Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment on behalf of myself, Senators Dodd, Daschle, Feingold, Bingaman, Murray, Reed, Cantwell, and Collins. This amendment increases the maximum Pell grant by $500 at a total cost of $1.8 billion. It pays for those changes by reducing the nonreconciliation tax cut by $1.8 billion. If we do not accept this amendment, there will be 110,000 young people who are attending colleges who will lose their Pell grants. With the acceptance of this amendment, there will be more than 200,000 new Pell grant recipients, and it will help immeasurably the 4.9 million Pell grant recipients who come from families who average $15,000 in income. Among the education community and students, there is broad- based support for increasing the maximum Pell grant. The following groups have stated their support: American Council on Education. National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. American Association of State Colleges and Universities. American Association of Community Colleges. United Negro College Fund. Coalition of Higher Education Organizations. Unites States Public Interest Research Group. United States Students' Association. The National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. National Association of Community College Trustees. Student Aid Alliance--an umbrella group of over 60 higher education organizations which includes the groups I just mentioned, as well as: American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers, American Association for Higher Education, American Association of University Professors, American College Personnel Association, American College Testing, American Dental Education Association, American Indian Higher Education Consortium, American Jewish Congress, American Psychological Association, American Society for Engineering Education, American Student Association of Community Colleges, APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers, Association of Academic Health Centers, Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, Association of American Law Schools, Association of American Medical Colleges, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, Career College Association, Citizen's Scholarship Foundation of America, Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations, College and University Personnel Association for Human Resources, College Board, College Parents of America, Council for Advancement and Support of Education, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, Council on Government Relations, Council of Graduate Schools, Council for Higher Education Accreditation, Council of Independent Colleges, Council for Opportunity in Education, Educational Testing Service, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, Lutheran Educational Conference of North America, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, National Association for College Admission Counseling, National Association of College and University Business Officers, National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, National Association of Graduate and Professional Students, National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, National College Access Network, National Collegiate Athletic Association, National Council of University Research Administrators, National Education Association, NAWE: Advancing Women in Higher Education, University Continuing Education Association, and the Women's College Coalition. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that some of the letters from these organizations in support of this amendment and in support of increasing the maximum Pell grant be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 311. I send a modification to the desk and ask unanimous consent for its consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have talked to the floor manager of the bill, and I hope he will be willing to accept it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the best of America--our men and women in uniform--are now in harm's way in a distant land. Our prayers go with them in the skies and mountains and deserts and cities of Iraq. Fathers and sons--mothers and daughters-- brothers and sisters--friends and neighbors and fellow Americans--they are all our heroes. So many are still in the dawn of life as they risk their lives for our country and our ideals. We pray for the success of their mission and their quick and safe return to their families and to a proud and to a grateful nation. Many Americans, including many of us in Congress, opposed this war. But today and throughout this conflict, we are united in support of the men and women of our Armed Forces. We pledge to do all we can to support them. We honor them for their patriotism, their courage, their willingness to endure hardship and sacrifice and to give the last full measure of devotion to the country they love and the country that loves them. In the eloquent words of the Navy Hymn: O Trinity of love and power! Our brethren shield in danger's hour; From rock to tempest, fire and foe, Protect them wheresoe'er they go. Our thoughts and our heartfelt prayers are also with our President, as he makes the difficult decisions that will determine the course and success of the war that now begins. May God's wisdom guide our President and protect him in the days that lie ahead. In Massachusetts, we especially honor and remember the thousands of men and women on active duty from communities throughout our state who are now at war, and the thousands as well who have been activated from the Reserve and the National Guard--from the Barnes and The Otis Air National Guard Bases, from the Westover Air Reserve Base, from Camp Edwards, from the Devens Reserve Forces Training Area, from so many other places in our State. We pray for them all, and we admire them for their dedication to our country and their brave service. President Bush spoke for all Americans last night in expressing support for our forces. He is right to prepare our country for what may be a long and difficult struggle, and he is right to do his best to safeguard the innocent people of Iraq. We join our President in pledging our commitment to victory--to disarm Saddam and to bring freedom and opportunity to all the people of Iraq. In Congress, we will do all we can to give our servicemen and women the complete and full support they must have in order to prevail in this war and come safely home. We will do all we can to care for their families while they are apart. We will do all we can to protect the American people on the home front. We will do all we can to help the people of Iraq, and enable them to rebuild and renew their ancient land and rejoin the family of nations. And we will continue in the years to come to do all we can here at home to uphold the same great fundamental values for which our troops are now risking their lives--for opportunity and hope--for liberty and justice for all. In his great poem, ``Abraham Lincoln Walks at Midnight,'' Vachel Lindsay wrote: It is portentous, and a thing of state, That here at midnight, in our little town A mourning figure walks, and will not rest, Near the old court-house pacing up and down, Or by his homestead, or in shadowed yards He lingers where his children used to play, Or through the market, on the well-worn stones He stalks until the dawn-stars burn away. A bronzed, lank man! His suit of ancient black, A famous high top-hat and plain worn shawl Make him the quaint great figure that men love, The prairie-lawyer, master of us all. He cannot sleep upon his hillside now. He is among us--as in times before! And we who toss and lie awake for long Breathe deep, and start, to see him pass the door. His head is bowed. He thinks on men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep? Too many peasants fight, they know not why, Too many homesteads in black terror weep. The sins of all the war-lords burn his heart. He sees the dreadnaughts scouring every main. He carries on his shawl-wrapped shoulders now The bitterness, the folly and the pain. He cannot rest until a spirit-dawn Shall come--the shining hope of Europe free: The league of sober folk, the Workers' Earth, Bringing long peace to Cornland, Alp and Sea. It breaks his heart that kings must murder still. That all his hours of travail here for men Seem yet in vain. And who will bring white peace That he may sleep upon his hill again? I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to close an unfortunate loophole in health insurance coverage for families of reserve and guard members who are called up for active duty. As we face the likelihood of war with Iraq, one hundred and fifty thousand members of the National Guard and the Reserves have been mobilized for service. These soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are standing by their country in a time of national emergency. But unless the Congress takes immediate action, too many of the spouses and children of these brave men and women may find the quality of their health care reduced. Today's military relies more heavily than ever before on the reserve and guard. Currently, over 150,000 National Guard and reserve soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen have been mobilized. They are spending an average of thirteen times longer on active duty today than compared to a decade ago. Our men and women in uniform are working and training hard for the serious challenges before them. They are living in the desert, enduring harsh conditions, and contemplating the horrors of the approaching war. At the same time, they must put their lives on hold, dealing with family crises by phone and email. We must do our best to take care of those they have left at home. During the Vietnam War, only 20 percent of all Army personnel were married. Today over 50 percent of the active military are married. These numbers are even higher in the guard and reserves. This service places heavy strain on the families who are left behind to worry and cope with the sudden new demands of running a household alone. For the guard and reservists' families, a recall to active duty brings new bureaucratic challenges. Employers are not required to keep paying the health insurance for reservists while they are deployed. Many guardsmen and reservists may not be able to afford to pay for health care for their families while they are away. If a guardsman or reservist is activated for more than thirty days, their family is eligible to enroll in the TRICARE program. However, during that first month, the family may not have any health insurance. In addition, if their family doctor does not participate in TRICARE, the family must find a new doctor while coping with all the other demands of the service member's absence. A family with a sick child and a father or mother sent off to war should not have to cope with the added burden of giving up the family doctor they trust. The bill I am introducing will assure continuity of health insurance coverage for families of reservists and National Guard personnel called to active duty. Under this bill, these families retain the option of private health insurance coverage during the period of active duty, rather than enrolling in TRICARE. The bill amends the COBRA coverage rules to specify that loss of employment-based coverage due to active-duty allows them to use the COBRA mechanism to retain their health care coverage. The Federal Government will pay the cost of premiums not covered by employers. This assistance will relieve some of the financial burden on families when the service member leaves a more lucrative private sector job to serve in the military. The Federal Government will also pay the cost of continuing family coverage purchased in the individual insurance market, for those who do not have employment-based coverage. The cost of this modest additional help for the families of our servicemen will be small, since spouses and children who continue to use their private insurance policies will not be using TRICARE medical services that would otherwise be the government's responsibility. This bill will not change the health care coverage for service members who will continue to receive health care through the military medical system. Nor will it change the health care coverage for active duty family members who retain TRICARE eligibility and receive health care either through the direct care system or TRICARE network. When reservists and members of the National Guard are called to active duty in time of international crisis, they are asked to put their lives on the line for their country. The least we can do for them is assure that their families can continue to receive quality health care without interruption during their absence. I urge my colleagues to move promptly to enact this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the Department of Education's fiscal year 2004 President's budget be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. What it shows is the appropriations for 2002, $49 billion; the President's request is $50 billion. They added $400 million. Then the appropriations went up $3 billion because of the activity on the floor of the Senate. The next year the administration asked for $26 million--an increase of 5/100th of one percent. Let us look at the point my good friend, Senator Gregg, left behind. The point he has not disputed is we have 6.2 million children who are left behind. Let's forget what happened to the Republicans, let's forget what happened to the Democrats, and say let's accept the Murray amendment that will include 3 million more children. Let's not argue about the past. Let's argue about the future. This amendment will increase by 3 million the number of children who will be covered. We have a chance to do that tonight. We have a chance to do that at 5 o'clock. That is what we are asking the Senate to do, instead of having additional tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals in this country. Put the children first. That is what the Murray amendment would do. I hope my good friend from New Hampshire will join us hand in hand together and support the Murray amendment, and we will cut in half the number of children being left behind.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the budget that is before us at this present time is about one basic and fundamental issue, and that is the issue of priorities, the issue of choices, how we are going to allocate scarce resources in this country. The fact is that the Republican budget has said we will add $1.6 trillion in additional tax breaks, most of which will go to the very wealthy individuals in this country. The Senator from the State of Washington says, no, let's just take $8.9 billion of that and designate that for the No Child Left Behind Act, and then let's take another $8.9 billion towards reducing the deficit that we are additionally creating with the $1.6 trillion in additional tax reductions. The question is very simple: Do we want to educate the children of this country, or do we want more tax breaks for the very wealthy? That is the issue before the Senate. It is going to be clouded up with a lot of other kinds of rhetoric, but it is a choice. Do you want to educate the children, or do you want more tax breaks? That is the issue. That is the issue. Mr. President, I will use figures from the Department of Education. The Department of Education--this is their document--for the year 2003, the total figure for education is $53 billion. And now the President's request is $53 billion. There it is. That is the Republican President's request on No Child Left Behind--effectively flat funding. Flat funding. Now, we know the President of the United States worked with the Congress--Republicans and Democrats--to enact the No Child Left Behind Act. That added important reforms and accountability--accountability for the children to perform, accountability of the schools to teach, accountability for the teachers to learn and to be well-qualified, accountability for the parents to become involved, accountability on the local communities to have responsibilities. It also had accountability for the Congress of the United States to fund that program, and this administration has abandoned that accountability. It has abandoned it. The documents from the administration's Department of Education show that. At this hour, the Senator from Washington is saying: We do not want to abdicate our responsibility. Maybe the administration does, but we do not, and the Senate will have an opportunity at 5 o'clock to indicate whether they prefer to give additional hundreds of millions of dollars to the wealthiest individuals, or to meet our fundamental commitment to children and parents, 55 million of them across this country, and make sure they have a well-qualified teacher in their classrooms, make sure there are going to be after-school programs to assist these children, make sure they have a sound curriculum, make sure that the tests are going to test those children on that curriculum, and that if a child falls behind, they are going to get the supplementary services they need. This is all at a time when the States are in deficit of $90 billion. A third of that money is education; 75 percent of that is for K through 12. The children are being put through the wringers. They are being put through the wringers in all 50 States. I will not take the time to read from letters from teachers and superintendents of schools or school boards, but that is the message they are sending. We made a commitment, a promise to those children and to their parents. The choice is very simple: Are we going to meet that commitment in supporting the amendment of the Senator from Washington, or are we going to give additional tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals? It is as simple and fundamental and basic as that, Mr. President, make no mistake about it. I hope later on we will have a chance to do something about that. Finally, on the President's proposal for education, if we look over the period to the year 2010, with the requests that are being made in the President's budget there are still 5.6 million children left behind. There it is under this administration. I remember when the administration wanted the title ``No Child Left Behind,'' and we talked about that in our conference. As we talked about that, we said: Are we really going to leave children behind, or is this going to be a commitment? It was clear to me that Republicans and Democrats in the conference said: This is going to be a commitment. Unless we accept the amendment of the Senator from Washington and unless we are going to start on a glidepath towards funding No Child Left Behind, we are going to leave millions of children in this country behind. Which is it, Senate of the United States: billions more for tax breaks for wealthy individuals or investing in the children who are out there tonight, today, this evening, studying hard, trying to make a go of it and finding out that instead of having maybe 15, 18, 20 pupils in a class, this year there are going to be 25 or 30 in it? And we can go down the list. Every Member knows that. It is a question of priorities, and the Murray amendment is as clear as can be. I hope when the time comes, the amendment will be accepted. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. The Senator is not surprised on that because they always commit that money in July of the next year. You can use all the charts you want; it is committed and it is expended in July. Everyone understands that.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senators Murray, Cantwell, Corzine, Dayton, Dodd, Kerry, Lieberman, Schumer, Stabenow, Clinton, Durbin, Landrieu, Harkin, Feingold, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Feinstein, Boxer and I are re-introducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. In doing so, we reaffirm our strong commitment to equal rights for men and women. Adoption of the ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the beginning of our history as a Nation, women have had to wage long and difficult battles to win the rights that men possess automatically because they are male. In 1920, we amended the Constitution to guarantee women the right to vote, and we must do so again to eliminate discrimination against women. A constitutional amendment is necessary to do so, because existing statutory prohibitions against discrimination have clearly failed to give women the assurance of equality with men. Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce and the vast majority of areas of the economy. Today, women earn less than 75 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. In the year 2000, African American women earned just 64 percent of the earnings of white men, and Hispanic women earned only 52 percent. Women with college and professional degrees have achieved advances in a number of professional and managerial occupations in recent years--yet more than 60 percent of working women are still clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations, and female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. The routine discrimination that so many women so often face proves that there is still a need for the ERA today. A bolder effort is clearly needed to enable Congress and the States to live up to our commitment of full equality. The ERA alone cannot remedy all discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing efforts of women across the country to obtain equal treatment. We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that achieving the ERA's adoption will not be easy. But its extraordinary significance requires us to continue the battle. I urge my colleagues to approve the ERA in this Congress, and join the battle for ratification in the States. Women have waited long enough for full recognition of their equal rights by the Constitution. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to close an unfortunate loophole in health insurance coverage for families of Reserve and Guard members who are called up for active duty. As we face the likelihood of war with Iraq, one hundred and fifty thousand members of the National Guard and the Reserves have been mobilized for service. These soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are standing by their country in a time of national emergency. But unless the Congress takes immediate action, too many of the spouses and children of these brave men and women may find the quality of their heath care reduced. Today's military relies more heavily than ever before on the Reserve and Guard. Currently, over 150,000 National Guard and reserve soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen have been mobilized. They are spending an average of thirteen times longer on active duty today than compared to a decade ago. Our men and women in uniform are working and training hard for the serious challenges before them. They are living in the desert, enduring harsh conditions, and contemplating the horrors of the approaching war. At the same time, they must put their lives on hold, dealing with family crises by phone and email. We must do our best to take care of those they have left at home. During the Vietnam war, only 20 percent of all Army personnel were married. Today over 50 percent of the active military are married. These numbers are even higher in the Guard and Reserves. This service places heavy strain on the families who are left behind to worry and cope with the sudden new demands of running a household alone. For the Guard and Reservists' families, a recall to active duty brings new bureaucratic challenges. Employers are not required to keep paying the health insurance for reservists while they are deployed. Many guardsmen and reservists may not be able to afford to pay for health care for their families while they are away. If a guardsman or reservist is activated for more than thirty days, their family is eligible to enroll in the TRICARE program. However, during that first month, the family may not have any health insurance. In addition, if their family doctor does not participate in TRICARE, the family must find a new doctor while coping with all the other demands of the service member's absence. A family with a sick child and a father or mother sent off to war should not have to cope with the added burden of giving up the family doctor they trust. The bill I am introducing will assure continuity of health insurance coverage for families of Reservists and National Guard personnel called to active duty. Under this bill, these families retain the option of private health insurance coverage during the period of active duty, rather than enrolling in TRICARE. The bill amends the COBRA coverage rules to specify that loss of employment-based coverage due to active-duty allows them to use the COBRA mechanism to retain their health care coverage. The Federal Government will pay the cost of premiums not covered by employers. This assistance will relieve some of the financial burden on families when the service member leaves a more lucrative private sector job to serve in the military. The Federal Government will also pay the cost of continuing family coverage purchased in the individual insurance market, for those who do not have employment-based coverage. The cost of the modest additional help for the families of our servicemen will be small, since spouses and children who continue to use their private insurance policies will not be using TRICARE medical services that would otherwise be the government's responsibility. This bill will not change the health care coverage for service members who will continue to receive health care through the military medical system. Nor will it change the health care coverage for active duty family members who retain TRICARE eligibility and receive health care either through the direct care system or TRICARE network. When Reservists and members of the National Guard are called to active duty in time of international crisis, they are asked to put their lives on the line for their country. The least we can do for them is assure that their families can continue to receive quality health care without interruption during their absence. I urge my colleagues to move promptly to enact this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to close an unfortunate loophole in health insurance coverage for families of Reserve and Guard members who are called up for active duty. As we face the likelihood of war with Iraq, one hundred and fifty thousand members of the National Guard and the Reserves have been mobilized for service. These soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are standing by their country in a time of national emergency. But unless the Congress takes immediate action, too many of the spouses and children of these brave men and women may find the quality of their heath care reduced. Today's military relies more heavily than ever before on the Reserve and Guard. Currently, over 150,000 National Guard and reserve soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen have been mobilized. They are spending an average of thirteen times longer on active duty today than compared to a decade ago. Our men and women in uniform are working and training hard for the serious challenges before them. They are living in the desert, enduring harsh conditions, and contemplating the horrors of the approaching war. At the same time, they must put their lives on hold, dealing with family crises by phone and email. We must do our best to take care of those they have left at home. During the Vietnam war, only 20 percent of all Army personnel were married. Today over 50 percent of the active military are married. These numbers are even higher in the Guard and Reserves. This service places heavy strain on the families who are left behind to worry and cope with the sudden new demands of running a household alone. For the Guard and Reservists' families, a recall to active duty brings new bureaucratic challenges. Employers are not required to keep paying the health insurance for reservists while they are deployed. Many guardsmen and reservists may not be able to afford to pay for health care for their families while they are away. If a guardsman or reservist is activated for more than thirty days, their family is eligible to enroll in the TRICARE program. However, during that first month, the family may not have any health insurance. In addition, if their family doctor does not participate in TRICARE, the family must find a new doctor while coping with all the other demands of the service member's absence. A family with a sick child and a father or mother sent off to war should not have to cope with the added burden of giving up the family doctor they trust. The bill I am introducing will assure continuity of health insurance coverage for families of Reservists and National Guard personnel called to active duty. Under this bill, these families retain the option of private health insurance coverage during the period of active duty, rather than enrolling in TRICARE. The bill amends the COBRA coverage rules to specify that loss of employment-based coverage due to active-duty allows them to use the COBRA mechanism to retain their health care coverage. The Federal Government will pay the cost of premiums not covered by employers. This assistance will relieve some of the financial burden on families when the service member leaves a more lucrative private sector job to serve in the military. The Federal Government will also pay the cost of continuing family coverage purchased in the individual insurance market, for those who do not have employment-based coverage. The cost of the modest additional help for the families of our servicemen will be small, since spouses and children who continue to use their private insurance policies will not be using TRICARE medical services that would otherwise be the government's responsibility. This bill will not change the health care coverage for service members who will continue to receive health care through the military medical system. Nor will it change the health care coverage for active duty family members who retain TRICARE eligibility and receive health care either through the direct care system or TRICARE network. When Reservists and members of the National Guard are called to active duty in time of international crisis, they are asked to put their lives on the line for their country. The least we can do for them is assure that their families can continue to receive quality health care without interruption during their absence. I urge my colleagues to move promptly to enact this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senators Murray, Cantwell, Corzine, Dayton, Dodd, Kerry, Lieberman, Schumer, Stabenow, Clinton, Durbin, Landrieu, Harkin, Feingold, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Feinstein, Boxer and I are re-introducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. In doing so, we reaffirm our strong commitment to equal rights for men and women. Adoption of the ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the beginning of our history as a Nation, women have had to wage long and difficult battles to win the rights that men possess automatically because they are male. In 1920, we amended the Constitution to guarantee women the right to vote, and we must do so again to eliminate discrimination against women. A constitutional amendment is necessary to do so, because existing statutory prohibitions against discrimination have clearly failed to give women the assurance of equality with men. Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce and the vast majority of areas of the economy. Today, women earn less than 75 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. In the year 2000, African American women earned just 64 percent of the earnings of white men, and Hispanic women earned only 52 percent. Women with college and professional degrees have achieved advances in a number of professional and managerial occupations in recent years--yet more than 60 percent of working women are still clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations, and female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. The routine discrimination that so many women so often face proves that there is still a need for the ERA today. A bolder effort is clearly needed to enable Congress and the States to live up to our commitment of full equality. The ERA alone cannot remedy all discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing efforts of women across the country to obtain equal treatment. We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that achieving the ERA's adoption will not be easy. But its extraordinary significance requires us to continue the battle. I urge my colleagues to approve the ERA in this Congress, and join the battle for ratification in the States. Women have waited long enough for full recognition of their equal rights by the Constitution. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in just a few moments we will be voting on Mr. Estrada's nomination for the district court. I wish to take a few moments of the Senate's time to talk about a very important matter, and a matter which is really the basis of the dispute in the Senate. That is about the materials that have been requested by members of the Judiciary Committee which have been denied to the members of the Judiciary Committee. Thanks in large part to the majority leader's suggestion of a serious constitutional debate, we have all learned some important history lessons. We have learned in detail about the deliberate decision of the Founders to give the Senate a major and independent role in the selection of Federal judges at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and to prevent the judiciary from becoming a pawn of the President. We have been reminded that the founders made a very specific decision to create the Senate as a constraining force on the President, to resist sudden or drastic changes in the direction of the Nation and to prevent Presidential overreaching. We have all reread the key provision of the Constitution in which the Founders instructed that the Senate exercise its specific powers in accordance with rules of its own making. We have learned that until 1949, the first 162 years of our country, those rules provided no way at all to end Senate debate on a nomination by the President. In 1949, our rules established the possibility of a cutoff of our prized freedom of speech on the Senate floor--but only when a two-thirds majority consensus supported imposing that restraint on the minority. Despite the hypocritical cries of ``majority rule governs'' from those who would have us abdicate our central constitutional role, we all recognize that the President who has caused this controversy over judicial nominations would not be our President today if majority rule applied to the Presidential elections. It is clear that the administration has not met its burden of demonstrating the suitability of this nominee. The nomination process is not a game of hide and seek, in which the White House selects only the positive information about a nominee to give the Senate and withholds the rest, in the hope that the Senate will not find it. The process is not complete until the administration shares with the Senate all of the available information, so that the Senate can exercise its advice and consent power deciding for itself, under its own rules, what is relevant and what is not, what is dispositive and what is not. The members of the President's party do not serve him well, nor do they serve their own interests well, nor do they fulfill their obligations to the Senate, if they allow the White House to short- circuit the process by selectively withholding information. And the fact that some of that information may be confidential, or sensitive, or classified, or embarrassing does not end the matter. It merely starts a process within the administration of deciding whether the nomination of a particular person for a particular position at a particular time is important enough to the President to justify the release of that information. In some cases it may be possible to block out particular items in documents without destroying their utility. In some cases it may be appropriate to allow receipt and discussion of particular documents in closed committee session without immediate release to the public. In some cases, it may be necessary to provide classified documents to committees with the facilities to handle it properly and with staff who are cleared to review it. Once the Senate has the information on any of these grounds, we can decide whether the information is relevant, what weight to place on it, and whether further investigation or questioning is required. The argument for withholding documents in close cases is not a very strong one--it does not rise to the level of proprietary business information or intelligence methods, for example. And as many of us on the committee have pointed out to the White House, there are many instances in recent history where the Justice Department has provided such materials to us. One of the best examples of such a case was the Richard Kleindienst confirmation proceeding. In that case, as here, members of the Committee requested extensive litigation materials from the Justice Department. Unlike the present case, the Chairman, although he disagreed with those Senators on the merits of the nomination, agreed that they were entitled to make their requests, and certified the requests as Committee requests to which the Department would have to respond. The Department in fact provided the Judiciary Committee with extremely sensitive deliberative litigation documents from various offices at Justice. They revealed the Department's strategies and thought processes on the appeal and settlement of a major set of antitrust cases. Moreover, the Solicitor General himself, the eminent former Dean of Harvard Law School, Erwin Griswold, appeared before the committee and answered questions of Senators on both sides of the aisle on the content of the recommendations made to him by attorneys in the Department and by him to the Acting Attorney General and Antitrust division, including his own and others' opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of various litigating positions. Like every Solicitor General, he asserted the right of the Department to withhold deliberative documents. But at the same time he and the Department in fact disclosed and discussed those deliberations in the Senate, sometimes in unrestricted form and sometimes under restrictions. Why did they do so? In the Department's own words, they could release any such information whenever they determined that there was a ``compelling public interest'' in doing so. And for some reason they concluded that there was such a public interest in getting Mr. Kleindienst--already confirmed as the Deputy Attorney General-- confirmed to fill the vacancy in the position of Attorney General for the one year left in Richard Nixon's first term. I note that Justice did refuse to provide certain materials which the nominee offered to avow under oath would have no relevance to the facts at issue. After extensive additional hearings, the nominee was confirmed, but later resigned when documents eventually released in the Watergate and other proceedings showed that he had not been truthful in his testimony to the committee. He pleaded guilty to a subsequent criminal charge of ``failing to testify fully and accurately'' to the Senate. That case demonstrates that the Department could and did as a matter of discretion release extremely sensitive litigation documents and information from the Solicitor General's office, including the testimony of the Solicitor General himself, merely to accomplish the confirmation of a cabinet member for a short-term appointment to a post which did not really need to be filled. Clearly then the Department has full power to release sensitive documents when they are requested in the context of a nomination for a lifetime appointment to the nation's ``second highest court.'' In this case a substantial portion of the committee have concluded that the White House has not met its burden of going forward. The nominee's record does not contain the usual body of judicial decisions or legal publications which demonstrate the way he addresses important legal questions. On the contrary, as the hearing record demonstrates, members had serious questions about the nominee's suitability, questions for which the nominee's answers ranged from evasive to inconsistent. But the committee did not have the full record. It did not have what may be the best evidence of the nominee's approach to current legal issues of great import, the writings of the nominee himself, writings composed by the nominee in the Solicitor General's office in circumstances which even his supporters concede were likely to show him at his most candid. It is perfectly reasonable and logical for Senators to conclude that the Executive's refusal to provide that complete record is based on either or both of two rationales: Either the White House fears that Senate access to the documents--even without automatic public access-- would confirm the unsuitability of the nominee, or the White House does not think there is a ``compelling public interest'' in completing Mr. Estrada's nomination process. In either event, the ball is in the executive branch's court: If they think there is a compelling public interest in moving ahead with this nomination, they can and should turn over the materials. If they do not think there is a compelling public interest in proceeding with this nomination, they can continue to refuse to provide the materials. But if that is their decision, then they should cease their imposition on our time and especially our Republican colleagues' patience, forgo the Rovian hopes of short-term political gain from ``Groundhog Day'' repetitions of useless cloture votes, and just pull the nomination. Mr. President, this nominee has been sent to the Senate of the United States. We had a very good debate the other day about the shared responsibility between the President and the Senate in naming individuals to the courts with lifetime appointments.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I have 1 minute more? I yield myself 1 more minute. We had a very good debate on that issue. The fact is, this administration has seen all of those papers. On that basis, they have nominated him. But they have refused to let us see them and expect us to be a rubberstamp. It is wrong. I hope we will continue to reserve our judgment on this nominee until we get that information. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Five minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am wondering----

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the amendment. I commend the Senator for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate and I hope the country because I think the vote on this amendment is going to say a great deal about what this country is about. I was listening very carefully to the Senator's comments that we should not provide, outside of meeting our responsibilities at home and our defense responsibilities and a temporary stimulus, a tax cut until we are going to pay for the war in Iraq, pay for the occupation in Iraq, and also pay for the return of the troops from Iraq. I was with the Senator over these past weeks when we had a series of briefings. We were told in those briefings that we could not make an estimate to the Budget Committee because we did not know exactly how many other countries were going to be joining with us, what the extent of their armed forces would be, who those countries might be, and what the size of their military would be. So because it was going to be difficult to make assumptions, on the basis of that fact, they were not going to make a submission to the Budget Committee. I think the Senator from North Dakota has reminded us, and the President certainly reminded us last night, that we are in effect going it alone. It is going to be the United States that is going to be assuming most of the costs. As I understand the Senator, it is not only a question of the finances, but it is also the message that we are sending to these American servicemen and women, who over the period of the next 36 to 48 hours will be risking their lives for their country, all at the same time that the Senate of the United States is going to be acting to give a tax break for wealthy individuals in this country. If we think that is a message of fairness, if we think that is backing up our troops in Iraq, I miss it completely. On the one hand, Americans are losing their lives and at the very same moment this Senate is giving a tax break to wealthy individuals. What is it about this Senate that they would consider this? I commend the Senator from North Dakota for reminding us of the history of this Nation. Never in the history of the Nation, have we had a tax cut for wealthy individuals, or for any individuals during wartime. As the Senator pointed out, we have a shared responsibility to come together as a Nation and engage in some form of sacrifice. I still remember the selling of bonds that took place during World War II. We were trying to get all Americans to contribute by buying the bonds for America, with everyone doing their bit. But, oh, no, not in this budget. We are, on the one hand, sending our servicemen and women overseas to risk their lives, and at the same time we are prepared to give one of the largest tax breaks in the history of this country. We should not commit the country to large new permanent tax breaks until the full cost of the Iraq conflict is known. We all know that the long term costs of the war in Iraq and its aftermath will be substantial. Independent estimates show the cost of the war between $50 and $150 billion. The Senator has outlined some of the areas of concern in terms of cost already. As I understand it, it costs about $9 to $13 billion to send the military over there. I hope the Senator will correct me with these figures if I am wrong. We know it is going to cost about $5 or $7 billion to bring them back. The best estimate is about $17 billion for every 75,000 troops. We had General Shinseki say our presence in the region might have to be several hundred thousand troops. Most of the military leaders, including General Nash who served in the gulf during the previous war, thought the same number of troops were needed to pacify a country as they go in at the same time of the invasion, at least for the first several months. If we are talking about $17 billion for 70,000, and we have General Shinseki talking about several hundred thousand, say 200,000, that is three times that amount. We are already up to almost $60 billion. We have seen the estimates of rebuilding the oil industry at $5 to $7 billion, if it is not destroyed. We have seen that bringing communications infrastructure up to 100 percent, would be another $15 billion. We have seen the cost of bringing the electricity to 100 percent estimated at $15 billion. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars, and this is not even getting into the payments to the various civil servants we are going to have to make once the current Iraqi Government is gone, to get them to continue performing their functions after the war. We assume all of these responsibilities under the Geneva Convention the day troops go across the border. Yet we do not have any kind of effort by this administration to work with the Budget Committee to try to work out a process of paying for these matters. I say to the chairman of the committee, we now have 175,000 guardsman and reservists who are serving. In many of these situations, the private insurance that they have for their families is not retained when they are activated. We ought to be making sure that at the very least, we are going to meet the health insurance costs for families of the 175,000 reservists and National Guard who are being called up and are serving. Yet do we have that kind of coverage included in this budget? Has the administration said we ought to care for our service men and women in this budget who are facing this threat? They have not. I do not understand, and the American people don't understand why we are in this rush to pass this budget that is constructed to give major kinds of tax reductions for wealthy individuals without allocating the necessary resources to go to war. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars. Not one dollar has been set aside in the budget which Senate Republicans have brought to the floor for what everyone knows will be an expense in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. The American people ought to be informed about this. We have had a great many hearings around this body about the war, but those are classified and those are secret. Why can we not come out in the open and let the American people know exactly what this is going to mean in terms of the costs of the conflict? Why not include them in on this? Why exclude them from any of the information in terms of the costs of this conflict? We know the President has refused to submit a cost estimate to Congress because the overall cost will be so enormous and he is obviously afraid of ``sticker shock'' when he discloses the facts to the American people. The President does not want to tell Congress what this war will cost until his proposal for $1.3 trillion in new tax cuts for the very wealthy is locked in. He is afraid that if Congress knew the real costs of a war in Iraq, that Congress might do something sensible--such as reducing the size of the tax cut to help pay for the war. The way to have it done would have been to have worked with the Budget Committee and outlined what would be responsible recommendations and what would have been a responsible position to balance the costs we are going to face in the future, and defer any kind of tax reductions or breaks until we were able to get the job done. Finally, as we are sending our servicemen and women overseas to engage in battle, I share the belief that we should be building a better America here at home for when they return. They deserve, when they come home, to have a nation that has a sound economy. Our economy is flat now. We have a responsibility to take the steps now to make sure that when these service men and women come home, after they have been risking their lives, they are going to have a sound economy for their future. They ought to be able to come home and know that their younger brothers and sisters are going to go to good schools, get a good education, have an opportunity to continue their education in college, and not face an education system that has been virtually abandoned in this country. When they come home, they ought to know there is going to be the chance of being able to have affordable health insurance policies and not see that their parents are increasingly being put at financial risk because of the increasing costs of health insurance or the increasing costs of prescription drugs. We need a budget that will strengthen America. This is not that budget. The idea that we are not going to use our resources to educate future generations, we are not going to help families out with spiraling health insurance premiums, we are not going to help them out with prescription drugs; no, no, we are not going to do that. Instead, we are going to give a tax break for the wealthiest individuals at a time when our brave men and women in uniform are risking their lives in Iraq. This budget is not the right budget during a time of such high national purpose for America. The American people understand fairness. In the face of all the anxieties they have been facing here at home, they understand fairness. They understand, that when the sons and daughters of working families are going to risk their lives that it is absolutely unfair at that very moment to provide tax breaks for the most wealthy individuals in this country and fail to invest in America. While Senator Conrad is here, we will introduce a little later in the day, legislation regarding health insurance coverage for our Reservists and National Guardsmen and women, but I would like to have a chance to review with the Senator and other Members what the particular challenge is for these servicemen and servicewomen. If you think it is worthy of your support I ask that you support the legislation. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his strong leadership on this budget resolution and for presenting this amendment before the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is shameless for this administration to talk about the promise of the school reforms contained in the No Child Left Behind Act while submitting a budget to cut the resources necessary to make school reform a reality for millions of children. The administration proposes massive new tax breaks for the wealthy, but it has no compunction in proposing that over 6 million needy children must be left behind for every year for the foreseeable future. The administration has no hesitation in proposing that over half a million children be dropped from after school programs. It even proposes to cut aid to the schoolchildren of the Nation's soldiers serving in the war against terrorism who have been sent off to fight a war against Iraq. The Senate Republican budget before us rejects the President's cut on the Impact Aid Program for military schoolchildren, but it still cuts funding for the No Child Left Behind Act school reform bill by $700 million. On this chart, if we look at the years 1997 to 2001 in terms of support for education, it was an 11-percent increase on average during that period of time. Now these figures are the requests, not the actual numbers: In 2002, 3.6 percent increase requested by President Bush; 2003, 2.8 percent; and for fiscal year 2004, half of 1 percent. These figures were up higher because of the work that was done ultimately on the floor of the Senate, but these are the budget requests over the past few years. In the past, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have worked together to reject the Bush administration's anti-education budgets by a substantial bipartisan majority, and we should do the same this year. We have to make sure Congress lives up to its 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 President proposes not one penny, not a single penny, in individual student Pell grants. Without an increase in Pell grants, over 110,000 students are in danger of being shut out of college. The gap between the cost of college tuition and the level of tuition assistance has grown by $1,900 since President Bush took office. Yet this budget does nothing to narrow that gap. Young Americans now have an average of $17,000 in student loan debts. Low- and moderate-income students face more than $3,000 in annual college costs not covered by financial aid, work study, or savings. This budget does nothing to help these students. Just as Social Security is a promise to senior citizens, we should make education security a promise to every young American. If one works hard, finishes high school, is admitted to college, we should guarantee that they can afford the costs of the 4 years it takes to earn a degree. That was President Kennedy's goal in the 1960s and it must be our mission today, and we will fight on the Senate floor this week to make the dream of a college education a reality for all. We will fight this month, this year. We will not stop because the fight is for America's future. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, this budget fails to include the costs of the impending war in Iraq. The Senate Republican budget contains no money to pay for the war in Iraq, which may begin in a matter of hours, and no money for the cost of occupying and rebuilding Iraq after the war. The President has refused to submit a cost estimate to Congress despite repeated requests. Over 200,000 military personnel have been moved into place for the war; 90,000 more are on their way. Many of them are from the National Guard and Reserve. They had to be mobilized especially for this mission. The Pentagon is already soliciting proposals from major contractors for the rebuilding of Iraq, yet the administration continues to stonewall us on the costs of the war. The President knows that the overall costs will be enormous and is obviously afraid of sticker shock when he discloses the facts to the American people. The President does not want to tell Congress what the war will cost until his tax cut proposals are locked in. He is afraid if he tells us, Congress might do something sensible, such as reducing the size of the tax cut to help pay for the war. That is the last thing this administration wants--Congress making responsible fiscal decisions. So instead, this Republican budget is asking us to pretend that the war is not on the horizon. The Senate of the United States cannot accept such a sham. Let's do the responsible thing: Pay for the war with Iraq and the aftermath before we have another tax cutting raid on the Treasury. The timing of the President's tax cut could not be worse. We already have record deficits. We are about to go to war. We have never cut taxes in wartime before in the history of the country, and now is not the time for new permanent tax cuts. The Republican budget fails to provide even one dollar to address the costs of the impending war with Iraq. It places more tax breaks for the wealthy ahead of the needs of our men and women in uniform who are making the greatest sacrifices. Funding for their needs should be our highest priority, not an afterthought. As I have said, it cannot be wartime for most Americans but still peacetime for the wealthy. The wealthy should have to wait for their tax cuts, at least until the costs of the war and reconstruction of Iraq are addressed. I thank our ranking member for the time he has yielded, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before my friend from Wyoming leaves the floor, I want him to know I listened carefully to his arguments. I had difficulty following the argument that we should not include any funding in the budget for the war in Iraq. I am sure he has attended--I have seen him there--a number of meetings where we have listened to the Secretary of Defense and others say we couldn't project what the war is going to cost because we didn't know what other allies were going to contribute, how many troops they were going to have, what they were prepared to spend. Now on the eve of the President's statement, we have a very good idea about where the burden of this conflict is going to fall. It is going to fall on American taxpayers. I am troubled about why we don't include any of that in the budget. We know it cost $25 billion to send the service men and women over there. That is a CBO figure. It will cost $25 billion to get them back. We know now that to build the Iraqi oil industry, if we were to go in there today without any kind of impact or any destruction, it is going to cost about $15 billion more to bring it up to speed. We know that electricity is about half pace and it is going to cost another $10 billion to bring that up to speed. We are trying to bring Iraq back to its former self. We know that communications is about half speed and that will cost another $10 billion. We know we will need a minimum of 50 or 75,000 troops. General Shinseki says 200,000 troops. General Nash, a previous commander over there in the first Gulf War, mentioned a couple hundred thousand troops. We had 70,000 in Bosnia. It is difficult for me to think that just as an opener we will not need $50 to $75 billion. I find it difficult to understand why we are not including that and discussing that when we are talking about the budget for the future, when we know we are going to have to get the expenditures. As I heard, the argument was, we don't want to put it in because it will be part of a baseline in terms of future spending, which suggests that we are not rational enough or sensible enough or responsible enough to be able to deal with these figures down the road. I don't want to be unfair to my colleague from Wyoming. If I don't have it right, I will be glad to yield for a question. Budgets are the way a nation sets its priorities, and the priorities in the Republican budget are profoundly wrong for America. It fails to address the real problems of real families. It appears to have been drafted in a sound-proofed room so that the voices of working men and women, students and senior citizens could not be heard. It's a harmful rehash of the same failed economic policies that have caused so much misery and pain for so many Americans. In the 2 years since President Bush took office, the well-being of American families has declined at an alarming rate. Ask most Americans how their lives have changed since President Bush took office, and they will tell you. Declining job security. Disappearing retirement savings. Plummeting school budgets. Rising college tuition. Skyrocketing health care and prescription drug costs. Duct tape and plastic sheeting instead of real steps to make neighborhoods secure. Federal budget deficits as far as the eye can see. The White House has not only failed to feel their pain, it has made their pain worse. Even when it comes to the Government's highest obligation--the safety of our country--this budget falls short. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are planning every day how they can inflict yet another terrible act of terror on our soil. We deserve better than duct tape and orange alerts to protect our communities from terrorism. We need a budget that ensures that fire fighters and police officers and health care workers and other first responders have the resources and training they need to protect us. We need to protect not only our airports, but our seaports and bridges and schools and other public buildings. At the same time, President Bush is preparing for a new war with Iraq. At this very moment, a quarter of a million American men and women in uniform are poised in the Gulf, awaiting the order from their Commander-in-Chief. They are prepared to sacrifice their lives for their country. Even after the war, we face an uncertain future in Iraq as we struggle to win the peace. We all know that to do the job right in Iraq may well require a huge commitment of dollars and troops over many years, and it is far from clear that we will have significant support from other nations in this mission. But what does this budget propose? Yet another round of tax breaks for the very wealthiest Americans. How will more tax breaks for the wealthy hire more qualified teachers to teach our children? How will another tax break for millionaires help working men and women get job training and find a new job? How will another tax break for the wealthy help families afford health insurance or provide prescription drugs under Medicare? How will another tax break for the wealthy help them recover their lost retirement savings? How will another tax break for the wealthy win the war against terrorism? How will a mountain of budget deficits help us build a better future for our children? And how will more tax breaks for millionaires help us defeat Saddam Hussein? With the economy in shambles and continuing threats from terrorists, these are not normal times. Our responsibility in Congress is to pass a budget that meets the challenges of our times. Instead of more tax breaks for the wealthy, we should be concentrating on our national security and our economic security. We should enact no further permanent tax breaks until the costs of war with Iraq are determined. Giving our troops everything they need to do the job, and to do it safely, should come first. Surely, when our troops come home, we want them to come home to better schools, not schools facing drastic budget cuts, fewer teachers, and with crowded classrooms. We want them to come home to a strong economy, with jobs that let them care for their families and save for a secure retirement. We want them to be able to afford health insurance and look forward in their retirement years to a strong Medicare program that helps them afford the prescription drugs they need. This budget fails these tests. It rejects the steps needed to restore the economy, and instead embraces ideologically rigid policies that have not worked and will not work. In 2001, President Bush pushed a $1.3 trillion tax cut through Congress that disproportionately benefits the wealthiest taxpayers. Now, the administration is seeking an additional $1.6 trillion in tax cuts, even more heavily slanted toward the rich. That is not the solution to the problems facing working families. That is a strategy that will only add to their problems. These problems have grown steadily worse since President Bush took office in January 2001. Certainly, his policies are not the sole cause of the economic downturn we have witnessed in the last two years. The stock market began its decline before he took office, and so did the recession. The economic shock caused by the September 11 attack was beyond his control. However, the response of the administration to these economic challenges has been ineffective. The President's single- minded commitment to tax cuts for the wealthy as the cure for every economic ailment has made a bad situation 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 hardship continues to grow. Huge numbers of working men and women have lost their job security. As layoffs mount, they live in fear of being the next to be let go. There are two and a half million fewer private sector jobs in America today than there were just two years ago. Those looking for a job are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain one. The number of long- term unemployed workers has increased by nearly 200 percent since President Bush took office. The Bush administration is the first administration in fifty years to have a net loss of private sector jobs. In the face of these problems, Republicans have been slow to support an extension of unemployment benefits. They continue to oppose assistance for one million workers facing long-term unemployment and for hundreds of thousands of part-time and low-wage workers who currently receive no benefits. Mr. President, this chart shows the 2.5 million private sector jobs that have been lost in the last 2 years. From 111.7 million jobs in January 2001, to 109.2 million in February of this year. Health insurance is becoming less and less affordable for millions of workers and their families. Over two million more Americans are without health insurance today than there were two years ago. One in ten small businesses which offered their employees health insurance in 2000 no longer do. The average cost of health insurance is rising 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 squeeze on working families is getting tighter and tighter. The cost of higher education is rising beyond the reach of more and more families. The gap between the cost of 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. Yet, Republicans oppose efforts to meaningfully increase financial aid for qualified students. As a result, the number of worthy students being denied the chance to go to college is growing each year. For millions of families, their retirement savings have seriously eroded in the last two years. The value of savings in 401(k) plans and other defined contribution plans has declined by $473 billion in the last two years. The value of 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, it will be another steep decline. Many middle-aged workers who thought their retirements were secure are suddenly being forced to consider staying in the workforce longer and reduce their standard of living in retirement. These are the realities American families face today. It is no surprise that consumer confidence has dropped more than fifty percent since President Bush took office. The fiscal well-being of the Federal Government has suffered as dramatic a reversal as the financial well-being of America's families. When President Bush took office, CBO projected a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next ten years. Two years later, that surplus has disappeared. CBO's most recent projection is a $378 billion deficit over that same period. Part of the surplus disappeared with the economic downturn, but a major portion of it was dissipated by the policies of the Bush administration. It is even more disturbing that the White House has not learned from this sad experience. If Congress enacts the proposed budget submitted last month by the Bush administration, the deficit will grow to over $2.1 trillion. These numbers have a serious real world impact. The President's plan would make it impossible for the Federal Government to meet its most basic obligations to the American people. To all these problems, the Bush administration has one answer--more and more tax cuts predominately benefitting the wealthiest taxpayers. In this current situation, the most irresponsible action Congress could take would be to accept the proposal of the Bush administration to enact major new permanent tax cuts. The combined cost of the President's plan to exempt dividend income from taxation, accelerate the tax cuts for the upper income brackets, and make the 2001 tax cuts permanent would be over $1.3 trillion in the next 10 years. This immense increase in the deficit would also trigger an additional $300 billion in interest costs on the larger national debt. 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 President's large, permanent tax breaks are not. If the Bush 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. Even more troubling, their plan will make it virtually impossible for us to keep the commitment of Social Security and Medicare in future years. If Congress accepts the budget which Senate Republicans have proposed, the on-budget deficit will be nearly four trillion dollars by 2013. That fact is not in dispute. The number comes right from the Chairman's mark. The cumulative on-budget deficit in fiscal year 2013 will be $3.948 trillion--an extraordinary amount. More than three- quarters of that amount is directly attributable to the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and the additional cuts proposed in 2003. The impact of these new tax cut proposals is clear from the administration's own budget. When the President says ``no'' to obviously needed spending on urgent domestic priorities such as education and health care, he says the war on terrorism requires us all to tighten our belts. The burden of these sacrifices falls mainly on low and middle income individuals and families. The President refuses to ask the wealthiest taxpayers to share the burden. In the midst of his repeated calls on others to sacrifice, he is advocating over $1.3 trillion in new tax breaks--$726 billion for his ``economic growth'' package and $624 billion to make the reduction of the higher brackets and the estate tax repeal permanent--primarily for those with the highest incomes. That policy is wrong. As a result of the Bush tax plan already enacted, the wealthiest 1 percent of the taxpayers will each save an average of $50,000 a year, and now he wants to give each of them even more--an additional $25,000 a year. This chart indicates who benefits from President Bush's tax cut proposal. This is a Brookings analysis. We see on this chart $88,000 to millionaires, $239 for working families. It cannot be wartime for middle America, but still peacetime for the rich. The Bush administration is using the recession to justify major new permanent tax breaks for the wealthy. Exempting dividend income from taxation 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 taxpayers. The information on this chart is from Citizens for Tax Justice. Under the Bush plan to eliminate the tax on dividends, the richest taxpayers get half the savings, pocketing $200 billion; 49 percent goes to the richest 1 percent; 31 percent goes to the next 10 percent. Effectively, 80 percent of the benefit goes to the richest 10 percent. The American people deserve better from the White House. We should be freezing the rates of the top income tax brackets at their current level and maintaining the estate tax on estates over $4 million. We should not be enacting any new permanent tax breaks for the wealthy when we are so clearly failing to address so many of our most basic, urgent national needs. For the cost of reducing the tax rate--listen to this, Mr. President--for the cost of reducing the tax rate on the top income brackets, we could provide the additional education funding needed to keep the promise made in the No Child Left Behind Act for a decade. We could fund that program for a decade. For the cost of permanently repealing the estate tax on multimillion dollar estates, we could help to ensure that Social Security has the financial resources needed to keep the promise of a secure retirement for future generations. That is the alternative. For the cost of President Bush's newly proposed $726 billion package of additional tax breaks tilted to the most wealthy taxpayers, we could fully fund a generous program of prescription drug assistance for senior citizens and extend health insurance to more uninsured families. That is the alternative. Which does this body want to do? Which of these choices will make the American community stronger and better able to face the challenges of the future? The decision to pass more and more tax cuts for the richest among us is a decision to ignore America's greatest needs. Now is the time for Congress to bring our policies back in line with our national values. The economy needs a real stimulus plan. A genuine economic stimulus must meet three criteria. It must have an immediate impact, it must be temporary, and it must be fair, bringing the recovery to all Americans and not just to the wealthy few. The Bush proposal fails on all three accounts. Less than $40 billion of the $726 billion cost of the administration's plan would reach the economy in 2003 when it is needed to stimulate growth. That is, of the $726 billion of the President's proposal, only $40 billion of it would be stimulative right now, Mr. President. Most of the revenue will be spent long after the recession has ended. More than $570 billion of the total amount would not be spent until 2005 or later. In contrast, our Democratic stimulus proposals would put much more money into the economy in 2003, with little additional long-term costs. Temporary tax cuts to stimulate the economy are affordable, but the President's large permanent tax breaks are not. The cost of the new permanent tax cuts of the President's plan is so high--$1.3 trillion over 10 years--that it would dramatically expand the deficit, leading to higher long-term interest rates. These higher rates could actually prolong the recession by making it more expensive for businesses to borrow the money they need to grow. The overall White House proposal is unfair to most Americans. It will provide a tax cut windfall to the wealthy few, while neglecting the needs of working families, and it will not provide the timely and targeted stimulus the economy needs. The stimulus plan proposed by the Democratic leader would inject $140 billion into the economy this year, and it is designed in a way that will maximize the stimulus effect of each dollar. Half of the total amount--$70 billion--would be used to provide immediate tax relief to working families. Each person who pays either income tax or payroll tax will receive $300, and families with children will receive additional tax relief. Thus, a family of four would receive a $1,200 tax cut this year. It is a fair plan that will provide tax relief to the hard working families who need it most and are most likely to spend it quickly. In designing a stimulus tax cut, it is particularly important to include relief for low wage workers who pay substantial payroll tax but owe no income tax. The Democratic plan covers the millions of workers in this category who are excluded from the administration's much more costly plan. The Senate Democratic plan also provides immediate, targeted tax relief for businesses to stimulate new investment. It accelerates depreciation to 50 percent for this year and triples the amount small businesses can expense this year. The goal is to provide businesses with strong tax incentives to invest in new plants and equipment now, rather than postponing those expenditures until further years. Our plan also recognizes the dire fiscal problems that state and local governments across America are facing. These governments must balance their budgets each year. When a recession cuts revenue sharply, state and local governments must either raise taxes or cut spending. Either step will deepen and prolong the recession, and undercut our stimulus efforts at the Federal level. It is also important to remember that more people need to rely on state and local programs in an economic downturn. The number of people eligible for Medicaid grows substantially in times of recession, and many other costs rise as well. Without jobs and without health care, families have no where else to turn. We should make certain that the needed resources are available for them. The Democratic stimulus plan will provide $40 billion to hard-pressed states and communities. It will provide additional dollars to maintain health care, education, and social services. It will also help with the substantial costs of dealing with the threat of terrorism. It is money well spent which will help stimulate the economy now. Unfortunately, the Republican budget totally ignores this need. The American people face a health care crisis. The administration and Republicans in Congress have responded with a budget that not only fails to address this crisis, but advances an extreme right wing agenda that will make the crisis worse. Every American family is experiencing some aspect of this crisis. Health care costs are skyrocketing, and families with insurance are facing unaffordable premium increases at the same time benefits are being reduced. The number of Americans without any insurance at all is unacceptably high and rising rapidly. No family with insurance today can be sure that it will be there tomorrow if serious illness strikes. And for senior citizens, the national promise of affordable health care through Medicare is being broken every day because Medicare does not provide prescription drugs. In the face of this crisis, the administration and the Republicans in Congress have proposed a budget that pays lip service to meeting the needs of senior citizens for prescription drug coverage, but fails to provide resources that are adequate for the job. Even worse, they have proposed to dismantle Medicare and force senior citizens into HMOs and other private insurance plans in order to obtain the drug benefit they are offering. They are proposing to use Medicare as a piggy bank to fund tax credits for the rich. Under the House budget resolution, the Ways and Means Committee is directed to come up with $214 billion in Medicare savings so that the wealthy few can become even wealthier. It is no accident that the Bush administration's program depends on forcing senior citizens into HMOs and other private insurance plans. Whether the issue is Medicare or the Patients' Bill of Rights, the Bush administration has consistently stood with the powerful special interests that seek higher profits and against the patients who need the medical care. If all senior citizens are forced to join an HMO, the revenues of that industry would increase more than $2.5 trillion over the next decade. Those are high stakes. There is a big reward for HMOs and the insurance industry if the Bush administration plan is enacted. But there is an even greater loss for senior citizens who have worked all their lives to earn their Medicare, and that loss should be unacceptable to all of us. No senior citizen 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 the interests of the rich and powerful ahead of the interests of senior citizens and their families. The Republican prescription for Medicaid is equally unacceptable. Their proposal would victimize 46 million of the most needy and most dependent of our fellow Americans. The administration is proposing the same type of destructive block grant program for Medicaid that the Gingrich Congress failed to enact almost a decade ago. The Republican block grant would leave many innocent victims in its wake--sick and needy children and their parents, the disabled, and low-income elderly. In each year's budget process, the Bush administration shows less and less support for education. At a time of enormous unmet student needs, it is shameful for the President year after year to submit anti- education budgets that provide zero overall growth in financial support for education and that cut priority programs for schools.

Mr. KENNEDY. May I get 5 more minutes?