Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to commend Steven E. Hyman for his distinguished leadership at the National Institute of Mental Health at NIH for the past 5 years. Dr. Hyman will soon be turning his immense talents to his new duties as the Provost at Harvard University, and I wish him well in this new chapter of his outstanding career. Steven Hyman was remarkably effective in bringing issues to the national agenda that for too long have met with shame and stigma. As a renowned neuroscientist, he used his considerable talent, reputation, and communication skills to demonstrate to the entire Nation the progress that is being made in understanding and healing mental illnesses. He worked closely with the Surgeon General in his efforts to bring this profoundly important message to the attention of the country. It is because of efforts like these that we are closer than ever before to providing fair treatment for patients and their families, who have suffered from discrimination because mental illness for so long has been treated unfairly. Under Dr. Hyman's leadership, the NIMH has charted a bold course, initiating new clinical trials that will not exclude patients who are coping with difficulties so often associated with mental illness. He has insisted on including members of the public in the Institutes' research planning, including the groups reviewing grant applications. He has increased the Institute's research emphasis on areas of critical need, such as children and the elderly. He has worked skillfully to guarantee that greater effort is made to translate research into practice. I know that the National Institute of Mental Health will miss Dr. Hyman's bold and brilliant presence, and so will the nation, as he takes up his eminent new position at Harvard I commend him for his outstanding service to this country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Gerry Doyle, the outstanding Mayor of Pittsfield, MA, who is retiring at the end of this year. He has been a wonderful mayor for the people of Pittsfield, and I know they join me in thanking him for his commitment and dedication to public service. Mayor Doyle will long be remembered for his outstanding leadership in achieving an historic agreement to clean up the Housatonic River and the General Electric industrial site. He was the driving force behind this impressive agreement which protects the magnificent environmental heritage of the Berkshires and the public health of the entire community, and has laid a solid basis for future economic development in Pittsfield. The settlement is one of the largest of its kind ever achieved in Massachusetts, Mayor Doyle won great progress for all the Berkshires by striking this all-important balance between economic development and environmental cleanup. The day this agreement was reached was the dawning of a new era for Pittsfield, and for that we will always be grateful to Mayor Doyle for his outstanding leadership. Mayor Doyle has also done an outstanding job of increasing tourism in the Berkshires and in improving the quality of life for the people of Pittsfield. He's worked skillfully to improve transportation in the city, which in turn has helped attract new businesses to Pittsfield. All of us in Massachusetts are grateful for Mayor Doyle's distinguished service to the City of Pittsfield and to our State, and we are grateful for his friendship. We know that his commitment to public service will continue in other ways, and he will be deeply missed.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Bruce Tobey, the outstanding Mayor of Gloucester, MA, who is retiring at the end of this year. I join the people of Gloucester in expressing my deep appreciation for his commitment and dedication to the City of Gloucester and I thank him for his leadership and his friendship. Mayor Tobey has been a strong and effective leader for Gloucester, working to improve opportunities for all of Gloucester's residents. Mayor Tobey took a particular interest in the fishing community. Fishing has been the lifeblood of Gloucester for nearly four hundred years, and Mayor Tobey has worked tirelessly to continue this proud tradition. Mayor Tobey's leadership was especially significant in opening the Gloucester Fish Exchange. The Fish Exchange has been a major success as a site for fishermen to sell their fish and for buyers to view the fish. It is the second Fish Exchange to be established in the entire country. I commend the Mayor for his foresight and perseverance, which has made Gloucester's Fish Exchange such a resounding success. Mayor Tobey has also worked skillfully to rehabilitate the State Fish Pier in Gloucester. New businesses on the pier, including the Cape Ann Seafood Center, a 50,000-square-foot seafood-processing center, are there today because of Mayor Tobey's leadership and dedication. New businesses on the pier have been essential in improving access to local seafood processing, and have also created numerous new jobs on the waterfront. Mayor Tobey has also been a strong supporter of the Gloucester Fisheries Forum, a day-long symposium dedicated to the discussion of major fisheries issues. Year in and year out, this Forum has become a productive opportunity for members of the local fishing community to speak to leaders in the field and learn from them about the current challenges and future hopes for the fishing industry. Mayor Tobey understood the need to bring people together, and he did an outstanding job. There has been no greater friend or supporter of these fishing communities than Mayor Tobey. We are grateful for his distinguished service to the City of Gloucester and to our state, and we're proud of his friendship. I know that his commitment to public service will continue in other ways, and he will be deeply missed.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join Senator Brownback, Senator Feinstein, Senator Kyl, Senator Leahy, Senator Hatch, and other colleagues in introducing legislation to strengthen the security of our borders, improve our ability to screen foreign nationals, and enhance our ability to deter potential terrorists. Senator Brownback and I have worked closely with Senator Feinstein and Senator Kyl over the last month to develop a broad and effective response to the national security challenges we face. The need is urgent to improve our intelligence and technology capabilities, strengthen training programs for border officials and foreign service officers, and improve the monitoring of foreign nationals already in the United States. In strengthening security at our borders, we must also safeguard the unobstructed entry of the more than 31 million persons who enter the U.S. legally each year as visitors, students, and temporary workers. Many others cross our borders from Canada and Mexico to conduct daily business or visit close family members. We also must live up to our history and heritage as a nation of immigrants. Continued immigration is part of our national well-being, our identity as a Nation, and our strength in today's world. In defending America, we are also defending the fundamental constitutional principles that have made America strong in the past and will make us even stronger in the future. Our action must strike a careful balance between protecting civil liberties and providing the means for law enforcement to identify, apprehend and detain potential terrorists. It makes no sense to enact reforms that severely limit immigration into the United States. ``Fortress America,'' even if it could be achieved, is an inadequate and ineffective response to the terrorist threat. Enforcement personnel at our ports of entry are a key part of the battle against terrorism, and we must provide them with greater resources, training, and technology. These men and women have a significant role in the battle against terrorism. This legislation will ensure that they receive adequate pay, can hire necessary personnel, are well-trained to identify individuals who pose a security threat, have access to important intelligence information, and have the technologies they need to enhance border security and facilitate cross- border commerce. The Immigration and Naturalization Service must be able to retain highly skilled immigration inspectors. Our legislation provides incentives to immigration inspectors by providing them with the same benefits as other law enforcement personnel. Expanding the use of biometric technology is critical to securing our borders. This legislation authorizes the funding needed to bring our ports of entry into the biometric age and equip them with biometric data readers and scanners. We must expand the use of biometric border crossing cards. The time frame previously allowed for individuals to obtain these cards was not sufficient. This legislation extends the deadline for individuals crossing the border to acquire the biometric cards. The USA Patriot Act addressed the need for machine-readable passports, but it did not focus on the need for machine-readable visas issued by the United States. This legislation enables the Department of State to raise fees through the use of machine-readable visas and use the funds collected from these fees to improve technology at our ports of entry. Our efforts to improve border security must also include enhanced coordination and information-sharing by the Department of State, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This legislation will require the President to submit and implement a plan to improve access to critical security information. It will create an electronic data system to give those responsible for screening visa applicants and persons entering the U.S. the tools they need to make informed decisions. It also provides for a temporary system until the President's plan is fully implemented. We must also strengthen our ability to monitor foreign nationals in the United States. In 1996, Congress enacted legislation mandating the development of an automated entry/exit control system to record the entry of every non-citizen arriving in the U.S., and to match it with the record of departure. Although the technology is currently available for such a system, it has not been put in place because of the high costs involved. Our legislation builds on the anti-terrorism bill and provides greater direction to the INS for implementing the entry/exit system. We must improve the ability of foreign service officers to detect and intercept potential terrorists before they arrive in the U.S. Most foreign nationals who travel here must apply for visas at American consulates overseas. Traditionally, consular officers have concentrated on interviewing applicants to determine whether they are likely to violate their visa status. Although this review is important, consular officers must also be trained specifically to screen for security threats. Terrorist lookout committees will be established in every U.S. consular mission abroad in order to focus the attention of our consular officers on specific threats and provide essential critical national security information to those responsible for issuing visas and updating the lookout database. This legislation will help restrict visas to foreign nationals from countries that the Department of State has determined are sponsors of terrorism. It prohibits issuing visas to individuals from countries that sponsor terrorism, unless the Secretary of State has determined that the person is not a security threat. The current Visa Waiver Program, which allows individuals from participating countries to enter the U.S. for a limited period without visas, strengthens relations between the United States and those countries, and encourages economic growth around the world. Given it's importance, we must safeguard its continued use, while also ensuring that a country's designation as a participant in the program does not undermine U.S. law enforcement and security. This legislation will only allow a country to be designated as a visa waiver participant, or continue to be designated, if the Attorney General and Secretary of State determine that the country reports instances of passport theft to the U.S. government in a timely manner. We must do more to improve our ability to screen individuals along our entire North American perimeter. This legislation directs the Department of State, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Justice and the INS to work with the Office of Homeland Security to screen individuals at the perimeter before they reach our continent, and to work with Canada and Mexico to coordinate these efforts. We must require all airlines to electronically transmit passenger lists to destination airports in the United States, so that once planes have landed, law enforcement authorities can intercept passengers who are on federal lookout lists. United States airlines already do this, but some foreign airlines do not. Our legislation requires all airlines and all other vessels to transmit passenger manifest information prior to their arrival in the United States. When planes land at our airports, inspectors are under significant time constraints to clear the planes and ensure the safety of all departing passengers. Our legislation removes the existing 45 minute deadline, and provides inspectors with adequate time to clear and secure aircraft. In 1996, Congress established a program to collect information on non-immigrant foreign students and participants in exchange programs. Although a pilot phase of this program ended in 1999, a permanent system has not yet been implemented. Congress enacted provisions in the recent anti-terrorism bill for the quick and effective implementation of this system by 2003, but gaps still exist. This legislation will increase the data collected by the monitoring program to include the date of entry, the port of entry, the date of school enrollment, and the date the student leaves the school. It requires the Department of State and INS to monitor students who have been given visas, and to notify schools of their entry. It also requires a school to notify the INS if a student does not actually report to the school. INS regulations provide for regular reviews of over 26,000 educational institutions authorized to enroll foreign students. However, inspections have been sporadic in recent years. This legislation will require INS to monitor institutions on a regular basis. If institutions fail to comply with these and other requirements, they can lose their ability to admit foreign students. In addition, this legislation provides for an interim system until the program established by the 1996 law is implemented. As we work to achieve stronger tracking systems, we must also remember that the vast majority of foreign visitors, students, and workers who overstay their visas are not criminals or terrorists. It would be wrong and unfair, without additional information, to stigmatize them. The USA Patriot Act was an important part of the effort to improve immigration security, but further action is needed. This legislation is a needed bipartisan effort to strengthen the security of our borders and enhance our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks, while also reaffirming our tradition as a Nation of immigrants. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join Senator Brownback, Senator Feinstein, Senator Kyl, Senator Leahy, Senator Hatch, and other colleagues in introducing legislation to strengthen the security of our borders, improve our ability to screen foreign nationals, and enhance our ability to deter potential terrorists. Senator Brownback and I have worked closely with Senator Feinstein and Senator Kyl over the last month to develop a broad and effective response to the national security challenges we face. The need is urgent to improve our intelligence and technology capabilities, strengthen training programs for border officials and foreign service officers, and improve the monitoring of foreign nationals already in the United States. In strengthening security at our borders, we must also safeguard the unobstructed entry of the more than 31 million persons who enter the U.S. legally each year as visitors, students, and temporary workers. Many others cross our borders from Canada and Mexico to conduct daily business or visit close family members. We also must live up to our history and heritage as a nation of immigrants. Continued immigration is part of our national well-being, our identity as a Nation, and our strength in today's world. In defending America, we are also defending the fundamental constitutional principles that have made America strong in the past and will make us even stronger in the future. Our action must strike a careful balance between protecting civil liberties and providing the means for law enforcement to identify, apprehend and detain potential terrorists. It makes no sense to enact reforms that severely limit immigration into the United States. ``Fortress America,'' even if it could be achieved, is an inadequate and ineffective response to the terrorist threat. Enforcement personnel at our ports of entry are a key part of the battle against terrorism, and we must provide them with greater resources, training, and technology. These men and women have a significant role in the battle against terrorism. This legislation will ensure that they receive adequate pay, can hire necessary personnel, are well-trained to identify individuals who pose a security threat, have access to important intelligence information, and have the technologies they need to enhance border security and facilitate cross- border commerce. The Immigration and Naturalization Service must be able to retain highly skilled immigration inspectors. Our legislation provides incentives to immigration inspectors by providing them with the same benefits as other law enforcement personnel. Expanding the use of biometric technology is critical to securing our borders. This legislation authorizes the funding needed to bring our ports of entry into the biometric age and equip them with biometric data readers and scanners. We must expand the use of biometric border crossing cards. The time frame previously allowed for individuals to obtain these cards was not sufficient. This legislation extends the deadline for individuals crossing the border to acquire the biometric cards. The USA Patriot Act addressed the need for machine-readable passports, but it did not focus on the need for machine-readable visas issued by the United States. This legislation enables the Department of State to raise fees through the use of machine-readable visas and use the funds collected from these fees to improve technology at our ports of entry. Our efforts to improve border security must also include enhanced coordination and information-sharing by the Department of State, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This legislation will require the President to submit and implement a plan to improve access to critical security information. It will create an electronic data system to give those responsible for screening visa applicants and persons entering the U.S. the tools they need to make informed decisions. It also provides for a temporary system until the President's plan is fully implemented. We must also strengthen our ability to monitor foreign nationals in the United States. In 1996, Congress enacted legislation mandating the development of an automated entry/exit control system to record the entry of every non-citizen arriving in the U.S., and to match it with the record of departure. Although the technology is currently available for such a system, it has not been put in place because of the high costs involved. Our legislation builds on the anti-terrorism bill and provides greater direction to the INS for implementing the entry/exit system. We must improve the ability of foreign service officers to detect and intercept potential terrorists before they arrive in the U.S. Most foreign nationals who travel here must apply for visas at American consulates overseas. Traditionally, consular officers have concentrated on interviewing applicants to determine whether they are likely to violate their visa status. Although this review is important, consular officers must also be trained specifically to screen for security threats. Terrorist lookout committees will be established in every U.S. consular mission abroad in order to focus the attention of our consular officers on specific threats and provide essential critical national security information to those responsible for issuing visas and updating the lookout database. This legislation will help restrict visas to foreign nationals from countries that the Department of State has determined are sponsors of terrorism. It prohibits issuing visas to individuals from countries that sponsor terrorism, unless the Secretary of State has determined that the person is not a security threat. The current Visa Waiver Program, which allows individuals from participating countries to enter the U.S. for a limited period without visas, strengthens relations between the United States and those countries, and encourages economic growth around the world. Given it's importance, we must safeguard its continued use, while also ensuring that a country's designation as a participant in the program does not undermine U.S. law enforcement and security. This legislation will only allow a country to be designated as a visa waiver participant, or continue to be designated, if the Attorney General and Secretary of State determine that the country reports instances of passport theft to the U.S. government in a timely manner. We must do more to improve our ability to screen individuals along our entire North American perimeter. This legislation directs the Department of State, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Justice and the INS to work with the Office of Homeland Security to screen individuals at the perimeter before they reach our continent, and to work with Canada and Mexico to coordinate these efforts. We must require all airlines to electronically transmit passenger lists to destination airports in the United States, so that once planes have landed, law enforcement authorities can intercept passengers who are on federal lookout lists. United States airlines already do this, but some foreign airlines do not. Our legislation requires all airlines and all other vessels to transmit passenger manifest information prior to their arrival in the United States. When planes land at our airports, inspectors are under significant time constraints to clear the planes and ensure the safety of all departing passengers. Our legislation removes the existing 45 minute deadline, and provides inspectors with adequate time to clear and secure aircraft. In 1996, Congress established a program to collect information on non-immigrant foreign students and participants in exchange programs. Although a pilot phase of this program ended in 1999, a permanent system has not yet been implemented. Congress enacted provisions in the recent anti-terrorism bill for the quick and effective implementation of this system by 2003, but gaps still exist. This legislation will increase the data collected by the monitoring program to include the date of entry, the port of entry, the date of school enrollment, and the date the student leaves the school. It requires the Department of State and INS to monitor students who have been given visas, and to notify schools of their entry. It also requires a school to notify the INS if a student does not actually report to the school. INS regulations provide for regular reviews of over 26,000 educational institutions authorized to enroll foreign students. However, inspections have been sporadic in recent years. This legislation will require INS to monitor institutions on a regular basis. If institutions fail to comply with these and other requirements, they can lose their ability to admit foreign students. In addition, this legislation provides for an interim system until the program established by the 1996 law is implemented. As we work to achieve stronger tracking systems, we must also remember that the vast majority of foreign visitors, students, and workers who overstay their visas are not criminals or terrorists. It would be wrong and unfair, without additional information, to stigmatize them. The USA Patriot Act was an important part of the effort to improve immigration security, but further action is needed. This legislation is a needed bipartisan effort to strengthen the security of our borders and enhance our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks, while also reaffirming our tradition as a Nation of immigrants. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Frist, to introduce this bipartisan legislation to respond to one of the most severe dangers of terrorism, the grave threat of bioterrorist attacks. I commend Senator Frist for his impressive continuing leadership on this vital issue. We are all well aware of the emergency we face. In recent weeks, 15 anthrax cases stretched our health care system to the breaking point. A larger attack could be a disaster for whole communities of Americans. The anthrax attack of the past weeks has sounded the alarm. The clock is ticking on America's preparedness for a future attack. We've had the clearest possible warning, and we can't afford to ignore it. We know that hundreds, even millions, of lives may be at stake--and we're not ready yet. The needs are great. A summit meeting of experts in bioterrorism and public health concluded that $835 million was needed just to address the most pressing needs for public health at the State and local levels. The National Governor's Association has said that states need $2 billion to improve readiness for bioterrorism. John Hopkins is spending $7.5 million to improve its ability to serve as a regional bioterrorism resource for Baltimore. Equipping just one hospital to this level in each of 100 cities across America would cost $750 million. Clearly, our legislation is an important downpayment on preparedness. But we must make sure that our commitment to achieving full readiness is sustained in the weeks and months to come. Since September 11, the American people have supported our commitment of billions of dollars and thousands of troops to battle terrorism abroad. But Americans also want to be safe at home. We have an obligation to every American that we will do no less to protect them against terrorism at home than we do to fight terrorism abroad. The need for help at the State and local level is especially urgent. In the first 3 weeks of October alone, State health departments spent a quarter billion dollars responding to the anthrax attack. Many departments were forced to put aside other major public health responsibilities. Hospitals across the country have immediate needs. According to the American Public Health Association, hospitals are hard-pressed even during a heavy flu season, and could not cope with a lethal contagious disease like smallpox. The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act we are proposing will address these deficiencies. It provides new resources for bioterrorism preparedness to the States under a formula that guarantees help to each State. These resources will be available to improve hospital readiness, equip emergency personnel, enhance State planning, and strengthen the ability of public health agencies to detect and contain dangerous disease outbreaks. Federal stockpiles of antibiotics, vaccines, and other medical supplies are an essential part of the national response. We have a strategic petroleum reserve to safeguard our energy supply in times of crisis. We need a strategic pharmaceutical reserve as well, to ensure that we have the medicines and vaccines stockpiled to respond to bioterrorist attacks. Our legislation establishes this reserve, and authorizes the development of sufficient smallpox and other vaccines to meet the needs of the entire U.S. population. The legislation will also help protect the safety of the food supply, through increased research and survelliance of dangerous agricultural pathogens. Every day we delay means that States can't buy the equipment to improve their labs and hire the personnel they need. It means another day in which hospitals can't purchase stocks of antibiotics or add emergency room capacity. It means further delay in building up pharmaceutical stockpiles and producing essential vaccines. We face an extraordinary threat, and we must take immediate action to combat it. Our legislation draws on the work and suggestions of numerous colleagues on both sides of the aisle. One of the important areas addressed in the legislation is the threat of agricultural bioterrorism. Deliberate introduction of animal diseases could pose grave dangers to the safety of the food supply. Such acts of agricultural bioterrorism would also be economically devastating. The outbreaks of ``mad cow'' disease in Europe cost over $10 billion, and the foot and mouth outbreak cost billions more. We must guard against this danger. Protecting the safety of the food supply is a central concern in addressing the problem of bioterrorism. Senator Clinton, Senator Mikulski, Senator Harkin, Senator Collins and Senator Durbin have all contributed thoughtful proposals about food safety. Our bill will enable FDA and USDA to protect the Nation's food supply more effectively. We're grateful for the leadership of other Senators who have made significant contributions to this legislation. Senator Bayh and Senator Edwards contributed important proposals on providing block grants to states, so that each State will be able to increase its preparedness. Their proposal ensures that each state will receive at least a minimum level of funding. We're also grateful for the contributions that many of our distinguished colleagues have made to address the special needs of children. Senator Dodd, Senator Collins, Senator Clinton, Senator DeWine and Senator Murray have emphasized the crucial needs of children relating to bioterrorism. The legislation includes important initiatives to provide for the special needs of children and other vulnerable populations. The events of recent weeks have shown the importance of effective communication with the public. Our legislation incorporates proposals on improving communication offered by several of our colleagues. Senator Carnahan has recognized the importance of the internet in providing information to the public. The legislation includes the provisions of her legislation to establish the official Federal internet site on bioterrorism, to help inform the public. Senator Mikulski also contributed provisions on improving communication with the public. The high level, blue ribbon task force can provide vitally needed insights on how best to provide information to the public. Senator Mikulski also recommended ways to ensure that states have coordinated plans for communicating information about bioterrorism and other emergencies to the public. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have a leading role in responding to bioterrorism. Senator Cleland has been an effective and skillful advocate for the needs of the CDC. Our legislation today incorporates many of the proposals introduced by Senator Cleland in his legislation on public health authorities. Hospitals are also one of the keys to an effective response to bioterrorism. We must do more to strengthen the ability of the nation's hospitals to cope with bioterrorism. Senator Corzine has proposed to strengthen designated hospitals to serve as regional resources for bioterrorism preparedness, I commend him for his thoughtful proposal, which we have incorporated into the legislation. We must also ensure that we monitor dangerous biological agents that might be used for bioterrorism. There is a serious loophole in current regulations, and we are grateful for the proposals offered by Senator Durbin and Senator Feinstein to achieve more effective control of these pathogens. In a biological threat or attack, mental health care will be extremely important. We are indebted to Senator Wellstone for his skillful and compassionate advocacy for the needs of those with mental illnesses. In the event of a terrorist attack, thousands of persons would have mental health needs, and our legislation includes key proposals by Senator Wellstone to address these needs. Mobilizing the nation's pharmaceutical and biotech companies so that they can fully contribute to this effort is critical. Senators Leahy, Hatch, DeWine, and Kohl made thoughtful contributions to the antitrust provisions of the bill, which will help encourage a helpful public- private partnership to combat bioterrorism. This legislation is urgent because the need to prepare for a bioterrorist attack is urgent. I look forward to its prompt passage so that the American people can have the protection they need.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Frist, to introduce this bipartisan legislation to respond to one of the most severe dangers of terrorism, the grave threat of bioterrorist attacks. I commend Senator Frist for his impressive continuing leadership on this vital issue. We are all well aware of the emergency we face. In recent weeks, 15 anthrax cases stretched our health care system to the breaking point. A larger attack could be a disaster for whole communities of Americans. The anthrax attack of the past weeks has sounded the alarm. The clock is ticking on America's preparedness for a future attack. We've had the clearest possible warning, and we can't afford to ignore it. We know that hundreds, even millions, of lives may be at stake--and we're not ready yet. The needs are great. A summit meeting of experts in bioterrorism and public health concluded that $835 million was needed just to address the most pressing needs for public health at the State and local levels. The National Governor's Association has said that states need $2 billion to improve readiness for bioterrorism. John Hopkins is spending $7.5 million to improve its ability to serve as a regional bioterrorism resource for Baltimore. Equipping just one hospital to this level in each of 100 cities across America would cost $750 million. Clearly, our legislation is an important downpayment on preparedness. But we must make sure that our commitment to achieving full readiness is sustained in the weeks and months to come. Since September 11, the American people have supported our commitment of billions of dollars and thousands of troops to battle terrorism abroad. But Americans also want to be safe at home. We have an obligation to every American that we will do no less to protect them against terrorism at home than we do to fight terrorism abroad. The need for help at the State and local level is especially urgent. In the first 3 weeks of October alone, State health departments spent a quarter billion dollars responding to the anthrax attack. Many departments were forced to put aside other major public health responsibilities. Hospitals across the country have immediate needs. According to the American Public Health Association, hospitals are hard-pressed even during a heavy flu season, and could not cope with a lethal contagious disease like smallpox. The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act we are proposing will address these deficiencies. It provides new resources for bioterrorism preparedness to the States under a formula that guarantees help to each State. These resources will be available to improve hospital readiness, equip emergency personnel, enhance State planning, and strengthen the ability of public health agencies to detect and contain dangerous disease outbreaks. Federal stockpiles of antibiotics, vaccines, and other medical supplies are an essential part of the national response. We have a strategic petroleum reserve to safeguard our energy supply in times of crisis. We need a strategic pharmaceutical reserve as well, to ensure that we have the medicines and vaccines stockpiled to respond to bioterrorist attacks. Our legislation establishes this reserve, and authorizes the development of sufficient smallpox and other vaccines to meet the needs of the entire U.S. population. The legislation will also help protect the safety of the food supply, through increased research and survelliance of dangerous agricultural pathogens. Every day we delay means that States can't buy the equipment to improve their labs and hire the personnel they need. It means another day in which hospitals can't purchase stocks of antibiotics or add emergency room capacity. It means further delay in building up pharmaceutical stockpiles and producing essential vaccines. We face an extraordinary threat, and we must take immediate action to combat it. Our legislation draws on the work and suggestions of numerous colleagues on both sides of the aisle. One of the important areas addressed in the legislation is the threat of agricultural bioterrorism. Deliberate introduction of animal diseases could pose grave dangers to the safety of the food supply. Such acts of agricultural bioterrorism would also be economically devastating. The outbreaks of ``mad cow'' disease in Europe cost over $10 billion, and the foot and mouth outbreak cost billions more. We must guard against this danger. Protecting the safety of the food supply is a central concern in addressing the problem of bioterrorism. Senator Clinton, Senator Mikulski, Senator Harkin, Senator Collins and Senator Durbin have all contributed thoughtful proposals about food safety. Our bill will enable FDA and USDA to protect the Nation's food supply more effectively. We're grateful for the leadership of other Senators who have made significant contributions to this legislation. Senator Bayh and Senator Edwards contributed important proposals on providing block grants to states, so that each State will be able to increase its preparedness. Their proposal ensures that each state will receive at least a minimum level of funding. We're also grateful for the contributions that many of our distinguished colleagues have made to address the special needs of children. Senator Dodd, Senator Collins, Senator Clinton, Senator DeWine and Senator Murray have emphasized the crucial needs of children relating to bioterrorism. The legislation includes important initiatives to provide for the special needs of children and other vulnerable populations. The events of recent weeks have shown the importance of effective communication with the public. Our legislation incorporates proposals on improving communication offered by several of our colleagues. Senator Carnahan has recognized the importance of the internet in providing information to the public. The legislation includes the provisions of her legislation to establish the official Federal internet site on bioterrorism, to help inform the public. Senator Mikulski also contributed provisions on improving communication with the public. The high level, blue ribbon task force can provide vitally needed insights on how best to provide information to the public. Senator Mikulski also recommended ways to ensure that states have coordinated plans for communicating information about bioterrorism and other emergencies to the public. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have a leading role in responding to bioterrorism. Senator Cleland has been an effective and skillful advocate for the needs of the CDC. Our legislation today incorporates many of the proposals introduced by Senator Cleland in his legislation on public health authorities. Hospitals are also one of the keys to an effective response to bioterrorism. We must do more to strengthen the ability of the nation's hospitals to cope with bioterrorism. Senator Corzine has proposed to strengthen designated hospitals to serve as regional resources for bioterrorism preparedness, I commend him for his thoughtful proposal, which we have incorporated into the legislation. We must also ensure that we monitor dangerous biological agents that might be used for bioterrorism. There is a serious loophole in current regulations, and we are grateful for the proposals offered by Senator Durbin and Senator Feinstein to achieve more effective control of these pathogens. In a biological threat or attack, mental health care will be extremely important. We are indebted to Senator Wellstone for his skillful and compassionate advocacy for the needs of those with mental illnesses. In the event of a terrorist attack, thousands of persons would have mental health needs, and our legislation includes key proposals by Senator Wellstone to address these needs. Mobilizing the nation's pharmaceutical and biotech companies so that they can fully contribute to this effort is critical. Senators Leahy, Hatch, DeWine, and Kohl made thoughtful contributions to the antitrust provisions of the bill, which will help encourage a helpful public- private partnership to combat bioterrorism. This legislation is urgent because the need to prepare for a bioterrorist attack is urgent. I look forward to its prompt passage so that the American people can have the protection they need.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on Tuesday, we began debate about the economic stimulus package. We know the economy is in trouble, and we know we have to act. Clearly, by any standard, we face an economic emergency that demands responsible action by Congress. The American people want action by Congress too. They strongly support our Democratic proposals to provide unemployment insurance and health insurance to laid-off workers, and Federal assistance to States. They know it's an emergency in the economy and they know it is an emergency for the hundreds of thousands of men and women without unemployment insurance or health insurance. Yet, some of our colleagues in Congress oppose this action. Instead, they support a bill that would retroactively repeal the corporate minimum tax and give the largest corporations $25 billion in direct payments from the U.S. Treasury. They don't think laid-off workers who can't afford, or don't have, health insurance are an emergency. Instead, they support spending $120 billion to accelerate the reduction of upper income tax rates, 80 percent of which won't go into the economy until after next year. Our economy is in trouble. There is no denying it. Just ask the men and women who have lost their jobs and have to tell their families every week that they cannot find new employment. They will tell you how hard it is to put food on their families' tables each week. They will tell you how hard it is to watch their bills piling up with no end in sight. If that's not enough, look at the numbers. Only 38 percent of unemployed workers receive unemployment insurance. This figure is down from 75 percent in 1975. And, the figure is much worse for low-wage workers. According to a new study by the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, only 20 percent of unemployed low-wage workers will qualify for benefits during a recession. These workers are least likely to qualify for unemployment benefits, and they are most likely to be laid off. They are struggling to keep a roof over their families' heads and to afford food for their children. We know that the number of hungry children has grown in recent years. Unless we do more to help, the number will continue to grow. Yesterday, America's Second Harvest released the largest, most comprehensive report on the plight of hungry Americans. Last year, 23 million Americans, including 9 million children, sought emergency food relief through America's Second Harvest. The current downturn in the economy means that even more families are facing the difficult choice between feeding their children and paying the rent, a choice no person should have to make. These findings demonstrate the dramatic rise in hunger and related health problems among children. They demonstrate that current unemployment benefits are not adequate to help working families during the current economic downturn. We need to do more to see that families can afford to put food on their tables. Our Democratic plan provides unemployment benefits to 600,000 more low-wage and part-time workers and increase these benefits by at least $25 a week. The economy needs stimulus now. Workers need assistance now. The best way to accomplish both of these goals is to get relief to the families who need it the most. Economists across the country agree that providing relief to low- and moderate-income families is one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy. The Democratic plan would stimulate the economy right away, by putting money in the hands of the people most likely to spend it-- dislocated workers and their families. We do that by strengthening the unemployment insurance system, improving workers' ability to afford health care, and providing a tax rebate for those who did not receive a full rebate earlier this year. Unemployment insurance is the Nation's first line of defense in an economic recession. By putting UI trust fund dollars into the declining economy, we automatically boost consumer spending in communities affected by rising unemployment, while meeting essential needs of households hurt by layoffs. A recent study by the Department of Labor shows that every $1 invested in unemployment insurance generates $2.15 for the Nation's economy. That same study estimated that unemployment insurance ``mitigated the real loss in GDP by 15 percent'' in the last five recessions. According to Joseph Stiglitz, ``we should extend the duration and magnitude of the benefits we provide to our unemployed. This is not only the fairest proposal, but also the most effective. People who become unemployed cut back on their expenditures. Giving them more money will directly increase expenditures.'' The Congressional Research Service agrees: ``Extending unemployment compensation is, in fact, likely to be a more successful policy for stimulating aggregate demand than many other . . . changes.'' The Republican plan will put very little money into the hands of unemployed workers. It offers no guarantees of extended benefits in most states. In fact, the States with the highest unemployment rates are the least likely to receive help under that plan. Even for those few workers who will be helped, the plan won't provide any benefits until next spring. America's working families must not be left behind when Congress acts on an economic recovery package. We must also help families afford health insurance. It is also the right thing to do for them, and it is the right thing to do for economy. Providing health insurance for laid-off workers improves the health of our economy. When a parent is forced to choose between health insurance and food on their table, it is unfair for their family, and it undermines the economy. On average, health insurance premiums for these families cost nearly two-thirds of their unemployment insurance. That is why only 18 percent of workers eligible for COBRA use this coverage. And millions of workers are not eligible for COBRA at all. This is no time to accept an increase in the uninsured. It is wrong for families and wrong for hospitals, nursing homes, health care workers and many others in the health care sector, which makes up one- seventh of our economy. The Democratic economic recover plan provides temporary health insurance for workers who have been laid off in the slowing economy. Currently, workers must pay 65 percent of their unemployment check to purchase COBRA health insurance coverage. Our plan to subsidize COBRA coverage would make health care affordable for all displaced workers. States also could receive Federal Medicaid matching payments to cover other laid-off workers who do not qualify for COBRA. By protecting both workers eligible for COBRA coverage and increasing the Medicaid matching payments, the Senate Democratic plan provides meaningful health coverage for unemployed Americans while the Republican plan will leave families behind. For unemployed workers who are eligible for COBRA, the Senate Democratic plan provides health coverage for 12 months during the economic downturn. The Senate Republican plan provides enough for only 2 weeks of coverage. For unemployed Americans who are not eligible for COBRA, the Democratic plan again provides coverage for 1 year, while the Republican plan offers no assistance. The plan to provide unemployed workers with health insurance coverage will also be good for the economy by helping to stop a decline in the health care sector. If unemployed individuals who lack health insurance forgo health care, the health care sector will be hurt during the downturn. The health care system has been one of the most vibrant sectors of the economy in recent years. It has been responsible for 30 percent of the real growth in gross domestic product and 45 percent of the net increase in jobs in the past year. A reduction in the purchase of health care services has an effect on the economy similar to that of other reductions in consumer spending, it dampens economic activity. Finally, a federal stimulus package will do no good if States have to make spending cuts or raise taxes. The current recession is already having an impact on state budgets. In fact, 35 States have reported budget shortfalls--a shortfall that already totals more than $15 billion and will grow to $30 billion if unemployment continues to increase. This means that states across the country will have to make drastic cuts. In particular, they are cutting back on Medicaid. In fact, 20 States are already planning to cut Medicaid. At the same time, the number of people on Medicaid is expected to grow by as much as 3 million during this recession, about 2 million of them could be children. If States cut Medicaid just as more people need it, we are going to see an increase in the uninsured. Also, leading economists believe substantial cuts in state Medicaid budgets would have dramatic ripple effects on the national economy. Our plan provides financial assistance to States to help avoid devastating cuts in Medicaid, cuts that will hurt State economies and reduce health coverage. States would receive $5.5 billion through an increased Federal Medicaid matching rate, providing an immediate influx of cash into States suffering from the recession-driven budget crisis. The Senate Republican alternative is unacceptable. It fails to address aid to the States, health care or unemployment insurance in any meaningful way. The Democratic plan is a fair balance between tax incentives and spending incentives for the economy. The tax incentives in the plan meet the three essential criteria for a stimulus: They will put money into the economy now; they do not impose substantial new long-term costs on the federal budget; and they treat fairly those who are most in need. Seventy percent of Americans today pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. Yet many of them received no tax rebate earlier this year. The rebate unfairly ignored these low and moderate income families. A one-time rebate of payroll taxes to them now will immediately inject $15 billion into the economy, placing the dollars in the hands of people who are likely to spend them immediately. Economists tell us that families with modest incomes are likely to spend the extra money they receive right away on needed consumer goods. Those with higher incomes are more likely to save it. The Democratic bill also includes temporary, targeted tax cuts to stimulate immediate business activity. These changes provide more favorable treatment for new investments now, and they deserve to be supported. Because the tax cuts in the Democratic plan are truly designed to be an immediate economic stimulus, they do not incur any substantial cost beyond 2003. This point is vital to our economic recovery. Enacting new permanent tax cuts which can trigger large long-term Federal deficits would be counter-productive. Permanent new tax cuts, on top of the nearly $2 trillion in tax cuts enacted earlier this year, would actually hurt the economy now, by raising the cost of long-term borrowing and discouraging the kinds of investment we need most today. The House of Representatives passed, by the narrowest of margins, a so-called stimulus package that will not stimulate economic growth in the short term, and will not be affordable in the long term. It merely repackages old, unfair, permanent tax breaks, which were rejected by Congress last spring, under the new label of ``economic stimulus.'' The American people deserve better. The long-term cost of the House plan is too high, and less than half of the dollars would reach the economy next year. The House plan offers $46 billion in tax breaks to big businesses by permanently repealing the corporate alternative minimum tax and by giving permanent new tax cuts for multinational corporations. These provisions are an unacceptable giveaway of public resources. The alternative suggested by our Republican colleagues in the Senate is also flawed. Their proposal to accelerate the reduction of upper income tax rates would cost $120 billion over the next decade. Only a small percentage of these dollars, less than one dollar in four, would go into the economy in 2002. And these dollars would go to those least likely to spend them. The result would be little immediate stimulus, large long-term costs, and a grossly unfair distribution to the wealthiest individuals in our society. In fact, the House Republican proposal gives $115 billion in permanent new tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations, while the Senate plan would give them $142 billion in new tax breaks. Yet each of the Republican tax plans provide only $14 billion for low and moderate income families. Under the GOP plan, the tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals are permanent, while the cuts for working families are limited to just one year. The result is unfair, and it won't provide the economic stimulus that the nation urgently needs now. Perhaps never before in history has our nation faced such grave challenges. The tragedy of September 11 has touched us all. Together, we witnessed a horror we could not have imagined, and bravery which inspires us all. The tragedy may have shaken our basic assumptions about the world in which we live. But, Americans have not retreated in fear. Instead, they have risen to meet these new challenges. The spirit of September 11 has compelled vast numbers of our fellow citizens to ask what they can do for their communities and our country. It is time for Congress to do its part to respond to the emergency we face. We must respond to the economic crisis the Nation faces. As we do so, we must show our dedication to America's best ideals. As we fight for a safer society, we can also create a more just society at the same time. September 11 has taught all Americans that we need to help each other as never before. We will not ignore the plight of millions of Americans hurt by this tragedy and by economic forces beyond their control. As we work together to get our economy moving again, we can also work together to see that none are left behind. We have a unique opportunity to give help and hope to every American as we enact a stimulus plan that puts America back to work. The American people are meeting this challenge, and we must demonstrate to them that Congress is capable of meeting it too. The test we face now is to pass a stimulus package that truly lifts the economy, and lifts it fairly and responsibly. We do have an emergency, and we must address it. The American people are watching this debate closely, and they are waiting for our answer.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I have great difficulty in understanding that. I think anyone watching this debate in Nevada or Massachusetts would come to that same conclusion when they see the loss of jobs taking place in your State and mine and all of the 50 States; when they see members of their family being called up for the National Guard, or when they have members of their family who have been activated and sent over the Indian Ocean on aircraft carriers and dropped behind the lines in Afghanistan; when they have listened to a President of the United States call upon all members to be on a heightened sense of alert, and we listened to the Attorney General of the United States say, once again, it is time for us to be on heightened alert; when we have seen the significant economic indicators over the period of these past several months, all going in an adverse direction after a long period of economic growth and price stability; and where we have heard the leading economists say, look, we are facing a challenging time. It can get a lot worse if we do the Republican plan or no plan. I wonder why we ought to be gambling with the well-being of the people of Nevada or Massachusetts. I wonder if the people of Massachusetts truly understand what is happening in the Senate. They are wondering why we aren't acting. You will say because we are having a point of order. They will ask what a point of order is. They will wonder in Massachusetts, perhaps, whether it is a restaurant in Chicopee. They will be asking: There is a point of order and we are not taking action? Why is one of the great institutions failing to deal with this economic challenge when we have at our best days been willing to do it in a bipartisan way?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I imagine our fellow Americans who have been watching the Senate this afternoon are wondering whether this institution can function effectively in dealing with the problems they are facing every single day, particularly those who have lost their jobs in recent times through no fault of their own. They are proud men and women who work hard, play by the rules, go to their jobs every day, and have found out in recent times, before and after September 11, that their services are no longer needed. They are 137,000 workers in the transportation industry; 136,000 in the hospitality, tourism, and entertainment industry; 57,000 in the communications and utilities industry; 226,000 in manufacturing; 14,000 in the retail industry; 44,000 more in the service sector industry; and in the finance, insurance, real estate industries, 24,000 more. There it is in raw figures, but it does not reflect the challenges those families are going through every single day when they are denied, in too many instances, unemployment compensation, even though they have contributed to it, because of the change in the rules, or they find it virtually impossible to find new employment because of the changed economic conditions. These are our fellow Americans, workers, proud men and women, who have provided for their families and, now, every day go home and have to look into the eyes of their children, and look into the eyes of their loved ones, and say: I was not able to get any employment today, and our savings are going down further and further. We know there is an emergency. It defies any possible understanding of the use of the word in the English language that there is not an emergency in the United States today. Tell that to the brave men and women behind the lines in Afghanistan. Tell it to their relatives at home. Tell that to the National Guard troops who have been called up in my State serving in the air wing. Tell it to the reservists who have been called up from Westover, Barnes Air Force Base, the MPs who have been called up, many from the private sector. Tell it to them, we do not have an emergency. Tell it to the families of the postal workers who died from anthrax that we do not have an emergency. Tell it to the Attorney General and the President of the United States who said we have to be on a heightened state of alert. When did we hear that in the last years? When did we last hear warnings from an Attorney General and from a President about how we have to have a heightened state of alert? All Americans have to be on a heightened state of alert. This is defined as an emergency any way you look at it. We are facing an emergency, and we are facing an emergency in a most profound way in the state of our economy. We have seen it in our States, and if we have not seen it, we have not been paying attention to our constituents. Maybe it has not reached some areas of this country, but I would like those Members to rise up and tell us about how their States have not been affected or impacted, because every indication is we are in an emergency. We have had the first decline in the GDP in more than 8 years. We have the largest increase in the unemployment rate in 21 years. I will not take the time this afternoon to read into the Record when a number of our colleagues, many on the other side of the aisle, said: Use the emergency provisions for incidental factors. There are lists of them. I have lists of them. We are not talking about that. We are talking about the greatest increase in unemployment in 21 years. We are talking about the three-quarters of a million newly unemployed and the plunge in consumer confidence in our economy. We have heard the words of some economists. We all saw the reports this last weekend. The Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, talked about this as well, and his statements have been mentioned in this Chamber: The United States is in the midst of a recession that may well turn out to be the worst in 20 years, and the Republican-backed stimulus will do little to improve the economy; indeed, it may make matters worse. There it is, Mr. Republican. It is not just Democrats saying it. Families in America understand it is an emergency. Those who are serving in the Armed Forces and are being called up know it is an emergency. Economists understand it is an emergency. And people are asking: Are we in the Congress of the United States going to do something about it? Evidently, we are going to be denied that opportunity by the use of procedural actions of which the American people are sick and tired. The American people understand. Why are you not doing what you did in the 1970s or in the 1990s in the unemployment insurance program? We have examples of the unemployment insurance program helping workers. Why are you not doing what you did then? Why aren't Republicans and Democrats working hand in hand to provide assistance to those who are unemployed? We did it in 1991 by a 91-to-2 vote in the Senate. We provided a more generous package than is being proposed by the Democrats now. Then in 1992, by a 94-to-2 vote, Republicans and Democrats provided extended unemployment compensation. Again in 1992, July of 1992, by a 93-to-3 vote, we provided an extension of unemployment compensation--each time trying to provide additional protection for workers who were being excluded and, we extended unemployment insurance again later on in 1993 by a vote of 79 to 20. That is the history of trying to provide help to these families in a much more extensive way, with a generous kind of commitment. People say, why can they not agree to that this afternoon? Why are roadblocks being put in their way to deal with that this afternoon? Why can we not get about that which will help my friend or my neighbor, somebody who has lost his job? But, no. Instead, we are going to have a procedural vote. We are going to have procedural votes in order to deny us the opportunity to do so. We have a similar situation in health care. This is one of the most valuable qualities of life for all of our fellow citizens. The central challenge we face is trying to ensure we are going to have adequate health care. I enjoyed being in this Senate when we debated a patients' bill of rights. How often I listened during the course of the day to those voices that said we cannot pass a patients' bill of rights because it is going to increase premiums by 1 percent and we are going to create all of these uninsured. We have thousands of uninsured who have been losing their coverage, and I am waiting to hear those same voices say, ``let us do something about them.'' I have not heard it yet. Back when we were on the floor debating whether a patient was going to have the best health care based on a decision of the doctor instead of the bottom line of the insurance company, my Republican colleagues gave long speeches saying that we should be focused instead on covering the uninsured. That is what we were battling for--to protect American families. We are told we cannot go to that radical concept because we are going to see thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands more people who will lose their health insurance. We have it now. We are seeing it every single day in increasing numbers. Where are those voices that say, ``Let us do something about it?'' I do not hear them. They refuse to make the recommendations or suggestions to do it, and the one that they have made is completely indefensible. I ask, where is their program for health insurance? We provide, under the program that is before us now, assistance for those that have COBRA. We provide assistance for those that are not eligible for COBRA. The reasons for that are the size of the companies and other technical reasons such as whether the workers receive COBRA or they do not. We look out for both. If one looks at the Republican plan, the total Republican plan they say is a pot of money that can be used for unemployment or it can be used for health insurance or they can use it for some other social services such as child care. They mentioned all of this, but if you just applied it to the premiums of COBRA eligible workers, you get only 2 weeks of coverage. I hope our colleagues are not going to be saying we are for covering those who have health insurance. I have heard some of those speeches, but I have not heard them say or defend their particular program. Here it is. We believe in the importance of making sure working families who have been separated from their jobs, through no fault of their own, have health care coverage because we know what happens to them. The average payment on unemployment insurance is $925, and to maintain their premiums now would take 65 percent of that $925. That is why about 15 percent of the total workers, without any kind of help, actually utilize COBRA. I commend Senator Baucus and the Finance Committee for their proposals, both on unemployment and on this particular proposal, and Senator Byrd for the strong support he has given to our homeland security proposal. Under the proposal that has been advanced by the Finance Committee, it is down to 16 percent. We have heard as recently as today from a very lovely lady who lost her job in Philadelphia. She had worked in the service industry in Philadelphia for a number of years, and she now finds herself unemployed. She says it is going to be difficult to find the resources to do it, but, by God, she thought she could get herself together because it is so necessary for her family. We are not as interested in talking about what the other side is against, although we know they are against our proposal. We want the American people to understand what we are for. This is what the Democratic proposal will do. It will guarantee help in paying the COBRA premiums. That would help 7.2 million Americans. We do this. We provide help for displaced workers that are not eligible for the COBRA; 2.5 million fellow Americans, they will be eligible. We provide State fiscal relief for improving the maximum Federal Medicaid payments, similar to what has been successful in the CHIP program which virtually every State accepted with the increasing match. We do that. That helps maintain coverage for 4 million Medicaid beneficiaries. All across the board we have had these evaluated by CBO and the others who maintain and support the conclusions I have stated. In the Republican plan, there is no guarantee. If one is interested in providing some assistance to workers, the program that Senator Baucus and others have proposed makes the most sense. It makes the most sense in terms of ensuring that workers and workers' needs are going to be attended to, and it also provides support for health care. So I hope our colleagues will change their mind on this particular issue. On September 11, America sustained an unprecedented terrorist attack. The risk and the danger of future attacks is very real. The President and leading figures in the administration repeatedly warn the American people of the need for unprecedented vigilance. So we are facing a true national emergency by any reasonable definition. What the objectors seek to block is the appropriation, as well, of $15 billion for homeland defense. They object to the expenditure of $4 billion that would enhance our ability to prevent bioterrorist attacks and protect our citizens should such an attack occur. They object to the expenditure of $4 billion to strengthen the ability of Federal, State and local law enforcement to combat terrorism. They object to expenses to improve border security, airport security, mass transit security. They even object to funds needed to enhance security at the Nation's nuclear powerplants. If providing the necessary funds so these homeland defense initiatives can begin immediately is not an emergency, then what is? The point I want to conclude with is, it is ironic the same Members who object so strenuously to spending $15 billion to strengthen the Nation's capacity to defend ourselves from terrorist attacks are supporting a bill which would retroactively repeal the corporate minimum tax and give the largest corporations $25 billion in direct payments from the U.S. Treasury. We do not have the money to look out after the premiums for hard workers. We do not have the money to provide help for unemployment insurance. We do not have the resources to deal with helping the States meet these crises, but we do evidently in that budget that clears OMB, clears Mr. Daniels, have the ability to get $25 billion in direct payments from the U.S. Treasury, payments to repeal the corporate minimum tax and to return taxes they have paid in past years. Is giving major corporations hundreds of millions of dollars each based on taxes they paid 10 or 15 years ago a higher priority for America than strengthening homeland defense? Is retroactive repeal of the corporate AMT an emergency? Could we not devote $15 billion to defending America? It would still need $10 billion for corporate refunds. Those same Members support accelerating upper income brackets, and if they believe we can afford such an expensive tax cut in the midst of an unprecedented national crisis, how can they claim we cannot afford $15 billion to better protect America from terrorism? Those who deny we are facing a national emergency today and would justify--in fact, demand--congressional action to strengthen homeland defense are suffering from the worst case of political myopia I have ever seen. In all my years in the Senate I have never seen a clearer choice for Senators.

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand that the Senator wanted 2, 3 minutes. I am glad to accommodate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am glad to yield to my colleague from New Mexico. He has a brief matter he wants to bring to the Senate's attention.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think the Senator has made this very clear. As to airport security, people back in Massachusetts are saying: You Members of Congress have the Federal protection, don't you? There will be families coming down here to visit who have to show their briefcases. That security isn't auctioned off to the lowest bidder. We have looked out after ourselves in this respect and at the cost of lives. We have had courageous policemen who lost their lives in the line of duty, protecting Members of Congress. On the other hand, we are told we cannot have that kind of protection for the American people. I don't know whether the Senator saw a letter to the editor--perhaps this is too serious to joke about--that said maybe we ought to have two kinds of security: those which are deemed private, and let the Republicans go through those; and the others who are Federal workers, let the Democrats go through those. It is really too serious to be joking about and certainly in the wake of the extraordinary tragedy earlier this week where, to all indications, it appears to be a mechanical problem, but at least in people's minds and in families' thoughts they wonder about the security and the fact we have not been able to work this out, to guarantee the best in security. As pointed out by other Members of the Senate, we don't auction off the Secret Service. We don't auction off who will be out there in the Food and Drug Administration to make sure our drugs are going to be safe and efficacious. We don't auction off the FBI. We don't auction off the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms employees. We don't auction those off to the private sector. We want to make sure Americans are protected. I find it extraordinary that the strong initiative which passed successfully in the Senate that ensures that kind of protection still is unable to be completed through the two bodies.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senator Kerry, Senator Reid, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Clinton, in introducing the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act. Current Federal safety standards limit work hours for pilots, flight attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professionals, in order to protect the public safety. However, no similar limitation currently exists for the Nation's nurses, who care for many of our most vulnerable Americans. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act will limit mandatory overtime for nurses in order to protect patient safety and improve working conditions for nurses. Across the country, the widespread practice of mandatory overtime means that over-worked nurses are often required to provide care in circumstances that are unacceptable. Restricting mandatory overtime will ensure that nurses are ready and able to provide the highest quality of care to their patients. As Linda McMahon, an emergency room nurse at Brockton Hospital in Massachusetts said, ``After no supper break, no time to go to the bathroom, you're on your feet for a solid 8\1/2\ hours, and then they look at you and say you're going to work for another shift.'' Some hospitals are taking action to deal with this serious problem. Brockton Hospital in Brockton, MA, and St. Vincent Hospital in Worcester, MA both recently agreed to limit mandatory overtime as part of negotiations following successful strikes by nurses. These limits will protect patients and improve working conditions for nurses, and they will also have a significant role in the recruitment and retention of nurses in the future. Job dissatisfaction and overtime hours are major factors in the current shortage of nurses. Nationally, the shortfall is expected to rise to 20 percent in the coming years. The goal of the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act will play an important role in improving the quality of life for nurses, so that more persons will enter the nursing profession and remain in it. The bill limits mandatory overtime to declared states of emergency. Clearly, there are times when other options are exhausted and hospitals need additional help, and the bill takes account of such needs. The bill requires health providers to inform nurses of these new rights, and nurses who report violations are guaranteed protection from workplace discrimination. In addition, the bill requires the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality to report to Congress on appropriate standards for the maximum numbers of hours a nurse may work in a wide variety of health settings without compromising patient care. Improving working conditions for nurses is an essential part of our ongoing effort to reduce medical errors, improve patient outcomes, and encourage more Americans to become and remain nurses. The power of providers to force nurses to work beyond what is safe for themselves and their patients is one of the major disincentives to pursuing or continuing a career in nursing. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act is a significant step that Congress can take to support the Nation's nurses and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senator Kerry, Senator Reid, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Clinton, in introducing the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act. Current Federal safety standards limit work hours for pilots, flight attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professionals, in order to protect the public safety. However, no similar limitation currently exists for the Nation's nurses, who care for many of our most vulnerable Americans. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act will limit mandatory overtime for nurses in order to protect patient safety and improve working conditions for nurses. Across the country, the widespread practice of mandatory overtime means that over-worked nurses are often required to provide care in circumstances that are unacceptable. Restricting mandatory overtime will ensure that nurses are ready and able to provide the highest quality of care to their patients. As Linda McMahon, an emergency room nurse at Brockton Hospital in Massachusetts said, ``After no supper break, no time to go to the bathroom, you're on your feet for a solid 8\1/2\ hours, and then they look at you and say you're going to work for another shift.'' Some hospitals are taking action to deal with this serious problem. Brockton Hospital in Brockton, MA, and St. Vincent Hospital in Worcester, MA both recently agreed to limit mandatory overtime as part of negotiations following successful strikes by nurses. These limits will protect patients and improve working conditions for nurses, and they will also have a significant role in the recruitment and retention of nurses in the future. Job dissatisfaction and overtime hours are major factors in the current shortage of nurses. Nationally, the shortfall is expected to rise to 20 percent in the coming years. The goal of the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act will play an important role in improving the quality of life for nurses, so that more persons will enter the nursing profession and remain in it. The bill limits mandatory overtime to declared states of emergency. Clearly, there are times when other options are exhausted and hospitals need additional help, and the bill takes account of such needs. The bill requires health providers to inform nurses of these new rights, and nurses who report violations are guaranteed protection from workplace discrimination. In addition, the bill requires the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality to report to Congress on appropriate standards for the maximum numbers of hours a nurse may work in a wide variety of health settings without compromising patient care. Improving working conditions for nurses is an essential part of our ongoing effort to reduce medical errors, improve patient outcomes, and encourage more Americans to become and remain nurses. The power of providers to force nurses to work beyond what is safe for themselves and their patients is one of the major disincentives to pursuing or continuing a career in nursing. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act is a significant step that Congress can take to support the Nation's nurses and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. This is what is happening out there. Low-wage workers are half as likely to receive unemployment benefits as other unemployed workers, even though low-wage workers are twice as likely to be unemployed. That is because of the change of the rules and regulations in the States. Nationwide, they are twice as likely to be unemployed and they have half as much chance of getting any kind of coverage. In all but 13 States, unemployed workers seeking part-time work are not eligible for unemployment benefits. In all but 12 States, most unemployed low-wage workers are not eligible for unemployment benefits. The Democratic plan ensures that more than 600,000 low-wage and part- time workers will receive the benefits. These are men and women whose employers are paying into the fund now on their behalf. That is the extraordinary thing. These workers are being paid for in the fund at the present time, but they are not eligible because they have been effectively written out with the redrafting and changes of the unemployment laws in their respective States. There are only 13 States that even provide unemployment help and assistance for part-time workers--those workers who work 30 hours a week or less. What we have seen in the workforce is that there has been a very important transition to increasing what they call the temps, the part- time workers. Seventy percent of those are women, because they want to go into the workforce, and sometimes to expand their families and then go back into the workforce. They may want to work a certain number of hours, and even though they are paying in under the unemployment compensation, they are being left out; but not under the Democratic program. That is very important. This chart shows that there are only 13 States that provide unemployment insurance for the part-time workers. This chart shows that only 12 States provide unemployment insurance for the low-wage workers. That is a dramatic difference from other times of recession we have seen. So this proposal--one very important aspect of it, the unemployment insurance--has been accepted by Republicans historically. The reason they have accepted it is that, as other distinguished economists and the CRS have pointed out, this program is truly a stimulus in terms of the economy. It is fair, temporary, and it works. It provides very important assistance to needy families. I want to take a minute--and I see others on the floor who wish to speak--on another major part of our program--that is with regard to health insurance, which is important. Many colleagues remember the debate we had on the Patients' Bill of Rights not long ago and what many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: If we want to look at what the real problem is in America, it is the 44 million people who do not have any health insurance. That was Senator Santorum on June 20. If you have no insurance, the likelihood of getting good health care in the United States is much less. That was Senator Frist. We will be using the health care coverage for seniors who are taking arthritis medicines, men and women who are being treated with chemotherapy or kidney dialysis, and families waiting for loved ones to have bypass surgery. These are the lives that will be disrupted, even devastated, as a direct result of this bill. They are talking about the Patients' Bill of Rights. Then Senator Hutchison said: The Kennedy-McCain bill ignores what I believe is the most important patient protection, and that is affordable health insurance. Well, Mr. Republican, your problems are solved because under the Democratic program we provide an effective extension of health insurance for those who had it in their previous employment and lost it, and for those who didn't have it but need it in terms of this recession. We have a lot of statements and comments about the importance of extending this. And, we are doing the job. Let me just review a couple of facts. The typical unemployment benefit is $925 per month. The health insurance costs are about $588 per month, which is 63 percent of the unemployment benefit. Only 18 percent of workers today, if they qualify for COBRA, are able to take advantage of it. It doesn't do very much for them. The Senate Democratic plan provides 75-percent premium assistance. CBO estimates this would cover 7.2 million workers. We listened to my friend from Iowa talk about what the Republicans were doing. Senate Republicans have an inadequate plan that at least would provide a family with 2 weeks of COBRA. Theirs is the $3 billion, which they say can be used for unemployment compensation, health insurance, and other kinds of activities in the States, leaving it up to the States. We heard that outlined, but the numbers weren't described. If they use it all for health to offset premiums, it will last for 2 weeks for COBRA. So when we recognize the difference, it is very real. The next chart demonstrates $925 a month as the average unemployment. In order to recover your COBRA, it is 65 percent of that. As a result, very few are able to do it. If we have the Democratic program, the amount that will be required will only be 16 percent. That will result in about 80 percent of all of those being covered. This chart shows who recovered. Nearly half of all workers are not eligible for COBRA, including workers in small businesses of fewer than 20, workers in businesses that go out of business, individuals who buy individual coverage, those whose employers do not offer health insurance or cannot afford to take it up. They are excluded. What do we do? They need an affordable health option. We Democrats are proposing a new Medicaid State option to cover these workers. CBO has estimated that 2\1/2\ million workers will benefit from our plan. The Republican plan has no relief for these workers; zero will be included. The administration proposes to take funds from the CHIP program for these workers, to cover the workers they would like to cover, which is basically taking money that is guaranteed to the States, on which the States rely to provide coverage for uncovered children. It is effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul. On this chart, if you look at the categories on the Democratic and Republican packages: Guarantees workers help paying COBRA, who will have COBRA but find difficulty in affording it. We would help the 7.2 million unemployed Americans. The Republican bill has no guarantee. Providing help for displaced workers. We provide 2\1/2\ million Americans with coverage. There is no such coverage under the Republicans. Provide the State fiscal relief by improving Federal Medicaid payments. That is what they call an ``enhanced match,'' which has been so successful to get children. We provide that, and the best estimate at CBO is that 4 million will be covered. If one is concerned about health care, this is how it gets done. It is not just what we are saying; it is what the CRS and the CBO says. This is an effective program to deal with the health aspects of this proposal. If we are talking about something that is going to be temporary, if we are talking about something that is going to be stimulative, if we are talking about something that is fair, these aspects of the Finance Committee proposal meet all of those criteria. It will assist those who are impacted--working families. It will give them some lift. We have done that in a bipartisan way historically. We ask the question: Where are our Republican friends? Why are they not joining us as they did at other times? If you understand the importance of health care, this is the best way to do it. If they have a better way of doing it, I am sure our leadership and the Finance Committee will welcome that opportunity. This will ensure that workers who need health care for their families are going to be able to maintain their coverage, and the health industry, which is so important to our country, is going to prosper. This is limited to 1 year. It is a 1-year stimulus program. The democratic plan helps ensure that States do not have to make budget cuts that would undermine any Federal stimulus. States have yearly balanced budget requirements and many are already looking at major budget cuts to meet those requirements. To help keep State economies strong, our plan freezes planned Federal Medicaid cuts and enhances the Medicaid matching rate by up to 3 percent for States that agree not to cut back on their coverage. This plan will provide immediate assistance to States and help assure they do not have to make budget cuts that put us deeper in recession. The Democratic plan is also a fair balance between tax incentives and spending incentives for the economy. The tax incentives in the plan meet the three essential criteria for a stimulus--they will put money into the economy now, they do not impose substantial new long-term costs on the federal budget, and they treat fairly those who are most in need. Seventy percent of Americans today pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. Yet many of them received no tax rebate earlier this year. The rebate unfairly ignored these low- and moderate-income families. A one-time rebate of payroll taxes to them now will immediately inject $15 billion into the economy, placing the dollars in the hands of people who are likely to spend them immediately. Economists tell us that families with modest incomes are likely to spend the extra money they receive right away on needed consumer goods. Those with higher incomes are more likely to save it. The Democratic bill also includes temporary, targeted tax cuts to stimulate immediate business activity. These changes provide more favorable treatment for new investments now, and they deserve to be supported. Because the tax cuts in the Democratic plan are truly designed to be an immediate economic stimulus, they do not incur any substantial cost beyond 2003. This point is vital to our economic recovery. Enacting new permanent tax cuts which can trigger large long-term Federal deficits would be counterproductive. Permanent new tax cuts--on top of the nearly $2 trillion in tax cuts enacted earlier this year--would actually hurt the economy now, by raising the cost of long-term borrowing and discouraging the kinds of investment we need most today. The House of Representatives passed, by the narrowest of margins, a so-called stimulus package that will not stimulate economic growth in the short term, and will not be affordable in the long term. It merely repackages old, unfair, permanent tax breaks which were rejected by Congress last spring under the new label of ``economic stimulus.'' The American people deserve better. The long-term cost of the House plan is too high, and less than half of the dollars would reach the economy next year. The House plan offers $46 billion in tax breaks to big businesses by permanently repealing the corporate alternative minimum tax and by giving permanent new tax cuts for multinational corporations. These provisions are an unacceptable giveaway of public resources. The alternative suggested by our Republican colleagues in the Senate is also flawed. Their proposal to accelerate the reduction of upper income tax rates would cost $120 billion over the next decade. Only a small percentage of these dollars--less than one dollar in four--would go into the economy in 2002. And these dollars would go to those least likely to spend them. The result would be little immediate stimulus, large long-term costs, and a grossly unfair distribution to the wealthiest individuals in our society. In fact, the House Republican proposal gives $115 billion in permanent new tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations, while the Senate plan would give them $142 billion in new tax breaks. Yet each of the Republican tax plans provide only $14 billion for low- and moderate-income families. Under the GOP plan, the tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals are permanent, while the cuts for working families are limited to just 1 year. The result is unfair, and it will not provide the economic stimulus that the Nation urgently needs now. Our Democratic alternative also includes key steps to make our country stronger and safer. It includes needed resources to fight bioterrorism and improve our ability to respond to an attack. It will help detect an attack by strengthening our public health system. It will help treat the victims of an attack by making sure that our hospitals and other health facilities are better prepared. It will expand pharmaceutical stockpiles and develop new treatments. We owe it to the American people to take these steps now, and we need this legislation to do that. Perhaps never before in history has our Nation faced such grave challenges. The tragedy of September 11 has touched us all. Together, we witnessed a horror we could not have imagined and bravery which inspires us all. The tragedy may have shaken our basic assumptions about the world in which we live, but Americans have not retreated in fear. Instead, they have risen to meet these new challenges. The spirit of September 11 has compelled vast numbers of our fellow citizens to ask what they can do for their communities and our country. It is time for Congress to do its part. We must respond to the economic crisis the Nation faces. As we do so, we must show our dedication to America's best ideals. As we fight for a safer society, we can also create a more just society at the same time. September 11 has taught all Americans that we need to help each other as never before. We will not ignore the plight of millions of Americans hurt by this tragedy and by economic forces beyond their control. As we work together to get our economy moving again, we can also work together to see that none are left behind. We have a unique opportunity to give help and hope to every American as we enact a stimulus plan that puts America back to work. The American people are meeting this challenge, and we must demonstrate to them that Congress is capable of meeting it, too. The test we face now is to pass a stimulus package that truly lifts the economy, and lifts it fairly and responsibly. The American people are watching this debate closely, and they are waiting for our answer. I hope Americans who are paying attention to this debate understand the dramatic contrast between what has been suggested by our Republican friends and the proposal that has been advanced by our Finance Committee. Hopefully, we will gain their support.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today brave young Americans are on the front lines of the fight for freedom from terrorism, and here at home we must work together to defeat the terrorists who would poison our people, panic our society, and paralyze our democracy. An essential point of protecting our homefront is protecting our economy because the state of our Union cannot be strong if the state of our economy is weak. Even before September 11, the Nation's economy was already weakening. The unemployment rate had been climbing for months. Relatively few new jobs were being created. Companies were announcing a successive round of layoffs. Business investment was being drastically reduced. Profits were rapidly falling. Last week, consumer confidence dropped to its lowest level in 7 years. And 2 weeks ago, the unemployment rate took the largest jump in 21 years. Nearly 8 million people are now out of work through no fault of their own, left with no pay and no golden parachute. For them and their families, life is a nightmare of missing paychecks, unpaid bills, lost health insurance, and no job on the horizon. Surely, it is these Americans who deserve our highest priority in Congress. Helping these workers is the quickest way to stimulate our economy. But if we act in the wrong way, a stimulus package could actually harm the economy. The Republicans would rely almost exclusively on permanent tax cuts that would do little or nothing to promote growth when we need it most, which is right now. Their proposals are neither fair nor will they work. They do not measure up to the high standard required of us. A true stimulus package cannot be a disguise for special interests, nor can it run the risk of imposing large, new, long-term deficits on the Federal budget. Permanent, new tax cuts, on top of the now nearly $2 trillion in tax cuts enacted earlier this year, would actually hurt the economy by increasing the cost of long-term borrowing. Such cuts would discourage the kind of business investments we need to encourage. A true economic stimulus program must meet three criteria: First, it must have an immediate impact on the economy. The dollars in the stimulus package must be spent in the economy as soon as possible. The best way to accomplish this goal is to target the funds to the low- and moderate-income families who are the most certain to spend it rather than to save it. Second, the tax cuts and spending provisions in the plan must be temporary. They must focus on the immediate need to generate economic activity. And they must not impose substantial new long-term costs on the Federal budget. And third, the package must be fair. It must focus on those who need and deserve the help, who are suffering the most in these difficult days. It must reflect the renewed national spirit of taking care of each other. The bill reported out of the Finance Committee--and I commend Senator Baucus for this, as well as Senator Byrd for the homeland security provisions which are part of the package--rightly gives first priority to the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the current seriously sagging economy. It puts money directly in the hands of those who will spend it immediately and will help laid off workers provide health insurance for their families. Let's look at the proposal of the Finance Committee, which represents the best judgment of the Democrats on this measure. Let's look at the heart and the soul of this particular program. All we have to do is look at the reports over this past weekend by the Nobel laureate in economics, Joseph Stiglitz: The United States is in the midst of a recession that may well turn out to be the worst in 20 years, and the Republican-backed stimulus package will do little to improve the economy--indeed, it may make matters worse. We may be in the midst of the worst recession of the last 20 years, ``and the Republican-backed stimulus package will do little to improve the economy--indeed, it may make matters worse.'' That is not a Democratic statement or comment, and it is repeated by economists across the country. What have been the proposals? The principal proposals of the Democratic effort have, first of all, included unemployment compensation in order to get resources out to those who are unemployed. We can ask ourselves, what has been the record of the Senate over the period of recent years? My friend and colleague from Iowa talked about how, in recent years, Republicans had supported unemployment compensation. That is true. The unemployment insurance benefits were extended four times during the recession in the early 1990s. At its peak, an additional 33 weeks of benefits were provided. On November 15, 1991, the Senate passed an unemployment compensation bill to add an additional 20 weeks of unemployment benefits for States with high unemployment rates and 13 additional weeks for other States. That vote was 91 to 2. The Republican Senators voting for the extension included Senators Burns, Cochran, Craig, Domenici, Gramm, Grassley, Jeffords, McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Smith, Specter, Stevens, and Warner, and then- Democratic Senator Shelby also voted in favor of the extension. The vote was 91 to 2. It represented a bipartisan effort. This is virtually identical to what was considered back at that particular time in 1991. Then, in 1992, we were still facing the challenges of significant unemployment, and we passed 94 to 2 to supplement the regular benefits. The bill raised the maximum additional weeks to 33 weeks of benefits for States with high unemployment, and 26 weeks for all other States. It was a much more dramatic bill. This bill is much more modest. That vote was 94 to 2. And that included the Republican leader, Senator Lott, as well as Senator Grassley, and other Republicans. Then in June of 1992, by a voice vote--and it passed--we had an increase in the unemployment compensation. Then the conference came back, and the vote was 93 to 3. That was in 1992. Then in 1993, the vote was 79 to 20. What is it about the Republican leadership that they are opposed to this program now? That is what these workers are asking. Not only the hundreds of thousands of workers who lost their jobs prior to September 11, but all those who have lost their jobs since that time, they say: You have done it before for workers. You have done it when we have needed it. Why aren't you willing to do it now? That is part of the challenge of the Democratic leadership to our Republican friends. We have listened to the ranking minority member of the Finance Committee who says: Well, we have supported it in the past. We will try to work something out. You can work it out right now by supporting this very modest proposal. And it is fairly easy to understand why this has been an important provision, why this is a responsible provision. The cost of this proposal: $14 billion. That is the unemployment proposal. At the present time, we have $38 billion in Federal unemployment insurance trust funds that have been paid on behalf of the employees. We are talking about taking $14 billion out of there. We have done it in the past. What is their resistance? What is their reluctance? Why aren't they willing to look after what is most important in a recession--the real people who are suffering, the workers who are suffering, men and women who want to go to work today and can't go to work because their jobs have been lost to them? Real people, real families. Those are the people we are caring about. The funds are sufficient, obviously, to take care of that. We have more than enough funds. Why is this important? As we have seen before, unemployment insurance is an ideal stimulus. It delivers the stimulus where and when it is needed. It provides $2.15 of positive impact to the GDP for every $1 that is spent. That has been the history of it, according to the Department of Labor. And it has been relied on by the Congress, and the Senate, going back for a long period of time. Let's look at what is happening out there in the real world in terms of the levels of newly unemployed not seen since 1992. This chart I have in the Chamber, going from 250,000 to 550,000, shows what is happening in 2001. It shows the greatest increase, as I mentioned, of the number of unemployed workers going right up through the roof. It is virtually the highest we have seen in over 10 years. It is a real problem. The statistics show it. The families show it. We have the resources to be able to afford it. We have enacted that at other times in our history, and done it in a bipartisan way. Now look at the percentage of unemployed workers receiving unemployment benefits which has declined over the last 25 years. In 1975, 75 percent of those who were unemployed received unemployment insurance. And then, during the 1980s, the States squeezed back eligibility for workers who were unemployed. We have seen, as a result of that, that we are down now, with figures getting further and further from what they were in 1975. We are finding out that only 38 percent of those workers are receiving the benefits now. We not only have to do something in order to extend unemployment compensation, but we also have to do something about the eligibility and who will be eligible for that program. The Democratic program does just that. It is one of the key important features. (Mr. TORRICELLI assumed the chair.)

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Peter Torigian, the outstanding Mayor of Peabody, MA, who is retiring at the end of this year. He has served the people of Peabody with great skill and dedication for the past 22 years, and I know they join me in thanking him for his commitment and dedication to public service. Mayor Torigian will long be remembered for the revitalization of Peabody's economy. He skillfully guided the transformation of an old manufacturing base into a thriving new office complex known as Centennial Park. His impressive record of success in promoting economic development in Peabody and throughout the region is well known. He was instrumental in the development of the North Shore Mall, creating thousands of new jobs, the lowest corporate tax rate and the broadest tax base in all of Massachusetts. He's also done an outstanding job in preserving open space and in cleaning up brownfields in the area. Brook Farm is a magnificent example of Mayor Torigian's commitment to the environment. Under Mayor Torigian's leadership, Peabody has thrived on its diversity as well. Peabody recently celebrated its 18th annual International Festival, in which thousands of people visited the city to celebrate its history and its heritage. And Mayor Torigian's commitment to senior citizens has been unwavering. He created the Peabody Community Life Center, a remarkable center for seniors on the North Shore to gather and enhance their quality of life. All of us in Massachusetts are grateful for Mayor Torigian's distinguished service to the City of Peabody and to our State, and we're grateful for his friendship. We know that his commitment to public service will continue in other ways, and he will be deeply missed.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, all of us who knew and loved our former great Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield were saddened by his death last month. He was truly one of the all-time giants of the Senate, and he went on to serve with high distinction for many years as our Nation's Ambassador to Japan. His wisdom, his intelligence, his insights, his friendship, his fundamental fairness, and his extraordinary humility combined to make him a leader of uncommon vision and ability during his long and brilliant and historic service to the Senate, to the people of Montana, and to the entire country. On October 10, at a beautiful service for Senator Mansfield at Fort Myer Memorial Chapel, his former Senate assistant, Charles Ferris, delivered an eloquent eulogy that touched us all and reminded us again of the many reasons why we loved and admired Mike Mansfield so deeply. I know that the eulogy will be of interest to all of us, and I ask unanimous consent that the eulogy be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, more than 40,000 people a year become infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Half of all new HIV infections in the United States occur among drug users. In addition, approximately 4 million Americans have been infected with the hepatitis C virus. Injection drug use is responsible for at least 60 percent of those infections. Numerous authorities, including the National Academy of Sciences, the Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Medical Association, the Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association have concluded that needle-exchange programs reduce the transmission of HIV and hepatitis C without encouraging the illegal use of drugs. It is indefensible for Congress to tell the citizens of the District of Columbia that they cannot spend their own money on programs that stop the spread of fatal, infectious diseases. It is irresponsible for members of Congress to oppose a locally funded program on the ground that it encourages illegal drug use, when every major health organization in the United States says that the opposite is true. People's lives are at stake. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Allen amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, on September 11, Americans were riveted not only by the extraordinary act of terrorism that struck this country and the extraordinary loss of life, but also they were struck by the extraordinary heroism and bravery of firefighters, police officers, and rescue workers, but particularly the firefighters. There may be those who want to suggest reasons we shouldn't permit firefighters to be able to bargain collectively in the public interest. What is the record when these firefighters have been able to bargain collectively? First of all, there is greater safety for not only the public but for the firefighters. Second, the number of deaths per firefight has gone down. The numbers clearly reflect that. Third, where this has been permitted in States, we have seen the costs for fire protection have actually gone down. Madam President, this is most of all about fairness and decency. This is about respect for workers in our country who have demonstrated day in and day out that they are prepared to lay down their lives in order to save other lives. We don't need any lectures about that in the Senate. The real question now is whether the Senate will permit these extraordinarily brave and courageous individuals to get together in order to have an adequate and decent living. They are not asking for the Moon. If there is going to be an impasse, there are procedures to work out that impasse. We do think they are entitled to the kind of coming together and speaking to the interests and the safety of firefighters which they deserve. I cannot think of a place in our society that has demonstrated a stronger commitment to the public good. They are not asking for very much. All they are asking for is to be treated decently and fairly in the workplace. That is what this is about. Are we going to permit firefighters in our country to be treated decently and fairly in the workplace? If Members believe in that, support the Daschle amendment. That is what this amendment does.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for allowing me a minute. We have been in a markup. Everyone is pressed. I rise in opposition to the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment deals with public school construction but doesn't cut out charter school construction resources. I appreciate the fact that Senator Gregg understands that we need additional resources in title I. We are only reaching about 35 percent of all of the children. Even with the increases that we anticipate this year, with the increasing challenges we are facing economically, we are still only going to reach a relatively small percentage of children that are needy. We understand we need additional resources. The fact is, we shouldn't be robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need to invest in and increase title I. We need an effective program of construction, public school construction and charter school construction. Every day, until relatively recently, in my own city of Boston, when the temperature went below 20 degrees, we had 15 schools that closed, where there are a number of title I children, because of the fact that they didn't have the heating and because of the construction lapses. We were denying these children the opportunities for learning. This is a carefully targeted program that Senator Harkin has directed. It is a necessary one for needy children. I hope the Gregg amendment will be defeated.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I commend Senator Bingaman and Senator Daschle for their leadership on this amendment. I also commend Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for their assistance on the amendment and for their impressive work on the entire bill. All of the programs supported by this amendment deserve significant increases. The Senate bill will include an impressive 34 percent increase for Bilingual Education programs, which leverage state and local funds for instructional program improvement, and help school districts implement curricula that help children with limited English proficiency learn English and succeed academically. There are more than 4 million LEP students attending our nation's schools and the number is increasing. Although the number of such students has grown dramatically in the last two decades, funding for federal bilingual education has not been increased accordingly. In fact, the Congressional Research Service found that funding for bilingual education after adjusting for inflation declined by 39 percent from fiscal year 1980 to fiscal year 1998. I understand that our Chair, Senate Harkin, has agreed to work with Senate Specter and the other members of the conference on this bill to provide further increases for this program during the conference negotiations. We hope to secure at least $700 million for the program, and more if at all possible. Does the Senator share that goal?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the Chairman for his ongoing leadership on women's health and would like him to join me in congratulating the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its ground-breaking National Summit on Safe Motherhood. The summit succeeded in expanding our understanding of safe motherhood as a critical woman's health issue and identified the troubling lack of research and data on pregnancy-related issues that impact the short and long-term health of women.