Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, millions of Americans have seen corporations move their jobs overseas. Americans are losing jobs in every sector of our economy--not only in manufacturing, but also in computer technology, the service sector, and health care. Positions like call center technician, information technology specialist, and even health care worker are evaporating at an amazing clip. Experts estimate that 40 percent of Fortune 1000 companies are currently using some form of overseas outsourcing. As many as 3.3 million jobs may be offshored in the next 15 years, causing American workers to lose $136 billion in wages. Worst of all, we are losing jobs in sectors that once provided our economy with its greatest growth like the information technology sector. As many as 500,000 information technology jobs could go overseas in coming years. The tragedy of our disappearing jobs is about more than just numbers. This week, a Wisconsin auto parts manufacturer announced that it was moving 500 jobs overseas, putting an equivalent number of workers out on the street. IBM has announced plans to displace thousands of computer programmers by moving their work to other countries. These workers represent the human cost of offshore outsourcing. This cost--all too real for most Americans--is ignored by the Bush administration, whose chief economic advisor stated this week that outsourcing is ``a plus for the economy in the long run.'' Tell that to the 15 million Americans who are out of work today. Tell that to the millions more who had to settle for new jobs at lower pay. Tell that to the millions of Americans struggling every day to provide for their families, pay the bills, and cope with rising health care and college costs. What we are seeing is a President out of touch with the needs of working Americans. He thinks it is good to deny overtime pay to workers. He opposes an increase in the minimum wage. He opposes unemployment coverage for workers looking for new jobs. And now he wants to ship your jobs overseas. Exporting American jobs may help the bottom line on Wall Street, but it hurts the bottom lines of America's families. Today, we are saying enough is enough. If President Bush and his corporate pals want to send your job overseas, then they will be held accountable. The Jobs for America Act amends the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, WARN, Act to require companies to report whenever they lay off workers to send jobs overseas. When company plans to lay off workers and send those jobs overseas, they need to tell workers in advance. And they need to inform the Department of Labor, and local government officials. They will have to tell the public how many jobs are affected, where the jobs are going, and why they are being offshored. This act also requires the Department of Labor to compile much-needed statistics of offshored jobs and report them on an annual basis to the Congress and the public. Finally, it applies WARN Act protections to all cases where 50 or more workers are laid off. The bill shines a spotlight on offshoring practices--not only in corporate boardrooms but at the White House. It is time for President Bush and Corporate America to let every American know whether they stand only for more profits or whether they stand with the American people.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Reid, Leahy, Dodd, Harkin, Kerry, Feingold, Mikulski, Schumer, Murray, Durbin, Edwards, Clinton, Sarbanes, Lautenberg, Corzine, Landrieu, and Cantwell today in introducing the ``Fairness and Individual Rights Necessary to Ensure a Stronger Society: the Civil Rights Act of 2004''. This legislation, the ``Fairness Act,'' is vital to realizing the full promise of, the numerous Federal laws that have been enacted to guarantee civil rights and fair labor practices for all our citizens. 2004 is an especially significant year in commemorating the historic landmarks in America's struggle for civil rights. On January 15, we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King. On May 17, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education. And on July 2, we will celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These historic milestones make this year not only a time for celebration, but also a time to reaffirm our commitment to the cause of civil rights, which is still the unfinished business of America. We must continue moving toward the goal for which so many have given so much across the years. The bipartisan civil rights laws that have been enacted over the past forty years have made our Nation stronger, better, and fairer. Civil rights is at its heart the ongoing, daily struggle to live up to what is best about America--our fundamental belief in equal opportunity and equal justice for all. The Fairness Act is part of that continuing effort. Its goal is to guarantee that victims of discrimination and unfair labor practices have access to the courts when necessary to enforce their rights and to obtain effective remedies. As Congress has long realized, full enforcement of civil rights and fair labor practices is possible only if individuals are able to petition the courts. Our proposals will strengthen existing protections, often in cases where the courts have let us down by adopting unacceptably narrow interpretations of existing law. We recognize as well that Congress has not always made its intent clear in enacting specific and detailed provisions of these laws. Unfortunately, recent court decisions have limited the private right to seek relief and to obtain effective remedies under many of our civil rights and labor laws. Cases like Alexander v. Sandoval and Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents have effectively closed the courthouse door on many persons seeking relief they deserve from discriminatory practices. Key elements of our proposals will make it easier for working women to enforce their right to equal pay for equal work. We enhance protections against discrimination in federally funded services and enact needed safeguards for students who are harassed because of their national origin, gender, race, or disability. We also make sure that victims of discrimination and unfair labor practices can receive meaningful damages where appropriate. Our legislation will allow enable members of our armed forces to enforce their federal right to be free from discrimination by States because of their military status. In addition, our proposals will ensure that older workers who suffer age discrimination are not denied the chance to seek relief merely because they work for a state government. We also stop employers from requiring workers to sign away their right to bring discrimination claims and fair labor claims to court, in order to get a job or keep a job. These and other important proposals included in the Fairness Act are an essential part of our commitment to make Dr. King's dream a reality for everyone in every community in our country. To those who say that now is not the time to seek this new progress, we reply, as Dr. King himself replied, now is always the time for civil rights. We know our cause is just. As Dr. King reminded us, ``the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Reid, Leahy, Dodd, Harkin, Kerry, Feingold, Mikulski, Schumer, Murray, Durbin, Edwards, Clinton, Sarbanes, Lautenberg, Corzine, Landrieu, and Cantwell today in introducing the ``Fairness and Individual Rights Necessary to Ensure a Stronger Society: the Civil Rights Act of 2004''. This legislation, the ``Fairness Act,'' is vital to realizing the full promise of, the numerous Federal laws that have been enacted to guarantee civil rights and fair labor practices for all our citizens. 2004 is an especially significant year in commemorating the historic landmarks in America's struggle for civil rights. On January 15, we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King. On May 17, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education. And on July 2, we will celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These historic milestones make this year not only a time for celebration, but also a time to reaffirm our commitment to the cause of civil rights, which is still the unfinished business of America. We must continue moving toward the goal for which so many have given so much across the years. The bipartisan civil rights laws that have been enacted over the past forty years have made our Nation stronger, better, and fairer. Civil rights is at its heart the ongoing, daily struggle to live up to what is best about America--our fundamental belief in equal opportunity and equal justice for all. The Fairness Act is part of that continuing effort. Its goal is to guarantee that victims of discrimination and unfair labor practices have access to the courts when necessary to enforce their rights and to obtain effective remedies. As Congress has long realized, full enforcement of civil rights and fair labor practices is possible only if individuals are able to petition the courts. Our proposals will strengthen existing protections, often in cases where the courts have let us down by adopting unacceptably narrow interpretations of existing law. We recognize as well that Congress has not always made its intent clear in enacting specific and detailed provisions of these laws. Unfortunately, recent court decisions have limited the private right to seek relief and to obtain effective remedies under many of our civil rights and labor laws. Cases like Alexander v. Sandoval and Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents have effectively closed the courthouse door on many persons seeking relief they deserve from discriminatory practices. Key elements of our proposals will make it easier for working women to enforce their right to equal pay for equal work. We enhance protections against discrimination in federally funded services and enact needed safeguards for students who are harassed because of their national origin, gender, race, or disability. We also make sure that victims of discrimination and unfair labor practices can receive meaningful damages where appropriate. Our legislation will allow enable members of our armed forces to enforce their federal right to be free from discrimination by States because of their military status. In addition, our proposals will ensure that older workers who suffer age discrimination are not denied the chance to seek relief merely because they work for a state government. We also stop employers from requiring workers to sign away their right to bring discrimination claims and fair labor claims to court, in order to get a job or keep a job. These and other important proposals included in the Fairness Act are an essential part of our commitment to make Dr. King's dream a reality for everyone in every community in our country. To those who say that now is not the time to seek this new progress, we reply, as Dr. King himself replied, now is always the time for civil rights. We know our cause is just. As Dr. King reminded us, ``the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, most of us who had an opportunity to get home to our own States and perhaps travel around the country recently have found a number of concerns of working families. It is pretty uniform. I certainly have found it so in my travels in the State of New Hampshire and Iowa, out in the Southwest, Midwest, over recent weeks. One of the enduring issues, I find, that is uniform across the country is the state of our economy. It is reflected in a variety of different ways. It might be reflected in one family which finds that increased college tuition is putting an extreme burden on a family budget. Maybe another family has the high cost of prescription drugs that is putting an extraordinary burden on those under Medicare and Social Security and the savings of other members of the family. It may be those who have lost jobs and have gotten back in the job market and actually found a job, but they are concerned because their incomes are generally 23, 24, 25-percent less with the new job than the old job. By and large, the state of our economy is an ongoing concern, and it doesn't have to be this way. We have seen when we have had strong Presidential leadership--and the most recent case was with President Clinton where we had extraordinary economic growth, price stability, virtually free from inflation, and we had the creation of 22 million jobs. I don't think an administration can continuously say that jobs are going to be better, that we are having a military conflict, we inherited a recession, and there is nothing more we can do. I reject that, and I think most economists do, and many political leaders do as well. We have to look at what we can do in a very temporary way in the Senate. One of the mechanisms that we can provide is to extend the unemployment compensation for men and women who have paid into that fund over the years, and now we are seeing that Republicans are blocking having even a temporary extension of unemployment compensation funds, even though the fund itself is in surplus of some $17 billion. That is being rejected. As a matter of fact, we are seeing parliamentary gymnastics being used on the floor of the Senate to even prohibit a vote in the Senate to get accountability by Members of the Senate on this issue. Those on the other side say: No way; we are going to use the parliamentary gymnastics so you will not even get a vote, Senator Cantwell, on your unemployment issue, and, no, Senator Clinton, on one of the glaring economic policy issues of this administration, and that is shipping jobs overseas. Can you imagine that? The administration's spokesperson said shipping jobs overseas is to the advantage of the American economy. Why don't we debate that on the Senate floor and find out who on the other side wants to defend shipping jobs overseas? You cannot travel around this country and go to any community and not hear workers' fear about outsourcing and shipping jobs overseas. You cannot do it. Here, the Senator from New York wants to get a debate and discussion about what we ought to do about that. Members of this body have ideas on what we ought to be doing and they want to express their views. But, no, they are cut off. No. No, you cannot do it. We are going to use the rules of the Senate to prohibit that kind of discussion and debate and prohibit some kind of resolution, some accountability by Members. Maybe there are those who want to do it. I think the American people would have more respect for us if we vote up or down on that resolution. But, no, our Republican friends say, no, we don't want to--I say this--embarrass our Members by having to take a tough vote on it. I don't blame them. But it is poor solace to those workers when they find out at last what the economic policies of this administration are and they value sending the jobs overseas. That is what we are going to attempt. Madam President, I want to review what the job situation has been over the period of these recent years and measure where we are with what was actually predicted by President Bush and the Bush administration. I think by looking at this at least we can begin to understand why the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, wanted to have an extension of the unemployment compensation. Ninety thousand workers a week are losing their unemployment compensation. I don't know how they get by. You are going to see that real wages have gone down. Most families are having a tough time, and they live from paycheck to paycheck. They are paying the mortgage, putting food on the table, and clothing their children, perhaps putting something aside for higher education. How are they going to deal with the fact that when they lose jobs, through no fault of their own, they are going to be denied a helping hand to deal with the cyclical factors that impacted our economy? Look at what this chart shows. This says: ``Every year, job growth falls short of the Bush promises.'' This goes back to the year 2001. The difference between what this administration promised in 2001 and where we are today is represented by 5.2 million jobs. Do you understand that? The promise in 2002 was that we would have 5.2 million jobs more than we have today. We missed the prediction by 5 million jobs. Now, in 2003, the President makes a different judgment about where we are going to be in 2003. He is only off by 2.5 million jobs for 2003. This line represents what was predicted by the Bush administration in 2002. This line here is what they predicted in 2003, and this orange line is the reality. Let's look at it in another way. This chart shows a purple line, what was actually predicted by the Bush administration for 2002 promise. These are the number of new jobs predicted. We heard the other day about the administration predicting new jobs. All you have to do is look at their predictions over time and you can see how much value we ought to give those predictions. Here it is: 2001 is the purple line, and 2002 is the green line, 2003 is the blue line, all going up there. The actual jobs are represented by the red line, showing that we have lost 2.5 million jobs. Those are the facts. As a result of the fact that we have lost those 2.5 million jobs, let's just look at what has happened in terms of the average wages for the jobs that we have retained in the United States. The jobs gained do not pay as much as the jobs lost, this chart says. This is the average wage--the national average for 2001, which was $44,570. Today, it is $30,410. That is a reduction of 21 percent for average wages for workers in this country. Not only have we seen the loss of jobs, but even for the jobs that have been retained, we have seen the income going down, headed south. Not only is this the reality of what is happening in the job market, but also our Republican friends want to eliminate any opportunity for these families to gain additional funds with overtime. That is what is happening out there across this country. Now we hear, well, we have had a recession, but we have come out of the recession and everything is going to be OK. Everything is just going to be hunky-dory in terms of the labor market area and wages for American workers. Look at this chart. If you compare what happened in the 1990s, up through 1998, and to the year 2000, in the fourth quarter of each of the recessions that took place during that period of time, you will find in the last quarter of the recession during that period of 8 to 10 years, the job was paying $18.30 an hour. The old jobs were paying $16.31 an hour. Now in this last recovery that this administration says is so great, look at this: The average job was paying $16.92 an hour, and the new jobs are paying $15.65 an hour. The new jobs are paying a good deal less. It says just what the other chart says. So not only are we not reaching the job goals, they missed it by 5 million. Even the jobs that are being created, the pay is 20, 25 percent less. Let's look at what has happened in terms of the number of those who are long-term unemployed. Look at this chart. Compared to what it was in January 2000, when we had 680,000 people unemployed, it was 1.9 million people in January of 2004. These are the long-term unemployed. These are the men and women who have been looking for jobs, trying to get jobs. This doesn't even measure the number of people who have become so discouraged, they are not even looking any longer. We have an enormous number of people who are looking for jobs. This chart is probably more reflective of the problem. From 1973 to 2003, the average number of unemployed in January: 151,000. That is through good times and recessions. Today it is 375,000. These figures are from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. It is 375,000, more than double the average. That is why we are asking: Why can't we reach out to these workers? These are hard-working Americans who paid into the fund over a long period and are entitled to those payments. The fund is $17 billion in surplus. The proposal of Senator Cantwell would cost $7 billion. We have 90,000 workers a week who are losing out on this amount. Look at the contrast between this administration and the previous administration on unemployment compensation to workers. Let's look at the difference. In the early 1990s, when we were facing a recession, coming into 1990, 1991, and early 1992, we had an increase in unemployment. The previous administration, the Clinton administration, kept the extension on unemployment compensation until we had grown 2.9 million jobs. Then they terminated it, as they should; we were in a period of very significant expansion. Look at where we are now. We have lost 2.4 million jobs, and we have terminated unemployment compensation. Do you see the contrast between the two administrations and how they reached out to working families? Nonetheless, we are denied the opportunity to even consider an amendment that was going to be offered by the Senator from Washington to permit some 6 months and have the temporary workers. This is what is happening as a result: We have a decline in purchasing power for workers; we have an administration that is against overtime, an administration that is against extending unemployment compensation, against any kind of increase in the minimum wage. There are 7 million Americans who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage, and this is what has happened: More than half of the unemployed adults have had to postpone medical treatment--that is 57 percent--or cut back on spending for food. That is happening in America. They had to postpone important medical treatment or cut back on food. One in four has had to move to other housing. We are talking about workers who have worked hard, played by the rules, struggled for their families, and this is our answer to them: Let's do a parliamentary trick so you can't have a vote on extending unemployment compensation. That is the answer of the other side. We are not even going to give you a vote on the issue. This is what is happening to fellow Americans: 38 percent have lost telephone service; 22 percent are worried they will lose their money; more than a third have trouble paying gas or electric bills. These are real problems. The list goes on. What is the impact? We have been talking about dollars and cents, but we haven't talked about the quality of life of these workers and what they go through: 77 percent of unemployed Americans say the level of stress in their family has increased. That is understandable. We don't think about it. I don't know how you put a dollar figure on that. Two-thirds of those with children have cut back on spending on their children. This is an issue not only for workers, it is an issue for their children as well. It is a children's issue. It is a family issue. We heard a great deal on the other side about family issues, family values. We have one right here on unemployment compensation. This is a children's issue, a family issue. Twenty-six percent say another family member had to start a job or increase hours; 23 percent had to interrupt their education. That is nice, isn't it? The children of these workers had to drop out of school because a member of their family--their father or mother--has been laid off and cannot get the resources to go to school. We hear a good deal from the other side: Senator Kennedy, you don't just understand. We have a recovery. It is on the way. It is taking place today. You just don't understand it. These problems will all be resolved. Right? Wrong. Look at this chart. The Bush economy corporate profits ballooned compared to workers' wages. Look in the early 1990s--this chart is 1993--when we were recovering. When we had the recovery, workers' wages represented 60 percent of the economic expansion during this time. The percent that went to corporate profits was 39.74 percent; 60 percent for wages, 39 percent for corporate profits. We all heard at the time of the President's State of the Union Address those descriptions about how the economy was doing so well, profits were up, expanding the American economy. Look at today's recovery: 87 percent in profits, 13 percent in wages. I don't know how many other indicators we need to understand what is happening to workers in America. They are hurting, and hurting badly. Many of them need the kind of help that unemployment compensation provides. At other times, with different administrations, with a Democratic administration, we were prepared, particularly when the fund was in surplus and particularly when these workers have paid into the fund--we were willing to extend that unemployment compensation. There have been 11 times in the last few weeks that Members of this body on this side of the aisle have requested we have an extension of unemployment compensation. The House of Representatives voted for it, including 39 Republicans. But this Republican leadership says: No, no way; fill up the tree; get all kinds of procedural blocks to make sure we don't even bring it up and we don't have a vote. American workers ought to understand this point. That is against the background of the leading economic advisers explaining to the President of the United States that we are better off if we ship more jobs overseas. And this institution, that should be debating national policy, is being shut down by those who don't want to hear the debate and don't want accountability. That is a great mistake. It is a mistake, most of all, for our workers and their families, it is a mistake for our economy, and it is a mistake for our country. I join with others who will say these issues are not going away. You may be able to get a little block here and a little block there, but we are going to bring these issues up time and again. We have that responsibility to these workers and their families, and they should recognize that we are not going to retreat; we are not going to step back. We are going to do everything that is necessary to make sure we are going to get the economic justice these workers deserve. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely right. I know the Senator is in disbelief of the gall the administration would have to take $23 million out of Medicare to use it with their own ad agency for mailings to 40 million seniors and to use on the airwaves in support of a bill and in misrepresenting the bill itself. I took a moment of time to show how the ad itself is so misrepresentative of what is in the bill. But the Senator is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. If he is here on the relevant part, I would be glad to wait. That is an enormously important sector of it. I intend to speak very briefly about it, but I don't intend to be longer than that.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes for their bold transit proposal that is before us. Throughout this process, they have been resolute in their defense of mass transit and the result is the proposal that benefits cities across this country. Simply put, mass transit, subways, commuter rail, and rapid transit is the lifeblood of metropolitan economies. We cannot expect our cities to remain the enormous economic engines they are today unless we make the critical investments. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently released a study that shows U.S. metropolitan areas have accounted for 87 percent of the Nation's economic growth and have generated over 85 percent of the economic output, labor, income, and jobs over the past 10 years. Eighty-seven percent of the Nation's economic growth was from the cities. When we consider statistics like these, I think my colleagues will agree this Senate should invest in transportation resources in a manner that benefits America's metropolitan areas. I am particularly happy to report that the package crafted by Senators Shelby and Sarbanes does just that, and all of us in the Senate are truly in their debt. On another matter, I strongly support the Public Safety Employer and Employee Cooperation Act amendment. I commend my colleague of the HELP Committee, Chairman Judd Gregg, for sponsoring the Public Safety Employer and Employee Cooperation Act, and for offering it as an amendment on this bill. I am a cosponsor on this bill which was reported out of the committee last fall. We are joined by 25 other sponsors of the Senate, including a number of our Republican colleagues. Our public safety workers play a tremendous role in protecting our communities and families. I remember the extraordinary courage we saw among those rescue workers, among those firefighters, and among those police officers on September 11 in 2001. They entered those burning buildings, risking their lives, and after the buildings fell, they raised an American flag amid the ruins. That image captures perfectly what these brave men and women do. They not only protect homes and our lives, they represent the very best that is in us. The courage and the sacrifice of ordinary working Americans is our Nation's greatest strength. We were prepared to call on these men and women on 9/11, and they answered the call. It is time to honor them--to honor their service and their sacrifice--by giving them collective bargaining rights. For more than 60 years, collective bargaining has enabled labor and management to work together to improve job conditions and to increase productivity. These productive relationships also help workers to obtain better wages, better health benefits and pension benefits. Collective bargaining in the public sector, once controversial, is now widely accepted. It has been common at least since 1962 when President Kennedy signed an executive order granting these basic rights to Federal employees. Indeed, over 30 States already recognize bargaining rights for these employees. Unfortunately, public safety employees in many States still lack the right to bargain collectively. They lack a voice on the job. By giving them this voice, we will not only help these brave workers, but we will also increase the safety and effectiveness of our public services. This amendment guarantees the fundamental rights necessary for collective bargaining--the right to form and join a union, the right to bargain over working conditions, and the right to legally enforceable contracts. The benefits of this legislation are clear and compelling. First, this amendment will improve public safety. Our firefighters and police officers are better equipped than anyone else to know how to improve our public safety. As the former president of the Fraternal Order of Police testified at a congressional hearing in 2000: ``Public safety service is delivered by rank-and-file officers. Therefore, it is their observations and experience which will best refine the delivery of service. To exclude them from having any input relating to their job, particularly when their lives are on the line, is not only unfair to the officers, but the public they are sworn to protect.'' Unfortunately, many public safety officers do not have this right today. They risk their jobs when they speak out about working conditions that are a danger to themselves and the public. Take, for example, the firefighters in Springdale, Arkansas, who testified to the city council about the need for better equipment in staffing. He was fired for insubordination. Or the firefighters in Odessa, Texas, who set up a Web site and newsletter publicizing the fire department's failure to provide them protective masks in the case of a chemical attack and were interrogated and disciplined for their actions. There are too many examples like this of public safety workers who see inadequate staffing and equipment, placing themselves and the public at risk, who do not have the right to bargain to change the problems in a contract. Our public safety employees know best what is needed to keep us safe. Under this amendment they would have the right to negotiate these workplace conditions with cities and towns they serve. This will lead to greater cooperation, improved labor-management relations, and better service. One example of this success can be found right here with the Capitol Police. When the Capitol Police were granted collective bargaining rights, their contract provided for a joint labor-management relations committee to review police practices, equipment, and officers' safety. As a result of these discussions, the United States Capitol Police were given greater access to body armor and upgraded weapons. Over a year before September 11, 2001, our officers were already aware of the need for increased security in the Capitol buildings, something we are reminded of every day, particularly this week. Collective bargaining is also more cost effective. A study by the International Association of Firefighters shows some States and municipalities that have given firefighters the right to discuss workplace issues have lower fire department budgets than States without such laws. Not only would collective bargaining benefit the public, it would help these employees who do so much to protect us. Every year more than 15,000 police officers and 75,000 firefighters are injured on the job. On average, 160 police officers and nearly 100 firefighters die in the line of duty each year. This amendment gives these workers the opportunity to discuss the on-the-job safety concerns with the management. It would also give workers a chance to improve their wages and benefits. Public safety employees without collective bargaining rights are often paid less than their representative counterparts. In some of these States, it is not unheard of for firefighters to earn less than $18,400, the Federal poverty level for a family of four. Many of these workers have to pay for their own health insurance. This costs thousands of dollars a year they cannot afford. Some of my colleagues have previously expressed concern that this legislation affects States rights and public safety. This amendment would preserve States rights. Each State would maintain and administer its own collective bargaining law. States would have the ability to decide how they want to provide the collective bargaining rights. Indeed, the majority of the States already meet the amendment's criteria. This amendment also recognizes the importance of community security. I strongly believe our police officers and firefighters will always act to protect the safety of the public first. However, in order to ensure there is no possible risk to this, this amendment expressly prohibits the right to strike. My colleagues should, therefore, have no concern that this would in any way compromise the safety of our cities and our neighborhoods. The Federal Government recognized the right to collective bargaining more than 60 years ago. Public safety workers are one of the largest sectors of the workplace who do not yet have that basic right. Our Nation's police officers, firefighters, and emergency rescue workers have earned that right. I urge my colleagues to give them that right by supporting this amendment. Medicare Mr. President, on another matter, the administration is robbing the Medicare Program to finance the Bush reelection campaign. That is wrong. Today, we call on the Comptroller General of the United States to investigate the legality, propriety, and accuracy of this unprecedented and improper use of taxpayers' money. The Washington Post describes the ads the Bush administration is running as designed to build public support for the new Medicare prescription drug law, seeking to counteract Democratic criticism that changes to the program will harm older Americans. The $12.6 million of Medicare money the Bush administration will spend on these ads is on top of the $10 million they plan to spend on a deceptive mailing to all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries touting the new law. There is no purpose for these advertisements except to convince senior citizens the Medicare bill is good for them. They are nothing more than propaganda for the Bush reelection campaign, using $23 million of senior citizens' own Medicare money. The merits of the new law are a legitimate subject for political debate. Democrats intend to keep talking about this issue all the way to November. We will be fighting to rewrite this deeply flawed and destructive bill. President Bush will be claiming credit for it, defending it, as he did in the State of the Union Message. He is entitled to do that. But he is not entitled to use senior citizens' own money, the taxpayers' own money, to sell this bill like a car or a cake of soap so the President can improve his fading chances of reelection. For those who have not seen the advertisement, it features actors pretending to be Medicare beneficiaries. Every question the actors ask is answered with a variant of a simple-minded slogan which is shown throughout the advertisement: Same Medicare, more benefits. The advertising campaign is managed--listen to this--the advertising campaign is managed by the same firm that works for the Bush reelection campaign and for the drug industry. If there is anyone who thinks the sole purpose of these ads is not to promote President Bush's reelection, they must come from another planet, maybe Mars. There is a lot the ads and mailings do not tell the senior citizens because the Bush administration understandably does not want them to know the facts of the new law. Its bland assurance that the elderly can keep their Medicare does not tell them the administration's own estimates project over $50 billion in excess payments to Medicare HMOs in order to prevent Medicare from competing on a level playing field and ultimately privatizing the whole program. It does not tell them up to 6 million senior citizens will be forced into a vast demonstration program that will require them to pay higher premiums if they want to keep their Medicare. It does not tell them if the insurance company offering the drug benefit in their area charges a premium that is too high or does not cover the drugs doctors prescribe, the only way they can get the drug benefit is to leave regular Medicare and join an HMO or other private insurance plan. It does not tell them that. There is a lot more this ad leaves out. It does not tell senior citizens the bill has provided over $100 billion in windfall profits for the pharmaceutical companies and that the Government is prohibited from negotiating better prices for senior citizens. It does not tell them almost 3 million senior citizens will lose good retirement coverage and be forced into the inadequate Government program. It does not tell them if they are poor and on Medicaid they will have to pay more for drugs they need and have less access to the drugs their doctor prescribes. It does not tell them if they wait a year or two and see how the program turns out before they join it, they have to pay higher premiums. In fact, it does not even tell them they will have to pay a premium. It does not tell them they are prohibited from using their own money to buy supplemental coverage to fill in the gaps in the inadequate Medicare benefit. It does not tell senior citizens the Bush administration misrepresented to their own party and to the American people the costs of the bill. The more senior citizens learn about this program, the angrier they become. I predict when they learn this misleading ad, designed to help the President's reelection campaign, is paid for by their own Medicare money, they are going to be even angrier. Unemployment Finally, I bring to the attention of the Senate an excellent report, the Economic Policy Institute report that talks about the wage and salary income for workers in this country. It is an ominous report and is something all Members who have been traveling around our States certainly have found out in talking to any of the workers. I ask unanimous consent to have the document printed.

Mr. KENNEDY. Probably 20 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield without losing the right to the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. It is a relevant point. If the Senator is here and wants to make a brief statement on it, I would be glad to yield now if I have the right to follow.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a consent request? I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed after the Senator from Delaware finishes.

Mr. KENNEDY. This is the first time in over 50 years that long-term joblessness has reached such high rates. Mr. President, 22.3 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for more than 6 months. Without workers being offered any Federal job benefits, every week 90,000 workers are running out of unemployment benefits. In the Senate, we have tried more than a dozen times to extend the unemployment benefits to ensure that those workers can continue to support their families while they look for a job. More than a dozen times our Republican colleagues have said no. The White House has been silent on the issue claiming ``mission accomplished'' on the economy while millions of Americans remain out of work. The Bush economy continues to create only one job for every three people out of work. But yesterday we finally had some good news. Our colleagues in the House recognized the unemployment crisis and voted, 227 to 179-- including 39 Republicans--to reinstate the Federal unemployment benefits for 6 months. Workers have paid into the unemployment insurance trust fund. The trust fund is now $17 billion. The extension would cost $6 billion to $7 billion. This is a matter of fairness. In December, only 1,000 new jobs were created. Tomorrow we will find out how many jobs were created in January. I hope it is good news. But I can assure you right now, it will not be enough to restore the 2.4 million jobs lost under President Bush or enough to ensure that every worker who wants a job can have one. That is why we need to reinstate the unemployment benefits. Americans are suffering. They are struggling to pay their mortgages and keep food on their families' tables. If the House of Representatives can accept this, in a bipartisan way, with 39 Republicans, you would think we would be able to accept it and not have it continually blocked. I will just show a chart. This chart shows the average number of out- of-work Americans running out of unemployment benefits without finding a job from 1973 to 2003. For 30 years it has averaged 151,000. In January of this year, 375,000. Our Republican friends refuse-- absolutely refuse--to permit the continued help and assistance which those workers have paid into the unemployment compensation fund, which today is $17 billion in surplus. The House of Representatives has accepted it. Thirty-nine Republicans went along with it. I wait, as many of our colleagues, for the amendment that will be offered by our friend and colleague, a leader on this issue, Senator Cantwell, who will offer that amendment; and it will give an opportunity for the Senate to address this issue. But I also point out--I see my leader in the Chamber--the Economic Policy Institute, on February 4, issued a presentation of which I cite a chart entitled ``Real growth in wages and salaries, 25 months since recession's end.'' They go back to 1961, 1970, 1975, 1982, 1991, and 2001. In the 25 months since the recession ended, wages and salaries have only grown 0.4 percent. It is the lowest in the history of any economic recovery that has ever been recorded.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the Senator is absolutely correct. A total of $23 million will be money that is paid in for our seniors. It is taking that money that was to be used for the protection of our seniors, and it says $12 million--$6 million will be spent on the television. That is on top of the $10 million that will be done for a mailing to all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. The ad house that is handling this is in charge of the Bush administration's reelection campaign.

Mr. KENNEDY. Please.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct, although he is not entirely correct. The bonuses that are going to the HMOs--some $12 billion now will go to the HMOs to treat any person who would qualify for Medicare. They will get a 25-percent bonus over Medicare with direct subsidies, which is not a level playing field, of which we hear so much from the other side, but direct subsidies. Those subsidies start in March of this year. So you are right, the benefits are way down the road. The benefits that will affect the poorest of the poor are going to be after 2006. But the payoffs, the bonuses to the HMOs of $12 billion will start in March. In fact, the Administration's own internal estimates, that were kept secret from the American people, and have just been released, indicate that the payoffs will be more than $50 billion. So I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. Education and Health Care Mr. President, I want to make a brief comment about the impact of the budget in two important areas; that is, how it relates to the education of the children in this country and, secondly, how it relates to the issues of health care and health care coverage. Just about every age group will be hurt by this budget. This budget hurts children, hurts our economy, and I believe, it hurts our democracy. The latest Bush budget does not help young children start school ready to learn. It does not fund public school reform and improvement. It does not extend college opportunity. It does not train workers for new jobs that are needed because of the Bush Administration's poor stewardship of this economy. For young children and parents, the President's budget cuts the very sound Even Start literacy program. This program helps not only children learn to read but it helps their parents learn to read. By helping previously illiterate or barely literate parents and children learn to read at the same time, you see a quantum increase in both groups' academic achievement and accomplishment. It has been one of the most successful programs we have in terms of expanding literacy in this country. That program is eliminated by the Bush budget. Over 1 million children and parents will not get Even Start literacy training under the Bush budget. For children in grade school, once again, the President has reneged on his pledge to leave no child behind. This budget leaves over 4.6 million children behind. They will not get better teachers or smaller classes or after-school help they were promised. In fact, every year President Bush has been in office, he has shortchanged by greater and greater amounts his promise to fund the No Child Left Behind Act. In 2002, President Bush shortchanged No Child Left Behind by $4.2 billion; in 2003, $5.4 billion; in 2004 by $7.6 billion; and this year by $9.4 billion. In total, President Bush has broken his No Child Left Behind promise by over $26 billion since the day it was signed into law. That law provided reform in the education of our K through 12th grades. But what we understood when we passed the law was that if we were going to have reform in our education system we had to fund it. That was what was at the heart of the No Child Left Behind Act, the concept of resources for school reform and improvement, and why it had very broad bipartisan support. If we had reform, in terms of better trained teachers and after- school programs that provided supplementary services, curriculum reforms, and the range of different types of parental involvement, and the kind of help and assistance for those needy schools that needed help and assistance, it was going to require resources to bring the 9 million children, who are the children who are basically the target of No Child Left Behind, up to proficiency over a 12-year period, and all of them had to be included. That was the agreement. That is why we spent a good deal of time in those negotiations working out what was going to be actually the authorization, because we knew those funds were going to be necessary to be able to achieve those kinds of reforms. We find out now it has been $26 billion short since the time that law was signed. This budget eliminates 38 different education programs. It eliminates the gifted and talented education. It eliminates the dropout prevention programs. We have schools in this country where they have 30 or 40 or even 50 percent of their children who drop out between the 8th grade and the 12th grade. It is even higher in a number of different schools that I know about. We have about 540,000 children who drop out every single year. The attempt in terms of No Child Left Behind Act was to try to reach out and find these children and move them back into the education system. When you eliminate any of the dropout prevention programs, you are basically giving up on hundreds of thousands of children. We know what happens to these children if they are not challenged or helped or assisted or given a helping hand to get back into the education system. One of the most successful new ideas in education has been in the areas where you have very large schools, to try and break those schools down to create smaller schools within the larger schools. It has been extraordinarily successful. I visited those schools myself in a number of cities in this country. I can remember visiting them in Chicago, as well as in my own city of Boston. We have seen the difference that has made in terms of moving into what we call the ``smaller schools,'' which get smaller class sizes, more intensive kinds of relationships between the teachers and these children. We have seen it has demonstrated to have a marked improvement in terms of academic achievement and accomplishment. Despite all the research on the value of small schools, President Bush wants to eliminate support for smaller learning communities. It just doesn't make sense. Another program which has had a very significant success has been the Star Schools Program. What we recognized in many States, even including my own, when the State budget is cramped, it is difficult enough to get a well-trained teacher in physics or in the more advanced science areas. Nonetheless, you will have some very gifted and talented children in that school who have an aptitude for math or for science, and the Star Schools Program basically said, with the establishment in the school of what it costs--approximately $1,500 for a receptor--you have a very highly trained educator who teaches those children by distance learning. They can teach 2,000 or 3,000 children and provide help to maybe a handful of children in a particular school district who have a great aptitude in math and science but do not have the kind of academic teacher who can help them. The Star Schools Program has been invaluable in many different parts of the country. The technology reviews have shown that these children can learn almost as well with this kind of instruction as they can with a teacher in front of them. That program has effectively been eliminated. For the college students, I refer to the Department of Education Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary. Since this President took office, public college tuition is up 26 percent, according to the College Board. Yet the Bush budget provides zero increase for Pell Grant student aid. On page 52 of the Administration's Education Budget Summary, it says, Pell grants: 2003, $4,050; 2004, $4,050; 2005, $4,050. That zero increase in the face of rising tuition. No help. The average income of a Pell recipient is $15,000. These are gifted, talented, hard-working young people who can get into any school, any college in the country, who have to struggle by nature and by circumstances. That Pell grant has been a lifeline to them in terms of their ability to go on to school and to college. And what is the answer of the administration to these young people: Go out and borrow more. See what you can do with your repayments to the banks. That is bad education policy, and it makes very little sense. For those out of work or in jobs but seeking to upgrade their skills, this budget adds $250 million for community college, but at the same time the Bush administration has cut $900 million in job training programs over the past three years. For similar programs, they are going to get $250 million, but with the other hand we're going to try to take $900 million. It just doesn't make sense. So whether it is the very young children, whether it is the children who are going K-12, whether it is the children who are going to college, or whether it is the men and women trying to get new job training, these programs, which I believe are a national priority, have been reduced. If any one of my colleagues at any time went to any hall anyplace in America and asked the American people how much out of a dollar of Federal money is being spent for education and what would they like it to be--I have done that several times--they will find out, after national security, which is No. 1, they talk about Medicare and Social Security--that is right up there--and right after that comes education. They hope it is 20 percent, 15 percent, 18 percent. Then when they find out that it is about 2 percent, less than 2 percent and declining, they are absolutely appalled. Not that money answers everything, but the money is a reflection of a national priority. This business about making choices, $2.4 trillion in this budget and shortchanging the investment in education of our children, that is what this is. I would be glad to debate it in very considerable detail with any of my colleagues and will at any time. I want to add a word with regard to the health care situation, the general concerns that I find in traveling around my own State. People are concerned primarily by two issues. One is the cost of health care and the other is whether they can find affordable coverage in health care insurance. There is virtually nothing in this budget in terms of controlling cost. We gave up a great opportunity when we passed the alleged Medicare reform bill to permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to actually negotiate with the drug companies like the Veterans' Administration can to bring lower costs to our seniors. But that proposal was rejected by the administration and by the Republican majority. As a result, we have seen the continued escalation of cost, and costs will continue to rise. There is virtually nothing in this legislation to do anything about getting a handle on health care costs. And with regard to health insurance coverage, we see we have cut Medicaid. A million people who qualify for Medicaid are going to be off Medicaid. Half of those are going to be children, the poorest of the poor. A half a million are going to be without the Medicaid coverage that provides very good coverage for the children. National priorities? There are close to a trillion dollars in tax breaks in this budget, but denying Medicaid coverage to 500,000 children, the neediest of the children, that is a matter of choice. We will have a chance to debate it. We are now just talking about what is in the President's proposal. The insurance industry and the trade associations did very well in the budget. Health savings accounts will benefit, which are products of the insurance companies. Health savings accounts get about $24 billion over a 10-year period with the initiative in this budget. Association health plans will do very well for the trade associations, even though those plans will mean an increase in the cost of premiums for health insurance for others. Then we have the proposal for tax credits for health insurance. That is really some proposal. The budget includes a proposal to give a $1,000 tax credit for health insurance to an individual--but the coverage actually costs $4,000. The budget also proposes giving families a $3,000 credit, but a family policy costs nearly $10,000. That is like throwing someone who is in the river needing help a 4-foot line, when they need a 10-foot line to save them. Just try to find a family health insurance policy that is worthy of its name for $3,000 in this country. We know that is completely unrealistic. Finally, when we talk about fighting disease, take AIDS or TB, there is a cut of some $356 million for CDC. Two major bioterrorism programs have been cut $144 million. These programs provide the assistance to contain a bioterrorist attack locally. You need the initial help to the primary responders, who are police and firefighters and nurses. Then you need to contain a disease outbreak. For that, we need to help our hospitals and our other health clinics in order to contain disease outbreaks so they do not spread. That is particularly important, as anybody who has listened to the experts on bioterrorism will tell you. Those programs have been seriously cut. Then the most amazing reduction is the CDC cut, $364 million, when we are confronting the danger of SARS, Ebola, other dangers that come from countries all over the world. Under Dr. Gerberding, who has been an outstanding public servant at the Centers for Disease Control, CDC has been extraordinary in protecting the American people and people all over the world. The budget provides a reduction in support for the CDC. We are having a hearing in our committee on mad cow disease, in the HELP Committee this week. You name it, there is another disease that comes from overseas every day, and our front line of defense is the CDC. They have some of the most talented experts in the world in that agency, and the budget undermines it in a significant way. It makes no sense. We will have a chance to debate these issues later as we consider the full budget. For the average American, who is concerned about their job--and they are concerned about their jobs because they find out, with all of the uncertainty about our economy, that they lose their job and they know if they are able to find another job, they will be paid about 22 percent less, average, nationwide than the job they are holding--if they are able to find one. They are uncertain about their jobs, and they are uncertain about what is happening in schools with their children. This budget does little about that uncertainty. They are uncertain whether they will be able to save enough to send their children to college. That is because of the proposals of the administration to eliminate overtime. We have to understand the amount that is earned on overtime has been used day in and day out to pay tuition for working families for their children who go to college, or to pay a mortgage. So people are worried about the economy. They are worried, if they are unemployed, that their unemployment insurance has been lost. They are worried about that. If they are among the 1 in 7 Americans who are making the minimum wage, they realize they haven't gotten any increase in the last 7 years. Where is anything about that, or anything about education, or anything about health care for the children? It has been missing in that budget. But the trillion dollar tax break for the wealthy is included. It is the wrong priority. The American people are going to reflect on these misguided priorities as they watch our votes when we debate the budget in the Senate. If they don't do it then, they will do it in November. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. First, I thank the Senator for an excellent statement. Earlier today the Armed Services Committee had meant to meet. We were going to have Secretary Rumsfeld up before the committee. I intended to ask him two or three questions on the issue of intelligence, but since the Senator is on his feet now, I am wondering if he would be willing to respond to a question or two and help clear this up in my mind. What we have now, as I understand it, is the intelligence agencies saying that they provided the intelligence to the administration and that they were not intimidated. I intended to ask the Secretary whether he was aware of the Defense Intelligence Agency's own intelligence report that stated--and I am quoting. This has been published. It was declassified and published in the news sources--this is the Defense Intelligence Agency: . . . there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has--or will--establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities. That was in September of 2002. Yet a month later, just as Congress was about to vote, the National Intelligence Estimate stated very precisely that: Iraq probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons and possibly as much as 500 metric tons of chemical weapon agents--much of it added in the last year. I was just wondering, if I can raise this point, here we have the Defense Intense Intelligence Agency giving one report. Then, if we look at the State Department Bureau of Intelligence, this is what the State Department Bureau of Intelligence concluded: The activities we have detected do not . . . add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider an integrated and comprehensive approach to get nuclear weapons . . . INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. The Department of State, Bureau of Intelligence.

Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order. I believe I have the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am making the predicate. If the Senator from Arizona is not pleased with it, that is his problem. The third intelligence report was the Department of Energy disagreed that the famous tubes were for nuclear weapons. The State Department's Intelligence Bureau also concluded that the tubes were ``not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapons program.'' Finally, Greg Thielmann, retired State Department official, who served as director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs in the Bureau of Intelligence, said last July: Some of the fault lies with the performance of the intelligence community, but most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they are provided. He said: They surveyed the data, and picked out what they liked. The whole thing was bizarre. The Secretary of Defense had this huge Defense Intelligence Agency, and he went around it. I just ask, are these the kinds of questions that we hope an independent kind of commission might be helpful to resolve? When the administration's own Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department agency, and the Energy Intelligence Agency came up with similar conclusions as Dr. Kay prior to the time the Senate voted on this issue, don't you think the American people are entitled to know what the facts are, not just the intelligence information made available but how it was used by the administration and by the President?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. Madam President, the matters before us are of enormous importance to this country, and certainly to my State. These issues dealing with road transportation and mass transit are basic, fundamental to our Nation's infrastructure and our economy. We are going to be focusing on this over the next several days. We are very much looking forward to it. There is an incredible need for attention to these important investments. But I welcome the opportunity to take just a moment or two at this time to recognize the extraordinary success last evening, when the New England Patriots played the Carolina Panthers. Some 80 million Americans watched that extraordinary game. I have a resolution which will give me a great deal of pleasure to offer in behalf of myself and my colleague and friend, Senator Kerry, who is not here physically but joins with his enthusiasm to urge favorable consideration of this resolution which is meant to congratulate the New England Patriots for their dramatic victory in yesterday's Super Bowl. It could not have been more exciting. With 7 seconds remaining in the game, the score tied, Adam Vinatieri kicked a 41-yard field goal to clinch the Patriot's second Super Bowl success in the past 3 years. Mr. Vinatieri is making a trademark of kicking the winning field goals in Super Bowls. Two years ago, his 48- yard field goal won the game as time expired. I also congratulate Tom Brady, the youngest quarterback in National Football League history to win two Super Bowls. He had another outstanding day with 350 yards passing and had 3 touchdown passes. Mr. Brady's performance gave him his second Super Bowl Most Valuable Player trophy in 3 years. The Patriots had a remarkable season. They tied the Miami Dolphins' record in 1972, winning 15 straight games. Much of the credit goes to the man named Coach of the Year, Bill Belichick, and his two outstanding assistant coaches, Romeo Crennel, who produced the No. 1 defense in the National Football League, and Charlie Weiss, who produced the team's outstanding offense. Among the Patriots' heroes of last night's game, and for the entire season as well, was the offensive line. They did an outstanding job of protecting quarterback Tom Brady. In fact, they allowed no sacks of the quarterback in the Super Bowl or in any of the other games in the post- season playoffs. Truly a remarkable record. I want the Senate to adopt the pending resolution commending the Patriots on their dramatic victory in a game that will surely rank as one of the most exciting Super Bowls ever. I notice in the chair the wonderful Senator from North Carolina, Mrs. Dole. I commend, certainly, her enthusiasm for her team. She has reminded me of that enthusiasm and her very strong support. I commend the Carolina team for showing extraordinary sportsmanship and competitiveness and just a superb performance by that team. If it is agreeable, I believe the resolution is at the desk. I believe it has been cleared.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.