Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator be good enough to yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has appropriately pointed out the explosion of increased costs of tuition for the sons and daughters of middle- income families. This is basically a middle America working-class family issue. As the Senator has pointed out so well and so eloquently, it is at the heart of the hopes and dreams of every family in this country. I am sure the Senator would agree with me, when we talk about education, we are not only talking about a better educated society; we are talking about individuals who are going to be the stewards of our democratic institutions and also the individuals who are going to be able to lead this country in terms of the international global economy and beyond that; individuals who are going to be able to be in the Armed Forces of this country. The Senator is mentioning the increases in tuition. The Senator pointed out the costs to families: in many families, the children cannot go to college. And if they are able to go, they experience increased debt. I understand the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance has said as a result of the increase in tuition, there are almost 200,000 young individuals, young men and women, sons of working class families in this country, who effectively have been priced out of the opportunity to continue in higher education. And reports point out the enormous increase in indebtedness of even those who are going to schools. We know that over the last 10 years, indebtedness has actually almost doubled. The average debt families have when they graduate is some $17,000. I am wondering if the Senator remembers that it was a few weeks ago the Senate passed a $2.4 trillion budget. We had an opportunity to provide a helping hand to students in this country who come from working families, by increasing the Pell grants for the young people in this country. It was the judgment and the decision of this body and the Republican administration, the Bush administration, to effectively say no, we will not increase the Pell grants, in spite of the fact--I know the Senator remembers this--that this President, when he ran for the Presidency of the United States, said in the final days of the campaign in the State of New Hampshire, that he was committed to increasing the Pell grants to $5,100. He said, in the State of New Hampshire on August thirtieth, in the year 2000: Pell grants significantly affect the ability of a child to stay in college or to stay in school. The future of a child eligible for a Pell grant will be affected by the size of the Pell grant. I am going to ask Congress to bolster first year aid from $3,300 to $5,100. Does the Senator from Connecticut remember when we had an opportunity to do something about helping middle-class families in this country, to provide some help and assistance to them, to ease the burden of the increase in tuition, whether there was any effort from the Republican side to increase the Pell grants to provide this important help and assistance to these qualified young students who are seeking to continue their education?

Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator agree with me that at one time we, as a nation, made a commitment to every child in this country that if they were qualified to get into any institution of higher learning based upon their academic standing, a series of grants and loans would be available to them so they would be able to go to the school, the college to which they were admitted? We saw over the period of time going back to the 1970s, going back to the time this whole program, the Pell grants and the Stafford loans were established, a balance between grants and loans so young people of talent could go to the schools and universities to which they were admitted. Now if I could direct the attention of the Senator from Connecticut, what we have seen is a complete abdication of that commitment in the fact of the declining purchasing power of the Pell grants, and in the reduction of the Work-Study Program. Fundamentally we are saying to the young people, and particularly to their parents: You are on your own. Go on out there and borrow, and pay a good deal for that additional $5 billion you will borrow. And there is just going to be paying the interest and indebtedness for those young people in the years ahead. Would the Senator be good enough to indicate whether he agrees with me, that the whole pattern in the recent years under Republican leadership has been to reduce the purchasing power, the value of the Pell grant, and to require the students to borrow a good deal more, which has meant an increase in indebtedness to these students? And would he not agree with me, when you visit schools and colleges and you meet with these young people around recess time or lunchtime, they are talking about their loans rather than talking about their books?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, if I may ask the Senator, we have talked about higher education. Does the Senator not agree with me that we have seen cutbacks in support for K- 12 as well? We have seen the failure of funding No Child Left Behind, which has left 4.6 million children behind. So we are leaving the children behind in higher education. We are leaving them in No Child Left Behind. I would like to ask the Senator from Connecticut as well whether he is not concerned, as I am, about the failure to fund the Head Start Program which reaches out and helps 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds prior to the time they enter kindergarten, to give them skills and help in building confidence so they can gain knowledge and understanding in their early years in school. Would the Senator not agree with me that what we are talking about is basically failing almost a whole generation? There are 54 million elementary and secondary school students across this country, and then we have the millions of children going on to college. And now we are talking about the millions who are eligible for the Head Start Program, who failed to receive the support they need. Would the Senator agree with me that money isn't everything, but it is a pretty clear indication of a Nation's priorities? We make choices about what the Nation's priorities are. What we are doing now, with the conclusion of the budget which we passed here, is failing the children in higher education. We have failed children with No Child Left Behind. We are failing the children with the funding of the Head Start Program. What does that say about the commitment of this Nation in terms of the young people? And to their families, hard-working American families, what does that say about our willingness to reach out a helping hand to these families to make sure the education system is going to be the best that it can be?

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield for a final question, I think the Senator from Connecticut has the floor. Before we leave this discussion, I have heard the resolution of the Senator from Connecticut, his determination. I would like to ask him whether he intends to battle with the rest of us in the remaining days of this session to try to provide that kind of help to these working families in these areas of education. Does he not agree with me that this ought to still be a priority, and that even as we are coming into the critical times of the appropriations committees, we will have some opportunity to continue this battle and call Senators to account to find out whether they believe it is the responsibility of this institution to continue to invest in the children of our country and to continue the opportunities of education, and that is the highest priority we have here? Do I hear from the Senator that he will join in that battle and continue to fight for those children?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Chambliss and the other cosponsors on this important bipartisan bill to prevent serious problems for both border security and our travel and tourism industries. These provisions, called the Visa Waiver Program Compliance Amendments of 2004, will extend for 2 additional years the October 26 deadline in current law for countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program to begin issuing biometric passports. It has become increasingly clear in recent months that this extension is essential. Strengthening the security of the Nation's borders is a critical part of the ongoing effort to prevent future terrorist attacks. A key part of meeting our security needs is the use of technology to screen out potential terrorists. We enacted specific legislation 2 years ago to authorize the development and implementation of biometric identification methods for visas and other immigration documents, in order to produce better screening of foreign nationals traveling to the United States, and provide front-line agencies with better intelligence for their decisions on applications for admission. Good technology is essential in fulfilling this mission. So are hiring additional personnel, retaining experienced workers, providing adequate training, and developing effective ways to facilitate coordination and information-sharing among Federal agencies. These measures all enhance our security and create protections against potential terrorist attacks. If we do not extend the biometric passport requirement for countries in the Visa Waiver Program, we will lose the real value of that particular protection. The current deadline has turned out to be impractical, because it forces countries to meet it, even if they are not ready to do so. The biometric passport process has been plagued with legitimate problems of global interoperability, privacy, chip durability, and production and procurement delays. The deadline was not realistic even from the start, and it is now clear that countries are unable to meet it. As an official from the Department of Homeland Security testified at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, ``If we force people to rapidly try to meet the deadline, we are going to get inferior technology that is going to be much more difficult for us to make useful at the ports of entry.'' If we do that, our borders won't be safe. Inferior technology was not what was intended when Congress passed the Border Security Act. In addition to the danger to border security, the current deadline will have a harsh economic impact. If countries miss the deadline, all their tourists and business travelers will have to obtain visas. The State Department estimates that over 5 million visas will need to be issued in the first year. Department officials believe that even with additional staffing for granting visas, they could process only about 10 percent of the additional workload. The resulting delays in granting visas would obviously prevent large numbers of legitimate travelers from coming to the United States and produce chaos in the Visa Waiver Program. The Department of Commerce estimates that ``the elimination of the program would cost the United States economy $28 billion in tourism-related exports over the next five years, result in a loss of 475,000 jobs, and completely erode the travel-trade surplus.'' We all agree that we need to screen out terrorists, but we need to do so in ways that will not increase our border security problems instead of solving them. I urge my colleagues to support this needed legislation. It is not a setback for the war on terrorism to wage it more realistically.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Chambliss and the other cosponsors on this important bipartisan bill to prevent serious problems for both border security and our travel and tourism industries. These provisions, called the Visa Waiver Program Compliance Amendments of 2004, will extend for 2 additional years the October 26 deadline in current law for countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program to begin issuing biometric passports. It has become increasingly clear in recent months that this extension is essential. Strengthening the security of the Nation's borders is a critical part of the ongoing effort to prevent future terrorist attacks. A key part of meeting our security needs is the use of technology to screen out potential terrorists. We enacted specific legislation 2 years ago to authorize the development and implementation of biometric identification methods for visas and other immigration documents, in order to produce better screening of foreign nationals traveling to the United States, and provide front-line agencies with better intelligence for their decisions on applications for admission. Good technology is essential in fulfilling this mission. So are hiring additional personnel, retaining experienced workers, providing adequate training, and developing effective ways to facilitate coordination and information-sharing among Federal agencies. These measures all enhance our security and create protections against potential terrorist attacks. If we do not extend the biometric passport requirement for countries in the Visa Waiver Program, we will lose the real value of that particular protection. The current deadline has turned out to be impractical, because it forces countries to meet it, even if they are not ready to do so. The biometric passport process has been plagued with legitimate problems of global interoperability, privacy, chip durability, and production and procurement delays. The deadline was not realistic even from the start, and it is now clear that countries are unable to meet it. As an official from the Department of Homeland Security testified at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, ``If we force people to rapidly try to meet the deadline, we are going to get inferior technology that is going to be much more difficult for us to make useful at the ports of entry.'' If we do that, our borders won't be safe. Inferior technology was not what was intended when Congress passed the Border Security Act. In addition to the danger to border security, the current deadline will have a harsh economic impact. If countries miss the deadline, all their tourists and business travelers will have to obtain visas. The State Department estimates that over 5 million visas will need to be issued in the first year. Department officials believe that even with additional staffing for granting visas, they could process only about 10 percent of the additional workload. The resulting delays in granting visas would obviously prevent large numbers of legitimate travelers from coming to the United States and produce chaos in the Visa Waiver Program. The Department of Commerce estimates that ``the elimination of the program would cost the United States economy $28 billion in tourism-related exports over the next five years, result in a loss of 475,000 jobs, and completely erode the travel-trade surplus.'' We all agree that we need to screen out terrorists, but we need to do so in ways that will not increase our border security problems instead of solving them. I urge my colleagues to support this needed legislation. It is not a setback for the war on terrorism to wage it more realistically.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 minutes. The issue, as my friend and colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, and the Senator from New Hampshire, pointed out, is the issue of pensions that are facing a very challenging time due to the economic challenges we are facing now in this particular time, and the efforts of Congress to try to give these pension programs some time to be able to recover. As the Senator from Louisiana pointed out, that is a very worthwhile goal we should embrace. As she pointed out in an excellent presentation, we had passed bipartisan legislation to help all those at risk, those workers who were going to be in single-employer plans and those who were going to be in the multiemployer plans. We passed legislation 86 to 9. Rarely does the Senate, particularly in the present climate, come together and recognize there is an immediate problem and then begin to face up to it. As we were listening to the Senators from Louisiana and New Hampshire, and thinking about points to be made regarding this legislation, I am once again reminded Senators' pensions are not at issue. All our pensions are adequately funded. I dare say, if the issue arose where we were going to leave over 20 percent of the Members of the Senate out, as this bill does for workers, there would be more Members in this Chamber right now than there are. The American people understand the pensions the Members have here are adequately funded. What we are talking about is a proposal that has been advanced, with the support of the White House, that is going to take care of about 80 percent of those who are in trouble and leave over 20 percent out. The Senate, in a bipartisan way, included everyone. This proposal excludes over 20 percent. This doesn't mean we are not for the remedies that are available to the other 80 percent. We are. We are strongly in favor of those. But we do think fairness demands we also include the other 20 percent. We understand if we were able to defeat this particular proposal today, it would take about 5 minutes to remedy this in a way that would provide fairness and equity for all those who are vulnerable. The House of Representatives would take that so fast, people's heads would turn. It would be on the way down to the White House as well. That is the question, whether we believe we ought to have a solution that takes care of not only workers in the Fortune 500, but workers who are in the fortune 10,000. That is the issue. The issue is fairness. The issue is workers. I will mention very briefly, to set the stage, what the challenges are with regard to pensions nationally at the present time. The troubled economy is jeopardizing workers' retirement. There are 3.3 million Americans who have lost pension coverage since the year 2000. Only 53.5 percent of the Nation's workers are participating in a retirement program, the lowest level in over a decade. The declining quality of jobs in our country also means declining benefits for American workers. Part-time and low-wage workers are far less likely to have a pension than full-time workers. This is what is happening in the real world. We don't have enough pensions to cover all workers, and many of the workers who are covered are losing it. The pension system is in crisis. Rather than addressing the whole problem, our Republican friends say: We are not going to do that; we are only going to take care of some. We believe everyone who is part of a pension system ought to get fair and equal treatment. This chart points out the issue. We have 35 million Americans who are covered by single-employer defined benefit programs. These workers will be protected. The Senator from Louisiana and I are for giving that kind of protection. But we don't understand why, if we are going to give the protection to 35 million Americans, we leave out the 9.7 million Americans who are covered by multiemployer defined benefit pension programs. The Senator from Louisiana asked exactly the right question. Why are we taking care of 35 million and leaving out effectively 10 million. There is absolutely no other answer than the White House decided it was going to be punitive and pulled the strings on the conference--of which I was a member, and I will go through that shortly--and said: We are not going to do it because so many of these are union members and we don't like unions. That is telling us something new in the Senate, when we know what has been happening recently? Before I get into that, this chart shows what has been happening with regard to general benefit pensions. We have what you call a perfect storm of factors hurting pension plan funding levels: The prolonged downturn of the stock market during the Bush administration, the longest since the Great Depression; extremely low 30-year Treasury bond interest rates; weak economic conditions which mean companies cannot afford to make the additional payments and pay excise taxes imposed by pension laws. These factors have affected the single-employer and the multiemployer the same. That is why the Senate decided to deal with both single and multiemployer plans. But not the conference committee. Although we made real progress, the fact is, we are facing an administration that at best is indifferent and at worst hostile to working families. I don't make that statement lightly. But you cannot look at the record of this administration with regard to working families and not come to that conclusion. If you look at what has happened with the creation of jobs, we have an administration that said, yes, we are going to create 5.2 million jobs. They made that statement in 2001. But we have seen the loss of 2 million jobs because of their economic policies. This chart shows there are 2.4 million more unemployed workers now in 2004 than there were in 2001. Workers are losing their jobs, and there are 10 million workers who are in the multiemployer plans who are going to get shortchanged as well. They are losing their jobs. If we look at the job growth over the last 3 years, as compared to other economic recoveries, from 1991, this shows the expansion of jobs, the recovery from 1991 to 1993. This chart indicates the current recovery is virtually flat. How are workers reacting to this? American workers are working longer and harder than ever before. Look at this chart that shows what is happening for workers in industrial nations. These bars represent different countries. These are mostly the European countries: Denmark, France, Ireland, United States, Italy, and Germany. Look at the United States, about 400 hours more per year than any other industrial nation. Workers are working longer. They are working harder. More and more of them are losing their jobs. Of the new jobs that are being created, they are paying 21 percent less than the jobs that were replaced. The average wage in 2001 was $44,000 a year. Now it is $35,000, a 21- percent loss. Workers working longer, harder. And if they lose their job and come back into the market, look what happens to them. They are suffering under this administration's economic policies. We ask, I wonder why that is happening? Well, Mr. President, the answer is it is very easy to see why it is happening. If you look at the recoveries from the early nineties and before, when you had an expansion of the economy and coming out of the recession, what you had with the new investments, 60 percent went to workers' wages and 39 percent went to corporate profits. In today's recovery, you have 86 percent going to corporate profit and 13 percent going to workers' wages. This system is stacked against workers. We have an administration that has the opportunity to help American workers in with multiemployer pensions--they won't do it, again. This is what is happening. Corporations are doing very well. Under this bill, they are going to do very well, too. But not the smaller companies. We have seen this--if you look at what has happened, we have gone through this on unemployment compensation. Under President Clinton, even at a time when we were coming out of the recession of the early nineties, they kept in the unemployment compensation until we had seen the growth of 3 million new jobs. We have seen now the early loss of over 2 million jobs and this administration cuts off the unemployment compensation. What is the effect of that to those workers? The effect of that is there are 90,000 Americans a week losing their unemployment compensation. That is 2\1/2\ times the capacity of Fenway Park in Boston. And they say that this administration is concerned about workers, concerned about the expansion of jobs, concerned about the unemployment compensation. They are opposed to the increases in the minimum wage. We have had that battle. When you look over the value of the increase in the minimum wage, the administration says thumbs down; we are not going to go for the increase in the minimum wage. If we don't have an increase in the minimum wage, the minimum wage will be at almost its lowest purchasing power ever in the history of the minimum wage. When we offered that amendment, the current Republican leadership pulled the bill rather than having a vote on an increase in the minimum wage. No increase in the minimum wage, no unemployment compensation, proposals to eliminate overtime, which is going to affect the firefighters and policemen and nurses in this country. That is their record. These are the groups that are going to be affected with the proposal under the administration to eliminate overtime. I make this point because what we are facing today is a continuum of the administration's indifference and opposition and hostility to workers, and primarily union workers, who are affected by this. Let me point out what is happening across this country. We are finding out as a result of these conditions, there are real people and families who are hurting. More than half of the unemployed adults have had to postpone medical treatment, 57 percent; or cut back on spending for food, 56 percent; 1 in 4 has had to move to other housing or move in with friends or relatives; 38 percent have lost telephone service or are worried they will lose their phone; more than one-third--36 percent--have had trouble paying their gas or electric bills. That isn't even the beginning. I want to take a minute or two to talk about what is happening out in the countryside in terms of hunger. I don't know how many saw this. This is last week's Parade Magazine. ``How can we help end childhood hunger?'' Imagine that in the United States of America, childhood hunger. How can we avoid that? The Agriculture Department reported 300,000 more families are hungry today than when President Bush first took office. That is going to increase. Let me read some of this article. This is from the Parade Magazine: Last year, according to the Department of Agriculture, 34.9 million Americans . . . were ``food insecure,'' the Government's term for those who must survive on a diet not nutritious enough to keep a child healthy. More than 13 million of those people were children. The U.S. Conference of Mayors expects that requests for emergency food for families with children will increase to 91 percent of the Nation's cities this year. They also document that emergency food outlets in 56 percent of the Nation's cities turned away hungry families last year because they ran out of resources. The safety net that most Americans presume is there to catch children before they sink too far is torn in too many places, leaving too many in free fall. ``Food is a basic right for every American child,'' says Bill Schorr, executive director of Share Our Strength, the anti-hunger organization that works with Parade and other partners to sponsor the Great America Bake Sale. ``This is the wealthiest Nation on Earth. We have the resources to wipe out child hunger in our time. All it takes is the political will to make the welfare of children one of the Nation's top priorities. The first step is coming to terms with the shattering effect the unstable economy has had on the families.'' ``Despite a recent report that the economy has rebounded, our pantry soup kitchens are trying to serve a surging number of families,'' says Robert Forner, CEO of America's Second Harvest, a network of more than 200 regional food banks. Second Harvest distributed nearly 2 million pounds of food last year to 23 million hungry Americans, 9 million children. ``Millions of people have used up their unemployment insurance benefits, spent their savings, sold off their assets, and come to us because they have no way to feed their families.'' This is happening, Mr. President. So we have a thumbs down on minimum wage, thumbs down on unemployment compensation, overtime, and now an undermining of the pension system. I want to mention who is being affected by the decision to exclude the multiemployer pension programs. By cutting the multiemployer relief plan, President Bush--I will review the bidding. We went to the conference and we had 5 days of hearings. We basically had agreed we could not do 100 percent because the House didn't do it, so we were going to do 20 percent. That was reported in the newspapers. They all show we had an agreement. The conferees understood that, until the White House said, no, no, we are not going to do that. They said you are going to take 3 or 4 percent. We said that is not a bargain, that is an insult. They said you can take it, and effectively they wrote the conference report, submitted it to the conference, and then during the final conference, Senator Grassley, to his credit, tried to find common ground. He said, OK, we won't take the 20 percent, but let's go to 8, or 10, or 9 percent on this. Many of us supported that. It was not a great proposal, but it was at least targeted on the neediest multiemployer programs. That was rejected under the orders of the White House--not the conferees. We worked it out at 20 percent. Now we have the proposal, according to the Wall Street Journal today, that effectively eliminates all--except perhaps 2 percent of the multiemployer programs. Let's find out what this is all about. The 9\1/2\ million people--who are they? Millions of workers could find themselves in the same situation as 500 retired ironworkers in Buffalo, NY, whose plan is on the verge of collapse because of stock market losses, economic downturn. These retirees could lose half of their pensions if their plan fails. Four hundred workers from Rockford, IL, whose employers have drastically increased contributions, cannot guarantee future benefits, so workers are paying for a pension they may never receive. A thousand workers in Connecticut, who have 50 employers who contribute to their pension fund--these employers are facing collapse if the pension fund fails. Workers across the country, from cement masons in Missouri, to sheet metal workers, to carpenters in Wisconsin, and electrical workers in Alaska are seeing their benefits cut as they and their employers are trying to save their plans. The problem is growing too rapidly. They are seeing the collapse of the pensions under the multiemployer system, and we are putting a death knell to them with this proposal before us. Low-wage workers are also being hurt. Hundreds of thousands of grocery store workers across the country are seeing the rate at which they earn their pensions slashed, sometimes cut in half. Many of these workers' only pension is a few hundred dollars a month. They are earning only half of that, so they will never have enough to retire. We are talking about grocery store clerks and cashiers around the country who are facing a threat to their pension. These workers earn from $10 to $15 an hour. Their average pension is only $500 a month. They cannot afford to see those pensions cut. Mr. President, 30,000 grocery store clerks and cashiers in the Seattle area have pension funds that are hitting a funding deficiency, where their employers owe excise taxes that drastically reduce the contributions, putting that whole program at risk. Workers agreed to cut their future pensions in half to save the plan. They are still facing a crisis in their plans. They did not need to face this crisis. All we need is to give consideration to the multiemployer plans, as we did to the single- employer plans, and at what risk to the Pension Guaranty Corporation? Virtually zero, as the Senator from Louisiana pointed out. Virtually zero risk. All they need is time. But, no, because these are workers and many of them belong to unions. In southern California, 70,000 workers have had the rate at which they earn pensions slashed. They are facing an imminent funding crisis. In the Southeast, 40,000 workers at Kroger and Bruno grocery stores in Georgia and neighboring States have had their pensions cut by a third. In Portland, OR, 20,000 workers had the rate at which they earn pensions cut in half. But this is not nearly enough to avert what is an imminent funding crisis. All these funds are in serious crisis, with companies facing increased contributions, penalties, and workers having their pensions cut. Not a single one of these funds is eligible for relief from the narrow bill dictated to the Congress by the White House in the conference report. These are basically the small businesses that are affected. Just a week ago, the President claimed the small business agenda is vibrant and foremost on his agenda. He says it is important to reduce taxes to small businesses so they will have more money to invest, while at the same time he was saying this, the staff at the White House was pulling the rug out from under thousands of businesses in multiemployer plans. Over half of the 65,000 multiemployers are small businesses. Small businesses, family businesses are the ones that will be hurt. They will not be able to use their money to invest and expand, and they will be paying excise taxes imposed by the IRS on the pension plans. These are just a few examples. Acme Industrial Pipefitting in Chattanooga, TN, which has 50 workers, is going to see their annual contributions to its pension plan more than double from $200,000 to $500,000. We had their president, Jim Bailey, say: I am not asking for a nickel from the Federal Government; just give me the time you are giving to the big boys. No, we are not going to do that, not for Acme Pipefitting in Chattanooga. The Coghlin Electrical Contractors, a fourth generation family business, faced increased payments of millions of dollars. Mr. Coghlin, and other contractors in the area, say this is catastrophic. Procaccio Painting in the Chicago area: Mr. Procaccio tells us he just cannot participate in any economic recovery. You know what they are basically saying, although they will not announce it. They are going to terminate the pension programs, and this is completely unnecessary. This is what we are facing. That is where we find ourselves. This conference report provides $80 billion--$80 billion--for single-employer plans and $1.6 billion for airlines and steel, but less than $250 million for a handful of multiemployer plans. These provisions are punitive, unfair, and discriminatory. Clearly, President Bush cares more about hurting the union workers than helping small businesses. This chart shows who gets the relief. Here it is: $81.6 billion for the single-employer; less than $250 million for the multiemployer. That represents effectively 10 million workers. I can show just who they are. The multiemployer plans allow workers to earn pensions under different employers. This helps workers in short-term or seasonal employment--construction, hospitality, entertainment or retail--to earn a pension. Many could not earn pensions in the single-employer system. The multiemployer plans provide pensions to low-wage workers, including hotel workers, restaurant workers, and janitors. Multiemployer plans are a critical source of pensions for employees of small businesses. Without these plans, small businesses could not afford to provide pensions. This chart shows the percentage of workers in construction, about 38 percent; truck transportation, 10 percent; services, 15 percent; retail trade, 14 percent; and manufacturing, 15 percent. These are workers in small businesses. As I pointed out earlier, this chart shows what has happened in this legislation. The Senate bill provides 100- percent relief for the single-employer plans. The conferees agreed to provide relief for 20 percent of those who need it the most in multiemployer plans, and the White House insisted the final conference comes out with less than 4 percent. It is wrong, Mr. President. We are talking about the same workers who have been the most vulnerable in the job market, who have lost their jobs, and if they get reemployed, they will be paid less. They are the ones who depend on unemployment insurance when they lose their jobs. That is being terminated. Many of them depend upon an increase in the minimum wage. That has been lacking. Many of them depend on overtime, and this administration is threatening them. Finally, they may just have been able to have something put away for a pension, and that is being destroyed. That is wrong. It is unfair. The bill that applies to the single-employer plan should give the same coverage to multiemployer plans. That is all we are asking. We have fought for the single-employer, but we also fight for the multiemployer. All we are asking is fairness to both. This bill does not provide it. If we were able to defeat this proposal, as I said, it would take 5 minutes to readdress it, the House would pass it, and we would have a bill on the President's desk. That would be fair. That would be just. That is the way we should proceed. I will be glad to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would welcome the opportunity to yield such time as our friend and colleague from Louisiana would care to use.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the small business organizations and business groups that are in strong support of the conference including the multiemployer provisions. They include the Association of General Contractors of America, the Cherne Contracting Group, Energab, Inc., the Finishing Contractors Association, National Electrical Contractors Association, Printing Industries of America, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association, Schnuck Markets, Inc., the Food Marketing Institute, the Mechanical Contractors' of America United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, and the Washington Group International, as well as others. This represents only part of the small business groups and associations that believe if we are going to provide help and relief for the single employer, we should do it for the multiemployer as well.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I point out for the Record the fact that when the Senate considered the pension reform bill, the provisions in the bill that provided for the multiemployers actually provided a $42 million favorable score for the Federal Treasury. They made money while the single-employer had a cost of $1.5 billion. The multiemployer actually made money for the Treasury. The idea included in the White House letter opposing the inclusion of the multiemployer because it was going to put the burden on the Pension Guaranty just does not measure up. That is the point of the Senator from Louisiana. There has to be another reason. It is not because it will cost the PBGC. This chart says PBGC assistance to multiemployer plans is less than 1 percent of assistance to single-employer fans. This is the GAO finding representing 35 million workers. This represents 10 million, except these programs, although they have not been costly--$5 billion in 2003--are excluded. That is what is unfair. The question is, Why are we excluding them? It is not the additional burden. It could not be. The facts do not justify it. There has to be another reason. The reason is, I believe, the fact they are the union members which the administration has been strongly opposed to providing. We say the White House is against it. The House is against it. Therefore, why should we include it? The fact is, the Senate had 100 percent, the House had nothing. You should have at least 50 percent. The nature of the discussion in the course of the conference was, let's find out what the real need is. That seemed to be a sensible and responsible position, whatever the percentage. So we looked at what they call the single corporation, which is accepted by Republican and Democratic--certainly, the staffers, the professionals on this--as being a fairminded assessment. They found one in three of the multiemployers are facing difficulty, but one in nine are facing severe difficulty. We took the one in nine and tried to translate that into a formula that would help those in the most serious trouble. We all agreed on that--get a formula. It came out to approximately 20 percent. That was in the newspapers. That is what the staff would certainly have agreed Thursday, 2 weeks ago. That was the agreement. It was in the Washington Post, not that that is the final word, but they have been following it closely. There is agreement that 20 percent of the worst-off plans should get assistance. That was my understanding. That was reported. No one contested that. Then we get a surprise. We are about to have a final meeting and the White House suddenly gets the word on this and says, no, no, we are not going to do that. They come up with language that will get us down to approximately 4 percent. The rest is history. The efforts that were made to try to get it up, move it from 20 down to 12 or 10, were all rejected as well. According to the Wall Street Journal, taking the language and going back to Segal, it is now probably 2 percent. The fact is, this is not going to put an additional burden on the Pension Guaranty Corporation. The employer plans are more stable than single-employer pension plans because even if one employer goes out of business, the other employers continue to support the pension fund. Of the thousands of multiemployer plans that have been insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, only 33 multiemployer plans have ever received financial assistance from the PBGC, and the PBGC multiemployer program has enjoyed a surplus for a 20-year history. The idea is we have a fragile Pension Guaranty Corporation; we can only do the single employer; we cannot afford to do the other. It does not hold. So we have to ask, What is the other reason? Particularly after we reached a fair compromise to only deal with those that were at greatest risks. The answer was, we are not going to compromise on this. As I mentioned at the time of the proposal, it was not a compromise, it was basically an insult. That is it. What the conference did was admirable with regard to single-employer plans. It is grossly unfair to the multiemployer plans. It is basically excluding coverage for almost 10 million workers who are facing the same kind of economic challenges. The others, I seriously believe, we would have passed overwhelmingly, a proposal that would have taken into consideration those that were at the greatest risk in the multiple. They are the ones that are the pension programs that deal with the smaller businesses. Some of those small business associations strongly support the inclusion of the multiemployer and, of course, the large number of workers that will be affected. I still believe we ought to take a position and a stand that says, look, what we did for the single one makes sense. We are supporting. But we also think it is grossly unfair to 10 million Americans to say we are giving them the back of the hand when their expansion plans are under the similar kind of pressure and they are representing workers who are generally lower income and from smaller businesses and whose pension plans are heavily stretched, given the economic times. I talked to my friend from New Hampshire, and the Senator from Washington wanted some time. I believe the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, wanted a few minutes, and the Senator from New York. Then we would be prepared to suggest to work out with the leadership an appropriate way to have a vote at an appropriate time and let others who would like to speak on another subject be able to address the Senate. If there are other colleagues who want to speak, if they can let us know forthwith, we will try to work out with the leadership and the other side an appropriate time for a vote. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2236

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to let me know when 3\1/ 2\ minutes have been used. Mr. President, the issue before the Senate at this time is whether we are going to treat all workers fairly and equitably in the pension system. As we know, there are two different pension systems. The single- employer pension system has 35 million Americans, and effectively 9.7 million are in the multiemployer plans. Both of those pension systems are under pressure because of the adverse economic impact. We have tried in conference to make sure those 9.7 million Americans in a multiemployer pension system which are at serious risk are going to get the same kind of fairness and attention as in the single- employer plans. We were unable to do that. We had that basically agreed on. They are effectively excluded. It is like taking 100 Members of the Senate and saying we are going to take care of 80, but we are leaving 20 out. That is not right. What we ought to be doing is taking care of the whole 100. That is why I ask people to vote in opposition and give us a chance to come back and include all of those. We shouldn't exclude all those. Who are the 9.7 million? First of all, if we look at what has happened in the pension systems in America, we see the rapid decline and loss of pension coverage in America. Among the groups that are losing it the fastest are those low wage workers. They are the ones in the multipension systems. They are the ones at the greatest risk. They are the ones we ought to be out there trying to protect. They are the ones involved as workers in the small business. That is what this is all about. Why shouldn't we provide the protection for those workers in small businesses that are at the lower economic income as we are providing for the Fortune 500? This legislation provides for the workers in the Fortune 500. We are saying there are ``fortune 10,000'' companies as well. I have read into the Record the various companies and corporations. We now know there is an assault on pension coverage. Without the kind of protection of including multiemployers, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of workers at risk, who play by the rules, work hard, and who have been falling further and further behind in the economic progress of this country. Final point: The point has been made that the White House says we can't include the multiemployer programs because we do not want to put more pressure on the Pension Guaranteed Corporations. Look at this: Last year, $2.4 billion in 2003 drawdown on the pension PPGC for single-employer plans; less than $5 million last year for multiemployer plans. These smaller companies need protection, they need fairness, they need equity. These companies need the kind of attention and relief that we are providing for the single employer. This legislation doesn't do it. Let us defeat this legislation and then embrace it and include all the workers.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is interesting. Pensions are sort of like health insurance. We all have it in the Senate. We all have good health insurance, unlike the rest of the 270 million Americans. We all have good pensions. Can you imagine how many Members of the Senate would be over here now if we said over 20 percent of the Senators are going to see their pension effectively undermined? That is what we are effectively saying to the workforce in this country. We are looking out after 80 percent. There is another 20 percent out there. We all have good ones in here. Why don't we at least make sure, if we are going to protect the 80 percent of American workers, that we protect the other 20 percent? That is the issue that is before the Senate. It is an issue of fairness in how we are going to act for workers in this country. That is why I hope Senators will vote no. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his courtesy, as always. I appreciate it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to Judith Oliver, Director of The Children's Room Center for Grieving Children and Teenagers in Arlington, MA. Ms. Oliver has dedicated her professional life to aiding children and families who suffer the loss of a family member. A week from tomorrow, the Center will celebrate its fifth anniversary with a dinner and an auction, and she will be presented with an eminently well-deserved award for excellence. Ms. Oliver became Director of The Children's Room in 1992, when it was a program at Hospice West in Waltham. She organized it as an independent charity in 1999, and since then it has grown from helping a group of ten children to serving over a hundred children and sixty families. Today, The Children's Room is a beacon of hope and help for bereaved children and others in their family. It provides a safe and caring environment where children, teenagers and their families can obtain the support they need in grieving over the death of their loved ones. Ms. Oliver's extraordinary caring, compassion, and dedication are the hallmarks of her career. In many ways, she's a pioneer in this very important field. She earned a Master's Degree in Counseling at Loyola College in Baltimore, with an internship in grief counseling at Hospice of the Chesapeake in Maryland and at Grandma's House, a Washington, D.C. home for children with AIDS. As we all know, the need for these counseling services is especially great today, Judith Oliver's leadership is a model for all communities. Massachusetts is proud of her. We're fortunate to have her, and I join her many admirers in congratulating her on this award.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues Senator Craig and Senator Durbin in calling for hearings on this important legislation to amend the PATRIOT Act. After the vicious attacks of September 11, there was a broad consensus in Congress about what needed to be done. We all recognized the need to give law enforcement and intelligence officials stronger powers to investigate and prevent terrorism, to provide officials with effective ways to stop terrorists from entering our country, and to achieve greater coordination between the law enforcement and the intelligence communities. At the same time, we understood the critical importance of protecting the basic rights and liberties of our citizens and others residing legally in the United States and maintaining America's long tradition of welcoming immigrants from around the world. The challenge we faced, then as now, was how to strike the right balance between law enforcement and civil liberties. Many of us were concerned that some of the changes initially requested by the administration did not strike the right balance. We made significant improvements to the PATRIOT Act during Senate negotiations, but we also recognized the need to follow the implementation of these new powers carefully. That is why the 4-year sunset provision is such an important part of the legislation. By passing the sunset provision, Congress committed itself to revisiting the PATRIOT Act after 4 years, in a non-election year, and making a new and better-informed assessment of which powers should be retained, which should be revised, and which should be eliminated. Since the enactment of this law, there has been increasing bipartisan concern about its effect on civil liberties in this country. Two hundred fifty-seven communities in 38 States representing over 40 million citizens, have passed resolutions opposing or expressing concern about the PATRIOT Act. Clearly, we must do more to protect the basic rights and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. The bipartisan Security and Freedom Ensured Act is narrowly written to correct some of the PATRIOT Act's most controversial provisions: it would protect innocent people from surveillance, by requiring ``roving wiretap'' warrants to identify either the target of the wiretap or the place to be wiretapped; it would impose reasonable limits on the Government's ability to carry out ``sneak and peek'' search warrants, by requiring notice of such a covert search to be given within 7 days after the search, unless the notice would endanger a person's life or result in the destruction of evidence or a suspect's flight from prosecution; and it would protect library and bookstore records from ``fishing expedition'' searches of the records, while still allowing the F.B.I. to follow up on legitimate leads. None of these changes would amend pre-PATRIOT Act law in any way. None would impede the ability of law enforcement and intelligence officials to investigate and prevent terrorism. To the contrary, the SAFE Act would retain the expanded powers created by the PATRIOT Act, while restoring the constitutional safeguards that are indispensable to our democracy. These safeguards are a continuing source of our country's strength, not luxuries or inconveniences to be jettisoned in times of crisis. Unfortunately, the administration does not agree. Our proposal has not yet received a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, yet the administration has already threatened to veto it. Rather than comply with the sunset provision specifically written into the PATRIOT Act itself, President Bush has sought to make an election-year issue out of it by calling on Congress to reauthorize the Act now. Rather than seek to promote understanding, the Attorney General and other officials have chosen to defend the PATRIOT Act by speaking only before audiences sympathetic to their views. In Boston and other cities, citizens with questions and concerns about the PATRIOT Act have been shut out. I urge my colleagues not to accept this cynical election-year strategy. In the House, Chairman Sensenbrenner has rejected calls for reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act this year, and we should do the same in the Senate. We should conduct additional hearings in the Judiciary Committee on the many important civil liberties issues that have been raised since September 11, including the administration's unprecedented and troubling ``enemy combatant'' policy, under which U.S. citizens are incarcerated without counsel or judicial review. Attorney General Ashcroft should appear to defend these and other policies. And we should hold hearings specifically on the bipartisan SAFE Act proposed by Senator Craig and Senator Durbin. We should also hold hearings on the need for legislation to protect the civil liberties of immigrants. The detention provisions in the PATRIOT Act have led to the unfair detention of innocent people. Massive registration programs have fingerprinted, photographed and interrogated over 80,000 innocent Arab and Muslim students, visitors, and workers. ``Voluntary interview'' programs have made criminal suspects out of Muslims legally residing in the U.S. In our pursuit of terrorist suspects, our Government cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over the basic rights and liberties of immigrants. In a speech in 1987, Justice William Brennan observed that the United States had repeatedly failed to preserve civil liberties during times of national crisis--from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II--only to later realize ``remorsefully . . . that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary.'' As we continue to face the crisis of terrorism today, we should do all we can to avoid the errors of the past. The administration and Congress should work together in a spirit of bipartisanship and shared purpose, to bring terrorists to justice, to enhance our security, and to preserve and protect our Constitution.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today's vote on S. 2207 is a test of the Senate's character. In the past, this body has had the courage to reject the simplistic and ineffective responses proposed by those who contend that the only way to help doctors is to further hurt seriously injured patients. Unfortunately, as we saw in the Patients' Bill of Rights debate, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans are again advocating a policy which will benefit neither doctors nor patients, only insurance companies. Caps on compensatory damages and other extreme tort reforms are not only unfair to the victims of malpractice, they do not result in a reduction of malpractice insurance premiums. Once more, we must stand resolute. We must not sacrifice the fundamental legal rights of seriously injured patients on the altar of insurance company profits. We must not surrender our most vulnerable citizens to the avarice of these companies. This bill contains the same arbitrary and unreasonable provisions which were decisively rejected by a bipartisan majority of the Senate twice within the past year. The only difference is that the bill rejected in February took basic rights away only from women and newborn babies who are the victims of negligent obstetric and gynecological care, while this bill includes victims of negligent emergency trauma care as well. Broadening the bill does not make it more acceptable. On the contrary, it only expands the unfairness to an additional category of malpractice victims. This legislation would deprive seriously injured patients of the right to recover fair compensation for their injuries by placing arbitrary caps on compensation for noneconomic loss in all obstetrical and gynecological cases and in all emergency and trauma care cases. These caps only serve to hurt those patients who have suffered the most severe, life-altering injuries and who have proven their cases in court. They are babies who suffered serious brain injuries at birth and will never be able to lead normal lives. They are the women who lost organs, reproductive capacity, and in some cases even years of life. They are the children who are permanently injured when emergency room doctors fail to provide proper medical treatment after an accident. These are life-altering conditions. It would be terribly wrong to take their rights away. The Republicans talk about deterring frivolous cases, but caps by their nature apply only to the most serious cases which have been proven in court. These badly injured patients are the last ones we should be depriving of fair compensation. A person with a severe injury is not made whole merely by receiving reimbursement for medical bills and lost wages. Noneconomic damages compensate victims for the very real, though not easily quantifiable, loss in quality of life that results from a serious, permanent injury. It is absurd to suggest that $250,000 is fair compensation for a child who is severely brain injured at birth and, as a result, can never participate in the normal activities of day to day living; or for a woman who lost her reproductive capacity because of an OB/GYN's malpractice; or for a patient who suffered a devastating heart attack because a negligent emergency room doctor ignored his severe chest pains and sent him home. This is not a better bill because it applies only to patients injured by malpractice in three medical categories. That just makes it even more arbitrary. The entire premise of this bill is both false and offensive. Our Republican colleagues claim that women and their babies must sacrifice their fundamental legal rights in order to preserve access to OB/GYN care, and that those seeking care in a hospital emergency room must leave their rights at the door. The very idea is outrageous. For those locales--mostly in sparsely populated areas--where the availability of specialists is a problem, there are far less drastic ways to solve it. This bill is based on the false premise that the availability of OB/ GYN and trauma care physicians depends on the enactment of draconian tort reforms. If that were accurate, States that have already enacted damage caps would have a higher number of OB/GYNs providing care. However, there is in fact no correlation. States without caps actually have 28.4 OB/GYNs per 100,000 women, while States with caps have 25.2 OB/GYNs per 100,000 women. Nor is there any correlation between access to emergency trauma care and whether a State has enacted restrictions on the compensation that malpractice victims can receive. In fact, 7 of the top 10 States identified in the Journal of the American Medical Association, March 26, 2003, as having the highest number of level I and II trauma centers per million residents do not cap damages in malpractice cases. Five of the States with the best availability of trauma centers have actually been listed as malpractice ``crisis'' States by the AMA. That is worth repeating; 7 of the 10 States whose residents have the greatest access to emergency care do not limit damages. In contrast, four States that the AMA identifies as ``doing OK,'' having satisfactory tort laws, fail to have an adequate number of trauma centers to serve their residents. And that is only one of many fallacies in this bill. If the issue is truly access to OB/GYN and emergency care doctors, why has this bill been written to shield from accountability HMOs that deny needed medical care to a woman suffering serious complications with her pregnancy or to a child in need of emergency care after a serious accident, a pharmaceutical company that fails to warn of the dangerous side effects caused by its new drug, and a manufacturer that markets a medical device which can seriously injure the user. Who are the authors of this legislation really trying to protect? In reality, this legislation is designed to shield the entire health care industry from basic accountability for the care it provides to women and their infant children and to patients in need of emergency treatment. It is the first step toward broader legislation which would shield the industry from accountability in all health care decisions involving all patients. While those across the aisle like to talk about doctors, the real beneficiaries will be insurance companies and large health care corporations. This legislation would enrich them at the expense of the most seriously injured patients; whose entire lives have been devastated by medical neglect and corporate abuse. This legislation is attempting to use the sympathetic family doctor as a Trojan horse concealing an enormous array of special legal privileges for every corporation which makes a health care product, provides a health care service, or insures the payment of a medical bill. Every provision of this bill is carefully designed to take existing rights away from those who have been harmed by medical neglect and corporate greed. In addition to imposing caps, this legislation would place other major restrictions on seriously injured patients seeking to recover fair compensation. At every stage of the judicial process, it would change long-established judicial rules to disadvantage patients and shield defendants from the consequences of their actions. When will the Republican Party start worrying about injured patients and stop trying to shield big business from the consequences of its wrongdoing? If we were to arbitrarily restrict the rights of seriously injured patients as the sponsors of this legislation propose, what benefits would result? Certainly less accountability for health care providers will never improve the quality of health care. It will not even result in less costly care. The cost of medical malpractice premiums constitutes less than two-thirds of 1 percent, 0.66 percent, of the Nation's health care expenditures each year. Malpractice premiums are not the cause of the high rate of medical inflation. In this era of managed care and cost controls, it is ludicrous to suggest that the major problem facing American health care is ``defensive medicine.'' The problem is not ``too much health care,'' it is ``too little'' quality health care. A CBO report released in January of this year rejected claims being made about the high cost of ``defensive medicine''. Their analysis ``found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending.'' There was ``no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between States with and without limits on malpractice torts.'' The White House and other supporters of caps have argued that restricting an injured patient's right to recover fair compensation will reduce malpractice premiums. But there is scant evidence to support their claim. In fact, there is substantial evidence to refute it. In the past few years, there have been dramatic increases in the cost of medical malpractice insurance in States that already have damage caps and other restrictive tort reforms on the statute books, as well as in States that do not. No substantial increase in the number or size of malpractice judgments has suddenly occurred which would justify the enormous increase in premiums which many doctors are being forced to pay. The reason for sky-high premiums cannot be found in the courtroom. Caps are not only unfair to patients, they are also an ineffective way to control medical malpractice premiums. Comprehensive national studies show that medical malpractice premiums are not significantly lower on average in States that have enacted damage caps and other restrictions on patient rights than in States without these restrictions. Insurance companies are merely pocketing the dollars which patients no longer receive when ``tort reform'' is enacted. Let's look at the facts. Based on data from the Medical Liability Monitor on all 50 States, the average liability premium in 2003 for doctors practicing in States without caps on malpractice damages, $35,016, was less than the average premium for doctors practicing in States with caps, $40,381. There are many reasons why insurance rates vary substantially from State to State. This data demonstrates that it is not a State's tort reform laws which determine the rates. Caps do not make a significant difference in the malpractice premiums which doctors pay. This is borne out by a comparison of premium levels for a range of medical specialties. Focusing on premiums paid by OB/GYN physicians, the evidence is the same. Data from the Medical Liability Monitor shows that the average liability premium for OB/GYNs in 2003 was actually slightly higher in States with caps of damages, $63,278, than in States without caps, $59,224. It also showed that the rate of increase last year was higher in States with caps, 17.1 percent, than it was in States without caps, 16.6 percent. This evidence clearly demonstrates that capping malpractice damages does not benefit the doctors it purports to help. Their rates remain virtually the same. It only helps the insurance companies earn even bigger profits. As BusinessWeek magazine concluded after reviewing the data, ``the statistical case for caps is flimsy,'' March 3, 2003 issue. If a Federal cap on noneconomic compensatory damages were to pass, it would sacrifice fair compensation for injured patients in a vain attempt to reduce medical malpractice premiums. Doctors will not get the relief they are seeking. Only the insurance companies, which created the recent market instability, will benefit. Insurance industry practices are responsible for the sudden dramatic premium increases which have occurred in some States in the past few years. The explanation for these premium spikes can be found not in legislative halls or in courtrooms, but in the boardrooms of the insurance companies themselves. Insurers make much of their money from investment income. Interest earned on premium dollars is particularly important in medical malpractice insurance because there is a much longer period of time between receipt of the premium and payment of the claim than in most lines of casualty insurance. The industry creates a ``malpractice crisis'' whenever its investments do poorly. The combination of a sharp decline in the equity markets and record low interest rates in recent years is the reason for the sharp increase in medical malpractice insurance premiums. What we are witnessing is not new. The industry has engaged in this pattern of behavior repeatedly over the last 30 years. Last year, Weiss Ratings, Inc., a nationally recognized financial analyst conducted an in-depth examination of the impact of capping damages in medical malpractice cases. Their conclusions sharply contradict the assumptions on which this legislation is based. Weiss found that capping damages does reduce the amount of money that malpractice insurance companies pay out to injured patients. However, those savings are not passed on to doctors in lower premiums. Between 1991 and 2002, the Weiss analysis shows that premiums rose by substantially more in the States with damage caps than in the States without caps. The 12-year increase in the annual malpractice premium was 48.2 percent in the States that had caps, and only 35.9 percent in the States that had no caps. In the words of the report: ``On average, doctors in States with caps actually suffered a significantly larger increase than doctors in States without caps . . . In short, the results clearly invalidate the expectations of cap proponents.'' Doctors, especially those in high risk specialties, whose malpractice premiums have increased dramatically over the past few years do deserve premium relief. That relief will only come as the result of tougher regulation of the insurance industry. When insurance companies lose money on their investments, they should not be able to recover those losses from the doctors they insure. Unfortunately, that is what is happening now. Doctors and patients are both victims of the insurance industry. Excess profits from the boom years should be used to keep premiums stable when investment earnings drop. However, the insurance industry will never do that voluntarily. Only by recognizing the real problem can we begin to structure an effective solution that will bring an end to unreasonably high medical malpractice premiums. There are specific changes in the law which should be made to address the abusive manner in which medical malpractice insurers operate. The first and most important would be to subject the insurance industry to the Nation's antitrust laws. It is the only major industry in America where corporations are free to conspire to fix prices, withhold and restrict coverage, and engage in a myriad of other anticompetitive actions. A medical malpractice ``crisis'' does not just happen. It is the result of insurance industry schemes to raise premiums and to increase profits by forcing antipatient changes in the tort law. I have introduced, with Senator Leahy, legislation which will at long last require the insurance industry to abide by the same rules of fair competition as other businesses. Secondly, we need stronger insurance regulations which will require malpractice insurers to set aside a portion of the windfall profits they earn from their investment of premium dollars in the boom years to cover part of the cost of paying claims in lean years. This would smooth out the extremes in the insurance cycle which have been so brutal for doctors. Thirdly, to address the immediate crisis that some doctors in high risk specialties are currently facing, we should provide temporary premium relief. This is particularly important for doctors who are providing care to underserved populations in rural and inner city areas. Unlike the harsh and ineffective proposals in S. 2207, these are real solutions which will help physicians without further harming seriously injured patients. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership continues to protect their allies in the insurance industry and refuses to consider real solutions to the malpractice premium crisis. This legislation, S. 2207, is not a serious attempt to address a significant problem being faced by physicians in some States. It is the product of a party caucus rather than the bipartisan deliberations of a Senate committee. It was designed to score political points, not to achieve the bipartisan consensus which is needed to enact major legislation. For that reason, it does not deserve to be taken seriously by the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to pay tribute to an impressive leader who has dedicated his life to the service of our Nation. CAPT Ronald H. Henderson, Jr. has served with great distinction as a fighter pilot in the United States Navy for over 27 years, and was recently nominated for promotion to the rank of Rear Admiral. During his career, Captain Henderson has served as a Strike Operations Officer and a Tactical Action Officer aboard the USS Enterprise; an F/A-18 Strike Fighter Pilot, a Department Head with Strike Fighter Squadron 25; and Commanding Officer of Strike Fighter Squadron 146, the ``Blue Diamonds,'' where his squadron was honored with the Estocin Award, as the best F/A-18 squadron in the entire U.S. Navy. The award is named for CAPT Michael J. Estocin, a fighter pilot in the Vietnam conflict who was posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for remaining in the target area on a bombing mission even though his aircraft was badly damaged. Captain Henderson has had over 3,800 flying hours and over 600 carrier landings, and has earned the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, the Air Medal, three Navy Commendation Medals, and numerous unit and campaign awards. Captain Henderson has participated in Operation Desert Shield, Operation Southern Watch, Operation Allied Force, and most recently in Operation Enduring Freedom where he commanded the aircraft carrier named after my brother, the USS John F. Kennedy, CV-67. Captain Henderson brought the ship and crew back home safely in August 2002 and was greeted by 10,000 supporters for a well-deserved homecoming in Mayport, FL. Captain Henderson will soon turn over his command of the carrier to assume his new responsibilities. I am sure my brother would be proud of his leadership, and I wish him well in the years ahead as he continues his brilliant career in the Navy.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, senior citizens expected the Congress and the President to work together to provide prescription drug benefits under Medicare. Instead, Republicans in Congress and President Bush rammed through a radical right-wing proposal to privatize Medicare and force senior citizens into HMOs. Their program is a giveaway to special interests at the expense of senior citizens. It is a dress rehearsal for privatizing social security. And it is wrong. Just a few weeks ago, the Medicare Trustee's report announced that Mecicare's financial position had deteriorated substantially, with the projected date of Hospital Insurance Trust Fund Insolvency slipping from 2026 to 2019. In part, the shakier status of the trust fund was due to the Bush administration's mismanagement of the economy, which has reduced payroll tax collections. But a major part of the weakened status of the Trust Fund is the excessive payments to HMOs, PPOs and other alternatives to conventional Medicare. These excess payments not only weaken Medicare, but they raise premiums for senior citizens and add to the deficit. Today, we are introducing legislation--the Defense of Medicare Act-- to repeal the parts of the prescription drug bill that are designed to undermine Medicare. Senior citizens have earned their Medicare with a lifetime of hard work--and they deserve the program they have been promised. President Bush's original strategy was to deny senior citizens any drug benefit unless they joined an HMO or other private insurance plan. That proposal was a non-starter, so the White House and Republicans in Congress developed a more devious way to achieve the same goal. The Bush administration privatizes Medicare in three ways. First, it overpays private plans by $1,200 per beneficiary--and throws in a $12 billion dollar slush fund to boot. Let me repeat that. Every time a senior citizen joins an HMO it costs Medicare $1,200 more than it would cost to cover that same senior citizen under the regular Medicare program. The goal--to make Medicare unable to compete. According to the Medicare actuary, the excess payments to private plans as the result of the new bill will cost the Medicare program $46 billion dollars--money that could be used to improve the inadequate drug benefit or to address the discrimination that will cause three million senior citizens to lose their good private retiree drug coverage or to reduce beneficiary premiums. Those big new checks are already flowing to Medicare HMOs. Every senior citizen--and every American family--should understand what this means. The Bush administration is using senior citizens' own Medicare money to undermine the Medicare program they depend on. The Bush administration has put the interests of HMOs and the insurance industry first--and the interests of senior citizens last. The second way the Republican Medicare bill forces senior citizens into HMOs is by specifying that if just one private stand-alone drug plan offers drug coverage, the only way a senior citizen can get a drug benefit is by joining an HMO or other private insurance plan. Think about that. If the insurance plan charges premiums that are too high or doesn't cover the drugs your doctor prescribes, your only choice if you want a drug benefit at all is to join an HMO. That's the Bush administration's original plan. Finally, the bill forces up to seven million senior citizens into a so-called demonstration program that will punish senior citizens with higher premiums unless they join an HMO or other private insurance plan. The Bush administration is spending twenty-three million dollars of Medicare money to convince senior citizens that the Republican bill means, in the words of one of their commercials, ``Same Medicare. More Benefits.'' This use of Medicare funds to advance the Bush re-election effort is probably illegal. It is certainly unethical. But most of all it is false. If this bill is allowed to stand, senior citizens won't have the same Medicare. Instead, they will have a debased, devalued program and financially less secure program that will require them to give up the doctors they trust to get the affordable medical care they have been promised. Our legislation will repeal the provisions of the bill that squander Medicare money on fattening the profits of HMOs and the insurance industry. It will preserve Medicare for today's and tomorrow's senior citizens. It is a test of the conscience of the Senate, and we will insist on its consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. I ask the Chair to remind me when I have a minute and a half left.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are voting at noontime today on a cloture motion, and those, obviously, in the Senate understand what this is all about. Before the Senate at the present time is a proposal offered by the Senator from California and myself to increase the minimum wage up to $7 in just over a 2-year period. The minimum wage has not been increased for the last 7 years. Now we find the minimum wage purchasing power is at an all-time low. Now, those on the other side--we just heard from my friend Senator Grassley--are saying we are somehow stalling this legislation. We are not. When this amendment was offered, the Senator from California and myself agreed to a 20-minute time limitation so we could move ahead with the rest of the debate on the TANF reauthorization. That was objected to. And then the majority leader put down a cloture motion. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the minimum wage because there is so much to say about it, about the people who are experiencing it and the impact of our failure to increase the minimum wage, particularly the impact on children. We have not had an opportunity to have a vote in the Senate for the last 7 years on this. It is time that we do. We are being precluded from doing so because of the parliamentary maneuvers of the majority to deny the Senate of the United States a vote up or down on whether we think some of the hardest working Americans ought to have an increase in the minimum wage. The Republicans are so frightened about voting on this, so they do the parliamentary tricks in order to try to deny the Senate an opportunity to vote on the minimum wage. Well, it is beyond me why they don't want to take the hard vote. Why not go back to your constituents and say, I am for this or against it. If you are against it, explain why. But we are being denied. It is not just denying the sponsors; they are denying over 7 million hard-working Americans the opportunity to get an increase in their pay. As I pointed out in the beginning, the purchasing power of the minimum wage now, at the end of this year, will be near an all-time low since it passed in 1938. We have a chance to do something about it and do something now. A quick response to my colleagues on the other side regarding the whole question of how increasing the minimum wage isn't really related to getting people off welfare into jobs. Well, it is difficult for people who have listened to the debate to accept that, particularly when the Secretary of HHS himself said this in comment to the underlying program, TANF: This administration recognizes that the only way to escape poverty is through work, and that is why we have made work and jobs that will pay at least the minimum wage . . . Do you hear that? Secretary Thompson said this: . . . the centerpiece of the reauthorization proposal for the TANF program. Still our Republican friends say our amendment is not related to this. Of course it is. The President's spokesman indicated that. Still we are unable to get this. Mr. President, I have stated who these people are who are earning the minimum wage. They are men and women of pride and dignity. They deal with tough jobs--cleaning out buildings of our country, all over our Nation. They work in schools as assistant teachers. They work in nursing homes providing help and assistance for our senior citizens. Let me read one short story which is typical about a minimum wage worker. The name of this person is Fannie: She weighs bunches of purple grapes or rings up fat chicken legs at the supermarket where she works, Fannie Payne cannot keep from daydreaming. ``It's difficult to work at a grocery store all day, looking at all the food I can't buy,'' Mrs. Payne said. ``So I imagine filling up my cart with one of those big orders and bringing home enough for all my kids.'' Instead, she said that she and her husband, Michael, a factory worker, routinely go without dinner to make sure their four children have enough to eat. They visit a private hunger center monthly for three days' worth of free groceries, to help stretch the $60 a week they spend on food. ``We're behind on all our bills,'' Mrs. Payne said. ``We don't pay electricity until they threaten a cut-off. To be honest, I'm behind two months on the mortgage--that's $600 a month.''

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 more minutes from Senator Baucus's time.