends a clear message that violence against a person based on skin color, sexual orientation, or religion will not be tolerated anywhere in this country. The bill will provide broader federal jurisdiction to prosecute hate crimes, including crimes motivated by race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Broadening federal jurisdiction will allow effective prosecution even when hate crimes are committed in states that lack hate crime statutes, or where local law enforcement lacks the resources for this type of prosecution. Additionally, the bill will provide federal grant money to states to better enable these jurisdictions to successfully prosecute hate crime offenders. We cannot afford to wait any longer to pass this vital legislation. Our sons and daughters, brothers and sister, mothers and fathers depend upon this Act to ensure full protection of their right to be free from hate-motivated crimes. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.