Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry: Since the amendment only changes the figures, is it not then germane? Since it only adjusts and changes the figures that are in the underlying bill, therefore is it not germane?

Mr. KENNEDY. They are included. They are included, Mr. President. They are changing the figures which are in the underlying bill and, therefore, this amendment is germane just for these provisions in the bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is germane. It is a simple striking. It conforms to the rules of the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. We are talking about relevancy of the amendment, and it does just strike the relevant provisions. It is germane. The text of the amendment does not speak to prescription drugs.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment 545 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, point of order, I make a point of order, there is obviously a quorum present. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have just seen the World Health Organization deal with one of the great challenges of modern times; and that is with SARS. The World Health Organization has been commended all over the world for the way it has worked with countries all over the world, and we have joined in that commendation. We have been working with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria to ensure quality products are used to treat patients with HIV/AIDS. We are investing money in these quality products through the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. All we are saying in this amendment is that you are going to have the same assured product at the lowest possible price. If the American Government is, through the Global Fund, buying these quality products, then you ought to be willing to accept this amendment. All it does is make sure we have the best prices for these products of assured quality. We are not saying we have to buy the antiretroviral drugs for HIV for $300, but they do have to be purchased at the best available price, with the quality assured. I do not understand how we can refuse to say, if we are going to invest the taxpayers' money in this endeavor, then we should get the maximum in terms of the results, in terms of the number of people helped. We should make sure that helping the most people possible is the policy of the United States.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we know that 30 million people in Africa are afflicted with HIV/AIDS, and millions more around the world are also ill. Eight thousand people die in Africa each day from AIDS, and many of them are children. Only 50,000--1 in every 600--receive the drugs that we know can turn a deadly disease into a chronic one. This legislation promises that funds will finally be available to buy these lifesaving drugs. Our amendment is intended to see that these drugs will help the largest number of people possible. It does that by requiring that products be purchased at the lowest possible price. It does not add a penny to the cost of this bill. But it also means that we will get the greatest value for this very urgently needed investment to stop the HIV/AIDS epidemic. President Bush emphasized in his State of the Union Address ``antiretroviral drugs can extend life for many years. And the cost of these drugs has dropped from $12,000 a year to under $300 a year--which places a tremendous possibility within our grasp. Ladies and gentlemen, seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many.'' The best way to take advantage of this opportunity as identified by the President is to require the purchase of AIDS drugs of assured quality at the lowest possible price. That is now $300 a year--not $12,000. It is important that we understand the significance of this difference. If we use the funds in this bill to buy a year's supply of drugs for $12,000 a person, we will help only 100,000 persons. But if we buy the drugs for $300, we will help over 4 million. This amendment is based on the successful program of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. This program is proven to work in getting safe, high-quality drugs to people in need in the developing world at the lowest price. The essence of this amendment is simple. It fulfills the President's pledge to treat AIDS patients with drugs costing $300 per case. It protects America's intellectual property rights. It assures that drugs will be of the highest quality. But, most of all, it means we will be able to save millions of lives instead of thousands. Let us put patients first--not the profits of the drug companies. Let us buy drugs at the lowest possible price to treat the maximum number of patients. Let us deliver the best medicine at the best price. I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. KENNEDY. We were trying to reach 10 minutes for ourselves. We probably have 2 more minutes for the Senator to speak and then we are finished.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this Republican tax bill provides lavish support for the wealthy, but it gives only the back of its hand to America's senior citizens. This amendment changes those backward priorities. It eliminates the dividend tax cut and the cut in the top rate bracket, and uses the funds to pay for a Medicare prescription drug benefit for the elderly. The two tax cuts my amendment eliminates will primarily benefit the rich. Prescription drug coverage under Medicare will benefit 40 million senior citizens and the disabled individuals, who are overwhelmingly of modest means and typically have high medical costs. These men and women have stood by our country through war and depression. Giving them the medical care they deserve is a higher priority than giving the wealthy even greater wealth. When Republicans side with the wealthy, they call it free enterprise. When senior citizens ask for fair treatment, Republicans call it class warfare. Medicare is not class warfare. It's a solemn promise between government and the American people. It says, ``Play by the rules, contribute to the system during your working years, and you will have health security in your retirement years.'' Because of Medicare, the elderly have long had insurance for their hospital bills and their doctors bills. But the promise of health security at the core of Medicare is broken every day because Medicare does not cover the soaring price of prescription drugs. Too many elderly citizens must choose between food on the table and the medicine they need. Too many elderly Americans are taking only half the drugs their doctor prescribes--or none at all--because they can't afford them. Today, the average senior citizen has an income of $14,000--and prescription drug bills of $1,500, and many senior citizens pay far more than that. Every day, senior citizens face the harsh fact that prescription drug costs are going through the roof, while their incomes are stagnating. Over the last four years, prescription drug costs have gone up by 16 percent a year, while the Social Security benefits on which senior citizens depend have gone up only 2.3 percent a year. Hard-pressed employers are cutting back on retiree prescription drug coverage--and some retirees are losing their coverage altogether, because their former employers are now bankrupt. While millionaires receive huge tax breaks they do not need under the Republican tax plan, the Republican budget shortchanges senior citizens who desperately need prescription drug coverage. Prescription drug spending for senior citizens will total $1.8 trillion over the next decade but the Republican budget allocates only $400 billion for Medicare. Even worse, the Republican budget's $400 billion for Medicare isn't even reserved for prescription drug coverage. The President wants to spend tens of billions of this amount on so-called reforms to force senior citizens to give up Medicare and join HMOs or other private insurance plans. Relief for hard-pressed doctors, hospital, home health agencies, and nursing homes is also supposed to come out of this minimal allocation. It is important for every Senator to understand who it is that Medicare protects--and who it is that the Bush administration would force into an HMO or other private insurance plan. The typical Medicare enrollee is a 75-year-old widow, living alone. Her total income is just $11,300 a year. She has at least one chronic condition and suffers from arthritis. In her younger years, she and her husband worked hard. They raised a family. They stood by this country through economic hard times, the Second World War, the Korean war, and the cold war. They sacrificed to protect and build a better country--not just for their children but for all of us. This is the woman Republicans want to force to give up her doctor and join an HMO. This is the woman they say should give up her freedom to go to the physician and hospital of her choice, so that HMOs can profit. This is the woman who would be victimized if Congress allows the GOP plan for Medicare to become law. Senior citizens deserve prescription drug coverage--no ifs, ands, or buts. Republicans say Medicare is a failed program--but millions of senior citizens know better. Republicans believe that the private sector does a better job of controlling costs than Medicare--but studies show the reserve is true. Republicans say senior citizens should be forced to give up the doctors they trust, so that HMOs and private insurance plans can enjoy higher profits--but the American people don't agree; and the U.S. Senate shouldn't agree either. Senior citizens are faced with a deadly double whammy. Prescription drug costs are out of control, and private insurance coverage is drying up. Last year, prescription drug costs soared by a whopping 14 percent. They have shot up at double-digit rates in each of the last five years. Whether we are talking about employee retirement plans, Medigap coverage, or Medicare HMOs, prescription drug coverage is skyrocketing in cost, and becoming more and more out of reach by the elderly. It used to be that the only seniors with reliable, adequate, affordable coverage were the very poor on Medicaid. Today, because of the state fiscal crisis created by the recession and the let-them-eat- cake attitude of the Republican party, even the poorest of the poor can no longer count on protection. States are now facing the largest budget deficits in half a century--an estimated $26 billion this year, and $70 billion next year. The result is that States are cutting back on prescription drug coverage for those least able to pay. Thirty-nine States expect to cut their Medicaid drug benefit this year. In Massachusetts, 80,000 senior citizens were about to lose their prescription drug coverage under the State's Senior Advantage program on July 1. Emergency action by the State legislature saved the program, but only after making substantial reductions in coverage. Tax cuts in this Republican bill will make the States' fiscal situation even worse. Because State taxes are often pegged to the Federal system, the dividend tax cut alone will cost States $11 billion over the next 10 years. Ten million of the elderly enjoy high quality, affordable retirement coverage through a former employer. But retiree coverage is plummeting too. In just 8 years--from 1994 to 2002--the number of firms offering retiree coverage fell by a massive 40 percent. Medicare HMOs are also drastically cutting back. Since 1999, more than 2 million Medicare beneficiaries have been dropped by their Medicare HMOs. Of the HMOs that remain in the program, more than 70 percent limit drug coverage to a meager $500 a year or less, and more than half only pay for generic drugs. Medigap plans that offer drug coverage are priced out of reach for most seniors--and even the coverage offered is severely limited. Thirteen million Medicare beneficiaries have no prescription drug coverage at all. Only half of all senior citizens have coverage throughout the year. Previous Republican proposals have shown what happens to senior citizens when funds are inadequate. High deductibles, gaps in coverage, demeaning asset tests, and incentives for employers to drop retiree coverage are just some of the unacceptable features of programs that give crumbs to the elderly and plums to the wealthy. This amendment strikes two provisions of the tax bill that primarily benefit the rich, in order to provide funds to give the elderly the prescription drug benefit they deserve. The first provision the amendment strikes speeds up the reduction of the top tax rate from 38.6 percent to 36 percent. Virtually all the benefits of this Republican tax rate reduction go to people earning more than $310,000 a year. People earning a million dollars a year or more will receive a tax cut of $60,000. I ask Members of the Senate: Do persons with a million dollars in income a year really need another $60,000 in tax cuts? Surely, our values and priorities have not become so warped that we think it is more important for millionaires to be richer than it is for senior citizens to have life-saving prescription drugs. The second provision the amendment strikes is the dividend tax cut. That cut does virtually nothing for senior citizens and everything for the wealthy. The provision in the bill is only a partial elimination of the tax on dividends, but its intention is clearly to set the stage for full repeal of the tax. The full repeal would certainly be welcomed by millionaires. They will get an average tax break of $52,000. But a low- income elderly person with $8,600 in income will get a tax cut averaging $1. And the average elderly person with an income of $14,000 will get a tax cut of $26. Do the Members of the Senate really believe this is the right priority for our country? The funds saved from this amendment--$115 billion over 10 years--will be used to provide a better prescription drug benefit than will be possible if this tax bill passes in its current form. Passing this amendment will be a clear statement by the Senate that mending the broken promise of Medicare is more important than lavishing unneeded and undeserved new tax breaks on millionaires.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are involved in a debate between Republicans and Democrats about how to get the economy going, but there is one reality, and that is that we have stagnation at the present time. There is one lifeline for millions of hard-working Americans who paid into the unemployment compensation fund, and that is to extend the unemployment compensation benefits. Today there are 18,000 Iraqi veterans who are on unemployment compensation, and that number is increasing every single week. We are talking about funds that have been paid into that fund by these workers. They are entitled in a time of difficulty and challenge to get that money back to help them meet their mortgage, put food on the table, and take care of their children. The American people understand fairness, and they understand, on the one hand, if we are going to provide billions for the wealthiest individuals in this country, we ought to look out for hard-working men and women who have played by the rules, worked hard all their lives, have paid into that fund, and now need that assistance. This is what that amendment does. In the last 10 years, we have extended unemployment compensation benefits seven times. It has been extended by Republican Presidents, and we ought to do it today.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this amendment provides for allocating $12.7 billion from the acceleration of the upper tax bracket reduction. This effectively does not change the law. The President's 2003 bill asks for an acceleration of the reduction of the tax brackets for 2001 and 2002, and this defers that. In fact, it collects some $35 billion. We use $12.7 billion of that to pay for this extension. Our workers take pride in doing a good job and providing for their families, putting their children through school, and saving for a secure retirement. But for millions of Americans that dream is gone. Years of saving and sacrifice have disappeared with a single pink slip. Instead of looking to a bright future, now they must look in their children's eyes, and say, I am sorry; you can't go to college; you can't buy new shoes. We can no longer afford to stay in this house. In fact, since losing their jobs, one in every four have moved to less expensive housing or moved in with their friends or their families. These are the figures about the impact on the family because of unemployment. We are talking about Americans who have worked, want to work, and are being laid off because of economic conditions. They have collected unemployment compensation for a period of time, which is about a third of their pay. Now they are in danger of losing that at the rate of 80,000 Americans per week at the end of this month. It is interesting that we now have 18,000 American servicemen who have returned from Iraq and are now on the unemployment line. Now they are receiving unemployment compensation because the jobs were not there when they came back. That number is growing every single week because their jobs have effectively been eliminated. The unemployment impact on the family is that more than 3 in 4--77 percent--of the unemployed Americans say the level of stress in their family has increased. Two-thirds--65 percent--of those with children have cut back in spending for all of their children; 26 percent say another family member has to start a job or increase the work hours; and 23 percent have had to interrupt their education or that of a family member--one-quarter of all the unemployed now. That is happening in America. We have an opportunity to do something about it with this bill by just deferring the upper tax rates--not cancelling them out but deferring those. Now we have the financial hardship on the unemployed. More than one-half of the unemployed adults have had to postpone medical treatment--57 percent--or cut back on spending for food--56 percent. One in four--26 percent--had to move to other housing or move in with their friends or relatives. Thirty-eight percent have lost their telephone service. These are hard-working Americans who have lost their telephone service. Without this amendment, 80,000 per week will lose all kinds of help and assistance from unemployment compensation. This is what is happening to them already. Thirty-eight percent have lost their telephone service. Twenty-two percent are worried about losing their phone service. More than a third have had trouble paying gas or electric bills. That is just the beginning. If you look at the number of workers who have lost their health insurance, one-half of them have already lost their health insurance when they were laid off, and the others who have been able to retain their health insurance are in danger of losing that. One-third of the unemployed covered by health insurance have lost their benefits as a result of just being unemployed. The rest of them are going to lose that when they lose their unemployment compensation. In fact, since losing their jobs, one in every four have moved into less expensive housing or moved in with friends or families, more than a third can't pay their electric and gas bills, and more than one-half cut back on their food. One-half million men and women have joined the unemployment lines in the past 3 months. That is 500,000 fellow Americans who have joined the unemployment lines in the last 3 months. No end is in sight. In Massachusetts, the jobless rate has jumped to a 9-year high--5.7 percent. Nationally the unemployment rate has reached 6 percent, with 9 million Americans out of work and 2 million of those out of work for more than 6 months. These Americans are not the first priority--they are not even a priority--in this administration's tax reduction program because there is not a nickel in extended unemployment compensation for any of these workers who have lost out. In fact, in this economy with no jobs, they have learned a lot about being second-class citizens with second mortgages and secondhand clothes to make ends meet. Our first priority on the economy is to get these working Americans back to work--not just to reward the wealthy. A major part of that effort must be help for the unemployed. The current Federal unemployment benefit program runs out at the end of this month. With a continued troubled economy, this extension cannot be business as usual. Our amendment extends the current program for 6 months, but it also helps the 1.1 million Americans who are long-term unemployed and the hundreds of thousands who are part-time and low-wage workers who would otherwise get no help. Our amendment provides 26 weeks of benefits to out-of-work Americans, just as we provided during the last recession in the bipartisan bills signed by the first President Bush. Nearly 1 million more private sector jobs have been lost during this recession than over the same period of the early 1990s recession. The impact in the 1990s, in terms of workers being able to find jobs, was not nearly as bad as it is currently, and yet we did twice as much for them. It is inconceivable why we are not willing to take the steps to help our fellow Americans when they have already paid into the fund. These workers have contributed to the fund. The fund is in surplus today. All we are asking is, let's use that fund that is in surplus today to assist them during this period of transition. This should be a no- brainer. This ought to be embraced overwhelmingly. Where are the votes that we received in the early 1990s--by 90 votes--with bipartisanship. And still we have the reluctance by our friends on the other side to support this program. In the last recession, we also made sure that workers who ran out of Federal benefits but still could not find work were not left out in the cold. Today, one in five unemployed workers has been out of work for more than 6 months. In January, we left out 1 million of these long- term unemployed without jobs and without any safety net. Today, there are 100,000 more. Our amendment provides 13 more weeks of benefits for these long-suffering Americans. Clearly, we owe it to all Americans who have lost their jobs in this economy to provide help while they look for new jobs. They paid into the unemployment compensation. They have to be out looking for jobs or they do not qualify, and they are doing that, and still they are going to be left high and dry without this amendment. The actions in recent months to extend the benefits have left out too many workers, particularly compared to America's response in the past. In 1975, 75 percent of unemployed workers were eligible for unemployment benefits, compared to only half of such workers last year. And that is because unemployment insurance has not been updated to meet the changing times; and that is because our good friends on the other side have changed the terms of who was going to be eligible. Isn't that amazing. You are only going to find half of all unemployed workers who are eligible, even though they are certainly similar in terms of their working and contributing. Many of the unemployed who fail to receive benefits are part-time and low-wage workers. Part-time and low-wage workers pay into the system, and they should be able to rely on it while searching for new jobs. Our amendment offers the States the option--does not require it; it offers the States the option--to request Federal assistance to provide benefits for these workers. Out-of-work Americans have worked hard all their lives. They have paid into the unemployment insurance fund, which has $21 billion. We cannot now say to these citizens: Now that you are out of work, struggling to pay your bills, we will not let you collect on your insurance policy. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment which will provide a lifeline to those hurt the most by the protracted economic downturn. The extension runs out in just 2 weeks. We cannot wait. Congress must act now to provide the assistance out-of-work Americans deserve. We may have some difference on the floor of the Senate about who has the best economic stimulus program. And we do have significant differences--significant differences--but we ought to be able to agree, whether you support the Republican or the Democratic program, that we are not going to hold unemployed workers hostage until it kicks in and provides job opportunities for workers. We ought to all be able to agree to that. We have done that in a bipartisan way historically. The trust fund is in surplus. People are hurting. They are our fellow workers. We cannot deny them the kind of hand they need and they have been working with over the course of their working lives. We should accept this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. I was asking them what time they need, and I will let the chairman know in just a very few minutes who intends to come over here and exactly how much time we need. I intend to speak about 20 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this amendment is of enormous importance to the matter we are debating in the Senate, which is basically legislation that is targeted on strengthening and improving our economy. We all know when the Senate of the United States has acted in the past to strengthen and improve our economy, on a number of very important occasions we have had a very positive impact. Later in the discussion and debate, we will have what is called a Democratic alternative, which will provide what I consider to be a very compelling amendment that will result in stimulating the economy and really provide additional jobs. It will be fairly balanced in helping hard-working Americans. It will assist small businesses with accelerated depreciation and will also provide assistance to the States so they can use funds to provide for the No Child Left Behind legislation, and perhaps offset some of the anticipated cuts in Medicaid and also deal with some of the other State priorities. One of the most important aspects of economic recovery that this underlying proposal that has come out of the Finance Committee is missing is a provision to deal with the millions of Americans who are currently unemployed as a result of economic policy. We have seen at other times in our country when we have taken action here in the Senate, going back to the early 1960s. We had economic stimulus programs and we had the longest period of economic growth and price stability, in the early period of the 1960s, that we had had up to that time in this century. Then, in 1993, we also took action here on the floor Senate and we have had the longest period of economic growth, again with price stability, and the creation of some 22 million additional jobs. We on our side are strongly committed to taking steps that are going to revive our economy, stimulate the economy. We will have an opportunity to debate that later in the afternoon. This amendment is targeted on those Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own but because our economy is in stagnation. At other times in American history, we have responded to the needs of these families. These are hard-working American families who have played by the rules, have paid into the unemployment compensation fund, and now are entitled to benefit from it. Without this amendment, starting at the end of May there are going to be 80,000 workers a week who will lose their unemployment compensation. This is an emergency, and it is a matter which I hope we will address and will have the strong support of Republicans and Democrats alike. Effectively, this amendment extends the temporary unemployment compensation program through November. The program is currently scheduled to prohibit any new enrollees after May 31, leaving 80,000 workers a week to run out of their benefits. It provides 26 weeks to all eligible workers, with an additional 7 weeks available to the States with the highest unemployment. That would be some six States as of today. It provides an additional 13 weeks to unemployed workers who have exhausted their initial 13 weeks of extended benefits prior to the enactment, and it does provide help and assistance to low-wage workers. It provides temporary funding for States to implement alternative base periods. What we mean is, in a number of instances workers should be entitled to unemployment compensation. But if they seek part-time work, they lose all eligibility for unemployment compensation in almost every state. Yet they want to go back to work to provide for their families, and all this does is permit the States to make these adjustments so they can go back to work, maybe part-time, and not lose their unemployment compensation. The amendment also provides some technical provisions to add just for the railroad workers to permit greater parity. Historically, unemployment insurance has been a bipartisan issue. In the recessions of the late 1950s, President Eisenhower proposed a temporary program of extended unemployment assistance. In the recession of the early 1970s, President Nixon signed into law two extensions of unemployment compensation. In the mid-1970s, President Ford proposed a temporary Federal extension of benefits. In the early 1980s, President Reagan signed into law four unemployment extensions. And in the early 1990s, President Bush, after twice vetoing unemployment extensions, ultimately saw the importance of this policy and signed into law three extensions. Each of these 1990 extensions, some for 26 weeks of benefits, received overwhelming bipartisan support. In November of 1991, we passed an extension by a vote of 91 to 2. In February of 1992, we passed, by a vote of 94 to 2, a bill to provide 26 weeks of benefits to most States, 33 weeks in high unemployment States. Many of the Senators currently in this body voted for that extension, which today they are calling unprecedented. We have seen, over the years, Republicans and Democrats alike have supported this legislation. In July of 1992, the vote was 93 to 3; in November of 1993, 79 to 20; and in the last 2 years we have had a number of bipartisan votes. The Temporary Federal Unemployment Benefit Program passed, 85 to 9, in March of 2002. This is not a partisan issue. Layoffs do not discriminate by party. This is a matter of fairness. I urge our colleagues to put aside partisanship and to support this particular proposal. There are those who raise these kinds of questions in opposition to this program. They say people want handouts. They do not want handouts. They want jobs. People want jobs, but there are not any jobs in the economy. There is only one job available for every three unemployed workers. The Democrats have a plan to create the jobs. But today we have to help the millions of people without jobs because of the bad economy. They need help paying the mortgage and putting food on the table. Some say the unemployment rate isn't high by historic standards, and only a few States have reached the trigger for extended benefits. But we know that we have now 2.5 million fewer jobs than we had some 2 years ago. Look at this. We had 2.8 million additional unemployed over the period of these last 2 years; 6 million unemployed in January of 2001; and we have 8.8 million as of April this year. We have seen over this period of time the fact that the total number of private sector jobs has decreased by 2.7 million--2.7 million jobs lost. We had 111.7 million in January 2001, and 109 million now. We are seeing a significant increase in the total number of the unemployed, and we have also seen a reduction in the total number of jobs that are out there. These are hard-working Americans. We are trying to get the economy into an expansion. But at this particular time they are hurting. That is why we need to have an extension of the unemployment compensation. Let me mention who these people are and what the state of our economy is at the present time. All Americans understand the economy has been deteriorating for more than 2 years. President Bush claims the tax cut for the rich will create jobs. We tried that his way in 2001. We lost 2.5 million jobs. Alan Greenspan and Warren Buffett and the Nation's leading economists, including 10 Nobel laureates, all agree that the President's plan is the wrong prescription for the sick economy. Average Americans are hurting. It is time for a change. We need an economic plan that helps our fellow citizens and which creates new jobs. Yet, there is not a penny in this bill to provide the unemployment compensation for the Americans laid off prior to the time the new jobs are created. Unemployment benefits expire in just 2 weeks for many of these workers. This amendment is cosponsored by 13 of my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that they be listed as cosponsors on this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am prepared to accommodate the chairman of the Finance Committee. We had a general concept of an hour. I will not personally take an hour. We have 25 cosponsors.

Mr. KENNEDY. I intend to do that right at this very moment. I have sent an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration. It is amendment No. 544.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I call up my amendment.