Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. If I may, Mr. President, I yield myself time. Let me remind my colleagues that armor-piercing ammunition for rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States of America. A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition unless firearms are sold as well. Anyone over the age of 18 may purchase this ammunition without a background check, and there is no Federal minimum age for possession. Purchases may be made over the counter, by mail order, by fax, or by Internet, and there is no Federal requirement that dealers retain sale records. It is this current lawlessness that jeopardizes the safety of police officers. It is this failure of the existing law that has led to 20 fatal shootings of police officers, and will lead to many more unless Congress acts, not studies--acts, not studies. The facts are well established. The FBI statistics do not lie. We do not need another study. We do not need another report. All we need to do is adopt the underlying legislation that gives the Attorney General the authority and the power to ensure the kind of armor-piercing bullets that are being used, that pierce the armor and kill our law enforcement officials, will be prohibited from use today. As I outlined in my amendment: ``a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines . . .''--not the Senator from Idaho or the Senator from Massachusetts--``to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.'' We either have a problem or we do not. I believe we do. Certainly the families of those brave officers who died believe we do--their families and those police departments. We have an opportunity to do this on next Tuesday. I hope the Craig amendment will be defeated and that the amendment I offered will be accepted. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of time if the Senator is.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to reclaim 30 seconds, if I can. I will just take the time to read from this letter. I have a score, but this one says it all. It is from Tim O'Neal of Lexington, MA. I strongly urge your immediate action to support and to implement supplemental federal funding of unemployment benefits. I have been unemployed for approximately 18 months, though I'm a Vietnam veteran with a baccalaureate in chemistry, a recent JD, and more than 20 years of computer industry experience. Here you have in the paper today, number of mass layoffs rose sharply in January. More than 2,400 employees across the country reported laying off 50 or more workers in January, the third highest number of so-called mass layoffs since the Government began tracking them a decade ago. That is in today's Washington Post. There is the need. Senator Cantwell has the answer.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I commend our majority leader for his strong statement and commitment of ensuring that the Voting Rights Act, which is of fundamental and key importance in terms of what American democracy is all about, is something that he wants to see and will extend it and that he is fully committed to working in every possible way to make that commitment come true. I also commend my friend and colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for expressing similar sentiments. But this is not the best way to achieve that goal. What is important to come out of this debate is that the Senate, as an institution, is firmly committed, as we hear from the majority leader and from the leadership from that side, to making sure we continue the Voting Rights Act. The real question is, How is the best way to make sure that is possible? I was here in 1964 when we addressed the public accommodations laws and offered the amendment to eliminate the poll tax, and it was defeated. I was here in 1965. I am very familiar with the weeks we spent on that bill to actually get the Voting Rights Act. I was on the Judiciary Committee in 1982 and listened to the Republican Attorney General William French Smith--I can remember it almost as if it were yesterday--because the extension of the Voting Rights Act had been offered by myself and my wonderful friend and a great Senator, a Republican Senator, Senator Mathias. We had 32 votes. The Reagan administration was opposed to extending the Voting Rights Act. That is the history. Until the House of Representatives passed the Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, we were unable to get to 50 votes and get a majority of the Judiciary Committee to vote to pass that out. It was only in the final hours actually that we were able to accept what was the Dole amendment. Those who are interested in looking at the history, we were able to get up to more than a veto-proof majority, and President Reagan signed the bill. This is not an issue to be lightly dealt with. This right to vote is a core issue in our country. We enshrined slavery into the Constitution. We fought a civil war to free ourselves from the pains of discrimination. It was Dr. King, quite frankly, who awakened the conscience of the Nation and the Nation came together and we saw the great progress that was made in the early 1960s to move us ahead with voting rights and public accommodations. Then, in 1968, we passed the Housing Act which really did not do a great deal in housing until actually the 1988 act. This has been a long march, as the Senators have pointed out. We have to ask ourselves whether now is the time to take this action. Let me read into the Record the letter I have received from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. I read it at this time: On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Nation's oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, we write to express our opposition to the amendment being offered by Majority Leader Frist to the protection of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, S. 1805, to make the preclearance of the minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act permanent. The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important civil rights statutes ever enacted by Congress. This law, which enforces the 15th amendment, has been successful in removing direct and indirect barriers to voting for African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, and Native Americans. And since its passage, the act has survived narrow interpretations by the United States Supreme Court only to be amended by Congress to restore its original strength. Nevertheless, voting disenfranchisement still exists today. As you know, the VRA's preclearance and minority language provisions are scheduled for reauthorization in 2007. We in the civil rights community plan to actively engage in the process, including working to establish a strong legislative record in support of reauthorization. I underline, Mr. President, the language that says ``establish a strong legislative record in support of reauthorization.'' That is a key phrase in terms of this letter and for reasons to which I will refer in a moment. Nevertheless, we oppose the Frist amendment because it is premature. Critical analysis of issues surrounding preclearance of minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act have not yet been fully examined and analyzed carefully to reflect the current status of our laws, court decisions, enforcement actions, and society. The Supreme Court has made it clear in recent years that it will require Congress to establish a detailed record through hearings and legislative findings in order to ensure that provisions such as these survive constitutional scrutiny. Therefore, while we plan to strongly support the reauthorization of these important provisions, we urge you to vote no on the Frist amendment. The reasons for this urging are the relevant parts of this letter which have strong justification, given holdings by the Supreme Court on other actions that the Congress has taken in trying to expand rights and liberties for American citizens, and which have been struck down. Time in and time out and time and again the courts have referred to the legislative record that has been made on the Voting Rights Act. I remember it. I was a member of the Judiciary Committee. I remember the days and months of hearings and testimony, an extraordinary record was made, unparalleled in recent history, justifying that act, respected by the Supreme Court. And we are going to say that last night at 11 o'clock the Senate agreed to take up an amendment with a 1-hour time limitation that is going to extend this, and the possibility of the Supreme Court looking back, when it is challenged--as we know it will be challenged--at the legislative history, the background, and they will find we had 1 hour of debate on the floor of the Senate and put at risk the Voting Rights Act. There are some--not the Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader, or the Senator from Kentucky, but there are those who want to see this undermined. We know that. We have to be guarded against that possibility. Voting rights are too important to risk it. Those families, those individuals, those Americans who are concerned about the issue of voting rights and in so many instances have been denied the right to vote and whose families have been denied the right to vote and have suffered, and in some instances have friends and family members who lost their lives in the struggle for civil rights, say to us, let us do what we believe is necessary to do. Let us not have an abbreviated legislative process. Let us go to what the Supreme Court has recognized as being the way to ensure we will have the kind of protection for this most basic and fundamental right, and that is do it through the legislative process, through the hearings, through the testimony, through the evidence that will be collected and debated on the Senate floor. That is effectively what is being said by the leadership conference. That is why I am instructed, under more careful consideration, that Congressman Lewis, having read this and consulted with lawyers and constitutional authorities this afternoon, is opposed to this amendment. As I say, I am sure the majority leader understands the Supreme Court decisions that say how important it is to require a substantive record is made, and we do not have that record on the basis of an hour's debate this afternoon. The recent experience in the courts, in the Supreme Court decision of Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Gibbs, and City of Burns v. Florida, show the Court will require a substantial legislative record when reviewing any future challenge to the provisions made permanent by this record. That is the holding of the Supreme Court, that they will require a substantial legislative record. We do not have a substantial legislative record. That is not a part of this debate. As a result, the Senate should take every necessary step to develop that substantial record that will ensure any amendment will withstand the constitutional scrutiny. I want to give assurances to the majority leader and my friend from Kentucky that we on the Judiciary Committee will work eagerly with the leadership on the other side to make sure when we come to grips with this issue, when we deal with the issue on the Senate floor and we have the full kind of debate and discussion, it will have the kind of background, experience, record, testimony, and extensive, exhaustive historical context so it will meet any possible challenge before the Supreme Court. We do not have that. According to constitutional authority, we are risking not only the provisions we are talking about but the underlying legislation. That is a risk this Senator is not prepared to support. So I respect and admire the motives that have inspired our colleagues and friends to offer this amendment, but I have to indicate virtually the unanimous recommendation of those who have benefited from the Voting Rights Act are in strong opposition to this amendment and have instructed me to make their positions clear to the membership of the Senate. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. First, I will make a few comments. I have been notified I have one other colleague who will be on his way in the next 4 or 5 minutes. If not, we will be glad to go on.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, we have to understand, as I think all of us do, that obviously the underlying legislation is important. I have spoken on this issue. I take strong exception to what is special interest legislation and singling out a particular industry from liability. That is important. The provisions that have been debated earlier this afternoon on the concealable weapons are very important as well in terms of safety and security. We debated the armor-piercing bullet. That is important in terms of lives and family. When we are talking now about the right to vote and ensuring the right to vote, this reaches the core value of our society and what this Nation is all about. We know the history of our Nation. I mentioned very briefly slavery was enshrined in the Constitution. We fought a civil war in order to free ourselves from it. But it was only in the early 1960s that we began to make the real progress. The most important of all of those kinds of civil rights was the right to vote and the extension of that right and the elimination of the poll tax, the literacy tests, all of the other kinds of tests that were put up there. This country has been reminded once again about the importance of the right to vote in the recent Presidential elections where we saw this enormous fiasco that took place in the State of Florida, the future of this country ultimately being decided in the Supreme Court of the United States rather than the hands of the American people. So the American people understand the importance. It is almost like a sacred right. If we were to talk about sacred rights in terms of what this society and country is about, it is about the right to vote. Nothing else is possible unless we have the right to vote, guaranteed to all of those citizens in our country who are eligible to have that right. It is fundamental to everything else this society is about. We know it is being challenged and we know there are many who would set it aside. We have seen that in recent times. We have seen the threat to the right to vote. Even after we understand some of the difficulties we had in the last Presidential election, we have seen the difficulty we have had in this body and around the States to make sure we were not going to have that problem again and again. We have not solved the problems we had, but we have to preserve it and protect it and we cannot tamper with this very important and significant responsibility we have. As I said before, I eagerly look forward to working with our two colleagues, who have spoken eloquently about their strong commitment, in ensuring that we are going to have an extension of the Voting Rights Act. I look forward to working with them in the Judiciary Committee. I know our two colleagues are not members of the Judiciary Committee, but we have enormous respect for them and their strong support will make an incredible difference in ensuring we will get the extension, we will build the record, and we will ensure the next time we pass this, we will have the kind of record that will be sustained in this Supreme Court and any future Supreme Court. We do not want to put that at risk now. We do not want that. That is not a wise decision. The people who have suffered too long and been denied that right to vote believe very strongly that to be the case. I think we should observe their very serious concerns, follow those, and work to build the kind of record that will survive any constitutional scrutiny and ensure that rather with the existing protections we have, we are going to create even greater ones. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his superb statement, and I also thank the Senator from Kentucky for his comments in support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act. He made an eloquent statement and sent a message which I know is well received across this country. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I want to work with him and the Senator from Kentucky to try to achieve what he wants, and that is the permanent extension of the Voting Rights Act. We will work closely with him to try to get it done in a timely way. I thank him very much for focusing attention on this issue. I am grateful to him for his leadership. Mr. President, on a final point, I draw the attention of the Senate to this vote on unemployment compensation. A wide majority, a broad majority of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate voted for extension of unemployment benefits. I commend the Senator from Washington for her leadership on this issue. I know she believes, as I do, that this is not the end of the fight but just one of the innings of fight. I thank her for her leadership.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair notify me when I have a half minute left? Mr. President, at a time when capitulation to special interest groups is a major issue in the Presidential election campaign, it is difficult to believe that the Republican leadership in the Senate is serious in asking the Senate to accept this flagrant special interest legislation. I urge my colleagues to break the stranglehold of the gun industry and gun dealers and oppose proceeding to this shameful legislation. The list of issues that demand the Senate's immediate attention is long. Unemployment is a crisis for millions of citizens. Retirement savings are disappearing. School budgets are plummeting. College tuition is rising. Health care costs and prescription drug costs are soaring. Federal budget deficits extend as far as the eye can see. The war in Iraq has brought new dangers, imposed new costs, and more and more American lives are being lost each week. The well-being of most American families has declined at an alarming rate in the past 2 years. We can and should be acting to meet these challenges. Instead, the Republican leadership wants to spend time on this flagrant pro-special-interest, anti-victim, anti-law-enforcement legislation to give broad legal immunity to the gun industry. This bill's proponents claim they are targeting ``frivolous lawsuits.'' But we all know that its real effect would be to prevent victims of gun violence--police officers, innocent bystanders, and their families--from pursuing valid claims in State and Federal courts. This special interest bill is a direct attack on the interests of law enforcement. Police Chief William J. Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department recently told it like it is: To give gun manufacturers and gun dealers immunity from lawsuits is crazy. If you give them immunity, what incentive do they have to make guns with safer designs, or what incentive do the handful of bad dealers have to follow the law when they sell guns. The bill would prevent the families of the victims of the DC snipers from holding accountable the gunshop in the State of Washington that somehow ``lost'' the assault rifle that was used in the attacks. Under current law, if negligence is proved, the families of the victims are entitled to seek redress. If this bill is enacted, the gunshop will be totally immunized from liability, and the families' lawsuits will be thrown out. Unbelievably, the gun industry and the tobacco industry are the only two consumer industries that are not subject to Federal consumer safety regulations. America does more today to regulate the safety of toy guns than real guns, and it is a national disgrace. The gun industry has worked hard to prevent Federal consumer safety legislation. At the same time, it has conspicuously failed to use technology to make guns safer, and it has attempted to insulate itself from its distributors and dealers, once the guns leave the factory. Now it wants to become the only industry in the Nation exempt from lawsuits. The overwhelming majority of Americans believes that gun dealers and gun manufacturers should be held responsible for their irresponsible conduct, like everyone else.

Mr. KENNEDY. Surely, the Republican leadership has higher domestic priorities than providing legal immunity for the gun industry. Surely, we can do better than debate this extraordinarily reckless and unprecedented special interest legislation. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, just prior to the vote I addressed the Senate on a tight timeframe pointing out my concerns about why we were taking this action at this particular time. I have had the opportunity to travel the country. We just ended the February recess where we had a chance to get around, as well. One of the things that has struck me over the course of those travels is the overwhelming concern working families have over the state of the economy. It is reflected in whether they are going to be able to retain their job; if they have a new job, the fact it does not pay as well as the old job; they are concerned about the cost of health care, the cost of prescription drugs; and concern over the increase of tuition. These were the issues. One concern I have meeting at this time is we are considering special interest legislation. We have heard a great deal both by the President and during the course of the election. Hopefully, we can free ourselves from special interest legislation. Our Republican friends offer this legislation, put a cloture motion down immediately, limit the time for any debate and discussion that provides very special interest legislation for the gun manufacturers. That must concern millions of Americans, certainly those who are concerned about the state of the economy, those concerned by the failure of the Senate to increase minimum wage over 7 years. We have 7 million Americans making $5.15 an hour who have not had a raise for 7 years and we are considering special interest legislation to protect just a single industry, the gun manufacturing industry. There are tens of thousands of Americans losing their unemployment compensation every single week yet we are not debating the question of the extension of the unemployment compensation--which is in surplus, close to $18 billion. Senator Cantwell has an amendment to extend that for a temporary period of time, give some relief for all of the workers who cannot find work. Finally, the administration admits we will not have good jobs, good pay, good opportunities for the future. Finally, the President has agreed with that. He differs with his Council of Economic Advisers. For weeks we heard from the other side of the aisle: The economy is back. And now the President agrees the economy is not back. We do not need much Senate time on the issue of a minimum wage increase. I would agree to an hour, half an hour on either side. Let's send to American workers working on the lower rung of the economic ladder a message that help is on their way. It will benefit primarily women because they are primarily the recipients of the minimum wage. It will go to mothers and children because many of the women have children. It is a children's issue, a women's issue. It is a minority issue because most of the minimum wage workers are men and women of color. It is a civil rights issue, a children's issue, and a women's issue. Most of all, it is a fairness issue. People wonder why the Senate doesn't do something about increasing the minimum wage. We have the majority of votes but our Republican friends will not let us vote. We hear the pious statements--look who is controlling the time--and can't we go ahead with the Nation's business. The Nation's business is increasing the minimum wage. No, no, we cannot deal with that this morning. No, we are not going to deal with that. We will have special interest legislation for just one industry--that is what the other side says--but not for the 7 million people who would be affected. What about those in need of unemployment compensation? These men and women have paid into the unemployment compensation. Now they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own through basic mismanagement of the economy. They lose their jobs and as a result they have difficulty paying their mortgage, putting food on the table, making sure their children are going to be looked after. It is not because of them. They are hard-working Americans. They have a record of employment. Under the Cantwell amendment, we extend the unemployment compensation. We did that in other times of our history. We did it in the previous Democratic administration before that Democratic President had created 2 million jobs. We still provided for those who had long- term unemployment, that they would be able to get unemployment compensation even after more job were created. Now we have the loss of 3 million jobs, a sputtering return of 78,000, a total loss of 2 million jobs, and they are out there and losing every single day whatever unemployment insurance they have. We say, let us at least provide some temporary help. Finally, our President has agreed we are not going to get the kind of recovery and create the 2.6 million jobs the Council of Economic Advisers said would occur. They finally admit that. And we are stonewalled to not work on unemployment in the Senate. No, let's look after one industry, not the tens and thousands and millions of hard- working Americans who have worked hard, played by the rules and need enough to be able to continue to pay their mortgages and look after their families. No, no, no, we cannot do that. It might take all of an hour. Everyone in this body knows what the issues are. We have to do special interest legislation. That is not even the end of it. We have the clock ticking on unemployment. More than half of the unemployed adults have had to postpone medical treatment, 57 percent; or cut back on spending for food, 56 percent. One in four, 26 percent, has had to move to other housing or move in with friends or relatives; 38 percent have lost telephone service; 22 percent are worried they will lose their phone. More than a third, 36 percent, have had trouble paying gas or electric bills. One of the principal reasons for the increase in bankruptcy is because of this kind of challenge. Our Republican friends want bankruptcy reform in order to expedite the pursuit of these unemployed people who are having difficult times paying their bills and mortgage. That is what the bankruptcy bill is all about: make the Federal Government collection agencies for special corporate interests. That is why they are trying to rush it through. And more and more are going into bankruptcy. Unemployment benefits should be extended with the economy still down over 2 million jobs. This chart reflects where we are today, with a total loss of 2.4 million jobs. These figures are from the Department of Labor. The Republicans say, no, no, we have something more important to deal with, special interest legislation. This chart shows during the previous administration, they created 2.9 million jobs, yet they still had the extension of the unemployment compensation for those out of work who had paid in over a long time. The unemployment compensation fund is in surplus, $17 billion. It will cost $7 billion and they say it will put a strain on the fund. This is what is happening, the unemployment impact on the family. More than three in four, or 77 percent, of the unemployed Americans say the level of stress in their family is increased. I don't know how you put dollars and cents on that figure. Everything is dollars and cents around here. This is the kind of pressure and tension and anxiety these families are under, the 2.5 million. Two-thirds, or 65 percent, of those with children have cut back on spending for their children. Those are working families trying to provide for their children clothes, or perhaps a birthday present, perhaps an outing, taking them to a baseball game in the spring, a hockey game or a basketball game in the winter. That is not there for any of these families. Twenty-six percent say another family member has had to start a job or increase their working hours. Those are basically the women, the mothers, when they can find it. All those mothers are working twice as hard now as they did 20 years ago. Twenty-three percent have had to interrupt their education. Imagine that, working families, the unemployed--2.4 million of them--and almost a quarter of their children have had to interrupt their education because their parents are unemployed through no fault of their own. That is the pressure they are under. Do you think we can get an extension of the unemployment compensation? No, no. We have to deal with this special interest legislation. This is the overall view of where we are in our country now. We have 13 million children who are going hungry. We have 8 million Americans who are unemployed. We have the 8 million Americans who will lose overtime pay under the Bush proposal. This is another interesting issue. There is no increase in the minimum wage, there is no extension on unemployment compensation for workers, and now we have the proposal to eliminate overtime for 8 million Americans. Well, you have 13 million children who are going hungry, and the millions who are without work. We have 7 million low-wage workers waiting 7 years for an increase in the minimum wage. There are 3 million more Americans in poverty--3 million more Americans in poverty--since President Bush took office. Are we addressing this issue today? Oh, no, no, no, we do not have the time to do that. We have to rush through this special interest proposal. We do not have time out here on the floor of the Senate to address the issues of those who are living in poverty, or the 90,000 workers a week-- 90,000 workers a week; think of that: 90,000 workers a week. Most of us are always impressed during Sunday football games that we watch in our stadiums when they have that incredible view from the airplanes or balloons or whatever that shows the stadiums packed with people. They will say: 89,000 people, 75,000 people. I guess it is 78,000 out in Lambeau Field out in Wisconsin, which I have been to recently. People look out there and they see the mass of people out there: 80,000, 90,000 people. Think of that number of people every single week--every single week--losing their coverage of unemployment compensation. I want to mention one other area because I see good friends in the Chamber. My friend and colleague from Iowa will be offering an amendment on overtime. I know the Senator from the Washington, Ms. Cantwell, will be here soon to talk about her amendment on the unemployment compensation. But one of the cruelest, cruelest, cruelest suggestions that has been made by any administration in the time I have been in the Senate is to effectively do away with overtime pay for 8 million Americans and for those who receive training in the Armed Forces and acquire special skills. Now let us think about the administration's proposal and who they are talking about. Who would be affected by the proposal the administration is talking about? Shown on this chart is a list of the professions that would lose the coverage for overtime pay. The idea of a 40-hour workweek has been at the heart and soul of our whole country's ethic. Certainly from the late 1930s it has been a part of it. There has been a recognition that if you are going to require people to work overtime, you are going to pay them time and a half. That has been accepted by Republicans and Democrats alike since the end of the 1930s. But not under this administration. They are talking about limiting overtime. Who will be the groups that will be affected by the elimination of overtime? This is the group: It is going to be the policemen, it is going to be firefighters, it is going to be the nurses, among others. I mention policemen and firefighters and nurses because, as we know, they are the backbone of homeland security. If we are going to have a problem with chemical or biological warfare, it is going to be those policemen and firefighters and nurses who are going to be the first responders who are going to risk their lives locally in those communities to try to contain this kind of threat. They are the ones who are going to be on the front lines. Yet those are the very people who this administration feels are being overpaid. Even the police force that is here in the Senate in many functions would be affected. There are a lot of things that are troubling in the United States of America today we should be and must be concerned about. I mentioned the number of children who are living in poverty and what is happening to these families who have seen their jobs outsourced. Many of these things we ought to be working on. But one of the great problems in our country today is not that our policemen, firefighters, and nurses are being overpaid. I have not heard anyone say that except the President of the United States or the Secretary of Labor. I have not heard anyone come up to me back in Massachusetts saying: You know something, Senator, those policemen and firefighters and nurses are being overpaid. Do something about it. Do something in Washington about it. I don't hear that. There is no question that some manufacturers believe that and feel that and have asked the administration to do something about it. No question about that. And they did, the administration has. I will give you an example. But let me just conclude on this chart--police officers, nurses, firefighters. The interesting part is that women, by and large, are mostly in these areas and professions. This reduction in overtime primarily affects women in our workplace. But something that just makes this extraordinary--and has been debated here on the floor of the Senate--this proposal was rejected by the Senate of the United States, rejected by the House, but this administration feels sufficiently strong about this issue that they insisted the Harkin-Kennedy language be taken out of the bill in the middle of the night behind closed doors--behind closed doors--at the insistence of the major manufacturing companies in this country. And we are going to face that. We are going to be facing that in these next few weeks as we have the reauthorization to do it. Now let me point out something on the rates that have been proposed. These are the ones that have been proposed on the overtime. Listen to this. And I am talking about the kinds of skills, cumulative skills that will make people ineligible for overtime. I am reading right from the Federal Register, and I will include the appropriate reference in the Record: However, the word ``customarily''-- That means the definition about the skills that will be excluded-- means that the exemption is also available to employees in such professions who have substantially the same knowledge level as the degreed employees, but who attained such knowledge through a combination of work experience, training in the armed forces. . . . There it is, the Federal Register, volume 68, No. 61, Monday, March 31, administration's proposed regs. If you get the skills, training in the Armed Forces, if you happen to be over in Iraq today or Afghanistan and you have gone to some training programs in order to provide greater protection for your fellow troops in fighting for our country, maybe a member of the National Guard or Reserve, you get those kinds of training functions, you come back here, you are out of the Guard, you return to work, and your boss says: Hey, these new regs say you got the training in the Armed Forces. Too bad. You are not getting your increase. That is what this says. A number of us raised this in the earlier debate. The Secretary of Labor in January sent a letter to the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, saying--and I will include the letter in the Record; it is only a page and a half long-- I want to assure that your military personnel and veterans are not affected by these proposed rules by virtue of their military duties or training. But that training in the Armed Forces can make a worker an overtime- ineligible, professional employee. This is new language. It is not in the current regulation, and its only purpose is to take away overtime for veterans. Why don't they just drop the language and free us from any kind of ambiguity? Just say, this was brought to our attention, we are going to drop it, instead of trying to explain it away. Continuing from the letter: First, the Part 541 ``white collar exemptions'' do not apply to the military. They cover only the civilian workforce. No one is complaining that the rule affects the military workforce. The issue is the veteran who leaves the military to work in the civilian workforce and would lose overtime protections. They are rather clever. They say the white-collar exemptions don't apply to the military. No one is suggesting it applies to the military. This letter is an attempt to mislead. It is very clear. If the administration does not intend to apply these overtime regulations to those who have been in the service, they ought to just eliminate it. I ask unanimous consent to print the letter from which I have quoted in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Bush overtime proposal denies overtime to veterans. The overtime proposal explicitly states that training in the Armed Forces could disqualify workers from the overtime protection. Many employers, such as Boeing, acknowledge that this will affect much of their workforce. According to Boeing's comments on the Bush proposal: Boeing observes that many of its most skilled technical workers received a significant portion of their knowledge and training outside the university classroom, typically in a branch of the military service. . . . There it is. That is the reason. Because many manufacturers wanted that kind of savings for the bottom line. That is why that is in there. Because this company and others have hired people who have been in the military, and when they see they have these kinds of skills which are necessary for our Armed Forces, they are being penalized for it. I would be interested in seeing the discussion between the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Labor in putting these out. So many of these training programs and education programs are programs that inspire young people to go in the Armed Forces. They are men and women of limited means but have ability and capabilities and understand that they cannot achieve their fullest potential unless they take these training programs or build the kind of credits in order to get advanced degrees. They ought to be on warning now that if they go ahead and do that, they may very well be knocked out of any kind of overtime protection. That is what this basically says. It is a cruel hoax to so many who are in the National Guard now and are going to come back and be in the civilian workforce. I want to read from a letter: My name is Randy Fleming. I live in Haysville, Kansas-- outside of Wichita--and I work as an Engineering Technician in Boeing's Metrology lab. I'm also proud to say that I'm a military veteran. I served in the U.S. Air Force from August 1973 until February 1979. I've worked for Boeing for 23 years. During that time I've been able to build a good, solid life for my family and I've raised a son who now has a good career and children of his own. There are two things that helped make that possible. First, the training I received in the Air Force made me qualified for a good civilian job. That was one of the main attractions when I enlisted as a young man back in Iowa. I think it's still one of the main reasons young people today decide to enlist. Military training opens up better job opportunities--and if you don't believe me, just look at the recruiting ads on TV. The second thing is overtime pay. That's how I was able to give my son the college education that has opened doors for him. Some years, when the company was busy and I had those college bills to pay, overtime pay was probably 10% or more of my income. My daughter is next. Danielle is only 8, but we'll be counting on my overtime to help her get her college degree, too, when that time comes. For my family overtime pay has made all the difference. That's where I'm coming from. Why did I come to Washington? I came to talk about an issue that is very important back home and to me personally as a working man, a family man, and a veteran. The issue is overtime rights. The changes that this administration is trying to make in the overtime regulations would break the government's bargain with the men and women in the military and would close down opportunities that working vets and their families thought they could count on. When I signed up back in 1973, the Air Force and I made a deal that I thought was fair. They got a chunk of my time and I got training to help me build the rest of my life. There was no part of that deal that said I would have to give up my right to overtime pay. You've heard of the marriage penalty? Well I think that what these new rules do is to create a military penalty. If you got your training in the military, no matter what your white collar profession is, your employer can make you work as many hours as they want and not pay you a dime extra. If that's not a bait and switch, I don't know what is. You can't make the case any better--no matter how long we speak, how many charts we have--you can't make the case any better than is being made by this former serviceman. And I don't have any doubt that employers will take advantage of this new opportunity to cut our overtime pay. They'll tell us they have to in order to compete. They'll say if they can't take our overtime pay, they'll have to eliminate our jobs. It won't be just the bad employers either--because these rules will make it very hard for companies to do the right thing. If they can get as many overtime hours as they want for free instead of paying us time-and-a-half, they'll say they owe it to the stockholders. And the veterans and other working people will be stuck with less time, less money, and a broken deal. I'm luckier than some other veterans because I have a union contract that will protect my rights for a while anyway. But we know the pressure will be on, because my employer is one that pushed for these new rules and they've been trying hard to get rid of our union. And for all of those who want to let these military penalty rules go through, I have a deal I'd like to propose. If you think it's okay for the government to renege on its deals, I think it should be your job to tell our military men and women in Iraq that when they come home, their service of their country will be used as a way to cut their overtime pay. Madam President, is there anyone in this body who doesn't believe that eliminating that possibility isn't of greater urgency than the special interest provision presently before us in the Senate? Why don't we clear this up once and for all? Why don't we take an hour or so and debate the Harkin-Kennedy amendment on this issue? Why don't we vote on that amendment and send it over to the House? Let's send a message to families, nurses, police officers, and firefighters. Let's send a message to those who have gotten skills in the National Guard. Let's send a message that we stand with them, that we believe their service is of importance to us in the Senate. Let's put aside the speeches for a little while that will be made by political leaders all over the country about how much we appreciate the service of men and women and do something for them in the Senate now? Now. There are a number of other issues that we could be talking about in terms of the state of our economy. I have taken a short period of time. I see others in the Chamber who wish to address the Senate. It does seem to me that the matters I have mentioned, no matter how you come out on them, are of importance to working families in this country. And, the working families in this country are faced with economic challenges. It is not just the questions about outsourcing, although that is enormously important and a matter of great and expanding concern. It is what is happening with the failed increase in the minimum wage, the failure of providing unemployment compensation, the failure to do the overtime provisions, the failure to deal with the high cost of prescription drugs. There is another amendment we could do to permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to actually negotiate and do something about lowering prescription drugs for people. We could do that pretty quickly. People are concerned about the high cost of tuition in colleges, and there are things we can do on that. I say these are the matters that are of principal concern to working families across this country. We have seen the loss of manufacturing jobs, the concerns that working families have. They want some action. They don't want us to yield to special interest provisions. Not only do they not want us to yield to them, but those who have been victims of violence and violent gun activity don't want us to throw their cases away, and leading law enforcement officers of this country understand that we should not yield to the special interests as well. I look forward to the opportunity for some discussion and some action on these issues prior to the time we have a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand there was an agreement for the allocation of time evenly divided between the two parties this morning, and that there has also been an agreement to divide the time during the afternoon. I have talked with our leadership. They have indicated I could use 10 minutes of our time this afternoon, for the Democratic side, and use it at this time.

Mr. KENNEDY. What adjustment has to be made in the afternoon will be made. Mr. President, I intend to speak to the issue before us, medical malpractice, in a moment. I will yield myself 6 minutes now and then I will speak on the medical malpractice in just a moment. The Federal Marriage Amendment Earlier today the President announced his endorsement of the Federal marriage amendment. By endorsing this shameful effort to write discrimination back into the Constitution, President Bush has betrayed his campaign promise to be ``a uniter, not a divider.'' The Constitution is the foundation of our democracy and it reflects the enduring principles of our country. We have amended the Constitution only 17 times in the two centuries since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Aside from the amendment on prohibition, which was quickly recognized as a mistake and repealed 13 years later, the Constitution has often been amended to expand and protect people's rights, never to take away or restrict their rights. By endorsing this shameful proposal, President Bush will go down in history as the first President to try to write bias back into the Constitution. Advocates of the Federal marriage amendment claim it will not prevent States from granting some legal benefits to same-sex couples, but that is not what the proposed amendment says. By forbidding same-sex couples from receiving ``the legal incidents of marriage,'' the amendment would prohibit State courts from enforcing many existing State and local laws, including laws that deal with civil unions and domestic partnerships and other laws that have nothing to do with such relationships. Just as it is wrong for a State's criminal laws to discriminate against gays and lesbians, it is wrong for a State's civil laws to discriminate against gays and lesbians by denying them the many benefits and protections provided for married couples. The proposed amendment would prohibit States from deciding these important issues for themselves. This Nation has made too much progress in the ongoing battle for civil rights to take such an unjustified step backwards now. We all know what this is about. It is not about how to protect the sanctity of marriage, or how to deal with activist judges. It is about politics, an attempt to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage. We have rejected that tactic before and I hope we will do so again. The timing of today's statement is also a sign of the desperation of the President's campaign for reelection. When the war in Iraq, jobs and the economy, health care, education, and many other issues are going badly for the President and his reelection campaign is in dire straits, the President appeals to prejudice in a desperate tactic to salvage his campaign. I am optimistic the Congress will refuse to pass this shameful amendment. Many of us on both sides of the aisle have worked together to expand and defend the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Together, on a bipartisan basis, we have fought for a comprehensive Federal prohibition on job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We have fought together to expand the existing Federal hate crimes law to include hate crimes based upon this flagrant form of bigotry. I hope we can all agree that Congress has more pressing challenges to consider than a divisive, discriminatory constitutional amendment that responds to a nonexistent problem. Let's focus on the real issues of war and peace, jobs and the economy, and the many other priorities that demand our attention so urgently in these troubled times. Mr. President, as to the issue that we will be voting on this afternoon, on the medical malpractice legislation, I spoke on this issue yesterday but there are a few additional points that I wish to make today. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today's vote of S. 2061 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, the 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--seriously injured women and newborn babies--to the avarice of these companies. This bill contains most of the same arbitrary and unreasonable provisions which were decisively rejected by a bipartisan majority of the Senate last year. The only difference is that last year's bill took basic rights away from all patients, while this bill takes those rights away only from women and newborn babies who are the victims of negligent obstetric and gynecological care. That change does not make the legislation more acceptable. On the contrary, it adds a new element of unfairness. This legislation would deprive seriously injured patients of the right to recover fair compensation for their injuries by placing arbitrary caps on compensation for non-economic loss in all obstetrical and gynecological 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 the children who suffered serious brain injuries at birth and will never be able to lead normal lives. They are the women who last organs, reproductive capacity, and in some cases even years of life. 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. This is not a better bill because it applies only to patients injured by obstetrical and gynecological malpractice. 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. 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. It is based on the false premise that the availability of OB/GYN 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. And that is only one of many fallacies in this bill. If the issue is truly access to obstetric and gynecological care, 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, a pharmaceutical company that fails to warn of dangerous side effects caused by its new fertility drug, and a manufacturer that markets a contraceptive 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. It is a stalking horse for broader legislation which would shield them 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; women and children whose entire lives have been devastated by medical neglect and corporate abuse. 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 or 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 year, 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 the 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. 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 Business Week Magazine concluded after reviewing the data, ``the statistical case for caps is flimsy.'' That was in the March 3, 2003 issue. If a Federal cap on non-economic 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 2 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 anti-trust 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 anti-patient 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. 2061, 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. 2061--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. I withhold whatever time I have and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold suggesting the absence of the quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I would like to take a few moments of the time of the Senate to review one of the compelling issues facing the Nation, all across our country, and that is the state of our economy translated in ways that working families understand it--the state of jobs in America. How are people doing with the jobs they have? Are they working longer? Are they working harder? What has happened to the millions of Americans who are on the unemployment lines? What about the millions of Americans who have lost any hope? It seems to me, as I have said on many other occasions, that we have an administration that looks at the state of our economy from the position of Wall Street but not Main Street. The reason I say that is because I look at the remarks of the President of the United States that he made today. I will include the relevant parts of the speech. I am now quoting. At home, obviously, the economy and jobs are on my mind. I know they're on yours, as well. I am pleased that the economy is growing. . . . My view of Government is to create an environment that is good for the entrepreneur. . . . And that we ought to keep on with the tax cuts. That is his recommendation in terms of his statement that he made at the National Governors Association. The rhetoric fails to match the realities of most Americans' lives. I know the President and his economic advisers have been touring the country claiming that the tax cuts for the wealthy have led to an economic recovery. A closer look at the States they have been visiting makes it clear this President and this White House are out of touch with the real needs and everyday concerns of average American families. The President told small businesses in Tampa, FL, last week that tax relief was a vital part of the economic recovery and failed to mention 52,000 jobs have been lost in Tampa, FL, since he took office and that the jobs being created in the State pay 15 percent less than the jobs that have been lost. He did not mention Tropical Sportswear, an apparel maker in Tampa which shipped more than half of its cutting room jobs overseas. And in a minute I will talk about the new Time magazine just out on the market and its cover story about too many jobs going abroad. I fail to see much in the President's comments to the Governors and to the American people showing the sensitivity that families are feeling all across this country about outsourcing. Two weeks ago the President touted his economic policies in Harrisburg, PA, where 14,000 jobs have been lost since January 2001. The jobs being created in Pennsylvania pay 23 percent less than the jobs that were lost. In the same week, the President told businesses in Springfield, MO, the growth is good and jobs are being created. Yet 5,300 jobs have been lost in Springfield, MO, since President Bush took office, and the jobs being created in Missouri pay 25 percent less than the jobs that have been lost. Every day it is becoming more and more clear the current Bush economic policy is in disarray. Last week, President Bush and his economic team backed away from the promise to create an average of 2.6 million new jobs this year. The President made the promise in his economic report just the week before last and now no one in the White House or the Cabinet will endorse the 2.6 million number. It is just broken promise after broken promise. President Bush promised his first tax bill would create 800,000 additional jobs by the end of 2002, but we lost 1.9 million jobs instead. His 2002 economic report promised 3 million more jobs in 2003; instead, more than 300,000 were lost. His economic report last year projected 1.7 million new jobs for 2003, and we suffered a loss of 400,000 jobs. He promised the latest round of tax breaks would create 510,000 additional jobs by the end of 2003, but we lost 53,000 jobs last year. President Bush says it is a good idea to send jobs overseas, as if we had not lost enough jobs already. This chart is a pretty clear indication about what has been happening to the American economy in terms of jobs and the impact the economic policies of this administration are having regarding employment. This shows 5.2 million jobs short of the administration promises for 2002. In 2002, we are 2.5 million jobs short of the promises of 2003. The reality is nearly 2 million jobs have been lost in the first 2 years under President Bush. The administration talks about how the economy is growing and how well the economy is doing. In his speech to the National Governors Association today, we can see words that are similar to what the President used in the State of the Union Address. In the State of the Union Address the President talks about the pace of economic growth in the third quarter being the fastest in nearly 20 years. Productivity is high and jobs are on the rise. He continued along in that speech, talking about his support for the elimination of overtime in an effort to help small business. That is the regulation the administration referred to as ``the needless Federal regulation,'' a regulation that has been in effect since we adopted the 40-hour week that provides overtime protections for millions of Americans. This administration is committed to overturning that regulation. That would affect 8 million Americans who work more than 40 hours a week. This is the projection of this administration in terms of the jobs created and the actual record of the administration over recent years. Whether it is a speech to the National Governors Association or the State of the Union, when we hear from the President the state of the economy is getting stronger and stronger, it is important to understand what the facts are. We can ask ourselves whether this is the responsibility of workers in this country. This chart shows Americans work more hours than workers in other industrialized nations. This chart, from the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, shows Americans work 100 hours each year more than any other industrial nation and considerably more than most of the other European nations. A few hundred hours more than France, Italy, and Germany. American workers are working longer. They are working harder just to try to stay in place. If we look at the job market in terms of women in our society, what is happening to middle-income mothers who work 55 percent more hours today than 20 years ago? In 1979, it was 895 hours annually. Look at this figure: 1,388 hours now, almost double the amount in 2000. So American workers are working longer and harder than any other industrial society. Not only that, we have also seen that the families are working longer and harder. Both men and women, husbands and wives are working longer and harder than any other country in the world. So families are working almost longer and harder, and the jobs gained do not pay as much as jobs lost. The administration talks about the creation of new jobs, they talk about the unemployment figures, but it is important to understand what those jobs are and what they are in terms of pay. In 48 of the 50 States, the new jobs are paying less than the old jobs. There are only two States where they pay more. They average 23 percent less. Workers are working longer and harder. The jobs are paying less. We will look at what is happening to the national average wage. For workers in 2001, the average wage was $44,000. The average wage now is $35,410, a 21-percent reduction in the average wage for workers today. We read the statement of the President today talking about the state of our economy, that everything is good and getting better, and when we read the State of the Union talking about how positive all the economy is, we ought to be able to look at what is happening out there on Main Street. Workers are working longer and harder. Both men and women are working longer and harder, and their total income is going down. That is what is happening on Main Street across this country. This chart demonstrates these points. In 48 States the Bush ``recovery'' has replaced high-paying jobs with low-paying jobs, with the exception of Nebraska and Nevada. That is a national phenomenon in States across this country, and the outsourcing issue is one of the principal contributors. That is why there is national attention given in this magazine today talking about the challenges we are facing with outsourcing. I will read a couple parts of the article about outsourcing, and I will include the relevant paragraphs so they will be in complete context. That's why outsourcing to India has exploded during the recovery. I will come back to the ``recovery'' in just a minute. That is why outsourcing to India has exploded during the recovery. It jumped 60% in 2003-- That is 60 percent in 2003-- compared with the year before, according to the research magazine Dataquest, as corporations used some of their profits (not to mention [their] tax breaks)-- Not to mention their tax breaks--do you want to know where a great chunk of those tax breaks are going? It has been used to organize and shift American jobs overseas. This is the conclusion in this magazine today. It goes on: That translates to 140,000 jobs outsourced to India last year. And what is the human aspect? Here is one of the individuals who has been affected. His name is: Vince Kosmac of Orlando, Fla., has lived both sad chapters of outsourcing--the blue-collar and white-collar versions. He was a trucker in the 1970s and '80s, delivering steel to plants in Johnstown, Pa. When steel melted down to lower-cost competitors in Brazil and China, he used the G.I. Bill to get a degree in computer science. ``The conventional wisdom was `Nobody can take your education away from you,' '' he said bitterly. ``Guess what? They took my education away.'' For nearly 20 years, he worked as a programmer and saved enough for a comfortable life. But programming jobs went missing two years ago, and he is impatient with anyone who suggests that he ``retrain'' again. ``Retrain'' again--remember that picture with the President out there talking about new training programs that were tied into the community colleges? The principal problem with that is he said he was going to request I guess $250 million, but of course they cut over $600 million in the last 3 years out of the training programs. But this is what is happening here--the fact that this individual got the training and programming jobs went missing 2 years ago. . . . he is impatient with anyone who suggests that he ``retrain'' again. ``Here I am, 47 years old. I've got a house. I've got a child with cerebral palsy. I've got two cars. What do I do--push the pause button on my life? I'm not a statistic.'' That is it. These families are not statistics. They are real people who are working hard, working longer, and making less. That is one of the prime concerns many of us have; that is, if we have a problem, the first thing we have to do is understand it. The first thing the President of the United States has to say is: We have a problem. Let's deal with it. If he just keeps on going as he did with the State of the Union and as he has today to the Governors, that everything is hunky- dory, everything is getting better, that there is no problem, then you are failing to understand what is happening on the main streets across this country. This next item is from the Lou Dobbs show on CNN last Friday night. These are all publications from today, the speech made by the President today, the impact on the wages today. All of this has been in the last few days. We are not going back a year or 2 years ago as to what is happening; we are talking about what is happening across this country today and what the President of the United States said today and how out of touch he is on these issues. This is from last Friday night. I think these two comments said it all on the Lou Dobbs show last Friday night. This is Glenn of Oxford, MI: If General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler can take supplier parts and send them to China to be mass produced at a third of the cost, then why doesn't the cost of the vehicle ever go down? Labor is cheaper, parts are cheaper, but CEO pay increases. There it is. That is what is happening. That is the real economy. That is what is happening. When you are talking about outsourcing, you are not only talking about families who have worked hard, played by the rules, and are being outsourced; a decision is being made over which they have no control. But you would think at the end of the day, if the parts are cheaper, if everything is cheaper, then at least the vehicle or some other part would be cheaper; but, no, the same cost, but the profits go to the CEOs. That was Glenn of Oxford, MI, last Friday night on the CNN show. Here is Walter, of Gary, IL: When did the American dream become buying goods and services as cheap as possible? That is a pretty good question: ``When did the American dream become buying goods and services as cheap as possible?'' It used to be to have a good job, buy an affordable home, raise our children and hope that our children will be able to do the same if not better in the future. That is the definition of the American dream. That is the dream that is being trampled on every single day, and we need to have national leadership that understands what is happening out across this country. It is stunning to me--absolutely stunning to me--that we cannot have a recognition about what is happening in terms of the current situation. These are the facts. In the Bush economy, corporate profits ballooned compared to workers' wages. On this chart is shown the change in the share of corporate- sector income, profits, and workers' wages, which is in the dark tan. And what is shown on the chart is for the early 1990s recovery--the early 1990s recovery--compared to today's recovery that this President is talking about. He talked about it today. He talked about it in the State of the Union. He said everything is hunky-dory. Yet we have spelled out what is happening to real working families. This chart tells the story. And they must have this chart down at the Council of Economic Advisers. They must have this chart down in the White House. Someone ought to put this one on the desk of the President. Here it is. In the early 1990s, the share of the recovery was 60.29 percent for workers' wages, and for corporate profits it was 39 percent. What about today? Well, here it is. Eighty-six percent of today's ``recovery'' goes to corporate profits and 13 percent is going to the wages of workers. This tells it all as to what is happening in terms of the American economy. The workers are getting short shrift across this country. You can take all of the statistics, and the President can make all the speeches--as he did in the State of the Union and as he did today--but it is not telling the full story. This tells the full story. This tells what is happening to workers in this country. It is told in the lost hopes and dreams of workers who have seen their jobs go overseas, but it is also told in these other facts. I will just show you this chart about the Bush economy creating low- paying jobs. Let's take the late 1990s--1998 to 2000--the fourth quarter. This is the quarter of the growth period out of the recession. And here are comparable periods of time out of the recession between the 1990s and the year 2000 and the current recovery and what has happened with low-paying wages. This is what we were talking about before, the loss of income, jobs being lost and the new jobs paying less and less and less, both men and women working harder, working longer, corporate profits booming, workers working harder and making a good deal less, with the average income for those working families going down. Here is a chart that shows the recovery is the worst for workers since the Great Depression. This is the comparison for the month the recession ended about what happened to workers' salaries. In 1961, when we had a period of economic growth and price stability, the longest period of economic growth and price stability with the exception of President Clinton, until the time of the ballooning of the spending in the Vietnam war. But the wages went up 10.7 percent. In the 1970s, it came in at 12 percent; in 1975, 9 percent; November of 1982, 11 percent; March of 1991, 3.6 percent--not very much. This is the period of time President Clinton turned this country around, creating 21 million jobs. And then the first increase was 3.6 percent. Now it is four-tenths of 1 percent. How many more indicators do we need? The fact is, we are facing a serious economic crisis in workplaces across the Nation. This administration appears not to understand it. In a statement of the President to the National Governors Association, he talked again about how well the economy is doing, how pleased he is with the progress we are making. That is not what is happening on Main Street, USA. All across this Nation, in 48 out of the 50 States, too many jobs are going abroad. We hear about it in our States and all across the Nation. Everyone appears to know about it except the administration. Their only answer to any of our problems is providing additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am. We want to reference it because it is so startling. It is in chapter 2, page 73--what is manufacturing. The Senator has read it correctly. It is startling to me. We just read the papers in the last few days, if we look at what the Secretary of Health and Human Services has to do now in terms of correcting a record with regard to the disparities on health care because people over in the Department were cooking the books to give it more favorable statements and comments and facts with regard to the problems we are facing with minorities. Then, of course, in the last day or so we read the comments of our friend and colleague Senator Levin where he said the CIA had not been frank and candid and honest with him in terms of providing information about what sites had actually been given to the inspectors and whether they had been given the most accurate sites in terms of the weapons of mass destruction. There was representation that they had, and we find out in the newspapers that they had not. Then we are troubled today by the statement of the Secretary of Education--who is my friend, although I differ with him--when he said the NEA organization that represents the teachers is a terrorist organization. I was absolutely baffled by that comment. I will read the AP wire: Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a ``terrorist organization'' during a private White House meeting with governors on Monday. Democratic and Republican governors confirmed the education secretary's remarks about the [NEA]. ``Those were the words, `the NEA is a terrorist organization,' '' said Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin. Several Democratic governors called the remarks inappropriate. I ask unanimous consent to print the AP wire in its entirety in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. If I may make a quick comment, since we are on that subject, on the statement by the Secretary, whether it was said seriously or in jest, this illustrates in crystal-clear terms the misplaced values of the administration when they roll out the red carpet for the big drug companies, the HMOs, the insurance companies in recent Medicare legislation, and then slap our Nation's teachers in the face with unacceptable language. I say they are wrong. I believe Secretary Paige owes the Nation's teachers and the people an explanation and a full apology.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. Here we have the administration effectively misleading the country in terms of where we are going in terms of the economy and the numbers of jobs and the types of jobs. But at the same time, as the Senator correctly points out, we have not seen an increase in the minimum wage for 7 years. The purchasing power of the minimum wage now is close to the lowest it has ever been. We know there is a majority in the Senate that is for an increase in the minimum wage, but we are being blocked in this body and in the House of Representatives by the fact that the President and this administration are opposed to an increase in the minimum wage, as they are opposed to an extension of unemployment compensation so that we have some 90,000 workers a week, men and women who have contributed into the unemployment compensation fund that is in a surplus of $17 billion, and we find that the administration has opposed the request of our friend and colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, who along with others, has a dozen times requested that we take up a temporary extension of the unemployment compensation for workers. Not only that, as the Senator well knows, we have an administration that is opposed to overtime for 8 million workers in this country, of whom many are policemen, firefighters, and nurses, who are the backbone of our homeland security. People say, what could you do right away? They ask Senator Kerry, what can you do now? Well, you could do something today if you had different leadership that would make a significant and important impact on the lives of 7 million Americans with regard to the minimum wage, hundreds of thousand of workers regarding unemployment, and 8 million Americans with regard to overtime. That is what you can do today with different leadership, let alone what you could do if you had a President who was prepared to help eliminate the tax loopholes that send our jobs overseas; or they can try to bring in American companies and try to work with them to find ways of stabilizing this whole issue about the export of jobs and find ways of keeping them. There are many ways this can be done, but you will not get it done when you have a President who at noontime today said to the Governors: Everything is fine, the economy is growing, don't worry, we are just doing fine; everything is going along in a very positive way. I am troubled the message is not getting through.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this is an insult to Lucille Rocket of Durfee High School in Fall River. She works hard to bring smaller learning communities to school to help kids learn. She mentors teachers. She is an enormously constructive and positive person in the high school system as a member of the NEA in my State. Cathy Moriarty teaches at-risk second grade children in Springfield's gymnasium because they don't have enough classrooms. She believes the No Child Left Behind Act doesn't fund the needed support for smaller class size and better trained teachers. She is a member of an organization that speaks to that issue. She is proud of it. I am proud of her. Amanda Pellerin-Duck, who is in Springfield's Commerce High School, brought new curriculum on global issues to school. She cares about the quality of education and she has spoken out about the importance of making sure we are going to get it right with the No Child Left Behind. Ellen Peterson is a first grade teacher who helped new teachers on her own time. These teachers give of themselves every day. They are devoted to the children and they care deeply about the quality of education, and they are members of an organization that was insulted. Cindy Douglas teaches kindergarten in Franklin with limited supplies and does an extraordinary job. She believes this administration and this Nation should put funding of education at a higher priority. Those are real people who are members of this organization. We have not always agreed, the NEA and myself, on education issues. But I admire their work in my own State, and I admire the work they have done historically on education. I have been a member of that committee for 42 years. It is absolutely startling, Madam President. Probably for the time I have been on the committee, for 20 years, we never voted on any issue. Everything was bipartisan--all the education issues. We had it under a Republican, Senator Stafford, who is still alive, a wonderful elderly Senator from Vermont, and Senator Pell, a dear and valued friend of mine and my family, who is from Rhode Island. We never voted on education issues. They were bipartisan for 20-odd years. Most of us--at least I did--thought we had a bipartisan effort with this administration on the No Child Left Behind. We had extraordinary overwhelming support in this body and in the House of Representatives trying to get this job done. We were going to have reform, but with that, we have to have investment. We got the reform, but not the investment. We have left children, I believe, hanging high and dry. It is not just the Senator from Massachusetts saying it. It is also education leadership in the State of Utah, in Republican States alike that are talking about this. That is why, as we are trying to deal with an issue of such high importance and priority, we should be beyond and far away from the inappropriate use of terms in characterizing an organization that has worked so long and hard to improve the quality of education for the children in this country. This legislation, S. 2061, 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. This bill contains most of the same arbitrary and unreasonable provisions which were decisively rejected by a bipartisan majority of the Senate last year. The only difference is that last year's bill took basic rights away from all patients, while this bill takes those rights away only from women and newborn babies who are the victims of negligent obstetric and gynecological care. That change does not make the legislation more acceptable. On the contrary, it adds a new element of unfairness. The proponents argue that they are somehow doing these women and their babies a favor by depriving them of the right to fair compensation when they are seriously injured. It is an Alice in Wonderland argument which they are making. Under their proposal, a woman whose gynecologist negligently failed to diagnose her cervical cancer until it had spread and become incurable would be denied the same legal rights as a man whose doctor negligently failed to diagnose his prostate cancer until it was too late. Is that fair? By what convoluted logic would that woman be better off? Both the woman and the man were condemned to suffer a painful and premature death as a result of their doctors' malpractice, but her compensation would be severely limited while his would not. She would be denied the right to introduce the same evidence of medical negligence which he could. She would be denied the same freedom to select the lawyer of her choice which he had. She would be denied the right to have her case tried under the same judicial rules which he could. That hardly sounds like equal protection of the law to me. Yet, that is what the advocates of this legislation are proposing. Of course, this bill does not only take rights away from women. It takes them away from newborn babies who sustain devastating prenatal or delivery injuries as well. These children face a lifetime with severe mental and physical impairments all because of an obstetrician's malpractice or a defective drug or medical device. This legislation would limit the compensation they can receive for lost quality of life to $250,000--$250,000 for an entire lifetime! What could be more unjust? This is not a better bill because it applies only to patients injured by obstetrical and gynecological malpractice. That just makes it even more arbitrary. We must 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. 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; women and children whose entire lives have been devastated by medical neglect and corporate abuse. This proposal would shield HMOs that refuse to provide needed care, drug companies whose medicine has toxic side effects, and manufacturers of defective medical devices. 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. It would drastically limit the financial responsibility of the entire health care industry to compensate injured patients for the harm they have suffered. When will the Republican party start worrying about injured patients and stop trying to shield big business from the consequences of its wrongdoing? This legislation would deprive seriously injured patients of the right to recover fair compensation for their injuries by placing arbitrary caps on compensation for non-economic loss in all obstetrical and gynecological 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 the children 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. These are life-altering conditions. It would be terribly wrong to take their rights away. The Bush administration talks 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. 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. 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. Over the last 15 years, medical costs increased by 113 percent. The total amount spent on medical malpractice insurance rose just 52 percent over that period, less than half the rate of inflation for health care services. Data from the National Practitioners Data Bank shows the number of payouts by Ob/Gyns in medical malpractice cases is not increasing. It has been relatively stable over the last twelve years. In fact, there were 13 percent fewer payouts in 2002 than in 1991. Similarly, the total amount paid to settle malpractice claims against Ob/Gyns has remained flat over the past twelve years when adjusted for medical inflation. The evidence shows that contrary to the claims of those promoting this legislation, malpractice payouts are not causing the cost of health care to rise. 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. 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. If a Federal cap on non-economic 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. 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. Finally, I understand we will be voting on cloture tomorrow. We just had this legislation offered. We are here on a Monday. We are prepared for action and discussion, but we are being required to vote tomorrow. I intend to vote no on the cloture motion. This is an important issue affecting the quality of health and fairness and justice for millions of women and babies. It does not deserve to be rushed through the Senate. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.