John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. May I ask that the parliamentary inquiry be done outside the time constraint? I pose this inquiry to our distinguished floor leader, the Senator from Idaho. I am reading from the Record of the Senate on Thursday of last week when the distinguished Senator from Idaho said the following: I am sure there are some Members on both sides who might have amendments that were not listed to be considered for votes today and/or Tuesday. What I would ask them to do is to come to the Chamber and talk to Senator Reed and myself to see if we might work those out. Certainly, we are happy to take a look at them. There may be an opportunity late Tuesday and possibly Friday to offer additional amendments. The unanimous consent request does not preclude any Member from doing that. I wrote the distinguished majority leader a letter on November 18 last year indicating that I wanted to offer an amendment on this bill, and I received back a reply from Mr. Schiappa, who had the authority to address this, that said it has been noted. So I have tried to diligently follow the rules and procedures by which to bring up an amendment. On Friday morning----

Mr. WARNER. That is correct, whatever disposition the Senator makes on that.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the chairman.

Mr. WARNER. Could the Senator speak up a bit?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is how I so stated my UC.

Mr. WARNER. That is correct. I hear no objection.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I make a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WARNER. Following the Senator from Michigan?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WARNER. I believe that is correct, yes.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleagues. I ask that amendment No. 2624 be the pending business.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I want to make it eminently clear that I desire in every way to cooperate with the joint leadership which, in a bipartisan way, has indicated their desire, together with expressions of the President, that this bill move forward. This is not a dilatory tactic on my part, nor is it to be construed in any way as a political tactic. The subject of this amendment simply is a very heartfelt, personal matter for me. Each of us counts our joys and benefits through life. I was blessed with two very strong and wonderful parents. My father devoted his life to the medical profession. He served in World War I as a very young doctor in the trenches. He returned a decorated soldier, and established his practice as a surgeon. He concluded a lifetime of total dedication to the profession of medicine, his patients, and the healing of those who have the misfortune of illnesses and other diseases. It is for that reason I bring up this amendment for consideration in the Senate. In brief, this amendment states that if the Senate believes certain protections from lawsuits should be afforded to the gun industry, then certain protections should be likewise afforded to the medical profession. It is as simple as that. Earlier this week, we dealt with a similar piece of legislation. But this amendment differs in the sense that I have purposely removed any reference to insurance companies or to those companies engaged in the manufacture of healing drugs. I have done this to point out with absolute clarity in the minds of all Senators that if the underlying bill does move forward, then should comparable fair treatment be extended to the medical profession that serves every single American. The gun industry has a narrow following, in terms of those served under this bill. I don't say that with any disrespect. I, throughout my life, have owned and enjoyed guns. My father gave me my first gun when I was 9 years old, and I have a modest collection to this day. I enjoy the fields and the streams. I pride myself as being a hunter and an outdoorsman. In no way, do I make any personal affront against those who similarly follow the joys of the outdoors. But, I believe it is essential that if this mighty institution of the Senate move forward with the underlying bill, they carry with it an amendment which accords the same protections to the medical profession, whether it is an emergency room or the doctor's office. With that in mind, I hope my colleagues look upon my effort as one of purity of heart, and not for political reason. I have no reason to try to impede the underlying bill, but I simply want to give the medical profession such benefits as the Senate is now contemplating in giving to a very narrow segment of our industry; namely, the gun industry and the gun dealers. I rise today to offer an amendment to address the issue of a form of tort reform. Today the Senate is debating tort reform for the gun industry. I wish to take a few minutes to raise the issue of tort reform with regard to another industry--the health care profession. I have indicated my father's lifework was in medicine. I had often thought as a young man to pursue that profession. But without getting too personal about this, I served briefly in World War II in the Navy. My father died just months after I returned home. I think had he lived I might well have followed in his profession. But nevertheless, I went on to law school, and had a modest career in the practice of law and in one thing and another. And here I am today, proud to represent my great State in the Senate. Soon, the Senate will vote on S. 1805, legislation to provide certain legal protections to the gun industry--legal protections which are denied almost across the board to almost every other industry in the private sector, and certainly the medical profession. It is a very selective piece of legislation for a very selective group. Proponents have argued this legislation is necessary because lawsuits are driving gun dealers and gun manufacturers out of business. It is very simple. The same thing is happening to the medical profession. Simply stated, the same situation, although far more serious in my judgment and in the judgment of others, is happening to the medical profession. Doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals are leaving the practice of medicine due to the astronomical cost of malpractice insurance, frivolous lawsuits, and what is regarded as runaway jury verdicts where awards, by any standard of fairness, far exceed the damages which some may have suffered as a consequence of receiving medical attention. In my view, if we are going to be protecting the gun industry from lawsuits, we at least ought to protect the medical profession. We have all heard the real stories from doctors about the rapidly increasing cost of medical malpractice insurance. Some States' malpractice insurance premiums have increased as much as 75 percent in a single year. As a result, the fact is these doctors, unable to afford ever increasing premiums, are leaving the profession altogether and patients are losing access to health care. Again, my father's profession was surgery primarily, but he also practiced gynecology. I was astonished to learn that in many medical schools today those young people studying to go into the various segments of medical practice are shunning gynecology. Some medical schools are not even graduating those engaged in gynecology. They have just stopped that segment of the profession because they know of the difficulties to practice gynecology as a result of medical malpractice suits. I have here today the front pages of two of the leading magazines we all read. There it is. One: ``The Doctor Is Out.'' The other: ``Lawsuit Hell--How Fear of Litigation Is Paralyzing Our Professions.'' There is the story. All I am asking is if this bill passes the Senate that doctors, nurses, and other practitioners in health care are given the same equal treatment as the gun dealers and the gun manufacturers. It is as simple as that. I have received numerous letters, as have every single Member of this body, from medical professionals in the Commonwealth of Virginia that share with me the very real difficulties they are encountering with malpractice insurance as a consequence of this problem. I myself went through a modest medical procedure the other day. The radiologist literally cornered me as I was exiting the examination, and stopped to talk to me--not one, not two, but about eight came in knowing the Senator from Virginia was in the facility. They had me flat on my back. I listened very carefully as they explained--not complaining nor whining in any way, but in a factual way--how the radiologists in their profession have watched the astronomical increase in cost of their insurance. Let me read a letter I just received. I will withhold the name. But the letter is in my office. This young doctor writes: I am writing you to elicit your support and advice for the acute malpractice crisis going on in Virginia. . . . I am a 48-year-old single parent of a 14- and 17-year-old. After all the time and money spent training to practice OB-GYN, I find myself on the verge of almost certain unemployment and unemployability because of the malpractice crisis. I have been employed by a small OB-GYN Group for the last 7 years. Our malpractice premiums were increased by 60 percent in May 2003. The prediction from our malpractice carrier is that our rates will probably double at our renewal date in May 2004. The reality is that we will not be able to keep the practice open and cover the malpractice insurance along with other expenses of practice. Colleagues, that is happening in just about every State in this great country of ours. We have here and now the chance to address this crisis in a fair and constructive way. I mentioned the two magazines: The June 2003 edition of Time magazine had a cover story on the effects of rising malpractice insurance costs. The story, entitled ``The Doctor Is Out,'' discusses several doctors all across America who have had to either stop practicing medicine or have had to take other action due to increased insurance premiums. One example cited in this magazine is the case of Dr. Mary-Emma Beres. Time reports this doctor, a family practitioner from Sparta, NC-- incidentally, the distinguished Presiding Officer represents this State with great distinction. That doctor in Sparta, NC ``has always loved delivering babies. But last year, Beres, 35 years old, concluded that she couldn't afford the tripling of her $17,000 malpractice premium and had to stop'' caring for those women going through perhaps the greatest joy of life; that is, childbirth. The article continues: ``With just one obstetrician left in town for high-risk cases, some women who need C-sections now must take a 40-minute ambulance ride'' to other communities to try to get that service. Dr. Beres' case makes clear that not only doctors are being affected by the medical practice insurance crisis, but patients are as well. With increased frequency, due to rising malpractice rates, more and more patients are not able to find the medical specialists they need. The second magazine, Newsweek, also recently had a cover story on the medical liability crisis entitled ``Lawsuit Hell.'' I was particularly struck by the feature in this magazine about a doctor from Ohio who saw his malpractice premiums rise in 1 year from $12,000 to $57,000--1 year. As a result, this doctor ``decided to lower his bill by cutting out higher-risk procedures like vasectomies, setting broken bones and delivering babies--even though obstetrics was his favorite part of the practice. Now he glances wistfully at the cluster of baby photos still tacked to his wall in the office. 'I miss that part of the practice terribly,' he says.'' While these stories are compelling on their own, the consequences of this malpractice crisis can be more profound. On February 11, 2003, a young woman in Gulfport, MS, shared with both the HELP Committee in the Senate, on which I serve, and the Judiciary Committee her personal story about how this crisis affected her. This woman told us how on July 5, 2002, her husband Tony was involved in a single car accident, in which he had a head injury, and was rushed to a hospital in Gulfport where he received medical attention. He could not be treated at the Gulfport hospital because they did not have the specialist necessary to care for him. After a 6-hour wait, he was airlifted to University Medical Center. Today, Tony is permanently brain damaged. According to the person delivering this story, no specialist was on staff that night in Gulfport because overriding medical costs forced almost all the brain specialists in that community to abandon their practice. As a result, Tony had to wait 6 hours before the only specialist left in Gulfport could treat him to reduce the swelling of his brain. Without a doubt, the astronomical increases in medical malpractice premiums are having wide-ranging effects. It is a national problem. It is time for a fair and national solution. This moment in the life of this great Senate is the chance to address that. The President has indicated that the medical liability system in America is largely responsible for the rising costs of malpractice insurance. The American Medical Association and the American College of Surgeons agree with him as does almost every doctor in Virginia who I have discussed the issue with. The president of the AMA, Dr. John Nelson, has publicly stated, ``We cannot afford the luxury of waiting until the liability crisis gets worse to take action. Too many patients will be hurt.'' The American College of Surgeons concurs by stating, ``More and more Americans aren't getting the care they need when they need it. . . . The `disappearing doctor' phenomenon is getting progressively and rapidly worse. It is an increasingly serious threat to everyone's ability to get the care they need.'' Let me state unequivocally that I agree with our President, with the AMA, with the American College of Surgeons, and with the vast majority of doctors all across Virginia. That is why I am offering my amendment today. My amendment is simple, like other measures that have come before the Senate, my amendment provides a nationwide cap on damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. My amendment differs from other measures that have been voted on in the Senate in one key aspect--whereas these other bills would have applied to doctors, my amendment is solely limited to the caring medical professionals who take care of each and every one of us when we need medical care. It is a commonsense solution to a serious problem. Now that I have laid out the amendment, I would like to reiterate one important point. As you know, the gun immunity bill provides broad protection to gun manufacturers and gun dealers in both Federal and State court. The bill is aimed at protecting the manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits that result from the criminal or unlawful use of a firearm. The basic data is that if a manufacturer or dealer follows the statutory law in the manufacturing and sale of a legal product, they should not be held responsible for the actions of a third party. While some may claim that this gun immunity bill might be an important component of tort reform, in my opinion, health care liability reform is even more important. We must protect the medical profession and the patients it serves. How can we give near absolute protection from litigation for one industry--the gun industry--and do absolutely nothing for another industry that is solely dedicated to saving lives? Let's ask ourselves, in the event that a bullet from a firearm is shot into an innocent victim, is our healthcare system prepared to help that victim? Without healthcare liability reform, it may not be, as there might not be the appropriate doctor in the area to tend to the patient. That is why my amendment goes hand-in-hand with the gun immunity bill. So now it is up to my colleagues in the Congress. It is your choice. If we are going to give legal protections to the gun industry, all I say is let's give it to the doctors as well. If you gave this choice to the American people, there is no doubt that the doctors would win by a 100 to 1 margin. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2631

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for clarification, when my distinguished colleague from Michigan refers to ``victims,'' we should make it clear that oftentimes victims perish, so it is their spouses, their families we are talking about. I think in our discussion we ought to make it clear it is a class of people we are trying to protect.

Mr. WARNER. Well, I do not seek to take the floor, but if the Senator carried out his objection to the full meaning, it would prohibit any amendments coming up today unless the Senator agreed to laying his amendment aside so that another amendment could come up. Is that the desire of the Senator?

Mr. WARNER. Could I ask my distinguished colleague a question, because Virginia was hard hit, as were Maryland and other States, by that sniper case, which the Senator recounted in the opening remarks. It is my understanding--and I have followed the debate very carefully on all aspects of this legislation--but the legislation, if it were to pass, would put in doubt, to some considerable extent, the right of the many families. The greater community of the Nation's Capital was in semiparalysis. Schools closed. People could not conduct their normal activities because of the sense of lack of safety. They could not even do something simple such as filling the gas tank of the car. It seems to me unless we let the full force and brunt of all the legal remedies available to citizens of our Nation be utilized to bring to justice, either civilly or criminally, all those who may have contributed--as the Senator says, by gross negligence--then we are denying, particularly to these sniper victims' families and others across the Nation, some very fundamental rights. I commend my distinguished colleague from Michigan. It is my intent to support the Senator. Am I correct in my premise, in my question?

Mr. WARNER. Might I seek a clarification from the distinguished floor manager?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, no, it is a freestanding amendment in no way related to the amendment of my distinguished colleague from Michigan.

Mr. WARNER. Following the Senator from Michigan, that is correct.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, there is no intention of this Senator to weaken. As a matter of fact, I intend to vote in favor of the Senator's amendment, subject to a colloquy we will have to clarify a question I have in my mind. But the Senate must go forward today on amendments. I am trying to figure out what is the procedure by which we do it so that my colleague from Michigan is protected.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban. Signed into law in 1994, the Assault Weapons Ban placed a 10-year prohibition on the domestic manufacture of semi-automatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips. The 10-year ban ends on September 13, 2004. Consequently, unless Congress and the President act prior to September 13, 2004, weapons like Uzis and AK-47s will once again be produced in America, and more and more often, these weapons will fall into the hands of criminals who lurk in our neighborhoods. For a number of years now, President Bush has indicated that he supports reauthorizing the assault weapons ban. To date, though, no legislation has been introduced in the Senate to accomplish the President's goal. While measures have been introduced to make the ban permanent or to even expand the ban further, no legislation has been introduced to simply reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban for another ten years. I am pleased today to introduce, with Senator Feinstein, legislation that models exactly what the President has indicated he would sign into law: a straight 10-year reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban. Not only does President Bush support this legislation--law enforcement does as well. The men and women of law enforcement know that this legislation makes communities safer. In a letter dated February 18, 2004, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police writes, ``It is the position of the Grand Lodge that we will support the reauthorization of current law, but we will not support any expansion of the ban.'' This endorsement comes in addition to the endorsement of just about every other major law enforcement organization, and in addition to the endorsements of chiefs of police all across Virginia. Now, admittedly, I have not always been a supporter of the Assault Weapons Ban. When the ban legislation came before the United States Senate for a vote in 1993, I opposed it. At the time, I believed Senator Feinstein's legislation would do nothing to help reduce crime in this country, and I believed it would be a back door way to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding gun-owners and hunters. Ten years have since passed from the day of that vote. Over the course of those ten years, I have watched the bill be signed into law, and I have watched its implementation. I have studied the law and its affect on crime, and I have watched carefully to see how it affects law abiding gun-owners. Based on the ten years of history of the Assault Weapons Ban, my thoughts on the ban have evolved. Ten years of experience provides us with key facts. The Assault Weapons Ban has helped to dramatically reduce the number of crimes using assault weapons. It has made America's streets safer, and it has protected the rights of law abiding gun-owners better than many of us predicted. In fact, the law explicitly protects 670 hunting and recreational rifles. Moreover, we all know that the world has dramatically changed since that Senate vote in 1993. September 11, 2001, has forever changed our country and has taught us many lessons. No longer is America protected by the great oceans. The war on terror is not only being fought abroad, but now here at home. September 11 showed us that terrorism lurks in the shadows of our own backyard. Given the world today, now is not the time to make it easier for terrorists to acquire deadly rapid fire assault weapons and use them in our neighborhoods. Now, over my 25 years plus in the United States Senate, I have always tried to stand up for what is right, regardless of politics. I believe that is why the good people of the Commonwealth of Virginia have given me their trust and elected me to represent them in the United States Senate for five terms. I know that reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban is the right thing to do. I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation, and it is my hope that the Senate will act expeditiously and send this legislation to President Bush to sign into law.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban. Signed into law in 1994, the Assault Weapons Ban placed a 10-year prohibition on the domestic manufacture of semi-automatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips. The 10-year ban ends on September 13, 2004. Consequently, unless Congress and the President act prior to September 13, 2004, weapons like Uzis and AK-47s will once again be produced in America, and more and more often, these weapons will fall into the hands of criminals who lurk in our neighborhoods. For a number of years now, President Bush has indicated that he supports reauthorizing the assault weapons ban. To date, though, no legislation has been introduced in the Senate to accomplish the President's goal. While measures have been introduced to make the ban permanent or to even expand the ban further, no legislation has been introduced to simply reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban for another ten years. I am pleased today to introduce, with Senator Feinstein, legislation that models exactly what the President has indicated he would sign into law: a straight 10-year reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban. Not only does President Bush support this legislation--law enforcement does as well. The men and women of law enforcement know that this legislation makes communities safer. In a letter dated February 18, 2004, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police writes, ``It is the position of the Grand Lodge that we will support the reauthorization of current law, but we will not support any expansion of the ban.'' This endorsement comes in addition to the endorsement of just about every other major law enforcement organization, and in addition to the endorsements of chiefs of police all across Virginia. Now, admittedly, I have not always been a supporter of the Assault Weapons Ban. When the ban legislation came before the United States Senate for a vote in 1993, I opposed it. At the time, I believed Senator Feinstein's legislation would do nothing to help reduce crime in this country, and I believed it would be a back door way to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding gun-owners and hunters. Ten years have since passed from the day of that vote. Over the course of those ten years, I have watched the bill be signed into law, and I have watched its implementation. I have studied the law and its affect on crime, and I have watched carefully to see how it affects law abiding gun-owners. Based on the ten years of history of the Assault Weapons Ban, my thoughts on the ban have evolved. Ten years of experience provides us with key facts. The Assault Weapons Ban has helped to dramatically reduce the number of crimes using assault weapons. It has made America's streets safer, and it has protected the rights of law abiding gun-owners better than many of us predicted. In fact, the law explicitly protects 670 hunting and recreational rifles. Moreover, we all know that the world has dramatically changed since that Senate vote in 1993. September 11, 2001, has forever changed our country and has taught us many lessons. No longer is America protected by the great oceans. The war on terror is not only being fought abroad, but now here at home. September 11 showed us that terrorism lurks in the shadows of our own backyard. Given the world today, now is not the time to make it easier for terrorists to acquire deadly rapid fire assault weapons and use them in our neighborhoods. Now, over my 25 years plus in the United States Senate, I have always tried to stand up for what is right, regardless of politics. I believe that is why the good people of the Commonwealth of Virginia have given me their trust and elected me to represent them in the United States Senate for five terms. I know that reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban is the right thing to do. I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation, and it is my hope that the Senate will act expeditiously and send this legislation to President Bush to sign into law.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senator did that because it was to strike a provision I worked on in the bill. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague Senator Bond to strike the Committee's stormwater mitigation program. The full committee adopted an amendment I offered with many of my colleagues to begin to address--for the first time--an unfunded Federal mandate on our localities. I regret that my colleague opposes helping our localities with the serious financial burdens imposed by the Clean Water Act to correct stormwater runoff problems. I have heard him tell the Senate that this stormwater provision is a mandate on our state highway departments, but he has not told you the rest of the story. The rest of the story is that the existing Clean Water Act regulatory program requires all of our communities to obtain a permit for their stormwater discharges and flood control projects. According to many organizations who are on the front lines in dealing with this problem, they strongly support this modest provision to begin to address pollution problems from existing highways. This modest program of $160 million annually is a very small part of this massive $311 billion bill. It begins to fund an unfunded Federal mandate. Most importantly, our states want this program. The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators--our state officials responsible for improving the water quality of our rivers, lakes and streams--have written urging that the Senate retain this small program. For the benefit of my colleagues, I refer to a portion of the State officials letter: Communities throughout the nation, including numerous smaller towns and counties are required under the Clean Water Act to obtain discharge permits for stormwater. Even those communities, which have long understood the value of protecting their drinking sources and recreational waters from stormwater impacts, are already hard-pressed to cope with the cost, as they have been absorbing the costs of discharges from highways. This represents an unfair burden to these communities and we believe it is fair for the transportation funding system to remedy this problem where existing highways and other roads cause significant runoff problems. The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies has written that ``This amendment marks a crucial step toward addressing the billions of dollars in expenditures that state and local governments are required to make in controlling stormwater generated by our nation's highways. . . . Similar letters of strong support have come from the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the American Water Works Association, and the Association of State Floodplain Managers, and numerous other groups. The support for the Committee's provision is strong because everyone recognizes that stormwater runoff from highways is a known impediment to good water quality. Some have calculated that this runoff is the leading cause of pollution for nearly 50 percent of our national rivers, lakes and streams. Roads collect pollutants from tailpipe emissions, brake linings, oils and other sources. During storms they mix with other contaminants of heavy metals and road salts that wash into our waters. This result is seriously degraded water quality of our rivers, lakes and streams. Today, every new highway must include methods to control this runoff. But, there is a large need for our states and local governments to construct stormwater mitigation projects on existing roadways to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Under federal regulations, even our smallest communities and counties will be required to implement projects to control stormwater runoff. The modest program in the Committee bill requires States to dedicate 2 percent within the Surface Transportation program--one category of highway funding--to control stormwater runoff from our roads. It is true that stormwater mitigation projects are eligible for funding under the NHS and Transportation Enhancements program. However, the funding demand for these programs is great. I have also heard the author of this amendment that will punish our local governments say that we will work to fund these stormwater activities under the Clean Water Act. The Environment and Public Works Committee, however, has struggled unsuccessfully with financing our Nation's multi-billion dollar water infrastructure needs. We've come to no consensus or new financing package. In 2000, EPA estimated at least $8.3 billion over 20 years in local funding needs to address stormwater requirements. The modest program in the bill before us provides approximately $958 million over 6 years. This is simply some small relief to our localities to address pollution from existing highways. Our States want this program. Our communities deserve to have some relief from this unfunded Federal mandate. For the benefit of all of my colleagues--make no mistake--this is not the only requirement on how States spend Federal highway dollars. The bill before us is full of mandates on our States. Even the proponent of the amendment has offered his own mandate in the bill. It requires that States divert 2 percent of the National Highway System funding to connector roads that are not even on the National Highway System map. Perhaps this is a worthy goal, but again, it is a mandate on our States on how they use their Federal highway funds. I ask my colleagues to carefully consider this amendment and ask that they not move to take away this critically needed funding from our localities and work to meet unfunded mandates.