Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Is the Senator prepared to yield back, or is the Senator going to talk? I would like to respond.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that divided between myself and the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to retain a minute of my time, if the Chair would inform me. This country has given focus to the battle on the war on terrorism in a variety of different ways, but one area which is enormously important is the threat we are facing from bioterrorism. We enacted legislation even prior to 9/11 that was very helpful and important at that time. We have enacted legislation subsequently, and next week we are going to be enacting legislation which will support the President's commitment for some $6 billion that will be used to develop vaccinations in anticipation of the threat we will be having overseas by these very dangerous pathogens that are being developed. Now we have smallpox and anthrax that are dangerous to this country. People in this city have certainly witnessed the dangers. Families have been impacted and affected because loved ones have lost their lives because of the dangers of anthrax. This amendment is meant to provide help to local communities to make sure they have an effective vaccination program, period. There are a number of different features in the war dealing with bioterrorism. One is to make sure we have the people on the ground who are trained, supported, who have the ability to screen, have the vaccines, and will do the followup work if we expect this program to take off. Secondly, we have to have a compensation program that will be available to provide help to these individuals if there is an adverse reaction. Why this is so important is these first responders, when they signed up for their job, didn't think they were taking on the additional responsibility of dealing with terrorism. Now we are asking them to do that. We are asking them to do something in addition. In some instances, with some vaccines, they will be risking their lives, because we know a certain number of them are going to die and a certain amount of them will have serious disabilities as a result of taking the vaccine. That is the vaccination compensation program. That is not on this bill. What we are talking about here is making sure individuals in local communities are going to have the resources to resist any bioterrorism that comes their way in the form of anthrax and smallpox. To do it, you have to give support to local communities. This legislation before us does not do it. There is no funding whatsoever. There are billions for our soldiers and our sailors, and all of us are for that, but it does not provide any resources. I say that against this following background. Last year we cut support for our hospitals by $1.9 billion. Those were cuts in the Medicaid program and also in what we call graduate medical education. We provided $500 million for them under the battle of bioterrorism, but they still lost $1.4 billion in cuts to the hospitals. We say we have already provided sufficient funding for these hospitals. I will not take the time now, because it is short, to read into the record what the hospitals are saying, not just in my State but all over the country, the pressure they are under to try to get the programs started. My friend and colleague from Indiana has indicated it costs about $80. Actually, according to better estimates, it is about $200. I will put that in the Record. I thank him for offering this amendment. The President's program is asking 10 million people in phase 2 of the immunization program, 10 million people. Under the Bayh program you get coverage for about 4 million. It is a very modest program. That is $85. It is done cheaper in the military because they have the trained personnel to do it. By and large, public health officials believe if we are going to have a monitoring program--and we have seen in this past week how important that monitoring program can be, because if you have these kinds of vaccinations going to individuals who have some kind of heart complication and difficulty, it can cause death. That is why the monitoring is so important. We want to make sure we have a program that will be put in place. Today it is suspended by 10 States. Ten States are not doing it because they don't think the program itself has been set up in a way which can provide adequate protection to the individuals who need it. I hope our friend and colleague on the Appropriations Committee will be willing to accept this amendment. It is a bare-bones amendment. I remind the Senate what happened yesterday in the Human Resources Committee when we were dealing with the compensation program. Our friend and colleague, Senator Mikulski, made an impassioned statement about what happened to a particular individual in her State with this vaccination program. It was accepted unanimously, by Republican and Democrat, that there should be additional resources to make sure if we go ahead with this immunization program--I am strongly committed that we do--it is done wisely and right. The amendment offered by Senator Bayh and Senator Mikulski and others--I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor, if I am not--is an absolutely essential part on the war on terrorism.

Mr. KENNEDY. Fighting against the dangers of bioterrorism is a key aspect on the war on terrorism. To do that, you need to have two components: One, you need a compensation program; secondly, you need to be able to get that program of vaccinations out there. It is not getting out there now. It is putting too great a strain on local public health officials. We should give them assistance to make sure we have the very best. We want the best for our service men and women fighting in Iraq, and we want the best for our first responders whose lives are at risk. This amendment will ensure they will receive the best in terms of support in local communities. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Sixteen and a half minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. We will reserve our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object--because I understand my friend just came from the Judiciary Committee and some of us want to get over to the Judiciary Committee, and I understand Senator Bayh was set to go on at 11:05--now we are asking consent to move Senator Bayh's amendment to a later time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Feingold and Senator Landrieu in introducing the Fair Treatment and Due Process Protection Act of 2003, which will benefit low-income families across the Nation by providing inportant civil rights protections to welfare recipients. Many families who apply for welfare benefits do not speak English or have limited English proficiency. Yet when they arrive at the welfare office, there is no interpreter or translator to assist them. Too often, eligible families leave the welfare office not enrolled in the program and without access to needed benefits and services. Even those who succeed in enrolling often leave the welfare office without understanding the rules for participation, and are later penalized and lose benefits. In virtually all of these cases, families want to play by the rules, but barriers such as limited English language skills prevent them from doing so. By helping to eliminate the language barriers, we can help them to play by the rules. Under the Food Stamp program, States are already required to evaluate applicants' English language skills and provide translation and interpreter services when necessary. Our bill will extend this same requirement to the welfare program to ensure that families who need benefits actually get them and can understand how to comply with the program. States would also be required to advise adults on the programs available in their community to help them learn English. For individuals who elect to participate in an English language program, states would be able to count these activities toward the federal work requirements. Clearly, families must be able to play by the rules, but the rules must be fair, especially when children are at risk. Today, however, when States impose penalties, they often penalize the entire family. Even money to support the childern in these families is suspended. Our bill provides important protections against unnecessary penalties. States would be required to inform families of the specific reasons for imposing a penalty and what the families can do to avoid it. States would also be prohibited from continuing a penalty after the family has come into compliance. It is unfair to penalize families for noncompliance because they did not understand the rules. The children in these families deserve to be cared for. An additional provision in this bill encourages States to collect data on welfare outcomes, including why families leave welfare and how they fare over the long term. It also encourages States to collect data by race, ethnic background, and primary language, so that disparities in access, use, or well-being become known and can be addressed by changes in policy and programs. The knowledge obtained from these data will help to ensure that welfare policies help more people in better ways. Protecting families from discrimination because of their native language, safeguarding them from unnecessary and harmful penalties, and understanding how policies affect families are important parts of genuine and fair welfare reform. The Fair Treatment and Due Process Protection Act of 2003 will help many more families to obtain the support they so desperately need, and I urge my colleagues to approve these important protections.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Feingold and Senator Landrieu in introducing the Fair Treatment and Due Process Protection Act of 2003, which will benefit low-income families across the Nation by providing inportant civil rights protections to welfare recipients. Many families who apply for welfare benefits do not speak English or have limited English proficiency. Yet when they arrive at the welfare office, there is no interpreter or translator to assist them. Too often, eligible families leave the welfare office not enrolled in the program and without access to needed benefits and services. Even those who succeed in enrolling often leave the welfare office without understanding the rules for participation, and are later penalized and lose benefits. In virtually all of these cases, families want to play by the rules, but barriers such as limited English language skills prevent them from doing so. By helping to eliminate the language barriers, we can help them to play by the rules. Under the Food Stamp program, States are already required to evaluate applicants' English language skills and provide translation and interpreter services when necessary. Our bill will extend this same requirement to the welfare program to ensure that families who need benefits actually get them and can understand how to comply with the program. States would also be required to advise adults on the programs available in their community to help them learn English. For individuals who elect to participate in an English language program, states would be able to count these activities toward the federal work requirements. Clearly, families must be able to play by the rules, but the rules must be fair, especially when children are at risk. Today, however, when States impose penalties, they often penalize the entire family. Even money to support the childern in these families is suspended. Our bill provides important protections against unnecessary penalties. States would be required to inform families of the specific reasons for imposing a penalty and what the families can do to avoid it. States would also be prohibited from continuing a penalty after the family has come into compliance. It is unfair to penalize families for noncompliance because they did not understand the rules. The children in these families deserve to be cared for. An additional provision in this bill encourages States to collect data on welfare outcomes, including why families leave welfare and how they fare over the long term. It also encourages States to collect data by race, ethnic background, and primary language, so that disparities in access, use, or well-being become known and can be addressed by changes in policy and programs. The knowledge obtained from these data will help to ensure that welfare policies help more people in better ways. Protecting families from discrimination because of their native language, safeguarding them from unnecessary and harmful penalties, and understanding how policies affect families are important parts of genuine and fair welfare reform. The Fair Treatment and Due Process Protection Act of 2003 will help many more families to obtain the support they so desperately need, and I urge my colleagues to approve these important protections.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Vermont for making very plain for the record and to the American people exactly what has happened over the last period of time. As he has pointed out, there have been more than 100 judges who have been recommended by President Bush, many of them pro-life, which have been favorably considered by this body. It was not the Members on this side who have changed the rules. The fact is, it has been this administration's attempt to shape the Federal judiciary. And as the constitutional debates showed so clearly, there was to be a balance. Initially, during the Constitutional Convention, the Senate of the United States was to be the sole namer of Federal judges. It was only at the end that that was to be a shared responsibility. There are some who just want us to rubberstamp whatever the President recommends. We do not believe that is what our Founding Fathers intended us to do, as bearing responsibility for the Federal judiciary. The fact remains, this nominee is known only to the administration, but not to the Judiciary Committee or the American people. They know how he stands. They have understandings of all of his positions. But the Judiciary Committee and the American people do not. That is what is being asked of now. There have been other times in our history where we have had nominees who did not respond to questions, but they had written documents, and they had articles, speeches, and other decisions that reflected their judicial philosophy. This does not exist here. This is a unique, special situation. And the Senator from Vermont has stated time in and time out over the course of the debate the reasons for it. He should be supported on it. I stand with him. I stand with the institution, the Senate, that says to be able to exercise our responsibility in advice and consent, we ought to be exercising balanced judgment based on the views of the nominee and his views of the Constitution of the United States. We have not received his views on it. And he refused to give it. Nor do we understand from past writings, statements, or other positions what his views are. And the American people are entitled to it. Mr. President, we must be very clear about what is at stake in this debate over the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the second highest court in the land. Confirming Mr. Estrada to the DC Circuit would give a major victory to the Republican drive to pack the Federal courts with judges who are hostile to civil rights, workers' rights, and many other basic guarantees that define the rights and liberties of all our citizens. Confirming him would also deal a blow to the Senate's advice and consent role in the selection of federal judges. This role is among the most important of the checks and balances that make our government work. It has ensured that whoever is in the White House cannot use their short term in power to pack the courts by giving lifetime appointments to judges who will decide cases for years in a biased way. As we all know, the debates at the constitutional convention make clear that the Senate has a very important role in the selection of judges. In fact, the power initially was to rest solely with the Senate. Although now the power to nominate rests with the President, it is clear that the Senate's advice and consent role is a substantive role, and a critical role. As Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist No. 77: If by influencing the President meant restraining him, this is precisely what must have been intended. The role of the Senate is vital to ensuring a strong and independent judiciary that will protect citizens' rights. When Republicans try to force the Senate to confirm Mr. Estrada without any significant information about him, they are attacking the role of the Senate and undermining this important constitutional provision. Despite a growing and disturbing trend during this administration, of giving the Senate less and less information about judges, the Senate has made clear our position that we need this information to fulfill our constitutional role. We have had many nominees who were not particularly forthcoming in their committee hearing about their views on certain topics. But we typically had a large written record to help us understand those nominees' approach to judging. Often, the Senate attempted in good faith to accommodate the President and review the record as it was given to us. In other cases, if a nominee had only very little record to examine, we could rely on their answers at their hearing to give meaningful advice and consent. Mr. Estrada represents the extreme of this trend. At his hearing, he was silent on important issues that would help us determine what kind of judge he would be. He does not have a written record to review. The one thing that would help us is the body of work by Mr. Estrada at the Justice Department. But the White House will not turn these documents over, despite the fact that they have turned over similar documents for other nominees in the past. Confirming Miguel Estrada on this record would not only undermine the Senate's important advice and consent role, it would also threaten the rights of millions of Americans who are affected by the judges of the DC Circuit. Unless we preserve this important role, the independence of the Federal courts will be lost. And it is this independence of the judicial branch from the executive and legislative branches that gives the Federal courts an indispensable role in protecting and upholding the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In defending the role of the Senate in confirming judicial nominees, we are also protecting the role of the Federal courts in our constitutional form of government. It is our responsibility to defend both of these important aspects of our democracy, and we intend to continue to do so. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture today. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself the 2\1/2\ minutes. I urge my colleagues to vote against the nomination of Timothy Tymkovich to the Tenth Circuit because I do not believe he has met his burden of showing that he has the qualifications, fairness, and commitment to core constitutional values required of an appellate court judge. The positions that Mr. Tymkovich has taken raise serious questions about his ability to be open-minded in cases involving gay rights and privacy, reproductive choice, and the power of the Federal Government with regard to the States. As State Solicitor General, Mr. Tymkovich defended Colorado's antigay ballot initiative, Amendment 2, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans for violating the equal protection clause. The Romer decision vindicated the ability of gays and lesbians to employ the political process to secure antidiscrimination protections, in the same manner as other American citizens. Justice Kennedy, the author of the Romer decision, perhaps put it best when he said ``it is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws like Amendment 2. . . . Central to both the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance.'' As State solicitor, Mr. Tymkovich had a duty to defend Amendment 2, but I am concerned about the content and the tenor of the comments made by Mr. Tymkovich in a law review article he wrote after the Court decided Romer in which he harshly criticized the Court's reasoning and its decision. Not simply content to disagree with the Romer decision, Mr. Tymkovich berates the Romer Court for its ``ad hoc, activist jurisprudence'' and its ``willingness to block a disfavored political result.'' Mr. Tymkovich defends the antigay ordinance as the exercise of freedom against immoral behavior. Employing language that is a frightening parallel to that used by advocates against Federal laws prohibiting racial discrimination in the 1960s, Mr. Tymkovich suggests that prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an improper infringement on an individual's liberty interest. Mr. Tymkovich's statements lead one to question whether he will understand the vital role that the equal protection clause and antidiscrimination legislation plays in protecting minorities against popularly-enacted laws. According to Mr. Tymkovich, ``it is always legitimate public policy for voters or legislatures to repeal disfavored laws. No law, including civil rights legislation can be seen as a one-way street. In the end, this important point was lost on the U.S. Supreme Court.'' The harsh tone of the criticism raises concerns about how Tymkovich will approach the civil rights cases that come before him, and raises questions about his judgment and temperament. At his hearing and in answers to written questions, Mr. Tymkovich did state that he would follow Romer, and that he would be fair in antidiscrimination cases involving sexual orientation and other matters. But it is difficult to reconcile the assertion she made at his hearing with the strong statements in his article. As solicitor general, Mr. Tymkovich unsuccessfully defended Colorado's decision to cut off, in violation of Federal law, State Medicaid funding for abortions for poor women who had become pregnant due to rape or incest. Again here, Mr. Tymkovich can argue that he was simply doing his job. However, in testimony before Congress in 1996, Mr. Tymkovich criticized the Medicaid requirements as an unwarranted intrusion into a matter of state concern. In that same testimony, Mr. Tymkovich also criticized the Federal ``Motor Voter'' law as intrusive because it poses ``special burdens'' on States; criticized the EPA's decision to prosecute polluters who violated Federal environmental law standards as infringing on state prerogatives, and argued against the doctrine of implied preemption. This testimony, in his capacity as one of the top legal advisors to the State Attorney General, leads me to question whether Tymkovich would have the proper respect for congressional authority to pass laws that impact States. Finally, Mr. Tymkovich received a partial rating of ``not-qualified'' from the American Bar Association. While such a rating is not automatically disqualifying, when combined with my other questions about Mr. Tymkovich, it leads me to conclude that I cannot support his nomination. Our Federal courts and the American people deserve judges of the highest caliber: judges who are fair, open, and impartial, who are highly qualified, who possess unimpeachable integrity, and who are committed to core constitutional values. The nominee has the burden to show the Senate that he or she meets that standard and is worthy of confirmation. Unfortunately, Mr. Tymkovich has failed to do so. I am concerned about what seems like the right-wing ideological bent of the nominees that the administration continues to send forward. I urge this administration to work with the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, to nominate moderate judges who are qualified, fair, and have bipartisan support. This can be easily done. But the administration continues to insist on its unilateral right to pack the courts with judges hostile to civil rights and to the enforcement of important Federal laws with profound impacts on the lives of Americans. The central values of our society--whether our society will continue to be committed to equally, freedom of expression, and the right to privacy--are at issue with each of these nominations. The Constitution does not contemplate a Senate that acts as a rubber stamp. A genuine advice and consent role is essential. If the administration continues to nominate judges who would weaken the core values of our country and roll back the civil rights laws that have made our country a more inclusive democracy, the Senate should reject them. I urge the Senate to reject his nomination.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains on Senator Leahy's time?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our dear colleague, Pat Moynihan, was a true giant in the Senate, and his loss is deeply felt by all of us who knew him and admired him. He was a brilliant statesman and legislator, and he was also a wonderful friend to all the Kennedys throughout his extraordinary career in the public life of the nation. Forty-two years ago, President Kennedy enlisted many of the finest minds of his generation to serve in the New Frontier. Among the outstanding young men and women who answered his call was the brilliant young Irishman who became a special assistant to Jack's Secretary of Labor--and then an Assistant Secretary of Labor himself--Daniel Patrick Moynihan. On that snowy Inauguration Day in January 1961, the torch was passed to that new generation of Americans, and Pat Moynihan helped to hold it high in all the years that followed. Pat leaves an outstanding legacy of extraordinary public service and brilliant intellectual achievement that all of us are proud of, and that President Kennedy would have been proud of, too. Throughout his remarkable career, Pat was on the front lines on the great social, political, and cultural challenges of the day. To know him was to love him--the remarkable intellect, the exceptional clarity of his thinking--the abiding Irish wit that impressed and enthralled us all so often. We were not alone. Pat's qualities and achievements captivated, educated, and inspired an entire generation of Americans. All of us in Congress and around the Nation learned a great deal from Pat, and we will miss him dearly. His wisdom and experience contributed immensely to the progress our country has made on a wide variety of issues. We loved the professor in him. It was not unusual for Senators on both sides of the aisle to come to the Senate floor to hear Pat speak--Senators sitting like students in a class, trying to understand a complex issue we were struggling with. The whole Senate loved and respected Pat. As he often said, ``If you don't have 30 years to devote to social policy, don't get involved.'' He dedicated his brilliant mind and his beautiful Irish heart to that challenge, and America is a stronger and better and fairer nation today because of his contributions. With his great insight, and wisdom, he skillfully questioned the way things worked, constantly searching for new and better ways to enable all Americans to achieve their dreams. In the 24 years Pat served with us in the Senate, he was the architect of many of the Nation's most progressive initiatives to help our fellow citizens, especially those in need. He left his mark on virtually every major piece of domestic policy legislation enacted by Congress. He had a central role in shaping the debate on welfare reform, and he was a visionary when it came to protecting and strengthening Medicare and Social Security. He spearheaded the major transportation legislation that provides indispensable support for highways throughout the country and for mass transit in our cities. An important part of Pat's legacy is the restoration of Pennsylvania Avenue, which my friend and colleague, Senator Schumer, referenced--the nation's principal thoroughfare. The key to that dream was the preservation of Lafayette Park, right across from the White House. Jackie Kennedy Onassis put forward the vision that she and Pat shared to preserve that famous national square and the townhouses that surround it, which are such a vital part of our history and our architectural heritage. Throughout his career, Pat worked brilliantly, effectively, tirelessly, and with great political skill, to promote the highest values of public service. And in doing so, he earned well-deserved renown and respect from all of us in Congress on both sides of the aisle, from Republican and Democratic administrations alike, from political thinkers, foreign policy experts, and leaders of other nations as well. In a world of increasing specialization, there was no limit to his interest or his intellect or his ability. In so many ways, he was the living embodiment of what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the United States Senate. And he did it all without ever losing his common touch, because he cared so deeply about the millions of citizens he served so well, the people of New York. One of my own happiest associations with Pat was our work together to end the violence in Northern Ireland and bring peace to that beautiful land of our ancestors. Pat and I worked closely with Tip O'Neill and Hugh Carey on that issue, and they called us the ``Four Horsemen.'' Pat believed very deeply in that cause and in all the other great causes he did so much to advance during his long and brilliant career. Whether serving in the Navy or as professor, adviser to Presidents, Ambassador, or Senator, Pat brought out the best in everyone he touched, and his mark on earth will be remembered forever. At another dark time in our history, after President Kennedy was taken from us, Pat said, ``I don't think there's any point in being Irish if you don't know that the world is going to break your heart eventually.'' Pat's loss breaks all our hearts today, and we know we will never forget him. We never forgot the lilt of his Irish laughter that stole our hearts away. My heart goes out to Liz and the entire Moynihan family. We will miss Pat very much, and we will do our best to carry on his incomparable work to make our country and our world a better place. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, outside of the education of children, American families are most concerned about whether they have health insurance coverage. President Bush, in his budget, requested of the Congress some $89 billion. In the budget before us now, it has only $50 billion. This amendment brings the budget up to what President Bush had asked for. It makes no judgment about the form of any health insurance program. I am hopeful we can put this on our agenda and respond to an overwhelming concern of American families. This would provide an important downpayment to make sure we had some resources to begin that process. I appreciate the fact that the chairman of the Budget Committee is willing to accept it.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have a couple of others.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 357 on behalf of myself, Senators Bingaman, Johnson, and others.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how could we in good conscience deny unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed at the same time we are considering more than $1.3 trillion in additional tax cuts disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest taxpayer? That is exactly what this budget does. This amendment will extend and expand unemployment benefits for the millions of workers who need them. It will cost just $16 billion, about 1 percent of the cost of the tax cut. That should not be too much to ask for those families who need our help the most. More than 4 million Americans will be unemployed with no Federal benefits after June 1 under the current law. These men and women have worked hard for years, paid into the unemployment fund, and now find themselves without a job through no fault of their own. They are victims of the stagnant economy, and the economic news is not getting any better. Where is our concern for these 4 million Americans? Where is our sense of fairness? I hope Members will support this amendment.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment on the unemployment benefits extension and ask for its consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as was pointed out in the initial remarks of my friend and colleague from the State of Maine, we will have intensive consideration of the budget starting early tomorrow morning, and then concluding late Wednesday afternoon. And we are going to do so with very strict time constraints. I want to be able to express my views on this legislation in terms of where I think we are in the consideration of the budget, and my concerns for where I think we will end up on Wednesday evening at the time of our vote. This is an enormously important matter that is before the Congress. All of our thoughts and prayers and focus are outside this Chamber now, and with the brave men and women in our Armed Forces overseas. I think all of us are following this closely and have shared in the positive outcomes that many of those in the Armed Forces have experienced. And we have also felt the shattering sense of loss that has been experienced by many of the families, when we have seen the difficulties and the tragedies which have developed over this period of time. Nonetheless, our work must go on. It is important, as we think about the extraordinarily brave men and women abroad, that we think about what this budget should really be all about. It seems to me the best way we can show appreciation for those service men and women and their sacrifice and their valor is to live up to the ideals they are fighting for so bravely. The budget, to a very important extent, reflect our priorities as a nation and that is what I want to address this afternoon. As we all sat in this Senate chamber last week, casting votes on budget amendments hour after hour, it was striking how detached the proceedings were from the real concerns of the American people. While they were concentrating intently on every detail of the unfolding war in Iraq, the Senate was considering a budget that our Republican colleagues had proposed without any funding whatsoever for the enormous cost of the war and the potentially even more enormous cost of its aftermath. Tomorrow, the President will send to Congress a request for additional funds to cover the initial costs of war in Iraq. There is no doubt that all of us in Congress will want to provide that support to our troops as quickly as possible. As we watched events unfold on our television screens in recent days, it became clearer than ever that more needs will arise because of the war--both in the short term and the long term. We deserve a budget that does not squander the treasury in time of war. We need a budget that provides for our troops and meets our priorities at home. In this time of national unity, we owe it to our troops and to all Americans to make this the best America we can be. That is patriotism at its best--to support our men and women abroad, and to fight at home for the values they represent--for a strong and secure America, for a strong economy, for equality and opportunity for all, for better jobs and better schools and better health care. Mr. President, $1.6 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy will not win this war. It will not help laid off workers and their families. It will not strengthen our schools or provide prescription drugs for our seniors. It is as though this budget had been drafted in a sound- proofed room, so that the sounds of war and the voices of the American people could not be heard. On the opposite side of the Capitol, the House of Representatives has already passed an even more extreme Republican budget, slashing hundreds of billions of dollars from urgent domestic priorities, including some for which even the Bush administration had requested support. Any objective observer of Capitol Hill can quickly see how out of touch this Congress has become. A time of war should be a time of national unity--of Americans pulling together and sharing the burdens fairly. The people's elected representatives should reinforce this national spirit with leadership that says we are all in this together, that we are here to help one another. As we confront the grave threats of terrorism and war, it is particularly important to build a broad national consensus at home based on our shared values. Many of us have become deeply concerned in recent years that our policies are moving farther and farther away from these shared national values. Increasingly, major decision about how America should be governed are being made by a narrow partisan majority in Congress with utter disdain for the basic needs of the overwhelming majority of our people. This Republican budget says it all. The last thing that America needs in this time of war is policies that divide us--which concentrate so much of the Nation's resources in the hands of the wealthiest few, while ignoring the needs of tens of millions of hard-working families. Especially at this moment when we are sending young American men and women into harm's way to defend our highest ideals, we in Congress have a responsibility to support policies which keep faith with those ideals. It is bad enough that the Republican budget fails to meet that challenge. It is even worse that the narrow Republican majorities in the Senate and House are bent on rushing the budget through Congress quickly, while public attention is preoccupied with the war. If it ever passes, this budget will be part of the collateral damage caused by the war, haunting us for years to come. It is astonishing that our Senate Republican colleagues who protested so loudly about the failure of Senate Democrats to produce a budget last year are themselves proposing such an atrocious budget this year. Passing no budget would be better than passing this irresponsible budget. The worst thing would be to lock in these bad policy choices for years to come. We recognize that it will take no small amount of political courage four enough of our Republican colleagues to join us in voting down this budget. Hopefully, it will happen. The time is past for debate about whether we should go to war with Iraq. Now that our troops are engaged in battle, we all join together in praying for their safety and for a quick and successful end to the conflict. We need a budget which honestly addresses the cost of the war and the future rebuilding of Iraq. At a time when our troops in the field are being asked to make great sacrifices, the least that this Congress owes them is to be honest about the burden we are undertaking in Iraq. Even if the war ends quickly and successfully, the rebuilding of Iraq will be a lengthy and costly process that will make this budget obsolete on the day it is passed. The Feingold Amendment was a first step to address the cost of the war for the next few months, but Republican leaders boasted that they would remove the amendment from the final bill. The Nation's budget must not be turned into a vehicle for such gross political deception--for concealing costs rather than setting sound priorities. This is a time of high national purpose for America. It should be no less on the floor of the Senate. We need a budget which will also strengthen America at home. When our troops return, we want them to come home to a strong economy and secure jobs. We want them to come home to better schools for their children, not schools facing drastic budget cuts, fewer teachers and overcrowded classrooms. We want them to be able to afford health care and health insurance for their families. This budget fails all of these tests. It rejects the measures needed to restore the economy and to deal with layoffs and rising unemployment. Instead, it embraces rigid right-wing policies that have not worked and will not work and do not distribute the burden fairly. In 2001, President Bush pushed $1.3 trillion in tax cuts through Congress that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest taxpayers. Now, the Administration is seeking an additional $1.6 trillion in tax cuts that are even more heavily slanted toward the rich. That is not the solution to the problems facing America's families. It is a strategy that will only add to their problems. The impact of these new tax breaks is clear from the Administration's own budget. When the White House says ``no'' to obviously needed spending on urgent domestic priorities such as education and health care, it says the war on terrorism requires us all to tighten our belts. But the belts will be tightened mainly on low and middle income individuals and families. The wealthiest Americans are not asked to tighten their belts at all. Just the opposite--they would receive major new tax breaks. As a result of the Republican tax plan enacted 2 years ago, the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers will each save an average of $50,000 a year. Now the administration wants to give each of them even more--an additional $25,000 a year. Under the administration's so-called ``economic growth'' package, households with annual incomes over $1 million will receive an average tax cut of nearly $90,000 each year. In contrast, households in the middle of the income spectrum will receive an average of less than $300 a year in tax benefits. It cannot be wartime for other Americans, but still peacetime for the rich. One of America's most basic values is that the country's burden must be fairly shared. We know that the problems facing working families have grown steadily worse since this administration took office in January 2001. Certainly, the White House policies are not the sole cause of the economic downturn we have witnessed in the last 2 years. The stock market began its decline before the President took office, and so did the recession. The economic shock caused by the September 11 attacks was beyond the administration's control. Fear of the war has been hanging heavily over the economy. But the response of the administration to these economic challenges has been ineffective. The administration's one-track-minded commitment to massive new tax breaks for the wealthy as the cure for every economic ailment has made a bad situation even worse. The administration has ignored remedies that would provide a significant short term stimulus, while undermining our long-term economic strength. As a result, the economy continues to stagnate, and the number of families facing serious hardship continues to grown. Huge numbers of working men and women have lost their jobs. As layoffs mount, millions of others live in fear of being the next to be let go. Two and a half million fewer private sector jobs exist in America today than existed just 2 years ago. Men and women across the country looking for a job are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain one. The number of long-term unemployed workers has almost tripled since the administration took office. This is the first administration in 50 years to preside over a net loss of private sector jobs. In the face of these serious problems, it is cruel and unconscionable that Republicans leap to support extravagant tax breaks for the wealthy, yet refuse to support a reasonable extension and expansion of unemployment benefits. They continue to oppose obviously needed and obviously urgent assistance for millions of workers facing long-term unemployment and hundreds of thousands of part-time and low-wage workers who receive no benefits under current law. Affordable health insurance should be another high priority. Yet it is becoming less and less affordable for large numbers of families. Over two million more Americans are without health insurance today compared to 2 years ago. One in ten small businesses which offered their employees health insurance in 2000 no longer do so now. The average cost of health insurance is soaring at double digit rates--up by 11 percent in 2001 and another 12.7 percent in 2002--nearly four times the rate of inflation. The health care vise on working families is becoming tighter and tighter every year. Our public schools are facing budget cuts rights and left. The administration's words are that no child should be left behind, but the deeds in this budget leave over six million students behind, without the help they need to get a good education. The cost of college is rising beyond the reach of more and more families. The gap between college tuition and the tuition assistance provided by the Federal Government has grown by $1,900 in the first 2 years of the Bush Administration. As a result, the number of able students denied the chance to go to college is growing each year. For millions of families, their retirement savings have seriously eroded in the last 2 years. Savings in 401(k) plans and other similar plans has plunged by $473 billion in the last 2 years. Individual retirement accounts dropped by $229 billion in 2001. The 2002 data are not available yet, but given the poor performance of the stock market, another steep decline is certain. Many middle-aged workers who thought their retirements were safe are suddenly being forced to stay in the workforce longer and reduce their standard of living in retirement. These are the realities American families face today. In this situation, the most irresponsible action Congress can take would be to accept the proposal of the administration to enact massive new permanent tax cuts. We cannot afford the loss of an additional $1.6 trillion from the Treasury. Temporary tax cuts to stimulate the economy are affordable, but the administration's large permanent new tax breaks are not. If that plan is adopted, the Federal Government will not have the resources to meet urgent domestic needs in education, in health care, and in homeland security. It will be virtually impossible to keep the Nation's commitment to Social Security and Medicare. The administration is misusing the recession to justify major new permanent tax breaks for the wealthy. Exempting dividends from taxes will take $400 billion out of the Treasury over the next 10 years. Half of that enormous amount--$200 billion--will go directly into the pockets of the richest 1 percent of taxpayers, who are not exactly the ones struggling to makes ends meet in this faltering economy. Eighty percent of taxpayers will receive little or nothing from the dividend proposal. To use the need for an immediate economic stimulus as an excuse to enact costly new permanent tax breaks for the wealthy is cynical trickle-down economics at its worst. The American people deserve better from the White House. The administration obviously does not want to discuss why its tax breaks are targeted so heavily to the wealthiest. Its typical response is to shout ``class warfare.'' That's nonsense. It's not our description of the White House plan that constitutes class warfare. A tax plan which gives the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans more in tax breaks than the total given to the other 90 percent is the real class warfare. Clearly, the Nation cannot afford all of these tax breaks. Cuts of this magnitude will condemn us to escalating deficits that will weaken the economy and make it impossible to meet our long-term commitments to Social Security and Medicare. Instead of reducing tax rates on the top income brackets in future years and repealing the estate tax, we should freeze those rates at their current levels and retain the tax on estates over $ 4 million. We should not enact any new permanent tax breaks for the wealthy, when we are so clearly failing to address so many of our most urgent national needs. For the cost of reducing the tax rate on the top income brackets, we could provide the additional funds needed to keep the promise made in the ``No Child Left Behind'' education reform act and keep it for a decade. For the cost of permanently repealing the estate tax on the super- wealthy, we could help to ensure that Social Security has the resources needed to keep the promise of a secure retirement for future generations. For the cost of President Bush's newly proposed $726 billion package of additional tax breaks tilted to the wealthiest taxpayers, we could fully fund a generous program of prescription drug assistance for senior citizens under Medicare, and extend health insurance to millions of uninsured families. We know which of these choices will make our country stronger and help us meet the challenges of the future. A craven decision to give more and more tax breaks to the richest among us is a decision to ignore America's greatest needs. Now more than ever is the time for Congress to bring the Nation's policies into line with the Nation's values. The courage of our forces fighting in Iraq and the courage of our fellow citizens who responded to the terrorist attacks on 9/11 should inspire us all. In the time of great national purpose for America, Congress must respond. Consider what we can accomplish if our policies are brought into line with our national values. The American people want us to measure success by people helped and problems solved. They want policies that are worthy of a great and generous people in this new century. Providing every child with a good education from the early years through college that will enable them to reach their full potential would be consistent with our most basic values. Yet, today, far too many children are denied that opportunity. The children of working families, who need help the most, often receive the least when it comes to education. The administration's budget leaves six million--six million--children behind. It would actually reduce funds for after- school activities for more than half a million students. How can President Bush abandon his unequivocal promise of full funding for the school reforms required by the No Child Left Behind Act? That legislation was signed into law with great fanfare by the President a year ago. But when the klieg lights go out and the bunting comes down and the cameras leave, the money isn't there. The Republican budget before us provides $8.9 billion less than we promised America's children a year ago. This budget has the wrong priorities and it should not be enacted. In the past, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have worked together to reject the administration's anti-education budgets. By a substantial bipartisan majority, we have increased the funds for education. We should do the same this year. Congress must--even if the administration won't--live up to our promise to leave no child behind. At the same time, we have to provide more college students with financial aid to meet rising tuition costs. The gap between the cost of college tuition and the level of tuition assistance has grown by $1,900 since President Bush took office. We took a step toward narrowing the gap last Friday by agreeing to increase Pell Grants. We must make certain that the increase remains in the final budget. Just as Social Security is a promise to senior citizens, we should make ``Education Security'' a promise to every young American. If you work hard, if you finish high school, if you are admitted to college, we should guarantee that you can afford the cost of the four years it takes to earn a degree. We will fight to make the dream of a college education a reality for all. We will fight this month, this year, and we will not stop, because the fight is for America's future. We must do the same for health care. Every American family is facing some aspect of the worsening health care crisis we face today. Health care costs are skyrocketing. Families with insurance are facing more and more increases in their insurance premiums, for fewer and fewer benefits. The number of Americans without any insurance at all is unacceptably high and rapidly rising. No family with insurance today can be sure that it will be there for them tomorrow if serious illness strikes. For senior citizens, the 40-year old promise of good health care under Medicare is now being broken every day, because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. In the face of this crisis, the administration proposed only a meager amount to help the uninsured, and Senate Republicans cut even that small amount nearly in half. In the face of this crisis, the Republican budget pays lip service to the needs of senior citizens for prescription drug coverage but fails to provide adequate resources to do the job. Even worse, they propose to dismantle Medicare and force senior citizens into HMOs and other private insurance plans in order to obtain even the paltry drug benefit they are offering. No senior citizens should be forced to give up the doctor they trust to get the prescription drugs they need. No budget accepted by this Congress should put tax breaks for the rich ahead of health care for senior citizens and their families. The Republican plan for Medicaid is equally unacceptable. It would victimize 46 million of the neediest and most dependent of our fellow Americans. The administration is proposing the same type of destructive block grants for Medicaid that the Gingrich Congress failed to enact almost a decade ago. The Republican block grant plan would leave millions of innocent victims in its wake--sick and needy children and their parents, the disabled, and the low-income elderly. The GOP plan for block grants to States would abolish the Federal Child Health Insurance Program, which now gives over 5 million children the chance for a healthy start in life. Millions of senior citizens would no longer be able to count on Federal nursing home standards to protect them if they are unable to continue to live in their own homes. Spouses of senior citizens who need nursing care would no longer be guaranteed even a minimum amount of income and savings on which to live. States need fiscal relief now, so that they can respond to the human and financial devastation that the current recession is causing to State budgets, and especially to State Medicaid plans. The demands on Medicaid are greater than ever for States, as more families lose their jobs and turn to Medicaid for health care. But instead of offering real help, the GOP budget offers the fool's gold of State Medicaid ``flexibility.'' Instead of the funds that States need to protect the Medicaid safety net, the Republican budget offers only a license to States to shred it. Finally, small in cost but large in symbolism is the failure of this budget to address the immediate needs of the unemployed. That failure vividly illustrates how far this budget strays from our values. How can a budget deny unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed at the same time it offers $1.3 trillion in additional tax cuts disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest taxpayers? More then four million Americans will be unemployed with no federal benefits after June 1 under current law. These men and women have worked hard for years, paid into the unemployment fund, and now find themselves without a job through no fault of their own. They are victims of the stagnant economy, and the economic news is not getting any better. Another 308,000 workers lost their jobs last month. New jobs are scarce. On average, there are three unemployed workers lined up for each job opening. The administration's own budget estimate acknowledges that unemployment will stay at its current high level for the rest of the year. Where is our concern for these four million workers? Where is our sense of fairness? How can anyone argue that we have $1.3 trillion for new tax breaks but do not have $16 billion to help the unemployed and their families? It is disturbing that our Republican colleagues are considering such an irresponsible budget at this very moment when our forces are risking their very lives for us in Iraq. Our colleagues would be foolish to expect the shock and awe of the war to distract the American people for long from noticing what is transpiring now in the arcane pages of this budget. They can see that the choices this budget makes will make their lives more difficult. It would be wise to reject this budget, and try again to get it right. If we take inspiration from the willingness of our troops to make great personal sacrifices for America, it can mark the beginning of a new era of common purpose--a return to unselfish policies which truly reflect America's values. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues for their leadership on this bipartisan amendment to increase the level of Federal investment in transportation by over 40 percent in the next 6 years. This amendment will enable the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Banking Committee to write their Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, TEA-21, reauthorization proposals with adequate funding, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Maintaining an integrated, efficient, and safe transportation system is one of the most important things we can do to get this faltering economy moving again. It is essential for maintaining the strength of our cities, and for promoting the growth of commerce and trade. Of all the economic growth proposals that we will consider this year, few will produce a greater bang for the buck than increased Federal investment in the Nation's transit and highway system. According to the Department of Transportation, every $1 billion in surface transportation investment creates 47,500 jobs. With an economy losing 300,000 jobs each month, we cannot afford to ignore the job-creating power of transportation investments and the other benefits that they bring. According to a report by the American Public Transportation Association, Americans took 9.5 billion trips on mass transit in 2001-- the highest number in over 40 years, and a figure 22 percent increase since 1996. Of those trips, 54 percent were work related. I cannot imagine what would happen in cities like Washington, Chicago, New York, and Boston if these commuters rushing to and from their jobs were to lose public transportation as a viable option. Perhaps such a scenario is too grim to consider, but we do have some idea just what those commuters would confront if they got off the trains and buses and back into their cars. In 2000, the average highway traveler spent 62 hours mired in rush hour traffic--a 38-percent increase over 1994. In fact, it is estimated that traffic congestion now costs Americans $67 billion each year--the cost of 3.67 billion hours in lost productivity and 5.7 billion gallons of wasted gasoline-- wasted gasoline. Unless we continue to build on the impressive investments made under ISTEA and TEA-21, I expect those congestion costs will rapidly multiply. How much they will increase is not known, but the Federal Transit Administration estimates that public transportation now saves the Nation $19.4 billion in congestion costs each year. Unfortunately, this budget resolution does not provide room for building upon those two landmark transportation bills, and assumes a relatively flat level of funding for the next several years. These figures fall far short of what is needed simply to keep pace with the demands or exerted on our National Transportation System. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, just to maintain the current conditions of our roads and bridges the Nation will need to invest approximately $92 billion each year for the next 6 years, and $19 billion for our transit systems. To actually improve these systems, the requirements are $125 billion for highways and $44 billion for transit respectively. Yet this budget provides only $32 billion for highways and $7.2 billion for transit this year. By the end of the next 6-year reauthorization cycle, over 65 percent of the Nation's public transportation bus fleet and 54 percent of the country's subway cars, commuter rail cars, and light rail cars will be passed their useful lives, according to FTA. If we don't replace the oldest vehicles in the fleet now, and repair those that can remain in revenue service for the foreseeable future, we will only be kicking our problems down the road. Ignoring these needs will only increase their expense, add additional financial burdens to State and local governments, and undermine the safety, security, and efficiency of our current transportation system. It is also imperative that we boost funding for transportation investment now because of the new, post-September 11 security costs that States are facing to protect their bridges, tunnels, and subway stations. A report by the Transportation Research Board, suggests that of the Nation's 600,000 bridges and tunnels, over 500 have been identified as critical links based on their size, traffic capacity, and strategic importance. If ever one of these bridges or tunnels should be compromised, the effect on commerce and trade in whole States and regions would be profound. That same study, which was conducted with the input of the FTA and Federal Highway Administration, suggests that the cost of protecting these highway structures is approximately $6.8 billion over the next 6 years, with an additional $578 million required for ongoing security operations. On the transit side, the security upgrades are expected to cost about $6.2 billion over 6 years, with an additional $500 million required for operating expenses. Who is going to pay for these security requirements? The existing budget, which calls for essentially flat funding, does not anticipate a strong Federal role. At the same time, the States are in the midst of the worst fiscal crisis in nearly 50 years, and cannot afford these additional responsibilities. Ultimately, the States will not be able to avoid this burden for the simple reason that they must protect their citizens. But with no additional revenues to pay for these costs, they will be forced to raid their long-term transportation budgets to pay for these new security responsibilities. They are the ones who will have to finance additional State police details, construct physical barriers around the bases of bridges, install ventilation systems in tunnels, and create coordinated traffic monitoring and management computer systems. They will have no choice but to rob fund their immediate security needs at the expense of their long-term transportation improvement needs. And the cost of this may well be the long-term deterioration of their roads, bridges, tunnels, and public transportation services. One final point I would like to make is that the terrorists of 9/11 closed our airports, and very nearly crippled the aviation industry permanently. However, because we had made critical investments in all modes of transportation during the past decade, intercity trains, the interstate system, and public transportation were able to fill the gap during those initial days following the tragedy. America did not stop moving. We hope and pray that there will never be another major terrorist attack on our country, but cannot pretend that our bridges, tunnels, and train stations are not inviting targets. Its essential, therefore, to provide the resources in this budget resolution to maintain a strong multimodal National Transportation System. With this amendment, which provides $255 billion for highways and $56.5 for transit over 6 years, we are taking a large step in the right direction. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get a substantial reauthorization bill passed this year, as well as fully funding Amtrak and providing for increased aviation funding. We must meet all of these challenges, and meet them now. Today's bipartisan highways and transit funding amendment is a critical step in that process. I urge all my colleagues to support it.