Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Corrections and Victims' Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Alien Smuggling/Human Trafficking: Sending Meaningful Messages of Deterrence,'' on Friday, July 25, 2003, at 10 a.m., in SD226. Panel 1: John Malcomb, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Mr. Charles Demore, Interim Assistant Director of Investigations, Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC; and Mr. Robert L. Harris, Deputy Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC. Panel 2: the Honorable Robert Charleton, United States Attorney, District of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; the Honorable Jane Boyle, United States Attorney, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX; and Sharon Cohn, Esq., Senior Counsel, International Justice Mission, Washington, DC.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an Idaho business that is celebrating 20 years of providing wonderful food products, jobs, and economic strength to the citizens of Canyon County and Idaho. Matterhorn Ice Cream, Inc. is located in Caldwell, ID. They are a home-grown company that has become a nationally recognized leader in ice cream novelty products. Matterhorn is an independent producer of ``Super Premium'' ice cream novelty products sold primarily in convenience stores. They also have production contracts with industry leading companies such as Costco, Kroger, ConAgra, Weight Watchers, and more. This year they developed a World Series commemorative ice cream sandwich for the World Champion Anaheim Angels. Matterhorn has won Convenience Store News' ``Best New Product of The Year'' award three times. And company President Tom Nist was recently recognized as a finalist for Ernst and Young's prestigious 2003 ``Entrepreneur of The Year'' award. Tom has expanded the company into one of the largest employers in Canyon County, with over 120 associates, and an annual payroll approaching $2 million. You may have had the wonderful experience of eating a ``Big Ed's'' cookie sandwich a ``Matterhorn Cone,'' or their ``Cluster Cone.'' If you haven't, I suggest to all my Senate colleagues that you try this tremendous Idaho product. As you can see, we Idahoans are very proud of our local companies, our work ethic, our creativity and entrepreneurial spirit. Matterhorn Ice Cream is a perfect example of an Idaho company that continues to grow and continues to innovate, with a vision of becoming the premier manufacturer and creative leader of superior ice cream novelties in the United States. I am honored to represent Matterhorn and their employees in the U.S. Senate, and look forward to celebrating their 20th anniversary with them this coming weekend.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, fellow Senators, I think today we watched a piece of history made on the floor of the U.S. House in a joint meeting when Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, spoke to us. Not only was it a brave and proud speech, but it was a speech of neighbor to neighbor, friend to friend, as truly Great Britain has become over the years and Tony Blair has become during this period of joint effort in Iraq. In that speech, he mentioned places out West: Idaho and Nevada. Prime Minister Blair, Idahoans invite you to come visit, to come and meet us. We are a great people, a part of this great country of which we are so proud. And, yes, there are Idahoans who question our outreach in foreign policy and scratch their heads and say: Why now? But there are many of us who recognize the leadership role that we play that you challenged us to today. So on behalf of all of Idaho--our Governor and the congressional delegation of our State--Prime Minister Blair, come see us, come visit us. You will find that we are a people who stand with you in your call to the world for leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Outfitter Policy Act of 2003. This legislation is very similar to legislation I introduced in past Congresses. As that legislation did, this bill would put into law many of the management practices by which Federal land management agencies have successfully managed the outfitter and guide industry on National Forests, National Parks and other Federal lands over many decades. The bill recognizes that many Americans want and seek out the skills and experience of commercial outfitters and guides to help them enjoy a safe and pleasant journey. The Outfitter Policy Act's primary purpose is to ensure accessibility to public lands by all segments of the population and maintain the availability of quality recreation services to the public. While protecting access for many outdoor enthusiasts who possess the skills to enjoy recreating on public lands without assistance, this Act insures that outfitters and guides across the Nation can continue to provide opportunities for outdoor recreation for the many families and groups who would otherwise find the backcountry inaccessible. Previous hearings and discussions on prior versions of this legislation helped to refine the bill I am introducing today. This process provided the intended opportunity for discussion. As well as it allowed for the examination of the historical practices that have offered consistent, reliable outfitter services to the public. Congress has twice addressed this issue with respect to the National Park System permits--originally establishing standards for Park Service administration of guide/outfitter permits on their lands in 1965 and amending that system in 1998. Therefore, it is appropriate to set similar legislative standards for other public land systems such as Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. However, these and other land management agencies are now without Congressional guidance, and instead rules, permit terms and conditions and other intricacies are often left to local agency personnel. The Outfitter Policy Act would alleviate the discord involved in land management permitting, providing consistent guidance on the administration of guide/outfitter permits for the other federal land management agencies. The Outfitter Policy Act provides the basic terms and conditions necessary to sustain the substantial investment often needed to provide the level of service demanded by the public. However, the bill provides the agencies ample flexibility to adjust use, conditions, and permit terms. All of which must be consistent with agency management plans and policies for resource conservation. The Outfitter Policy Act strives to provide a stable, consistent regulatory climate which encourages qualified entrants to the guide/outfitting business, while giving the agencies and operators clear directions. The Outfitter Policy Act is a measure that will facilitate access to public lands by the outfitted public, while providing incentives to outfitters to provide the high quality services over time. It is necessary to ensure that members of the public who need and rely on guides and outfitters for recreational access to public lands will continue to receive safe, quality services. Unfortunately, this legislation has not passed in its current form. So I will be working with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman and Wyden, to capture these concepts and draft a bill that will pass our committee. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Outfitter Policy Act of 2003. This legislation is very similar to legislation I introduced in past Congresses. As that legislation did, this bill would put into law many of the management practices by which Federal land management agencies have successfully managed the outfitter and guide industry on National Forests, National Parks and other Federal lands over many decades. The bill recognizes that many Americans want and seek out the skills and experience of commercial outfitters and guides to help them enjoy a safe and pleasant journey. The Outfitter Policy Act's primary purpose is to ensure accessibility to public lands by all segments of the population and maintain the availability of quality recreation services to the public. While protecting access for many outdoor enthusiasts who possess the skills to enjoy recreating on public lands without assistance, this Act insures that outfitters and guides across the Nation can continue to provide opportunities for outdoor recreation for the many families and groups who would otherwise find the backcountry inaccessible. Previous hearings and discussions on prior versions of this legislation helped to refine the bill I am introducing today. This process provided the intended opportunity for discussion. As well as it allowed for the examination of the historical practices that have offered consistent, reliable outfitter services to the public. Congress has twice addressed this issue with respect to the National Park System permits--originally establishing standards for Park Service administration of guide/outfitter permits on their lands in 1965 and amending that system in 1998. Therefore, it is appropriate to set similar legislative standards for other public land systems such as Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. However, these and other land management agencies are now without Congressional guidance, and instead rules, permit terms and conditions and other intricacies are often left to local agency personnel. The Outfitter Policy Act would alleviate the discord involved in land management permitting, providing consistent guidance on the administration of guide/outfitter permits for the other federal land management agencies. The Outfitter Policy Act provides the basic terms and conditions necessary to sustain the substantial investment often needed to provide the level of service demanded by the public. However, the bill provides the agencies ample flexibility to adjust use, conditions, and permit terms. All of which must be consistent with agency management plans and policies for resource conservation. The Outfitter Policy Act strives to provide a stable, consistent regulatory climate which encourages qualified entrants to the guide/outfitting business, while giving the agencies and operators clear directions. The Outfitter Policy Act is a measure that will facilitate access to public lands by the outfitted public, while providing incentives to outfitters to provide the high quality services over time. It is necessary to ensure that members of the public who need and rely on guides and outfitters for recreational access to public lands will continue to receive safe, quality services. Unfortunately, this legislation has not passed in its current form. So I will be working with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman and Wyden, to capture these concepts and draft a bill that will pass our committee. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is never easy to say good-bye to a long-time friend, and it is even tougher when a community has to mourn the loss of a true humanitarian. Last Thursday, one of the most charitable men I have ever had the pleasure of knowing passed away at the age of 74 after a courageous battle with cancer. His name was Hugh Brady and for many children in Idaho, he was the man who made sure they had the necessary sporting equipment to participate in the games they loved. In 1954, Hugh was hired as a salesman for Idaho Sporting Goods in Boise and traveled all over a three-State area providing uniforms and equipment to schools that needed it, especially those in the more rural areas. He became sole owner of Idaho Sporting Goods in 1969 and over the years sponsored thousands of children and teams in all types of sports. On August 6, Hugh will be inducted into Idaho High School Activities Association Hall of Fame for his kindhearted efforts off the field and his immense support for any child who had a desire to play no matter their ability. He wanted so badly to attend the ceremony, but it was not meant to be. Instead it will be a time to celebrate his wonderful life and reflect upon how one man was able to touch so many lives for the better. Hugh lived by a simple rule he picked up from a used car salesman many years ago, and it served him well: Be honest to your wife, your banker and your customers. He expected honesty from his employees and to this day Idaho Sporting Goods is one of the most trusted businesses in Idaho. I would like to pass along my heartfelt condolences to Hugh's family. Cherle, his wife of 52 years, and their 11 children are regulars around the Boise sports scene. Whether in the stands or on the field, the Brady's prove great ambassadors for athletics. His 33 grandchildren and 11 great-grandchildren carry on their tradition today. We will miss you, Hugh, but we will never forget all you gave so that others could play.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Are we in morning business?

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Democrat leader and I were visiting a few moments ago about our Fourth of July break and what we were doing. That is one of the reasons I am speaking this morning. I thank the Senator from Nevada for that courtesy. We all went home during the Fourth of July break to celebrate a birthday, the birthday of our great Nation. We gathered with family and friends. We set off fireworks. Some Members were in parades. It was all about a birthday, the birthday of this great Nation. My wife Suzanne and I were also home in Idaho because of other birthdays. On May 31 of this year, our daughter Shae and her husband David had twins. Two new grandchildren entered both Suzanne's and my life, a boy and a girl, born on May 31. The little boy's name is Drew Calvin Howell and he weighed 5 pounds and 3 ounces. His sister, I am sure always to be called the little sister, is Peyton Shae Howell, and she was born at 11:54. Drew was born at 11:32. She weighed 4 pounds and 1 ounce. They are twins and were premature so they stayed the first 3 weeks of their lives in intensive care in a Boise hospital before they were allowed to come home. Here we are, Fourth of July, and they are really home for the first time. It is the first time grandpa had a chance to hold them and love them and see them and be around them. It was a treat for our family but especially for Suzanne and myself to be with our grandchildren. This Fourth of July in Idaho with our family took on special meaning as we celebrated the birthday of these grandchildren, these twins, with our daughter Shae and her husband David. It is always an important time in families when grandchildren enter them. Drew and Peyton are the sixth and seventh grandchildren, so we feel very privileged by that. Often we come to the floor to talk about momentous and meaningful events. The Republican Senator from Nevada just spoke about a critical issue of reforming health care in our country, and malpractice. But probably there is no more important event than when grandchildren enter our lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, a constant of the universe has changed. Strom Thurmond is no longer with us. We mourn because this world is poorer for his passing, but we also know he smiles down upon us from a better, happier place. True to the creed taught him by his father, Strom always gave of himself, to his family, his beloved state of South Carolina, and to his country. He understood that the essence of leading is serving. Strom changed his times and changed with his times. Born during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, he retired a thoroughly modern Senator. He wanted to be history's first 100-year-old Senator. Through faith and force of will, he made it. Even more happily, he wanted to see the birth of his first grandchild, and he did, just recently. Like many great persons, Strom combined changeless values with an amazing ability to adapt in a changing world. In turns, he was a liberal and a conservative; a Democrat, Independent, and Republican; a famous bachelor, widower, husband, father, and now grandfather. He came to the Senate from what they call the ``Old South,'' but when I came to Congress, I saw in Strom a Senator committed to equal opportunity and inclusiveness. He was young at heart, had a sense of fun and adventure, and was always open to new ideas. This is the way Strom should be remembered, as an example of how the human spirit can grow and mature gracefully. Yet, for all the changes, Strom's constituents were reassured by a sense of his being changeless. What never changed was a foundation of timeless values. He was devoted to faith, family, patriotism, integrity, public service, hard work, and compassion for everyday people. Only in recent years, did Strom and I discover from a genealogy website that we were distant cousins. After that, we enjoyed greeting each other with, ``Hi, Cousin!'' Today, I say, ``Farewell for now, Cousin. Your life has honored and inspired your family, friends, and Nation.''

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1066

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this afternoon I will speak to amendment 1087. That amendment was pulled up last night by the manager of the bill, Senator Grassley. I believe that amendment is at the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my intent within a few moments to withdraw this amendment, but I thought I should speak to it tonight because I am disappointed at this time that we could not get the scoring from CBO we felt would produce a revenue-neutral bill, or a cost-neutral bill, going into the final hours of this debate. This is an amendment that produces in this legislation, and hopefully to take up in conference, a consumer-driven health care plan under the new MedicareAdvantage program all of us are talking about at this moment. The Senator from New Hampshire gave a very impassioned speech from the depths of his heart, frustrated that this bill does not balance out and provide enough of the incentives in the market that will offset and create the kind of competitive forces being designed for Medicare with the extension of prescription drugs in it offers. For a few moments tonight, I did want to speak about that and explain it. As we get into conference with the House, the House has a consumer- driven health care concept within their legislation that is critical. It is something we ought to address. First, the amendment before the Senate is designed to dovetail with and not disturb the overall MedicareAdvantage competitive dynamic. As a complement to MedicareAdvantage, consumer-driven health care plans would be subject to the same competitive rules as preferred provider organizations. Second, I emphasize this amendment is carefully crafted. We thought it would ensure budget neutrality. But CBO says tonight, no, and I am not going to be too critical of them; we pushed them very hard in the last good number of days to quickly analyze and bring forth estimates. I think they are simply swamped. We will continue to work with them. We believe what we are offering is budget neutral. Additionally, the Finance Committee chairman, the majority leader, and the White House have expressed the kind of support for these concepts in amendments. I appreciate it. As everyone begins to examine this structure, they become increasingly enthusiastic that this could become a component of the MedicareAdvantage Program. For the benefit of my colleagues, let me describe for a moment the key features of this amendment. The amendment establishes a new category of competition within Medicare Advantage designed to encourage participation by consumer-driven health plans. These plans would be subject to the same requirements of PPOs in MedicareAdvantage, including prescription drug benefits and risk adjustment parameters. Consumer-driven health care is one of the fastest growing innovations emerging in the employer health insurance market. Already 1.5 million Americans are estimated to be in consumer-driven health care in the summer of 2002, and that number is now growing very rapidly. What is the consumer-driven health care? It harnesses market forces in ways similar to medical savings accounts. However, there are some differences between medical savings accounts and consumer-driven health care plans. For example, enrollees in consumer-driven health care do not have to make contributions to the account. In the private sector, the employer or in my amendment if it were to pass, Medicare makes the contribution to the personal care account. There would be no tax consequence for the senior under this amendment. In other words, it would not be viewed as income. Some in Congress might be familiar with the account because the American Postal Workers Union of the AFL-CIO consumer-driven health care plan is now available. It is in that bundle of choices that Federal employees have today to choose from. More and more employees are signing up for this concept. This is what the union Web site states: We believe that people who have more control over how their health care dollars are spent are more satisfied consumers and the APWU health plan consumer-driven option is designed to give that kind of control. It is the very thing the Senator from New Hampshire was talking about. It is what we ought to be striving for to balance off the differences and to create the competitive forces within the MedicareAdvantage program. Benefits make sense in consumer-driven health care plans. I draw your attention to my chart. My amendment is designed to encourage market flexibility. The information on this chart is one example of what consumer-driven health care plans can provide. Web site education and decision support is one example. In other words, you can go to the Web site, look at it, make choices and decisions based on the best available information. 100-percent preventive care coverage--the very kind of thing we want in modern medicine today. Preventive benefits keep healthy people healthy instead of making the repairs after the human body breaks down. There are no more barriers to necessary care, including annual physicals, mammograms, and preventive services. All are within this kind of health care plan. All are available today offered by the postal workers. Patient control of personal care accounts for routine health care services are also included. Unused funds in these accounts then roll over into the next year. High deductibles, that is true insurance, to protect against financial ruin in an acute health care crisis, in other words, catastrophic coverage. A limit on annual out-of-pocket spending is an especially important feature. Traditional Medicare does not have an out-of-pocket limit and drives many seniors into bankruptcy. In other words, it limits financial risk when it kicks in at a certain point. It includes care coordination, disease management, and provider network discounts. Consumer-driven health care gives control of health care back to patients. That is why more and more are enrolling in it. We know today, many who work in the health care area with our seniors know they look at the details of their spending; they look at the billing; they know more about their health care and what is being charged than most people realize. Patients and their physicians, ultimately, with this kind of insurance, join in partnerships to seek the finest care at the most reasonable costs. Consumer-driven care is especially suited for patients who like to be personally involved in their health care decisions. More and more Americans who can use the necessary information want that kind of personal involvement. Consumer-driven care eliminates wasteful Medicare spending, it increases patient awareness of health care costs, and encourages prudent purchasing of health care services. Any unspent funds in the personal care account would be returned to the Medicare trust fund upon the death or the disenrollment. That is a key factor. Federal dollars go into the trust fund and, if there are dollars remaining, they flow back into the trust fund of Medicare upon disenrollment or the death of the individual. This amendment would be an important addition to the bill. I wish we could get it into the bill tonight. But it would be unfair to the manager of the bill at this time because it cannot get scored. I would not want to drive the cost up of the already-fixed segment of the MedicareAdvantage side. Already, it is less competitive than we would like it to be. I don't want to add to that disadvantage. We believe ultimately that this will be a budget-neutral program. At that time, it will be the right thing to offer as part of the dynamics that we want to see in a modern health care delivery system and in an improved Medicare with a prescription drug program. I thank my colleagues for listening. We will return with this when it is a final product. It may well make it into the conference between the House and the Senate. We will be working with our colleagues in the House because they have already provided that kind of a provision within the legislation which they are currently debating and voting upon. With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 1086.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhanced Safety from Wildfire Act of 2003. I am joined by my colleagues Mr. Crapo and Mr. Smith. This morning, I awoke to the news that the Aspen fire near Tucson, AZ, made a significant run yesterday and damaged or destroyed an estimated 200 structures. The report also said firefighters could do nothing to stop the wall of fire from ripping through the middle of town. Sadly, this report is one of several such stories today and it is far from being the last. It is only the middle of June and already the wildfire season is in full swing throughout the West. The loss of property as a result of wildfires on Federal land is unacceptable. I believe that our homes and the safety of our communities should never be put in harms way because of the mismanagement of our Federal land. In short, the legislation we are introducing would amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to make it possible for non- Federal land owners to receive compensation for a loss of property as a result of wildfire spreading from Federal land that has not been managed as Condition Class 1. As we all know, in recent years, there has been a significant amount of injury and loss of property resulting from the spread of wildfire from Federal forested lands to non-Federal lands. Recent wildfires on Federal forested lands have shown that lands managed under approved forest health management practices are less susceptible to wildfire, or are subjected to less severe wildfire, than similarly forested lands that are not actively managed. There is a continuing and growing threat to the safety of communities, individuals, homes and other property, and timber on non- Federal lands that adjoin Federal forested lands because of the unnatural accumulation of forest fuels on these Federal lands and the lack of active Federal management of these lands. The use of approved forest health management practices to create forest fire ``buffer zones'' between forested Federal lands and adjacent non-Federal lands would reduce the occurrence of wildfires on forested Federal lands or, at least, limit their spread to non-Federal lands and the severity of the resulting damage. This legislation requires the agencies to manage a ``buffer zone'' on Federal land, greater than 6,400 acres, that is adjacent to non-Federal land. When forested Federal lands adjacent to non-Federal lands are not adequately managed with a ``buffer zone'' and wildfire occurs, the legislation states the owners of the non-Federal lands are eligible for compensation for damages resulting from the spread of wildfire to their lands. The legislation sets minimum criteria for non-Federal land to be eligible for compensation. Our Federal land management agencies need to take responsibility for the fatal impacts that occur on non-Federal land as a result of a lack of management on Federal land. As a society, we have come to expect that our neighbors take responsibility for their actions and I feel the Federal land management agencies should not escape this responsibility either. In the next few weeks, the weather will continue to heat up, the drought ridden West will become drier, wildfire will continue to plague throughout, and the number of reports regarding the loss of property will continue to escalate. At the same time, the forest health debate will also heat up as the Senate considers the President's Healthy Forest Initiative. I know this legislation may not be the answer to solving our Federal land management problems and I am willing to discuss other options, but I know that until we address the heart of this issue, homes, private land, and communities will continue to be at risk because of poor Federal land management. Being a good neighbor means being responsible for your actions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhanced Safety from Wildfire Act of 2003. I am joined by my colleagues Mr. Crapo and Mr. Smith. This morning, I awoke to the news that the Aspen fire near Tucson, AZ, made a significant run yesterday and damaged or destroyed an estimated 200 structures. The report also said firefighters could do nothing to stop the wall of fire from ripping through the middle of town. Sadly, this report is one of several such stories today and it is far from being the last. It is only the middle of June and already the wildfire season is in full swing throughout the West. The loss of property as a result of wildfires on Federal land is unacceptable. I believe that our homes and the safety of our communities should never be put in harms way because of the mismanagement of our Federal land. In short, the legislation we are introducing would amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to make it possible for non- Federal land owners to receive compensation for a loss of property as a result of wildfire spreading from Federal land that has not been managed as Condition Class 1. As we all know, in recent years, there has been a significant amount of injury and loss of property resulting from the spread of wildfire from Federal forested lands to non-Federal lands. Recent wildfires on Federal forested lands have shown that lands managed under approved forest health management practices are less susceptible to wildfire, or are subjected to less severe wildfire, than similarly forested lands that are not actively managed. There is a continuing and growing threat to the safety of communities, individuals, homes and other property, and timber on non- Federal lands that adjoin Federal forested lands because of the unnatural accumulation of forest fuels on these Federal lands and the lack of active Federal management of these lands. The use of approved forest health management practices to create forest fire ``buffer zones'' between forested Federal lands and adjacent non-Federal lands would reduce the occurrence of wildfires on forested Federal lands or, at least, limit their spread to non-Federal lands and the severity of the resulting damage. This legislation requires the agencies to manage a ``buffer zone'' on Federal land, greater than 6,400 acres, that is adjacent to non-Federal land. When forested Federal lands adjacent to non-Federal lands are not adequately managed with a ``buffer zone'' and wildfire occurs, the legislation states the owners of the non-Federal lands are eligible for compensation for damages resulting from the spread of wildfire to their lands. The legislation sets minimum criteria for non-Federal land to be eligible for compensation. Our Federal land management agencies need to take responsibility for the fatal impacts that occur on non-Federal land as a result of a lack of management on Federal land. As a society, we have come to expect that our neighbors take responsibility for their actions and I feel the Federal land management agencies should not escape this responsibility either. In the next few weeks, the weather will continue to heat up, the drought ridden West will become drier, wildfire will continue to plague throughout, and the number of reports regarding the loss of property will continue to escalate. At the same time, the forest health debate will also heat up as the Senate considers the President's Healthy Forest Initiative. I know this legislation may not be the answer to solving our Federal land management problems and I am willing to discuss other options, but I know that until we address the heart of this issue, homes, private land, and communities will continue to be at risk because of poor Federal land management. Being a good neighbor means being responsible for your actions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. The hearing that was originally scheduled for June 19, 2003 has been postponed and will now be held on Wednesday, June 25 at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to gain an understanding of the grazing programs of the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest Service. The Subcommittee will receive testimony on grazing permit renewal, BLM's potential changes to grazing regulations, range monitoring, drought and other grazing issues. This hearing will also provide the basis for other grazing hearings that we may want to undertake at the subcommittee level as the year goes on. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the minority whip yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Will it be possible for me to gain some time following the Senator from Massachusetts?

Mr. CRAIG. I will require more time than that. The Senator, obviously, has the floor, as under the UC, which is fine. I am looking for a window of about 15 or 20 minutes maximum.

Mr. CRAIG. That would be appreciated.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member for the work they have done on the Finance Committee on S. 1, the Medicare legislation. The legislation before us today is a praiseworthy document, in that it is a step forward toward the fundamental goals of providing prescription drug relief for America's seniors and strengthening the Medicare program. This is certainly not to suggest that this legislation is without flaws, but it does begin the process of improving Medicare for our children and our grandchildren down the road and in what we hope will be the right direction. To paraphrase the words of a rather historic person, Benjamin Franklin, ``Is the sun rising, or is the sun setting'' on the promise of creating a federally funded but also privately competitive Medicare system that can succeed, both in holding down costs and in providing adequate coverage? Only the future will tell whether what we have before us is the case of a sun rising on a new day in health care or simply a dramatic shift and a sun setting. What I think is happening here today is the beginning of a very important debate for the remainder of this week and next week. I hope that passage of this legislation will prove to be a major step forward. As chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, I have convened a variety of hearings over the last several months to carefully examine the difficulties of all of the issues that are going to be talked about here this week, including the long-term demographic pressures facing Medicare, the value of integrating competitive alternatives into the program, and the promise of making care coordination part of a strengthened and improved Medicare prescription drug coverage. All of these are important. But there is no question that prescription drug coverage is the political engine that drives this debate, but it is just one of several grave challenges we face as we take up this important legislation. There is no question that drug coverage for America's seniors is long overdue, especially for those in the greatest of need. Except for Medicare, virtually every health care insurance plan in America today covers prescription drugs. Medicare today is trapped in a 1960s model of health care delivery, and lags decades behind what the private sector has to offer. This bill would address this problem. Beginning immediately, America's seniors would receive a drug discount card enabling them to purchase drugs at a significant discount. More importantly, in 2006 seniors would be able to enroll in federally subsidized Medicare drug coverage for a premium of about $35 a month--coverage that would be of greater per-dollar value than that currently offered through Medicare supplemental, Medigap, or wraparound plans. I am especially pleased that this legislation devotes the greatest share of its drug assistance to seniors of low and modest income--most especially seniors below 160 percent of poverty. These seniors--those with annual incomes below about $13,500 for an individual, and about $18,200 for a couple--would receive special assistance of about 80 to 90 percent for their drug costs, depending on income. The truth is, the proportion of seniors who truly cannot afford prescription drugs is relatively small--perhaps 25 percent. It is on these seniors in the greatest of need that our help should be focused. Mr. President, even more important than drug coverage is the urgent need to begin putting Medicare on a more modern and secure footing as the 77-million-strong baby boomer generation moves even closer to retirement age. According to the Medicare Trustees, Medicare costs, even without any drug benefit, will more than triple over the next 75 years, placing a tremendous burden on future generations. Despite this looming challenge, Medicare today remains clogged by rigid bureaucracy and complex regulations regulations that are already beginning to drive doctors and other health care providers out of this program, leaving our seniors, in many instances, without access to the health care they need. Medicare, as we know it today, is micromanaged to the tiniest of details for medical payments and procedures, including the pricing and regulation of more than 7,000 medical procedures and over 500 hospital procedures. Why are we so intent on micromanaging the system? Medicare regulations now total more than 110,000 pages of rules and regulations. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that doctors and hospitals report having to spend half an hour to an hour in paperwork for every hour spent in patient care. In other words, there is often more intensity on doing the paperwork right than there is on good health care procedures for the patient and all because of a Federal system that is so heavily micromanaged. And of course, the risks to providers are high if they fail to perform the required regulatory tasks in the most minute of ways. Even more distressing, the heavily bureaucratic Medicare Program has ultimately failed to keep up with the kinds of medical and health care coverage innovations most of the rest of us take for granted. For example, the current Medicare Program only covers a handful of preventive screenings and tests and in most cases will not even pay for a standard physical. Medicare also lags far behind the private sector in its use of care coordination and disease management systems under which a patient's care is coordinated and optimized, promoting better health outcomes and fewer days of hospitalization. For certain chronic conditions, such as diabetes and congestive heart failure, as many as 83 to 97 percent of America's health care plans now offer such care coordination. Medicare, meanwhile, has only barely begun to experiment with demonstration projects in this area and some prominent experts, such as former CBO Director Dan Crippen, doubt that care management can ever work effectively in Medicare as we know it today. The bill before us seeks to bring Medicare into the 21st century, not just by providing prescription drug coverage, but also by offering seniors the choice to enroll in federally supervised but privately operated health care plans the same kind of choices and coverage currently enjoyed by millions of other Americans under age 65. Ideally, these plans could include preferred provider organizations, fee-for- service plans, HMOs, and even medical savings accounts. The current Medicare system forces seniors to hunt for and purchase supplemental plans for many of the things that Medicare does not cover. By contrast, the new Medicare Advantage plans would give seniors one- stop shopping for comprehensive and integrated coverage including prescription drugs, preventive care, care coordination, and protection against high catastrophic medical bills, benefits which are largely unheard of in the traditional Medicare plan of today. Importantly, these new choices would be entirely voluntary. Seniors who want to keep their current coverage and stay in traditional Medicare would be free to do so. Also, the new prescription drug program would be offered in both the traditional program and in the new Medicare Advantage plans. No senior would see any reduction in Medicare benefits under this bill. No benefits would be taken away--none. I am also extremely pleased this bill includes a significant and necessary package of improvements in rural health care and reimbursement. Among other changes, this legislation would improve certain categories of rural payment and would make needed rule changes to assist critical access hospitals and other rural providers. For far too long, doctors and hospitals in Idaho and other rural States have suffered under payment classifications and reimbursement levels that put them at a significant disadvantage and that make the already difficult job of providing health care in rural America even more daunting. The underlying framework of this bill is a sound one, and it follows the basic principles laid out by President Bush earlier this year-- namely, to strengthen traditional Medicare and keep it as an alternative for those seniors who want it, but also to provide a new foundation for the future, one built on choices, competition, and innovation. This said, however, I am gravely troubled by certain aspects of this bill's current design--particularly the fact that we have not incorporated in it enough competitive alternatives. First, I believe it is a mistake to offer exactly equivalent drug benefits in the older, more traditional program and in the new Medicare Advantage plans--and thereby not create a strong competitive advantage for the Medicare Advantage programs. This is an important issue in causing seniors to make selections toward the marketplace and toward a variety of alternatives--rather than to be fearfully hunkered down, if you will, in the old program. If we truly believe, as I do, that structured competition, rather than a perpetuation of top-down bureaucratic health care, is the better future for Medicare, our legislation should reflect this commitment. Second, this bill unwisely imposes a ceiling, or benchmark, on the amount the Federal Government will pay the new Medicare Advantage plans. What we want is a variety of robust competitive alternatives in the marketplace, and capping or creating a ceiling may threaten that goal. Third, the legislation creates an unnecessarily heavy-handed and restrictive bidding system for the Medicare Advantage Program. Under this program, HHS would choose only three winning plans for each of ten national regions. Far preferable would be a system like the Federal Health Benefits Program, under which any plan meeting basic federal standards would be permitted to compete. It should be the marketplace, not HHS bureaucrats, who decide which plans succeed or fail. Fourth, I am concerned by this legislation's overall high level of complexity and prescriptiveness--prescriptiveness that threatens to add appreciably to the 110,000 pages of regulation already in place. Shame on us if we do that. This bill, which I suspect weighs a few pounds, has hundreds and hundreds of pages. I hope that, for every page of legislation we do not also see 25 or 30 pages of ensuing regulation. If that is the case, we will have created the opposite of what we should intend--namely walking away from the bureaucracy and into the marketplace, into the opportunity of choice, and into a much freer environment--one that providers want to join, and one that provides optimum health care for the senior of today. Over the course of the next week and a half, hopefully, amendments will take us toward simplicity instead of toward the kind of micromanagement we have seen in the past. History should not repeat itself here, and I think all of us should be concerned that it might. This is because we have the great tendency to err on the side of the bureaucracy and the side of regulation, when, in fact, the marketplace--as shown by the hearings I have held--can, in fact, be the greater arbiter of health care when effective competition is provided. These concerns are by no means exhaustive. Like many of my colleagues, I am also concerned about the complexity and stability of the proposed system for providing drug coverage in the traditional Medicare program, and I worry about the possibility that some employers may react to the new Federal drug coverage by cutting back or dropping benefits they currently provide to their retirees. Finally, I want to caution my colleagues, in no uncertain terms, that neither this bill nor any of the alternative Democratic proposals offers a magic bullet for Medicare's future. The financial and demographic outlook for Medicare is sobering in the extreme, and nothing can change the fact that hard choices lie ahead, regardless of what we do this year. This legislation could improve our prospects, but it is, at best, only a first step. Majority Leader Frist, Senator Grassley, and others on the Finance Committee deserve tremendous credit for bringing us to where we are today, as does President Bush for making prescription drugs and Medicare reform a top priority this year. The coming weeks will be critical ones. I hope we can succeed in producing a bill worthy of this historic opportunity. Mr. President, I again thank the chairman and the ranking member. I also thank Senator Frist, our leader, for insisting that this issue get to the floor for the kind of debate I trust we will have--and for working with the House toward putting on our President's desk something that we have long promised America's seniors: That those who are truly needy will have access to prescription drugs and all seniors will have access to a modernized Medicare Program. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand we are to resume debate on S. 14 at 10?

Mr. CRAIG. The chairman of the committee who is managing the bill is not yet on the floor. Until he comes, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. I am going to talk on energy, anyway, so we could do that. I would withdraw my UC.