Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleague Senator Grassley today in completing Senate passage of the Family Opportunity Act--so that once and for all, we can remove the barriers to quality and affordable health care for children with disabilities. Barriers that prevent families from staying together and staying employed. And prevent their children from growing up to live independent lives and become fully contributing members of their communities. Many parents and leaders in communities throughout the country have worked long and hard and well to help us reach this milestone. They are parents, family members, citizens, and advocates. They are our friends, neighbors and colleagues. They showed us how we are failing families with severely disabled children by not giving them access to the health care they need to stay home and live in their community and compelled us to act. We have worked together for four long years to develop this legislation and to all of them I say, thank you for helping us to move this necessary legislation forward. You have been fearless and tireless warriors for justice. When we think of disabled children we tend to think of children who are disabled from birth. But fewer than 10 percent of all children with disabilities are born with their disabilities. A bicycle accident or a serious fall or a serious illness can suddenly disable the healthiest child. Currently, more than 9 percent of children in this country have significant disabilities. Many do not have access to even the most basic health services they need to maintain their health status because their families cannot afford to pay for them. To obtain vital health services for their children, families are being forced to become poor, stay poor, or to do the unthinkable--put their children in institutions or even give up custody of their children--all so their children can qualify for the health coverage available under Medicaid. In a survey of 20 States, families of special needs children reported they have turned down jobs, turned down raises, and turned down overtime--all so their child can stay eligible for Medicaid through the Social Security Income Program. The lack of adequate health care in our country today continues to force these families into poverty in order to obtain the care they need for their disabled children. The bill we are considering today may be the most important legislation we pass this Congress. It will close the health care gap for the nation's most vulnerable population, and enable families of disabled children to be equal partners in the American dream. It will tear down artificial barriers to success which have stood for far too long. This bill will change lives. This bill will change the life of 13-year-old Alice in Oklahoma, who was disabled because of multiple dystrophy. Under this bill she will now be able to get personal assistance to live at home with her family and go to her neighborhood school. This bill will change the life of Johnny in Indiana, who has severe mental illness and needs multiple mental health therapies and drugs. His mother will no longer be forced to give up custody of Johnny in order to secure the treatment he needs. Her goals of staying a productive citizen and keeping her son at home will no longer be denied--because her son will have access to the health care and supports he needs. This bill will change the life of Abby in Massachusetts, who is 6 years old and has mental retardation. Her parents are very concerned about her future. Already, she has been denied coverage by two health insurance firms because of the diagnosis of mental retardation. Without Medicaid, her parents would be bankrupted by her current medical bills. Now Abby and her family will have a fair opportunity to work and prosper. The Family Opportunity Act will make health insurance coverage more widely available for children with significant disabilities, by giving families opportunities to buy health care coverage through Medicaid. It will provide States with greater flexibility to enable children with mental health disabilities to obtain the health services they need in order to live at home and in their communities. It will establish Family to Family Information Centers in each State to assist families in meeting the unique health care needs of their disabled children. The passage of the Work Incentives Improvement Act in 1999 demonstrated our commitment to give adults with disabilities the right to lead independent and productive lives, without giving up their health care. It's time for Congress to show the same commitment to children with disabilities and pass the Family Opportunity Act. These families aren't looking for a hand out--just a helping hand. Today, the Senate will move one step closer to providing it to them.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we have a time limitation. I think I was allocated some time earlier. Is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will support John Negroponte to be America's first ambassador to Iraq since the gulf war, and I will speak about it in more detail in a moment. First I want to say a few words about the larger issues of Iraq and the enormously important challenge we face at an enormously important time for our Nation. The stakes could not be higher for the safety of 135,000 American soldiers serving in Iraq, for the future of Iraq and its 25 million citizens, for America's role in the world in the years ahead, and for America's own security in the weeks, let alone the years, ahead. For the stability of the entire Middle East, America's ambassador must convey to the new Iraqi government and the Iraqi people America's hopes for Iraq that it soon become a free, stable and prosperous and peaceful nation that respects the rights of its own citizens. We pray that mission accomplished has not become mission impossible. America's respect and reputation in the world have never been lower in the entire history of our Nation. Where do we go to get our respect and reputation back? Where do we go to bring a respectable end to the nightmare for America that Iraq has become? I worry that the actions of our Government may no longer keep America true to the ideals of the Nation's Founders so long ago. I hope the appointment of Ambassador Negroponte, a career diplomat, will mark a new beginning of serious American engagement in the real problems in Iraq. Too often, the Bush administration has been blinded by its arrogance on Iraq and refused to recognize the cold, hard truth about its failed policies. Time and again, the President has looked at events in Iraq through rose-colored glasses, ignored the administration's many mistakes in Iraq, and has failed to speak with candor either to the American or the Iraqi people. Ambassador Negroponte could not be entering this position at a more challenging time. The allegations of prisoner abuse have shaken the faith of the Iraqi people and the international community in the benevolence of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. The new ambassador must start to rebuild their trust. In his April 20, testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz spoke at length about the human rights abuses under Saddam. Seven of the 23 pages of his prepared testimony addressed the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein. One of the goals of the U.S. occupation of Iraq should have been to herald a new day of human rights for the Iraqi people. Instead, many Iraqis are equating America's crimes to those committed by Saddam Hussein, using the same prison and the same torture rooms. There is no question that this is not the case. There is no question that Saddam's crimes were crueler and more horrific and more widespread by any objective standard. But the reports of torture by American soldiers, and the reports that these abuses took place at the direction of Army intelligence officers, CIA agents, and private contractors, are deeply damaging to our cause in Iraq and our reputation and interests in the world. Nobody questions the commitment and skill of the vast majority of our soldiers. They are performing admirably under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. I have no doubt that these despicable incidents are even more painful for them than they are for the rest of America. I am concerned, however, that allegations of prisoner abuse are not limited to this one Baghdad prison. GEN. George Casey has said that this military has conducted at least 25 criminal investigations into deaths and 10 criminal investigations into other allegations of misconduct involving detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without a question, these reports of abuse strike at the heart of the moral argument for the administration's war in Iraq. It is clear that we need a full and independent investigation. The American people need the truth. Congress needs answers. There must be a full investigation and full accountability, including a comprehensive review of all detention and interrogation polices used by military and intelligence officials abroad, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and elsewhere. We need to know when the torture started, why was it kept secret for so long, and why we had to learn about it from the media. No one should be immune to questions, including the President. This is President Bush's war. It is the result of his radical doctrine of preventive war and American unilateralism run amok. President Bush has spoken frequently about the dignity and human rights of the Iraqi people, and he made it a major justification for the war. In the East Room of the White house on March 19, 2004, President Bush asked: ``Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?'' In the Cabinet room on December 24, 2003, the day Saddam was captured, President Bush said: For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever. The President has failed the Iraqi people, and he has failed America. He has presided over America's steepest and deepest fall from grace in the history of our country. The buck stops at the Oval Office. The tragedy unfolding in Iraq is the direct result of a colossal failure of leadership. It is a failure of calamitous proportions. The President should apologize to the Iraqi people and accept full responsibility. In the wake of this tragedy, Ambassador Negroponte will face an uphill battle regaining the enormous ground we have lost in winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. America's vision to rebuild Iraqi and provide new hope and opportunity was grand and noble, but we have not delivered on our promise. Far too many Iraqis have come to the conclusion that America is able, but unwilling, to meet their basic needs. The frustration with our unfulfilled promises is feeding into massive hatred for America and our soldiers, who are paying with their lives. Last fall, President Bush requested $20 billion in emergency reconstruction assistance from Congress to provide basic services for the Iraqi people. Congress wrote a large check to the Iraqi people, but the administration still has not delivered it. Ambassador Bremer spoke of the urgent need for this assistance in the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 22, 2003: This is urgent. . . . Most Iraqis welcomed us as liberators. Now the reality of foreign troops on the streets is starting to chafe. Some Iraqis are beginning to regard us as occupiers and not liberators. This was perhaps inevitable, but faster progress on reconstruction will help. Acting in good faith, the Congress approved this funding 3 weeks later. Despite the desperate need for reconstruction assistance in Iraq, the Bush administration has spent only a small portion of these funds. A mere 14 percent of the billions provided by Congress last October has been obligated for reconstruction projects. The administration has not clearly told the Congress how much has actually been spent. It may not even know. According to the most recent report to the Congress from the Office of Management and Budget: Nearly $3.6 billion was intended for public works projects, including nearly $3 billion for drinking water, but only $32 million has been obligated overall, and only $14 million has been obligated on drinking water; $443 million was intended for improvements in hospitals and health clinics, but the coalition government has obligated nothing. Mr. President, $300 million was designated for health care equipment and modernization, but nothing has been obligated and $90 million was designated to build and repair schools, but less than a quarter of it has been obligated. Our half-hearted attempt to take the face of America off the occupation will inevitably exacerbate Ambassador Negroponte's diplomatic challenges. Our proposal to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi people on June 30th and take the face of America off the occupation is nothing more than that--a proposal. It's not even a real transfer of sovereignty. At the very time we are talking about transferring sovereignty, President Bush is developing a grandiose plan to build a super embassy in Baghdad, staffed by 1,000 Americans. We will still have 135,000 American soldiers on the ground in Iraq for the foreseeable future. The new embassy's significance is clear. This administration wants Baghdad to be America's new colonial beachhead in the Middle East. As one American official said it will be just like ``Saigon, circa 1969.'' By comparison, 147 Americans now work at the American Embassy in Afghanistan, a country with 4 million more people than Iraq; 500 Americans work at the American Embassy in Egypt, a country nearly three times the population of Iraq; and 293 Americans work at the American Embassy in India, a country of 1.8 billion people. In fact, the administration is diverting funds intended for Iraq's reconstruction to support this Fortress America Embassy. According to an April 30th article in the Washington Post, $184 million has been reassigned from drinking water projects to pay for the operations of the U.S. embassy. Another $29 million has been reallocated from projects such as democracy building to the administrative expenses of USAID. And we wonder why the Iraqis hate us, why hatred for the American occupation continues to grow. We all have a stake in Iraq's success--the administration, the American people, the Iraqi people. Ambassador Negroponte has an enormous responsibility to ensure that our policy toward Iraq is based in reality and shaped by the facts on the ground. As the Ambassador embarks on this new assignment, he must not gloss over the truth, even if it is painful. He must speak with candor to the American people and the Iraqi people about America's objectives, our strategy, and our successes, and he must be equally candid about our failures. He would be wise not to follow in the footsteps of so many in the Bush administration who may have spoken candidly about the bleak situation in Iraq to the President in private, but who constantly sought in public to put a positive face on the clear failures. The stakes are high and the challenges are many. I wish Ambassador Negroponte great success and the best of luck. He will need both if America is to succeed in stabilizing Iraq, delivering on our promise of freedom and democracy, and bringing our troops home with dignity and honor. I urge my colleagues to approve his nomination. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matt Stump, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Is the Cantwell amendment now the pending amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. I see the Senator from Washington on her feet and ready to address the Senate. As I understand, she would be willing to set a time for a vote on her amendment sometime in the morning. So we can give the Senate some idea what the program will be, I am just wondering now whether the floor managers would be willing to agree to a time limit on the amendment of the Senator from Washington, for a vote on it in the late morning tomorrow, with the time to be divided.

Mr. KENNEDY. Again, I don't want to interfere with the Senator from Washington, but I know the Senator has attempted to get this amendment up, at my last count, some 14 times over the period of the last 7 or 8 months. Now it is before the Senate. She is entitled to have it considered. It is an amendment of enormous importance to working families in this country. We have 85,000 workers who, each week, lose their unemployment insurance. This represents an extremely important issue to hard-pressed middle-income families that are trying to make ends meet and facing serious issues in terms of the increase in health care costs, increases in tuition, increases in terms of their utilities, their mortgage payments. This is a lifeline to hundreds of thousands of American families. This is a matter of enormous importance. It is not just a minor amendment. For many of us, it is the most important or perhaps the second most important outside of the overtime amendment on this bill. I thank the Senator for Washington for her perseverance on behalf of the working families of this country, commend her for her diligence in protecting their interests, and look forward to following her leadership, hopefully getting the opportunity to have a reasonable period of time and then have the Senate express its will. I certainly hope we would not have the blind opposition to this amendment we have faced in the past when Members have tried to basically handcuff the Senate from being able to give consideration to this amendment. I commend the Senator from Washington for her diligence and perseverance. This is a matter of enormous importance and enormous consequence to the people of my State, I know to the people in her State, and for people all over this country. I commend her for developing the bipartisanship she has with the Senator from Ohio and other Senators. This has been a bipartisan effort she has led. That is the way it should be because, obviously, the workers who need this help are from all parts of the country and represent all kinds of different viewpoints. I thank her for her leadership and look forward to following this issue.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have 7 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask to be notified when there is 1 minute remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, let's look at exactly what this issue is about. This issue is about pay for hard-working Americans. Overtime represents a quarter of the pay for those individual Americans who receive overtime. It is a quarter of their pay; $33,000 is the average annual amount for the person who receives $161 a week in overtime-- $33,000. That is the average. We can have higher, we can have lower, but those are basically the kind of workers about which we are talking. I do not know what the average worker making $33,000 a year did to the Bush administration and why he is so opposed to them making a decent wage. I know the administration is against the increase in the minimum wage. They are against the extensions of unemployment compensation. And this is their third crack attacking overtime and reducing overtime pay. I say the average families, the working families are having a more and more difficult time than they have ever had in trying to make ends meet. If we look at what has happened to average wages for new jobs, average wages for new jobs are down 21 percent. If we look at what the pressure has been on middle-income families during the Bush administration, the average income has gone down 2 percent; home prices have gone up almost 18 percent; health and other insurance costs have gone up 50 percent; tuition, 35 percent; and utilities, 15 percent. Their income has gone down, and this proposal and the Bush administration want it to go down further. How are they going to make ends meet? What is on the other side? What is the relationship between corporations and workers during this period of time? Corporate profits have increased 57.5 percent during the period of the last 3 years, and workers' wages have gone up 1.5 percent. Still, this administration wants to increase the corporate profits. That is not right, it is not fair, it is not just. This is about special interests. We hear a good deal on the floor of the Senate that we want to modernize the overtime rules. Let's look at what this issue is really about. All we have to do is look at what has happened with the Restaurant Association. The National Restaurant Association in their letter to the Department of Labor says: The National Restaurant Association requests that DOL include chefs under the creative professional category as well as the learned professional category. So they will not be eligible for overtime. What comes out just 10 days ago? The Department concludes that to the extent a chef has a primary duty of work requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent, such chef may be considered an exempt creative professional from overtime. There is the Restaurant Association trying to look out and feather its own nest, and there is the Bush administration complying with it. Look at another special interest. Let's take the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, which supports the section of the proposed regulation that provides that claims adjustors, including those working for insurance companies, satisfy the FLSA administrative exemption. Sure enough, they make that request a little over a year ago, and 2 weeks ago out comes the Department of Labor's answer: Insurance claims adjustors generally meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption whether they work for an insurance company or other type of company. . . . The insurance companies ask for these changes in order to increase the bottom line for the companies, and sure enough the administration complies. And they say this is about technical adjustments in order to modernize it? It is about the special interests. That is what has been happening right down the line with regards to the overtime. We understand what this is about. This is a blatant and flagrant effort of the administration in order to increase the bottom line for corporate America and to shortchange working families. These are workers who are working hard. They work longer and harder than any other industrial nation in the world. They are finding they are having a difficult time trying to make ends meet. This administration has been undermining them by denying them the unemployment compensation, they are denying an increase in the minimum wage, and now they are going ahead and denying them the overtime. It is not right. Americans understand fairness, and we are talking about fairness in the job market. For 60 years, overtime has been in place. For 60 years, we have recognized the importance of paying overtime. The message that ought to go out to workers all over this country is, if we do not pass the Harkin amendment, workers beware.

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand I have 1 minute remaining. Workers beware because without the protections of overtime, those workers are going to be forced to work longer and longer without getting the kinds of increases they deserve. This is about fairness. This is about economic justice. This is about basically middle-class families. This is about family values in order to provide for working families to provide for their children. That is what the issue is. I hope we will support the Harkin amendment. I am going to vote for the Gregg amendment. I am not really sure how much protection it applies, but at least it is worthy of support. Let's do what is really right for American workers and support the Harkin amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge my Senate colleagues to support the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire when we come about doing this. I want to say it is not much to bargain, because one of the principal arguments the Senator from New Hampshire has made is by listing these 55 new categories, that will provide clarification. To the contrary, it will provide additional litigation because the test in the Department of Labor refers to the duties and not to the professional names that are being used. So if you have a cook or a chef, does that apply to somebody just cooking the food or someone at the salad bar who also considers themselves to be included? Plus, there are additional people who have not been included as well. This is a continuation of a misguided policy. We heard in March of last year from the Department of Labor, under the guise they were trying to streamline the process and procedure. They issued their regulations and said only 644,000 people would be affected. Then we find there were going to be 8 million who would lose overtime. So the administration retreated on that. Then they promulgated their recent legislation. Just this morning, Tammy McCutcheon from the Department of Labor said nobody will lose overtime between $23,660 and $100,000. That is this morning. Then we have the Senate Republicans' alleged position to make sure 55 categories, which are basically categories above $23,660 and below $100,000, will be protected. We are not sure what this is all about. We know there is going to be a cut in overtime for hard-pressed working families in America. That is what will be the result. Let's look at where the record is with regard to middle-income working families. We know there has been a loss of some 2 million jobs under this administration. It is not only the loss of jobs, it is the fact the existing jobs have lost income over the last 2 years. We have seen the loss of real income in those jobs that exist by about $1,300. Let's look at this fact. The new jobs being created are paying 21 percent less. This chart shows between 2000 and 2002, we have had a real loss in wages for existing jobs. If you look at the new jobs being created, they are paying, on average, 21 percent less. In New York, it is 38 percent less. So workers are working longer, working harder, and they are making less income even today. The cost of the things they are purchasing is going right up through the roof. If you look at the squeeze for middle-income families, this chart illustrates it. There is an increase in childcare of 100 percent. In recent years, an increase of 60 percent in health insurance. In the last 5 years, mortgage payments have increased 69 percent. Here we find middle-income, working families, with a loss of 2 million jobs. Those who are still working have a loss of income. For individuals who are able to get jobs, they are seeing new jobs paying 21 percent less. Look what is happening to them in terms of the expenses for middle- income America. Childcare is going up through the roof, health insurance is going up through the roof, mortgages are going up through the roof, and education for their children is going right up through the roof. During the Bush years, the middle-class family squeeze has tightened. This is a net loss of 2 percent in real purchasing terms in wages between 2000 and 2004. Home prices are up 18 percent; health and other insurance, as I mentioned, is up 50 percent; tuition, in 5 years, has gone up 35 percent; utilities have gone up 15 percent. Everything has been going up except the income of working families. And we have an administration that is opposed to an increase in the minimum wage, which has not increased in 7 years; an administration that is opposed to extending unemployment compensation, and 85,000 American workers are losing their extended unemployment compensation every week. Now the administration is taking away overtime at the direct request of a number of industries. We know what this is all about. We have the requests from the various industries. The National Restaurant Association requests the Department of Labor include chefs under the creative professional category as well as the learned professional category. Look what happens when DOL puts out their regulation: The Department concludes that to the extent a chef has a primary duty of work requiring invention, imagination, originality, or talent, he will be considered exempt from overtime. Thank you very much, National Restaurant Association. How dare those opposed to this proposal say this is for simplification. We know what this is all about. For example, in the insurance industry, here is what this says: The National Association of Insurance Companies supports the section of the proposed regulation providing that claims adjustors, including those working for insurance companies, satisfy the administrative exemption. That is the what the National Association for Mutual Insurance Companies wrote to the Department. Sure enough, look at what happened when the administration promulgates its regulation: Insurance claims adjustors generally meet the duties requirements for the administration exemption. Thank you very much to the insurance companies. You talk about simplification--we know what is going on. These are special interests that are trying to enhance the bottom line. We can go on with industry after industry. Let's look at what has happened now in the period of the last 4 years. Here we find a Wall Street recovery that leaves Main Street behind. Here it is. Corporate profits. There has been a 57.5-percent increase in corporate profits, but in workers' wages, it was 1.5 percent. Do we understand that? Here we have corporate profits of 57.5 percent and workers' wages of 1.5 percent. Now the administration says workers are getting paid too much. We have to do something about overtime. I do not know what middle-income working families have done to the Bush administration. I really do not understand why they declare war on the working families in this country, but it is war. It is a clear priority that they are not going to be attended to. We saw recently when we had the whole issue of providing pension relief for multiemployers, the 9.5 million workers who are working, small business, and also those in the building trades and others, 9.5 million who were looking for a similar kind of relief that we were providing for single employers, the administration said no. Those were 9.5 million workers, basically middle-income working families. They said no to them with regard to retirement; no to increasing minimum wage; no to unemployment compensation; no overtime. That is the record. We have the list the administration talks about. They have 55 categories on that list which has been included in the Gregg amendment, but I do not see the insurance adjustors on that list, I do not see cashiers on the list, I do not see bookkeepers on the list, and the list goes on. Yesterday, when we raised these questions, we were assured: Oh, no, you just don't understand; you don't really understand. We really provided the protection. We have the Department of Labor speaking out of one side of its mouth in testimony this morning saying one thing, and now we have something else on the floor of the Senate. Let's get it right, Mr. President. Let's get it right. Let's adopt the Harkin amendment and make sure we are going to say to those Americans who are going to have to work overtime that they are going to be adequately compensated. That has been the law since the late 1930s: a 40-hour workweek, and if you are going to work overtime, you are going to get time and a half. There are some industries that do not have that protection. I remind workers out there who may be watching this morning that under this administration, you are going to find out you are no longer provided with overtime protection.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have, Mr. President?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair remind me when I have 1 minute remaining, please. This chart shows what happens when you do not have overtime protection. In industries today that do not have overtime protection, the chances of workers working more than 40 hours a week is 44 percent. In companies that have to pay time and a half, it is down to 19 percent. For 50 hours a week, we find out it is 15 percent versus 5 percent. Once we take leave of overtime protections, workers beware. They are sending a message to you. They can say it is simplification and they can say it is modernization. We know how to do that. The Harkin amendment does that. But if you are talking about working longer, working harder, and making less, you are talking about the administration's position. Now we are taking a third bite at the apple. First, the administration came out with a proposal, and it was defeated in the Senate and defeated in the House of Representatives. Then they went back. They took weeks and months to redefine it; then they came back and made representations, as the Department of Labor spokesman said, that it was not going to affect anyone between $26,000 and $100,000. Now we have a third introduction on the floor of the Senate just before noon today to make sure that the 55 categories, many of which have been mentioned in the course of the debate, are going to be protected. Let's just do the job right. Let's just say: Look, American workers are working longer and harder than any other group of workers. This is a chart that shows that workers in the United States of America work longer and harder than any other industrial nation in the world. They are already working longer and harder. They are having a harder, more difficult time making ends meet, as I just pointed out, with the cost of health care, education, mortgage, utilities, the threats to their pension systems, and the outsourcing of jobs across this country. Let's not take away from them the one part of their pay which has been there since the 1930s, and that is the overtime pay. Let's not take that away from them, too. That is what the administration is attempting to do. The Harkin amendment will resist it. I hope when we have that opportunity--I will vote for the Gregg amendment because it mentions the 55 different categories, even though I think it probably opens up greater litigation in terms of defining what is a ``cook'' and what is a ``chef'' and what is a newspaper person and how that is going to be defined. It is going to open up litigation. Nevertheless, it is an attempt at least in those 55 areas to make sure they are protected. I am going to vote for that amendment, but Tom Harkin has the right amendment. It is the right way to go, and I hope the Senate will follow his lead. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce the Safe Orderly Legal Visas and Enforcement (SOLVE) Act of 2004. Much of the Nation's economy today depends on the hard work and the many contributions of immigrants. Many industries depend heavily on immigrant labor. These workers enrich our Nation and improve the quality of our lives. Yet millions of today's immigrant workers are undocumented. These workers and their families live in constant fear of deportation, and are easy targets of abuse and exploitation by unscrupulous employers and by criminals. Many risk great danger, and even death, to cross our borders. For important reasons--to strengthen national security, to guarantee sound economic and labor practices, and to ensure fundamental fairness--it is essential to reform our immigration system. We need immigration policies that provide a safe, orderly system where legality is the prevailing norm. We need immigration policies that reflect current economic realities, that respect the core values of family unity and fundamental fairness and that uphold our proud tradition as a Nation of immigrants. These are complex issues, deserving careful consideration and debate. But they are also issues that demand immediate attention. Our bill creates a genuine earned legalization program for undocumented workers and a revised temporary worker program with protections for both U.S. and foreign workers. It also creates a realistic path to citizenship for all deserving immigrants, and takes clear steps to reunite immigrant families. The legislation will benefit both workers and businesses. It improves wages and working conditions, and provides an effective way for foreign-born workers to become permanent residents if they wish to do so. It benefits immigrant families by reducing the unacceptable backlogs and obstacles that have separated families for too many years. Family unity has always been a fundamental cornerstone of America's immigration policy. Despite this fact, over three million individuals are awaiting immigrant visas in order to reunite with their families. This bill will allow immigrant families to be reunited more quickly and humanely. It also removes other obstacles in our current immigration laws that are separating families, such as the stringent affidavit-of- support requirements and the bars to admissibility. No immigration proposal is complete without an earned adjustment program. Hard-working immigrants living in the United States contribute to the economic growth and prosperity of our Nation. Immigrant workers are, and will continue to be, essential to the success of many American businesses. Our legislation will allow these long-term, tax-paying immigrants to apply for earned adjustment of status, providing employers with a more stable workforce and improving the wages and working conditions of all workers. A revised temporary worker program is a necessary component of any immigration reform, but it cannot stand alone. It must be enacted in conjunction with earned legalization and family unity priorities, and it must avoid the troubling legacy of exploitation that has marred past guest worker programs. This legislation strikes a fair balance. It will ensure that individuals participating in the program receive the same labor protections as those given to U.S. workers, including the right to organize, the right to change jobs between employers and economic sectors, and the protection of wages, hours, and working conditions. Anything else would subject migrants to abuse, and undermine the jobs, wages and working conditions of U.S. workers. The bill also provides participants with an opportunity to become permanent residents, and eventually citizens, if they wish to do so. Without such an opportunity, we will be creating second class status for temporary workers. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, we can no longer tolerate policies that fail to protect and control our borders. For the last decade, Congress has invested millions of dollars to vastly increase the number of immigration border patrol agents, improve surveillance technology, and install other controls to strengthen border enforcement, especially at our southwest border. Yet, almost everyone will agree that these policies have failed to stop illegal immigration. The proof is in the numbers--several hundred thousand people continue to enter the U.S. illegally each year. Our border enforcement strategy has, in effect, diverted migration flows to the most inhospitable desert and mountain terrains, causing dramatic increases in deaths due to exposure to the elements. According to statistics from the U.S. Border Patrol, since 1998 nearly 2,000 people have died making the treacherous journey across our southern border. Desperate migrants are being drawn into criminal smuggling syndicates, increasing the danger of violence to border patrol agents, border communities, and the migrant themselves. As Stephen Flynn, an expert on terrorism, noted at a recent Congressional hearing, these ``draconian measures'' have produced chaos at our borders, which ``makes it ideal for exploitation by criminals and terrorists.'' Our borders must be safe and secure. Although no terrorists have been apprehended crossing the southern border, the conditions there are ripe for abuse. Our present enforcement policies are not effective. Our bill will replace the chaotic, deadly illegal crossings along our southwest border with orderly and safe legal avenues for immigrant workers and immigrant families. Substantially legalizing the flow of people at our borders will strengthen our security and substantially reduce criminal activities, enabling immigration enforcement agents to focus their resources on terrorists and criminals attempting to enter the country. The bill will strengthen national security by encouraging undocumented persons to come forward to become legal. We have a unique opportunity to reform the current immigration system, and apply sensible policies that reaffirm our commitment to family unity, fundamental fairness, economic opportunity, and humane treatment. The bill we are introducing today will achieve the full reforms we need. A good first step would be to enact two bills that are already pending--the AgJOBS bill to reform the immigration laws for migrant workers, and the DREAM Act, to enable undocumented high school students to qualify for legal status so they can attend college. The Administration's wholehearted endorsements of these two bills would guarantee their immediate passage. Let's at least get these bills done now. We cannot afford any more delays. I look forward to working with my colleagues to reform our immigration laws. It's time to make these long-overdue reforms happen.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce the Safe Orderly Legal Visas and Enforcement (SOLVE) Act of 2004. Much of the Nation's economy today depends on the hard work and the many contributions of immigrants. Many industries depend heavily on immigrant labor. These workers enrich our Nation and improve the quality of our lives. Yet millions of today's immigrant workers are undocumented. These workers and their families live in constant fear of deportation, and are easy targets of abuse and exploitation by unscrupulous employers and by criminals. Many risk great danger, and even death, to cross our borders. For important reasons--to strengthen national security, to guarantee sound economic and labor practices, and to ensure fundamental fairness--it is essential to reform our immigration system. We need immigration policies that provide a safe, orderly system where legality is the prevailing norm. We need immigration policies that reflect current economic realities, that respect the core values of family unity and fundamental fairness and that uphold our proud tradition as a Nation of immigrants. These are complex issues, deserving careful consideration and debate. But they are also issues that demand immediate attention. Our bill creates a genuine earned legalization program for undocumented workers and a revised temporary worker program with protections for both U.S. and foreign workers. It also creates a realistic path to citizenship for all deserving immigrants, and takes clear steps to reunite immigrant families. The legislation will benefit both workers and businesses. It improves wages and working conditions, and provides an effective way for foreign-born workers to become permanent residents if they wish to do so. It benefits immigrant families by reducing the unacceptable backlogs and obstacles that have separated families for too many years. Family unity has always been a fundamental cornerstone of America's immigration policy. Despite this fact, over three million individuals are awaiting immigrant visas in order to reunite with their families. This bill will allow immigrant families to be reunited more quickly and humanely. It also removes other obstacles in our current immigration laws that are separating families, such as the stringent affidavit-of- support requirements and the bars to admissibility. No immigration proposal is complete without an earned adjustment program. Hard-working immigrants living in the United States contribute to the economic growth and prosperity of our Nation. Immigrant workers are, and will continue to be, essential to the success of many American businesses. Our legislation will allow these long-term, tax-paying immigrants to apply for earned adjustment of status, providing employers with a more stable workforce and improving the wages and working conditions of all workers. A revised temporary worker program is a necessary component of any immigration reform, but it cannot stand alone. It must be enacted in conjunction with earned legalization and family unity priorities, and it must avoid the troubling legacy of exploitation that has marred past guest worker programs. This legislation strikes a fair balance. It will ensure that individuals participating in the program receive the same labor protections as those given to U.S. workers, including the right to organize, the right to change jobs between employers and economic sectors, and the protection of wages, hours, and working conditions. Anything else would subject migrants to abuse, and undermine the jobs, wages and working conditions of U.S. workers. The bill also provides participants with an opportunity to become permanent residents, and eventually citizens, if they wish to do so. Without such an opportunity, we will be creating second class status for temporary workers. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, we can no longer tolerate policies that fail to protect and control our borders. For the last decade, Congress has invested millions of dollars to vastly increase the number of immigration border patrol agents, improve surveillance technology, and install other controls to strengthen border enforcement, especially at our southwest border. Yet, almost everyone will agree that these policies have failed to stop illegal immigration. The proof is in the numbers--several hundred thousand people continue to enter the U.S. illegally each year. Our border enforcement strategy has, in effect, diverted migration flows to the most inhospitable desert and mountain terrains, causing dramatic increases in deaths due to exposure to the elements. According to statistics from the U.S. Border Patrol, since 1998 nearly 2,000 people have died making the treacherous journey across our southern border. Desperate migrants are being drawn into criminal smuggling syndicates, increasing the danger of violence to border patrol agents, border communities, and the migrant themselves. As Stephen Flynn, an expert on terrorism, noted at a recent Congressional hearing, these ``draconian measures'' have produced chaos at our borders, which ``makes it ideal for exploitation by criminals and terrorists.'' Our borders must be safe and secure. Although no terrorists have been apprehended crossing the southern border, the conditions there are ripe for abuse. Our present enforcement policies are not effective. Our bill will replace the chaotic, deadly illegal crossings along our southwest border with orderly and safe legal avenues for immigrant workers and immigrant families. Substantially legalizing the flow of people at our borders will strengthen our security and substantially reduce criminal activities, enabling immigration enforcement agents to focus their resources on terrorists and criminals attempting to enter the country. The bill will strengthen national security by encouraging undocumented persons to come forward to become legal. We have a unique opportunity to reform the current immigration system, and apply sensible policies that reaffirm our commitment to family unity, fundamental fairness, economic opportunity, and humane treatment. The bill we are introducing today will achieve the full reforms we need. A good first step would be to enact two bills that are already pending--the AgJOBS bill to reform the immigration laws for migrant workers, and the DREAM Act, to enable undocumented high school students to qualify for legal status so they can attend college. The Administration's wholehearted endorsements of these two bills would guarantee their immediate passage. Let's at least get these bills done now. We cannot afford any more delays. I look forward to working with my colleagues to reform our immigration laws. It's time to make these long-overdue reforms happen.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I welcome the opportunity to join with my friend and colleague, the Senator from Iowa, in urging the Senate to accept this amendment he has proposed on overtime. I want to take a moment or two this afternoon to review, very quickly, where we are in terms of what our workers in this country are facing at this time in terms of our economy. First of all, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the excellent editorial entitled ``Timeout on Overtime Rule'' in the Los Angeles Times be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will mention, very quickly, some of the points that were made in this editorial, ``Timeout on Overtime Rule.'' This is what they mention: Unfortunately, the new Labor Department overtime rule intended to clear things up just makes them murkier. . . . Despite [Secretary] Chao's assurances that she's worked hard to ``get it right,'' the National Assn. of Police Organizations determined that ``while many police are protected, others are not.'' A former Department of Labor investigator last week told a House committee the ambiguous wording threatens [many] protection[s] now afforded to many workers--including nursery school teachers, nurses, chefs, team leaders, outside sales people and financial service employees--who earn from $23,660 to $100,000 a year. It continues: ``American workers have fueled recent productivity gains but failed to share in the newly created wealth because, as Alan Greenspan recently told the Senate, `virtually all of the gains in productivity ended up in rising profit' '' suggesting that the investments are not going back to those in terms of the increasing productivity but are all going back into profits. And then it points out: A panic about their overtime is the last thing workers need. . . . As we know--and the figures point out very clearly--American workers work longer and harder than any other workers in the world. They average working longer than any other nation in the world--2\1/2\ weeks longer in a year than workers in the United Kingdom; 7 weeks longer in a year than workers in France; 4, 5 weeks longer every year than most of the industrialized countries in Western Europe. American workers today are working longer, and they are working harder. But what has happened is we have seen that 8.4 million Americans are out of work. We have seen the loss of jobs over the period of the recent years. We have seen the economic record of 2.4 million more unemployed workers today than we had in 2001. So American workers are working longer, they are working harder, and we have seen a significant loss of jobs. I heard my friend and colleague from Utah refer to those who have gone back into the labor market. But as the Senator knows very well, many of those people are working part-time because they still can't find full-time work. This is a reflection of the fact that we have seen American workers working longer and working harder. And there is also a loss of some 2 million jobs. What has happened to the wages of those workers? Look at the difference in the wages of those workers who were working in the year 2000 versus 2002. In the year 2000, they were averaging $43,848, and now they are averaging $42,408. We have seen a significant reduction-- some $1,400--in wages that have been lost during the period of the last 2 years for jobs that are already in existence. And this administration is trying to cut back even more. What is the administration's problem with working families? They oppose an increase in the minimum wage. They oppose extending unemployment compensation. And now they are trying to cut back on the income of working families. Well, we hear: Look, we have created, under this administration, some new jobs. The interesting point is, the new jobs that have been created are averaging 21 percent less in pay than the old jobs that were there. So we have seen a significant reduction in the pay that workers receive if they have been able to hold their job. If you have lost your job, and then you get a new job, it is paying 21 percent less than what it was paying in the year 2001, and still the administration wants to reduce those figures even more for hard-working Americans who are trying to make it. Now, what has happened? What are these families doing? These families who were making $44,000, and maybe now they are coming back into the market and making 21 percent less? Let's look at the kind of burden those families are under. Let's look, for example, at what has happened in terms of if those families are sending one of their children to college. We find out if they are sending their children to a 4-year college, the average increase in college tuition has increased 26 percent since 2001. Virtually nothing has been done by the Bush administration to try to get a handle on that. There are things that can be done. We have had good ideas and good suggestions of trying to work with colleges, work with States, work with the Federal Government in trying to get a handle on the increased costs. We have families working harder, working longer, and making less, and finding out--when they are trying to put their children through college--college tuition, in the last 2\1/2\ years, has gone up some 26 percent. They see they are making less money now. If they have their old job or even if they have a new job, they are finding out, if their children are going to college, what is happening at a 4-year public school. Let's look at what has happened in terms of their health care premiums. The costs are virtually out of control. This chart shows their premium increase versus the CPI. The CPI might represent what some of these workers are getting in their increased wages in terms of their employers, but look what has happened to the costs that are out of control. Over the period of the last 4\1/2\ years, the increase in health care costs have gone up 43 percent. How are the average working families in this country able to make it? Their pay is going down. There are new jobs paying less. Tuitions are going up. Health care is going up. We have a proposal on the floor of the Senate. That is not bad enough, if they work even harder and longer, we are going to cut back on that. You can take the same with regard to the issue of prescription drugs. I see my friend from Oregon in the Chamber, Senator Ron Wyden, who has done so much in the area of prescription drugs and trying to get a handle on the costs of prescription drugs. He is a real leader in the Senate on this issue. If you look at what families are paying in increased costs for prescription drugs, those costs are virtually out of control. That is why those of us on this side of the aisle have asked: What in the world does this administration have against working families? Why now, the first time in more than 60 years, are you going to undermine or assault or attack overtime pay for workers? Why? It just isn't right and it just isn't fair. Look at what has happened in the recovery we have had, briefly, in the last several months. Let's look at how that recovery has affected workers and how it has affected the profits for companies. Here we have a chart that shows the difference between the recovery in the early 1990s and today's recovery. This chart reflects what the difference is between workers wages and corporate profit. In the early 1990s, when you had a recovery in the 1990s, you found out that the workers participated in expansion of wages 87 percent and the corporate profits went up 13 percent. Here it is today. With today's recovery, it is 60 percent goes to corporate profits and 40 percent to wages. And company after company, industry after industry is trying to cut that back in terms of wages. Just look at some of the industries, what they requested in terms of this administration. I will illustrate with the restaurant association, but the list goes on. The National Restaurant Association requests that DOL include chefs under creative professional categories as well as the learned professional category. Then from the Federal Register, April 23: The Department concludes that to the extent a chef has a primary duty of work, requiring invention, imagination, originality, or talent--imagine telling a chef that he didn't have those, how long would he work in a restaurant; of course, it means all the chefs--such chef may be considered an exempt creative professional. There is the request of the National Restaurant Association. There is the result. Take the insurance companies. Here is their request, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies' letter to the Department of Labor: The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies supports the section of the proposed regulations that provides that claims adjusters, including those working for insurance companies, satisfy the fair labor administrative exemption. Therefore, will not qualify for overtime. From the Federal Register just 10 days ago: Insurance claim adjusters generally meet the duty requirements for the administrative exemption. There is the request of the special interest; there is the result. I could take the rest of the afternoon. You could go industry by industry. We are talking about modernization, to make these regulations more understandable. This is what it is all about. It is the bottom line. The bottom line of those industries, taking it out of the pockets of the men and women who are working hard, working longer, as the first chart showed, more than any other industrial nation in the world, having a hard time making ends meet, paying for the education of the kids, affording the health care, paying for the prescription drugs. That is what this is all about. Here are the various groups that are affected: nurses, nursery school teachers. Imagine this, nursery school teachers. I looked through the regulations. Imagine denying nursery school teachers. When we understand the importance, anyone who has had the opportunity to read ``From Neurons to Neighborhoods,'' Jack Shonkoff's brilliant book that summarized three Academy of Sciences studies that showed that the intervention in the early years make the greatest difference in terms of children. We are concerned about education and we are going to make sure those nursery school teachers, even if they are qualified, even if they deserve it, no way, are they going to be excluded. The list goes on. The list goes on. Finally, I want to mention this chart that shows what happens when you either have protections for overtime or you don't have protections. Protections meaning if you are required, you pay time and a half versus you don't pay time and a half, what is going to be the impact on workers. Workers ought to listen to this. Workers ought to take a look at this chart. If you have overtime protection and you work more than 40 hours a week, only 19 percent of the workers are going to be required to work overtime. But if you don't, if the employer doesn't have to pay the overtime, it goes up to 44 percent, more than double. Workers beware. That is how you are going to end up. You are going to be required to work much more than the 40-hour workweek and you are not going to get compensated for it. And it isn't only the 40-hour workweek. If you have a 50-hour week, you are three times as likely to work longer than if you have the coverage under overtime. This can be summarized very easily as a continuation of this administration's war on working families. Working families are not asking for much. They want a decent job with decent pay and decent opportunities for the future. They have a sense of pride, and they want to do a good job in the job they are doing. And they want to work. We are stacking it against them. We are saying we will not increase the minimum wage, even though it is 7 years since the last time we saw an increase and even though its purchasing power is at an all-time low and that it affects 7 million Americans, fellow citizens who work hard, play by the rules, primarily janitors, teachers assistants, people who work in nursing homes. Those are the recipients of the minimum wage. And it is mostly women. This overtime issue is a women's issue. This overtime issue is a women's issue because we have seen the expansion and the growth of hours that women are putting in in the workplace. This administration has been opposed to an increase in the minimum wage, opposed to unemployment compensation, and now opposed to overtime. It is basically wrong. It is unfair. This Harkin amendment addresses the unfairness. Americans understand fairness and unfairness. This underlying proposal of the administration is unfair. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an excellent summary by Eileen Appelbaum from Rutgers University that talks about reinvestment in the United States as a share of corporate profits has hit a postwar low.

Mr. KENNEDY. Make no mistake about it. What this is about is increasing the profits. Do we think those profits are going to be reinvested in the worker? There is no indication that they will be. This is about the bottom line. The question is, Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of working families trying to make it in America or are you on the side of the companies trying to increase the bottom line? That is what the issue is. I applaud the Senator from Iowa and hope the Senate will support that effort. Exhibit 1 [From the Los Angeles Times Editorial, May 3, 2004] Timeout on Overtime Rule Overtime pay makes ends meet for many U.S. workers. But the federal regulations that determine who merits overtime are so complex that employers and employees end up in court way too often, Unfortunately, the new Labor Department overtime rule intended to clear things up just makes them murkier. A timeout is called for, if just to figure out who the winners and losers really are. An earlier version of the new rule drew 80,000 comments from befuddled workers and employers alike. The final rule published in April--though a clear improvement--has provoked outright argument about what some of its provisions really mean. Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao maintains that, when the rule takes effect in four months, it will guarantee overtime protection to workers earning less than $23,660 a year and strengthen overtime rights for 6.7 million other American workers, including 1.3 million low-wage, white-collar workers who previously didn't qualify. Workers, though, aren't taking Chao's word for it. Despite Chao's assurances that she's worked hard to ``get it right,'' the National Assn. of Police Organizations determined that ``while many police are protected, others are not.'' A former Department of Labor investigator last week told a House committee that ambiguous wording threatens protection now afforded too many workers--including nursery school teachers, nurses, chefs, team leaders, outside sales people and financial service employees--who earn from $23,660 to $100,000 a year. American workers have fueled recent productivity gains but failed to share in the newly created wealth because, as Alan Greenspan recently told the Senate, ``virtually all of the gains in productivity ended up in rising profit.'' The economy isn't spinning off jobs quickly enough to get the unemployed back to work, and young workers are frustrated by a minimum wage that hasn't budged since 1997. A panic about their overtime is the last thing workers need, even though the regulations surely do need some straightening out. Rather than take Chao's word, Congress should order the Labor Department to delay implementation of the complex overtime regulations until everyone knows what really will happen to workers' paychecks. Get a think tank on the job. Replacing one flawed set of regulations with another won't diminish lawsuits and may allow unscrupulous employers to take advantage of more workers. As Chao has noted, key portions of the rule hadn't been changed in more than 50 years. A few more weeks isn't going to matter.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. KENNEDY. I think the Senator is correct in the fact that the earlier provisions certainly apply to the training veterans received. I think my own reading of this is that they may very well apply to this group of veterans who have specialized training. Why didn't the administration add a line saying that anyone who received training in the Armed Forces would not be covered? That would have resolved the issue. If the Senator wanted to add that as an amendment, I would encourage the Senator from Iowa to accept that.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Bush administration drug cards do not pass the truth in advertising test. They are no solution to sky-high drug prices, and there will not be a solution until we have a President and Congress who care about fairness for patients instead of higher profits for pharamaceutical companies. The drug companies keep gouging all Americans on exorbitant drug prices, and the Bush administration keeps cheering them on. It is no accident that the drug companies are working ``hand in pocket'' with the administration in hyping these cards and keeping prices high. The Bush administration has a perfect batting average on providing information to the American public about Medicare--they are misleading every single time, and the drug cards are no exception. In the great tradition of suppressed cost estimates and false advertising comes the new revelation that the administration cannot even give the public honest figures about prices for drugs under the new cards. The millions of taxpayer dollars that the Bush administration is spending to peddle its plan cannot disguise the fact that seniors would get a better deal taking a bus to Canada to buy drugs at fair prices there. The drug cards will offer small discounts from already inflated prices. It is like used car dealers who raise prices just before customers come to the lot, so they can offer phony discounts and make it sound like a bargain. Studies show that the savings from the cards are not significantly better than those provided by already existing discount programs. Unfortunately, there is no lemon law for these drug cards. If seniors sign up for a card that does not deliver the promised discounts, too bad. They are stuck with it. The card companies can change their discounts every week, but seniors are locked in for a year on the card they choose. The card companies don't even have to pass all the discounts from drug companies along to patients. They can keep their kickbacks and let seniors foot the bill. Let's end these deceptive tricks and find honest solutions to the crisis of excessive costs for prescription drugs. Americans should be able to buy safe drugs from abroad at the same fair prices that Canadians or Europeans pay. Medicare should be able to use the purchasing power of 40 million beneficiaries to negotiate the same low prices on prescription drugs that the Veteran's Administration negotiates for veterans. But the Bush administration won't allow that. Why not? Because it is joined at the wallet with drug companies and their armies of lobbyists and tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Senior citizens want a real Medicare prescription drug benefit. Americans want fair prices for prescription drugs. The Bush administration and Republicans in Congress offer slick advertisements, a well-oiled public relations machine, and lots of promises, but no performance. It is time for a change. I will share with the Senate exactly what these cards will do and what they will not do. This chart is entitled, ``The Medicare Drug Cards: No substitute for real cost savings.'' This is the cost of a 1- month supply of the top 10 drugs which seniors most often use. This line represents the U.S. Federal supply schedule, $587. That is the cost under the VA system through the negotiation. It is $596 for the same 1-month supply of the top 10 drugs for Canada; $972 at Walgreens. RXSavings is $1,046, with $1,061 for the PCA, the two Medicare drug cards. If we had in the Medicare bill the ability for the Secretary of HHS to negotiate the prices down, we would be at $587 or the $596. Instead, it is the higher figure. This next chart shows the same thing. These prices available to Medicare beneficiaries are well below the prices available with the new Medicare discount cards. Again, the price for the market basket of the top 10 drugs, drugstore.com, $959. This is without any annual fee. The annual fees can go up to $30 in Medicare. You cannot go above $30. Under Costco.com, $990 with no fee. Total cost is $959 and $990. Under Walgreens, it is $972. The annual fee of $20 puts it at $992. Pharmacy RXSavings is $1,046 with a $30 annual fee, to put it at $1,076. At Pharmacy Care Alliance, $1,061, plus $19 for the annual fee, and that equals $1,080. This is what could be received today. It clearly reflects no savings on this. The other chart showed the difference if we had in the Medicare bill the ability for real negotiations. We would have the savings reflected in the VA or as it is in Canada. The administration now is pulling out all the stops in terms of what it is going to do for the seniors. This does not pass the truth in advertising test. It is not effective savings at all. Our seniors are able to receive better pricing through drugstore.com and Costco.com. This is a continuation of the kind of challenge we are facing. Hopefully, before the end of this session we will have the opportunity to get back to doing something about real negotiations on prescription drugs. Sudan Mr. President, I commend the Foreign Relations Committee for its action last week in reporting a resolution urging action by the United States and the international community to respond to the ongoing ethnic violence in Sudan. The Senate should act on this resolution as soon as possible. It has been 10 years since the Rwanda genocide. A decade ago, 8,000 Rwandans were being killed every day, yet the international community was silent. We did not stop the deaths of 800,000 Tutsis and politically moderate Hutu, in spite of our commitment that genocide must never again darken the annals of human history. Sadly, we may now be repeating the same mistake in Sudan. In 1998, President Clinton made a special visit to Kigali, Rwanda's capital, ``partly,'' he said, ``in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred'' in Rwanda. His visit and strong words remind us that we must not hesitate to act, when the horror is clear and when so many lives may be lost. Over the past few weeks, reports of severe ethnic violence have come from Darfur, a region of western Sudan. We have heard accounts of thousands or even tens of thousands of people murdered, of widespread rape, and of people's homes burned to the ground. The Sudanese government has refused to allow full access to western Sudan. International monitors and humanitarian workers have been prevented from reaching the area. We need immediate access to gather more information on what is happening and to provide urgent humanitarian relief to the one million people the United Nations reports have been displaced internally in Sudan or across the border to Chad. Many of us hoped that the humanitarian cease-fire and agreement earlier this month between the Sudanese Government and rebel forces in western Sudan would end the many months of violence against entire communities. It has not. The bombing of villages by the Sudanese Air Force continues, and so does the mayhem by the paramilitary forces unleashed by the Government of Sudan. The burning of homes and crops of desperately poor villagers has left in its ashes a humanitarian disaster. Without immediate relief, experts predict deaths in the hundreds of thousands. The cruelty of the Government of Sudan and its paramilitary allies against other ethnic groups raises the very real specter of genocide. The United States and the international community need to act now, to stop this brutality, to save lives. President Bush should make a strong public statement alerting the world to the violence in Darfur. He should call the international community to action, and increase pressure on the Sudanese Government. Doing so would send a strong signal that the international community will not accept these continuing atrocities. Sudan has been seeking better relations with the United States. It must be told that our Nation will have no relations with a genocidal government. The United States should propose a resolution in the United Nations Security Council to condemn the violations of international law being committed in Darfur, particularly the indiscriminate targeting of civilians and the obstruction of humanitarian aid by the government. The U.N. should demand immediate international access to the region to assess the full scale of the need for assistance. The U.N. should also insist on adequate support for international human rights monitors and for monitors of the cease-fire agreement reached last week. The international community must demand that Sudan stop the violence now, and give full humanitarian access to Darfur without question or qualification. To minimize the suffering of those affected by the violence, we should immediately identify funds and food aid to meet at least the traditional U.S. share of the $110 million appeal from the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs to support urgently needed assistance for internally displaced persons and refugees. These internally displaced persons and refugees must also be allowed by the Sudanese Government and militias to return safely to their homes, to rebuild their lives and communities, as soon as possible. The European community, African countries and the rest of the international community should use their considerable influence to pressure Sudan to end the violence in Darfur, and end it now. If the international community fails to act--and to act now--the consequences will be dire. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was eloquent in his statement at the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide. He said that he would not permit Darfur to become the first genocide of the 21st century. There will be discussion in Washington and around the world about whether the ethnic violence in Darfur is, in fact, genocide, but we cannot allow the debate over definitions obstruct our ability to act as soon as possible. It is a matter of the highest moral responsibility for each of us individually, for Congress, for the United States, and for the global community to do all we can to stop the violence against innocents in Darfur. We must act, because thousands of people's lives will be lost if we don't. Mr. President, I yield the floor.