Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Could the Senator review for the membership again why this has to be all or nothing? As I understand the current situation, all the President would have to do, if he wanted to change the rule, is file in the Federal Register and wait 60 days. There would be notice that there were going to be changes in the rule and the process would move forward with public comment and the administrative practices and procedures would move ahead. There could be adjustment and changes, and OSHA could take account of the 9 years of rulemaking, the study by the National Academy of Sciences, the months of hearings, and the scientific reports that have been accumulated. Why not follow that route in a sense of bipartisanship? Is the Senator not troubled, as I am, with this take-it-or- leave-it attitude? We thought we were going to have a bipartisan effort in order to work through some of our differences. The Senator is a member of our education committee. We are working in a bipartisan way. He was there early this morning at 9 o'clock, talking with the representatives from the White House on these issues.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if Senators wanted to have good-faith bargaining, we are glad to do it. We are glad to do it. These recommendations represent the best in terms of the National Academy of Sciences and the other scientific organizations that have knowledge and understanding. This is special interest legislation. This is a political payoff. Make no mistake about it. The business community has the same groups opposing this tonight on the floor of the Senate that have been opposing it since 1994--the National Coalition of Ergonomics, Industry Front--organized to oppose ergonomics standards with a war chest of $600,000. In March 1995, business groups tried to stop OSHA from developing a proposed rule for ergonomics standards; in 1995 again, National Coalition on Ergonomics opposed OSHA. Please give an example of what you are for, Senator. Give us an example of what you are for. It is silent over there. You haven't got an example of it. That is a reflection of the bankruptcy in their argument. They haven't had any examples of what they are for. Give us an example of what State has voluntary programs you would accept. Give us an example of an American business. We have examples of programs in ergonomics. We have not heard one statement of support for any one of them since this morning at 10 o'clock, and you will not hear it when the time comes to vote because they are not for it. I take 15 more seconds to commend and thank my colleague and friend from Wyoming for his generous references--I think they were generous references--for our work on the needle-stick legislation. I pay tribute to him because he was the leader, in the Senate on that particular issue, and I welcome the chance to work with him.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that this not be on my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from South Dakota has stated it so well in the final moments of this debate. We are being urged in the Senate, at the start of this administration, to reach out our hand and try to find common ground on public policy issues. We are attempting to do that in areas of education, health care, and in many other areas. That is what we want to do with this regulation. We would like to have the process followed where the President makes a petition in the Federal Register and then there will be an opportunity to review this rule and do it in a sensible, responsible, bipartisan way, but not to throw out 10 years of work. That is what we are asking. That is what we are requesting. That is what we think is reasonable and responsible to protect the lives and well-being of our fellow Americans. On the other side, if they refuse to do so, they are effectively saying that the interest of the workers, primarily women, can be sacrificed on the chopping block of political expediency. That is unacceptable. If the safety of workers is going to be compromised tonight, what will it be tomorrow? Will it be the safety of our food supply, the safety of our air, the safety of our water, the safety of our prescription drugs, the safety of medical devices, the safety of our airports? What will it be tomorrow? This is the wrong way to proceed. We are saying let's reach out and try to work this out. Let's not cast the interest of the workers on the chopping block. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY. Then why not give it a chance? Where is this bipartisanship? We are trying to work out education, bipartisanship on a Patients' Bill of Rights; but suddenly, 2 days later, we read in the newspaper that this is the death knell for this particular rule. Why not go back and say let's work that out? Why not withhold this particular resolution, give us, say, 60 days, 90 days, a chance to work it out, and then, if we can't, go ahead with the resolution? You haven't even given the opportunity or the respect or the courtesy to those who support that proposal to try to even work this out. And it is putting at serious risk the well-being, the health, and safety of workers. Why not try it? OK, let's work out the minimum wage, work out a Patients' Bill of Rights. You can work out everything, but protecting American workers, that is the question we ask. Why not withhold this and give us 90 days to try to work that out? We will accept that challenge.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 12 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have had some comments about the importance of the kinds of protections being debated in the Senate this evening; that is, the ergonomics protections. These are the regulations to protect against ergonomic injuries. We have had a good deal of criticism of OSHA in the past, criticism of regulations that have been issued to try to protect American workers. I know there are many who have spoken in support of this resolution, in opposition to the ergonomics rule, who have been strongly critical of OSHA over a long period of time. Let me mention a few facts. According to the National Safety Council and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the job fatality rate has been cut by 75 percent since 1970. That is 220,000 lives saved since the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Injury rates have also fallen. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 11 injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers in 1973; by 1998, it was 6.7 per 100 workers. Declines in workplace fatalities and injuries have been greater in those industries where OSHA targeted standards and enforcement activities. In manufacturing, the fatality rate has declined by 66 percent and the injury rate by 37 percent since the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Similarly, in construction, the fatality rate has declined by 78 percent, the injury rate by 55 percent. Now some examples of rulemaking and what the results have been. We know now there is a problem. Secretary Dole, more than 10 years ago, pointed it out. We have the Academy of Sciences that accumulated the facts to demonstrate it, and we have millions of Americans who have the ergonomic injuries that reflect it. Look at what has happened other times OSHA has taken action. After OSHA issued a standard on grain handling, the number of fatalities in this dangerous industry dropped from a high of 65 in 1977, before the standard was in place, to 15 in 1997, a 77-percent decline. OSHA's lead standard has prevented thousands of cases of lead poisoning in lead smelting and battery manufacturing. Since the lead standard was issued, the number of workers with high blood-lead levels has dropped by 66 percent. Thousands of construction workers were buried alive in trench cave- ins before OSHA strengthened the trenching protections. Fatalities have declined by 35 percent, and hundreds of trench cave-ins have been prevented. Before OSHA issued the cotton dust standard, several hundred thousand textile industry workers developed brown lung, a crippling and sometimes fatal respiratory disease. In 1978, there was an estimate of 40,000 cases amounting to 20 percent of the industry's workforce. By 1985, the rate dropped to 1 percent. This is the record. This is what happens when you issue sound regulations to protect American workers in the workforce and in the workplace. Thousands of lives have been saved. Millions of Americans have been helped. This is the record. That would be the case with regard to ergonomics if the regulations went into effect. But we are told no, no, no. What price are you going to put on 220,000 American lives? What price are you going to place? According to the Academy of Sciences, we are spending $50 billion a year on ergonomic injuries. They are not Democrats. They are not Republicans. They are looking at the facts. Mr. President, $50 billion a year is what we are spending at the present time. Here we have Business Week--not a Democratic magazine, maybe a Republican magazine--that says it is common sense to put in the ergonomics regulations and the financial savings will be considerable. Business Week talking about the same regulations we have had promulgated as a result of study after study by the National Academy of Sciences and others. Yet we are being told tonight we cannot have them, they are too complicated--too complicated. We just reviewed them. They are simple, understandable, and they will save American lives. I see the Senator from New Jersey on the floor, and I yield him 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. To hopefully dispose of some of the differences that have been expressed this evening about the size of the rule, I stand by the actual OSHA standard, which is 8 pages long. It is written in plain English. It is accompanied by 16 pages of fact sheets and appendices. The remaining 583 pages that are being mentioned here as part of the 600 pages comprise the preamble and background materials required by the regulatory process. It is interesting how the regulatory process requires that. That is as a result of what they call the SBREFA and other laws that Congress has passed, as well as of Executive Orders of President Reagan and former President Bush. This material is required. If my colleagues would like to do something about it, let us get the Administration to change that. Otherwise, this material will be required to be submitted. I am a believer in OSHA. I mentioned earlier the progress that has been made. Let me mention very quickly what some of the results have been as a result of the work of OSHA between 1973 and 1998. In the area of manufacturing, you had 15 deaths per 100 full-time workers in 1973. In 1998, that was down to 9.7. In the construction industry, the number was 19.8 in 1973. In 1998, it was 8.8, virtually half. In total, the case rate in mining, 12.5 percent in 1973; 4.9 percent in 1998. These are real results. These are lives saved. You have a similar record in terms of illnesses and occupational hazards. That is the result. I am not saying that every time OSHA promulgates a regulation it is necessarily right, but what you have heard today on the floor of the Senate is a wholesale assault on the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. It does make a difference whether we have Administrators of OSHA who are committed to OSHA or whether they are not. Under the Reagan Administration, injury rates increased from 7.6 per hundred in 1983 to 8.9 per hundred in 1992. We had Administrators who were not committed to OSHA. During the Clinton Administration, we had a reduction in injury rates from 8.6 per hundred in 1993 to 6.3 per hundred in 1999. This is the lowest rate in OSHA's 30-year history. These are lives that are saved. These are illnesses that are prevented. These are protections for America's workers. That is what this issue is about. We hear, well, we didn't elect those people over at OSHA. We haven't elected the people at the FDA who promulgate the rules and regulations to make sure our pharmaceuticals will be safe and efficacious. We require them to be so. We rely on those rules and regulations. There are regulations to ensure the safety of medical devices and cosmetics. We look to the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue rules and regulations to require safety in toys. We look to the FAA to protect our airline passengers. We look to the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act to make sure the air we breathe and the water we drink will be pure. The officials at EPA who issue regulations to do this are not elected. They promulgate regulations. As a result of regulations, we have the safest food in the world. We have the best pharmaceuticals in the world. We have the best medical devices. We have the purest air and we have the cleanest water. Period. We have the safest workplaces. Period. That is as a result of regulation. Period. That brings us to what we are faced with tonight. We have a rule that is targeted on the No. 1 health and safety issue affecting workers in the workplace. As has been pointed out all day, this does not come as a surprise. And it was not in the last 4 days of the Clinton administration. It was the result of more than 10 years of study. The fact is, those who are effectively eliminating this rule have to understand what all of us understand: Over the last 10 years, every single attempt to try to promulgate rules and regulations has been opposed and fought every step along the way. This has been illustrated by many of our colleagues. There have been add-ons, riders to various appropriations. There have been attempts to block new regulations right from the very beginning. We are not coming to this as an institution with clean hands because we know the forces that have been out there for the last 10 years opposing any ergonomics regulations. They are opposed to rules and regulations promulgated by OSHA, but they are also opposed to rules and regulations that are voluntary, developed by various business groups. The business community and the Chamber have been out there opposing even those voluntary efforts. They have been opposing every State regulation. It would be one thing to say we don't really need it because the States are already doing it. They are not doing it because of the power of the special interest groups that have been resisting it. We haven't heard, after all day long, one single example of one ergonomics regulation that is supported by those who want to eliminate this rule. Not one. I have listened. I have waited. I have sat here all day long. There is none, not a single one, because they are not for any of it. And there is another misleading argument that has been made by my colleagues with regard to states. They claim that the ergonomics rule undermines state workers' compensation laws. This is false. The WRP payments required by the rule are not workers' compensation. Seventeen state attorneys general have written telling us that. WRP is preventative. Workers will not report ergonomic injuries if they will lose money to support their families. Only if those injuries are caught early can people be saved from permanent disabilities. WRP and workers' compensation are entirely separate. The employer's doctor decides whether a worker gets WRP. All standards for eligibility for workers' compensation remain unchanged. The standards which protect workers from lead, benzene, cadmium, formaldehyde, methylene chloride and MDA include WRP, and the federal courts have said it's perfectly fine. But we would kill this rule because its opponents have the votes. This idea that, well, tomorrow we will pass a nice resolution to get the Department of Labor to work out something, they ought to be able to do it quickly and everything will be hunky-dory, is baloney. There isn't the slightest chance in the world of it. This is the first time in 30 years that an OSHA rule is being overturned, as it is here tonight. We ask ourselves why, why are we doing this when we know that there is a real problem? It isn't just us who know it is a problem, it is the millions of Americans who are affected and hurt every year that say it is a problem. Every group that has studied it has said it is a problem. Every women's group in the country knows it is a problem. They are the ones who are bearing the burden. Seventy percent of all the injuries happen to women in our society. It is a big problem. According to the Academy of Sciences, $50 billion worth of a problem. We know the problem is out there. We know there have been months, years of study, hearings, study after study after study out there to try to come forward with these regulations. Now, in a matter of a few hours today, we are virtually dismissing them. The proposal that is supported by the Republicans will deny OSHA the opportunity to promulgate meaningful regulations in this area. The statute will not permit them to issue substantially similar regulations. We will not be providing those protections. It is a major weakening in terms of the protections for American workers. This it is for the 100 million American workers who today, tonight, and tomorrow go to workplaces, the more than 6 million workplaces across the country. If we are not going to protect them now, there is no one who is going to protect them. We have a recommendation that has been studied and reviewed. We know what is at risk. If we do not do this, we know the people who are going to be constantly hurt, working families being hurt day in and day out in the future. This is our last chance. Unless we protect them, the result is going to be devastating. This resolution is antiworker, antiwoman, and, basically, I believe, a political payoff for groups that have been involved in fighting this and making the contributions to undermine the safety and security for American workers.

Mr. KENNEDY. This is wrong, Mr. President. I hope it will not pass.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the remaining time will be used by the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues Senators Chuck Hagel and Jim Jeffords in introducing the Helping Children Succeed by Fully Funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA--the hallmark of which is to put real dollars behind the goal of fully funding the IDEA. Congress owes the children and families across the country the most effective possible implementation of this legislation, and the federal funding support necessary to make it happen. For 25 years, IDEA has sent a clear message to young people with disabilities--that they can learn, and that their learning will enable them to become independent and productive citizens, and live fulfilling lives. Prior to 1975, 4 million disabled children did not receive the help they needed to be successful in school. Few disabled preschoolers received services, and 1 million disabled children were excluded from public schools. Now IDEA serves almost 6 million disabled children from birth through age 21, and every State in the Nation offers public education and early intervention services to disabled children. The record of success is astonishing. The drop out rate for these students has decreased, while the graduation rate has increased. The number of young adults with disabilities enrolling in college has more than tripled, and now more than ever disabled students are communicating and exploring the world through new technologies. These accomplishments do not come without financial costs, and it is time for Congress to meet its financial commitment to help schools provide the services and supports that give children with special needs the educational opportunities to pursue their dreams. Today we are introducing legislation to address that need and assist our schools to meet their responsibility to provide an equal and appropriate educational opportunity for children with disabilities. In my State of Massachusetts alone, this increase will provide $409 million over the next 6 years to help meet that goal. Just as we are committed to increase funding for IDEA, we must be equally committed to the making sure that this law is implemented and vigorously enforced. Far too many students with disabilities are still not getting the educational services they are entitled to receive under the IDEA. We must never go back to the days when large numbers of disabled children were left out and left behind. I look forward to working with the Administration and all Members of Congress to enact this legislation. Fully funding IDEA moves us closer to ensuring the success of every child by supporting the great goal of public education--to give all children the opportunity to pursue their dreams.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues Senators Chuck Hagel and Jim Jeffords in introducing the Helping Children Succeed by Fully Funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA--the hallmark of which is to put real dollars behind the goal of fully funding the IDEA. Congress owes the children and families across the country the most effective possible implementation of this legislation, and the federal funding support necessary to make it happen. For 25 years, IDEA has sent a clear message to young people with disabilities--that they can learn, and that their learning will enable them to become independent and productive citizens, and live fulfilling lives. Prior to 1975, 4 million disabled children did not receive the help they needed to be successful in school. Few disabled preschoolers received services, and 1 million disabled children were excluded from public schools. Now IDEA serves almost 6 million disabled children from birth through age 21, and every State in the Nation offers public education and early intervention services to disabled children. The record of success is astonishing. The drop out rate for these students has decreased, while the graduation rate has increased. The number of young adults with disabilities enrolling in college has more than tripled, and now more than ever disabled students are communicating and exploring the world through new technologies. These accomplishments do not come without financial costs, and it is time for Congress to meet its financial commitment to help schools provide the services and supports that give children with special needs the educational opportunities to pursue their dreams. Today we are introducing legislation to address that need and assist our schools to meet their responsibility to provide an equal and appropriate educational opportunity for children with disabilities. In my State of Massachusetts alone, this increase will provide $409 million over the next 6 years to help meet that goal. Just as we are committed to increase funding for IDEA, we must be equally committed to the making sure that this law is implemented and vigorously enforced. Far too many students with disabilities are still not getting the educational services they are entitled to receive under the IDEA. We must never go back to the days when large numbers of disabled children were left out and left behind. I look forward to working with the Administration and all Members of Congress to enact this legislation. Fully funding IDEA moves us closer to ensuring the success of every child by supporting the great goal of public education--to give all children the opportunity to pursue their dreams.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, bankruptcy judges, scholars, practitioners, labor unions, consumer advocacy organizations, and civil rights groups have uniformly rejected the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001 because its harsh and excessive provisions will have a devastating effect on working families. Despite their words of warning, two of the most profitable industries in America--the credit card industry and the banking industry--have insisted upon a harsh bill that will fatten their bottom line while unfairly penalizing vulnerable Americans. While we do need to pass a bill to reduce the fraud and abuse within the bankruptcy system, this bill will not accomplish that goal. This bill will hurt women, children, and hard-working American families, those who truly need the bankruptcy system to prevent unintended financial hardship. This is no time to pass such harsh legislation. For weeks, President Bush has warned the Nation about the perils of an economic downturn. Pointing toward layoffs and rising unemployment, decreasing consumer confidence, and minimal economic growth, President Bush is urging Congress to act to strengthen the economy. But punitive bankruptcy reform legislation does not fall into that category. Now more than ever, we need to ensure that Americans losing their jobs or struggling with medical debt have the second chance for economic security that the bankruptcy laws are intended to provide. It makes no sense to pull the rug out from under them, just as the economy is weakening. We need to separate the myths from the facts--and focus on the real winners and losers under the proposed legislation. By any fair analysis, this bankruptcy bill is the credit industry's wish list, a blatant effort to increase its profits at the expense of working families. We know the circumstances and market forces that often push middle class Americans into bankruptcy. Rising unemployment and company layoffs are major parts of the problem. In recent months, the slowing economy has caused a noticeable jump in the national unemployment rate. It rose to 4.2 percent in January, the highest level in 16 months. The slowing economy has also triggered massive layoffs. Within the past weeks, Verizon announced its plan to cut approximately 10,000 jobs, and Daimler Chrysler announced it would drastically cut its workforce by eliminating 26,000 jobs over the next three years. Xerox plans to eliminate 800 jobs on top of the 5,200 cut last Fall. Telecommunications giant World Com reported plans to lay off up to 15 percent of its workforce, a loss of 11,500 jobs. Sara Lee plans to lay off 7,000 employees. AOL-Time Warner wants to cut 2,000 jobs. Lucent Technologies plans to eliminate 10,000 workers. The layoffs go on and on. Overall, companies have announced plans to lay off close to 70,000 workers--and the year has just begun. Often, when workers lose their current good jobs, they are unable to recover. In a February 2000 survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that approximately one-fourth of workers displaced from full-time wage and salary jobs received earnings substantially lower than what they had received before they lost their jobs. It is all too common for laid-off workers to be forced to accept part-time jobs, temporary jobs, or jobs with fewer or no benefits at all. Divorce is another major cause of bankruptcy. Divorce rates have soared in recent decades, and the financial consequences are particularly devastating for women. Divorced women are four times more likely to file for bankruptcy than married women or single men. In 1999, 540,000 women who head their own households filed for bankruptcy to try to stabilize their lives; 200,000 of them were also creditors trying to collect child support or alimony. The rest were debtors struggling to make ends meet. Another major factor in bankruptcy is the high cost of health care. Forty-three million Americans have no health insurance, and many more are underinsured. Each year, millions of families spend more than 20 percent of their income on medical care. Older Americans are hit particularly hard. A 1998 CRS Report states that even though Medicare provides generally good health coverage for older Americans, half of this age group spend 14 percent or more of their after-tax income on out-of-pocket health costs, including insurance premiums, co-payments and prescription drugs. A report published in Norton's Bankruptcy Adviser says: The data reported here serve as a reminder that self- funding medical treatment and loss of income during a bout of illness or recovery from an accident make a substantial number of middle class families vulnerable to financial collapse. For middle class people, there is little government help, so that when private insurance is inadequate, bankruptcy serves by default as a means for dealing with the financial consequences of a serious medical problem. These are the desperate individuals and families from whom the credit card industry believes it can squeeze higher profits. The industry claims that these men and women are cheating and abusing the bankruptcy system, and are irresponsibly using their credit cards to live in a luxury they cannot afford. These Americans are not cheats and frauds, but they do constitute the vast number of Americans in bankruptcy. Two out of every three bankruptcy filers have an employment problem. Two out of every five bankruptcy filers have a health care problem. Divorced or separated people are three times more likely than married couples to file for bankruptcy. Working men and women in economic free fall often have no choice except bankruptcy. Yet, the credit card industry is determined to deny them the safety net they need. There is no doubt that large numbers of Americans will be harmed by this legislation. They do the right thing and play by the rules. They work hard and try to provide for their children. But sometimes, unexpected tragedy strikes, and nothing can prepare them for the financial difficulties they will encounter. The Trapp family of Plantation, FL is one of these families. They are not wealthy cheats trying to escape from their financial responsibilities. They are a middle class family engulfed in debt, because of circumstances beyond their control. Mr. and Mrs. Trapp worked as letter carriers for 12 years. Both worked before and after their three children were born. They had a good life, but an unexpected medical obstacle occurred. Their 4 year old daughter, Annelise, contracted a muscle disease that is similar to a very rare form of Muscular Dystrophy. Her muscles are very weak. She needs a respirator to breathe, and she also needs constant nursing care. The Trapps had good health insurance through the United States Postal Service. But even with this comprehensive coverage, Annelise's medical expenses left the family with massive debts. Their insurance has paid millions of dollars, but the Trapps' portion of the bills was still $124,000. This debt combined with $26,000 owed on a specially manufactured van to accommodate Annelise made it impossible for the family to meet its financial obligations. They were forced to declare bankruptcy. Proponents of the bill argue that the Trapp family would not be affected by the means test, because their current income is below the State median income. That is not true. Before Mrs. Trapp left her job, the family's annual income was $83,000 a year or $6,900 a month. Under the bill, the Trapp family's previous six months' income would be averaged, so that they would have an average monthly income of about $6,200--above the State median --even though their actual monthly gross income at the time of filing was $4,800. Based upon the fictitious income assumed by the legislation, the Trapp family would be subject to the means test. And the means test formula--using the IRS standards--assumes that the Trapps have the ability to repay more than their actual income would allow. This harsh legislation is an undeserved windfall for one of the most profitable and powerful industries in America. Credit card companies are engaged in massive and unseemly nationwide campaigns to hook unsuspecting citizens; like the elderly, college students, and the working poor, on credit card debt. In 1999 alone, Americans received 3 billion--3 billion--credit card solicitations. That's more than three times the 900 million mailings they received in 1992. The average American household is carrying $7,500 worth of debt, 150 percent higher than a decade ago. A major cause of the problem is that the cost of credit has gone up, and credit card companies are bolstering their profits through heavy penalties and aggressive collection practices. Credit card companies are also targeting marketing campaigns at those who cannot afford to pile up such debts. Instead of helping these individuals recover from their debts, the industry is supporting legislation that will only drive them deeper into financial despair. Supporters of the bill argue that it is not a pro-credit card industry bill. But, to deal effectively and comprehensively with the problem of bankruptcy, we have to deal with the problem of debt. We must see that the credit card industry does not abandon fair lending policies to fatten its bottom line, or ask Congress to become the collector for its unpaid credit card bills. The industry and congressional supporters of the bill attempt to argue that the bankruptcy bill will help, not hurt, women and children. But that is false and misleading. Proponents of the bill praise the alimony and child support provisions. They say that these provisions will make child support and alimony payments the number one priority in bankruptcy. But this rhetoric masks the complexity of the bankruptcy system. When taken individually, some of these provisions are positive steps towards helping women and children collect the support to which they are entitled. However, they do not address the main problem created by the bankruptcy bill. Thirty-one organizations that support women and children have said, ``Some improvements were made in the domestic support provisions . . . However, even the revised provisions fail to solve the problems created by the rest of the bill, which gives many other creditors greater claims--both during and after bankruptcy--than they have under current law.'' It is obvious that if this bankruptcy legislation is enacted, women and children will be the ultimate losers in the process. It is true that the pending legislation moves support payments to first priority in the bankruptcy code. But the first priority ranking only matters in the limited number of cases in which the debtor actually has assets to distribute to a creditor. As 116 professors of bankruptcy and commercial law have stated: Granting ``first priority'' to alimony and support claims is not the major solution the consumer credit industry claims, because ``priority'' is relevant only for distributions made to creditors in the bankruptcy case itself. Such distributions are made in only a negligible percentage of cases. More than 95 percent of bankruptcy cases make NO distributions to any creditors because there are no assets to distribute. Granting women and children first priority for bankruptcy distributions permits them to stand first in line to collect nothing. Beyond the false rhetoric claiming that women and children receive ``first priority'' lies an ugly truth--in many instances, women and children will be last in line. Under current law, an ex-wife trying to collect support has special protection. But under the pending bill, more debt is created that cannot be discharged after bankruptcy--credit card debt. This step will certainly create intense competition for the former husband's limited income. Under current law, he can use his post-bankruptcy income to meet his basic responsibilities, including his student loans, his tax liability, and his support payments to his former wife and children. But if this bill becomes law, one of his so- called ``basic'' responsibilities will be a new one--to Visa and Mastercard. We all know what happens when women and children are forced to compete for these scare resources with these sophisticated lenders-- they lose! Although many of the new domestic support provisions are helpful, they don't solve the problem created by this bill--and some of those provisions undermine the ability of women to collect support payments. Under the bill, a prerequisite to Chapter 13 approval is the payment of support claims. The goal is worthwhile, but other provisions in this bill will drain debtors of available funds and prevent them from meeting the requirements of a Chapter 13 plan and from making child support payments. If there is not enough money to cover all obligations, including the new obligations created by this bill, more Chapter 13 plans will fail, making the provision worthless and making it less likely that women and children will get the support they deserve. This legislation not only unfairly targets middle class and poor families--it also leaves flagrant abuses in place. Any credible bankruptcy reform bill must include a homestead provision without loopholes for the wealthy. The pending bill does include a half-hearted loophole-filled homestead provision. However, it will do very little to eliminate fraud. With a little planning--or in some cases, no planning at all-- wealthy debtors will be able to hide millions of dollars in assets from their creditors. For example, Allen Smith of Delaware--a State with no homestead exemption--and James Villa of Florida--a State with an unlimited homestead exemption--were treated very differently by the bankruptcy system. After trying desperately to make ends meet in the midst of financial distress, Allen Smith eventually lost his home. However, James Villa was able to hide $1.4 million from his creditors by purchasing a luxury mansion in Florida which he was able to keep after bankruptcy. Last year, the Senate passed the Sessions-Kohl homestead amendment which corrected this abuse of the bankruptcy system. But that provision is not in this bill. Surely, a bill designed to end fraud and abuse should include a loophole-free homestead provision. For any bankruptcy reform to be effective, the homestead loophole must be closed permanently. It should not be left open just for the wealthy. Yet the bill's supporters refuse to fight for such a responsible provision with the same intensity they are fighting for the credit card industry's wish list, and fighting against women, against the sick, against laid-off workers, and against other individuals and families who will have no safety net if this unjust bill passes. Proponents of the bill also argue that it will help small businesses. This is another credit card industry myth. This bankruptcy reform bill is not based on any serious business need. In fact, its overhaul of Chapter 11 will hurt, not help, small businesses. Chapter 11 was enacted to serve the interests of business debtors, creditors, and other constituencies affected by business failures--particularly employees. A principal goal of Chapter 11 is to encourage business reorganization in order to preserve jobs. Supporters of the bill ride roughshod over this important goal. They create more hurdles, additional costs, and a rigid, inflexible structure for small businesses in bankruptcy. As a result, fewer small business creditors will be paid, and more jobs will be lost. It is a travesty that hard-working American families will be the victims of bankruptcy reform. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said it well: This bill punishes working families who need protection from financial distress--distress all too often the result of the terrible financial burden of catastrophic illness or other personal tragedies. It threatens jobs in financially distressed companies, all while it carefully protects abuses of the bankruptcy system that benefit the rich--abuses like the homestead exemption. I agree with John Sweeney and the scores of labor, consumer, religious, and civil rights groups who oppose this bill. It is clear that the bill before us is designed to increase the profits of the credit card industry at the expense of working families. If the bill becomes law, the effects will be devastating, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments of the Senate's time to go through these charts and illustrate some of the points I mentioned in my earlier statement. This chart represents why Americans file for bankruptcy. Medical problems, or substantial medical debt, are the reasons for 45 percent of bankruptcy filings. Job problems are 68.9 percent, effectively 70 percent. Those reasons taken together--job and medical problems--amount to 75 percent of all bankruptcies. This obviously is accelerated. For what reasons? One reason is the increasing softness of the economy at the current time and the increasing number of unemployed, particularly with many mergers leading to dramatic changes in income over a relatively short period of time. Another reason is the increasing number of Americans who do not have health insurance and, correspondingly, the increasing amount being paid for prescription drugs. If one looks behind these figures with reference to medical problems, one will find most of them are older workers in their fifties, prior to the time they are eligible for Medicare. The total number of Americans who are uninsured is increasing. All of that is related to the increasing number of layoffs. The increasing number of uninsured and the increasing costs of prescription drugs are reflected in this figure. Let's look at the remaining approximately 25 percent. Basically, the other 25 percent are women who are single, women involved in divorce. If we look over this chart, we see that in 1981--red representing joint bankruptcies, yellow the men, and blue the women--single women were third, behind joint filers and less than men. Joint bankruptcies continued. The women passed the men in 1991. In 1999, the women were No. 1. They came from being third, virtually about one-fifth of the total, to now being almost half the total. Who are these individuals? Who are these women? These are women who have not been able to claim their alimony. A great percentage of these are women who are unable to get child support to which they are entitled. What happens to them? They end up in bankruptcy. Then we find out how the new provisions in this bill treat them. They treat them much more harshly. I'm not the only one saying it, although I have repeated it. Virtually every single group that is an advocate for children, women, or workers agrees, let alone the bankruptcy professionals involved in this. That is what this bill is about. I have a list of those groups that are strongly opposed to it. The various women's groups include: National Women's Law Center, National Partnership for Women and Families, Children's Defense Fund, American Association of University Women, Church Women United, Coalition of Labor Union Women, National Center for Youth Law, Center for Child Care Workforce, the YMCA, and Children NOW. The labor groups include: The AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America, United Steelworkers of America, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the list goes on. Other key groups include: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Religious Action Center, Alliance of Retired Americans, and National Senior Citizens Law Center. This is just part of the list of groups whose prime responsibility is representing vulnerable children. That is the purpose of the Children's Defense Fund. The other organizations protect women in our society from the harshness of legislation and from the inequities of the workplace. All of them are universally against this legislation because they find it puts a harsh burden on children, women, workers, and on those who have experienced a significant increase in their medical bills. That is what is happening. This is a profile of those individuals who are going into bankruptcy. Generally at the end of the day around here, we look at pieces of legislation and ask on the one hand, who benefits and on the other, who pays. It is not a bad way of looking over legislation. If we had more of that around here and we looked out for average working families, we would come to some rather different conclusions. We certainly would on this one because virtually the entire bankruptcy bar, those professors who are teaching in law schools in the North, South, East, and West, as well as judges, have come to the same conclusions. Members of the Judiciary Committee have reviewed it as a result of the hearings. Advocates of the various groups have been out there time and time again. One might find fault with one particular group, but virtually all the groups that represent children and workers are opposed to this legislation because of its unfairness. Those who will benefit are the credit card industry and the banks, make no mistake about it. That is enormously interesting to me, as someone who is the prime sponsor of the minimum wage. We can find time for consideration of the bankruptcy bill; yet we do not have time to look at an increase in the minimum wage for hard-working Americans. We cannot find time to schedule that, but we can find time to consider legislation that is going to benefit some of the wealthiest and most powerful companies and corporations in America. Make no mistake about it, that is what this legislation is about. As this institution and its leadership is about choices, make no mistake what the choice is. The choice is to look after the interest of the credit card companies and the banks. That is first. It is early March, and that is where we are. I hope the American people are aware of this legislation and its implications.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The letter says: ``We understand OSHA intends to issue a proposed rule on ergonomics late this summer. We are writing to make clear that by funding the NAS study, it is in no way our intent to block or delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics.'' So NAM claims that DOL ignored the bipartisan will of Congress are completely, blatantly, flagrantly wrong, as are so many of the other claims. Here, when Congress asked for the study, they understood there would not be a delay. They wanted the information. Furthermore, the NAM states the NAS study did not address the issue of causation and repeatedly called for more study. The Academy, Mr. President explicitly stated it had done sufficient work to support conclusive findings that workplace practices cause ergonomics injuries. The CRA, the procedure which will be in use here, is a unique procedure which is violative of the traditions of this body which permit and encourage debate and discussion and then action at the termination of debate. We have the 10-hour limitation on debate, and then an up or down vote that will lead to elimination of the rule, instead of altering or changing it. The NAM claims that use of CRA ``will not bar the Department of Labor from adopting an ergonomics rule in the future.'' They ought to read the provisions of the CRA, which I believe will exclude the possibility for getting any kind of action in the future. I want to take a moment to show what some businesses have said about this particular proposal over a period of time. Business leaders agree that ergonomics programs work. Peter Meyer of Sequin International Quality Center said: We have reduced our compensation claims for carpal tunnel syndrome through an effective ergonomics program and our productivity has increased dramatically and our absenteeism has decreased drastically. This is from Business Week, which should not be considered to be a part of the working families establishment. In December of the year 2000, Business Week said that for most companies, ``the likely outcome will be dramatically fewer employees with ergonomics problems and long- term cost savings to boot.'' We have a number of those different statements by businesses that have gone ahead and created ergonomics programs on their own. American scientists also call the ergonomic rule ``necessary and based on sound science.'' These are the various groups--Orthopedic Surgeons, Association of Occupational Health Nurses, Occupational Therapy Association, Society of Safety Engineers, Chiropractic Association, Public Health Association--that believe the rule which has been promulgated makes sense in protecting American workers. But with one single vote, we are going to have a situation where that rule is cast aside--no alterations, no changes, and no modifications. It is just take it or leave it because we have the votes, and there will be no attempt to try to work this out, no attempt in terms of the word ``civility'' to try to listen to the other side in making some alterations and changes. No. It is just: We have the votes to knock out this provision and undermine protection for Americans--primarily women--in the workforce, and we are going to do that tomorrow in a 10-hour period. I think the arrogance of that position with regard to protecting workers is absolutely unacceptable. This particular proposal has been 10 years in the making, and in 10 hours we will effectively have it undone. I would have hoped for some opportunity to discuss this. Instead, tomorrow we will have only the 10 hours to go through these measures. We hear a great deal also about the volume of the rule itself. It has been misstated that it is 600 pages. It is closer to eight or nine pages. Those are the rules. I believe these rules represent the most important rulemaking to protect American workers that we have had in recent times. It is the most important rule that we will have for the next several years. It will make major differences in terms of the health and safety and the productivity of the American workforce. Without this kind of protection, we are putting at significant risk tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of American workers. We are doing that in 1 day of votes in the Senate. That is wrong. That is absolutely wrong. We will be denied the opportunity to try to make adjustments or changes if we want to do it. There is a procedure to be able to do it. But absolutely no. Our opponents say: We have the votes, and we are going to turn our backs on American workers, particularly on women, who are looking for some protection. I am hopeful this measure can be defeated. But it is a bad day and a sad day for American workers when it is even brought up for debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to speak on another issue affecting working families that also will be coming up in a very few hours. That is the proposal that will be made by, as I understand, our Republican leadership or representatives introducing legislation which, after a 10-hour agreement, will vitiate the existing rules to protect American workers from ergonomic injuries. If we asked Americans 10 years ago what ergonomic injuries were, a great many Americans would not have been able to pronounce the word ``ergonomic,'' and they really would not have had much of an understanding as to what the problem was. Interestingly, there was a very courageous and brave woman who did understand that problem and that challenge and was willing to do something about it. That was then-President Bush's Labor Secretary, Elizabeth Dole. This is what the Secretary of Labor said about ergonomic injuries in 1990, 11 years ago: One of the Nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health illnesses. . . . We must do our utmost to protect workers from these hazards. . . . By reducing repetitive motion injuries, we will increase both the safety and productivity of America's workforce. I have no higher priority than accomplishing just that. That was 11 years ago. Over the period of the last 10 years, we have had study after study by the National Academy of Sciences, by the Institutes of Medicine, by a range of different independent groups. Finally at the end of last year, there was the promulgation of a rule to provide protection. For whom are we providing protection? Basically, ergonomic injuries are repetitive motion injuries, including carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis, and back disorders. Ergonomic injuries occur across the board. Among those affected are secretaries who endure carpal tunnel syndrome from the use of computers, factory workers who pick up and place equipment on assembly lines, nurses who suffer back injuries from lifting patients, and high-tech workers who sit at keyboards all day long. All across our new economy, these injuries are taking place. Let's look at the numbers of people affected. The source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the year 2000. There are 1.8 million ergonomic injuries reported yearly, and 600,000 people lose time from their work yearly. Ergonomic injuries impose annual costs of $50 billion; account for over one-third of all serious job-related injuries; and account for over two-thirds of all job-related illnesses. Why do I bring this up? We were talking a few moments ago about bankruptcy, and that is the measure before the Senate. Tomorrow, on a privileged motion, without any other earlier statement, only what we have read in the newspapers and in the last several hours have confirmed, we will face a motion made by the other side under particular procedures. We will permit only 10 hours of debate, and if that motion carries, the rule that was in the works for 10 years will be wiped out within a 10-hour period. The way the language of the law is drafted, there will be little recourse to reissue the rule in its current form. That is what will be before the Senate tomorrow. We will get off this bankruptcy bill with time enough to look after another major issue of special importance to the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Of course, the Chamber of Commerce has a direct interest in bankruptcy, because of the credit card industry and the banking industry. The Chamber of Commerce is leading the battle on this bankruptcy bill. The Chamber is looking for a twofer this year. They are looking for two big wins at the expense of working Americans: one, in the area of bankruptcy; two, in undermining existing protections to ensure the health and safety of workers in the workforce. That is why I take this time. We will find out tomorrow if there will be a motion to debate this issue. We will not be debating the issues of bankruptcy. We will be debating this. How many colleagues will know this when they come to their offices tomorrow? It will be interesting because there has been virtually no notice given to us. If the Administration has concerns about the existing ergonomics rule, the rule could be adjusted, could be changed, or could be altered without use of this motion. The Administration has an available administrative process and procedure to make changes in the rule. We could have addressed concerns about the rule through hearings and delayed implementation of the rule. But opponents of the rule say: No, we think we have the votes to eliminate it altogether and put 1.8 million workers at risk. We think we can add up the votes and destroy the rule tomorrow afternoon after 10 hours of debate. Under the law, if opponents of the ergonomics rule have the votes, they can even shorten the debate. Then at the end of the day we will find those 1.8 million workers without any kind of protection. That is what is happening. I don't know where the speakers are on this issue. Hopefully, we will have a chance to debate this more tomorrow. Women are disproportionately harmed by ergonomic hazards. Women comprise 47 percent of the total workforce and incur 33 percent of the total injuries in the workforce. But women constitute 64 percent of all those who lose time from work because of repetitive motion injuries, and 71 percent of those who lose worker time for carpal tunnel injuries. The ergonomics rule is thus of special benefit for women who are out there working, trying to provide for their families. They are the ones primarily injured. They are the ones who lose time. They are the ones who will suffer most if the ergonomics rule is eliminated. If there are problems with the rule, we can amend it, we can change it; we can alter it. We are prepared to do that. Let's get the best in terms of the private sector and the workers, the women's groups, and others, and try to fashion something. But oh, no. The other side is saying: let's just tear up the rule and throw it out. That is what the proposal will be. We hear a good deal about this new spirit taking place in Washington, DC. This is not in evidence in the Senate, where they send two bolts right at working families, first through the the bankruptcy bill and second, by taking this extraordinary step to destroy the ergonomics rule. I think this is the first time we have used this provision, enacted 5 or 6 years ago, in order to put workers all across this country--in the new economy and in the older economy as well--at serious risk. I will come back to who is in favor of this action. Virtually every medical group and health care group supports the ergonomics rule. But not the Chamber or the National Association of Manufacturers. Let's look at what the Chamber claims as to why the ergonomics rule ought to be repealed. The Chamber claims the rule is not supported by sound science. This is the first myth. We have seen in debate time and time again, more often now than before, individuals misstate the position of the opposition and then differ with it. It is an old debating technique. I have had Members who have described my amendments in a way I could not understand and then said they differed with them. That is a tried and tested technique that should be discounted, but too often it is not. And it is what is at work here. Let's listen to what has been said about the rule. I have the NAM statement, which lists seven reasons we ought to be against the ergonomics rule. We have the Chamber of Commerce statement. I will state these for the record because it is important they be answered. Whether we will have a chance to do that tomorrow or not, we will do the best we can. First, the Chamber says that the bill is not supported by sound science. The recent National Academy of Sciences study proves conclusively that workplace practices cause ergonomic injuries and that ergonomic programs work to prevent and limit these injuries. That study confirms the results of thousands of prior studies. This National Academy of Sciences study was primarily focused on lower back and upper extremity musculoskeletal injuries. It stated that: The panel concludes that there is a clear relationship between back disorders and physical load; that is, manual material handling, load moment, frequent bending and twisting, heavy physical work, and whole-body vibration. For disorders of the upper extremities, repetition, force, and vibration are particularly important work-related factors. It goes on. You can read the conclusions. The Chamber's claim that the rule is not supported by sound science is categorically false and misleading. The National Association of Manufacturers claims the rules set too low a threshold and that one job-related complaint will trigger the rule. Right? Wrong. Wrong. They are wrong. This standard sets a threshold that is lower than the ones OSHA has set in other rules, including its lockout-tagout standard, asbestos standard, and blood-borne pathogen standard. In these rules, employers must take action if an employee is merely exposed to a risk. These are rules that OSHA has adopted and that are in effect, despite the opposition of the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Under the ergonomics rule, even if there are serious ergonomic hazards in a workplace, an employer is not required to look for or correct those hazards until after a worker is injured or has signs or symptoms of an injury. One complaint requires an employer to determine that an injury is work related and that exposure to risk is at significant levels. It does not trigger the entire program. Once there is an injury, in other words, the employer makes the judgment whether it is work related--the employer makes that judgment. Then, after that, the employer has to find that the individual has been exposed to the risk at significant levels. It is only then that other requirements of the rule are triggered. So the National Association of Manufacturers' claim that the rule sets too low a threshold is just not an accurate representation as to what the rule does. Third, the National Association and the Chamber claim the rule covers injuries that are not caused by workplace practices. But under the rule, as I mentioned, the employer decides that an injury is work related. They are thus completely wrong in that statement as well. They go on. The Chamber claims the rule imposes an impractical, overreaching, and one-size-fits-all approach. The reality is the rule allows employers to determine how best to deal with ergonomic problems in their workforces. The rule doesn't mandate specific solutions. If an employer decides an injury is work related, the employer must then determine, based on a simple checklist set forth in the rule, whether the employee has suffered sufficiently severe exposure to require action. If so, the employer can decide on the solution it wants to adopt. The Chamber claims the rule will be extremely costly for business. After an exhaustive analysis of the issue, the Department of Labor estimated the rule will result in a net savings--savings--of $4.5 billion each year in reduced workers compensation costs and increased productivity. Numerous business leaders have found the ergonomics programs they have implemented have saved a good deal of money. I am going to come back to that in just a moment. Next, the Chamber claims the rule requires higher payments than workers' compensation and overrides State workers' compensation laws. The payments to workers are necessary to encourage them to report their injuries before they worsen and before other workers are needlessly exposed. This is not a new concept. It has been used for 20 years. It was used in the lead, benzene, cadmium, formaldehyde, and ethylene chloride standards. The idea is to try to get the workers to report their injuries at an early time, before they become permanently injured and before the costs and the loss of time escalate dramatically. So the Chamber clearly misrepresented what the current status of the law is and what the precedents have been. Again, the NAM alleges OSHA has admitted the rule's grandfather clause will not grandfather any employers. OSHA has not ever made this statement. In fact, OSHA predicts many employers will be grandfathered in. The NAM's statement is basically flagrantly misleading and wrong. The NAM claims the DOL ignored the will of Congress by issuing the rule. The fact is, in funding the National Academy of Sciences study of ergonomics in 1999, the Congress expressly promised it would not be used to delay issuance of the rule. This is what Bob Livingston and Dave Obey said when they were the Chair and the ranking member of the House Committee on Appropriations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the full letter presented in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last night I listened with great interest as President Bush outlined his budget proposal. It was a strong speech, and I commend the President for his encouraging comments on education, as well as his kind words for our good friend Congressman Joe Moakley. But our challenge now is to produce a realistic budget. As the President describes it, the surplus is so big that the American people can now have it all--huge tax cuts for everyone, increased spending on national priorities, and elimination of the national debt. I fully agree with President Bush that budgets are fundamentally about our values and priorities, but I strongly disagree with him on what those priorities should be. While President Bush made the benefits of his plan appear real and the costs painless, I think the American people correctly suspect that his words sound too good to be true. Just as there's no such thing as a free lunch, there's no such thing as a free $2 trillion tax cut. I support a substantial tax cut, but not one that is so large that it crowds out continued debt reduction and investment in national priorities like education, health care, and worker training and protection efforts. Not one that is so large that it jeopardizes Medicare and Social Security. This budget claims to provide massive tax cuts and maximize reduction of the national debt and keep our commitments under Social Security and Medicare and make the investments needed to keep the nation strong. It makes five claims that are arithmetically impossible. The numbers simply do not add up. First, this budget argues that the nation can afford a $2 trillion tax cut right now. The White House claims that its proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut ``uses only one fourth of the budget surplus.'' This is highly misleading. Make no mistake about it--President Bush's tax cut really consumes about 90% of the available budget surplus. The tax cut now sought by the Administration would consume well over $2 trillion of the budget surplus. When President Bush cites the $1.6 trillion figure, he neglects the increased cost of interest on the larger national debt caused by the tax cut, and he ignores the added cost of his plan to make the tax cut retroactive. We must be clear about the real size of the surplus. While the Congressional Budget Office projects that the federal government will collect $5.6 trillion more than it spends over the next ten years, only $2.7 trillion of this amount can properly be called a ``surplus.'' The other $2.9 trillion is money that workers deposit with the government so they'll be protected by Social Security and Medicare when they retire. Workers pay this $2.9 trillion in payroll taxes for specific retirement and medical benefits. It is wrong to include money from workers' Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes in the same pot used to finance the Administration's income tax and estate tax cuts. Thus, at most $2.7 trillion in available surplus is projected over the next ten years. Even the Congressional Budget Office acknowledges the great uncertainty of its own surplus estimate. CBO itself recognizes that a small reduction in economy's growth would reduce its surplus estimates by trillions of dollars. Any responsible budget would reserve a significant share of the projected surplus in case the projections prove too optimistic. Without such a reserve, any shortfall could return the nation to large deficits and raids on the Social Security Trust Fund. Yet the Administration's budget commits every last dollar of the projected on-budget surplus and more, sacrificing the fiscal caution that uncertainty in the surplus projection demands. President Bush's tax cuts would consume well over $2 trillion of the $2.7 trillion available surplus, leaving precious little over the next ten years--to strengthen Social Security and Medicare before the baby boomers retire, to begin the quality prescription drug benefit that seniors desperately need, to provide the education increases that the nation's children deserve, to train and protect the American workers whose increased productivity has proved essential to our strong economy, to advance scientific research, to improve the nation's military readiness, to improve the security of family farmers, and to avoid burdening our children with the debt that we have accumulated. After the Bush tax cut, we will simply not have the resources to meet these urgent challenges. All American workers deserve a tax cut, but its total size must be reduced far below the $2 trillion Bush proposal so that we can address our legitimate national needs. Second, this budget pretends to protect Social Security and Medicare. More than half of what President Bush terms the ``surplus'' is actually money that workers deposit with the government through the payroll tax to pay for their future Social Security and Medicare benefits. Just because the government does not pay those dollars out this year does not make us free to spend them. Over the next ten years, Social Security will take in $2.5 trillion more dollars than it will pay out and Medicare will take in $400 billion more dollars than it will pay out. But every penny of this will be needed to provide Social Security and Medicare benefits when the baby boomers retire. If we use that money for other purposes now, we would be increasing the long term deficits in the Social Security and Medicare programs, accelerating the date on which each of those programs will not have sufficient revenue to pay the full cost of the benefits provided under current law. The only fiscally responsible use for the so-called Social Security and Medicare ``surpluses'' is to set those funds aside to pay future retirement and medical benefits owed under current law. The Administration's budget fails to set the entire $2.9 trillion aside to cover the cost of future Social Security and Medicare benefits. It only protects $2 trillion of that amount. The remaining $900 billion is used for other purposes. This seriously threatens the retirement benefits of current workers. While the Bush budget is vague on just how this money will be used, it appears that more than $500 billion of it will be used to finance the Administration's scheme to create private retirement accounts. Money is diverted from the Social Security Trust Fund to finance those accounts. I believe it would be terribly wrong to take money out of Social Security to finance private accounts. Without the guarantee of Social Security's monthly benefit check, one half the nation's elderly would be living in poverty. Taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund will weaken the program's ability to meet its legal obligations to the senior citizens it serves. The President also plans to use current payroll taxes to finance prescription drug assistance for some seniors. But these dollars already belong to Social Security and Medicare, and they are needed to pay current benefits. The Bush plan really just tells Medicare to offer a prescription drug benefit without providing one new dollar to fund that benefit. His plan spends the same dollars twice. It is a cruel hoax. The Bush budget also allows part of this $900 billion in payroll tax revenue to be used for purposes ranging from military preparedness to farm aid, flagrantly violating what I have taken to be broad bipartisan agreement to protect payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. The threat posed by the Bush budget to Social Security and Medicare is very real. Not only does it fail to reserve any of the on-budget surplus to financially strengthen Social Security and Medicare by paying down the debt; it invades the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds by removing $900 billion that already belong to these essential programs. Democrats are committed to keeping Social Security and Medicare strong. We do this by reserving all payroll taxes to pay for the retirement and medical benefits that are now promised to seniors under current law. No qualifications, no exceptions. This commitment means that workers' payroll taxes are not available to fund income tax and estate tax cuts, private retirement accounts, or new spending. Third, this budget alleges that it meets the nation's core health needs. America's seniors desperately need access to prescription drugs, but this budget provides only a placebo. President Bush said the right things about how high a priority prescription drugs are for America's seniors, but the numbers in his budget show that his words can't pass the truth in advertising test. While the Administration's budget lavishes new tax breaks on the wealthy, it leaves little for the elderly whose lives often depend on prescription drugs. The budget gives five times more money to the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers than it allows for the Medicare drug benefits that 39 million senior and disabled citizens need. There can be no question about the urgent need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. A third of senior citizens--12 million people--have no prescription drug coverage at all. Only half of all senior citizens have prescription drug coverage throughout the year. Meanwhile, last year alone prescription drug costs increased an average 17 percent. President Bush's budget responds with baby steps toward prescription drug coverage. After adjusting for inflation, President Bush's budget actually proposes one-third less than the inadequate amount he proposed in his campaign. His ``immediate helping hand'' program for the lowest income senior citizens virtually exhausts the resources that he allocates, leaving the majority of seniors with nothing. This plan is even less generous than the Republican bill passed by the House last year. And the Congressional Budget Office said that the House Republican plan was so underfunded that over half of all senior citizens with no coverage today would not be able to participate under it. Yet this budget allocates less money than the House Republican plan. Medicare is a solemn promise to senior citizens.. It says, ``Work hard, pay into the trust fund during your working years, and you will have health security in your retirement years.'' But this promise is being broken each and every day, because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. The sad reality is that the Bush budget does not mend that broken promise--and it is now the responsibility of the Congress to keep faith with senior citizens. The Administration's budget also fails to address the needs of the nation's uninsured. An uninsured family is exposed to financial disaster in the event of serious illness. Unpaid medical bills account for 200,000 bankruptcies annually. Over 9 million families spend more than one fifth of their total income on medical costs. The health consequences of being uninsured are even more devastating. In any given year, one-third of the uninsured go without needed medical care. Eight million uninsured Americans fail to take medication their doctors prescribe because they cannot afford to fill the prescription. Four hundred thousand children suffering from asthma never see a doctor. Five hundred thousand children with recurrent earaches never see a doctor. Thirty-two thousand Americans with heart disease go without life-saving and life-enhancing bypass surgery or angioplasty-- because they are uninsured. Twenty-seven thousand uninsured women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. They are twice as likely as insured women not to receive medical treatment until their cancer has already spread in their bodies. The chilling bottom line is that eighty-three thousand Americans die every year because they have no insurance. Being uninsured is the seventh leading cause of death in America. Our failure to provide health insurance for every citizen kills more people than kidney disease, liver disease, and AIDS combined. The Administration's budget provides only a small amount for refundable tax credits to purchase health insurance policies--an amount too small to help the vast majority of the uninsured. In this time of unprecedented budget surpluses, isn't it more important to assure that children and their parents can see a doctor when they fall ill than it is to provide new tax breaks for millionaires? Fourth, this budget does not meet the education needs of school children. The claim that this budget increases education funding by $4.6 billion or 11.5 percent is just plain wrong. This budget contains little more than a cost of living increase for our nation's schools, and few new investments to improve them. The Administration's budget counts $2.1 billion that President Clinton and Congress approved last year as part of this year's increase. If President Bush did nothing on education, almost half of his ``increase'' would happen anyway. The real increase that he proposes is $2.4 billion only 5.7 percent above current levels. The reality is that President Bush proposes only $1.8 billion in new money for education next year, a mere 4 percent above inflation. We need strong new investments to turn around our failing schools. But this budget does not even keep up with the average 13 percent annual increase Congress has provided for education over the last 5 years, and it will not enable communities and families across the country to meet their education needs. I applaud President Bush for trying to make education a top priority. I applaud him for challenging the nation to ``leave no child behind.'' But I am disappointed that this budget fails to provide the resources needed to produce the action that we all agree is necessary. President Bush says that he will increase funding for ESEA programs by $1.6 billion, including $600 million more for the Reading First program. I support the Reading First increase, but it leaves only $1 billion for new investments in all other elementary and secondary education priorities. This year, schools confront record enrollments of 53 million elementary and secondary school students, and that number will continue to rise steadily, reaching an average six percent increase in student enrollment each year. The Administration's budget fails to keep pace with population growth in schools, and it is possible that under the budget he proposes, federal education support per student will decrease over the next ten years. Schools and communities will have to educate millions more children and help them meet higher standards of learning while addressing overcrowded classrooms, a shortage of qualified teachers, increased safety concerns, and a lack of adequate after-school programs. Schools simply cannot face these challenges alone. They need the help of their communities, their states, and the federal government to provide the best opportunities for all children. I am prepared to work with the President to enact his proposal for annual testing. But communities will need resources to develop and implement the tests, and ensure that they are of the highest quality. If overall education funding per student does not increase significantly, the nation cannot expect to achieve the right balance between investing in strategies that work and increasing accountability for results. Parents across the country will give President Bush and Congress a test at the end of the year. If our education investments do not help communities turn around every failing school, help all qualified students afford to go to college, and ensure that workers have the training they need, this Republican Congress and this Republican White House will deserve a failing grade on education. I hope we will work together to make the improvements in President Bush's budget that will be needed to earn an A+ from the nation's parents. Finally, this budget claims that its tax cut is fair to working families. In reality, the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, who pay 20 percent of all federal taxes, would receive 43 percent of the tax benefits from Bush's plan. Their average annual tax cut would be more than $46,000, more than a majority of American workers earn in a year. The contrast is stark. Eighty percent of American families have annual incomes below $65,000. They would receive less than 30 percent of the tax benefits under Bush's plan. The average tax cut those families would receive each year is less than $400. Twelve million low- income families who work and pay taxes would get no tax cut at all under Bush's plan. If we are going to return a share of the surplus to the people, that certainly is not a fair way to do it. Because the Bush tax cut is slanted so heavily to the wealthy, it is possible to enact a tax cut that costs less than half of President Bush's proposal, yet actually provides more tax relief for working families. That is what Congress should accomplish this year. A close look at the Administration's budget only confirms that indeed we cannot have it all. There is no way to eliminate the national debt, provide massive tax cuts, and meet all of the nation's legitimate needs. President Bush's budget asks working families to sacrifice while the wealthiest families in America collect far more than their fair share. Overall, this budget threatens our prosperity and ignores the most fundamental national needs. Governing is all about choices. And I believe that this budget makes the wrong choices for working families in America.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Kim, Colette, Evan, R.E.--let me begin by saying I loved Alan too. I will never forget the 24 years of friendship and leadership and achievement with which he graced the Senate and the nation. So it's a special privilege and honor for me to be part of this tribute today. Alan is profoundly missed by his family and friends, his colleagues in the Congress, and by all those around the world who pursue the great goals of hope and progress and peace. I must say, I grew up thinking Cranston was a city in Rhode Island. But Alan taught each of us that Cranston stands for something else as well, the very best in public service. Alan loved to lead behind the scenes, for 14 of those 24 Senate years with us, he was our Democratic whip, and he wrote the book about the job. In those great years, we used to tease Alan about the position, because so few people outside Congress knew what it involved. Since Alan was from California, a lot of people thought the Minority Whip was the name of a Leather Bar in Malibu. But seriously, Alan was a giant of his day on many issues, and his concern for social justice made him a leader on them all. We served together for many years on the Labor Committee and especially the Health Subcommittee, and his insights were indispensable. I always felt that if we'd had another Alan Cranston or two in those years, we'd have actually passed our Health Security Act, and made health care the basic right for all that it ought to be, instead of just an expensive privilege for the few. Perhaps the greatest legacy that Alan left us was his able and tireless work for democracy and world peace. Every village in the world is closer to that goal today because of Alan. No one in the Senate fought harder or more effectively for our nuclear weapons freeze in the 1980's, or for nuclear arms control. His hope for a nuclear-free future still represents the highest aspiration of millions, even billions, throughout the world. I also recall Alan's pioneering efforts to press for Senate action to end the war in Vietnam, and his equally able leadership for civil rights at home and human rights around the world. We know how deeply he felt about injustice to anyone anywhere. His leadership in the battle against apartheid in South Africa was indispensable. Throughout his brilliant career, the causes of civil rights and human rights were central to Alan's being and his mission--and America and the world are better off today because Alan Cranston passed this way. A key part of all his achievements was his unique ability to translate his ideals into practical legislation. Few if any Senators have been as skilled as Alan in the art of constructive legislative compromise that fairly leads to progress for the Nation. He was a vigorous supporter of the Peace Corps, a strong overseer of its performance, and a brilliant advocate for all the Peace Corps Volunteers. He was a champion for health coverage of returning Volunteers, and one of the first to understand that good health coverage had to include mental health services too. In many ways, his first love was the Peace Corps, and I know that President Kennedy would have been very proud of him. Even before he came to the Senate, he had his first contact with the Corps, as a consultant for Sargent Shriver. As Alan often said, he became involved because he was so inspired by my brother's vision of a world where Americans of all ages could work side-by-side with peoples throughout the world to put an end to poverty. Because of Alan, the Peace Corps today is thriving as never before-- free of the partisan tensions that divide us on other issues, spreading international understanding of Alan's and America's best ideals, educating new generations of young Americans about our common heritage as travelers on spaceship earth, teaching us about the beauty, the richness, and the diversity of other peoples, other languages, and other cultures and about the enduring importance of the greatest pursuit of all, the pursuit of peace. Near the end of John Bunyan's ``Pilgrim's Progress,'' there is a passage that tells of the death of Valiant: Then, he said, I am going to my Father's. And though with great difficulty I am got hither, yet now I do not regret me of all the trouble I have been at to arrive where I am. My sword I give to him that shall succeed me in my pilgrimage, and my courage and skill to him that can get it. My marks and scars I carry with me, to be a witness for me, that I have fought his battle who now will be my rewarder. When the day that he must go hence was come, many accompanied him to the riverside, into which as he went, he said, `Death, where is thy sting?' and as he went down deeper, he said, `Grave, where is thy victory?' So he passed over, and all the trumpets sounded for him on the other side. We loved you, Alan. We miss you. And we always will.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Chafee, Leahy, Harkin, Feingold, Reed, Jeffords, and Kerry, I am introducing legislation to help facilitate East Timor's transition to independence. Congressman Lantos, Congressman Chris Smith, and others have introduced identical legislation in the House of Representatives. In August 1999, after almost three decades of unrest under Indonesian rule, the people of East Timor voted overwhelmingly in favor of independence. They did so at great personal risk. Anti-independence militia groups killed hundreds, hoping to intimidate and retaliate against those supporting independence. The militias also destroyed or severely damaged seventy percent of East Timor's infrastructure. Government services and public security were severely undermined. An international effort, led by Australia and including the United States, brought much-needed stability to East Timor. Now, under the United Nation's Transitional Authority, stability is taking hold again in East Timor, and normal life is slowly returning. In coming months, looking to America and other democratic nations as an example, East Timor's leaders will hold a constitutional convention to decide which form of democratic government to adopt. It is a process that reminds us of our own Constitutional Convention and would make our Founding Fathers proud. Late next year, after choosing a form of democratic government and electing leaders, East Timor is expected to declare its independence as the UN draws down. A new, democratic nation will take its rightful place in the world. This is a success story. It is a great success story. But it is far from over. East Timor remains one of the poorest places in Asia. Only 20 percent of its population is literate. The annual per capita gross national produce is $340. The people of East Timor need and deserve our help. The extraordinary physical and moral courage they demonstrated over the years is impressive. The great faith in the democratic process they showed by voting for independence under the barrel of a gun must not go unrewarded. This bill is our chance to help them, and help now. Its purpose is to put U.S. governmental programs and resources in place now and to enable U.S. government agencies to focus on the imminent reality of an independent East Timor. If we wait until East Timor declares its independence before we do the preliminary work, we will lose crucial time and do a disservice to both the United States and to East Timor. Specifically, this bill lays the groundwork for establishing a firm bilateral and multilateral assistance structure. It authorizes $25 million in bilateral assistance, $2 million for a Peace Corps presence and $1 million for a scholarship fund for East Timorese students to study in the United States. It encourages the President, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency and other agencies to put in place now the tools and programs to create an equitable trade and investment relationship. It requires the State Department to establish an accredited mission to East Timor co-incident with independence. And it authorizes the provision of excess defense articles and international military education and training, after the President certifies that these articles and training are in the interests of the United States and will help promote human rights in East Timor and the professionalization of East Timor's armed services. The people of East Timor have chosen democracy. The United States has a golden opportunity to help them create their new democratic nation. But we must prepare for that day now. We must not miss this rare opportunity to help. I ask that a copy of the bill appear in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to hear a good part of the statement by the Senator from West Virginia. As on so many important occasions, he has spoken for this institution and for our country. He has reminded us once more that as we care about the sum and substance of an issue, the process can be a more powerful factor and force as it is in this particular case almost on the substance because what we are looking at is a process and a procedure which will deny this Senate its true role as defined by the Founding Fathers when they met in Philadelphia and devised this institution of the Senate to be a place where ideas clash and where the Nation's business is to be considered in an open and deliberate way. That was going to permit the opportunity for the fashioning and the shaping of the legislation after adequate debate and consideration. He is reminding us once again about our responsibilities to meet our Founding Fathers' intentions for this institution and how their definition is actually being corrupted by a procedure which is known as the reconciliation process, which is a phrase that is probably not well understood in terms of its significance and importance in the consideration of this tax reduction but will have a very dramatic effect on the opportunity for the American people's will to be expressed by a good debate and by the opportunity for the Senate to work its will. This is one of the most important speeches we will hear this year. I commend the Senator for taking the Senate's time in making it. I have listened to him as he has studied the propositions during the past several weeks. I watched him on CNN the other night while he was in attendance at the Budget Committee and listening to those talking about providing adequate defense of our country. I watched him for several hours listening to those presentations. I watched him, as well, in the Budget Committee when he was listening to those who spoke about the economic conditions in this country and about the details of the President's budget. As always, no one studies these issues more deeply and more thoroughly or more comprehensively. His speech today is not one of partisanship but one of statesmanship in reminding the Senate and, most importantly, also the leadership about its responsibilities to the American people. I thank him for making it. I hope, although this Chamber is not well occupied at this moment, all of our colleagues will take the time to examine this speech in the Record tomorrow. I hope he will continue to press these points as we go through this process in the days and weeks ahead because it is in the interest of this institution and our country. I thank the Senator for the time he has taken and for the thoughtful presentation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Chafee, Leahy, Harkin, Feingold, Reed, Jeffords, and Kerry, I am introducing legislation to help facilitate East Timor's transition to independence. Congressman Lantos, Congressman Chris Smith, and others have introduced identical legislation in the House of Representatives. In August 1999, after almost three decades of unrest under Indonesian rule, the people of East Timor voted overwhelmingly in favor of independence. They did so at great personal risk. Anti-independence militia groups killed hundreds, hoping to intimidate and retaliate against those supporting independence. The militias also destroyed or severely damaged seventy percent of East Timor's infrastructure. Government services and public security were severely undermined. An international effort, led by Australia and including the United States, brought much-needed stability to East Timor. Now, under the United Nation's Transitional Authority, stability is taking hold again in East Timor, and normal life is slowly returning. In coming months, looking to America and other democratic nations as an example, East Timor's leaders will hold a constitutional convention to decide which form of democratic government to adopt. It is a process that reminds us of our own Constitutional Convention and would make our Founding Fathers proud. Late next year, after choosing a form of democratic government and electing leaders, East Timor is expected to declare its independence as the UN draws down. A new, democratic nation will take its rightful place in the world. This is a success story. It is a great success story. But it is far from over. East Timor remains one of the poorest places in Asia. Only 20 percent of its population is literate. The annual per capita gross national produce is $340. The people of East Timor need and deserve our help. The extraordinary physical and moral courage they demonstrated over the years is impressive. The great faith in the democratic process they showed by voting for independence under the barrel of a gun must not go unrewarded. This bill is our chance to help them, and help now. Its purpose is to put U.S. governmental programs and resources in place now and to enable U.S. government agencies to focus on the imminent reality of an independent East Timor. If we wait until East Timor declares its independence before we do the preliminary work, we will lose crucial time and do a disservice to both the United States and to East Timor. Specifically, this bill lays the groundwork for establishing a firm bilateral and multilateral assistance structure. It authorizes $25 million in bilateral assistance, $2 million for a Peace Corps presence and $1 million for a scholarship fund for East Timorese students to study in the United States. It encourages the President, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency and other agencies to put in place now the tools and programs to create an equitable trade and investment relationship. It requires the State Department to establish an accredited mission to East Timor co-incident with independence. And it authorizes the provision of excess defense articles and international military education and training, after the President certifies that these articles and training are in the interests of the United States and will help promote human rights in East Timor and the professionalization of East Timor's armed services. The people of East Timor have chosen democracy. The United States has a golden opportunity to help them create their new democratic nation. But we must prepare for that day now. We must not miss this rare opportunity to help. I ask that a copy of the bill appear in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for taking such swift action to pass the legislation for the naming of the Federal courthouse in Boston after my very good friend and beloved figure in Boston, MA, Congressman Joe Moakley, to rename the Federal courthouse in Boston after him. This measure is a fitting tribute to a wonderful friend, and an outstanding leader, for his long and brilliant career in public service. Earlier this week, Joe Moakley announced his decision not to seek reelection next year because of a serious illness that has just been diagnosed. In the brief time since his announcement, the outpouring of support and affection for Joe has been extraordinary. The reason is obvious, Joe Moakley is one of the most beloved political leaders of our time. All of us in Massachusetts are especially fond of him. We admire his strength, his wisdom, his leadership, and his dedication to the people of Boston, our State, and our Nation. Joe and his wife Evelyn made a wonderful team together, and we admired and loved them both very much. Vicki and I have such wonderful memories of the dinners we had together with them. In addition to this well-deserved tribute today, I hope in the coming months we can return some of the loyalty, the affection, spirit, and support that Joe has given to so many of us throughout the years. Joe Moakley has always been a fighter. He was a boxer in college and a football star in high school. At the age of 13, he was with his father who was driving through south Boston, when they saw a neighborhood bully beating up a local child. Joe's father pulled the car over to the side of the road and asked his son what he was going to do about that situation. Joe jumped out of the car and went to the aid of the child and stopped the bully. In all the years we have worked with him in Congress, that is the Joe Moakley we know and love--always fighting for the underdog and all of those who need our help the most--fighting to provide better jobs, better education, better health care, better lives, better opportunities for the people of south Boston, and Massachusetts, and the Nation. The whole world knows of his magnificent leadership in protecting democracy in El Salvador. The naming of the Federal courthouse in Boston for Joe is an especially fitting tribute because no one has done more to revitalize the area of south Boston than Joe Moakley. As a child, Joe was a budding entrepreneur. I heard him tell the story about how he and his friends from south Boston used to race down to the railyard, where the courthouse now stands, to meet the trains that delivered farm products to the city. They collected the fruit that fell off the trains and then would sell it in the neighborhood. Their favorite fruit was watermelon because it had the highest resale value. In half a century, and more, since then, Joe never lost his touch or his commitment to economic development in south Boston. As a Congressman, he has fought vigorously to revitalize the entire community and its neighborhoods for the past 30 years; and what an outstanding job he has done. Thanks to Joe Moakley, the watermelons have long since made way for a beautiful new Federal courthouse, a convention center, the World Trade Center, and several new hotels. South Boston is booming today thanks to Joe Moakley. When he was not working to revitalize south Boston's economy or clean up Boston Harbor, Joe Moakley was teaching his pride and joy--his french poodle named Twiggy--to sing. I understand Joe and Twiggy used to sing a famous duet to the tune of ``Everybody Loves Redheads.'' Joe sang and Twiggy howled, and everyone loved them both. When I think about all Joe Moakley has done for Boston and Massachusetts, I also recall how long and hard and well he fought for funds to rebuild the Central Artery, to build the South Boston Piers Transitway, to clean up Boston Harbor, to modernize the Port of Boston, and to preserve Massachusetts's many historic sites--the Old State House, the Old South Meeting House, the U.S.S. Constitution, Dorchester Heights, and our famed historic marketplace, Faneuil Hall. Joe Moakley' efforts to protect and preserve these extraordinary parts of our heritage guarantee they will be part of our State's history for generations to come. In Congress, no one is more effective on the front lines or behind the scenes than Joe. The dean of our delegation has touched the hearts of all our people, and he has made a remarkable difference in their lives and hopes. He is a voice for the voiceless, and an inspiration to all of us who know him. He champions the cause of hard-working families and the middle class. And all of us are proud to stand with him in all these battles. The poet Yeats said it well: Think where man's glory most begins and ends, and say my glory was I had such friends. We love you, Joe, and we are very proud of you. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague, Senator Kerry, in introducing this legislation to name the U.S. courthouse in the city of Boston after a wonderful friend and an outstanding leader, Congressman, Joseph Moakley, who announced yesterday that he will not be candidate for re-election next year because of a serious illness that has just been diagnosed. Congressman Moakley has served Massachusetts and the nation with great honor throughout his long and brilliant career in public service. Like the rest of my colleagues, I'm deeply saddened by Joe's announcement yesterday. As dean of our delegation, Joe's leadership in Congress is invaluable and indispensable for the people of Massachusetts--and the whole nation too. He's a true giant in Congress, and I'm proud to serve with him. Joe's has been at the forefront of many great battles of national and international importance. No one is more effective in Congress on the front lines or behind the scenes. He has touched the hearts of all our people, and he's made a remarkable difference in their lives and hopes. He's a voice for the voiceless, and for all those who need our help the most. He champions the cause of hard-working families and the middle class--and all of us are proud to be there with him, on the front-lines in all these battles. When I look back over the many years that Joe Moakley has served in Congress, I think of the important progress we've achieved--the battles we've waged and won--for decent and affordable health care--for good education, so that more children can have a better start in life and a chance to go to colelge--for better jobs, greater opportunities, fairer wages, and safer working conditions--for a cleaner environment--for equal rights for women and an end to discrimination in the workplace-- for civil rights at home and human rights in other lands. And above all, in countless nations around the world, Joe Moakley is renowned for his extraordinary achievement in protecting and defending the fundamental human rights of all the people of El Salvador. He has fought long and hard and well for funds to rebuild the Central Artery--to build the South Boston Piers Transitway--to clean up Boston Harbor--to modernize the Port of Boston--and to preserve Massachusetts' many historic sites--the old State House, the Old South Meeting House, the USS Constitution, Dorchester Heights, and Boston's historic marketplace, Faneuil Hall. Joe Moakley's efforts to protect and preserve these many sites guarantee that they'll be an important part of our state's history and heritage for many years to come. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. Few, if any, Members of Congress have done so much for so many for so long. When the chips are down, Joe Moakley is always there when we need him most. If President Kennedy were here today, we all know what he'd day-- he'd call Joe Moakley a true profile in courage. Thoughout his career, Joe Moakley has worked brilliantly, effectively and tirelessly to promote the highest ideals of public service. He is an outstanding statesman, leader, and legislator. I commend him for his leadership, and I look forward to the early enactment of this legislation as a tribute to a man who has served the city of Boston, Congress, and the country so well.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Kennedy pertaining to the introduction of S. 310 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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