Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Chair to remind me when I have 4 minutes left.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my friend from Mississippi attempted to describe my friend and colleague's position on a variety of different issues. As we know around here, one of the favorite techniques--we have just seen it--is to distort and misrepresent someone's position and then differ with it. That is what has been done with regard to Senator Kerry's position on the issues we just heard about. I know about the No Child Left Behind Act. I know John Kerry's position, and I know his position on health care. We talk about his position on health care. What he wants for the American people is the same thing President Bush has for himself. When he talks about the No Child Left Behind Act, the fact is 4\1/5\ million children aren't getting the benefits of it. He can defend himself. It is always interesting to me to listen to distortions and misrepresentations on his record. Read the Web site. I listened to the Senator from Kentucky talk about Senator Kerry on Iraq. The fact of the matter is this President can't solve that problem. He has had his turn, and it is time to have someone new. You can ask, Why? Because he has burned his bridges with the international community. He has insulted the world community and shattered and shredded all of the treaties of the United States with the world community on the matter of dealing with Iraq. They don't trust him. And they won't. And they will John Kerry. You have had your time, Mr. President. You have had your turn to try to do it. John Kerry has a plan to be able to do it. He has outlined that and it offers the best reason and the best hope for us to be able to achieve it. Twenty-four years ago, the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, posed the defining question to the American people in that election when he asked, ``Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?'' That simple question is given greater relevance now than when Ronald Reagan asked it. The defining issue today is national security. Especially in the post 9/11 world, people have the right to ask Ronald Reagan's question in a very specific and all- important way. Are we safer today because of the policies of President Bush? Any honest assessment can lead to only one answer--and that answer is an emphatic no. President Bush is dead wrong and John Kerry is absolutely right. We are not safer today and the reason we are not safer is because of the President's misguided war in Iraq. The President's handling of the war has been a toxic mix of ignorance, arrogance, and stubborn ideology. No amount of Presidential rhetoric or preposterous campaign spin can conceal the truth about the steady downward spiral in our national security since President Bush made that decision to go to war in Iraq. No issue is more important today. The battle against terrorism is a battle we must win. Even those of us who opposed the war in Iraq understand that this is now an American commitment and we must see it through. But to remain silent in the face of mounting failures by this President and this White House is to weaken our security even further, and we cannot let that happen. The President keeps saying America and the world are safer today and better off today because Saddam Hussein is gone. Let us count the ways that George Bush's war has not made America safer. No. 1, Iraq has been a constant, perilous distraction from the real war on terrorism. There was no persuasive link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. All you have to do is read the 9/11 Commission report. There it is on page 66. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al-Qaida in the development or carrying out any attacks against the United States. There it is--9/11 Commission, Mr. Cheney; 9/11 Commission, Mr. Bush. It is stated in the staff commission report as well: Two senior bin Laden associates adamantly denied any ties between al-Qaida and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States. There it is. There it is, and this President indicates that this ties in. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan. We should have finished the job with al-Qaida and the job with Osama bin Laden. No. 2, the mismanagement of the war in Iraq has created a fertile and very dangerous new breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq and a powerful magnet for al-Qaida that didn't exist before the war. We can't go a day now without hearing of attacks in Iraq by insurgents and al- Qaida terrorists, and our troops are in far greater danger because of it. In the month of August, 863 Americans were killed or wounded; 70 attacks every single day on American troops. And we hear the rosy picture of this administration, and the Secretary of Defense saying, ``I am encouraged by the way things are going.'' The President of United States said only a week ago that it is just a handful of insurgents. Let us get real. This is what is happening. That this violence would occur was abundantly clear before the war. We find in today's New York Times, pre-war assessment on Iraq shows chance of strong divisions. Is this the same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July that President Bush says is just a matter of guesswork by our intelligence agencies? He changed that to ``estimate'' but initially called it ``guesswork.'' About the prospect of growing instability in Iraq, the report ``warned'' the Bush administration about the ``potential costly consequences of American-led invasion 2 months before the war began, Government officials said.'' The assessments predicted that an American invasion of Iraq would ``increase sympathy'' and support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict. There it is. Give it to the President of the United States. We have 140,000 American boys over there, with no tie-in with al-Qaida? And the predictions are right there in front of us that we were going to have this kind of conflict over there. And this administration says: Oh, no, we are a lot better off than we were before. We should have finished the job against al-Qaida. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan. We should have had Osama bin Laden behind bars instead of Saddam Hussein. And what did the administration do? They put on their ideological blinders, ignored the intelligence, and rushed headlong into a misguided war that has put our troops in perilous danger. Mr. President, if we had gone into Afghanistan, we could have either ended or damaged al-Qaida, and captured Osama bin Laden. But al-Qaida is like a cancer. It metastasized. We had an opportunity to grab it all when we battled in Afghanistan, but we did not. We stepped back. We went into Iraq. And what has happened? Like a cancer, it has metastasized all over the world--in Southeast Asia, in Saudi Arabia, as far as Morocco, all over. It is a fundamental and basic miscalculation, and the American people are in greater danger as a result of that decision not to close the door on al-Qaida. No. 4, because of the war, the danger of terrorist attacks against America itself has become greater. Our preoccupation with Iraq has given al-Qaida 2 full years to regroup and plan murderous new assaults on us. We know al-Qaida will try to attack America again and again at home if it possibly can. Yet instead of staying focused on the real war on terror, President Bush rushed headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq. No. 5, and most ominously, the Bush administration's focus on Iraq has left us needlessly more vulnerable to an al-Qaida attack with a nuclear weapon. The greatest threat of all to our homeland is a nuclear attack. A mushroom cloud over any American city is the ultimate nightmare, and the risk is all too great. Osama bin Laden calls the acquisition of a nuclear device a ``religious duty.'' Documents captured from a key al-Qaida aide 3 years ago reveal plans even then to smuggle high-grade radioactive materials into the United States in shipping containers. If al-Qaida can obtain or assemble a nuclear weapon, they will use it on New York, Washington, or any American city. The greatest danger we face in the days and weeks ahead is a nuclear 9/11, and we hope and pray it is not already too late to prevent. The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely, and it never should have happened. No. 6, the war in Iraq has provided a powerful worldwide recruiting tool for al-Qaida. We know al-Qaida is getting stronger because its attacks in other parts of the world are increasing. In the 8 years before 9/11, al-Qaida conducted three attacks. But in the 3 years since 9/11, it has carried out a dozen more attacks, killing hundreds in Spain, Pakistan, Indonesia, and elsewhere. No. 7, because of the war, Afghanistan itself is still unstable. Taliban and al-Qaida elements roam the country. A dangerous border with Pakistan, where terrorists can easily cross, continues to be wide open. President Hamid Karzai is frequently forced to negotiate with warlords who control private armies in the tens of thousands. Opium production is at a record level and is being used to finance terrorism. Our troops there are in greater danger. Free and fair elections are in greater danger. The war in Iraq has stretched our troops thin to the point where we cannot provide enough additional forces to stop the rising drug trade and enable President Karzai to gain full control of the country and root out al-Qaida. How can we afford not to do that? No. 8, we have alienated longtime friends and leaders in other nations, whom we heavily depend on for intelligence, for border enforcement, for shutting off funds to al-Qaida, and for many other types of support in the ongoing war against international terrorism. Mistrust of America has soared throughout the world, and we are especially hated in the Muslim world. In parts of it, the bottom has fallen out. The past 2 years have seen the steepest and deepest fall from grace our country has ever suffered in the eyes of the world community in all our history. We remember the enormous goodwill that flowed to America in the aftermath of September 11, and we never should have squandered it. Does President Bush ever learn? His chip-on-the-shoulder address to the United Nations last week was yet another missed opportunity to turn the page and start regaining the genuine support of the world community for a sensible policy on Iraq. In fact, the President's arrogance toward the world community has left our soldiers increasingly isolated and alone. We have nearly 90 percent of the troops on the ground in Iraq, and more than 95 percent of those killed and wounded are Americans. Instead of other nations joining us, initially supportive nations are pulling out. The so-called coalition of the willing has become the coalition of the dwindling. No. 9, our overall military forces are stretched to the breaking point because of the war in Iraq. As the Defense Science Board recently told Secretary Rumsfeld: Current and projected force structure will not sustain our current and projected global stabilization commitments. LTG John Riggs said it clearly: I have been in the Army 39 years, and I've never seen the Army as stretched in that 39 years as I have today. As Senator John McCain warned last week, if we have a problem in some other flash point in the world, ``it's clear, at least to most observers, that we don't have sufficient personnel.'' The war has also undermined the Guard and Reserve. Many Guard members are also first responders for any terrorist attack on the United States. Our homeland security, as well, is being weakened because of their loss. No. 10, the war in Iraq has undermined the basic rule of international law that protects captured Americans. The Geneva Conventions are supposed to protect our forces, but the brutal interrogation techniques used at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have lowered the bar for treatment of POWs and endangered our soldiers throughout the world. No. 11, while President Bush has been preoccupied with Iraq, not just one but two serious nuclear threats have been rising--from North Korea and Iran. Four years ago, North Korea's plutonium program was inactive. Its nuclear rods were under seal. Two years ago, as the Iraq debate became intense, North Korea expelled the international inspectors and began turning its fuel rods into nuclear weapons. At the beginning of the Bush administration, North Korea was already thought to have two such weapons. Now they may have eight or more, and the danger is far greater. Iran, too, is now on a fast track that could produce nuclear weapons. The international inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium at two nuclear sites, and Iran admitted last March that it had the centrifuges to enrich uranium. The international community might be more willing to act if President Bush had not abused the U.N. resolution passed on Iraq 2 years ago, when he took the words ``serious consequences'' as a license for launching his unilateral war in Iraq. Now, after that breach of faith with the world community, other nations now refuse to trust us enough to enact a similar U.N. resolution on Iran because they fear President Bush will use it to justify another reckless war. No. 12, while we focused on the nonexistent nuclear threat from Saddam, we have not done enough to safeguard the vast amounts of unsecured nuclear material in the world. According to a joint report by the Nuclear Threat Initiative and Harvard's Managing-the-Atom Project, ``scores of nuclear terrorist opportunities lie in wait in countries all around the world''--especially at sites in the former Soviet Union that contain enough nuclear material for a nuclear weapon and are poorly defended against terrorists and criminals. As former Senator Sam Nunn said: The most effective, least expensive way to prevent nuclear terrorism is to secure nuclear weapons and materials at the source. How loudly--how loudly--does the alarm bell have to ring before President Bush wakes up? No. 13, the neglect of the Bush administration of all aspects of homeland security because of the war is frightening. All we have to do is look at today's paper.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me when I have 1 minute remaining. It says in the paper that the FBI is said to lag on translations. It talks about 3 years after 9/11 more than 120,000 hours of potentially valuable terrorism-related recordings have not been translated by the linguists at the FBI. Then it talks about that the al-Qaida messages ``tomorrow is zero hour'' and ``the match is about to begin'' were intercepted by the National Security Agency on September 10 but not translated until days afterwards. Homeland security? Why aren't we getting this done in terms of securing our homeland? We are pouring nearly $5 billion a month into Iraq. We are grossly shortchanging the urgent need to strengthen our ability to prevent terrorist attacks at home and to strengthen our preparedness to respond to them if they occur. As former Republican Senator Warren Rudman, chairman of the Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders, said: ``Homeland security is terribly underfunded.'' That is a Republican Senator who is saying that. That isn't a Democrat. ``Terribly underfunded.'' We see what happens as a result. Our hospitals are unprepared for a bioterrorist attack. Our land borders, our seaports, our shipping containers, our transit systems, our waterways, nuclear power--none of these have sufficient funds for protection against terrorist attacks, even though the Bush administration has put the Nation on high alert for such attacks five times in the last 3 years. You can't pack all these reasons America is not safer into a 30- second television response ad or a news story or an editorial. But as anyone who cares about the issue can quickly learn, our President has no credibility--no credibility--when he keeps telling us that America and the world are safer because he went to war in Iraq and rid us of Saddam Hussein. President Bush's record on Iraq is clearly costing American lives and endangering America and the world. Our President won't change or even admit how wrong he has been and still is. Despite the long line of mistaken blunders and outright deception, there has been no accountability. As election day draws closer, the buck is circling more and more closely over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Only a new President can right the extraordinary wrongs of the Bush administration on our foreign policy and our national security. On November 2, the American people will decide whether they still have confidence in this President's leadership. When we ask ourselves the fundamental question, whether President Bush has made us safer, there can only be one answer. No, he has not. That is why America needs new leadership. We could have been, and we should have been much safer than we are today. We cannot afford to stay this very dangerous course. This election cannot come soon enough. As I have said before, the only thing America has to fear is 4 more years of George Bush.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the greatest domestic challenges facing our country today is the soaring cost of health care. It is a serious problem for millions of families. But when the chief income earner in a family suddenly becomes unemployed, the problem can be critical, and we give a helping hand. We give them the opportunity to continue their coverage through their employer for a reasonable period. Families who lost loved ones on September 11 deserve the same opportunity until they can land on their feet again. The Continuing Care for Recovering Families Act I introduced yesterday with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Clinton recognizes that many of the September 11 families are still struggling to recover and we have an obligation to assist them. Some of the families have found ways to cover their health costs by purchasing private insurance or obtaining grant assistance on their own. For others, employers have agreed to provide coverage. For still other families, however, the safety net is about to fall apart, because their coverage is about to expire under COBRA--the temporary low-cost continuation of coverage available under current Federal law for those who change their job, lose their job, or for families that lose their chief income earner through death. The Continuing Care for Recovering Families Act will give spouses and children of victims of September 11 the ability to purchase or continue to purchase coverage under COBRA indefinitely, as long as they enroll within 120 days after passage of the act or 120 days after they lose their COBRA coverage. Eligibility for the program would expire only if they enroll in a private insurance plan or become eligible for Medicare. The families of September 11 have shown great courage and extraordinary resilience. But we still have much more to do to help them on their long and arduous road to recovery, and I hope very much that we can pass this legislation this year. It will only affect a small number of families. But for them, it will make a world of a difference.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Chair would let me know when 13 minutes have expired, I would appreciate it. First, I want to join with others in expressing a welcome for the comments of Prime Minister Allawi which we just heard in the House Chamber in the joint meeting. His challenge in governing and stabilizing Iraq is enormous. I believe that challenge has been made far more difficult by the continuing mistakes and persistent miscalculations of the Bush administration. Our policies are failing. We need to correct our course in order to stay the course, guarantee success, and bring our troops home with dignity and honor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Few if any issues are more important to American families than health care--and in few areas has this Administration failed more dismally. Its record is marked by inattention, incompetence, and outright deception. And because its record is so weak, its campaign strategy is based on false attacks on John Kerry's plan. The Administration's failures have been especially damaging for senior citizens and Medicare. Today's seniors built our country. They stood by it through World War II and the Cold War, through good economic times and bad. Medicare is a commitment to stand by them, to guarantee the affordable health care they need in their retirement. As George Bush said in his acceptance speech to the Republican convention on September 2, ``we have a moral responsibility to honor America's seniors.'' He's right about that--but senior citizens know that on Medicare, George Bush may say the right words, but he constantly does the wrong things. The Medicare crisis gets worse every day for our seniors. The Administration's Medicare bill was passed by Congress, but only after the Administration concealed its true cost--and broke the law in the process. Now they are at it again. As the Washington Post reported last Sunday, the Administration concealed internal estimates showing that the cost of the bill is even higher--$42 billion higher--than they admitted in January. Last week we learned that the Administration has suppressed estimates showing that Medicare cost sharing and premiums will eat up more than 40 percent of the total Social Security benefit of the typical 85 year old. Three weeks ago, the Bush Administration announced the highest premium increase in Medicare's entire history. That's the Bush doubletalk in action. Pledge to honor our senior citizens on September 2, impose the highest Medicare premium increase in history on September 3, hide the truth about the erosion of Medicare on September 14, and suppress yet another estimate of the cost of the Medicare bill on September 19. And that's just in the last three weeks. If George Bush gets four more years, senior citizens will fare even worse. The basic problem with George Bush on Medicare is that he puts the interests of drug companies and HMOs first and the needs of senior citizens last. The Medicare bill forces 15 million senior citizens to pay more for their prescription drugs than they do today. It causes 3 million retirees to lose their good retirement coverage. It forces 6 million of the poorest of the poor--the elderly and disabled under Medicaid--to pay more out of pocket for their prescription drugs. It requires 6 million senior citizens to pay more in premiums than they will get back in benefits. Its high deductibles, high premiums and huge coverage gaps leave large numbers of senior citizens unable to pay their drug bills. The Administration's Medicare bill also prohibits safe drug imports from Canada, so that drug companies can continue to gouge Americans, while citizens of Canada are able to buy the same drugs at half the price. The bill prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug discounts so that senior citizens can get fairer prices. The bill gives drug companies $139 billion in windfall profits. It gives HMO's $46 billion in unfair subsidies, instead of using those funds for a decent drug benefit or to keep premiums at affordable levels. Every major company and every major health plan in America negotiates prices for drugs. The Veterans Administration does it to see that veterans pay fair prices for the drugs they take. But when it comes to using the negotiating power of Medicare, the Bush Medicare bill says, ``Oh, no--not for senior citizens.'' George Bush must think the CEOs of the drug companies need senior citizens' money more than senior citizens do. Senior citizens are living on fixed incomes--and his Medicare bill is a fix to give away millions to drug industry CEOs. Not only does the Bush Medicare bill block imports of drugs at fair prices, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress won't even allow a vote on bipartisan legislation to give senior citizens and all other Americans safe access to affordable imported drugs. President Bush said in Muskegon, Michigan, two weeks ago that he opposed drug imports because he wants to make sure the drugs were safe. Our GOP Senate Majority Leader says he won't allow a vote on the issue in the Senate, because he wants to protect Americans from unsafe drugs. The safe drug argument is a sham. Our bipartisan bill guarantees safety. The only drugs that can be imported are drugs approved by the FDA and manufactured in FDA approved plants. The fact is that George Bush and the Republican leadership won't allow a Senate debate because they're afraid to defend their position before the full Senate, afraid of the accountability that a Senate vote gives the American people. The real safety issue for George Bush is the safety of the profits of the big drug companies, not the safety of American patients. According to another revelation in the very last paragraph of last Sunday's Washington Post article, of all the money that the Bush Medicare drug bill lavishes on HMOs, only about 5 percent goes for increased benefits to patients. The rest goes for HMO profits and excess costs. This Administration has been touting all the wonderful extra benefits for senior citizens who give up their regular Medicare and join a Medicare HMO. That's no justification for the $1,000 in overpayments that the Medicare trust fund gives to HMOs. If those extra benefits are needed, they should be available to every senior citizen--not just those who join an HMO. But it turns out that the vast majority of that overpayment--according to the Bush Administration's own estimate-- doesn't benefit senior citizens at all. It benefits HMO profits. For this President, when he says ``honor senior citizens,'' he really means honor big drug companies and big HMOs. President Bush also said this month that health care needs to be modernized to ``reflect the world in which we live.'' In the world he lives in, it's OK for drug companies to make billions, while seniors have to choose between the pills they need and putting food on the table. In the world President Bush lives in, the Medicare seniors know and trust will be turned over to the tender mercies of HMOs. In the world he lives in, he abandons the guarantee of Social Security and risks savings by seniors on the whims of the stock market. But that's not the world senior citizens live in--and it's not the way to honor senior citizens. The health care record of the Administration isn't just a failure for senior citizens. It's a failure for every American family. Health care costs are out of control. Annual spending on health care has increased from $1.3 trillion when the Administration took office to $1.8 trillion today. That's an increase of half a trillion dollars in just four years. American families are being pushed to the wall by those cost increases. Health insurance premiums have increased 59 percent in the past four years. The cost of insurance for a family has increased by almost $3,000. This year, premiums for family insurance will climb to $10,000. Drug costs are out of control. According to the most current data, they increased 52 percent in the first three years of the Administration. The President not only hasn't done anything to cut drug costs, he opposes any steps that would do something. He won't support anything that threatens the swollen profits of his friends in the pharmaceutical industry. The crisis of the uninsured is also out of control. Under this Administration, the number of the uninsured has soared by more than a million a year, to 45 million Americans today. Last year, one in three Americans--82 million--were without coverage for an extended period. No American family is more than one pink slip or one employer decision to drop coverage away from being uninsured. Whether the issue is health costs, or the number of uninsured, or Medicare, President Bush knows he can't run in his record. Instead, he tries to divert attention from what he's done by invoking the same tired old charges that the right wing always trots out against progressive health care solutions--the same charges they made against Medicare. In 1964 and 1965, when the Medicare debate was at its height, Republicans said Medicare was ``socialized medicine.'' They called it a ``crackpot scheme.'' They said it was a ``government invasion'' of health care. Fast forward forty years. Here's President Bush on John Kerry's plan: ``A government takeover of health care.'' It's a new century but it's the same old GOP line. The Kerry plan will give all Americans the same access to the same affordable, private health coverage that is available to every member of Congress and the President, too. Is that a government take-over of health care--or is it just plain fair? The Kerry plan provides tax credits to help small employers pay for private health insurance for their employees. Is that a government take-over--or is that just common sense? The Kerry plan authorizes people 50 to 64 with serious health problems and no access to affordable insurance to buy into Medicare. Is that a government take-over--or is that just compassion for people in need? The Kerry plan helps unemployed workers pay the cost of extending their private, on-the-job insurance coverage if they're laid off. Government takeover? Let's get serious. The Kerry plan expands Medicaid and CHIP for low income adults and children so that people whose employer doesn't provide health insurance and who can't afford it on their own can get the coverage they need. Is health insurance for every American child a government take-over--or is it just the right thing to do?'' The Kerry plan reduces private health premiums for everyone by 10 percent, by helping private insurance pay for the most costly illnesses. Is that a government takeover--or is that a creative idea to deal with the explosion in costs? The Kerry plan cuts health care costs by reducing sky-high administrative costs and paperwork, and by helping doctors and hospitals provide better quality care. Is that a government take-over-- or just following the advice of the best medical experts? The bottom line is that the Kerry plan will provide quality health insurance for two-thirds of the uninsured--27 million people. It will lower costs for every American. It will improve quality. It's a good idea. George Bush knows he can't win the argument if he talks about John Kerry's actual proposals, so he resorts to attacks that deceive and frighten. The Bush record: failure. The Bush response: fear and smear. President Bush knows he can't run on his record, so he's offering the old right-wing proposals dressed up in shiny new clothes. They're proposals he's had four years to enact, and couldn't, because too many Republicans appose them too. They're proposals that won't help working families, even if they're enacted. They're nothing more than thinly disguised giveaways to special interests. It offers refundable tax credits for the uninsured, but the priority it places on these credits is so low that it funds them only if unidentified, offsetting cuts are made in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. The credits are too small to do any good anyway, even if they're funded. They propose Association Health Plans, but that program has little to do with expanding insurance coverage for small businesses and everything to do with giveaways to Republican trade associations. The Congressional Budget Office says the proposal will actually raise premiums for 20 million Americans working for small businesses. The Bush plan proposes new tax breaks for the wealthy by squandering even more scarce federal funds on Health Savings Accounts. Those accounts will cost taxpayers $41 billion over the next 10 years--and they will raise premiums 60% or more for people who need conventional insurance. Health Savings Accounts say to American families: You don't pay enough for health care. You're wasteful. You should spend $3,000 out of your own savings before health insurance helps you pay your costs. That's Alice-in-Wonderland logic--and hard-pressed American families won't buy it. The President also touts caps on malpractice insurance premiums as an answer to rising health care costs. John Kerry has tort reform proposals to help doctors faced with excessive premiums. But the idea that capping medical malpractice awards will solve the health care crisis can't pass the laugh test. Malpractice premiums account for less than 2 percent of health care costs, and the Congressional Budget Office says that capping awards will produce minimal savings. A million and a half low income Americans--500,000 of them children-- have already lost health insurance coverage under Medicaid and CHIP because states struggling with budget shortfalls created by the Bush recession have cut back on the program. But instead of offering relief to states, the Bush budget proposed another $24 billion in Medicaid cuts. You don't hear the President talking about that. The President said in his acceptance speech that ``America's children must also have a healthy start in life.'' He then had the gall to say that in his next term ``We will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs.'' I have news for the President. There are $1 billion in CHIP funds that are now available to provide health insurance for children, but that will revert to the Treasury at the end of this week. If that happens, 200,000 low and moderate income children will lose their coverage. A bipartisan bill is now pending to restore those funds, as we have done in the past. But it's not even in the President's budget. Who in the world does George Bush think he is fooling? To control health costs, the Bush Administration would have to take on its big contributors in the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry. It won't do that--so it has nothing to offer. To help Americans afford health insurance, the President would have to put higher priority on health care for working families than on tax breaks for the wealthy. He won't do that--so he has nothing to offer. President Bush doesn't understand that American families are tired of just talk. They want action. He's done nothing for four years to help, and now he wants another chance. He doesn't deserve it. John Kerry offers real solutions, not excuses and empty promises. It's time for a change.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the legislation we are considering today should not be necessary. It is necessary only because the Republican leadership ignored the need of middle class families for meaningful tax relief when they were enacting $330 billion in new tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthy last year. If you want to know whose side President Bush and Congressional Republicans are really on, you should look at their record. Just last year, the Republicans passed a major tax bill. In that bill, they dramatically cut the tax rate on dividend and capital gains income at a cost of $150 billion. They decided that the tax rate on a worker's hard-earned paycheck should be nearly double the tax rate on a wealthy person's investments. They considered tax breaks for wealthy investors to be a much higher priority than middle class tax relief. In that same legislation, they spent billions more making sure that upper income taxpayers would benefit from lower rates every year through 2010. And the rate to be paid by the richest 1 percent of taxpayers was reduced the most, with little regard to the cost. However, when it came to tax relief for middle class families--the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief, and expansion of the 10 percent tax bracket--the Republicans were far less generous. They voted to terminate the middle class tax benefits contained in the bill at the end of this year. Under the Republican plan passed last year, at the end of 2004--just 3 months from now--the child tax credit will shrink, the marriage penalty will return, and working families will pay higher taxes on their wages. Their Cinderella tax relief for the middle class will vanish at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve. What a farce! The Republican claim of concern for the middle class is laughable. Don't believe what they say. Look at what they do. When they had to choose between real tax relief for hard working families--relief that would not disappear overnight--and new tax boondoggles for their wealthy friends, President Bush and his allies in Congress chose their wealthy friends. Only now, 6 weeks before the election, when voters have figured out this Republican scam, do we see the President and the leaders of his party scurrying to extend the middle class tax cuts beyond the end of this year. Hard pressed working families deserve to be the first people whose needs are addressed, not the last. There is a fundamental difference between the way Democrats and Republicans view tax fairness. Democrats believe in providing tax relief from the bottom up, and Republicans dispense tax breaks from the top down. The record of President Bush and Congressional Republicans shows their indifference to the needs of struggling middle class families. For them, middle class tax relief is nothing more than an election year afterthought. Even now, as Congress prepares to extend the $1,000 child credit beyond this year, the Republicans are once more refusing to help those families most in need of relief. Many families struggling to survive on the income from a minimum wage job will not get the benefit of the larger child credit. In fact, some may be denied any child credit at all. The earnings threshold for the child tax credit is indexed to inflation. Each year, the amount of income a family needs to qualify for the credit goes up. Unfortunately, we all know that the wages of low income workers have not been going up, not keeping pace with the cost of living. Even though minimum wage workers have not received an increase for 7 years, the Republican leadership has repeatedly refused to consider legislation giving them a raise. A full-time, year-round minimum wage worker makes about $10,700 annually. By next year, that will not be enough to qualify for the child tax credit. What could be more unfair? Congress increases the child tax credit to help working families, but denies the credit to those low-income working families who need help the most. It is truly outrageous! If Congress does not correct this injustice, more than four million families with nine million children will see their child credit shrink or disappear entirely next year. These are families that are already struggling to survive. How would you survive as a single parent trying to raise two kids on $10,700 a year? Congress could easily correct this arbitrary cut-off. All we need to do is maintain the threshold at $10,000 rather than automatically increasing it every year. However, when Senator Lincoln offered an amendment to make that simple fix, all but one of the Republican conferees voted no--killing her amendment. And President Bush, by his silence, is an accomplice to this outrage. Nine million children in low-income families get left behind--again. Once more, this Republican Congress has turned a deaf ear to those most in need. First, they refuse to increase the minimum wage for working families. Then, they cut overtime pay for millions of workers. And now, they deny those families the benefit of the child tax credit because their wages have not kept pace with the cost-of-living. The American people are a fair and compassionate people. They will be as outraged as I am when they learn of this injustice. They will have an opportunity to voice their outrage in just 6 weeks.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the greatest domestic challenges facing our country today is the soaring cost of health care. It's a serious problem for millions of families. But when the chief income earner in a family suddenly becomes unemployed, the problem can be critical, and we give a helping hand. We give them the opportunity to continue their coverage through their employer for a reasonable period. Families who lost loved ones on September 11, deserve the same opportunity until they can land on their feet again. The Continuing Care for Recovering Families Act I am introducing today with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Clinton recognizes that many of the September 11 families are still struggling to recover and we have an obligation to assist them. Some of the families have found ways to cover their health costs by purchasing private insurance or obtaining grant assistance on their own. For others, employers have agreed to provide coverage. For still other families, however, the safety net is about to fall apart, because their coverage is about to expire under COBRA--the temporary low--cost continuation of coverage available under current Federal law for those who change their job, lose their job or for families that lose their chief income earner through death. The Continuing Care for Recovering Families Act will give spouses and children of victims of September 11 the ability to purchase or continue to purchase coverage under COBRA indefinitely, as long as they enroll within 120 days after passage of the Act or 120 days after they lose their COBRA coverage. Eligibility for the program would expire only if they enroll in a private insurance plan or become eligible for Medicare. The families of September 11 have shown great courage and extraordinary resilience. But we still have much more to do to help them on their long and arduous road to recovery, and I hope very much that we can pass this legislation this year. It will only affect a small number of families. But for them, it will make a world of a difference.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the greatest domestic challenges facing our country today is the soaring cost of health care. It's a serious problem for millions of families. But when the chief income earner in a family suddenly becomes unemployed, the problem can be critical, and we give a helping hand. We give them the opportunity to continue their coverage through their employer for a reasonable period. Families who lost loved ones on September 11, deserve the same opportunity until they can land on their feet again. The Continuing Care for Recovering Families Act I am introducing today with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Clinton recognizes that many of the September 11 families are still struggling to recover and we have an obligation to assist them. Some of the families have found ways to cover their health costs by purchasing private insurance or obtaining grant assistance on their own. For others, employers have agreed to provide coverage. For still other families, however, the safety net is about to fall apart, because their coverage is about to expire under COBRA--the temporary low--cost continuation of coverage available under current Federal law for those who change their job, lose their job or for families that lose their chief income earner through death. The Continuing Care for Recovering Families Act will give spouses and children of victims of September 11 the ability to purchase or continue to purchase coverage under COBRA indefinitely, as long as they enroll within 120 days after passage of the Act or 120 days after they lose their COBRA coverage. Eligibility for the program would expire only if they enroll in a private insurance plan or become eligible for Medicare. The families of September 11 have shown great courage and extraordinary resilience. But we still have much more to do to help them on their long and arduous road to recovery, and I hope very much that we can pass this legislation this year. It will only affect a small number of families. But for them, it will make a world of a difference.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand now that we are on the time that has been designated for Senator Daschle, the minority leader.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have been yielded 10 minutes and then I understand my colleague and friend from Washington has been yielded 5.

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Chair notify me when I have 2 minutes remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday, John Edwards was in Cleveland, OH, and gave a powerful speech on the economy. He pointed out the struggles of the middle class and asked why President Bush made the choices he has to boost the wealthiest Americans and abandon hard working men and women. I urge my colleagues to take a look at this great speech. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, few issues are more important to a strong America than strong schools. Education can open the doors of opportunity to our people. It helps the next generation realize their potential and fulfill their dreams. A good education strengthens our economy as it prepares young Americans to get good jobs and compete in today's world. Parents want their children to succeed, but over the past 4 years we have seen a President and an administration with an incompetent education policy and incompetent education budget. President Bush can find more than $1 trillion to give away in tax breaks for the elite but he cuts funding for his own education reforms. He can waste billions of dollars in contracts to Halliburton but cannot find a dime to increase Pell grants. When it comes to the education of our children and helping the middle-class families afford college for their children, and helping workers get retrained for new jobs, this administration has been AWOL. On issue after issue, the administration has misled the country with the long trail of broken promises and unmet commitments. Incompetence is hurting our families and our communities. On Iraq, the administration manipulated and distorted intelligence in a rush to war. We have had incompetent leadership in trying to find a way of peace, and America is less safe today. We have had incompetency in the management of our economy with the loss of 1,700,000 jobs. Wages are down. Expenses are up. Health premiums are going through the roof. Gasoline prices are up. College premiums are up. In health care, we have a double-digit increase in premiums. Drug costs are going through the ceiling. There is a rising number of uninsured. Iraq, the economy, health care, and now education. I have a statement the President made January 23, 2001: My focus will be on making sure that every child is educated. These are the K-12. This is the college education. These are the children who need the training programs and yet we see that under the administration's budget 4.6 million of these children are being left behind. College tuition has gone up 38 percent in the new calculations since this President took office, which makes payment of the premiums for a college education out of the reach of middle-income families. We have had an actual $600 million cut in job training programs. This is what the President said: Funding is important and so is reform. So we must tie funding to higher standards and accountability-- We agreed with that-- for results. Schools will be given a reasonable chance to improve and the support to do so. Money is not the answer to everything but it is a clear indication of a nation's priorities. This is a commitment of the President to provide the support so we can have higher standards so that we can have higher results and academic achievement for our children. Yet we find that Bush underfunded the reforms of No Child Left Behind this year by $9.4 billion. There are 6,500 schools identified as in need of improvement and President Bush has never once proposed funding to turn around schools that need improvement. Here it is. The President said on January 23, 2001: Many of our schools, particularly low-income schools, will need help in the transition to higher standards. Higher standards mean better trained teachers who are teaching in underserved areas. It means support services for those children who are not being able to keep up with the rest of the class. It means help and assistance for limited-English-speaking children, those who are speaking a foreign language who need the extra help and assistance in order to be able to perform at standard, and also reforms for struggling schools in many of our urban areas and some in our rural areas. There was a guarantee in the No Child Left Behind funding for qualified teachers, funding for afterschool programs, funding for limited-English-speaking children, funding for struggling schools, and yet that has been a failed promise. This chart indicates where the Bush budget is with regard to the No Child Left Behind Act, all the way out to fiscal year 2012, and that leaves over 4 million children left out and left behind. This was the commitment in the No Child Left Behind Act that this President signed to say that no child would be left behind, and that every child could reach proficiency. In my State of Massachusetts, in the last MCAS test, which is generally recognized nationwide, 62 percent of the children were able to get proficiency in reading and 57 percent in math. We are not giving up on those children but evidently the administration has. Next, in higher education, this is what the President said on August 30, 2000: A child eligible for a Pell grant future will be affected by the size of the Pell grant. I am going to ask Congress to bolster the first year aid . . . to $5,100 per recipient of the Pell grant. . . . That was on August 30, 2000. When was that? Just before the election. I have the budget of this administration on the Pell grants for the last 4 years: Zero, zero, zero in terms of the increase of the Pell grants at a time when we have increases in higher education going up 38 percent. This is an abdication of responsibility to the children of this country. We have had an abdication of responsibility in health care, in the economy, and in education. What we do not have with this administration is attention to special interests. We saw over the passage of the Medicare debate where this administration gave $139 billion in windfall profits to the drug industry, $46 billion to the HMO industry. Now what do we have, the student loan scandal. My friend from the State of Washington will speak to this issue, but I wish to point out what was printed today in the New York Times that says it all. I ask unanimous consent that the whole article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. By one estimate, even 6 months' delay in dealing with this problem will cost the taxpayers nearly $3 billion in interest payments. That money should be going to poor and working class college students, not to the banks. We have an administration that takes care of the special interests, and now we find they are taking care of the banks as well. They take care of the drug companies, the HMOs, and the banks. All one has to do is read the newspaper. Look at this morning's newspaper on the Federal page, September 22, ``EPA Wording Found To Mirror Industry's.'' For the third time, environmental advocates have discovered passages in the Bush administration's proposal for regulating mercury pollution from power plants that mirror almost word for word portions of memos written by a law firm representing the coal-fired power plants. There it is again, taking care of the banks, taking care of the powerplants, taking care of the drug industry, but not taking care of working class Americans, not taking care of middle-income Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have a colleague who is on her way to the floor. I ask unanimous consent she be entitled to 5 minutes and that we have 5 additional minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Chair to remind me when I have 1 minute left. I ask the Senator from the State of Washington, does she not agree with me that this administration has the power to do something about this, and could do something about it today, this giveaway that is written about in the prominent national newspapers as a giveaway to the banks? Does she agree with me that the Department of Education has said we don't have the authority, we don't have the power, we don't have the legal ability to do something about it? Yet we have the General Accounting Office report: Family education loan program, statutory and regulatory changes could avert billions-- Hear that? Billions-- . . . in unnecessary Federal subsidy payments. On page 8: We disagree with the department's characterization of their authority. It seems to me, if this President were interested in protecting middle-income families, in avoiding the kind of continued wasteful subsidy and giveaway to the banks, that the President, the Department of Education, this administration, could do something and do something today. Would the Senator be willing to express an opinion on that?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for her comments. On August 27, Sally Stroup, Assistant Secretary for Education, said, ``I don't think we have the legal authority to stop them.'' They made no effort to try to stop them. Senator Murray is leading the fight in the Appropriations Committee to try to save the taxpayers and save middle-income families who are stretched with their tuition. Now we have the General Accounting Office saying they do have the power. I wonder if the Senator would agree with me that we see a whole pattern from this morning's newspapers about how the administration is effectively right in the tank for the powerplants with regard to mercury, coal-fired powerplants, and is now with the bank on student loans. We have seen it with regard to the HMOs. I am wondering who is going to stand up for working families and who is going to stand up for middle America.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, when we made the commitment of No Child Left Behind, we thought we were including all children. When this body committed to Medicare, we didn't say we are going to leave some senior citizens out; we said all seniors. When we made a commitment to voting rights, we said voting rights for all Americans. When we made our commitment to all children in this country, we meant all children. There it is. This is not disputed. We are failing more than 4 million children. That is unacceptable, particularly when we find that this administration is looking out for their special interests. I think we have an opportunity to change that on election day, and hopefully will. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I intend to vote against the nomination of Porter Goss to serve as Director of Central Intelligence. The American people have learned much since 9/11 about the vital role of objective, nonpolitical intelligence in keeping us safe at home and in protecting American interests abroad. We also have witnessed the disastrous consequences of the administration's manipulation of intelligence in its rush to war in Iraq--disastrous for our brave troops on the ground, for their families, for our country, and for our standing in the world. When it comes to intelligence, this is no time for politics. As we reorganize and strengthen our intelligence structures, we need a leader of the CIA whose only loyalty is speaking truth to power. We need an unbiased advisor to the President, not a partisan--someone who will deliver the good news and the bad with candor, foresight, and authority. With Porter Goss, however, we get not only a partisan, but a cheerleader for the Bush campaign. What is most disturbing about the Porter Goss nomination is that he has offered no explanation for his partisan behavior as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He has made partisan attacks on John Kerry for cutting intelligence budgets, when Mr. Goss himself voted 7 out of 10 years to scale back intelligence appropriations. He was initially unwilling to pursue the administration's vengeful leak of the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame to the press, which ended her career as a covert CIA officer and endangered her life. He rushed to discredit former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke after Mr. Clarke's testimony to the 9/11 Commission became so embarrassing to the White House. He did not support an inquiry into Ahmad Chalabi, even after allegations that Chalabi had leaked American secrets to Iran, because the Chalabi affair was embarrassing to White House and the Pentagon. Mr. Goss waited until June of this year to introduce legislation to reform our intelligence community a full 18 months after the initial joint congressional inquiry that he helped lead uncovered massive structural problems the resulted in the intelligence failures before 9/ 11. That is not leadership. That is not vision. In his confirmation hearing, when asked repeatedly about his partisan statements and actions, he offered no explanation. He repeatedly offered the same unsatisfactory response: ``the record is the record.'' If the record is the record for Mr. Goss, then it is a record that puts politics above the national interest. If the record is the record, then it is one that places partisan gain ahead of the facts. If the record is the record, then Mr. Goss is the wrong person to serve as our Nation's Director of Central Intelligence. Mr. Goss cannot, even now, cite a single instance in which public statements of Bush administration policymakers mischaracterized the available intelligence prior to the Iraq war. If he can't speak the plain truth about such an obvious fact, how can the American people have any confidence in him as the head of our intelligence community? The challenges of 9/11 and the administration's misuse of intelligence in rushing to war in Iraq demand that any reforms to our intelligence community be rooted firmly in the principle that intelligence must be completely insulated from partisan politics and ideology. The confirmation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence violates that principle in the most fundamental sense. We owe it to our fellow citizens to do better. I oppose the nomination of Porter Goss.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate the leader for his statement about the opening of the Native American Museum today, and also for his recitation of the historic and incredible times in terms of the history of the United States and the Dakota tribes. It was enormously interesting. As we all know, this issue in terms of Native American land and rights is something that is incredibly close to the heart of my friend, the Senator from South Dakota. I thank him for this statement this morning, particularly on this day of celebration for so many Native Americans. It was an extraordinary statement and comment about our history. All of us would be better citizens if we took to heart the history of our country and its history in regard to Native Americans. I thank him for his comments. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be reminded when I have only 1 minute left out of the time left to me.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday, Senator Kerry laid out his plan for Iraq and for enlisting international support to ease the burden on our troops, restoring stability to Iraq, and bringing our troops home in honor. It is a clear warning that conditions are worsening in Iraq and changes are urgently needed. His speeches have been praised for his thoughtfulness and realistic vision for advancing America's interests in that troubled region. I ask unanimous consent to have Senator Kerry's speech printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I draw to the attention of the Senate an issue which many of us have been concerned about for some period of time. Now it has reached the front page of some of the leading newspapers of this country, and it is something that is of central concern to families all over this Nation. I refer to the excellent opening yesterday of a series by the Washington Post, yesterday's called ``As Income Gap Widens, Uncertainty Spreads.'' This is an enormously interesting column. I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from this column be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I highlight what this story is really about. I think we will find--I certainly do in my home State of Massachusetts and my travels around the country--that this is a reality check. This story is a reality check of what is happening in cities, towns, urban areas, and rural areas across the country. It says: As Income Gap Widens, Uncertainty Spreads. I quote the Washington Post: The vanishing middle class. Now what middle class jobs share is vulnerability . . . The people who fill them have been replaceable by machines, workers overseas or temporary employees at home who lack benefits, and when they are replaced they don't know where to turn. The article continues: All kinds of jobs that pay in the middle range are vanishing, including computer code crunchers, produce managers, call center operators, travel agents and office clerks. And the list goes on, and the article goes on and on about what is happening to middle-income workers in the United States of America at this time. I find that this article is a restatement about what many of us believe has been happening for some time and trying to make it a point to try to do something about it. But we have been rebuffed and the ideas have been rejected in the Senate, and certainly by the administration. When we are talking about dealing with some of the issues, which I will comment on, we find an administration that says no to an increase in the minimum wage, no to extending unemployment compensation, no in terms of overtime, all which would have a great impact on the middle class. Now, what do we hear on the other side? First of all, we heard from the President of the United States in New York yesterday: ``The economy is strong and is getting stronger.'' This is from a speech the President made in New York yesterday, even though New York has lost 240,000 jobs since the President took office. Also yesterday, in New Hampshire, the President said: ``The economy of ours is growing.'' New Hampshire's unemployment rate is 32 percent higher than when the President took office. The New Hampshire economy has lost more than 7,000 jobs. But according to the President: ``The economy of ours is growing.'' And according to the President yesterday: ``The economy is strong and is getting stronger.'' And then we see, of course, what the President said at the time of the Republican Convention: ``We have seen a shaken economy rise to its feet.'' Well, how can it be this way? How can the President of the United States be saying ``the economy is strong and is getting stronger'' and then we have these reports here? Well, let's look at the facts. Let's look at what has been happening over the period of the recent years. If we look at the recovery the President talks about, as shown on this chart, the current recovery is depicted by this red line right here in terms of job growth. If you are looking at the recoveries before 1991, you see the job growth that went up, as shown here. And if you look from 1991 to 1993, this is the job growth here. It is basically the Clinton job growth. We see the difference between the Clinton job growth and the Bush job growth. Make no mistake about it, Presidential leadership makes a difference. Look at the record. During President Clinton's administration, 22 million jobs were added. During President Kennedy's administration, we had one of the longest periods of economic growth and price stability that we had in that century up until the time of President Clinton. So Presidential leadership does matter. We have the President saying: Everything is fine. We are growing stronger and stronger. It is not the Democrats who are saying we have a real crisis in the middle class. Here we have one of our national newspapers that is saying exactly what many of us have been saying for some period of time. Now, what are the facts? We can see the economic record. We have lost 1.7 million private-sector jobs from January of 2001 to August 2004-- 1.7 million jobs lost, not gained but lost, here in the United States. We have gone from 111,600,000 to 109,800,000 jobs. Let's look at what is happening across the country. Here is a chart that shows, under President Bush, unemployment is higher in 45 of the 50 States. The States that are marked in red on this chart are States with higher unemployment than when Bush took office. The States with the same unemployment as when the President took office are marked in yellow. The States marked in green have lower unemployment than when the President took office, which are Louisiana, Nevada, Hawaii, and Delaware--four States. For all of the other States, you see the loss of over 1 million jobs. We have higher unemployment not only in some regions of the country but generally throughout the country. What is happening in terms of the new jobs? As shown on this chart, most new jobs in the Bush economy pay low wages. This is not something we are saying over on this side, the Democratic side. This is the chief economist for Morgan Stanley, who says 81 percent of the growth in jobs is in the low-wage industries: janitors, salespeople, movers, repairmen, and drivers. It is interesting, those jobs do not have the benefits. Those jobs do not have the health insurance. Those jobs do not have any kind of sick leave. Those jobs do not have any kind of protection in terms of pensions or anything else. And it is 81 percent of the growth in jobs, according to Morgan Stanley. Jobs in the high- wage industries--construction jobs, white-collar jobs--are the remaining 19 percent. So we have seen that whatever jobs have been created have largely been at the lower level. This chart is from the Economic Policy Institute. It shows the disparity in pay between growing and shrinking industries--$51,270 for the expanding industries, $30,368 for the contracting industries--41 percent less. So this is saying essentially what the previous chart showed; and that is, the jobs that are being created even now are still not paying well. Let's see what is happening to the families across the country. These are median household incomes. This is what is happening in working families over the period from 2000 to 2003. The real purchasing power has gone down some $1,500. So we say, all right, this is the dilemma. You are sure it is a slow economy, but what in the world should we expect? We all have to share this burden, and it is too bad that workers have to share it. What is so bad about that? Well, I will show you what is bad about that, and that is, we have seen that productivity is growing 15 times faster than wages--workers are working longer, they are working harder, and they are producing more, but they are not seeing the benefit in terms of wages. They are not seeing it. This is the largest disparity in terms of productivity versus wages in the recent history of this country. So the workers are working longer. They are working harder. They are producing more. But do you think that would reflect itself in increased wages? And let me show you this chart here. In the Bush economy, we find that corporations are getting a bigger and bigger share of the pie. Here is the share of corporate profits having increased by 65 percent over workers' wages. This gap here is the largest gap we have had in the postwar period: larger corporate profits, workers with increased productivity, working longer and harder and yet they are still not able to make ends meet. These charts are going back to what the Washington Post pointed out here: ``As Income Gap Widens, Uncertainty Spreads.'' That is what is happening in the economy. And we can see the difference between this and other recoveries. The average in the last eight recoveries is corporate profits going up 14 percent and the workers' wages going up 8.6 percent. But here in the Bush recovery you have corporate profits going up 39 percent and wages--adjusted for inflation--going down by half of 1 percent. There it is. We ask: Is this President doing anything about it? What is he doing? Opposing an increase in the minimum wage, saying no more overtime for middle-income families, and no, you are not going to get the unemployment compensation you paid into, that you are entitled to as a matter of right. This is an extraordinary chart, where you get, on average, CEOs making $8.1 million versus the average worker's $26,000. This is startling. It is the average, not the median. It is the average because so many of the CEOs make so much more. The point is, the disparity between the CEOs and the workers is 300 times. Now, it is against that background that we have many being laid off and new jobs not paying well, that we have the administration putting a lid on any of the efforts we can provide in the Senate in terms of unemployment compensation and protecting overtime. And what has been happening out there? What has been happening in the meantime? We know the wages these workers are receiving, if they have been laid off and they get a new job, are not keeping up with the cost of things. Here it is over the period of the last 4 years: Health insurance has increased 59 percent. If the middle income is interested in their children being able to go to schools and colleges, tuition has gone up 28 percent. Interestingly, there is no increase in Pell grants, absolutely none, although in January of 2000, when the President was running for office, he said he would ask for an increase in the Pell grants. We never received that. And in the appropriations this year they will see no increase whatsoever. Housing costs are up 27 percent. Gas is up 22 percent. Milk is up 13 percent. In my part of the country, in Cape Cod last week, for a gallon of gas it cost $4.05. I know it is about $3.23 a gallon in other parts of the country. You are asking a person to work for a minimum wage of $5.15 and to buy a gallon of milk at $4.05. The administration says they are opposed to any real increase. These are hard-working men and women, more than 7 million of them, many women with children. It is an issue which affects many of those hard-working men and women of dignity. If you look at what has happened in terms of health care costs, the consumer price index has gone up 1.6, 2.4, 1.8, 5.9, and total health care costs cumulatively, 59 percent. One might ask, what in the world can we do about it? One of the things we might be able to do about it in terms of drug costs is reimportation. We could do something about that. We have a bipartisan bill. Yet we can't get it on the floor. We can't get an up-or-down vote. Those of us who would support it would go for an hour evenly divided. Let's get accountability. Let's do something about the cost. When you ask, so you are complaining about the increase in cost, what is your idea? One of the ideas is the reimportation of drugs. But no, we can't do that. We have dealt with all the issues of safety. I yield to no one in this body in terms of the safety of health care. We are unable to permit the Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors. We could do something about that. But no, we are denied the opportunity. As a result, we have exploding costs that are going out of control in terms of health care generally and in terms of prescription drugs--all impacting middle-class families. More and more of them are losing their health care coverage, their security. They haven't got wage security. They don't have job security. They don't have education security. They don't have health security. This chart illustrates that, every single year, more than a million, from 2000 to 2003. The economy is strong? The economy is getting stronger? Everything is OK? Hello. It isn't just those on this side of the aisle who say that this is what is happening; we have seen this in newspapers all across the country. All you have to do is visit any town in America. We know what the results are: We have 13 million children hungry or on the verge of hunger here in the United States. And the economy is getting stronger? Eight million Americans are unemployed, and nearly 3 million have lost unemployment benefits since Republicans ended the program. Seven million low wage workers wait 7 years for a minimum wage increase. That used to be a bipartisan effort, to have an increase in the minimum wage. President Bush 1 signed an increase. President Nixon signed an increase. It was bipartisan for years. But no, we can't even get a vote on it. When we offer an amendment on one of the bills, what do our Republican friends do? They pull the bill. State Department reauthorization, pull the bill; add it onto the reform of welfare, pull the bill down; class action, pull the bill. We don't want to even vote on it. Imagine that. Imagine not even wanting to vote on it. Six million have lost overtime protection under the new Bush rule. Let me give a quick review of who is impacted. These are the individuals who would be impacted: police, nurses. They are our homeland defenders, the first responders. They are the ones whose overtime is threatened. In the last several days, my colleague and friend Senator Kerry has offered a real alternative to the current economic challenges we are facing, that middle-income Americans are facing every single day in terms of lost wages, lost jobs, lost health insurance, lost opportunities for education. It talks about creating good-paying jobs, strengthening the middle class, and restoring America's competitive edge and cutting the deficit. I ask unanimous consent that an excerpt of this plan be printed in the Record.