Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to say thank you on behalf of the millions of citizens of my State who have been affected by the incredible events of the last month. Thank you to all of the State and local officials who took quick and decisive actions that saved many lives. Thank you to the first responders who helped citizens evacuate and continued working to keep people safe throughout these major storms. Thank you to the thousands of volunteers from the Red Cross, who staffed hundreds of shelters that served as the only safe haven for many Floridians. Thank you to the professionals from FEMA and the Small Business Administration, who activated immediately and began to respond in a manner I have not witnessed before. I did a workday as a hurricane recovery volunteer in Port Charlotte, FL, on August 31, assisting Red Cross volunteers to distribute midday meals to people who were still without power and then going door-to- door with FEMA workers for follow-up damage assessments. I was moved by the gratitude on the faces of people fighting to recover some degree of normalcy in their lives, even as they face daunting odds--roofs open to the sky, shattered windows, no air conditioning, their possessions scattered and broken. Every June 1, the citizens in my State prepare for another hurricane season. Some have lived in Florida all their lives and are very well versed in hurricane procedures. Some are new residents and have never been through a large storm. Nothing, however, could have prepared Floridians for the recent series of devastating events which started with Tropical Storm Bonnie striking the panhandle in early August, followed by Hurricane Charley crashing into Florida's west coast on August 13, and continued with Hurricane Frances attacking the entire State this past weekend. Now we are tracking Hurricane Ivan, which is again headed in our direction. It is remarkable that these massive storms, which impacted nearly all of the 67 counties in the State of Florida, have caused only 29 confirmed fatalities. Hurricane Charley, a category 4 storm with winds in excess of 135 miles per hour, and Hurricane Frances, a category 2 storm with winds near 100 miles per hour, could have been much deadlier. However, while human losses were mercifully low, Florida's infrastructure suffered greatly. Now we must move forward and look toward cleaning up and rebuilding our homes and businesses. I applaud the Senate's quick approval of supplemental appropriations of $2 billion in emergency assistance through both FEMA and the Small Business Administration. After responding to these major events in my State as well as the recent tropical storm in Virginia, FEMA is stretched extremely thin and needs an influx of funds to keep operations up and running and planning for the long-term recovery. In the last three weeks alone, FEMA has issued over $100 million in individual assistance funds to Florida residents. Over $2.7 million of that has already been allocated for Hurricane Frances' victims, while the storm is still moving up the Eastern seaboard. The SBA has already approved over $23 million in disaster loans from Charley and with a filing deadline for assistance extended until October 12, 2004, we expect that number to increase exponentially. The supplemental appropriations bill passed yesterday is only the first installment of badly needed funds for recovery. We must get an accurate assessment of the damage and determine the appropriate amount of funding needed and the appropriate Federal agencies to assist specific sectors of the State in rebuilding. The physical infrastructure needs must be determined. How much damage did the road network suffer? Early estimates from Charley alone total over $65 million for the Federal-aid system. Several Florida airports sustained major damage, which totals nearly $34 million. These are just a few quick estimates. Across the board, we need to determine the extent of damage to Florida's infrastructure from both Charley and Frances--the highway and transit network, airports, seaports and schools. Additionally, our Florida growers have been devastated. Early estimates top $225 million in citrus losses for Charley alone, with over 40 percent of the citrus crop lost. It is too early to tell, but losses from Frances could top $800 million. The crop insurance program will not be able to cover losses of this magnitude. Congress must step in to help Florida farmers. These examples are just a small snapshot of the needs of our State. As we determine the amount of damage in other areas, we will need to appropriate funds for other Federal agencies, such as Army Corps of Engineers, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Department of Defense, NASA and others. We must move quickly to put together an accurate assessment of the impact that these storms have had on the State of Florida and respond to this need with adequate Federal funding. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming days to achieve this goal.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, there are now fewer than 72 hours from this hour, on this Wednesday afternoon, until we observe the third anniversary of the terrorist attacks on this Nation when 19 hijackers took control of commercial airliners, converted them into weapons, and struck the symbols of our economic and military might. When the House and Senate Intelligence Committees began the Joint Inquiry into the attacks of September 11, the first witness we called in public session was Kristen Breitweiser. Kristen's husband Ronald, who worked in the World Trade Center, was one of the 3,000 innocent lives lost that day. In his memory, she helped found the family group September 11th Advocates. In her brave testimony, she described her husband's last words to her. She described her daughter placing flowers on an empty grave. On her right hand, she was wearing her husband's wedding band--charred, scratched, but intact--recovered from Ground Zero with a part of her husband's left arm. Her testimony was deeply moving. Her closing words presented a call to action. This is what she said: All we have are tears and a resolve to find the answers because we continue to look into the eyes of our young children who ask us why. We have an obligation as parents and as a nation to provide these innocent children with answers as to why their mother or father never returned home from work that day. We need people to be held accountable for their failures. We need leaders with the courage to take responsibility for what went wrong. Mistakes were made and too many lives were lost. We must investigate these errors so that they will never happen again. It is our responsibility as a nation to turn the dark events of September 11th into something from which we can all learn and grow, so that we, as a nation, can look forward to a safe future. As we debate the scope of reforms of our intelligence community, I hope we will keep in mind the challenge laid down by Kristen Breitweiser and the others whose lives have been touched by this tragedy. Today, and over the next several days, I want to discuss with my colleagues the question of whether we have met her challenge. I, for one, do not believe we have. And then we need to look at the question of where do we go from here? I will start my discussion this evening with a look at the history of our intelligence efforts and what that history tells us about the challenge of the future. While America has understood the utility of intelligence since Paul Revere's midnight ride from Boston to Lexington, warning that the British were coming, America has never embraced intelligence. It was contrary to a nation that had fought a 7-year war to secure liberty from the very things that were the stock and trade of King George III's intelligence gathering: the late night knock on the door to separate a husband, father, or son from a frightened family; the use of torture to discover the rebellious plans of patriots; the clandestine search of private effects without notice or permission. So it is of little surprise that the United States was the last advanced nation in the world to establish a permanent civilian intelligence agency--not until 1947--and that came only after two world wars when we realized that a new era--the cold war--was dawning. When the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union dissolved and the cold war ended, we had lost our single clear enemy, and our intelligence capabilities were allowed to wither. There was no reliable and consistent source of funding for intelligence agencies, and the agencies failed to anticipate and adapt to the new threats of the 21st century. That is clear from what we have come to know about the attacks of September 11. All Americans now realize that in this new world, an attack can come not only from an army of an enemy, but also in the form of a boat, a backpack, or a vial. Now all Americans realize that intelligence has become a crucial shield, an evermore integral part of our national and personal security. In this century, effective intelligence will be more important than it has ever been to this Nation for six reasons. First, our adversary is different from any we have engaged in the past. It is not a nation but a tribe of tribes united by an ideology. The terrorists are not constrained by the global standards and values of the West but are instead a foe for which death and an afterlife in paradise are the highest goals of life. To know this enemy is essential to defeating this enemy, and Americans will be dependent on effective intelligence to gain that knowledge. Second, we learned on September 11 that the Atlantic and Pacific are not the protective barriers to our domestic security they have been in the past. Our new enemy was capable of insinuating 19 or more of its trained killers into our Nation, where they were able to refine a plan, practice and execute the most deadly attack on the continental United States in our history, and to do all of that in anonymity. America will look to alert intelligence to do what two oceans can no longer do: protect us here at home. Third, America can no longer abide by the rule of never striking first, waiting only until we have been acted upon. The consequences of waiting for threats to gather is too risky. But to be anticipatory, to be preemptive, requires the highest quality of intelligence, or we risk something else--the loss of lives of soldiers and civilians and the loss of our global credibility. If we are to adhere to a doctrine of preemption, we have to be certain we know what it is we are preempting. We cannot afford to be deceived, manipulated, or blinded by ideology, as we have been in Iraq, or to waste time and resources fighting threats that are not real. Fourth, sound intelligence will enhance our long-term security. America's political, economic, and security interests now span the globe. A vigilant intelligence community will alert us to emerging threats against our interests beyond the homeland. Through both strategic and actionable intelligence, we will be better able to confront terrorist threats abroad before those threats materialize at home. But we face threats beyond terrorism--most especially the spread of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Accurate and actionable intelligence is absolutely necessary if we are able to make what many think is inevitable, an attack in the United States by terrorists with nuclear weapons, preventable. Fifth, effective intelligence is important to maintaining our international relationships. Success in the 21st century will require alliances with nations that share our vision and our values, if not our views on all subjects. Credible information upon which wise judgments can be founded must be the bedrock of those alliances. Sixth and finally, with better intelligence, our Nation and its leaders will be more able to focus on the challenges of the future rather than the failures of the past. The pace of technological change will only continue to accelerate, and the rising tide of globalization will lead to a new and complex web of relationships between state and nonstate actors. Better intelligence will help us keep up with the pace of change as we continue to identify new challenges. For all of these reasons, in the 21st century, intelligence will have a role to play in almost every way we seek to provide greater security at home and advance our interests abroad. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, I am delighted to join my colleagues Senator Wyden, Senator Lott and Senator Snowe in introducing a bipartisan bill that will begin to address our Government's dangerous tendency toward excessive secrecy. I start from the belief that, in our democratic society, the people should have access to all information which their Government holds in their behalf. The only exceptions should be for necessary personal and company privacy concerns, such as tax returns, and for legitimate national security threats, such as protecting the sources and methods of gathering extremely sensitive information. The current level of abuse of our classification system is so egregious as to be laughable. To make matters worse, when the Congress has sought to declassify important information, we have allowed the fox to guard the henhouse-- we have allowed the CIA and other agencies to determine what gets released to the American public from reports that are critical of their conduct. I am personally most familiar with the report of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees' Joint Inquiry into the intelligence failures surrounding 9/11. After our report was filed in December 2002, it took 7 months to get a declassified version that we could release. And after all those months, the intelligence agencies and the White House refused to declassify pages and pages of information that might have caused them embarrassment--but certainly did not threaten our national security. The most famous instance of censorship is the 27 pages that detail foreign sources of support of two of the 19 hijackers while they were living among us and finalizing their evil plot. For all we know, that pattern of support continues to this day. But our report found a number of instances where failures to share information were in and of themselves threats to national security. Had Federal agencies' watch lists of terrorist suspects been shared, especially with State and local law enforcement officials, police might have detained prior to 9/11 several of the hijackers when they were stopped for traffic offenses. We also have learned that the President's Daily Brief of August 6, 2001, listed a number of pending threats to our homeland, including hijackings of commercial aircraft. If only that information had been shared with the airlines through the FAA, the airlines could have heightened security on board aircraft and more thoroughly screened their passenger lists. Instead, no steps were taken. One of the Joint Inquiry's recommendations, No. 15, called on the President and the intelligence agencies to review executive orders, policies and procedures that govern national security classification of intelligence information: in an effort to expand access to relevant information for Federal agencies outside the Intelligence Community, for State and local authorities, which are critical to the fight against terrorism, and for the American public. The recommendation also called on Congress to review statutes, policies and procedures governing classification. As the recommendation states: Among other matters, Congress should consider the degree to which excessive classification has been used in the past and the extent to which the emerging threat environment has greatly increased the need for real-time sharing of sensitive information. The report called on the Director of Central Intelligence, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to review and report to the House and Senate committees with ``proposals to protect against the use of the classification process as a shield to protect agency self- interest.'' Regrettably, none of the executive branch agencies have responded to the Joint Inquiry's directives on this issue. So I am pleased to join my colleagues in cosponsoring this legislation, which will create an Independent National Security Classification Board within the executive branch to force the administration and the intelligence agencies to respond and to implement new procedures and standards. Once a new classification system has been adopted, the independent board will have access to all documents that are classified on the basis of national security concerns and the authority to review classification decisions made by executive branch employees. If the board disagrees with a decision, it can make a recommendation to the President to reverse or alter the classification. If the President doesn't adopt the board's recommendation, he must within 60 days explain his decision to Congress: and post such notification and written justification on the White House website. This will, at the very least, let the American people know that they are being denied information.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce the Medicare Preventive Services Coverage Act of 2004, and to be joined by Senator Richard Durbin. This legislation would change the basic charter of Medicare to one that not only diagnoses and treats, but also prevents illness. On July 30, 1965, Medicare was created under title 18 of the Social Security Act to provide health insurance coverage for the elderly. The coverage provided through the program was limited to diagnostic and treatment services that were considered reasonable and necessary. There was little demand to cover preventive services under Medicare or any other health plan at that time because we were not yet cognizant of the vital role of prevention on the health and quality of human life. The basic charter of Medicare reflects this lack of understanding. However, since Medicare's inception, we have learned a lot about the enormous burden of chronic disease on our Nation. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, more than 1.7 million Americans die of a chronic disease each year, accounting for about 70 percent of all deaths. Not only does chronic disease lead to a majority of deaths and disabilities in America, it also accounts for about 75 percent of health care costs each year, placing a huge economic demand on our Nation. Medicare bears a lion's share of this cost. In 2003, Medicare spent nearly $7,000 per beneficiary; much of this cost is attributable to treating chronic illnesses. The percentage of the population over age 65 has increased dramatically and will continue to do so. This will place an even greater economic burden on Medicare. What is the bottom line? In short, Medicare cannot afford this spiraling cost. The good news is that we now have decades of research demonstrating that although chronic diseases are the most common and costly of all health problems, they are also the most preventable. For example, according to the CDC regular eye exams and timely treatment could prevent up to 90 percent of diabetes related blindness. Eye chart screening for visual acuity is currently recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, USPSTF, but is not covered by Meidcare. The impact of prevention on chronic disease is well known by the President's Secretary for Health and Human Services. HHS Secretary Thompson said in September 2003: There is clear evidence that the costs of chronic conditions are enormous, as are the potential savings from preventing them, even if there may not always be agreement on the exact amounts of these cost savings. He goes on to say: . . . the Nation simply cannot afford not to step up efforts to reverse the growing prevalence of chronic disorders. Resources and energy need to be marshaled in all sectors and at all levels of society. Partnership for Prevention, a Washington, DC, think tank on health policy takes Thompson's comments one step further. A recent Partnership report makes the following logical assumption: As the primary source of health insurance coverage for millions of older Americans and persons with permanent disabilities, Medicare has the potential to have a substantial impact on the health of beneficiaries by promoting and covering cost-effective preventive services. Congress has added coverage for some preventive services over the last two decades, including the flu vaccine, mammograms, and cancer screening. As HHS does not have the authority to add preventive services to Medicare--despite the growing body of evidence that has proved their efficacy--these benefits were only added to Medicare because of congressional action. The benefits that Congress have added are extremely important, and I am glad that we have taken the steps to make them available to our seniors. However, the congressional process is slow, and subject to political winds and influences that are not always based purely in science. The legislation I am introducing would change the basic charter of Medicare from a program focused on diagnosing and treating illnesses to one that also prevents illnesses by giving the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to make coverage decisions for preventive services. Why change the current system of passing legislation each time we want to add coverage of preventive service to Medicare? There are some very logical reasons. The reliance on Congress to cover preventive services has resulted in: Coverage for only half of clinical preventive services that experts recommend for the 65+ age group; coverage that not only fails to keep up with changes in scientific evidence but is often in consistent with authoritative recommendations; a confusing array of cost sharing requirements across covered preventive services; and lack of coverage of some preventive services that provide great health benefits in favor of others that do not meet current evidence standards as a result of vocal advocacy groups. Luckily, the fundamental reform of the program that I am proposing does not require extensive statutory or bureaucratic change. Medicare already has a process in place for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make coverage decisions on diagnostic, treatment, and durable medical equipment options. My bill would authorize the Secretary to make coverage decisions on preventive services using that same process, based on the recommendations of the federally-convened United States Preventive Services Task Force, USPSTF, and other groups. This authorization would not entail dramatic new administrative expenses or a major reorganization of CMS coverage processes and staff. My legislation would put preventive services on an equal footing with diagnostic and treatment services by allowing the Secretary to make coverage decisions for all services needed to prevent, diagnose, and treat illness. Providing beneficiaries with the most cost-effective and current preventive services should no longer require an ``Act of Congress.'' It should, instead, require the insight of the experts in the field, and be based on the same careful process HHS is currently using. Let us untie their hands and improve the lives of our Medicare beneficiaries by building coverage of preventive services into the currently established coverage decision process. This legislation is supported by the following groups: American College of Preventive Medicine; HealthPartners; Deafness Research Foundation; Partnership for Prevention; American Dietetic Association; American Public Health Association; Families USA; American Physical Therapy Association; American Academy of Family Physicians; United Cerebral Palsy Association; National Mental Health Association; Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and the Emergency Department Practice Management Association. If Medicare were created today, it would certainly not exclude coverage of preventive services. Today we know how important preventive services are; they save money and lives. Let us give Medicare the authority to do its job. I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent to print letters of support from the above- listed groups in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce the Medicare Preventive Services Coverage Act of 2004, and to be joined by Senator Richard Durbin. This legislation would change the basic charter of Medicare to one that not only diagnoses and treats, but also prevents illness. On July 30, 1965, Medicare was created under title 18 of the Social Security Act to provide health insurance coverage for the elderly. The coverage provided through the program was limited to diagnostic and treatment services that were considered reasonable and necessary. There was little demand to cover preventive services under Medicare or any other health plan at that time because we were not yet cognizant of the vital role of prevention on the health and quality of human life. The basic charter of Medicare reflects this lack of understanding. However, since Medicare's inception, we have learned a lot about the enormous burden of chronic disease on our Nation. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, more than 1.7 million Americans die of a chronic disease each year, accounting for about 70 percent of all deaths. Not only does chronic disease lead to a majority of deaths and disabilities in America, it also accounts for about 75 percent of health care costs each year, placing a huge economic demand on our Nation. Medicare bears a lion's share of this cost. In 2003, Medicare spent nearly $7,000 per beneficiary; much of this cost is attributable to treating chronic illnesses. The percentage of the population over age 65 has increased dramatically and will continue to do so. This will place an even greater economic burden on Medicare. What is the bottom line? In short, Medicare cannot afford this spiraling cost. The good news is that we now have decades of research demonstrating that although chronic diseases are the most common and costly of all health problems, they are also the most preventable. For example, according to the CDC regular eye exams and timely treatment could prevent up to 90 percent of diabetes related blindness. Eye chart screening for visual acuity is currently recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, USPSTF, but is not covered by Meidcare. The impact of prevention on chronic disease is well known by the President's Secretary for Health and Human Services. HHS Secretary Thompson said in September 2003: There is clear evidence that the costs of chronic conditions are enormous, as are the potential savings from preventing them, even if there may not always be agreement on the exact amounts of these cost savings. He goes on to say: . . . the Nation simply cannot afford not to step up efforts to reverse the growing prevalence of chronic disorders. Resources and energy need to be marshaled in all sectors and at all levels of society. Partnership for Prevention, a Washington, DC, think tank on health policy takes Thompson's comments one step further. A recent Partnership report makes the following logical assumption: As the primary source of health insurance coverage for millions of older Americans and persons with permanent disabilities, Medicare has the potential to have a substantial impact on the health of beneficiaries by promoting and covering cost-effective preventive services. Congress has added coverage for some preventive services over the last two decades, including the flu vaccine, mammograms, and cancer screening. As HHS does not have the authority to add preventive services to Medicare--despite the growing body of evidence that has proved their efficacy--these benefits were only added to Medicare because of congressional action. The benefits that Congress have added are extremely important, and I am glad that we have taken the steps to make them available to our seniors. However, the congressional process is slow, and subject to political winds and influences that are not always based purely in science. The legislation I am introducing would change the basic charter of Medicare from a program focused on diagnosing and treating illnesses to one that also prevents illnesses by giving the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to make coverage decisions for preventive services. Why change the current system of passing legislation each time we want to add coverage of preventive service to Medicare? There are some very logical reasons. The reliance on Congress to cover preventive services has resulted in: Coverage for only half of clinical preventive services that experts recommend for the 65+ age group; coverage that not only fails to keep up with changes in scientific evidence but is often in consistent with authoritative recommendations; a confusing array of cost sharing requirements across covered preventive services; and lack of coverage of some preventive services that provide great health benefits in favor of others that do not meet current evidence standards as a result of vocal advocacy groups. Luckily, the fundamental reform of the program that I am proposing does not require extensive statutory or bureaucratic change. Medicare already has a process in place for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make coverage decisions on diagnostic, treatment, and durable medical equipment options. My bill would authorize the Secretary to make coverage decisions on preventive services using that same process, based on the recommendations of the federally-convened United States Preventive Services Task Force, USPSTF, and other groups. This authorization would not entail dramatic new administrative expenses or a major reorganization of CMS coverage processes and staff. My legislation would put preventive services on an equal footing with diagnostic and treatment services by allowing the Secretary to make coverage decisions for all services needed to prevent, diagnose, and treat illness. Providing beneficiaries with the most cost-effective and current preventive services should no longer require an ``Act of Congress.'' It should, instead, require the insight of the experts in the field, and be based on the same careful process HHS is currently using. Let us untie their hands and improve the lives of our Medicare beneficiaries by building coverage of preventive services into the currently established coverage decision process. This legislation is supported by the following groups: American College of Preventive Medicine; HealthPartners; Deafness Research Foundation; Partnership for Prevention; American Dietetic Association; American Public Health Association; Families USA; American Physical Therapy Association; American Academy of Family Physicians; United Cerebral Palsy Association; National Mental Health Association; Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and the Emergency Department Practice Management Association. If Medicare were created today, it would certainly not exclude coverage of preventive services. Today we know how important preventive services are; they save money and lives. Let us give Medicare the authority to do its job. I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent to print letters of support from the above- listed groups in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation I introduce today, the proposed ``G.I. Bill for the 21st Century,'' a bill to improve home-buying and education options for America's veterans. We have reached a milestone in American history. The pending measure is a fitting tribute to our nation's veterans as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the ``G.I. Bill.'' The G.I. Bill, for veterans of World War II, is recognized as one of the most important acts of Congress. The G.I. Bill ensured that all who sacrificed through service would not be penalized as a result of their war service and upon their return would be aided in reaching the positions which they might have occupied had their lives not been interrupted by war. This legendary piece of legislation alleviated postwar troubles and anticipated economic depression. During the past six decades, this government has invested billions of dollars in education and training for veterans. America has received a return on its investments many times over, resulting in a better educated, better trained, and dramatically changed society. In fact, many Members of this Senate have benefited from its far-reaching impact. In addition to its provisions for education and training, the G.I. Bill allowed millions of veterans the opportunity to purchase homes, transforming the majority of Americans from renters to homeowners. The G.I. Bill not only eased the transition of servicemen and women back into civilian life, it transformed American society. The social and economic class structure of the United States was forever changed and the boundaries that once encompassed class status were blurred. The bill expanded opportunities for lower- and middle-class families to own their own homes and to attend college. This expansion led to the evolution of the higher education system and paved the way for future individuals from all cultural and economic backgrounds to have access to higher education. The 7.8 million men and women who used their G.I. Bill benefits cultivated a new and progressive workforce that placed more people in professional career roles, especially in critical-need areas such as education, engineering, and health care. We must continue to ensure that veterans' education benefits change to meet the needs of veterans and their families who use them. We should continue with the original intent of the G.I. Bill to increase the ability of our veterans to acquire higher education. We have servicemembers fighting the war on terrorism world-wide and a whole new generation of combat veterans being created, as was the situation during World War II. We should make every effort to accommodate the educational needs of our veterans, and these changes to the Montgomery G.I. Bill, known as MGIB, are an important step in doing so. ``The G.I. Bill for the 21st Century'' would exclude MGIB benefits from computation as income when calculating campus-based student financial aid, such as Perkins Loans. This, importantly, draws the distinction between a benefit that has been earned, and paid for, by the veteran, and other types of income. This end is furthered by allowing the individual applying for financial aid to subtract $1200 from the expected family contribution. This $1200 represents the money that the individual paid to participate in the MGIB program. Clearly it should not be counted as part of the veteran's income to pay for school. This legislation is in keeping with legislation that I introduced, and that became law, in 1998 that excluded veterans education benefits from being considered as income in the computation of some forms of financial aid. This legislation also offers an opportunity for enrollment in the MGIB education program for servicemembers who participated in or were eligible to participate in the post-Vietnam era educational assistance program, known as VEAP. Congress created an enrollment window for VEAP- eligible servicemembers to convert to the far more comprehensive MGIB. However, some servicemembers were not able to participate because of financial reasons or did not learn of the enrollment period in time to make the deadline. These individuals have contacted Members of Congress to create another window. As my colleagues know, education can be the key to a successful transition to civilian life. This bill creates a one-year window and requires the servicemember to pay $2700, which was the VEAP contribution. I have spoken with many veterans and widows of veterans who were not able to immediately go to school. By the time they enrolled, their benefits were expiring. That is why this legislation maintains the 10- year delimiting period for veterans, surviving spouses, and dependents that enroll in training programs, which does not begin to toll until the individual begins the program of study. This would allow eligible participants to utilize the benefit when best for them. In keeping with my commitment to evolve the educational assistance benefit to meet the needs of those using it, the bill that I introduce today would make national admissions exams such as the SAT, GRE, LSAT and GMAT, and national exams for credit at institutions of higher education, such as the AP exam covered by MGIB. This would greatly aid the individuals who have been absent from an academic setting for a long period of time and would go a long way in preparing them for their educational endeavors. As we face the greatest mobilization of troops since World War II, it is only fitting that we act in the spirit of the G.I. Bill to dramatically increase the ability of our veterans and their families to buy homes in competitive housing markets throughout the nation. This bill would change the method by which Congress establishes the maximum amount veterans may borrow through the VA home loan guaranty program. This legislation would index the maximum VA guaranty loan amount at 100 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. Under the current system, a specific dollar figure for the VA maximum loan amount is set by legislation. The maximum loan limit has not been changed since 2001. The current maximum guaranty is $60,000, which allows veterans to secure loans to purchase homes costing up to $240,000. Since that time, the Freddie Mac conforming loan rate has increased by over 18 percent. Sadly, the VA loan limit has not kept pace and currently represents only 74 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. The change would also allow for annual adjustments to the amounts available to veterans, without annual legislation, ensuring that the VA home loan guaranty benefit remain viable in competitive housing markets. In 1999, Congress passed legislation that changed the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Loan Program and permanently indexed FHA loans at 87 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. Why should we penalize the buying power of our veterans by maintaining a system that has failed to keep pace with annual increases in housing costs throughout the United States? To recognize this service and sacrifice, it only seems right that the loan limit available to veterans be set at a higher rate than the FHA limit. By indexing the VA loan limit at 100 percent, the current VA maximum loan amount would increase from $240,000 to $333,700 and give our veterans greater buying power in a national housing market where the cost of a home continues to rise. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office, known as CBO, has informally projected that from 2005 to 2009 this increase will help over 10,000 new buyers participate in the VA Loan Guaranty Program. The Budget Office has also projected that the increase in new veteran buyers would generate savings of more than $200 million over the next five years. These savings will then be passed on to our veterans in the form of increased education and training opportunities. We must fight to ensure that veterans' education benefits are as flexible as those who left their homes and served freedom around the globe at their country's call to service. And, in keeping with the original intent of the G.I. Bill, raising the VA home loan guaranty limit would help more veterans realize the American dream of owning a home of their own. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these worthwhile efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, the death last week of President Ronald Reagan has focused our attention on the ravages that Alzheimer's inflicts not only on the person with the disease, but the entire family. Alzheimer's disease currently affects 4.5 million Americans. As the baby boom generation ages that number is expected to explode. Without advances in prevention, diagnosis and treatment, we can not only expect a growing emotional toll on those suffering from the disease and their families, but also a significant drain on the already strained resources of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. However, there is reason to be hopeful. We now know that Alzheimer's Disease is not a normal part of aging, and that there may be ways to prevent the disease. Scientists are beginning to focus on the protective effects of mental, physical and social activity, and believe that following a diet and exercise program similar to that for people with heart disease may delay the onset of Alzheimer's. The legislation will accelerate important prevention research, in part by putting the National Institute of Aging Alzheimer's Disease Prevention Initiative into law. In addition, this legislation includes two important changes to our tax laws that would provide greater Federal assistance to those who bear the burden of assisting patients with Alzheimer's and other conditions requiring long-term care. Over 13 million people in the United States need help with basic activities of daily living such as eating, getting in and out of bed, getting around inside, dressing, bathing and using the toilet. While many Americans believe that long- term care is an issue primarily affecting seniors, the reality is that 5.2 million adults between the ages of 18-64 and over 450,000 children need long-term care services today. These numbers are expected to double as the baby boom generation begins to retire. Most long-term care is provided at home or in the community by informal caregivers. However, in situations where individuals must enter nursing homes or other institutional facilities, costs are paid largely out-of-pocket. Such a financing structure jeopardizes the retirement security of many Americans who have worked hard their entire lives. The Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act provides two important tools to help Americans and their families meet their immediate and future long-term care needs--an above-the-line income tax deduction for the purchase of long-term care insurance and a caregiver tax credit. First, the bill provides an above-the-line deduction for long-term care premiums to make long-term care insurance more affordable for a greater number of Americans. Today, such premiums are deductible, but the availability of the deduction is severely limited. First, the current deduction is available only for the thirty percent of taxpayers who itemize their deductions. That leaves the remaining seventy percent of taxpayers with absolutely no benefit. Second, the deduction is limited to an amount, which in addition to other medical expenses exceeds 7.5 percent the taxpayers adjusted gross income. This AGI limit further decreases the utilization of the current deduction. Our legislation removes these restrictions and makes the deduction for long-term care premiums available to all taxpayers. In order to provide sufficient incentives for families to maintain long-term care coverage, the deduction allowed under this bill increases the longer the policy is maintained. The deduction starts at 60 percent for premiums paid during the first year of coverage and gradually increases each year thereafter until the deduction reaches 100 percent after at least four years of continuous coverage. This schedule is accelerated for those age 55 or older. For those individuals, the deduction starts at 70 percent for the first year and increases to 100 percent after at least two years of continuous coverage. Second, the bill provides an income tax credit for taxpayers with long-term care needs. The credit is phased in over 4 years, starting at $1,000 for 2003 and eventually reaching $3,000. To target assistance to those most in need, the credit phases out for married couples with income above $150,000 $75,000 for single taxpayers)'' The bill also updates the requirements that long-term care policies must meet in order to qualify for the income tax deduction. These updated requirements reflect the most recent model regulations and code issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Mikulski, Bond, Grassley, Clinton, Warner and me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation I introduce today, the proposed ``G.I. Bill for the 21st Century,'' a bill to improve home-buying and education options for America's veterans. We have reached a milestone in American history. The pending measure is a fitting tribute to our nation's veterans as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the ``G.I. Bill.'' The G.I. Bill, for veterans of World War II, is recognized as one of the most important acts of Congress. The G.I. Bill ensured that all who sacrificed through service would not be penalized as a result of their war service and upon their return would be aided in reaching the positions which they might have occupied had their lives not been interrupted by war. This legendary piece of legislation alleviated postwar troubles and anticipated economic depression. During the past six decades, this government has invested billions of dollars in education and training for veterans. America has received a return on its investments many times over, resulting in a better educated, better trained, and dramatically changed society. In fact, many Members of this Senate have benefited from its far-reaching impact. In addition to its provisions for education and training, the G.I. Bill allowed millions of veterans the opportunity to purchase homes, transforming the majority of Americans from renters to homeowners. The G.I. Bill not only eased the transition of servicemen and women back into civilian life, it transformed American society. The social and economic class structure of the United States was forever changed and the boundaries that once encompassed class status were blurred. The bill expanded opportunities for lower- and middle-class families to own their own homes and to attend college. This expansion led to the evolution of the higher education system and paved the way for future individuals from all cultural and economic backgrounds to have access to higher education. The 7.8 million men and women who used their G.I. Bill benefits cultivated a new and progressive workforce that placed more people in professional career roles, especially in critical-need areas such as education, engineering, and health care. We must continue to ensure that veterans' education benefits change to meet the needs of veterans and their families who use them. We should continue with the original intent of the G.I. Bill to increase the ability of our veterans to acquire higher education. We have servicemembers fighting the war on terrorism world-wide and a whole new generation of combat veterans being created, as was the situation during World War II. We should make every effort to accommodate the educational needs of our veterans, and these changes to the Montgomery G.I. Bill, known as MGIB, are an important step in doing so. ``The G.I. Bill for the 21st Century'' would exclude MGIB benefits from computation as income when calculating campus-based student financial aid, such as Perkins Loans. This, importantly, draws the distinction between a benefit that has been earned, and paid for, by the veteran, and other types of income. This end is furthered by allowing the individual applying for financial aid to subtract $1200 from the expected family contribution. This $1200 represents the money that the individual paid to participate in the MGIB program. Clearly it should not be counted as part of the veteran's income to pay for school. This legislation is in keeping with legislation that I introduced, and that became law, in 1998 that excluded veterans education benefits from being considered as income in the computation of some forms of financial aid. This legislation also offers an opportunity for enrollment in the MGIB education program for servicemembers who participated in or were eligible to participate in the post-Vietnam era educational assistance program, known as VEAP. Congress created an enrollment window for VEAP- eligible servicemembers to convert to the far more comprehensive MGIB. However, some servicemembers were not able to participate because of financial reasons or did not learn of the enrollment period in time to make the deadline. These individuals have contacted Members of Congress to create another window. As my colleagues know, education can be the key to a successful transition to civilian life. This bill creates a one-year window and requires the servicemember to pay $2700, which was the VEAP contribution. I have spoken with many veterans and widows of veterans who were not able to immediately go to school. By the time they enrolled, their benefits were expiring. That is why this legislation maintains the 10- year delimiting period for veterans, surviving spouses, and dependents that enroll in training programs, which does not begin to toll until the individual begins the program of study. This would allow eligible participants to utilize the benefit when best for them. In keeping with my commitment to evolve the educational assistance benefit to meet the needs of those using it, the bill that I introduce today would make national admissions exams such as the SAT, GRE, LSAT and GMAT, and national exams for credit at institutions of higher education, such as the AP exam covered by MGIB. This would greatly aid the individuals who have been absent from an academic setting for a long period of time and would go a long way in preparing them for their educational endeavors. As we face the greatest mobilization of troops since World War II, it is only fitting that we act in the spirit of the G.I. Bill to dramatically increase the ability of our veterans and their families to buy homes in competitive housing markets throughout the nation. This bill would change the method by which Congress establishes the maximum amount veterans may borrow through the VA home loan guaranty program. This legislation would index the maximum VA guaranty loan amount at 100 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. Under the current system, a specific dollar figure for the VA maximum loan amount is set by legislation. The maximum loan limit has not been changed since 2001. The current maximum guaranty is $60,000, which allows veterans to secure loans to purchase homes costing up to $240,000. Since that time, the Freddie Mac conforming loan rate has increased by over 18 percent. Sadly, the VA loan limit has not kept pace and currently represents only 74 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. The change would also allow for annual adjustments to the amounts available to veterans, without annual legislation, ensuring that the VA home loan guaranty benefit remain viable in competitive housing markets. In 1999, Congress passed legislation that changed the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Loan Program and permanently indexed FHA loans at 87 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. Why should we penalize the buying power of our veterans by maintaining a system that has failed to keep pace with annual increases in housing costs throughout the United States? To recognize this service and sacrifice, it only seems right that the loan limit available to veterans be set at a higher rate than the FHA limit. By indexing the VA loan limit at 100 percent, the current VA maximum loan amount would increase from $240,000 to $333,700 and give our veterans greater buying power in a national housing market where the cost of a home continues to rise. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office, known as CBO, has informally projected that from 2005 to 2009 this increase will help over 10,000 new buyers participate in the VA Loan Guaranty Program. The Budget Office has also projected that the increase in new veteran buyers would generate savings of more than $200 million over the next five years. These savings will then be passed on to our veterans in the form of increased education and training opportunities. We must fight to ensure that veterans' education benefits are as flexible as those who left their homes and served freedom around the globe at their country's call to service. And, in keeping with the original intent of the G.I. Bill, raising the VA home loan guaranty limit would help more veterans realize the American dream of owning a home of their own. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these worthwhile efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, the death last week of President Ronald Reagan has focused our attention on the ravages that Alzheimer's inflicts not only on the person with the disease, but the entire family. Alzheimer's disease currently affects 4.5 million Americans. As the baby boom generation ages that number is expected to explode. Without advances in prevention, diagnosis and treatment, we can not only expect a growing emotional toll on those suffering from the disease and their families, but also a significant drain on the already strained resources of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. However, there is reason to be hopeful. We now know that Alzheimer's Disease is not a normal part of aging, and that there may be ways to prevent the disease. Scientists are beginning to focus on the protective effects of mental, physical and social activity, and believe that following a diet and exercise program similar to that for people with heart disease may delay the onset of Alzheimer's. The legislation will accelerate important prevention research, in part by putting the National Institute of Aging Alzheimer's Disease Prevention Initiative into law. In addition, this legislation includes two important changes to our tax laws that would provide greater Federal assistance to those who bear the burden of assisting patients with Alzheimer's and other conditions requiring long-term care. Over 13 million people in the United States need help with basic activities of daily living such as eating, getting in and out of bed, getting around inside, dressing, bathing and using the toilet. While many Americans believe that long- term care is an issue primarily affecting seniors, the reality is that 5.2 million adults between the ages of 18-64 and over 450,000 children need long-term care services today. These numbers are expected to double as the baby boom generation begins to retire. Most long-term care is provided at home or in the community by informal caregivers. However, in situations where individuals must enter nursing homes or other institutional facilities, costs are paid largely out-of-pocket. Such a financing structure jeopardizes the retirement security of many Americans who have worked hard their entire lives. The Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act provides two important tools to help Americans and their families meet their immediate and future long-term care needs--an above-the-line income tax deduction for the purchase of long-term care insurance and a caregiver tax credit. First, the bill provides an above-the-line deduction for long-term care premiums to make long-term care insurance more affordable for a greater number of Americans. Today, such premiums are deductible, but the availability of the deduction is severely limited. First, the current deduction is available only for the thirty percent of taxpayers who itemize their deductions. That leaves the remaining seventy percent of taxpayers with absolutely no benefit. Second, the deduction is limited to an amount, which in addition to other medical expenses exceeds 7.5 percent the taxpayers adjusted gross income. This AGI limit further decreases the utilization of the current deduction. Our legislation removes these restrictions and makes the deduction for long-term care premiums available to all taxpayers. In order to provide sufficient incentives for families to maintain long-term care coverage, the deduction allowed under this bill increases the longer the policy is maintained. The deduction starts at 60 percent for premiums paid during the first year of coverage and gradually increases each year thereafter until the deduction reaches 100 percent after at least four years of continuous coverage. This schedule is accelerated for those age 55 or older. For those individuals, the deduction starts at 70 percent for the first year and increases to 100 percent after at least two years of continuous coverage. Second, the bill provides an income tax credit for taxpayers with long-term care needs. The credit is phased in over 4 years, starting at $1,000 for 2003 and eventually reaching $3,000. To target assistance to those most in need, the credit phases out for married couples with income above $150,000 $75,000 for single taxpayers)'' The bill also updates the requirements that long-term care policies must meet in order to qualify for the income tax deduction. These updated requirements reflect the most recent model regulations and code issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Mikulski, Bond, Grassley, Clinton, Warner and me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters related to the May 13 introduction of the SCHIP Expansion Act, S. 2420, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, later today, the body of President Ronald Reagan will be brought into this Capitol so that all Americans can pay their final respects. Much has been said, much has been written about our 40th President and the impact he had on our Nation and the world. In at least one respect, I believe part of his legacy has been mischaracterized, and I rise today, as has my friend and colleague from Missouri, to set the record straight. The issue that I would like to address is Ronald Reagan's view of the size of Government. It is true that President Reagan believed the Federal Government was too large and too costly, but he did not believe that was true of all governments. As a former Governor of California, he believed governments closer to the people, governments at the State and local level, had the primary responsibility for essential public service and, thus, they should have the resources to respond to public needs. The people would serve as the control of whether the State and local officials had fulfilled the voters' expectation of the role of their State, their county, or their city. I know this firsthand. My tenure as Governor of Florida overlapped with President Reagan's administration for 6 years. During that time, President Reagan and key members of his administration, even as they attempted to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and shrink Federal spending on education, helped me pass a tax increase in Florida that led to great improvements in our State education system. An education reform movement swept the country in 1983 and 1984 with the issuance in April of 1983 by the National Commission on Excellence in Education of a landmark report entitled ``Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.'' At the time that report was issued, President Reagan made this statement: Parental authority is not a right conveyed by the state; rather, parents delegate to their elected school board representatives and state legislators the responsibility for their children's schooling. During a meeting of the National Governors Association in 1983 President Reagan told the Governors they would be responsible for implementing reforms, including how to cover the costs of those reforms. He was not interested in having the Federal Government play a larger role; in fact, he was intent on cutting the Federal role in education. I recalled those words when back in Tallahassee I began to push a major educational reform package through the legislature. I was not alone. For instance, our colleague, the then-Governor of Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, was instrumental in the development and adoption of a similar reform package in Tennessee, and we had the opportunity to work together during that process with then-Governor Alexander talking to Republican members of the Florida legislature as I reciprocated in conversations with Democratic members of the Tennessee legislature. The Florida package had a goal. The goal was we would raise the level of education in Florida as judged by student performance on standardized tests and other measurements and also per-student funding of education to among the top 25 percent of the States in America. We increased student performance standards at all levels and had the most challenging standards for graduation from high school of any State in the Nation. The package included basic things such as smaller class sizes, more class and curriculum opportunities for students, and a career ladder with pay increases which recognized our best teachers. But all of those reforms depended upon additional State financing. I proposed several steps to raise the necessary revenue, including a revision of our corporate profits tax. I advocated the plan with the assurance that better schools would improve our State's economic climate. We even printed up buttons which read: ``Education Means Business.'' I was therefore very disturbed that the success of the educational reform program was threatened by the lack of support by Republicans in the State Senate and the State House of Representatives. I called President Reagan's Education Secretary, Dr. Terrell Bell from Utah. I reported that I was attempting to do exactly what the President had said States should be doing, but could not get any Republican support. After consulting with the White House and gaining the President's personal permission, Secretary Bell called me back and asked: What can I do to help? I gave him the names of a half dozen or more Republican legislators. Secretary Bell called them on behalf of the President to ask them to support the reform package. I am pleased to say that with strong bipartisan support, the education reform program in Florida passed in 1983, and then by 1986 Florida had moved to 13th in the Nation in our per-pupil spending, and our test scores had the greatest rate of increase in 1986 of any State in the Nation. This program showed that greater gains in student performance can be achieved through the right set of educational reform. This would not have happened without the support of President Ronald Reagan. My point is Ronald Reagan was a more nuanced political leader in terms of his view of the role of Government than he is generally given credit for by both his critics and his fans. On behalf of all Floridians, I express my appreciation for his support of improved education in Florida, and on behalf of all Floridians I express my condolences to President Reagan's family, especially his beloved Nancy. Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Allard and Crapo be added as cosponsors.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus, for including a provision that I supported as part of the Tax Administration Good Government Act to level the playing field for residents of qualified continuing care retirement communities. Continuing care retirement communities, or CCRCs, are the oldest form of seniors housing in America, dating back to the late 1800s--offering a variety of living arrangements and services to accommodate residents of all levels of physical ability and health. The goal of a CCRC is to accommodate changing lifestyle preferences and health care needs. In general, CCRCs make independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing available all on one campus. The CCRC approach offers residents the pyschological and financial security of knowing that, should they require increased levels of care, it is readily available at one location. As a private pay option, CCRCs also play an important role in the Nation's long-term care delivery system because very few, if any, CCRC residents will ever require Medicaid funding for their long-term care.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I thank the chairman and ranking member for clarifying the intent of this provision.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters in relation to the May 13, 2004 introduction of the SCHIP Expansion Act, S. 2420, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I thank the chairman and ranking member for clarifying the intent of this provision.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus, for including a provision that I supported as part of the Tax Administration Good Government Act to level the playing field for residents of qualified continuing care retirement communities. Continuing care retirement communities, or CCRCs, are the oldest form of seniors housing in America, dating back to the late 1800s--offering a variety of living arrangements and services to accommodate residents of all levels of physical ability and health. The goal of a CCRC is to accommodate changing lifestyle preferences and health care needs. In general, CCRCs make independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing available all on one campus. The CCRC approach offers residents the pyschological and financial security of knowing that, should they require increased levels of care, it is readily available at one location. As a private pay option, CCRCs also play an important role in the Nation's long-term care delivery system because very few, if any, CCRC residents will ever require Medicaid funding for their long-term care.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I call upon this Congress to act and to act this year to pass this important legislation, and to remove from the rolls of the uninsured for health coverage Americans, at least those most fragile and vulnerable, those we love the most, our children.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, Expansion Act of 2004. This Congress passed the Children's Health Insurance Program in the late 1990s. It has been a great success. There are 5 million American children today who have quality medical insurance because of this program; without this program there would be another 5 million Americans uninsured. The expansion of this legislation in 2004 would allow States to expand health coverage under the SCHIP program to all uninsured children, regardless of their family income. It would also provide critical funding for this important program. This week is Cover the Uninsured Week. This is a collaborative effort of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and many other organizations highlighting the vast number of uninsured in this country and the need to find a solution. Yesterday, I introduced legislation with Senators Daschle and Kennedy which will call for the Nation to cover all Americans by the year 2006. The goal of universal coverage is one that I believe every Member of this Senate shares. Based on the experience of the last decade, it is my judgment that the road to achieving that goal of full coverage begins with a first step. We have not taken a significant first step on the road to closing the gap now in over 5 years. In that 5-year period, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of uninsured Americans, including uninsured children. We could take that first step by providing health coverage for all children. That step will be a large one. Today, there are an estimated 9 million American children under the age of 19 who are uninsured for their health care. Over 640,000 of those children live in my home State of Florida. There are other large groups of uninsured Americans, however, and one might ask, why pick out children from this large group of uninsured Americans? The goal is to cover all Americans. The reality is the effort to accomplish that objective in one giant step has proven to be without success. Uninsured children, in my judgment, represent the group that we should start with, for the following reasons. We know this about uninsured children: They are four times more likely to delay seeking care than insured children, and they are five times more likely than insured children to use an emergency room for regular medical care. Lack of timely treatment can turn a simple health problem into a serious childhood illness. Covering children is cost effective, and more important, it improves the lives of children. It can, in fact, save the lives of children. Let me give two common examples. Ear infections are a very common affliction of young children and easily treated with an inexpensive antibiotic. However, if that ear infection is not diagnosed and not treated, the infection can mature into deafness and learning disabilities. What happens when an unvaccinated child is struck with bacterial meningitis? Failure to diagnose and treat this contagious disease with an antibiotic can lead to brain damage, even to death. Our Nation's publicly funded health programs play a critical role in providing access to care in order to prevent such occurrences. As I said in the beginning, SCHIP has made an enormous difference in the health and lives of over 5 million American children, many of whom are from working families. We know 8 out of 10 of the currently uninsured Americans come from a family in which one or both parents are working. Despite the success of SCHIP, States have taken to such tactics as capping enrollment and placing limits on eligibility and benefits. I am sorry to have to report some of the things that have happened in my State, not because they are peculiar, but because they are increasingly representative of what is happening in States across America. Until recently, Florida had amassed a waiting list of children who were eligible for the SCHIP program but who were not being served, primarily because of limitations on State funds to match the Federal funds. We had a waiting list of nearly 100,000 Florida children. Although most of these children have since been temporarily enrolled, the Florida SCHIP program has eliminated all outreach activities; that is, those activities that had informed families about the availability of these programs have been eliminated. Florida has also restricted eligibility for children in families whose employers offer any kind of dependent coverage, regardless of its cost. If there is one thing we know, it is that one of the factors that is fueling the increase in the numbers of uninsured Americans is that even when employers provide at least the appearance of health insurance coverage but that coverage is so expensive that it amounts to more than 5, sometimes almost 10 percent of that family's income, and as available as it may appear, in real economic terms it is not available. Yet in my State, I am sad to report that a child who has fallen into that circumstance will not any longer be considered eligible for the SCHIP program. Florida has eliminated its SCHIP waiting list. No one in the future will ever say that Florida has nearly 100,000 children who are eligible for but not receiving SCHIP coverage because there will not be any list of children who are waiting for their opportunity to be covered. This is a means by which knowledge of the number of uninsured children who are denied access to the program will be denied to the people of Florida, as will, therefore, their ability to influence public policy to increase the health care coverage of the children of Florida. What would the legislation I introduce today do to address these problems? First, it would allow States to expand health coverage to uninsured children, regardless of the income, so that no child goes without necessary care. Second, it would provide Federal financial support to assure the long-term stability of the SCHIP program. To meet congressional budget limits, Federal funding for SCHIP declined by over $1 billion a year, beginning in the fiscal year 2002, and running through the current fiscal year of 2004. That reduction, which is referred to as the CHIP dip, has brought the Federal funds available for children's health insurance from $4 billion annually down to $3 billion. The consequence of this is that many States which had a fully operational SCHIP program--that is, they were using the full amount of the pre-2002 Federal funds--are now facing another component of their fiscal crisis. The SCHIP Expansion Act would restore Federal funding allotments to their pre-2002 level, assurance that States could continue to cover more uninsured children. The legislation would also invest additional resources in SCHIP, allowing States that are currently using all of their Federal funds to expand their programs, providing relief to many States that anticipate a shortage of funding in the near future. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that by 2007, on the current course, 39 States will have spent their entire funding allotments. Additional funds are necessary to allow these States to continue to reach new currently uncovered, uninsured children. Many of our uninsured children are, in fact, already eligible for coverage under SCHIP, but where you have limitations in Federal or State funds, they are not enrolled. Effective outreach and streamlined enrollment are keys to improving coverage. SCHIP expansion will help States cover more children by increasing funds for outreach in States. That will simplify the enrollment process. Finally, this legislation will prohibit States that have not exhausted all available Federal funds from capping enrollment in their SCHIP program. Where enrollment is capped, children are put on a waiting list--if the State has not done what Florida has done, which is to eliminate the waiting list, and they will go without coverage. Without coverage, their parents must choose between paying for rent and paying for medicine for their sick children. Have we not reached a sad state of affairs in this Nation when many of our elder citizens have to make a choice between paying for prescription drugs or eating a nutritious meal three times a day, and that many of our parents of young children who are sick and without medical insurance must make a choice between paying the rent or paying for the medicine for their child? My bill assures no family faces such a choice as a result of an arbitrary enrollment tax. States which choose to participate in SCHIP must be willing to participate fully and cover as many children as they can with the funds they have available. There is no reason in a nation of unsurpassed wealth and of unsurpassed medical talent that any child should be without health insurance coverage. Investment in proven effective public programs is imperative. Although our overall goal is universal coverage, assuring that all children have access to quality health care is a crucial first step. In my opinion, steps 2 and 3 should be to cover the working poor and the early retirees. These steps won't achieve the goal of full coverage even in conjunction with the full coverage of children, but they will significantly close the gap of those Americans today who are without health coverage. The SCHIP expansion program represents a serious and long overdue commitment to expanding coverage for the most vulnerable in our society, our young boys and girls. This measure has the support of the Children's Defense Fund, Catholic Charities USA, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, and Families USA. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I call upon this Congress to act and to act this year to pass this important legislation, and to remove from the rolls of the uninsured for health coverage Americans, at least those most fragile and vulnerable, those we love the most, our children.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, Expansion Act of 2004. This Congress passed the Children's Health Insurance Program in the late 1990s. It has been a great success. There are 5 million American children today who have quality medical insurance because of this program; without this program there would be another 5 million Americans uninsured. The expansion of this legislation in 2004 would allow States to expand health coverage under the SCHIP program to all uninsured children, regardless of their family income. It would also provide critical funding for this important program. This week is Cover the Uninsured Week. This is a collaborative effort of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and many other organizations highlighting the vast number of uninsured in this country and the need to find a solution. Yesterday, I introduced legislation with Senators Daschle and Kennedy which will call for the Nation to cover all Americans by the year 2006. The goal of universal coverage is one that I believe every Member of this Senate shares. Based on the experience of the last decade, it is my judgment that the road to achieving that goal of full coverage begins with a first step. We have not taken a significant first step on the road to closing the gap now in over 5 years. In that 5-year period, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of uninsured Americans, including uninsured children. We could take that first step by providing health coverage for all children. That step will be a large one. Today, there are an estimated 9 million American children under the age of 19 who are uninsured for their health care. Over 640,000 of those children live in my home State of Florida. There are other large groups of uninsured Americans, however, and one might ask, why pick out children from this large group of uninsured Americans? The goal is to cover all Americans. The reality is the effort to accomplish that objective in one giant step has proven to be without success. Uninsured children, in my judgment, represent the group that we should start with, for the following reasons. We know this about uninsured children: They are four times more likely to delay seeking care than insured children, and they are five times more likely than insured children to use an emergency room for regular medical care. Lack of timely treatment can turn a simple health problem into a serious childhood illness. Covering children is cost effective, and more important, it improves the lives of children. It can, in fact, save the lives of children. Let me give two common examples. Ear infections are a very common affliction of young children and easily treated with an inexpensive antibiotic. However, if that ear infection is not diagnosed and not treated, the infection can mature into deafness and learning disabilities. What happens when an unvaccinated child is struck with bacterial meningitis? Failure to diagnose and treat this contagious disease with an antibiotic can lead to brain damage, even to death. Our Nation's publicly funded health programs play a critical role in providing access to care in order to prevent such occurrences. As I said in the beginning, SCHIP has made an enormous difference in the health and lives of over 5 million American children, many of whom are from working families. We know 8 out of 10 of the currently uninsured Americans come from a family in which one or both parents are working. Despite the success of SCHIP, States have taken to such tactics as capping enrollment and placing limits on eligibility and benefits. I am sorry to have to report some of the things that have happened in my State, not because they are peculiar, but because they are increasingly representative of what is happening in States across America. Until recently, Florida had amassed a waiting list of children who were eligible for the SCHIP program but who were not being served, primarily because of limitations on State funds to match the Federal funds. We had a waiting list of nearly 100,000 Florida children. Although most of these children have since been temporarily enrolled, the Florida SCHIP program has eliminated all outreach activities; that is, those activities that had informed families about the availability of these programs have been eliminated. Florida has also restricted eligibility for children in families whose employers offer any kind of dependent coverage, regardless of its cost. If there is one thing we know, it is that one of the factors that is fueling the increase in the numbers of uninsured Americans is that even when employers provide at least the appearance of health insurance coverage but that coverage is so expensive that it amounts to more than 5, sometimes almost 10 percent of that family's income, and as available as it may appear, in real economic terms it is not available. Yet in my State, I am sad to report that a child who has fallen into that circumstance will not any longer be considered eligible for the SCHIP program. Florida has eliminated its SCHIP waiting list. No one in the future will ever say that Florida has nearly 100,000 children who are eligible for but not receiving SCHIP coverage because there will not be any list of children who are waiting for their opportunity to be covered. This is a means by which knowledge of the number of uninsured children who are denied access to the program will be denied to the people of Florida, as will, therefore, their ability to influence public policy to increase the health care coverage of the children of Florida. What would the legislation I introduce today do to address these problems? First, it would allow States to expand health coverage to uninsured children, regardless of the income, so that no child goes without necessary care. Second, it would provide Federal financial support to assure the long-term stability of the SCHIP program. To meet congressional budget limits, Federal funding for SCHIP declined by over $1 billion a year, beginning in the fiscal year 2002, and running through the current fiscal year of 2004. That reduction, which is referred to as the CHIP dip, has brought the Federal funds available for children's health insurance from $4 billion annually down to $3 billion. The consequence of this is that many States which had a fully operational SCHIP program--that is, they were using the full amount of the pre-2002 Federal funds--are now facing another component of their fiscal crisis. The SCHIP Expansion Act would restore Federal funding allotments to their pre-2002 level, assurance that States could continue to cover more uninsured children. The legislation would also invest additional resources in SCHIP, allowing States that are currently using all of their Federal funds to expand their programs, providing relief to many States that anticipate a shortage of funding in the near future. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that by 2007, on the current course, 39 States will have spent their entire funding allotments. Additional funds are necessary to allow these States to continue to reach new currently uncovered, uninsured children. Many of our uninsured children are, in fact, already eligible for coverage under SCHIP, but where you have limitations in Federal or State funds, they are not enrolled. Effective outreach and streamlined enrollment are keys to improving coverage. SCHIP expansion will help States cover more children by increasing funds for outreach in States. That will simplify the enrollment process. Finally, this legislation will prohibit States that have not exhausted all available Federal funds from capping enrollment in their SCHIP program. Where enrollment is capped, children are put on a waiting list--if the State has not done what Florida has done, which is to eliminate the waiting list, and they will go without coverage. Without coverage, their parents must choose between paying for rent and paying for medicine for their sick children. Have we not reached a sad state of affairs in this Nation when many of our elder citizens have to make a choice between paying for prescription drugs or eating a nutritious meal three times a day, and that many of our parents of young children who are sick and without medical insurance must make a choice between paying the rent or paying for the medicine for their child? My bill assures no family faces such a choice as a result of an arbitrary enrollment tax. States which choose to participate in SCHIP must be willing to participate fully and cover as many children as they can with the funds they have available. There is no reason in a nation of unsurpassed wealth and of unsurpassed medical talent that any child should be without health insurance coverage. Investment in proven effective public programs is imperative. Although our overall goal is universal coverage, assuring that all children have access to quality health care is a crucial first step. In my opinion, steps 2 and 3 should be to cover the working poor and the early retirees. These steps won't achieve the goal of full coverage even in conjunction with the full coverage of children, but they will significantly close the gap of those Americans today who are without health coverage. The SCHIP expansion program represents a serious and long overdue commitment to expanding coverage for the most vulnerable in our society, our young boys and girls. This measure has the support of the Children's Defense Fund, Catholic Charities USA, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, and Families USA. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Graham of Florida pertaining to the introduction of S. 2420 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, we are here for two fundamental reasons. One, we are here to remove from our Tax Code a provision that has been declared illegal by the World Trade Organization, and certain industries in America are now being sanctioned for that illegal provision. We would not be here debating an international tax law change but for the fact that the WTO declared illegal our system of encouraging U.S. manufacturers to export. I don't think any Member would challenge that statement. These international tax changes are totally being carried by the need to eliminate this WTO-offending sanctions-creating provision. There is a second step we ought to be taking. We ought to remove the incentive for U.S. firms to take jobs from the United States overseas. There are a lot of incentives that are already out there. There are incentives of lower labor costs, lower environmental standards, lower standards in terms of human rights. All of those are already in place. However, we do not need to be giving a further economic incentive to move jobs out of the United States. Let me state briefly what I believe we ought to be thinking about as we consider this matter. Just a couple of hours ago, as I was walking to the Capitol, I ran into a large group of folks. I stopped and asked them who they were. They were machinists from Wichita, KS. Do you know what they told me? In Wichita, KS, machinists used to be 27,000 strong. Do you know how many they have in Wichita today? Only 16,000. Eleven thousand jobs have left Wichita from that one union. I asked, where did the jobs go? Did they disappear? No longer producing airplanes? No, the 11,000 jobs are still in place, but they just happen to be in places such as China, India, Brazil, and other countries which are now building the airplanes that used to be built in Wichita. When I told that group of Wichita machinists why, in part, those jobs had left Wichita to go offshore, they were stunned. So let me tell the Senate what I told the Wichita machinists. We have a fancy provision in the international tax law called ``deferral.'' In fact, this Senate voted about 20 years ago to repeal this deferral. But that effort failed. ``Deferral'' basically means the income earned by the foreign subsidiary of a U.S. multinational is not subject to tax. They do have to pay whatever their local taxes are to China or India, but they do not pay any tax to the U.S. Government. Do you know what that costs us every year in lost revenue for our Government? According to the Treasury Department, it costs us $11 billion a year. That is the incentive we are giving. That $11 billion, incidentally, is about what it would take to do two things we debate a lot around here: fully fund the No Child Left Behind law and fully fund our veterans program. Over the years, this benefit has produced substantial savings to American corporations. Let me give you a few examples. Citigroup has saved, on an accumulated basis, $6 billion as a result of this provision; ExxonMobil, $22 billion; Hewlett-Packard, $14 billion; IBM, $18 billion. Aside from taking advantage of this extremely generous tax break, which creates a positive incentive to move jobs from the United States overseas, every one of those firms appears on Lou Dobbs' ``Exporting America'' list. Every one of the firms that is getting this tremendous benefit is doing what the benefit is designed to do, which is to encourage the relocation of jobs outside the United States of America. So in light of that, what are we doing in this bill to reduce or eliminate the incentive for jobs to leave America? Do you know what we are doing? We are increasing it by $3.7 billion per year. I respect greatly and consider Senator Grassley to be one of my friends who I most respect and admire in the Senate, but I wish he were here to answer this question. If this bill does not give greater incentives to American firms to leave America and move jobs offshore, why does it cost us $3.7 billion? Why are we going to have an additional revenue loss of that magnitude other than the fact that we are encouraging jobs that would not otherwise have left America to do so and, therefore, create more of this deferral tax benefit? But it does not end there, as with my friends from Wichita. There is a second provision. It has the fancy name ``repatriation.'' What does that mean? That means after a company has deferred paying U.S. taxes on the $18 or $14 or $22 billion they have accumulated, and they finally decide, ``Well, I want to move some of it back to the United States,'' for whatever purpose, we are now going to say for 1 year they can do that, not at the same tax rate they would have paid had they kept those jobs in the United States--which is approximately 35 percent--they are going to be able to move that money back to the United States at 5.25 percent, which is approximately an 85-percent benefit, tax gift over what they would have paid had they kept those same jobs at home. What is this going to cost us? What is the difference between a 35- percent and a 5.25-percent tax rate? Well, the cost to the Federal Treasury is going to be approximately $16 billion in the year this window is opened. Now the proponents of this window are going to say: Oh, this is a temporary window. We are going to shut that thing tight after 1 year. Friends, I would be willing to make a substantial wager of Florida oranges that once this window gets in the tax law, it is going to be like all those other tax practices that were supposed to be temporary. I say to the Senator, do you remember when the President came down here in 2001 and said: ``I want you to pass all these tax benefits, but they are only going to be temporary so we can stimulate the economy''? Now what is the President's tax plan? To make all those temporary taxes permanent. What do you think is going to be his tax plan when it gets to be 2005, if he is still the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? He will be down here wanting to make this window a permanently open window. I could not imagine, at a time when we are so concerned with the loss of jobs, we would pass legislation that would create even additional incentives for American jobs to pick up--maybe on aircraft made by Americans in Wichita, KS--and fly away to other lands. We should support Senator Hollings' amendment. And then we should vote no on final passage of this bill.