Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in a CNN program last night they asked the question: ``Do you believe reservists and members of the National Guard are treated fairly by the Army?'' This was just about the time I turned on the CNN program. You could indicate before the end of the program what your vote would be. It is extraordinary. This is a CNN quick vote. It is not guaranteed science, but it is a reaction, certainly by those who watch CNN: ``Do you believe reservists and members of the National Guard are being treated fairly by the Army?'' Yes, 15 percent; no, 85 percent. No, 85 percent. It seems to me we have a lot with which to be concerned. We talk about our state of the Union. We talk about our National Guard. We talk about working families. The National Guard are the working families, and the reservists are the working families. They are patriotic men and women. I am so proud of those from my own State. I have met with them frequently. We have lost 18 servicemen from Massachusetts. We value every one in their service to our country, their bravery, heroism, and devotion. The Guard ought to be treated fairly by this country and the military. We have a lot of work to do in this session. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, there are a number of provisions in this legislation, the omnibus bill, that have been talked about. But I hope my colleagues will give consideration to the fact that the appropriators and the Republican leadership stuck into this omnibus bill a number of different provisions that never passed the Senate or the light of day or the smell test. And took out provisions to help millions of Americans. One of the provisions that they took out of the omnibus bill was a provision that was supported by the Senate and supported by the House in a bipartisan fashion. That was the amendment to tell the Bush administration that they could not deny workers overtime. His proposal would affect 8 million workers. Yes, this is an enormously important omnibus bill. Yes, it is important that we deal with the problems in education and health. I yield to no one in my concern in those areas. All we are asking is that we take the omnibus bill and put back in the protection for workers. Or we could have the Bush administration rescind its proposal to deny workers overtime protections. We have challenges in our economy, but one of the great challenges in our economy is not that firefighters, nurses, and police officers are being overpaid. That is not the problem we are facing in our economy. But that is going to be the effect if this particular omnibus bill goes through. The administration will implement its overtime provisions. As I mentioned yesterday, it is not just those individuals I mentioned-- firefighters, nurses, and police officers--it is also the veterans. Listen to this, America. Since the time of the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the United States has accepted the concept of a 40-hour week. Then workers who worked more than 40 hours would get time and a half. That has been an accepted part of the American workplace since the 1930s, when the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed. But now this administration has made a proposal to effectively eliminate the requirement to pay overtime to 8 million Americans, which includes firefighters, police officers, and nurses. But they also put into this provision those who will be excluded. Listen to this. Those who will also be excluded will be those who receive the standard requirement and equivalent training in the Armed Forces. Do you hear that? Training in the Armed Forces. Over in Iraq, American service men and women have been trained. We have the best trained military in the world. The challenge of having a good military is to have the best in training, the best technology, the best leadership, and the best support for the families at home. Those are the elements of an effective military force. Now what we are saying to those who are in the military, the service men and women who have taken that training, which makes our military so superior--and being superior results in the saving of lives of service men and women--we are saying that kind of training in the Armed Forces will mean when you get back home, you fall into that category of the 8 million who will be precluded from getting overtime. Can you imagine that? We have 200 training programs in the military. Great numbers of them fall within this particular provision of training in the Armed Forces. For the life of me, I cannot believe why this administration would write into their proposal that the training in the Armed Forces will mean you are going to be excluded from overtime pay. I just do not understand that. I just do not understand it. I wish those on the other side of the aisle who support that particular provision would come out here and explain that. I want to mention another important provision in this overtime pay, the effect of which hits a particular group in our society, and they are the women who are working in the American workforce. Two factors have made life for middle-income and working families at least plausible and livable. One is the fact that women have entered the workforce and, secondly, many of these families have mortgaged their homes to deal with the problems of tuition escalation and other things, such as emergency health needs. The fact is there is no what they call in economics ``elasticity'' left in this. They don't have other members of the families who can work once the husband and wife are working. You don't have another husband and wife to go out there and you only have one home and if you mortgage that to educate your kids you just can't do very much more. You are depending, to a significant extent, on overtime pay. I want to remind the Senate about what has been happening in the workforce. The middle-income mothers work 55 percent more hours today than 20 years ago. Here it is: It was 895 hours in 1979, and in 2000 it was 1388 hours--almost double what they were working in 1979, over a 20-year period. Why are they working? To provide for their families. What are we saying to these mothers who are working hard and making some overtime? We are saying to the mothers and to the women in the families you are not going to be able to get that benefit either. You are not going to be able to get the benefit either. This falls particularly hard on the 8 million Americans who will be outside of the overtime definition, for the veterans who came back from Iraq in the military forces, because it will be said you are a professional now, you have had training in the Army. We have read in your record that you have had some training, so even though you are doing this job, we don't have to pay you overtime. It says that in the Armed Forces training regulation. This provision falls unduly harsh on the women. As women have increased their time in the paid labor market, their contributions to family income have also increased. These contributions have been particularly important to lower and middle-income families. An increase in time spent at work creates childcare and other family challenges. These added hours have had a negative effect on a parent's ability to be at home after school, help with homework, or care for an ill or aging family member. The Bush proposal would take away overtime protections for millions of American women, ensuring that they work longer hours for less pay. Women who are working today are going to work longer hours for less pay. That is the result of the overtime provision. Make no mistake about it. Our amendment protecting overtime--saying to the President that he can't take away overtime pay--was taken out of the omnibus bill after it was passed on the floor of the Senate and in the House of Representatives. But the Republican leadership knew they could not win on the Bush proposal on the floor and they took it out of this bill-- challenging this body to take it or leave it. This is one Senator who is going to leave it because of what it is going to do to working families, for the women and veterans in this country. Women tend to dominate retail services and sales promotions that would be particularly affected by the Bush proposal. The increase in overtime, often with little advance notice, would take away from the families, disrupt the schedule of working parents, as well as impose additional childcare and other expenses. Women's groups like Nine-to- Five, the American Association of University Women, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women and Families, and the YWCA express their strong support for the Harkin-Kennedy amendment to preserve the overtime protections. Those are the leading women's groups--National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women and Families, YWCA. Effectively, every group that represents women in our society strongly opposes these provisions which are written in by the Republican leadership denying overtime. These organizations representing women--Nine to Five, the American Association of University Women, the National Organization for Women, the National Partnership for Women and Families, and the YWCA--have all indicated their strong opposition to the overtime provisions. They know the adverse impact on women. I wish to point out that of the millions of Americans who will lose their overtime, not only do we have police officers, nurses, and firefighters, but if we look at other categories, we see cooks, clerical workers, a large percent of which are women, physical therapists, dental hygienists, bookkeepers, lab technicians, graphic artists. These are major professional groups where, in a number of those areas, women are the majority of workers, so they would be adversely affected. This provision adversely affects veterans and adversely affects women. Today's New York Times points out what my colleague, my friend, John Kerry, mentioned as a veteran himself in Exeter, NH. This is the New York Times story: An omnibus spending bill has been stalled in Congress in partisan dispute over provisions to which Democrats object. One would allow the Bush administration to press ahead with rules that Democrats say could strip millions of their right to overtime pay. Hitting that theme, Mr. Kerry said the president would treat those who trained for some skilled jobs in the military as professionals ineligible for overtime pay, adding this ``made my blood boil.'' ``We need a president who understands that the first definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of the country,'' Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, said. . . . It could not be said any better than that. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, finally, I would have thought that since Tuesday--it is now Thursday--we would have heard someone on the other side come down and defend stripping these provisions out of the omnibus bill. The silence has been deafening. One would think if they were going to take these out, at least they would have the guts to come down here and explain to the American people why. Why did they take them out? Who took them out? Who asked that they be pulled out? What was the reason, after it had been supported by the Senate and House of Representatives? But all there is is silence--silence--from the Republican side. That says something, does it not, when we are talking about something which has already been addressed in both Houses, passed in the Senate, passed in the House, and stripped out in the dead of night and there is silence on the other side. American workers deserve better. We deserve to understand what the process was in taking out this provision that has been passed by the Senate, and the leadership refuses to give us an opportunity to have another vote to put it back in. Why are we not having a vote to be able to restore it? It doesn't take any time. We would agree to half an hour, with time evenly divided. Let's hear them defend the Labor Department's regulation, a regulation that will affect women, a provision that works unfairly against veterans, a regulation that is unfair to firefighters, police, and nurses. Where is the justification? There is silence on the other side.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the logic of the Senator's argument is so overwhelming and the common sense of it is so compelling.

Mr. KENNEDY. Let me complete this. As the Senator remembers, at the time we heard about the mad cow disease, there was not a family in America that was not asking what is the safety in terms of the food we are eating, the meat product our children and our families eat. All America was concerned about it. We have an opportunity to do something about it. We know what can be done about it. As I hear the Senator from Nevada, it would not take an awful lot of time. I know the Senator's amendment. I do not think it would take more than half an hour to be able to include those provisions that would give the kind of additional health safety protections for the American people. It is not an absolute guarantee for every situation, but it would make a major difference. How long does the Senator think it would take to include those provisions that would provide the country-of- origin protection?

Mr. KENNEDY. We could do it now, am I correct, or do it if there was agreement?

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, there you are.

Mr. KENNEDY. The answer is special privilege, special interest. Just to add to what my good friend from Nevada pointed out, the Department of Labor then had the gall to publish suggestions to show American business how to make sure these 8 million were not going to receive the overtime. This is just special interest politics: Mad cow, overtime, power of special interests. These are the similar kinds of interests that denied this institution the opportunity to permit negotiation of drug prices under Medicare. What is in the public interest there? America is finally going to find out the Bush administration is primarily interested in protecting the special interests, not the public interest. That is what I heard across the various small towns, communities, and farms in Iowa. The American people are beginning to get it and nothing illustrates it more clearly than the proposed overtime change in regulations which so adversely affects not only these 8 million Americans but particularly members of the Armed Forces, returning veterans, and the women in our society. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the members of the Finance Committee, and in particular for Senator Max Baucus, and for members of our committee. I think now of our good friend and good ally to the chairman of the committee and to the other members of the Finance Committee who have been working on this legislation for a significant period of time. Most of us remember the mishap that happened to Senator Baucus some time ago, during an event that very few, if any, of us would participate in--a 50-mile road race. During that race, he slipped and had a small accident, or so he thought at the time, but still continued the race. Then, because of complications that took place a number of weeks after the mishap, additional treatment and care was necessary. So he is not present with us today. Senator Baucus wanted the Senate to move ahead on this legislation, which is typical of Senator Baucus. He encouraged us to go ahead and he told the leadership on our side and on the other side, that he wants the Senate to work its will on this legislation because it is enormously important. All of us are very mindful today that Senator Max Baucus has been facing a challenge in terms of recovery. He is doing well. He is getting better. He will soon be back with all of us. I certainly thank him--and I think I speak for all of us on our side--for all the good work he has done in terms of the development of this legislation. His work has been indispensable and extremely important. I also thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Gregg, for their work on this legislation. This legislation has an enormous impact on workers in this country, and it has an incredible impact on small businesses and other businesses in this country that are trying to be responsible and do the right thing. All of us understand that retirement income is dependent on a three- legged stool comprised of Social Security, personal savings, and a pension. Those are the three elements which men and women, who have worked hard and played by the rules, look to in terms of their future and of their golden years. That is why it is so important that we preserve Social Security. We are all mindful of what has happened in recent times in terms of personal savings, where savings have been reduced as a result of a lot of different factors and forces. The market has been off. And although it has come back to some extent in the last few weeks, overall there has been a loss among many of those who had 401(k)s. Then there is the serious challenge to the whole pension system. It is indispensable that we find common ground and work to deal with this issue which is of such incredible importance. The fact we have been able to work on both sides of the aisle on this extremely important legislation is, I think, enormously significant. The chairman of the Finance Committee and I have enjoyed working with my colleague and friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg. We haven't cosponsored or worked together all that many times, but I always enjoy it when we do, and even when we differ, I enjoy that as well. I can't underscore enough the importance of this legislation, and we are extremely hopeful that the kind of agreement we have had so far will continue to be the basis of the legislation as it moves forward. Defined benefit pension plans are, as I mentioned, a key part of retirement security for millions of Americans. They promise a monthly benefit starting at retirement and continuing for the rest of your life. Defined benefit plans are different from defined contribution plans and all the other pension plans. Only a defined benefit plan provides benefits backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Americans in every industry benefit from these plans. Nearly 35 million workers and retirees are covered by single employer plans, and 9.7 million more are covered by the multiemployer plans. One in every five workers participates in a defined benefit plan. But today the secure retirement of these workers is at risk. As we have heard from many experts, a ``perfect storm'' is overtaking defined benefit plans. The longest downturn in the stock market since the Great Depression, combined with a troubled economy, and historically low interest rates have led to the underfunding of many of these pension plans, and the storm threatens to wreck the pension dreams of millions of Americans. This amendment that Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, Senator Gregg, and I are offering will provide immediate short-term measures needed to deal with this temporary crisis. The amendment has the broad support of Democrats and Republicans, employers and unions. Despite our differences, all of us agree that employees deserve to receive the benefits promised by their pension plans. To protect the security of their retirement, we need a solution, and we need it quickly. Our amendment takes three steps to help defined benefit pension plans. First, it temporarily replaces the 30-year Treasury bond rate used to calculate employers' contributions to pension plans with a corporate bond rate. As the interest rate on 30-year Treasury bonds has fallen, the decline has created huge uncertainties for pension plans. As many as 20 percent of defined benefit pension plans are at risk of being terminated or frozen. Temporarily replacing the 30-year Treasury bond rate will stabilize these plans and enable them to continue to provide the benefits they have promised. Second, our bill provides for additional deficit reduction contribution relief. Although the Bush administration keeps speaking of an economic recovery, the recent economic growth has not translated into job security for Americans--indeed, only 1,000 jobs were created in December. Many sectors, such as the airline and steel industries, continue to struggle. The men and women in the airline industry are well aware of the threat to their jobs. Over 100,000 airline workers have lost their jobs in the last 2 years, and thousands more are accepting cuts in pay and benefits to preserve their jobs. These workers have done their part to keep the skies safe and keep their companies flying and they need our help to protect their jobs and pensions. The steel industry is also struggling to find new ways to increase efficiency and compete in the world market. But the industry continues to face serious challenges, and relief is essential. The deficit reduction contribution relief in our amendment would provide relief from these payments to companies that had well-funded pension plans in the past and need extra assistance now. These are companies that have met their responsibility and through the confluence of events are today challenged. This helps provide temporary relief. This relief is needed to help protect the pensions and jobs of workers in these industries. These are industries that can come back-- and must come back--to help drive our economic recovery. Our amendment also includes important relief for the multiemployer plans, which fill major needs in our pension system by providing pensions to many low-wage workers, as well to short-term and seasonal workers who might not otherwise be able to earn a pension. Forty percent of these workers are in construction, building homes and offices. They worked around the clock at the World Trade Center site after the tragedy of September 11. Because many construction jobs are short term, these workers rely on multiemployer plans to guarantee their retirement. Thirty percent of these workers are in retail or service industries. They clean hotel rooms and corporate offices. They bag groceries and serve food in restaurants. They do not have golden parachutes or executive stock options. Without a multiemployer plan, many of them would have no pension at all. Ten percent are in the trucking services, traveling across the country at all hours of the day and night to deliver goods safely to stores, factories, and homes. A multiemployer plan helps them reach their retirement destination safely, too. Multiemployer pension plans also help employees of small businesses. Only 8 percent of companies with fewer than 100 employees offer a defined benefit pension plan. Many small businesses find it most affordable to provide such benefits through a multiemployer plan. As one pension expert testified before the House, multiemployer plans ``provide literally tens of thousands of small employers with the opportunity to provide competitive and comprehensive benefit plans to their employees . . . which would otherwise be too expensive and administratively complex for them to provide on their own.'' The larger companies can provide the self-insurance, so to speak, for the pension plans. The smaller ones have to be involved in these multiemployer plans that include a variety of different companies. Like single-employer plans, the multiemployer plans have been devastated by the stock market. Because of these losses, the plans are in trouble. The modest relief in our amendment will provide both companies and workers with more time to negotiate contracts to meet the soaring funding needs. These three bipartisan steps provide a vital temporary solution to the problems faced by the Nation's pension plans. Once these problems have passed, more must be done to preserve and expand the defined benefit system that means so much to so many employees today. Our amendment provides 2 years of relief enough to allow us to begin. I urge my colleagues to join in providing this much-needed protection to the millions of hard-working Americans who have worked for and earned a secure retirement. To review the highlights of this legislation one further time, there are 35 million Americans who are covered by the single-employer defined benefit pension plans. This gives some idea of the importance. There are 9.7 million, effectively 10 million, more who are covered by multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. This is effectively 45 million employees who are going to be affected, and obviously thousands of employers. Only defined benefit plans provide a secure monthly benefit backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. What are the factors? Why is this legislation necessary? Why is it needed? I mentioned in my other comments about the ``perfect storm,'' the series of events which have taken place. These are the factors which have impacted these pension programs in an adverse way. First, the prolonged downturn of the stock market during this administration, the longest since the Great Depression; extremely low 30-year Treasury bond interest rates. Bond interest rates have been low. That has had some positive impact, obviously, in terms of the refinancing of automobiles and homes, which has been extraordinarily important, but adverse in terms of these pension programs. The weak economic conditions mean the companies cannot afford to make the additional payments and pay excise taxes imposed by our pension laws. Because of the economic pressures, the companies are hard pressed to meet their responsibilities. They have been responsible in trying to set up these pension plans. They want to provide for their workers. They want to do the right thing. This helps them, at least in a temporary way, to deal with those issues. Those are basically the reasons why this legislation is necessary. This is a temporary program, but it affects almost 45 million of our fellow Americans. I want to mention one other factor, and that is that multiemployer plans provide literally tens of thousands of small employers with the opportunity to provide competitive, comprehensive benefit plans to their employees, which otherwise would be too expensive and administratively complex for them to provide on their own. This really helps the small businesses in a very important way. I will give some idea to our colleagues about the people who are affected by this action. Multiemployer plans provide pensions to low-wage workers, and workers in seasonal or short-term employment. They provide pension plans for workers in many industries. 38 percent are in the construction industry, clearly the largest industry. Truck transportation is 9.8 percent; services, 15 percent; retail trade, 14.5 percent; 15.2 percent of all of those workers are in manufacturing. I think all of us understand the challenge this Nation is facing in retaining manufacturing jobs in America. This is enormously important in helping preserve it. There are a lot of different elements in terms of what we are going to have to do to preserve manufacturing jobs, but this is vital. This chart gives the idea. It is manufacturing, it is retail and service, it is transportation, again, it is construction. For individuals who are moving from project to project, by the nature and definition of the construction industry, they absolutely need the multiemployer plans. They work. They have been successful. But they are hard pressed, as I mentioned. This is a balanced program. It is a temporary program. It has the broad support of employers, large and small. It has the support of workers from large companies and large unions to small companies and individual workers. It responds to a very important and significant issue, which is, I think, at the heart of the American dream, and that is how we are going to view retirement. The Greeks used to define a great civilization by how it cared for its senior citizens. These are the men and women who have sacrificed, the ones who helped bring this Nation out of recession, who fought in the various wars in which we have been involved and, most important, they have sacrificed for their children. They have sacrificed for their children's educations or for whatever challenges they had. But they have been working hard, over a lifetime. They have been prudent and they have saved. Now, at the time when they are getting close to retirement, because of forces and factors far beyond their control--that retirement is threatened in a very significant and important way. This legislation makes sense. It has broad support. I am hopeful we can pass it. It is necessary and it is important. I commend our leader, Senator Frist, for scheduling this as an early priority in this session. I think it is a matter of enormous importance and consequence, and it is a great priority. I commend the leaders for giving the Senate the opportunity to take action on it. Mr. President, I yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. We have had a good discussion by those who are the principal sponsors, and we are awaiting, hopefully, those who would like to amend the bill, but they have not indicated they are on their way just yet, so we have some time. If the Senator would like to speak, we obviously would like to accommodate him in any way.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I commend my friend from West Virginia on speaking of the forgotten man, the worker of this country, because he has just listed the series of actions which threaten the well-being and the livelihood of millions of families. As he says these words, I think it is important that our colleagues and the American people understand their significance. He mentions, for example, the failure to act on the minimum wage. It has been 7 years since we have acted on an increase in the minimum wage--7 years. The purchasing power of the minimum wage now is just about as low as it has ever been. The minimum wage, as it is defined, is for people who work hard, who play by the rules. This is an issue which affects women because the majority of recipients of the minimum wage are women. It affects their children because many of the women have children. So it is a children's issue. It is a family issue. It is a civil rights issue because many of those who receive the minimum wage are men and women of color. It is a fairness issue because if you work hard and play by the rules, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, in the country that has the strongest economy in the world, that is the United States of America, you should not have to live in poverty. We have been blocked, as the Senator remembers, by our friends on the other side from even having a vote. We have a majority in this body who support an increase, but we are blocked. The Senator speaks about unemployment compensation. The Senator well knows there are 90,000 workers a week who are losing their unemployment compensation. Our friends on the Republican side, have blocked even a temporary extension on it--90,000 a week. Overtime? Eight million. I discussed this earlier today. I am not sure whether the Senator is familiar, I am not sure how many Americans are familiar, with the definition of professionalism in the Labor Department's proposed regulation, which will make American workers ineligible for overtime. This definition will include training received in the Armed Forces of this country. There are 200 different training programs that men and women receive in the Armed Forces. They go for this training, they serve in Iraq with the finest military in the world, and then they come back, and are hired here, and under the Bush proposal on overtime, can be denied overtime pay because they have received training in the military. Can someone possibly tell us why? Why would the administration include training programs in the military? An important incentive for many young people to join the military is to get the education and training. I see my friend from Tennessee, who served as a Secretary of Education. He knows the value of education and training. Here we find the training which veterans of our military have received while serving our country will make them ineligible for overtime pay. This proposed rule would also deny overtime, to firefighters, police officers, and nurses. The Senator, when he speaks about the forgotten man, speaks wisely about his people in West Virginia, but he speaks for all those workers in my State, too, and I daresay for workers around this country. He mentions these words, these words that have real meaning: before eliminating overtime pay, consider the family that is struggling to pay the mortgage, feed their family, clothe their family--people who are working hard. The final point I want to mention to the Senator, although I know he knows this already, is that this proposed regulation works against women. Many of the professions which will be denied overtime pay are professions dominated by women, wives, mothers, working hard, trying to provide for their families, playing by the rules. There are many things wrong with our economy. But maybe the good Senator from West Virginia can tell me, of all the things that are wrong with our economy, why is it that singling out these working families for a reduction in pay is so important? I just cannot understand it. The Senator was here when we voted in this body against the administration's proposal. The House of Representatives voted against it. Then in the middle of the night the provision preserving overtime pay was stripped out of the omnibus bill. I know that is an enormous concern to many families. I just want to know whether the Senator doesn't believe we ought to be addressing issues in this Congress that are necessary to protect the interests of the working people. Does he join in the challenge this presents? Does he join me in saying to those workers who are listening to the Senator from West Virginia, we are not going to let them down, we are going to battle on these issues on the days ahead?

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

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will withhold, we understand the leaders have set this time now for debate. We are here and ready for debate and discussion. This is enormously important. The leaders wanted us to try to consider the concerns of the Members on both sides of the aisle today. We are going to be at our posts, Senator Grassley and myself, today and also on Monday. I think it was the leader's desire to stack the votes for Monday afternoon. It is now Thursday afternoon, quarter of 2. We are here and ready for action. We know some Members have spoken with us about their concerns about different provisions. We are ready to deal with those issues, or at least be able to debate them and make sure that our colleagues are going to be fully informed about them by the time we vote. I certainly hope those who do have amendments would come over here and present them so we might be able to consider them, work on them through the afternoon or through the evening, and make as much progress as we can. I hope we are not going to be left for these to come in at a later period. We are prepared to consider these issues at the earliest possible time.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the worst provisions in this shameful bill is the provision that will take away the right of overtime pay to millions of loyal and hard-working Americans. That provision also shows the enormous gulf between what the Bush administration says and what it does. Again and again, President Bush talks about providing economic security for all Americans, and then he quietly tries to deny millions of workers their basic right to overtime. If you have to work overtime, you deserve overtime pay. No employer should deny you that right, and no President and no Congress should take it away from you. In his State of the Union speech last night, the President said his jobs and growth agenda would include ``relief from needless Federal regulation.'' Apparently, he believes protecting employees' overtime pay is a needless regulation. Millions of employees across America disagree with that. This proposal makes clear that the Bush administration is working overtime for the corporations and against the workers of America. We are fighting a war in Iraq, and this President and this administration is also waging a war on workers here at home. Thirteen million children are going hungry every day; 8 million Americans are unemployed with no jobs in sight; 7 million workers have been waiting since 1997 for the raise they deserve in the minimum wage; 90,000 workers a week are losing their unemployment benefits. They can't find jobs in the Bush economy, and the President took away their unemployment benefits, too. And more than 8 million workers will lose their overtime pay because President Bush says they don't deserve it. Majorities in both the Senate and the House agreed that the Bush administration was wrong to deny overtime protections to workers, and by a vote in the Senate and a vote in the House of Representatives, we said to the President: You are wrong. But here it is. They took it out of this bill behind closed doors at the last minute, and now they expect Congress to accept that because the vote is on this larger bill. We could change this bill in a minute and send it on to the President, and that is what we ought to do. We know for whom we are fighting on this issue, and we know why we are fighting--for their right to keep the overtime pay they deserve. We are fighting for the nurse who burns the midnight oil day in and day out caring for the sick and the elderly. We are fighting for the firefighters, the law enforcement officers, the first responders--the heroes of homeland security--the men and women standing watch and working night and day to protect our safety. They are our generation of Paul Reveres prepared to act when danger comes. They deserve fair pay for all they do. We are fighting for our veterans and for our men and women serving so bravely now in Iraq and across the world who return to civilian life only to find that the training they learned in the military will now be used to deny them their right to overtime pay. I want to point out what this proposed regulation under professional employees is all about and what it states. I will include the whole provision but included in the provision--listen to this, Mr. President--is: The word ``customary'' means that exemption is also available to the employees in such professions--these will be the people who are included in the rule and, therefore, ineligible for overtime--it says: The exemption is also available to employees in such professions who have substantially the same knowledge level as the degreed employees-- Those are generally the 4-year degree employees to whom they are referring. but who attained such knowledge through a combination of work experience, training in the Armed Forces-- Training in the Armed Forces. This is the first time they have included that you can be ineligible for overtime pay if you have been trained in the Armed Forces. I say to my colleagues, what are the kinds of training they get in the Armed Forces? The Army, for example, offers new recruits a choice of over 200 occupations, each of which includes training and a listing of the civilian occupations for which training could help them find a job. This proposal would punish the veterans with loss of overtime protection precisely because they have received the exact same training that is used as a recruitment incentive. The military trains service members for hundreds of occupations, including lab technicians and other health care occupations, information technology, engineers, drafters, designers, air traffic controllers, communications specialists, law enforcement, firefighters, security personnel, journalists, and the list goes on. If you go into the Armed Forces, you serve in Iraq, you come back, you have received training programs. Under these regulations, you are ineligible for overtime. That is unconscionable. Why did they put in the service members' training programs in the Armed Forces for the first time? This is put in for the first time in changes to the rules. This is the first time in the history of overtime, going back to the Fair Labor Standards Act, that they have included this training. I am absolutely amazed, at a time when we are asking our service men and women to do so much and while they are in Iraq and elsewhere, we are passing a regulation in this omnibus bill that is going to say when they come back that if they have been trained in any of these areas, they will be considered, under these regulations, a professional and be ineligible for overtime, after they have been risking their lives for the American people. Does that make sense? Permit us to have an up-or- down vote on that, Mr. Republican Leadership? Permit the Senate to vote on that and see what the sentiment is? Oh, no. Just tuck it into the regulation, behind closed doors; put it in there with everything else and let it become law without giving Congress a say. I do not know what that will mean in the future if that happens because we know that the incentives--one of the reasons that many young people go into the Armed Forces is because of the various training and educational benefits. Effectively, the Bush plan would do away with the standard requirement and allow equivalent training in the Armed Forces to substitute for the 4-year degree and therefore make these veterans ineligible. These training programs, as I say, have been a primary incentive for attracting people into the Armed Forces. Do my colleagues understand that? It says here--I am reading right from it--training in the Armed Forces, and it goes on: Comma, or other intellectual instructions, training in the Armed Forces. So that is what would happen to thousands of those men and women who are over in Iraq and Afghanistan, scattered around the world. They come on back. This proposal goes into effect. Their employer is going to look down and say, oh, Jim, by the way, you were in a training program before you went over to Iraq and you were trained, and it says in these rules here I do not have to pay you overtime because that is right in these rules. So we are fighting for our veterans and fighting for our men and women serving bravely now in Iraq and across the world, who return to civilian life only to find that the training they earned in the military will now be used to deny them their right to overtime pay. Most cynical of all, the Bush administration claims that its plan would actually entitle low-income workers to qualify for overtime. The Department of Labor has distributed guidelines to employers on the steps that they can take to avoid the need to pay that overtime. Just calculate the pay an employee now gets with overtime included and then cut the employee's basic pay enough to reduce the total to what it was before. Is there anybody who doubts what is going on? This is basically a sop to companies and corporations around the country in order to squeeze employees even further. There are more than eight million out of work. Last quarter we found employment increased by only 1,000. They expected close to 300,000. It increased by only 1,000. There are so many workers who are eligible for unemployment insurance even though they have paid in for it, 90,000 at the end of this week which will be the end of all of their unemployment compensation. Did we hear anything about that last evening? I did not. So is that cynical or what? How redhanded do we have to catch this administration before the American people understand what is being done to them? Always it is the Bush administration putting corporate profits over the well-being of American workers. The Department of Labor's mission is to promote the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States, and that is what it says on the Department's Web site. It does not say promote the bottom line for businesses. The last thing American workers need in today's troubled economy is a pay cut like that. Staff Sergeant John Miller, who performs homeland security and other public safety duties in the District of Columbia National Guard, is concerned that he and many in his department will lose their overtime pay because of the Bush plan. He recently testified that eliminating overtime pay will have a devastating impact on his department's ability to perform vital public safety responsibilities. Without his overtime pay, he said his family could no longer afford their current mortgage or save for college for their two teenage children. Thousands of veterans will lose their overtime pay as well. Under current law, workers can be denied overtime protection if they are in the category of the professional employees. In general, it is only workers with a 4-year degree in a professional field who will be classified as professional. The Bush plan will abolish this standard and allow equivalent training in the Armed Forces to be routinely substituted for a 4-year degree. How is that for a slap in the face to our courageous men and women fighting in Iraq? Cutbacks in overtime pay are a nightmare that no worker should have to bear. Nationwide overtime pay makes up a quarter of a worker's total pay. The administration's policy will mean an average pay cut of $160 a week for every worker. That is an outrage. Hard-working Americans deserve a pay raise, not a pay cut. It is wrong for the administration to try to force the unfair pay cut on them. More than 2 million jobs have been lost since President Bush took office. Unemployment is a massive problem, especially in hard times such as these. Overtime pay is exactly the incentive needed for job creation, because it encourages employers to hire more workers, instead of requiring current employees to work longer hours. We need a job creation policy, but all the Bush administration proposes is a job destruction policy. The overtime pay requirement and the Fair Labor Standards Act has been a fundamental right of American workers for more than half a century. That basic law was enacted in the 1930s to create the 40-hour week. It says workers have to be paid time and a half for extra hours. Since 1938, that has been the law. According to the Congressional General Accounting Office, employees without overtime protection are twice as likely to work overtime as those covered by protection. Americans are working longer hours today than ever before, longer than any industrialized nation. I will show this in the following illustrations. This chart shows that Americans work more hours than workers in any other industrialized nation in the world. The United States is right over here on this chart. We can also compare Denmark, France, Ireland, Netherlands, the UK, Italy, and Germany. This was in 2001. It is still relevant in terms of the current time. We can see workers in the United States work considerably more than any other country in the world. So they are No. 1 in the workplace. The second chart shows that if one does not have overtime protection, this is what happens: Workers without the overtime protections are more than twice as likely to work longer hours, more than 40 hours a week without protection. Forty-four percent of workers who had no overtime protection worked more than 40 hours a week, compared to 19 percent of those with the overtime protection, well more than double. If it is more than 50 hours a week, those without overtime protection work three times longer than those who have the protection. Who is affected by this? All one has to do is see under the recommendation of the Bush administration of the 8 million people, what are the classifications? It is very interesting. We are talking about police officers. We are talking about nurses. We are talking about firefighters. They are the backbone of the homeland security, the front line responders. The dangers we are facing from bioterrorism, who is out there first? The firefighters, policemen, and nurses. This proposal will effectively eliminate their overtime. We should not be eliminating it. We ask them to take vaccines in a number of instances where we are unsure about what the outcomes are going to be. We do not even provide them with adequate compensation if they are going to get ill or sick as a result of it. We ask them to do all kinds of things. Now their reward will be we will find that, under the proposal that is in this legislation, their overtime pay will be effectively eliminated. The same department that is tasked to protect American workers and enhance the employer's workplace and enhance the opportunity for work in this country put out the proposal about how to avoid paying your employees overtime. That is courtesy of the Bush Department of Labor. There it is. They just spell it out for us. The Department of Labor spells out how the employer can circumvent paying any kind of overtime if they are doing it even today, and gives every employer who wants to the way in which they can undermine it. Congress cannot stay silent and roll over while more and more Americans lose their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, their dignity, and their hope. We will be fighting other battles in this session, battles to restore jobs, guarantee fair unemployment benefits, raise the minimum wage. The place to start is here. Let's at least not allow the Bush administration to take the country backwards on this fundamental issue, the right to overtime pay when workers are forced to work overtime by their employers. Let's preserve the overtime protections on which so many millions of working families across the country depend today. Why should their standard of living have to go down so employers can make higher profits by squeezing workers harder? I would like to address one other issue that is related to the workers of this country, and that is the issue of the unemployment compensation. The Federal extension of unemployment benefits expired December 31 and 90,000 workers a week have been running out of benefits. The economy lost 2.4 million jobs since President Bush took office and at the December rate of job growth it would take 200 years to return to prerecession jobs levels. American workers can't wait that long. Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work, including discouraged and underemployed workers, and the number of long-term unemployed remains unacceptably high at 2 million. Historically, job loss during a recession is about 50 percent temporary and 50 percent permanent. Today, nearly 80 percent of the job loss is permanent. As a result, many of the unemployed will not return to work soon. Today, there is only one job opening for every three out-of-work Americans. The Republican leadership continues to paint a rosy picture of the economy while ignoring these workers. House majority leader Tom DeLay has said he sees ``no reason'' to extend unemployment benefits and the Bush administration has been silent on the issue. Democratic Senators have asked for unanimous consent to take up and pass a Federal unemployment extension more than a dozen times. Each time the Republicans say no. The program was enacted in March 2002 and extended in January 2003 and May 2003. It provided 13 weeks of unemployment benefits in most States, and 26 weeks in high unemployment States. Today, due to the criteria used to define high unemployment, only one state qualifies as a high unemployment State, Alaska, despite continuing unemployment in many other States. The bill would reinstitute and extend the Federal Unemployment Insurance Program for 6 months, and ensure that high unemployment States continue to be covered. I see my friend and colleague on the other side. I have just mentioned to the Senate we are now at the point where we are losing 90,000 workers a week, those who are losing coverage on unemployment. We still have some 15 million Americans out of work, including the discouraged and underemployed workers. And the number of long-term unemployed remains unacceptably high--nearly 2 million. Historically, as I mentioned, the job loss during a recession is about 50 percent temporary and 50 percent permanent. Today it is 80 percent permanent. These are real people with real needs--families, mortgages to pay, food to put on the table. If we are going to have an expanding economy, it should not be done at the expense of one sector of our economy. It should be a tide that raises all the boats. There is no question that Wall Street is doing well. There is no question that a number of our companies are having extraordinary profits. But we have these two issues, one denying the 8 million Americans the overtime, including veterans. And now we have a proposal to permit the extension of the unemployment compensation for those who have paid into the program and who are in dire need. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2006, a bill to extend unemployment benefits for 6 months, which I introduced yesterday; that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements appear in the Record as though read.

Mr. KENNEDY. I say to the Senator, it is essentially the same plan we passed before. The bill will reinstate the insurance program for 6 months, ensure that higher unemployment States continue to be covered-- 13 weeks; 13 weeks. It is the narrower program.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just to respond briefly, as this chart indicates, our economy has lost 2.4 million jobs since the President took office. The job creation has been anemic. The economy created only 1,000 jobs in December. At the December rate of job growth, it would take 200 years to return to the level of jobs we had when President Bush first took office. The reality is that the estimate of the administration was that we were going to create 300,000 jobs as a result of the tax cut. It is down to 1,000. The reason we have seen the move from 5.9 to 5.7 percent in unemployment is basically that so many people have been disillusioned. They have given up. We put this program in, which I support, at a time when unemployment was 5.7 percent, the exact same percent that it is now. But it is objected to. It is true the plans are costly, but we know that the fund itself which the workers have paid into has nearly $20 billion. This would cost about $7 billion. That represents funds the workers have paid in for just this kind of rainy day. But no, we are being objected to. In the early 1990s, Congress extended the unemployment benefit five times. That program did not end until the economy had more jobs than before the recession began. This is a fair enough test, it seems to me. But when you have 90,000 Americans who have worked--these are Americans who have worked hard, played by the rules, have families, mortgages, and paid into the fund. The fund is in surplus, and we have 90,000 who are losing their coverage. This is a temporary program. It is short term--6 months, about $7 billion, with nearly $20 billion in surplus. Workers are entitled to this kind of protection. They are entitled to a minimum wage. They work 40 hours a week 52 weeks of the year so they don't have to live in poverty. Most Americans believe that. They understand, for example, when we have the chance to increase the minimum wage that we have been blocked for 7 years. For 7 years, Republicans have blocked it. They block increasing the minimum wage. They block extending unemployment compensation. They initiate rules to eliminate overtime. This is the record. When we talk about the minimum wage, it is obviously a women's issue because most of the people who receive the minimum wage are women. It is a children's issue because great numbers of those women have children. It is a civil rights issue because many of those who work at minimum wage are men and women of color. And it is a fairness issue. We can't get the chance to vote on these matters. There is objection. How long did we hear last fall about, we ought to be able to vote on Medicare? Let the people vote up and down. But no, no, we can't with regard to the unemployment compensation. We can't get a vote on increasing the minimum wage. They have refused to permit this institution to have a vote again on the overtime limitations for 8 million people because there is objection. I think that is wrong. We look forward to another opportunity to come back and address these issues in a way where hopefully we will be able to get a vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, very briefly, we will have an opportunity to debate this further. We were denied an up-and-down vote on the minimum wage just last year when the Republican leadership pulled the State Department bill from the floor rather than let us vote on the minimum wage amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I strongly support this important legislation. Women screened for breast cancer deserve mammograms of the highest possible quality. I commend Senator Mikulski and Senator Ensign for this bipartisan proposal to strengthen current standards and do more to reduce the tragic toll of breast cancer. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among women, exceeded only by lung cancer. It strikes more than 200,000 Americans a year. Over 39,000 will die from breast cancer this year. Early screening is essential. More than 90 percent of breast cancers are now detected at an early stage of the disease, when treatment can be most effective. Because of early detection through regular mammograms, the death rate from breast cancer fell by 20 percent between 1990 and 2000, even though the overall incidence increased slightly. All women deserve access to mammograms of the highest quality. It's a tragedy when tumors are missed and lives lost because a screening was conducted poorly or interpreted inadequately. The legislation that Senator Mikulski and Senator Ensign have proposed will improve the quality of mammograms and help reduce the unacceptable toll of breast cancer and I urge my colleagues to approve it. It is fitting that this important bill is one of the first actions taken by the Senate in this new session. It deserves to become law as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask to be notified when 4\1/2\ minutes are up. I am entitled to 5 minutes. This bill shows the widening gulf between this administration's words and its deeds. No doubt tonight, the President will talk about healthy families. But this bill weakens our clean air laws. And it postpones steps we need right now to protect our food supply from mad cow disease. The President will talk about education. But this bill fails the test when it comes to funding for schools. And it diverts scarce public education dollars to private schools. The President will talk about the safety of our communities. But this bill weakens our gun laws. The President will talk about fairness. But there is nothing fair about giving away good jobs of dedicated government workers to the cheapest bidder that may even send those jobs abroad. So it is a Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde Presidency, where what you see is not what you get. But the greatest outrage in this bill is that it denies the right to overtime pay to 8 million hard-working Americans. We may be fighting a war in Iraq, but this President and this administration are also waging a war on workers here at home. Majorities in both the Senate and the House agreed that the Bush administration was wrong to deny overtime protections to workers. By a vote in the U.S. Senate of 54 to 45 and the U.S. House of Representatives of 221 to 203, we said to the President, ``You are wrong.'' But here it is, in this bill. I know who I am fighting for. I am fighting for the nurse who burns the midnight oil day in and day out caring for our sick and elderly with no extra pay. I am fighting for the firefighter and first responder, the heroes of homeland security, standing watch and working nights and weekends to protect our liberty. They are our generations Paul Reveres--prepared to act when called to arms. They deserve fair compensation. I am fighting for our veterans and our men and women serving so bravely now in Iraq and across the world, who return to civilian life only to find that the training they earned in the military is cruelly used to deny them their right to overtime pay. Under current regulations, workers can be denied overtime protection if they fall within the category of what they call professional employees, workers with a 4-year degree in a professional field. It is changed this year under the Bush administration. The plan would do away with the standard and allow equivalent training in the Armed Forces. You go and serve in Iraq and get the training to serve in Iraq, and come back here and you are ineligible, under these regulations, for overtime pay. I ask unanimous consent that the relevant statute be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senate should reject this bill and demand that the right to overtime pay be restored; we should demand that our schools be properly funded and that private school vouchers be rejected; we should demand that illegal guns be removed from our streets; and we should demand a food supply safe from mad cow disease. Finally, Americans work more than workers in any other industrial society in the world. This chart shows that. We are working about 500 hours more than any other society in the world. American workers are working harder, and now this administration is trying to deny them at least the fairness of being compensated for it. This chart shows what happens if you have overtime protection or if you don't have overtime protection. For all the overtime that is used in this country today, only 19 percent of it is applicable to those who get paid for the overtime while 44 percent for those who don't get the overtime. That is 3 to 1 with regard to individuals who work 50 hours a week. We know what this is all about because the administration has given a guide to employers about how they can avoid paying overtime. I ask that those regulations be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, this is the list of the individuals who will be affected. Who are those individuals? Police officers, nurses, firefighters; those are the home guard personnel. You talk about safety and security in our communities and in our neighborhoods; these are the individuals who stand watch for all Americans. Why is this administration fighting decent fair pay for these hard-working Americans who represent the best of our country and are involved in homeland security? This legislation should be defeated.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Bob Graham I am introducing the ``Defense of Medicare and Real Prescription Drug Benefit Act.'' Congressman John Dingell is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The more senior citizens learn about the legislation President Bush has just signed, the more concerned they are. It's a sweetheart deal for big insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and a raw deal for senior citizens. It's not really a prescription drug bill. It's an anti-Medicare bill. Our legislation will reverse these destructive policies. Our legislation will protect and preserve Medicare--not turn senior citizens over to the un-tender mercies of HMOs and insurance companies. It will provide prescription drug benefit for senior citizens, without coverage gaps or hidden loopholes. It will protect senior citizens with good retirement coverage from a former employer, and it will protect the poorest of the poor on Medicaid. It will reduce prescription drug costs, by allowing safe importation of drugs from Canada and government negotiations with drug companies for discounts. And it will repeal the program of Health Savings Accounts that help the healthy, wealthy and insurance companies who have contributed heavily to the Republican Party, while harming every family that needs comprehensive, affordable health insurance. The legislation the President signed is designed to destroy Medicare and turn senior citizens over to the un-tender mercies of HMOs. Our legislation will protect Medicare. The legislation the President signed provides a skimpy, inadequate, and unreliable drug benefit. Our legislation provides comprehensive drug coverage and assures that senior citizens can get it everywhere in the country without having to join an HMO or other private plan. The legislation the President signed denies senior citizens the right to get safe drugs at lower prices from Canada and prohibits the government from negotiating with drug companies to get a good deal for senior citizens. This legislation eliminates those special interest, anti-senior provisions. The legislation the President signed allows unfettered Heath Savings Accounts. These accounts are a bonanza for the healthy, the wealthy, and for favored insurance companies, but they are a disaster for ordinary citizens who need comprehensive coverage and can't afford to put thousands of dollars aside to meet medical needs that insurance is supposed to cover. This legislation repeals this unwise policy. Senior citizens want prescription drug coverage under Medicare, and they deserve it. Instead, the President and the Republican Party used their control of Congress to attack Medicare itself and force senior citizens into HMOs and other private insurance plans. They want to privatize Medicare, and if they get away with it, they'll try to privatize Social Security too. Their legislation raises Medicare payments to HMOs so that Medicare can't compete. They use the elderly's own Medicare money to undermine the Medicare program they depend on. According to estimates of the Medicare Actuary, Medicare already pays 16 percent too much for every senior citizen who joins an HMO or other private insurance plan, because these programs attract the healthiest elderly. IN addition, the Republican legislation raises the base payment to 109 percent of what it costs Medicare to care for an average senior citizen, without even taking into account the health selection bonus the HMOs receive. The total overpayment is 25 percent--a whopping $2,000 per senior citizen. And to top it all off, the legislation establishes a $12 billion slush fund for the new PPO program established by the bill. This isn't competition, its corporate welfare--and senior citizens and the Medicare program are the losers. Their legislation also creates a vast social experiment--called the ``premium support'' program--using millions of senior citizens as guinea pigs. The sole purpose of the experiment is to raise Medicare premiums so that senior citizens have to give up their Medicare and join an HMO. Our legislation eliminates these indefensible overpayments and restores parity to the competition between conventional Medicare and private sector alternatives. It repeals the premium support program, so that senior citizens will have choice, not coercion, when they decide whether they prefer conventional Medicare or an HMO. The assistance with prescription drug costs their program provides is actually very little. Overall, it covers less than 25 percent of the drug expenses faced by the elderly. Senior citizens with $1,000 in drug expenses would pay 86 percent of the cost out of their own pockets. Those with $5,000 in drug expenses would pay 78 percent. When senior citizens' drug costs exceed $2,250, they get no benefits at all until their costs reach $5,100, even though they have to continue to pay premiums. And senior citizens won't necessarily have access to the drugs their doctor's prescribe, if they aren't on the formularies of the private insurance companies that will administer the benefit. A bus ticket to Canada would do more to reduce drug costs for senior citizens than this bill. Our legislation fills the gaps in the Medicare benefit, so that it truly meets the needs of the elderly and is comparable to the assistance provided under most private insurance plans and that is available to every member of Congress. It assures that the formularies offered by the insurance companies administering the program are not manipulated by the companies to exclude the drugs senior citizens need most. Nine million senior citizens--almost one of every four--will actually be worse off in their drug coverage under the Bush program than they are today. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, almost 3 million senior citizens with good retiree drug coverage through a former employer will lose it as the result of this bill. Six million senior citizens and the disabled who have both Medicare and Medicaid--the poorest of the poor--will actually pay more and have reduced access to the drugs they need. The Bush plan establishes a cruel and demeaning assets test, so that millions of senior citizens with very low incomes are disqualified from the special assistance they need, simply because they have managed to save a little bit for a rainy day, or because they have a car that's worth too much or a burial fund, or personal property like jewelry or furniture. Our legislation addresses these problems. It ends the discriminatory treatment of senior citizens with private retirement coverage, so that employers do not have an incentive to drop this coverage. It restores benefits to dual eligibles--senior citizens with coverage under both Medicare and Medicaid--so that they will not be made worse off by the new program. It eliminates the assets test. The Republican bill does nothing about escalating drug prices. Republicans even had the nerve to include a specific prohibition on any role by the Federal government in any negotiation on drug prices. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that drug prices will actually increase as the result of this bill. No wonder drug company stocks are soaring and senior citizens are concerned. Our legislation will allow reimportation of drugs from Canada--where drug prices are much lower--with stringent controls to assure that any imported drugs meet FDA standards. It will allow the Federal government to negotiate the best possible price for prescription drugs, so that senior citizens and the Medicare program are no longer victimized by exorbitant prices that have little relationship to costs or value. It's not just seniors who are very concerned. Younger Americans will be hurt too. A separate booby trap in the Republican program includes tax breaks for the healthy and wealthy to buy private policies with very high deductibles that will undermine health insurance for those who are not elderly. These tax breaks, called health savings accounts, encourage people to buy high deductible policies and put money aside in a tax-free savings account. Because the healthy people don't contribute to the cost of regular insurance, premiums skyrocket for people who can't afford thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs before their insurance kicks in. The Urban Institute and the American Academy of Actuaries have estimated that premiums for regular insurance policies could increase 60 percent or more. Our bill repeals this unjustified and destructive policy. The President's signing of the Republican legislation yesterday was the beginning of this fight, not the end. We will never rest until we have protected Medicare and provided senior citizens a prescription drug benefit that truly meets their needs. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the ``Defense of Medicare and Real Prescription Drug Benefit Act'' be printed in the Record.