Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I had an important amendment dealing with a Medicare proposal to follow the recommendation of the Medicare actuaries, which indicate that we are paying the HMOs and the PPOs $1,100 a year more than is being paid to Medicare, which over a 10-year period is $42 billion. My amendment would have used that $42 billion to offset the expenses under the current prescription drug program. I understand now that there has been a proposal offered by the leaders. I have the assurance from our leader he will make the best effort to give us the opportunity to address this in a timely way in the next legislation that comes through here. On that basis, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, America faces a continuing health care crisis, and this budget makes it even worse for those on Medicaid. For years, that State-funded program has provided health insurance coverage for the poor. Because of the fiscal pressures created by the failed Bush economic policies, States have already had to drop 1.5 million people--half of them children--from the Medicaid rolls. Instead of helping States provide insurance coverage, this budget actually cuts Medicaid further. That is the wrong policy--and this amendment will reverse it. The Bush administration is out of touch with the reality of the plight of working Americans across the Nation. The unemployment rate continues high, and no end to this crisis is in sight. In addition to struggling to pay their rent and buy food for their families, millions of Americans are also having to go without needed health care. Almost 44 million Americans are uninsured and this number is rising. Health costs are soaring at double-digit rates each year. As health insurance premiums continue to soar, employees and employers alike worry that they will not be able to keep their coverage. Those without health insurance pay a cruel price. A third of Americans without insurance say they do without recommended treatment because they can't afford it. A third report not filling a prescription because of cost. Almost half report postponing care because of cost. These facts have real health consequences. According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 Americans die every year, simply because they don't have health insurance. Thousands more suffer needlessly or acquire early disabilities. The Republican budget ignores this crisis, without any credible proposal to protect the uninsured or reduce the rising cost. Instead, the Republican budget makes the problem worse, by slashing $11 billion from Medicaid over the next 5 years. Medicaid is a lifeline for 50 million Americans who have no other access to health care. Medicaid provides needed prenatal care to pregnant women. It means that children receive early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment. They get immunizations and other health services. Millions of low-income elderly seniors rely on Medicaid to pay the health and nursing home costs that Medicare doesn't cover. States are struggling to maintain their share of Medicaid in the face of severe budget deficits. Last year, States had a combined deficit of $78 billion, and another $40 billion shortfall is expected this year. The State Medicaid cuts last year would have been far worse without the $20 billion State relief passed by Congress to help meet it a year ago. We should continue that assistance now, not make the problem worse by slashing benefits to the most vulnerable Americans. The amendment we are proposing will eliminate the unfair reconciliation instruction that would force the Finance Committee to cut $11 billion more from Medicaid. These harsh cuts are opposed by more than 155 national organizations, including physicians, hospitals, children, the elderly, women, religious organizations, and professional associations. The National Governors Association opposes these cuts. The American Hospital Association opposes these cuts. The American Medical Association opposes these cuts. The American Health Care Association opposes these cuts. The Children's Defense Fund opposes these cuts. The National Organization for Women and Families opposes these cuts. The American people understand that these cuts are cruel and counterproductive. They are the wrong priority for America, and I urge the Senate to approve this amendment and preserve health care coverage for millions of Americans.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator be willing to yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. First, I see my friend and colleague from Montana wants to address the Senate. I would like to comment after he concludes. But I first of all want to thank the good Senator from Washington for offering this amendment. There is varied experience that is brought to the Senate by Members of this body. But we are listening to a voice who has been a teacher and also a school board member, and prior to entering the Senate probably spent more time in the area of education, particularly young children, certainly, than any other Member of this body. When she speaks about education and what happens in the classrooms and to the teachers, she is talking on the basis of a lifetime experience. She makes a compelling case. I welcome the opportunity to join with her. I want to take a moment of the Senate's time and ask whether the kind of situation we are facing in Massachusetts is typical of what she is finding in her State or if she has heard about it in other States. In my own State of Massachusetts, we passed effectively a ``no child left behind'' bill 4 years prior to the time we passed it here in the Senate. As a result, over a 7-year period, we find Massachusetts is No. 1 in the country in the fourth grade and No. 1 in the eighth grade. We reduced the disparities with regard to race more than any other State. It is because of those accepted concepts which the Senator from Washington has talked about: smaller class size, well-trained teachers, supplementary services, parental involvement, evaluation of the children themselves, and support from the local communities. These are the things for which she has fought. But when you fail to do that--I have here before me a copy of the Boston Globe newspaper of February 19, which talks about what is happening in the region: ``Deep Cut in School Systems Taking a Toll on Educators.'' It lists school systems feeling the effects because of the cutbacks, because of the failure of us to provide for No Child Left Behind, plus what is happening in the State. Boston has lost 396 teachers. They have closed six schools. They have cut the budgets on individual schools and eliminated programs. For Braintree, they have lost 56 teachers and increased class sizes. Bridgewater-Raynham Regional has lost 35 teachers, increased class sizes, added a $175 bus fee, $200 athletic fee, and a $50 extracurricular fee, being paid by parents. Fitchburg lost 47 teachers, increased class sizes, added a $180 annual bus fee, and raised the athletic fees from $30 to $40. Haverhill lost 143 teachers, closed 6 schools, increased class sizes, eliminated full-day kindergarten, added a $250 music fee, and raised athletic fees from $50 to $300. As we all know, in education, if the child works in music for 3 to 4 years, their average goes up 50 to 75 points in their test to go on to college. The list goes on. Lynn lost 85 teachers, closed 3 schools, eliminated full-day kindergarten and prekindergarten. Pittsfield lost 51 teachers, increased class sizes, eliminated afterschool programs, added a $100 student activity fee. Let me read this and ask whether this is something the Senator has seen. Here we have this extraordinary superintendent, Thomas Giancristiano, who has been in education for 30 years. Let me read from the story: On good nights, the superintendent fretted. On the bad nights sleep vanished. Hours before dawn, thousands of dollars and cents reeled in his head. Thomas Giancristiano would lie in his bed in his Peabody home, eyes open and red, and make deals with the school finance devil. How many custodians do we need, the Winthrop superintendent would ask. How many secretaries? If we keep the libraries closed, can we keep one more kindergarten teacher? That is what is happening out in the schools. Men and women who have worked a lifetime trying to educate our children, this is what they are going through. Going back to the article, he then saw the cutbacks that took place in his school district: It was a hard moment to watch: A confident, likeable, optimist with 30 years of education experience was faced with cutting 17 teaching jobs. He chose instead to cut himself. Giancristiano's voice was steady, his pique never showing. Only his reddening eyes displayed his anger. ``Either you do not support me, or you do not support your children,'' he read from notes. This is happening across the country. This is what this budget is all about. We have a chance to do something for these schools or we can provide the additional kinds of tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals. The amendment of the Senator from Washington is responsible because it pays for itself and also helps reduce the deficit. I commend the Senator. I intend to speak longer, but I am just wondering, since I listened to the Senator speak and since she is back home every weekend talking to parents and schoolteachers and superintendents, whether the kind of stories I mentioned very briefly are happening in her State and are having a similar kind of impact on the men and women who have devoted their lives to provide greater educational opportunity to children in the State of Washington.

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine, if that is the desire. Mr. President, I ask 10 minutes on the Murray amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I mentioned a moment or two earlier what is happening in my own State, in Massachusetts, in the school districts all across that State, a State that was attempting to enhance educational opportunities for the children of Massachusetts. They relied upon the commitment that the Federal Government made a few years ago, some 3 years ago, to try to complete the commitment of that State, in partnership with the Federal Government, in enhancing educational opportunities for the children in our State and in States across this country. The Murray amendment addresses the nature of the commitment that the administration made to not just the Members of the Senate but to the children and to the parents and to the school districts across the country; that is, we were going to have reform and the resources to make the reform take hold. What we are talking about is a budget of $2.4 trillion, and the issue is can we find $8.6 billion in that $2.4 trillion. Education is either important or it is not. If we ask families all across this country, people would say, I would think you would be able, in a budget of $2.4 trillion, to find the $8 billion to make sure we are going to fund No Child Left Behind. It should not be that big a deal. It is a question of priority. The Senator from Washington stated what her priorities are. I agree with them, and I think most families in this country would say we can afford that, if it is going to make a difference in the quality of the education of the children of this country. Let's review very quickly the bidding, what has happened in the period since we passed No Child Left Behind. Since we passed the No Child Left Behind bill in 2002, let's be frank about where the funding is and where it has come from. When we passed No Child Left Behind, the administration asked for $1.3 billion. We raised that up to $4.8 billion during the period of the negotiation. That legislation would not have passed at $1.3 billion. It would not have passed. I can tell you that. I know that. Then the next year the administration came in for less than $1 billion and we were able to raise that up $3 billion more. That is the record. That is the increase right here, as a result of Democratic amendments to the appropriations, right there. Last year, in the Omnibus bill, the administration asked for a $900 million cut and we increased it $1.9 billion. We will hear from the other side, look at the increases we have had in this area. They are the result of the amendments from this side. We want to continue it. If you like what we have done, vote for the Murray amendment. Look at what this amendment does right here.

Mr. KENNEDY. Not just yet, if I have 10 minutes. I will at the end of my time. Here we are, the cost of the Bush tax cut for those making over $337,000 in 2005--$45 billion. It is $45 billion. Look at what the Murray amendment has, $8.6 billion. That is in addition to what was added, in terms of the Budget Committee--$8.6 billion. This is $45 billion. The issue is choices. The issue is priorities. The issue is, as a matter of national urgency, is it more important to give $45 billion for those making over $337,000 in 2005, or to provide the full funding for the children of this country? That is the choice. That is the decision we are facing. The Murray amendment says let's get that money. We can certainly afford $45 billion--with that budget. Let's look at what happens if we do not do this, if we do not accept the Murray amendment. What is going to be the impact on the children of this country? I tried, in just the couple of minutes, to tell what the human impact was on a superintendent who has for 30 years been committed to improving the quality of the life of the children in his district. He was restless. He couldn't sleep. Finally, rather than face the additional cuts he was going to have to provide in this system, he actually resigned. That is happening in schools all across this country. Those are the real stories. That is what is really happening. If we look at it in the broad sweep of what this means, this chart tells it. Under the Bush budget going out the years from 2005 to 2013, you are going to leave 4 million children behind. Under the Murray amendment and the follow-on, all the children will be addressed; no child will be left behind. I was absolutely amazed, listening to the other side, saying if we go and approve the Murray amendment this will be a 40-percent increase. Imagine that, a 40-percent increase, thinking this body will never go for a 40-percent increase. In fact, even with that, that will only mean 60 percent of the total funding for No Child Left Behind. We are requiring 100-percent performance by those children. We are expecting 100-percent performance by the teachers. We are expecting 100-percent performance by those people who are providing the supplementary services, and we in the Congress say you do it on 60 percent of the money. It is like in this Nation, if we passed a voting rights act to apply to all of the country and we say it is not going to apply to 10 States. We will have Social Security for America but we are going to leave 10 States out. We really didn't mean it when we said we were going to really address the needs of the 12 million children who fall into the category of title I. We didn't really mean it for all of them. We said it in the bill. We require it in the legislative proposal that in 12 years they have to be proficient--except you are not funding it. What sense does that make? It would have been like President Kennedy saying, you are going to go to the Moon, and we appropriate enough money to go up 50 miles and say we have had a success. You either do it or you don't. We were either serious at the time when we passed No Child Left Behind, like we were on voting rights, like we were on Social Security, like we were on Medicare, and like we were on going to the Moon. Or we are not. That is what the issue is. That is what the issue is in the Senate. Either children have that priority or they do not. The Democrats believe they do. We find there is more than enough money in here right now to be able to do it. There is more than enough money in here to be able to do it. I am glad to yield to my friend from New Hampshire if he still has a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will be around for a little while. I know there are others who want to speak. I will withhold the remainder of the time but I will be around, ready to answer any questions. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I welcome this opportunity to call the attention of the Senate to an impressive article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal by Professor Lea Brilmayer of Yale Law School on the proposed amendment to the Constitution on same-sex marriage. Supporters of the amendment claim that same-sex marriages in one State must be recognized in all other States. That claim is not true. As Professor Brilmayer explains, ``Longstanding precedent from around the country holds that a state need not recognize a marriage entered into in another state with different marriage laws if those laws are contrary to strongly held public policy.'' States have broad discretion in deciding to what extent they will defer to other states when dealing with sensitive questions about marriage and raising families. There is no need to amend the Constitution on this issue. States across the country are clearly dealing with the issue and doing so effectively, according to the wishes of the citizens in each of the 50 States. If it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not to amend it. Professor Brilmayer testified on these constitutional issues at our Judiciary Subcommittee hearing last week, and I ask unanimous consent that her article in the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes on the underlying resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we are considering now for the next 3 days the recommended figure that has come from the Budget Committee to allocate the resources of this country in the Federal budget. We know we will have the debate on this. This is a question of choices. It is a question of priorities, even with the scarce resources we have at the present time, how these resources ought to be allocated in the national interest. The overall issue on the budget is to recognize there are two instruments that guide our economy. One is monetary policy, which is interest rates, and there is fiscal policy, which is about what we spend. Both of those together ultimately decide whether we have a strong economy or a weak economy, those two elements. We are considering the second element here today, what we call the fiscal policy, the resources we have to invest or give in tax breaks or invest in education or health care. That is what this debate is about. What we do know is this has a major impact. What we do with this budget has a major impact on the state of our economy. When you have Presidential leadership that understands both the fiscal and monetary policy, you can get economic growth, you can get price stability. We have seen it in the past. We only have to be reminded about the recent leadership we had with President Clinton in 1992, 1993, when we had a budget that was the benchmark and the benchpost for the expanded economic growth we had. There were 22 million jobs created over that 8- year period. That is a result of fiscal policy, the budget as well as the monetary policy. They were harmonized in a way that brought economic growth to our country, price stability and economic growth. Earlier than that, in the early 1960s, we had a similar effort to use economic growth, fiscal policy, and monetary policies. The early 1960s had the longest period of economic growth and price stability we had had up to that time, for this century. So we know this is an extraordinarily important document, in terms of deciding what the state of our economy is, whether there are going to be good jobs, or whether there are going to be investments in education, whether there are going to be investments in training, whether we are going to deal with the challenges of health care. Anyone who is interested in the issue of jobs has to look over this budget and ask, where is the policy? Where's the beef? Where are the provisions in this budget that are going to reflect itself in expanded job opportunities? You come to the conclusion that they are not there. For those men and women across this country--the millions who have lost their jobs and the millions more who have gotten new jobs that are not paying what the old jobs were paying--can say as a result of their budget, if it goes through the way it is, help is not on the way. This is not a budget that is going to bring this economy back to a growing and expanding economy. What it is basically doing is just what we have done in the last 3 years. We should have learned our lesson. We have massive tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals in this society, and then we find out that it still hasn't worked in terms of producing jobs. Now we find the administration is going to do the same thing with regard to this budget, and hopefully out there somewhere there will be creation of jobs. They just aren't going to be there. We should have learned the lesson of that. All we have to do is look at what the administration has said and what has happened over the period of the last 3 years going back to 2001 when we had the administration's proposal on these very extensive tax reductions and breaks for the wealthiest individuals that it was estimated were going to create millions of jobs. That is the purple line right here. What happened is the red line declined with a total loss of 3 million jobs. A million have been recovered. We are still 2 million jobs short of where we were when this President became President. Do we understand that? After the economic policies of this administration, we are 2 million short. It is amazing because we keep hearing this Bush administration talking about how we are going to have very extensive job growth, and it never happens. It just doesn't happen. It hasn't happened. Why should we believe it is going to happen with this budget? It isn't going to happen. Here we see the first estimate. Then last year they said it is going to really happen up here. We will have an increase of another 2 or 3 million jobs. From the point where the Bush administration's estimate of where we are now, we are 5 million jobs off. We had the most recent report last week, and we had the question about the creation of jobs: Not a single new private job in the country. The 21,000 new jobs are basically in the public sector. It is amazing to me--it must be to millions of Americans--because they hear from our President an entirely different story. They heard in the State of the Union from the President of the United States: The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2000 was the fastest in nearly 20 years. Productivity and jobs are on the rise. On ``Meet the Press,'' February 8, the President said in response to Mr. Russert: Well, it's happening. There is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs. There it is on February 8. On February 23 at the National Governors Association Conference. Obviously the economy and jobs are on my mind. I know they are on yours as well. I am pleased that the economy is growing. There it is again. The President is saying that everything is hunky- dory. Just last week in California on March 4: A lot of people are feeling confident and optimistic about our future so they can say I am going to hire two more. They can sit here and tell the President in front of cameras, I will hire 2 more people. There was a good deal of laughter. He said: That's confidence. He said in Texas on March 6: The economy is getting stronger. We have pro-growth and pro-entrepreneurial that is making the economy stronger and stronger. With all of these statements, the problem is the President just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand what is happening out there across the Main Streets of this country. It is interesting that we find just today Treasury Secretary Snow spoke in Washington at the National Association of State Treasurers and noted that with the underlying condition of the economy looking unusually sound, the lack of job growth is a mystery. Now at least you have the Secretary of the Treasury understanding that. But to say with this budget that everything is just going well in terms of our economy fails to understand what is happening in the Main Streets across this country. We have an opportunity to do something about it. The question is whether we will. Certainly the budget that has been recommended by our Republican friends doesn't bode terribly well for working families or for the middle class. This legislation extends the tax breaks for wealthy investors while refusing to extend the unemployment benefits, leaving 90,000 more workers each week without benefits. The 90,000 workers who paid into the compensation fund each week are losing those benefits. What do they use that unemployment for? They use that to pay the mortgage, pay the rent, and put the food on the table. That unemployment compensation fund is in surplus. The proposal of the Senator from Washington was about $5.5 billion. But, no, that wasn't included in this budget. That would be a hand reaching out to workers in this country who have paid into that fund. The judgment and the choice and the priority of the Republic budgeteers is to say, Look, we are going to provide the continuation of the tax breaks for the wealthy and leave the 90,000 workers behind. Then they permanently reduce the tax breaks for the top brackets paid by the wealthiest taxpayers but provide no relief for the workers that cannot afford the spiraling cost of health benefits and cuts in health care for low-income families. That will be a $11 billion cut which is directed to working families and low-income families, but we don't address that. Repeal the inheritance tax on multi-millionaire estates while raising taxes on low-income workers by cutting the earned income tax credit. I heard my friend from Colorado say when he was describing who is paying it on the taxes, Look, some people actually get a rebate. That is true. Those are families that are on the lower rung of the economic ladder. They have the earned income tax credit. It has been enormously successful in making work pay. They have to be working, and they receive those funds. That is being cut back. Imagine that. Some tax help and assistance for low-income working families we are cutting back and at the same time eliminating the taxes for the very wealthiest individuals in this country. The issue goes on and on. I want to point out a couple of factors with regard to the issues on education and the issues on health care and what we are finding in regard to this particular budget. We have passed what we called the No Child Left Behind Act, which was a bipartisan effort. We said that over a 12-year period we would try to bring proficiency to every child in America. It is not easy. It is difficult and complex. We had a variety of different ways to try to do it. Basically it was to get a well-trained teacher in smaller class sizes to try to provide help and assistance to those children who needed help, who are going to be periodically tested, and those who need help are going to get the supplementary services. Involved in supplementary services will be well-trained people who can help those children that have spelling needs. It was going to involve parents. It was going to provide additional help to those schools so they could get up to standard. It was a real contract with parents, children, and the Congress of the United States. The tragic fact is the children are meeting their responsibilities; the parents are meeting their responsibilities; the teachers are trying to meet their responsibilities; and we are failing in ours. That is why. Here it is. You can just look at this chart under the Bush budget that we have before us about the number of children who are going to be left behind going from fiscal year 2005 all the way to 2013, still leaving 4 million children out, still leaving 4 million children behind. That is absolutely unacceptable. We will have the possibility under the Murray amendment to do something about that. It is a responsible amendment. It will pay effectively for itself. It is not going to run up the deficit. It will ensure that all children are included and at end, that ``no child is left behind.'' We have to make a judgment. This is an issue of priorities. Do we want to invest in our children or do we want to leave those children further and further behind? I want to point out briefly while I am talking about the No Child Left Behind Act that the Bush administration has been withholding data for 6 weeks now. But the Congressional Research Service tells us that over 7,500 school districts are about to get a cut in No Child Left Behind Act aid. Many of these are the poorest of the poor school districts. East St. Louis, IL, 41-percent poverty, will get a $315,000 cut in July. Canton, MS, 34-percent poverty, will get a cut of $148,000 this July. Camden, NJ, 38-percent poverty, will get a cut of $550,000 this July. East Cleveland, OH, 35-percent poverty, will get a cut of $90,000 in July. Holyoke, MA, 36-percent poverty, will get a cut of $350,000 this July. Money does not answer all the problems in education, but it is a pretty clear reflection of the kind of priority we in this body are giving to education. We are allowing cutbacks in children's education, while expanding, making permanent, the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals. That is not the only issue. We just mentioned the challenges facing K-12. We have other issues on No Child Left Behind, including ensuring we have well-qualified teachers who will work in supplementary services, dealing more effectively with the issues of disability, dealing with limited English proficient students, trying to work with States on a representative size in measuring annual and yearly progress. But you cannot do those issues if you do not have the resources necessary. This budget does not provide them. Let's look at what has happened in the area of higher education and ask what this budget does in the areas of higher education. This chart reflects the increased costs of college tuition for the public for average tuition for 2- and 4-year public colleges: $3,725 for 2001- 2002; 2003 and 2004, $4,700, a 26-percent increase. On the one hand we have a budget that is not performing in terms of creating jobs in our society, as the most recent results of last week indicate, and not doing the job in terms of our commitment to the children in K-12. What does this 26-percent increase in costs say to those working families, middle-income families trying to put their kids through college? What has been the reaction of this administration and our Republican friends? College budget: more student debt, less grant aid. We have seen the increase of the student debt by $4.7 billion in the last 3 years for students under the Bush education program, effectively cutting 171,000 LEAP student grants, which are the State grants, matched by the Federal Government. This budget zeros out any increase in individual student Pell grants in spite of what the President said when he ran for the Presidency. He said we ought to have a Pell grant of $5,000 when he was running for the Presidency. There is not a nickel increase. And zero increase in college work-study programs and campus- based financial aid, which are programs that are basically essential for low- and moderate-income families who need to be able to supplement, besides their scholarships, besides their loans. I will show what the budget does and what choice is before the Senate. As I mentioned, in this budget we have a question of priorities. These are the priorities. The Bush plan to cut No Child Left Behind saves little compared to the cost of tax cuts for the top 1 percent. This is the cost of the Bush tax cut for those making over $337,000 in 2005: $45 billion. This is the additional cost to fully fund No Child Left Behind in 2005, $9.4 billion. What is important? There we have it. We will have a chance to vote on it. What are your priorities? Ensuring that we will be able to fund the programs for the education of the children or are we going to provide the $45 billion? Let me show the chart for this year. We will hear from the Budget Committee chairman saying we have addressed this higher education. They put in some funding which will be necessary to keep the floor under the Pell grants and then they take them out. The Senate GOP would need to add to its budget to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act, the $8.6 billion, yet there is virtually no real commitment in there. I will discuss two items in terms of health care that are not addressed. There is no attempt with this budget to try to deal with the issues of coverage on health care, and there is virtually no effort to try to get a handle on costs of health care. What we have seen over the period of the last 3\1/2\ years of the total numbers of individuals who are not covered with health care has been going up, up, up. This is the chart that shows how the numbers have been going up since this administration: 39.8 million, 41 million, and 43 million. Look at what has happened in the course of a year. Let's take a look at what happens in terms of health care costs. We have the total number of people going up, up, up. This chart shows the premium increase versus the consumer price increase: 10 percent, 12 percent, 13 percent; 2001, 2002 and 2003; a 43-percent cumulative over this administration. Maybe someone in the Budget Committee can show us where this budget is doing anything about the costs coming out of the pockets of working families in this country. We are not creating jobs, we are not investing in the education of the children, and the issues of health care costs and coverage are out of control. We would think that at least this budget would have addressed those issues and questions. Fortunately, there will be amendments over the next 2 days to address those. I hope our colleagues will support them. I yield the floor. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, the amendment offered by my friend from North Dakota is playing politics with two very critical issues to our Nation's economic well-being: The skyrocketing deficit and the future of Social Security. Clearly, there is a lot we need to do to tackle the enormous $500 billion deficit. There is also a critical need to shore up Social Security. Let me remind my colleagues that, recently, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan called for new steps to restrain spending, warning that unless we take action, our lack of fiscal discipline could lead to increased long-term interest rates. He also recently expressed serious concerns about the need to address Social Security, given the impending retirement of 77 million Americans 7 years from now. Unfortunately, this amendment is not a solution. We need to start making some tough choices around here and in a manner that puts the good of the Nation ahead of partisan politics. I support PAYGO budget enforcement mechanisms, but not when they are tied to a political agenda. I regret that I must vote against the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday I paid tribute to Mary Diaz, who died on February 12 in New York after a long battle with cancer. Mary was executive director of the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, an affiliate of the International Rescue Committee, and one of this Nation's most effective and most compassionate advocates for women and children throughout the world. I ask to have printed in the Record the attached articles, including a tribute to Mary from the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, an article by the International Rescue Committee, as well as articles that appeared in the New York Times and the Boston Globe. The articles follow.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last month, this Nation suffered the tragic loss of one of its most effective and most compassionate advocates for women and children throughout the world. Mary Diaz was only 43 when she died on February 12 in New York after a long battle of cancer. I know she will be profoundly missed by all who knew her and worked with her and were helped by her. For the last 10 years, Mary was executive director of the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, an affiliate of the International Rescue Committee. She was there whenever she was needed and wherever she was needed--in Serbia or Angola or Rwanda or Pakistan or Nepal or Haiti and in many other places, often putting her own safety at risk to see firsthand the hardships of women and children displaced by war or fleeing persecution. After each of her travels, Mary would return and eloquently share the stories of those she saw who needed help the most. She met with lawmakers and government agencies to urge them to respond. She worked with President Clinton to create a fund for refugee women in Bosnia. Visiting Tanzania, she worked to change the rules allowing Burundian women to distribute food with the men. Even in the all too short time she had, Mary inspired us all with her dedicated and tireless work on behalf of the disenfranchised. It is easy to see where Mary learned her passion for helping others. Her father was a doctor and her mother is a nurse. Her two brothers are doctors. One sister is an inner-city teacher and another is a librarian. After studying international relations at Brown University, Mary worked for a television station in Philadelphia and volunteered in her free time to help refugees settle in the city. As her interest in helping refugees grew, she enrolled at Harvard to pursue a master's degree in international education. A few years later, she became director of refugee and immigration services for Catholic Charities in Boston. She was always there to help. Once, when 112 Haitian children arrived in Boston on a military plane, Mary was there to greet them with a friendly face. The children had lost contact with their families. They were barefoot, in a country they had never seen before. Mary comforted them, and took them to eat at a local restaurant called Buzzy's Fabulous Roast Beef. After that, she took them to a local swimming pool, and then she began the effort to reunite them with their families or place them in foster care. Stories like this about Mary are well known to all her colleagues. Last year, Mary was honored for her work in protecting the rights of refugee women by Rudd Lubbers, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees. When Commissioner Lubbers learned of Mary's death, he spoke for us all when he said that it ``left a void in the refugee and humanitarian world, where she touched many lives.'' Sadly, Mary died too young. But she made the world a better place, and we will always have our warm memories of her and her inspiring legacy to guide us as we carry on her mission.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support both of the important provisions in this legislation, the Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act and the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act. Veterinarians now treat many animals with drugs approved for other animals or even for humans. Such use is sometimes illegal, and it is not always guided by the best evidence available on the safe and effective use of the drug in particular species. The animal health legislation will provide new ways for drugs for minor uses and minor species to become available to treat animals for which very few drugs are now approved. The bill allows conditional approval by the Food and Drug Administration of all minor use drugs and minor species drugs. It also permits the use of unapproved drugs, if they are for use in nonfood producing minor species, and in certain circumstances, even in the early life stages of food-producing minor species. Safeguards are included so that these drugs will be safe for humans, just as any other animal drug must be safe for humans, and will not lead to antibiotic resistance in humans. The legislation also allows new animal drugs to become ``designated new animal drugs,'' for which research grants and 7 years of market exclusivity will be available if they are approved or conditionally approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Overall, this title of the bill will help to improve the health of family pets, zoo animals, and farm animals, and I commend Senator Gregg and Senator Sessions for their leadership in developing this legislation and enabling the Senate to consider it today. The second title of the bill will give families greater confidence that the food they eat is safe. Under the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, 7 million Americans with food allergies will be able to identify a product's ingredients more easily and avoid foods that may harm them. One-hundred and fifty Americans die each year from food allergies, and this legislation will greatly reduce that number. It requires the labels on food packages to identify ingredients related to one of the eight main food allergens, and to do so in easily understood words. The FDA is required to provide for ``gluten-free'' labels on foods, to help people with celiac disease avoid the glutens that cause their disease. The bill also requires the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to monitor deaths related to food allergies, and directs the National Institutes of Health to develop a plan for research on food alleries. I commend Senator Gregg and my colleagues on the HELP Committee for their leadership on this title as well, and I urge the Senate to approve this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, I thank the Finance Committee and the leadership for getting this measure before us. This is important legislation. What is extremely important is the Dodd amendment. As we approach early March, we have to ask ourselves in this body what we are doing about the general challenges we are facing all across this country, with very few exceptions. I will come back later to the state of our economy. This legislation provides some resolution to some of the challenges we are facing. I think the Dodd amendment is enormously important and one that I strongly support and hope the Senate will take action on. I know there is consideration that we go off this bill and on to the budget, but it does seem to me, in terms of the timetable because of the strict limitations of time on the budget, we ought to continue the debate on the issues of jobs and the economy which is of central importance and consequence to people all over this Nation. This debate should go on. I certainly join with those who believe the institution is ill served if we refuse to give the Dodd amendment the opportunity for a clear vote in the Senate. What the American people are looking for is action. They want accountability. They want responsibility. This amendment is a thoughtful amendment. It will be one that will make a difference in terms of the state of our economy in a very key area of economic policy, and that is the utilization of taxpayers' resources to effectively subsidize jobs going overseas. We ought to be able to make a judgment about that in the Senate. So I applaud the Senator from Connecticut for this amendment. I will take a moment or two to try to put it into some kind of perspective because, as he and others have pointed out, we are facing a serious economic challenge across this Nation. It is virtually uniform. In 48 out of the 50 States, new jobs pay 21 percent less than the old jobs they replace, with the exceptions of Nevada and Nebraska. In the State I have had a chance to visit over the period of the last week, the State of New York, the new jobs are paying 38 percent less than the jobs they replaced. That is happening across this Nation, and I will get into the greater detail of it. That is a national challenge and a national problem, and yet our Republican leadership refuses to permit us to deal with some of these issues. We can deal with a number of the issues. We can deal with the issue of the increase in the minimum wage where a majority of the Members of this body favor an increase. It would take about half an hour to debate that issue. We all know what that is about. We could extend the unemployment compensation. Fifty-eight Members of the Senate want to extend unemployment compensation but our Republican leadership says no and this President says no. We could also defeat the Bush proposal to deny overtime from some 8 million of our workers in this country. This is the first time since the Fair Labor Standards Act has been enacted in this country, which recognizes a 40-hour workweek, that we have an administration proposing the elimination of overtime, and we will come back to that. This all starts down in the White House, make no mistake about it. We have to have a President who wakes up every morning and says, we have a challenge and we can do something about it. Presidential leadership makes an important difference in terms of the state of our economy. We saw it in the early 1960s where we had the longest period of economic growth and price stability up until the time of the dramatic expansion of the Vietnam War, all during which we had Democratic leadership. We saw it with President Clinton, when Republicans refused to give us a single vote for an economic policy that produced 22 million jobs. I remember my good friend on the other side, Phil Gramm, who said: This proposal makes no sense. Interest rates will go as high as the ceiling of the Senate and we will have the unemployed who will circle the Capitol. I remember those words. How wrong he was, and how wrong this administration is and this President is about the state of our economy. We have to have a President who wakes up in the morning and understands that the economy needs focus and attention. This President does not, and I will demonstrate why he does not. I have the State of the Union speech: The pace of economic growth was the fastest in nearly 20 years. This is the state of the Union. This is the President's view of where we are nationwide, when 48 States out of 50 find new jobs are paying 21 percent less than the old jobs. This is what he says: The pace of economic growth in the third quarter was the fastest in 20 years. Productivity is high and jobs are on the rise. This is the state of the Union. Just a few days later he is speaking about the state of the Union when the President meets with the workers on his travels to Springfield, MO: We have overcome a lot. That is because we are growing. The growth is good. New jobs are being created. Interest rates are low. A lot of it had to do with the fact we cut your taxes. The economy is growing, growing, growing. The President of the United States says that about the state of the economy. Here he is just a week ago at the National Governors Association: The economy and jobs are on my mind. I am pleased the economy is growing. Tell that to the more than 2 million Americans who have lost their jobs under this administration, who are waiting for jobs. Tell them the economy is just going hunky-dory. Now what is happening? This is the projection the President has made about job growth since the time he became President of the United States. The difference between his projection and the reality is 5.2 million jobs short of his promise when he became President of the United States. That is the reality. Take a look at what he said each year and where these promises have come out. When we take a look at the year 2002 promise by the purple line, these are the projections of growth. Well, then he comes back to 2003. That is not going to happen. We are going to come back to 2003. This is the millions of jobs that are going to grow in the United States. It is going to be that green line. No, no, that is not right; 2002 was not right. I am going to tell you what is going to happen in 2003. It is going to be this level. The fact is, this is the red line and it is constantly down. Why does the President constantly misrepresent what is happening in terms of jobs across this country? The fact is, people are hurting. We can look at the restored economy. The President refers to the state of the economy and how the recession is over. Look at the state of comparing the current recovery to the recoveries over the period of the last 40 or 50 years. Let's look at job growth recoveries even before 1991. The recoveries from 1991 to 1993 under the Democratic administration, look at the job growth going up. Look at where the jobs are occurring under the current recovery, and this President says everything is hunky-dory? Talk about jobs, look at the record. The record speaks for itself. Look at what is happening to the average wage of jobs lost in 2001 and the average wage of jobs created today. This is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average wage in 2001 of jobs lost was $44,570. The average wage of jobs gained is $35,000. That is a 21-percent reduction in the average wage between 2001 and today. This President says in the State of the Union that everything is fine. Economic growth is at the fastest rate in 20 years, jobs are on the rise. This is what is happening out in real America. This is happening out across this country. It is happening not only in the Northeast, it is happening in South Carolina, which has lost more manufacturing jobs per population than any other State in the country, let alone what is happening in the Midwest and the Southwest. Look at this chart, which is an indicator of what happens to wages when coming out of a recession. The President said we had inherited a recession but now everything is going well. We have had these series of recessions from the 1990s all the way up to 2000. In the fourth quarter, that is what the uniform measurement is to indicate, whether one is coming out of a recession. Look at the increase in wages from $16 to $18, all during the 1990s, up to the year 2000. Look at the current recovery from 2001 to 2003: old jobs $16, new ones $15. There it is again. This Bush economy creates new low-paying jobs, and it is reflecting itself across this country. This chart shows the States with jobs shifting to lower paying industries. The darker green are all the States where that has happened. There are two States, Nebraska and Nevada, in the country where the new jobs are paying more than the old jobs. They are the only two States. In the other 48 States, new jobs are paying an average 21 percent less. That is happening. Not only are we over 2 million jobs below where we were when this President took office, but even the new jobs that are being created under this administration are tragically low paying. In terms of what they are doing to the families, the result of this is very clear. This is just a very quick picture of what is happening to families under this administration. You have 13 million children, now, who are going hungry. You have 8 million Americans who are unemployed, and 8 million Americans who fear they are going to lose overtime. This isn't bad enough about what is happening to wages, but now the administration says it is going to take overtime pay away from workers. We might have a lot of economic problems in this country, but the idea that firefighters, policemen, and nurses are getting paid too much doesn't appear to me to be one of them. It does to the administration. Look what has happened. We have 7 million workers waiting 7 years for a raise in the minimum wage. Where are the Members in the Republican leadership? When is this President going to say 7 years at $5.15 is too little in this country? We have a majority of the Members of this body who will vote for an increase in the minimum wage. Why are you stifling that? Why do you block it, year after year after year? That is the record, 7 million. The recipients of the minimum wage are mostly women, 62 percent women. It is a women's issue. It is a children's issue because one- third of the women have children. It is a children's issue and a women's issue. We don't want to hear from the other side about family values anymore. These are families, single women, trying to bring up their children. It is a civil rights issue. Most of those who earn the minimum wage are men and women of color. And it is a fairness issue. All Americans understand fairness. They say if you work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, you should not live in poverty. But, no, we can't even get a vote. We can't even get accountability. Everything is going fine. That is what the President said in the State of the Union. That is what he just told the Nation's Governors. Everything is fine. Everything is good. Now the Senator from Connecticut has a concrete proposal to do something about it, and he is denied the opportunity to get a vote up or down. What is with this Republican leadership? These are some of the challenges we are facing. I will just give an example of what has happened in recent times, in terms of our recovery. We hear how well things are going on Wall Street. We have heard that time in and time out. Look at this chart. This is ``The Corporate Profits Ballooned Compared to Workers' Wages.'' Look at what happens, the difference between wages and corporate profits for the economic recoveries during the 1990s: 60 percent of the expansion of the economy went to wages; 39 percent went to corporate profits. Now, in the year 2002, look at today's recovery: 86 percent is going to profits and 13 percent to wages. You wonder why workers aren't getting paid as much? There it is, it is as clear as can be. There may be a chart here you might be able to explain, but you can't explain them all. You can't explain the number of children in poverty, the number of children who are hungry. You can't explain the allocation of wages and what is happening in real wages. You can't explain the fact that 48 out of the 50 States are losing good-paying jobs that are being replaced with jobs that don't pay as much. This economy needs focus, it needs attention, and it needs action. The proposal of the Senator from Connecticut is action. We have debated it, discussed it, but somehow we have a sense we get a slow walk around here, a slow walk. We are being denied the opportunity to get a chance to address some of these issues. Why aren't we getting a chance to address some of these issues on unemployment? We have 58 Members of this body, Republican and Democrat alike, who want to extend the unemployment compensation to workers who have worked hard and paid into that fund. The fund is $15 billion in surplus which these workers paid in. The total cost of the proposal of the Senator from Washington is $5.5 billion. It will still be in surplus. We have 90,000 workers a week--listen to this. Mr. President, 90,000 workers a week across this country are losing their unemployment compensation; 90,000 a week. That is per week. That is happening all across this country. These are men and women who have paid into the unemployment compensation fund. Generally, when we have had these kinds of economic crisis, we have extended the unemployment compensation to workers when we have a decline in the economy. Does anyone in the world believe that workers in 48 out of 50 States who are losing their jobs, who are seeing a decline in their income, that it is their fault? Of course it is not their fault. It is the failed economic policies. You know, it would be one thing if we had an administration and President who said: Oh, yes, that is right. But here we just have statements after statements about how well it is all going for workers across this country, and that just is not so. That is of central concern to families all across this Nation. We have an opportunity this morning to make a small downpayment with the Dodd amendment. It demands action. It makes sense. It will do something--not everything, but it will be a strong indication to workers in this country that we are taking their plight seriously and that we want action on their behalf. That is what the Dodd amendment is. It would be absolutely irresponsible if this body refused to give us a chance to get a vote on this kind of amendment. It is so important for workers, for families in this country. It would send such a message to families across this country that this institution hears what is happening to their children, to the young people, to the families who can no longer afford the college tuition that has been exploding; to the families who can't afford the prescription drugs because the costs escalated so dramatically over this period of time. To all of those families and the families who are losing their unemployment compensation, who are going to have difficulty paying the mortgage and putting food on the table and looking out for their children, this is a family issue, a fairness issue, and the Dodd amendment moves us in the right direction.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct. The Senator probably remembers the State of the Union speech where the President announced a new program in association with community colleges--$250 million. Then he went out the next couple of days and went to community colleges and worked with local workforce groups about this issue. At the same time, they have cut $800 million from the identical training programs in the last two budgets. That is the record. We can go back. I haven't got the appropriations here, but I know it. I am familiar with it because we resisted it and we had amendments here. Again, there was an amendment from the Senator from the State of Washington to restore the training programs. Nonetheless, those programs were cut. You talk one way one day and another way another day. We saw the classic example of it in the State of the Union. We were talking about: Oh, yes, we are going to have a workforce community-based community college program to upgrade the skills. But in the previous year, and the year before, cutting those work training programs. People aren't stupid on this. They know it. I am sure they know it in Connecticut. I know they know in my State, on these workforce investment boards, what is happening and its devastating impact. We had a strong bipartisan effort, when Senator Kassebaum and Senator Jeffords chaired, as the Senator from Connecticut remembers. First we had the JTPA, a program we worked out in a bipartisan way in the committee that was chaired by Senator Dan Quayle. People differ about Senator Quayle. He was a stalwart on job training. It was the only social program that passed, as the Senator remembers, during the first 4 years of President Reagan and it took a lot of courage for Dan Quayle. Then we went beyond that. Because we had over 125 different job training programs in 12 different agencies, we wanted to get these pulled together, so we had a Kassebaum-Kennedy commitment to get workforce training in one place. It was bipartisan. We began to fund it and then what happens? As soon as we begin to get life in that, this administration effectively guts this program.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. I answer the Senator in this way. The Senator's amendment is so timely. We have three--I believe we have seven, and I have others back at my office--national or international magazines. This is February 21, The Economist, ``New Job Migration.'' Here is BusinessWeek, ``Will Outsourcing Hurt America's Supremacy?'' Here is Time magazine, March 1, ``Are Too Many Jobs Going Abroad?'' These are national publications--national magazines. That is what the debate is about. The Senator from Connecticut has an amendment dealing with these very issues. Nothing could be more current. Why aren't we getting an opportunity to debate these issues which just about every publication in the country understands is a major issue, and certainly every working family in this country understands. The Senator has proposed an approach on this that can make a major difference. I am troubled, as he must be, that he is not able to get a clear-cut judgment decision.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has put the case well. The other part goes beyond the question about whether you favor that or not--the tax provisions which have been included in the proposal which are basically subsidizing. You have workers who are basically subsidizing the export of other jobs, which is being addressed by the Senator. You ask, What in the world? This is a matter of public policy. Does that make sense? Several enormously important public policy issues and questions are included in the Dodd amendment. They deserve debate and they deserve action on the floor of the Senate. I conclude and remind our colleagues about what is happening across the world. That is on this chart. American workers are working longer. American workers are working harder. American workers saw their incomes go down over the period of the last 2\1/2\ years. These are all of the other industrialized nations in the world. It isn't only these workers. Women in our society, women are working longer and harder. Our challenge isn't about American workers, it is about the policies. The Dodd amendment gets to those policies. The American workers are entitled to accountability on it. He has an excellent amendment, one that I support and which hopefully we will have an opportunity to get to.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we call this bill the ``Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act''--the JOBS Act, because that is exactly what we are debating this week--the critical issue facing so many millions of Americans, the lack of jobs. To hear President Bush, you would never know there was a problem with jobs. According to the Bush administration, everything is sunshine and roses. Over and over again, the President says things that show he is out of touch with the lives of ordinary Americans and can't understand the economic hardships they are facing. Happy talk about economic recovery doesn't jibe with the daily lives of the people on Main Street. In his State of the Union Address in January, the President said ``. . . this economy is strong, and growing stronger . . . Productivity is high, and jobs are on the rise.'' A week later he said: ``The economy is growing, people are finding work. There's an excitement in our economy . . . You can tell I'm upbeat, and I've got reason to be. Not only the numbers say things are looking pretty good, the American people are telling me they feel pretty good.'' Then came his annual economic report and its ringing endorsement of sending jobs overseas. At the National Governors Association meeting last Monday, he said he thinks the 5.6 percent unemployment rate is ``a good national number.'' Yesterday, Vice President Cheney said, ``The economy's in very good shape, and going forward there's every reason to be optimistic that we will have the kind of growth that we need to create jobs out there.'' In fact, he went on to say that if ``Democratic policies had been pursued over the last two or three years. . . . we would not have had the kind of job growth that we've had.'' Job growth? Someone should tell the Vice President that we have lost over two million jobs in the Bush economy. The reality of the Bush economic record is very different from the rhetoric. Just a few weeks ago, the President said in his economic report that the economy will create 2.6 million new jobs this year. The reality is that no one in the White House or the Cabinet will endorse the 2.6 million number. President Bush said his first tax cuts in 2001 would create 800,000 additional jobs by the end of 2002. The reality is, we lost 1.9 million jobs instead. His 2002 economic report predicted 3 million jobs would be created in 2003. Instead, more than 300,000 were lost. He said the tax breaks enacted last year would create 510,000 additional jobs by the end of the year, but we lost 53,000 jobs last year. Even the few jobs being created are not as good as the jobs we have lost. The new jobs pay on average $8,000 less than jobs lost in the Bush economy. In 48 of the 50 States, jobs being created pay 21 percent less than had been paid by industries losing jobs. Employees have smaller paychecks, and are even less able to keep up with the rising costs of education, let alone pay the bill for food, rent and health care. A big part of the job problem is the worsening crisis in manufacturing. We have lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs since the Bush administration took office. It is a nationwide problem, affecting almost every State in the Union. Forty-nine of the 50 States have lost manufacturing jobs under this President. That is only part of the story. Fourteen million other jobs are newly at risk of being sent overseas as well. Every day, we hear more stories about how white collar jobs and service sector jobs in health care, financial services, and information technology are going to other countries. What is the President's response? More empty rhetoric and broken promises. Last year on Labor Day, the President met with workers and promised to appoint a manufacturing czar to deal with the loss of manufacturing jobs. How typical of the President to make a promise like that on Labor Day and then forget all about it. Six months later, there is still no manufacturing czar. Administration officials say they're working on it, but the economy is still hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs. American workers deserve better than this. They deserve better than to have their jobs exported with the President, as cheerleader in chief, waving good bye. We need to do more, to encourage good-paying manufacturing jobs to stay here, and discourage corporations from sending jobs and new investment overseas. This bill contains provisions to encourage manufacturing in the United States, and I commend Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for their bi-partisan work on this bill. But we can do more and we must do more. We need to provide incentives now for companies to keep and create manufacturing jobs in the United States. A key weakness in this bill is that the tax benefits for domestic manufacturing are phased in too slowly. These companies and their workers need help now. We need to stop rewarding multinational corporations that send jobs to other countries. This bill not only fails to do that, it creates $35 billion in new or larger tax breaks for companies doing business abroad. Why on earth do we want to make exporting of American jobs more attractive to corporations? These international provisions should be removed from the bill, and the tax dollars should be used to make the tax benefits for domestic manufacturing more robust. In many respects, the tax code already gives a greater subsidy to profits from foreign operations over domestic plants. We ought to change that too, instead of kowtowing to the clout of multinational corporations. Our corporate tax laws should be rewritten to increase the cost of exporting jobs and decrease the cost of maintaining jobs in America. And what about the urgent needs of Americans who have already lost their jobs and their long-term unemployment benefits too? Solid majorities in the Senate and the House have already sent a message loud and clear to the White House and the Republican leadership in Congress that we want to reinstate those benefits, which expired on December 31st. Ninety thousand workers a week have lost their benefits and still can't get a job. They're moving in with friends or family, giving up health care, and struggling to pay every bill. Yet our Republican colleagues say, in their best imitation of Marie Antoinette, ``let them eat cake.'' They tell the unemployed to look harder for work. They treat them as slackers, and say they won't subsidize their idleness any longer. That attitude is wrong. The unemployment insurance extension we enacted when the economy began to decline has expired, and I urge my colleagues to fix it, before these hard-working employees who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own suffer any longer. I also urge my colleagues to join me in strengthening this legislation. We must improve incentives in the manufacturing industries and give working Americans a chance for the jobs and the better future they deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am glad if Senator Craig wishes to close on this amendment. I would like to close on the next amendment, if that is agreeable.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have seen a lot of phony amendments around here in the 42 years I have been here, and this is about as phony an amendment as one could possibly imagine. We have to ask ourselves, What is the problem? The problem has been 17 law enforcement officers have been killed, according to the FBI, from armor-piercing bullets. Deer and ducks do not wear armor vests. Police officers wear armor vests. What do police officers do? They try and protect the public interest. What is out there now on the Internet? I have four different charts that show what is out on the Internet selling this armor-piercing ammunition. Let's just take a look at what the armor-piercing ammunition does. Armor-piercing projectiles contain a core of hardened steel or tungsten carbide which allows it to penetrate metal objects. That is what our police officers are up against. The Craig amendment does what? It asks whether we ought to have a study of this kind of problem. In the meantime, if we accept that and oppose my amendment, we know there will be law enforcement officials who will be killed, shot, with these armor-piercing bullets. What in the world justification is there for hunters to use armor- piercing bullets? Perhaps that can be answered. I have not heard it, but the Senator wants to have a study. What else will they do? They will increase the penalties. That will be fine. Tell that to the families after these police officers have been killed. What is going to happen after that? They will even provide the death penalty in some instances. This does not protect law enforcement officials, and I hope the Senate will support my amendment later.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this bipartisan amendment to close the gun show loophole. Americans overwhelmingly favor responsible gun safety measures. They want effective background checks for firearm purchases, whether the purchases take place at a gun store, a gun show, or any other large gathering. The gun show loophole allows firearms to be purchased illegally at gun shows--no questions asked. The result has been the sale of massive numbers of firearms to terrorists, criminals, juveniles, and other prohibited purchasers without background checks. In 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft appeared at an oversight hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He held up an al-Qaida terrorist manual, to make the point that terrorists were being trained on ``how to use America's freedom as a weapon against us.'' When I questioned the Attorney General at the hearing, I held up a different terrorist training manual entitled, ``How Can I Train Myself for Jihad,'' which had been found in a house in Afghanistan that November. As the manual stated: In other countries, e.g. some states of USA . . . it is perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country, obtain an assault rifle legally . . . learn how to use it properly and go and practice in the areas allowed for such training. There is a long list of examples of terrorists exploiting weaknesses and loopholes in the Nation's gun laws. In 2000, a member of the terrorist group Hezbollah in the Middle East was convicted in Detroit on weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon. He had bought many of those weapons at gun shows in Michigan. In 1999, only a lack of cash prevented two persons from purchasing a grenade launcher at a gun show, in a plot to blow up two large propane tanks in suburban Sacramento. Enough is enough. Since the atrocities of September 11, Congress has acted with strong bipartisan support to win the war on terrorism and protect the country from future attacks. We have improved the security of our airports and borders. We have strengthened our defenses against bioterrorism. We have given law enforcement new powers to investigate and prevent terrorism. Clearly, we need to strengthen our defenses against gun violence. The best way to start is by closing the gaping loopholes in our gun laws that allow rogue gun dealers to sell guns to criminals, terrorists, and other prohibited purchasers. According to the ATF, gun shows are now the second leading source of firearms confiscated in illegal gun trafficking investigations. Gun shows accounted for nearly 31 percent of the 84,000 guns illegally diverted during one 30-month period. Even the strongest opponents of gun control understand the need to confront this rampant law-breaking. Closing the gun show loophole will strengthen the safety and security of all Americans. This amendment will not shut down gun shows. It will not prevent gun enthusiasts and other lawful purchasers from buying and selling guns. Instead, it requires background checks to take place at any event where more than 75 guns are offered for sale. These checks can be conducted by licensed sellers or by gun show operators or their employees who have been certified by the Justice Department. This this certification option, background checks can be completed quickly and accurately. Since its enactment in 1994, the Brady law's background check system has truly become an ``instant'' check system. According to the Attorney General, 91 percent of background checks are completed in 3 minutes or less. A 3-minute wait is not a significant inconvenience for a gun purchase. And 95 percent of all background checks are completed within 2 hours. The maximum amount a buyer can be forced to wait is 3 business days. Under this amendment, the period will be reduced to 24 hours for States with sufficiently automated background check records. I commend my colleagues, Senator McCain, Senator Reed, Senator DeWine, and Senator Lieberman, for their leadership on this important issue, and I urge all my colleagues to do now what we should have done years ago. It is time to put the interest of law enforcement and public safety above the interests of the gun lobby. Let's close the gun show loophole, once and for all.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this bipartisan amendment to continue the Federal ban on assault weapons. The ban is now scheduled to expire on September 13, 2004. The fact that this common-sense and necessary ban requires any debate at all shows how misplaced and misguided our priorities on domestic safety and security have become. Even before 9/11, renewal of the assault weapons ban should have been a no-brainer. After 9/11, to even consider letting the ban expire is absurd. Semi-automatic assault weapons are killing machines--nothing more, nothing less. They are intentionally designed to maximize their killing power by a rapid rate of fire. They are intended to be spray-fired from the hip, so that the killer can fire many rounds in rapid succession. Civilians have no need whatever for such military-style killing machines. They are of no use for hunting, unless the goal is to obliterate the duck or deer being hunted. They are unnecessary and impractical for self-defense, and they have no recreational value. The purpose of these weapons is to facilitate crime. By the late 1980s, assault weapons had become the weapon of choice for drug traffickers, gangs, and other criminal organizations. Their high firepower and ability to penetrate body armor exposed the police officers to increased danger, and innocent bystanders were killed in indiscriminate assault-weapon shoot-outs in the streets. Assault weapons have been used in a series of massacres: In 1989, in an attack at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, CA, Patrick Purdy used an assault weapon to kill five small children and wound 29 others. Purdy fired off 106 rounds in less than two minutes. In 1993, two CIA employees were killed outside the entrance to CIA headquarters by a Pakistani national using an AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine. Also in 1993, eight persons were killed and six others were wounded at a San Francisco law firm by an assailant using two assault pistols with 50-round magazines. That's the kind of world we'll return to if Congress allows the current ban on assault weapons to expire. In fact, the ban contributed to a dramatic decrease in violent crime in the 1990s. Many of us remember the dire ``juvenile superpredator'' predictions that were in vogue before that reduction took place. In 1996, William Bennett and John Walters had written that America was a ``ticking crime bomb,'' faced with the ``youngest, biggest, and baddest generation'' of juvenile offenders that our country had ever known. Fortunately, these predictions were wrong. From 1993 to 2001, arrest rates for violent juvenile crime declined by more than two-thirds. We're still enjoying the benefits of this low crime rate today. The decrease in crime is explained in large part by the sensible measures that Congress took on gun safety in the early 1990s, including the ban on assault weapons. In 1999, the National Center for Juvenile Justice concluded that all of the increase in homicides by juveniles between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s was firearm-related. The U.S. Surgeon General concluded that guns were responsible for both the epidemic in juvenile violence in the late 1980s and the decrease in violence after 1993. ``It is now clear,'' the Surgeon General wrote, ``that the violence epidemic was caused largely by an upsurge in the use of firearms by young people. . . . Today's youth violence is less lethal, largely because of a decline in the use of firearms.'' After Congress passed the assault weapons ban in 1994, fewer criminals used assault weapons to kill and commit other crimes. According to the National Institute of Justice, requests to trace assault weapons--one of the best indicators of gun use in crimes-- declined 20 percent in the first calendar year after the ban took effect. In 1995 and 1996, the number of assault weapons used in crime in Boston declined by 24 percent. In St. Louis, it declined by 29 percent. With these proven results, why would anyone vote against reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban? It's no surprise that the law enforcement community strongly supports the ban. The amendment now before us is supported by: The International Association of Chiefs of Police; the National Association of Police Organizations; the National Organization of Black Police Officials; the International Brotherhood of Police Officers; the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association; the American Probation and Parole Association; the United States Conference of Mayors; and countless other religious, public health, and domestic violence organizations. Congress needs to do more than renew the ban on assault weapons now in effect. We should make clear that the definition of assault weapons includes ``copycat'' guns made by the gun industry with devious cosmetic changes to evade the 1994 law. We should ban parts kits that can be bought through the mail and used to build assault weapons. We should regulate the transfer of ``grandfathered'' assault weapons and facilitate their tracing. We should ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, and prohibit juveniles from buying or possessing assault rifles and shotguns. Senator Lautenberg has introduced a bill that would do all of these things, and I commend him for his leadership. What we absolutely cannot do is let the current ban on assault weapons expire. Such a failure would drastically undermine the safety of our streets, neighborhoods, and schools, and strengthen the hand of terrorists and other criminals. We know that terrorists are now exploiting the weaknesses and loopholes in our gun laws. A terrorist training manual discovered by American soldiers in Afghanistan in 2001 advised al Qaeda operatives to buy assault weapons in the United States and use them against us. Terrorists are bent on exploiting weaknesses in our gun laws. Americans will be at much greater risk if Congress fails to renew the ban on assault weapons. We can't let that happen. I urge my colleagues to vote for this essential protection against crime and terrorism.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am under no illusion what the outcome of this vote is going to be. But this is gun legislation run amok. This is demonstrating that the Senate is more interested in the profits of the gun industry than protecting the citizens. This legislation will override every mayor's decision that has ruled that they do not want concealable weapons in the bars and the churches or on the playgrounds of the schools of their district. This legislation will override every Governor's decision to protect local citizens by prohibiting concealable weapons in bars and churches and schoolyards across the country. The mayors have made the decision. The States have made the decision. Now in the Senate of the United States we say it does not make any difference if the local community is making a judgment to protect their local citizens; we know better in the Senate. I don't want to hear from the other side anymore about one size fits all. This is it. Override the States, override the local communities, that is what this does with concealable weapons which are deadly to the children and the people of this Nation.