Jean Carnahan

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I am honored today to pay tribute to the outgoing Adjutant General of the Missouri National Guard, Major General John D. Havens. Governor Carnahan appointed him to this post on March 6, 1997. For the next 4 years, General Havens was responsible for leading 10,000 Missouri Army and Air National Guard personnel as well as the State Emergency Management Agency and Civil Air Patrol. Under his stewardship, the State's Guard was always ready for action; ready to respond to disasters both in Missouri and elsewhere when duty called. In addition, the Missouri Guard was ready to aid in our country's national defense. General Havens has been in command of our Missouri Guard men and women as they performed missions in defense of freedom throughout the world. His troops have graced the sky or put boots on the ground of 18 States and 26 countries. General Havens created several ground-breaking programs as well. He was instrumental in establishing Missouri's Show-Me ChalleNGe Program for our State's youth. His Guardsmen created an educational program that instilled discipline and motivation in teenagers who had dropped out of school. To this day, the valuable program continues to enhance the responsibility and self-esteem of Missouri's ``at-risk'' youth. General Havens fostered a culture of success by growing an organization that emphasizes skill, talent, and dedication, and values diversity. This philosophy enabled him to improve recruitment in both rural and urban areas, as demonstrated by our impressive retention rates under General Havens' administration. Missourians are proud to be associated with our Guard. For his action, the NAACP presented the General with its prestigious 2001 Roy Wilkins Renown Service Award honoring his concern for the diversity, health, strength, comfort and accomplishments of the Guard's men and women. Throughout his military career, General Havens earned several other awards, including the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal. But more important than any of these awards, was the honor and respect he enjoys from the men and women who served under him. General Havens is truly a people's general, and he will be missed. In the past, I had the opportunity to work with Guard members first hand as they helped Missourians cope with natural disasters. I saw the deep commitment and compassion General Havens had instilled in them. I will also never forget the tremendous kindness shown by General Havens and members of the Guard during my husband's funeral. General Havens' career reflects the ideal of service represented by General George Washington when he said, ``When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.'' Throughout his career of service to our State and to this Nation, he truly epitomized the concept of Citizen Soldier. General Havens has served our Nation and our State honorably. I wish him all the best in retirement. He will be remembered as a patriot, a leader, a Missourian, an American, and a friend.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

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

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, a few week ago, the Department of Agriculture announced that commodity prices had taken their biggest 1- month drop in more than 90 years. It has been 5 years since Congress last passed a farm bill. Every year since then, we have needed an expensive bailout bill. These bailouts are usually referred to as emergency disaster assistance. But the real disaster has been our farm policy itself. The 1996 farm bill provided farmers with flexibility in deciding what, when, and where to plant. But it left them utterly without a safety net. When floods came, the farm bill gave them nothing. When droughts cut their output in half, the farm bill gave them nothing. When the bottom fell out of prices, when the cost of fuel skyrocketed, when armyworms destroyed an entire crop, the farm bill gave them nothing. Only when Congress passed emergency spending bills did farmers get any relief. That is a raw deal for the people who feed our Nation--and the world. How can farmers and ranchers plan for the next year's crop not knowing what programs will be in place? It is time for Congress to act on a new farm bill--one that promoted competitiveness and consumer choice, while providing adequate income to farmers. This fall, I wrote to Chairman Harkin outlining my priorities for the farm bill. I shared with him the recommendations I have heard from farmers across Missouri. I am pleased so many of these ideas were included in the bill reported by the committee. First and foremost, this farm bill recognizes the need for a safety net. The safety net is counter-cyclical--to give farmers assistance when they need it the most. It will buffer our farm economy in difficult times, and allow small producers to stay in business. The bill also allows producers to update the baseline acreage used to calculate these payments, to ensure they reflect the realities of today. Earlier this year I proposed legislation to expand tax credits and other incentives to promote ethanol, soy-diesel, and other value-added products. I am pleased that this new farm includes an energy title that will harness the potential of these clean, renewable fuels. They provide valuable economic development, they give farmers a greater market for their product, they cut pollution and they decrease our reliance on foreign oil. I applaud Chairman Harkin and the committee for crafting a farm bill that strongly encourage the continued development of biofuels. I hope amendments will be added that will further promote the use of these fuels. The farm bill passed by the Agriculture Committee makes a historic commitment to conservation. It allocates $20 billion over the next 10 years in new spending for conservation programs. That is $5 billion more than the House passed, and we need every penny. The farm bill would invest almost $750 million in conservation efforts for Missouri over the next 5 years. The bill protects the property rights of landowners. It encourages producers to remove sensitive land from agricultural production. It also offers incentives for continuing conservation practices and adopting new ones. If offers technical assistance for farmers and ranchers. It gives greater opportunities for private landowners to voluntarily expand conservation on forested lands. And it provides livestock producers with resources to build waste management systems. I also believe we need country-of-origin labeling, as called for under this legislation. America's farmers grow the best products. They are the most efficient. They sue chemicals that are proven to be safe. And they live by the strictest environmental standards in the world. I believe consumers, if given the option, would choose American products every time. Now more than ever, Americans are concerned about food security. They want to know where their food is coming from. Country-of-origin labeling would not only help our livestock producers, but would also assure consumers that the products that they buy are safe. We need measures to help rural America and help the family farm stay in business. Missouri farmers have urged me to assist them in efforts to revitalize rural communities and promote economic development. Rural America needs improved drinking water, telecommunications, and other infrastructure. This bill provides funding to address many of these needs. And it increases access to capital for rural business ventures, particular equity capital. I am particularly concerned about our young farmers who need financing to begin farming or to stay in the business. Under this bill, the Direct Loan Farm Service Agency Program of the Farm Service Agency will be strengthened to assist these young producers. In addition, a new farm bill must include a strong nutrition title. We must provide the Food Stamp Program with the resources it needs. We cannot abandon families who have been hit hard by the recession, or those struggling to move from welfare to work. Chairman Harkin's bill invests more than $6 billion in this important title. The House bill provides only half that. But with so many people out of work, so many children going hungry, we need the full amount. Chairman Harkin's nutrition title will make the Food Stamp Program work better for the people it serves. It makes the process of applying for food stamp benefits more efficient. It helps families moving from welfare to work by extending transitional benefits. It restores the value of food stamps to help poorer families keep up with inflation. These changes will mean a great deal to those who are struggling with the essentials of daily life. One deficiency of this bill is that it does not address the issue of competition. There is a growing problem of vertical integration and concentration among agribusiness firms. The small family farm is becoming an endangered species, and that's just not right. We need a strong competition title to maximize consumer choices. We must facilitate farmers' choices in marketing products and meaningful price competition. I hope that over the course of the next few days, this bill can be improved with a competition title that will ensure we have a vibrant farm economy. Mr. President, this farm bill isn't perfect, but it makes sense for Missouri's farmers. And it makes sense for America. It expands markets. It protects the environment. It is fair to small family farmers. And, most importantly, it provides a safety net when farmers need help. Fundamentally, this bill is about ensuring that the hardworking men and women who produce the food that feeds the world can earn a decent living. These farmers deserve our full support. Once again I thank the chairman and the committee, and I hope the Senate will act quickly on this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment proposed by my friend and colleague from Missouri. Senator Bond's legislation requires the Defense Department to report to Congress on the future of the tactical aircraft industry. This is an important piece of legislation. It will allow the Pentagon to examine the long term impact of the largest contract award in world history on October 26 of this year, the Defense Department awarded the Joint Strike Fighter contract exclusively to the Lockheed Martin JSF team. Senator Bond and I are concerned that this decision might put America's tactical aircraft industry in jeopardy, and set a bad precedent for other defense contracts. The JSF program is the largest defense contract in history. It is the only fighter jet contract planned in the next 30 years. Up until October 26th, Boeing and Lockheed remained America's only major contractors in the tactical aircraft industry. Now, if the Lockheed team performs the entire contract, Boeing would likely be forced out of the fighter jet business. Competition in the industry would be eliminated. Future innovation would be stifled. Costs would rise. Our national security would be put at risk. The preeminent military power in the world cannot have just one company building fighter jets. That would be unacceptable to me and many members in our defense community. Just 3 years ago, the Defense Department blocked the largest merger in defense industry history due to concerns that the merger would stifle innovation and reduce competition in key aspects of defense production. It cannot now stand idly by and allow the elimination of competition for fighter jets. When the Joint Strike Fighter award was announced last month, many of us in the Missouri delegation made it clear that we believe it is imperative for Boeing to play a role in the production of this aircraft. Now we are proposing a study to examine the consequences if we should fail to secure a major role for Boeing in this important program. Senator Bond has posed some pertinent questions today. I hope this body will support a study that simply seeks to answer these questions. Above all, we must examine how the U.S. Government will be able to preserve sufficient expertise in this industry, if Boeing is driven out of the tactical aircraft business. When the JSF award was announced, the Defense Department issued a statement that said that the Pentagon would encourage Lockheed and Boeing to work together on this program. A Department of Defense press release stated on October 26 that, and I quote, The expertise resident in the teams not selected today can still make a contribution to the JSF effort through revised industrial teaming arrangements. DOD will encourage teaming arrangements that make the most efficient use of the expertise in the industrial base to deliver the `best value' product.'' I fully agree with this statement. I expect the Department of Defense to follow through on its commitment to encourage teaming between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Boeing should be a major partner in this project. Boeing and Lockheed Martin executives are currently engaged in negotiations on this very subject. I believe that Boeing has a strong case for why it should play a major role in this critical program. Boeing and its predecessor McDonnell-Douglas have a long history of delivery top-quality airplanes to militaries around the globe. Its award-winning management team has built a solid reputation for meeting production deadlines. Boeing makes some of the most affordable aircraft in the world. Boeing's workforce has a unique expertise. Boeing remains the world leader in developing short take-off fighters for the Marines. Boeing also produces for the Navy the foremost jet fighter for aircraft carrier operations. Lockheed Martin could use Boeing's vast experience in building these aircraft. Lockheed Martin executives should bear this in mind during their discussions with Boeing. I believe that the next generation of tactical jets must be built by an experienced team. This team should include Boeing Managers, engineers and technicians, who have helped build the Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornets as well as the Marine Corps' AV-8B Harriers. Lockheed should keep in mind the concerns of the Pentagon, and Democratic and Republican leaders alike. Lockheed's discussion with Boeing will have some serious long-term effects. With only major companies in the tactical aircraft industry, Lockheed's decisions will directly impact the industrial base of the Nation's fighter business. Let there be no mistake. My colleagues and I in the Missouri delegation will not rest until we are assured that Boeing's role in the tactical aircraft business is secure. Senator Bond and I are united in our determination to pursue every avenue, in the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee, to ensure that the industrial base of this critical industry is preserved. Our colleagues in the House, including the Democratic leader, the majority deputy whip, and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and committed to this effort. Today, we must take this first step. We must examine the consequences of the JSF contact award, and ensure that the future of America's tactical aircrafts remains secure.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, as you know, the Senate seat I currently hold was previously occupied by a distinguished man from Independence, MO, President Harry S Truman. So it is with great enthusiasm and pride that I take this opportunity to recognize the Grand Rededication of the Harry S Truman Presidential Museum and Library on December 9, 2001. This weekend, the Truman Museum and Library will open a remarkable new permanent exhibit, ``Harry S Truman: The Presidential Years.'' This compelling installation provides current and future generations with an interactive experience that allows them to fully immerse themselves in the Truman Presidency. Visitors will feel the pressure on Truman and his administration during the formative post-World War II years as President Truman and his advisors debated crucial decisions, such as use of the atomic bomb and recognition of the state of Israel. Those decisions continue to shape the world we now live in. This exhibit comes after the addition of the new White House Decision Center, which opened in October. The White House Decision Center is a replica of the West Wing and provides students with the opportunity to take on the role of President Truman or of his advisors during the Truman Presidency. Since its opening in 1957, the Truman Museum and Library has remained true to the wishes of President Truman, who felt his papers should be the property of the people and accessible to them. With this directive in mind, the Truman Museum and Library house and preserve White House files as well as papers that document President Truman's life and career. These new projects are just the latest innovative exhibits, seminars, and public programs that have engaged and educated the public for over 40 years. I commend all who have made this renovation and grand rededication possible, particularly the staff at the Truman Museum and Library. Their remarkable work and dedication to public service exemplify the integrity that Harry S Truman brought to the office of the Presidency. Each day as I represent the people of Missouri in the United States Senate, I am humbled by the honor to succeed this great man and Missouri's own, Harry S Truman.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I am very encouraged to hear that the leadership has begun negotiations regarding the stimulus package. Congress has been paralyzed on this issue for weeks now. And while we sat here at an impasse, economists confirmed that our Nation is in a recession. We must act quickly to jump start our slowing economy. It is well past time for us to find common ground. As we seek compromise, I encourage my colleagues to keep in mind the goal of a stimulus package. In order to truly promote economic growth, the policies we approve should take effect immediately, they should have a temporary cost, and they should focus on those individuals and businesses most likely to spend and invest additional cash. These are the bipartisan principles that we started with. These principles ought to guide our negotiations now. A wide range of proposals will be on the table for this negotiation. The Republicans have a plan, and the Democrats have a plan. The Centrist Coalition has its own proposal. From among all these ideas, we must put together a balanced, reasonable package. In the end, the stimulus package needs to promote business investment, spur consumer demand, and assist those Americans who have lost their livelihoods during this recession. Shortly before Thanksgiving, Senator Domenici, with the support of my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, added a new and interesting idea to the debate. They suggested that Congress should provide a payroll tax holiday for the month of December. This idea has some merit. It would distribute benefits across a broad range of taxpayers, including most individuals who earn less than $80,000 a year. And it would provide needed cash to businesses based on the size of their payrolls. However, the question remains: How does this new idea fit into the overall stimulus debate? It has been suggested that a payroll tax holiday could substitute for proposed rebate checks to low-income workers. I have serious reservations about such a tradeoff. Rebate checks of $300 would go to low-income workers who have not yet received any tax refund this year. Let me give you an example. A single mother working full time at a minimum wage job would probably be eligible for a $500 rebate check. This money could help her put food on the table, or cover the rent, or keep her old car going a few months more. However, under the Social Security tax holiday, she would receive about $50 worth of tax relief--not enough to make a real difference. That is not a fair trade. I am sure that the single mother who is struggling to make ends meet would not consider that a good deal. This is not to say that the payroll tax holiday has no place in a stimulus package. Rather, I simply suggest that it is not an appropriate substitute for tax relief for our lowest income workers. In spite of this observation, I think that the payroll holiday may have a place in the stimulus package. The payroll tax holiday has the benefit of providing assistance to both workers and businesses. It is therefore appropriate that it be included in place of other individual and business tax cuts under consideration. I propose that the payroll tax holiday is appropriate in lieu of two proposals in the House bill: The acceleration of the 28 percent tax rate cut, and the repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax, or AMT. Let us first look at the impact of my suggestion for individuals. Under current law, the 28 percent tax bracket is scheduled to be reduced to 25 percent by 2006. It has been proposed that it would be stimulative to implement this cut next year. This tax cut would benefit married couples filing jointly with income over $45,000, and individuals who earn more than $27,000. This is approximately one- quarter of all income tax payers. On the other hand, a payroll tax holiday will help almost all taxpayers. Americans are subject to payroll taxes on the first $80,400 of income per year. In other words, every worker who has earned less than about $80,000 by the end of November would get a tax break. And very importantly, the payroll tax break is immediate and temporary. If we accelerate the rate cuts next year, it will still cost us money in 2003, in 2004, and in 2005. In all, over the next 10 years the accelerated tax cuts could cost $78 billion. But only the money put into workers' hands now can stimulate the economy. The payroll tax holiday would inject more money into the economy now. It would cost less in the long run than accelerating rate cuts. And it would benefit a much greater number of workers. In short, the payroll tax holiday meets our basic principles for stimulus and accelerating rate cuts simply does not. Now I will discuss the impact of my suggestion for corporations. The House-passed stimulus bill and the proposal made by Senator Grassley would repeal the corporate alternative minimum tax. Elimination of this tax would cost approximately $25 billion next year. Let's be clear. This is a tax paid by profitable corporations that would otherwise pay no tax at all. By contrast, a payroll tax holiday would benefit all corporations. Under current law, corporations pay a Social Security payroll tax equal to 6.2 percent of each employee's income up to $80,400 per year. With a payroll tax holiday for the month of December, these businesses would save $19 billion. This is additional cash infused into virtually all businesses. It would help our small businesses, the true engine of our economy. The size of the tax benefit is linked directly to the wages the company is paying to its employees. This tax cut would make it easier for businesses to keep workers on their payrolls, and that is the whole goal of this stimulus package, to keep America working. Congress ought to act quickly to reinvigorate this country. In order to do so, we must be willing to compromise. While I may not think that a payroll tax holiday is the perfect way to stimulate our economy, I understand compromise, and I am willing to support Senator Domenici's proposal, if it is offered in place of these other tax cuts that are unpalatable to me. This is a compromise that makes sense to me. It makes sense to that single mother who is trying to make ends meet. It makes sense to most businesses which would not benefit from a repeal of the corporate AMT. And it makes basic sense, based on the principles that were laid out by the House and Senate Budget Committees at the beginning of this year, that the effects of the stimulus be temporary, immediate, and focused on those most likely to spend the investment. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this sensible compromise. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. I am proud to join Senator Kennedy, Senator Frist, and Senator Gregg as an original cosponsor of this timely bipartisan legislation. Senator Kennedy and Senator Frist have been leaders on this issue even before the events of September 11. In June of 2000, they introduced the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act, which was enacted into law last year. The recent anthrax attacks have shown that Congress must do much more to prepare our country for possible future bioterrorist attacks. We need to e4nsure that all of our communities across the country, both rural and urban, are equipped to respond to a bioterrorism attack in the event that such an unfortunate act should occur. The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act would put in place a comprehensive national strategy to combat bioterrorism. This legislation would improve preparedness at the Federal, State, and local levels. It would increase investments in public health surveillance systems and public health laboratories to improve our ability to detect an attack. Moreover, the Act would strengthen our ability to contain the spread of a bioterrorism attack by increasing the Nation's stockpile of vaccines and treatments. One critical component of a national strategy on bioterrorism is communication between the government and the public. Americans have many questions about what bioterrorism is and how they can protect their families. They need a reliable source of information where they can go to get accurate answers to their questions, thereby alleviating some of their anxiety and fears. Several weeks ago, I introduced the Bioterrorism Awareness Act, S. 1548, to address this need. S. 1548 calls for the creation of a single website containing information on bioterrorism that would serve as the official federal government source of information for the public. This website will provide ``one-stop shopping'' for people who need to find answers to questions about bioterrorism. For so many of us, the fear of bioterrorism is a fear of the unknown. Knowledge is power, and the more knowledge we have about terrorism, the more power we have to overcome our fears. I am pleased that my proposal has been included as a key part of the national communications strategy in the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. This legislation calls for the creation of a new official Federal website to serve as the definitive source of bioterrorism for the public and other targeted populations. For example, farmers and others individuals involved in the Nation's food supply need accurate information on bioterrorism. This website would include information geared specifically towards the needs of agricultural workers and the unique challenges they might encounter in the event of a bioterrorism attack on our food supply. I encourage the development of this website as soon as possible. The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act also contains other provisions aimed at protecting our food supply. It recognizes that our Nation's food supply cannot be left vulnerable to a terrorist attack. The bill would authorize funds to increase the Food and Drug Administration's authority to perform food inspections. It would also authorize funds to improve security at facilities belonging to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services, and universities across the country, where potential animal and plant pathogens are housed or researched. I know that farmers in Missouri, as well as across the country, are concerned about protecting their crops and livestock. A terrorist attack on these targets has the potential to not only disrupt the food supply in the U.S., but throughout the world. The potential economic impact on farmers' livelihood would be devastating to them and their families. The food safety provisions in this bill go far in protecting this essential national resource. Another key component in dealing with bioterrorism is providing states with the resources to be equipped to respond. The bill would award block grants to states for improving preparedness and coordination in the event of an attack. These grants would allow States to improve their surveillance and detection capabilities. Further, they would allow states to bolster their public health infrastructure to best protect the public from an attack. These block grants are especially important because when it comes to protecting our nation from terrorism, the Federal Government cannot do it alone. We need the cooperation and support of State and local governments to protect the citizens at all levels. These funds will help ensure that State governments have the resources they need to prevent and respond to a bioterrorism attack. This bipartisan legislation would allow our Nation to improve its ability to prevent, detect, contain, and respond to a possible bioterrorist attack. In this time of uncertainty, preparation is our best defense. This bill provides the necessary resources to strengthen that defense throughout all levels of government--Federal, State, and local. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Bioterrorism Preparedness Act'' and to act on it expeditiously.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for a period not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, yesterday's action by the Senate to block the consideration of an economic stimulus package was unfortunate, untimely, and unnecessary. For the third time in 2 months, we missed an opportunity to bring desperately needed assistance to unemployed workers. We were also blocked from providing tax relief to businesses to encourage new investment, and we were not even permitted to consider a homeland security initiative to meet the safety needs of our homes and communities. But the resumption of negotiations on an economic stimulus package between congressional leaders and the administration is a positive sign. I say ``resumption of negotiations'' because there were productive talks last month between administration officials and congressional leaders. These talks resulted in an agreement on the size of the stimulus package and consensus was beginning to build. The Democratic and Republican leaders of the Budget Committee also agreed upon a set of guidelines to develop this legislation. They said it should be immediate, that it should provide a temporary stimulus. They also said it should focus on those who would be most likely to spend the money, and all that was left was to fill in the details. Unfortunately, the sensible process was abandoned. The House of Representatives pushed through a tax bill that was not temporary, did not provide immediate stimulus, and did not put money into the hands of those most likely to spend it. The House bill was bloated well beyond the size of the package that had been agreed upon, and the permanent changes it would make to the Tax Code would return us to the days of deficit spending and high interest rates. The bill passed by a slim margin on a partisan vote. The fact that the administration has endorsed this effort is a grave disappointment. Now that we are back at the negotiating table, it is time to return to the bipartisan Budget Committee principles. It should be stimulative, immediate, and temporary. Nobody can doubt that our economy is in trouble. The employment rate jumped 5.4 percent in October; nearly 8 million workers are unemployed. We must rise above our differences and focus on the priorities that unite us. Three things are of paramount importance. It is important that we get business growing again. There are a variety of good tax cut proposals for businesses on the table. They would cause immediate investment and growth without busting the budget. Identifying the best set of incentives should not be a difficult task. But it is also important that we invigorate consumer demand. Both sides of the aisle have proposed tax rebate checks to those Americans who did not receive a rebate earlier this year. We know that a $300 rebate to low-income persons would create economic activity because this money will be spent to make ends meet. But it is also important to provide temporary assistance to those who have lost their jobs. As we have in previous recessions, Congress should extend unemployment benefits. The claim that these benefits would be a disincentive to work is an insult to our workers. I have never met anyone who would rather receive a meager unemployment check than hold a job. But we need to provide unemployment benefits for a longer time than usual because the economy simply is not producing new jobs. Republicans and Democrats agree that those who have lost their jobs should not also lose their health insurance. But there are many different ideas on the best way to provide health insurance to unemployed workers. Whether it is a tax credit or a subsidy, I am open to these ideas. The important thing is that we not add millions of workers to the ranks of the unemployed and uninsured. We should also take care that our actions do not compound the fiscal woes of our State and local governments. Many States were already experiencing large budget deficits even before September 11. Since the attacks, there has been a sharp reduction in revenues. There has been an increased burden on essential Government services. If the Federal tax cuts we enact result in a reduction in State revenue, we must find a way to fill the gap for our States. If we stay focused on our core priorities, we can come to an agreement. We can also be sure that we don't bust the budget in the long run. Economists have warned us that if we abandon fiscal discipline, we will force long-term interest rates to rise. If we push up home mortgage rates, then any other stimulus we provide will be futile. Keeping interest rates low is especially important in my State. Missouri has one of the highest rates of home ownership in the country. Seventy-four percent of Missourians own their own homes, and they are counting on us to act responsibly. They are counting on our national leaders to step forward. The President has shown bold leadership in the war against terrorism, and now they are counting on him to show bold leadership on the economic front as well. A bipartisan agreement in the Senate is within reach. It is up to the President to bring all parties together for a sensible, balanced economic package that is good for America. That is the challenge. Americans are watching and waiting. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to honor a true hero on the occasion of his 90th birthday. John Jordan O'Neil, Jr. was born on November 13, 1911 in Carrabelle, FL. Over the years he has been given many nicknames including Jay, Foots, Country, Cap, even Nancy and Old Relic, but the one that endures is Buck. As a teenager, he worked in the Sarasota celery fields. The job was miserable, toiling in the oven-hot dirt and muck. He knew there had to be something better, and fortunately for us, he was right. Buck O'Neil loves baseball. It's that simple. In his own words he describes what a wonderful thing baseball is. ``There is nothing greater for a human being than to get his body to react to all the things one does on a ballfield . . . It's as good as music. It fills you up.'' You see, by studying the history of baseball one discovers a great deal about the sport's hidden history. Biographer Ken Burns said, ``By lifting the rug of our past, we find not only the sins we hoped we had concealed beneath it, but also new and powerful heroes who thrived in the darkness and can teach us much about how to live in the light.'' Living through the bitter experiences that our country reserved to men of his color, Buck reflects only gold and light out of despair and suffering. He knows he can go farther with generosity and kindness than with anger and hate. He knows what human progress is all about. When asked to tell of his journey from the Negro Leagues to the Majors, Buck's eyes light up. Though he has been telling the story for the past fifty years, he never tires of recounting the playing days and the men who lived it--men like Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson and Cool Papa Bell. Like many a good story and storyteller, it's interesting to see how much they've improved over the years. When others would have preferred to live in a more enlightened time, Buck has no regrets. ``Waste no tears on me,'' he says. ``I didn't come along too early. I was right on time.'' What a lesson we can learn from this great hero. ``Give it up''--that's Buck's way. Don't be so formal. Don't hide behind polite conversations. Don't be afraid to show someone some love. Show what's in your heart, always; don't keep it inside. On this special occasion I urge us all to ``Give it up.''

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. I am proud to join Senator Kennedy, Senator Frist, and Senator Gregg as an original cosponsor of this timely bipartisan legislation. Senator Kennedy and Senator Frist have been leaders on this issue even before the events of September 11. In June of 2000, they introduced the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act, which was enacted into law last year. The recent anthrax attacks have shown that Congress must do much more to prepare our country for possible future bioterrorist attacks. We need to e4nsure that all of our communities across the country, both rural and urban, are equipped to respond to a bioterrorism attack in the event that such an unfortunate act should occur. The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act would put in place a comprehensive national strategy to combat bioterrorism. This legislation would improve preparedness at the Federal, State, and local levels. It would increase investments in public health surveillance systems and public health laboratories to improve our ability to detect an attack. Moreover, the Act would strengthen our ability to contain the spread of a bioterrorism attack by increasing the Nation's stockpile of vaccines and treatments. One critical component of a national strategy on bioterrorism is communication between the government and the public. Americans have many questions about what bioterrorism is and how they can protect their families. They need a reliable source of information where they can go to get accurate answers to their questions, thereby alleviating some of their anxiety and fears. Several weeks ago, I introduced the Bioterrorism Awareness Act, S. 1548, to address this need. S. 1548 calls for the creation of a single website containing information on bioterrorism that would serve as the official federal government source of information for the public. This website will provide ``one-stop shopping'' for people who need to find answers to questions about bioterrorism. For so many of us, the fear of bioterrorism is a fear of the unknown. Knowledge is power, and the more knowledge we have about terrorism, the more power we have to overcome our fears. I am pleased that my proposal has been included as a key part of the national communications strategy in the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. This legislation calls for the creation of a new official Federal website to serve as the definitive source of bioterrorism for the public and other targeted populations. For example, farmers and others individuals involved in the Nation's food supply need accurate information on bioterrorism. This website would include information geared specifically towards the needs of agricultural workers and the unique challenges they might encounter in the event of a bioterrorism attack on our food supply. I encourage the development of this website as soon as possible. The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act also contains other provisions aimed at protecting our food supply. It recognizes that our Nation's food supply cannot be left vulnerable to a terrorist attack. The bill would authorize funds to increase the Food and Drug Administration's authority to perform food inspections. It would also authorize funds to improve security at facilities belonging to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services, and universities across the country, where potential animal and plant pathogens are housed or researched. I know that farmers in Missouri, as well as across the country, are concerned about protecting their crops and livestock. A terrorist attack on these targets has the potential to not only disrupt the food supply in the U.S., but throughout the world. The potential economic impact on farmers' livelihood would be devastating to them and their families. The food safety provisions in this bill go far in protecting this essential national resource. Another key component in dealing with bioterrorism is providing states with the resources to be equipped to respond. The bill would award block grants to states for improving preparedness and coordination in the event of an attack. These grants would allow States to improve their surveillance and detection capabilities. Further, they would allow states to bolster their public health infrastructure to best protect the public from an attack. These block grants are especially important because when it comes to protecting our nation from terrorism, the Federal Government cannot do it alone. We need the cooperation and support of State and local governments to protect the citizens at all levels. These funds will help ensure that State governments have the resources they need to prevent and respond to a bioterrorism attack. This bipartisan legislation would allow our Nation to improve its ability to prevent, detect, contain, and respond to a possible bioterrorist attack. In this time of uncertainty, preparation is our best defense. This bill provides the necessary resources to strengthen that defense throughout all levels of government--Federal, State, and local. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Bioterrorism Preparedness Act'' and to act on it expeditiously.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, in the past few weeks, I have often thought of that scene in one of Shakespeare's plays where two friends meet, but one does not recognize the other. One explains: ``Grief hath changed me since you saw me last.'' Yes, grief has changed the face of America. We are tear stained by tragedy, but we are triumphant in spirit. It has been nearly 60 years since we experienced such a lethal and cowardly attack on our Nation. Though I was a young child at the time, I still remember the shock and sadness of Pearl Harbor. But I also recall the spirit of unity and partiotism that swelled up within us following that attack. At a time when half of our Navy lay at the bottom of the ocean, President Roosevelt spoke of our ``inevitable triumph.'' He placed his confidence in what he called ``the unbounding determination of the American people.'' We all pulled together in the years that followed. We conquered fascism and communism, we rescued democracy, and we built a better world. America's veterans led the way. Today, our President has called us to a similar resolve. And we will answer that call again. We must start by making a new commitment to all those who serve today, and to every one of America's veterans. I have proposed legislation that would extend Tri-Care benefits to our citizens soldiers for up to four months after they return from active duty. It has passed the Senate, and I am working to make sure it becomes part of the Defense bill. I also support a bill to provide Tri-Care for life to every American veteran, because I think we owe them that much. I believe we should extend the Montgomery G.I. bill, and allow veterans to transfer half of their education benefits to their family. I also support the President's efforts to improve the Veterans' Administration's response to benefit claims. It is shameful that someone who risked their life for our country should have to wait for months, even years, to get the benefits they deserve, the benefits they have earned. There might be those who say we can't afford to care for our Nation's veterans, that the price is too high. But I say, if we don't stand by those who fought for us, we are unworthy of their sacrifice. So on the Veteran's Day 2001, a day of remembrance and commitment, we salute the fighting men and women of our Nation, active duty, reserves, and veterans. We look to them in our time of national need. They have never let us down. We pledge our support in the defense of freedom. We declare to them, we declare to each other, we will not allow the American dream to be diminished by fear, or our eyes dimmed by tears. From the ashes of terrorism, we will build a new tower to freedom that will cast its light around the world. With God's help, we will prove again what the poet Carl Sandburg once said: ``We are Americans. Nothing like us ever was.''

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Alaska and my colleague from Illinois for their kindness this morning. I add my voice to those who believe we must act quickly to revitalize the American economy. Even before the terrorist attacks, our economy was slowing down. New reports now indicate the unemployment rate is rising, that consumer confidence is low, and that businesses are postponing investments. The convergence of these important indicators spells trouble for us in the months ahead. That is why Congress must act now. The American people expect us to find solutions. All across America, the fires of patriotism are burning brightly while in the Congress we smolder in indecision. In fact, we in this Congress can learn from the unity and patriotism of the American people. They want us to work together across party lines to do the urgent business of this Nation. Leading economists in the country have repeatedly told us what needs to be done. We can jump-start our sluggish economy, we are told, by providing immediate tax relief and economic assistance targeted to those who are most likely to invest and spend. These economists have also warned us that if we abandon fiscal discipline, long-term interest rates will rise. It is time for us to heed their sensible advice. The Democratic and Republican leaders of the Budget Committee in both the House and the Senate have laid out very useful principles for an effective stimulus package. They all agree the legislation ought to be immediate, it should be temporary, and it should be focused on individuals and businesses most likely to spend the stimulus dollars. I believe if we abide by these bipartisan principles, we can craft a stimulus package that would give a boost to the American economy, and we can do that without jeopardizing our long-term fiscal health. Using these guidelines, we can craft a package that will garner support from both parties and one that President Bush can sign quickly. Our goal is to get the Nation back to work again and back to growing again. By getting cash into the hands of businesses, we can create new jobs and new investments in plants and equipment. A number of promising ideas have been suggested that would provide this needed cash infusion into businesses. It has been proposed that businesses could accelerate the rate at which they depreciate new assets. Doing this would help businesses of all sizes decrease their costs this year and free up investment capital. For example, let me tell my colleagues about a company in my hometown of Rolla, MO. It is called Brewer Science, Inc. It is a successful and growing company that employs 235 people. It produces the chemicals used in the manufacture of integrated circuits. The proposed increase in allowable deductions would enable this small business to expand faster. Additional cash in this business could be spent on additional research and development, and that is the kind of investment and expansion that will get our economy back on track. Increasing business investments address only part of the problem. While the economy goes through its natural business cycle, many Americans are facing immediate unemployment. Creating new jobs for these workers is crucial, but it will take some time. In the meanwhile, we must help these families in crisis. Last Friday, the Labor Department released some alarming figures. Seven hundred thousand Americans lost their jobs in October. The unemployment rate surged to 5.4 percent this month. There are now a total of 7.7 million Americans out of work. These are staggering numbers. Families all across America are hurting. Shortly after September 11, I encouraged my colleagues to act quickly on behalf of the workers in the airline industry who lost their jobs abruptly. To my great regret, they did not act. At that time, many in this body claimed it was appropriate to wait. They said we ought to deal with assistance to the unemployed when we consider broader legislation to stimulate the economic recovery. Now almost 8 million Americans are worrying about how they will pay the rent or their mortgage. Millions of American parents have lost their health care insurance, and they are worrying what they will do if a child gets sick. Millions of families are wondering how they will put food on their Thanksgiving table this year. It would be unconscionable to tell these people to wait any longer. Extended unemployment benefits and help with health care coverage must be included in a stimulus package. By extending unemployment compensation, we will be putting dollars into the hands of people who need the money immediately for their basic needs. The money will be spent quickly, which in turn provides the needed remedy for an ailing economy. We have an opportunity to do the right thing at the right time and for the right reasons. We must act quickly and in a bipartisan fashion. We cannot afford to wait until more people are laid off or more businesses fail. We must not leave our families to struggle without help or without hope. If we have the will, we can forge a just and reasonable compromise that will ease the pain of this recession. When Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel was asked what was the most important commandment, he replied: Thou shall not sit by idly. That response points up the importance of acting when we have a chance to influence an outcome. During this time of crisis, let it not be said of the U.S. Congress that we sat idly by. Let us act with courage, and let us act now.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to honor the memory of a fearless leader and influential figure in Missouri politics, State Senator Paula J. Carter. A native of Saint Louis, Senator Carter got involved in politics in the '60s. Her rise from Democratic precinct worker to an influential figure in the Missouri General Assembly clearly demonstrates the fact that one person can make a tremendous difference in the lives of all. During her tenure in the Missouri House and Senate, she was a fierce defender and protector of peoples' rights. To her it never mattered who her foes were. At a time when many accepted inequity and injustice as the way it always was, she saw them as challenges to be overcome. When other politicians asked, ``Can we win?'' Senator Carter asked ``Should we fight?'' More often than not, the answer was a rousing ``Yes!'' Her efforts on behalf of women and minorities will never be forgotten. In addition to her legislative and civic successes, Senator Carter was proud of her role as a mother and grandmother. Wardell, Gregory, Keena, and Willie Christopher will attempt to carry on their mother's tradition, each in their own way, as will, also, her seven grandchildren. Though there are still causes to champion and battle to fight, this tireless advocate has been called to rest. May we all find inspiration in her deeds and renew our commitment to public service, a calling worthy of our lives.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, the Senate is currently considering the fiscal year 2002 District of Columbia Appropriations bill. I would like to recognize Senators Landrieu and DeWine for their strong leadership in moving this important bill through committee. The District of Columbia shares a unique relationship with the Federal Government. It is the only locality in the country whose budget intersects so directly with Congress. Congress is charged with approving both the Federal and local budget for the District. Consequently, the city cannot move forward with its own new budget until the Congress finishes its work and approves the bill. I encourage the Senate to approve this bill as quickly as possible. Several amendments may be offered to this bill that impose Federal restrictions on how the District of Columbia spends the money that it collects in local taxes. The District of Columbia is fortunate to have such an able leader in Mayor Anthony Williams. This past year, the mayor, along with the city council, have put together a budget for the city that reflects its own priorities that meet local needs. I do not intend to support amendments to this bill that impose restrictions on how the District spends it money. I would not want Congress telling St. Louis or Kansas City how to spend their local tax dollars. The same standard should be applied to the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is our Nation's Capital and an international symbol of democracy. The Congress should honor the unique status of this city by allowing the District to make its own decisions on how taxes raised from its own citizens should be spent.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I would like to bring your attention to a hidden epidemic. This epidemic affects the overall health of children, especially children in low-income families. It has been called a ``hidden epidemic'' because it can be difficult to detect at a glance, and because it receives relatively little attention as a threat to children's health. But while this epidemic is ``hidden,'' it manifests itself every day in the smiles of America's children. The epidemic I am referring to is that of poor dental health. Dental decay, a major cause of tooth loss, is the most prevalent chronic disease of childhood. Each year, dental conditions cause children in the U.S. to miss more than 750,000 days of school. One in ten children between the ages of five and eleven has never visited a dentist. This is a shocking and distressing statistic. The unfortunate trend cannot be allowed to continue. States are working hard to offer dental health services through their Medicaid programs and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, but they need our help in meeting the challenge. The General Accounting Office reported that the biggest reason low-income people lack dental care is that not enough dentists participate in Medicaid. In Missouri, as in other states, some dentists simply choose not to accept Medicaid patients, while others cannot afford to accept them because Medicaid reimbursement is not sufficient to cover the costs of providing care. In Missouri, there are more than 1,000 children on Medicaid for every dentist willing to serve them. As a result, Medicaid patients must search far and wide to find a dentist and then face another challenge in traveling long distances to see that dentist. Often, this requires hours of planning to arrange for public or Medicaid-provided transportation, and several more hours of waiting after the visit to be picked up and returned home. For many lower-income parents, these hours away from work will severely cut into the family's income. Is it any wonder why so many children do not get the preventive dental care they need, and are not seen by a dentist until they are in intense pain or have infections so severe that their eyes have swelled shut? We cannot let this continue to happen to children in the United States. There are many reasons for protecting children's oral health. For instance, we know that when children have healthy smiles: They chew more easily and gain more nutrients from the foods they eat. They learn to speak more quickly and clearly. They look and feel more attractive improving self-confidence and willingness to communicate with others. They have better school attendance and pay more attention in class. They avoid extensive and costly treatment of dental disease. And they begin a lifetime of good dental habits. For all of these reasons, I am proud to join with Senators Bingaman, Cochran, Corzine, Collins, Daschle, Hutchison, and Lincoln in introducing the Children's Dental Health Improvement Act. This bipartisan bill would improve dental care for low-income children. I appreciate Senator Bingaman's leadership on this bill, and I am honored for the opportunity to work with him on this important issue. In order to make real improvements in our current situation, this legislation takes a multi-faceted approach that addresses each component of the problem. First, this bill would give States the option to provide dental coverage through the State Children's Health Insurance Program to low- income children who may have private insurance for medical care but not for dental services. Part of the reason for the epidemic in dental health is a lack of insurance for dental services. For every child without health insurance, there are nearly three children who are uninsured for dental care. By providing more of these children with insurance, we can reduce their dental care costs--one of the many barriers that low-income families face in getting dental care for their children. Although the bill does not call for additional SCHIP funding, I support a separate funding increase for this program. This increase is essential to giving States the ability to expand coverage to dental services, especially States like Missouri, whose SCHIP programs are doing an excellent job and as a result spend all of their existing funding. Second, this bill would invest $25 million in and provide statutory authority to the Federal Oral Health Initiative. The Department of Health and Human Services initiated the Oral Health Initiative to coordinate its dental health services. These funds would be used to promote public-private partnerships and cooperation among Federal agencies in order to reduce the profound disparities in oral health among vulnerable populations. Low-income people are the hardest hit when it comes to dental disease. Compared to their counterparts in higher-income families, poor children have five times more untreated dental disease and poor teens are half as likely to visit a dentist annually. Giving legal authority to this Initiative will allow it to work on improving access to dental health without fear of future disruptions or disbanding and the increased funding will allow for the Oral Health Initiative's much-needed expansion. Third, this bill would offer States the opportunity to apply for $50 million in Federal grants to assist them in improving dental coverage for children through Medicaid. The financial incentives and planning grants included in the bill would enable states to improve payment rates, access to care, and service delivery. It also includes an investment of $40 million for community health centers and public health departments to increase the number of dental health professionals who serve low-income children. With these funds, we can increase access to dental care for low-income children, shorten travel times and the wait for a dental appointment. This is especially important in rural areas, which generally face a greater shortage of providers. The Children's Dental Health Improvement Act has gained the support of over twenty dental health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry and the American Dental Association. Other supporters include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and the National Association of Community Health Centers. With their support, and the leadership of my fellow cosponsors of this bill, I hope that we can have a profound impact on dental health and ensure that America's low-income children will have healthy, beautiful smiles.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I would like to bring your attention to a hidden epidemic. This epidemic affects the overall health of children, especially children in low-income families. It has been called a ``hidden epidemic'' because it can be difficult to detect at a glance, and because it receives relatively little attention as a threat to children's health. But while this epidemic is ``hidden,'' it manifests itself every day in the smiles of America's children. The epidemic I am referring to is that of poor dental health. Dental decay, a major cause of tooth loss, is the most prevalent chronic disease of childhood. Each year, dental conditions cause children in the U.S. to miss more than 750,000 days of school. One in ten children between the ages of five and eleven has never visited a dentist. This is a shocking and distressing statistic. The unfortunate trend cannot be allowed to continue. States are working hard to offer dental health services through their Medicaid programs and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, but they need our help in meeting the challenge. The General Accounting Office reported that the biggest reason low-income people lack dental care is that not enough dentists participate in Medicaid. In Missouri, as in other states, some dentists simply choose not to accept Medicaid patients, while others cannot afford to accept them because Medicaid reimbursement is not sufficient to cover the costs of providing care. In Missouri, there are more than 1,000 children on Medicaid for every dentist willing to serve them. As a result, Medicaid patients must search far and wide to find a dentist and then face another challenge in traveling long distances to see that dentist. Often, this requires hours of planning to arrange for public or Medicaid-provided transportation, and several more hours of waiting after the visit to be picked up and returned home. For many lower-income parents, these hours away from work will severely cut into the family's income. Is it any wonder why so many children do not get the preventive dental care they need, and are not seen by a dentist until they are in intense pain or have infections so severe that their eyes have swelled shut? We cannot let this continue to happen to children in the United States. There are many reasons for protecting children's oral health. For instance, we know that when children have healthy smiles: They chew more easily and gain more nutrients from the foods they eat. They learn to speak more quickly and clearly. They look and feel more attractive improving self-confidence and willingness to communicate with others. They have better school attendance and pay more attention in class. They avoid extensive and costly treatment of dental disease. And they begin a lifetime of good dental habits. For all of these reasons, I am proud to join with Senators Bingaman, Cochran, Corzine, Collins, Daschle, Hutchison, and Lincoln in introducing the Children's Dental Health Improvement Act. This bipartisan bill would improve dental care for low-income children. I appreciate Senator Bingaman's leadership on this bill, and I am honored for the opportunity to work with him on this important issue. In order to make real improvements in our current situation, this legislation takes a multi-faceted approach that addresses each component of the problem. First, this bill would give States the option to provide dental coverage through the State Children's Health Insurance Program to low- income children who may have private insurance for medical care but not for dental services. Part of the reason for the epidemic in dental health is a lack of insurance for dental services. For every child without health insurance, there are nearly three children who are uninsured for dental care. By providing more of these children with insurance, we can reduce their dental care costs--one of the many barriers that low-income families face in getting dental care for their children. Although the bill does not call for additional SCHIP funding, I support a separate funding increase for this program. This increase is essential to giving States the ability to expand coverage to dental services, especially States like Missouri, whose SCHIP programs are doing an excellent job and as a result spend all of their existing funding. Second, this bill would invest $25 million in and provide statutory authority to the Federal Oral Health Initiative. The Department of Health and Human Services initiated the Oral Health Initiative to coordinate its dental health services. These funds would be used to promote public-private partnerships and cooperation among Federal agencies in order to reduce the profound disparities in oral health among vulnerable populations. Low-income people are the hardest hit when it comes to dental disease. Compared to their counterparts in higher-income families, poor children have five times more untreated dental disease and poor teens are half as likely to visit a dentist annually. Giving legal authority to this Initiative will allow it to work on improving access to dental health without fear of future disruptions or disbanding and the increased funding will allow for the Oral Health Initiative's much-needed expansion. Third, this bill would offer States the opportunity to apply for $50 million in Federal grants to assist them in improving dental coverage for children through Medicaid. The financial incentives and planning grants included in the bill would enable states to improve payment rates, access to care, and service delivery. It also includes an investment of $40 million for community health centers and public health departments to increase the number of dental health professionals who serve low-income children. With these funds, we can increase access to dental care for low-income children, shorten travel times and the wait for a dental appointment. This is especially important in rural areas, which generally face a greater shortage of providers. The Children's Dental Health Improvement Act has gained the support of over twenty dental health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry and the American Dental Association. Other supporters include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and the National Association of Community Health Centers. With their support, and the leadership of my fellow cosponsors of this bill, I hope that we can have a profound impact on dental health and ensure that America's low-income children will have healthy, beautiful smiles.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. I thank Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for their support on this issue.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, the attacks against America have unified our nation. There is a new spirit of bipartisanship, of civility, and of common purpose. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are working together with the President to expedite legislation important to our efforts at home and abroad. Contentious issues have been set aside, in order to focus on the issues that unite us. Thus, it is with disappointment that I feel compelled to come to the Senate floor today to discuss a dispute between the State of Missouri and the Health Care Financing Agency (HCFA) now known as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS. The details of the dispute are complex, but the consequences are enormous. At stake is the health of Missouri's children, seniors, and other vulnerable citizens. The subject of this dispute is Missouri's provider assessment program, which is a tax on hospitals. States use the money generated from these taxes as their ``match'' for federal Medicaid dollars. Medicaid funds are then paid out to providers according to formulas established by state law. Over a decade ago, Congress became concerned that states were using provider taxes improperly to increase the federal contributions to Medicaid programs. In response, Congress enacted a law in 1992 that placed limitations on provider assessment programs. One specific limitation is that a provider assessment must not contain a ``hold harmless'' provision. This means that states may not guarantee that a hospital will receive back from Medicaid the amount of funds it paid to the state in provider taxes. In 1992, under the leadership of Governor John Ashcroft, now the Attorney General, Missouri complied with the federal law by enacting the Federal Reimbursement Allowance Program law. This law created a tax on hospitals, but contained no ``hold harmless'' provision. Governor Ashcroft signed the bill into law. Governor Carnahan continued the program, and Governor Holden is continuing it. For almost a decade, the program has been operating under the auspices of HCFA now CMS. During this time, 100 percent of the revenues generated by the tax have been dedicated to Missouri's Medicaid program. The program has made Missouri a national model for using Federal, State, and private resources to provide health care to as many needy citizens as possible. This long-standing and legal tax has assisted Missouri in creating a strong healthcare safety net for its children, pregnant women, and most vulnerable seniors. Much of Missouri's success can be attributed to expanded enrollment of eligible citizens in Medicaid. During the 1990's, the number of Missourians covered by Medicaid more than doubled, increasing from 364,000 in 1990 to 839,000 in 2001. The number of children enrolled in Medicaid has grown at an even faster rate, increasing from 180,000 in 1990 to 474,000 in 2001. An important step in covering more children was the enactment of the State's Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as MC Plus. Under the leadership of Governor Carnahan, MC Plus was designed to cover children up to 300 percent of the poverty level. It is a national model. Due to MC Plus, parents who were working, but did not have access to health insurance through their employer, could now provide this precious resource to their children. The MC Plus program has made a difference in the lives of 75,000 children in Missouri. This combination of initiatives has sharply reduced the number of Missouri citizens that lack health insurance. Between 1996 and 1999, the percentage of uninsured in Missouri dropped by more than one-third, falling from 13.2 percent to 8.6 percent. In 1999, Missouri has the fourth lowest percentage of uninsured citizens in the country. These tremendous accomplishments, however, could be in jeopardy from a bureaucratic squabble over the technicalities of Missouri's provider tax. For many years, HCFA has complained that the manner in which Missouri's provider tax revenues are distributed to health care providers violates federal law. During this entire period, HCFA has been threatening to terminate the program and recoup $1.6 billion from the State. Such action would devastate Missouri's health care program. Let's be clear about what is in dispute. HCFA has never alleged that the provider tax itself contains a ``hold harmless'' provision. Rather, HCFA--and now CMS--appear to believe that the State, under the leadership of then Governor Ashcroft, made a collusive arrangement with health care providers. CMS has suggested that state officials illegally agreed that each hospital would get back in Medicaid reimbursement at least the amount it paid in taxes. Missouri strongly disputes the allegation that there is a hold harmless arrangement between the State and its hospitals. And, in fact, the Federal Government has never provided Missouri with a shred of evidence that state officials engaged in illegal collusion with the hospitals. I repeat, not a shred of evidence. Instead of proving its case, HCFA continues to complain about the provider tax, threaten Missouri with legal action, and uses bureaucratic leverage to force Missouri to change its incredibly successful program. Mr. President, this is truly a case of form over substance. Missouri has created a program that pumps millions of dollars into health care coverage for its citizens. Missouri then distributes tax dollars to health care providers according to a state formula, which everyone agrees is consistent with Federal law. Yet, a set of health care bureaucrats in Washington seek to destroy this program. Why? Because they have a hunch--without any concrete evidence--that the people who designed the program almost 10 years ago, secretly conspired to circumvent the technicalities of federal law. This is a case of bureaucracy run amok. Ironically, this is the same agency that has recently changed its name so to shed its image that it cares more about rules and regulations than people. As a matter of fact, this administration announced when it took office that it would measure performance by looking at health care outcomes, not by compliance with bureaucratic requirements. Nonetheless, it is this administration that is now threatening to take action against the State of Missouri. It is doing so even when there can be no doubt that our program is working to provide better health care to kids, to seniors, and our most needy citizens. Of course, the timing of this threatened action could not come at a worse time. Our economic downturn is causing a great deal of distress in our communities. We are seeing significant job losses. State revenues are declining, and at the same time our citizens' needs are increasing. Why, I ask, at this time of national emergency, would the administration choose to attack a successful program that has provided health care security for so many? And why would the administration want to divert the State's attention from the task of helping Missouri get through this economic downturn? There really are no good answers to these questions. Senator Bond and I, Governor Holden, and other Members of the Congressional delegation are unified in opposition to the threatened CMS action. I strongly urge Secretary Thompson, CMS Administrator Scully, and other leaders in the administration to examine this issue with great care before taking an action that would cause so much harm to our State. Mr. President, I stand here with my fellow Missouri Senator to draw awareness to this important issue. I hope that CMS understands that we intend to take aggressive action to protect a highly successful program in Missouri.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. The amendment provides assistance to airline industry employees who are laid off from their jobs as a result of terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11. It brings assistance to those who had been employed by airlines, airports, aircraft manufacturers, and suppliers to airlines. For those workers, this legislation would provide three basic benefits. First, it extends unemployment compensation for an additional 20 weeks after employees have exhausted their State benefits. This provides a safety net to help them make their mortgage payments, to feed their families for a few extra months while they are trying to get new jobs. Second, this legislation provides training assistance to workers who will not be able to return to their former jobs, training that is so essential today in a changing economy. Third, this legislation helps workers maintain health insurance for themselves and for their families. As my colleagues know, many workers who were laid off are eligible to purchase health insurance from their former employer. The average cost of these premiums is $500 per month. People who have been abruptly laid off will not have an extra $500 a month to spend on health insurance. Without help, they will be without health coverage. This legislation reimburses the cost of those health insurance premiums for 12 months. For those workers who are not eligible to purchase health benefits, this legislation enables States to provide Medicaid benefits. This is an important step for Congress to take to prevent even more children from joining the ranks of the uninsured in America. Some have suggested the benefits I propose are out of line with what has been provided to other workers who have lost their jobs. Let me respond by pointing out that I modeled my legislation after an existing program, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act provides help to those workers who have lost their jobs as a result of trade agreements. That program provides extended unemployment compensation for 52 weeks--much longer than the 20 weeks that I propose. That program also provides training for 18 months, while I have proposed providing training for less than 12 months. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has been a lifeline for many workers. Between 1994 and 2000, over 1 million workers received these payments. I am glad they did. But let's be clear; these workers get more generous benefits than all other workers who lost their jobs during that time period. The State with the most workers receiving unemployment and training benefits under TAA is Texas. Texas has 8 percent of all the workers in this program, about 86,000 people. Workers from Texas companies such as Big Dog Drilling, Tubby's Auto Service, and Rio Grande Cutters participate in this program. These workers qualify for enhanced benefits because they lost their jobs due to trade. Why shouldn't airline workers who lost their benefits when they lost their jobs due to terrorism qualify? My legislation provides one thing that the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act does not, and that is health coverage. I have added this because I believe it is important that these workers and their families be able to maintain their health coverage. I am pleased that President Bush has recognized this need as well. Last week, the President laid out some options for how the Government can help provide health coverage to unemployed workers. Today is our chance to rise to that occasion. My amendment will also be an economic stimulus. It will put money into the pockets of Americans who need it most. We know these families will spend the money. They need it to pay their bills. That is what we need to get the economy going. We need consumer spending. Finally, some have argued that this amendment has no place on an airline security bill. I respectfully disagree. Right now we are passing legislation in response to the terrorist attacks. These airline industry workers were laid off as a result of these attacks. The linkage is direct. We must act today. There is no reason to delay assistance any longer. We acted quickly to provide $40 billion in response to the terrorist attacks and the cleanup of Manhattan. That was the right thing to do. And we acted quickly to shore up the airlines with $15 billion, and that was the right thing to do. Now is the time to do something for workers. A vote at 1:35 this afternoon is the first opportunity since the terrorist attack that we will have to invest in our workers, the heart and the soul of America. I have collaborated with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle drafting this amendment. We have come up with a reasonable proposal. Now I am asking simply that my colleagues allow the Senate to vote on this proposal. This amendment deserves an up-or-down vote. I hope the Senate does the right thing this afternoon.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Wyoming, and I agree with him 100 percent that there is no need for an additional program in which to dispense these funds that we wanted to get to our airline workers so quickly. That is why my amendment is set up to service needs under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, already in place, that has worked so well at the Department of Labor. I appreciate his concern for that, but I would like to reassure him that we have taken that into consideration. Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking my colleagues who have risen in support of this amendment. I am heartened by their efforts on behalf of the airline industry. I am also very pleased to ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 3 additional minutes, for a total of 5 minutes.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, this Senate has acted swiftly and with unity in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. We provided $40 billion to begin the relief effort. We authorized the President to use force in pursuing the terrorists and the nations that harbor them. And we created a $15 billion relief package to help stabilize our Nation's airlines. I have been very proud of the manner in which this body has acted over the last month, but we have not yet acted on behalf of the tens of thousands of Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of these attacks. Now is the time to do something for the workers. Before we passed the airline stabilization bill, I came to this Chamber on several occasions to argue on behalf of including assistance to displaced workers as part of that package, but in an effort to pass the bill expeditiously, I was asked to withhold my amendment. So I did. That was the right thing to do. We cannot delay any longer. Some of my colleagues have spoken in opposition to my amendment, by arguing that we have already helped airline workers by providing assistance to airlines. That is only half right. By helping the airlines avoid bankruptcy, we saved many jobs. However, we have not done anything for the families of the 140,000 airline industry employees who are losing their jobs despite the airline stabilization package. The $15 billion we gave to the airlines is not helping those families pay their mortgage. That money is not helping them put food on the dinner table. And that money certainly is not helping them pay for health insurance for their families. The modest assistance provided in this amendment will help these families deal with a tough situation. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are losing their jobs. Some of my colleagues have asked why we should provide special assistance to airline workers. First, let me say, I am eager to work with President Bush and my colleagues to provide assistance to all displaced workers as a part of the economic stimulus package. This vote is not a choice between my plan and the President's plan. We can do both. I believe we must address airline workers separately, and now. Furthermore, current law already treats some displaced workers differently than others. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program provides special benefits to workers who have lost their jobs as a result of increased imports. Over 1 million workers have benefitted from this program. I am glad they did. But let's be clear; they received a better benefit package than other laid off workers. If we can provide these benefits to aid workers who lost jobs due to trade, can't we do so for workers who lost their jobs due to terrorism? The amendment we are about to vote on would provide similar benefits to airline industry workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the September 11 attacks. The more than 140,000 airline industry employees who are being laid off have been dealt a terrible blow. I don't know how many Members of this body know what it is like to be a child in a family with a laid off worker. I do. My grandparents, with whom I lived for many years, when my parents worked, lived in this very city. I can recall a time when my grandfather, a carpenter, came home and sat in the kitchen and said to my grandmother: I have been laid off. I remember her tears, and I remember their fears, as they did not know what the future held for them. It is time we gave to these workers of America's airlines a sense of confidence that their future is assured. This is our chance to send a message to the workers of America that we know they are facing hard times, we want to help, and this Senate stands ready to take action. It is not enough to say, wait for the next piece of legislation, and the next after that. It is not enough to say that we have to move on to other pressing business. This measure deserves an up-or-down vote on its merits, not a filibuster. I urge my colleagues to let the Senate vote on this amendment, and I urge a vote in favor of cloture. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, grief has changed the face of America. We are a tear-stained Nation. But today, one month after the September 11 attacks, we are one America, united as seldom before. Patriotism prevails throughout the country. The pins on our jackets, the flags taped to cars and hanging from windows, the millions of dollars in donations to the victims, this is the American response to tragedy. We are united in support of our troops flying dangerous missions over Afghanistan. This is the first step in a prolonged campaign against the terrorists. It is a necessary step and it is directed at the right targets, the Taliban government that has given safe harbor to terrorist organizations for far too long. Americans are also united in sympathy with the Afghan people. While our bombers are flying over Taliban strongholds, our C-17s are dropping food to the refugees. Today, our thoughts are with those who lost their lives one month ago, and with the families who said goodbye to their loved ones for the last time. But in the past month, we have seen the great spirit of Americans. The hatred and utter disregard for human life shown by the terrorists stands in stark contrast to the outpouring of sympathy and compassion by millions of Americans, in acts great and small. We gave what we could: Money, water, shelter, blood, and sometimes just a shoulder to lean on. Entertainers came together for an unprecedented benefit, athletes donated their salaries, and children even donated their piggy banks. Among the most inspiring stories of September 11 were the rescue workers. Sadly, many of the heroes of September 11 are now among the victims. Their valor has inspired the Nation. Their sacrifice will not go unnoted or their deeds unsung. If those rescue workers could muster the strength to do what was needed then, surely our Nation can find the strength to do what is needed now. We must prepare our military, strengthen our intelligence operations, and tighten our security. And we must rally behind our President. Let those who practice terrorism or harbor terrorists have no doubt about America's intent. We will find you. We will strike you militarily, economically, and politically. And you will pay a heavy price for your acts against mankind. We have overcome the enemies of freedom before. We conquered the evil of fascism in Europe and Asia, rescued democracy, and built a better world. We defied communism for decades powered by the certainty that freedom would ultimately triumph over oppression. You will not take these gains from us. Though we mourn the loss of our fellow Americans, our eyes are undimmed by tears. Our dreams are undiminished by fear. From the ashes of terrorism, we will build a new tower to freedom that will cast its light around the world. And, with God's help, we will prove again what the poet Carl Sandburg once said: ``We are Americans. Nothing like us ever was.''