Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial 1-Cent Coin Redesign Act

Madam President, first I salute my colleague from Utah. I agree completely with his conclusion--completely. We need to get together on a bipartisan basis and talk about the future of Social Security. That should be the starting point.

Unfortunately, it is not the starting point. The starting point is a proposal by the administration that we create this privatization of Social Security. That is not a good starting point. We should be able to come together and agree on some facts. The facts are fairly obvious. They have been certified by the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office. They differ a little bit from what was just said.

I was in Congress in 1983. We looked at Social Security and said we have a serious, immediate crisis: If we do not do something, and do it now, we will find ourselves in a position where we will not be able to meet our promises to all the retirees who paid into Social Security their entire working lives.

President Ronald Reagan, a Republican President, reached across the aisle to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill, a leading Democrat, and said: Can't we find a bipartisan way to deal with the most popular and important social program in America? Tip O'Neill said: We have to.

They created a commission with Alan Greenspan as the Chairman. They brought real bipartisanship to the Commission. They did not try to load it one way or the other which, unfortunately, has happened many times when it comes to Social Security. This Commission came up with a list of suggestions to Congress. They said: If you do these things, Social Security will have a long life. The baby boomers whom we know will retire after the turn of this century, we will be able to take care of them.

Some of the things they proposed were controversial: One, increase the retirement age to the age of 67 over a period of years; there were suggestions of taxing Social Security benefits for higher income retirees; there were cuts in benefits; there were increases in payroll taxes. It was a long list, but each of the proposals in and of itself was not that extreme or radical. When it was all said and done, on a bipartisan basis, Congress enacted that law, changed Social Security.

Let me tell you what we bought for the political courage of President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill in 1983. What we bought was, literally, 59 years of solvency for Social Security. We came together and solved the problem.

There are people ever since who have been carping about and criticizing the 1983 bipartisan approach, but I am glad I voted for it. I am glad because I can stand and face those retiring and say we faced the problem and we solved the problem.

Frankly, that is what we have to acknowledge today. The future problems are, in fact, long-term future problems for Social Security. What we know now is obvious and has been certified and found to be true; that is, untouched, unchanged, without a single amendment to the Social Security law, no changes whatsoever, Social Security will make every payment to every retiree, with a cost-of-living adjustment, every month, every year, until 2042--according to the Congressional Budget Office, 2052. So for 37 years, Social Security is intact, solid, performing, and solvent. Some say it is beyond that. Some say at the end of 47 years we will reach a point where we will not be able to meet every obligation.

Think of that. There is not a single program in our Federal Government today that we can say with any degree of certainty will be here 3 years from now. We can say with certainty, under the current law, Social Security will be there 37 years from now making every single promised payment.

What happens after 37 years? It is true, we will have taken the surplus in Social Security and spent it down. And then we look at the receipts coming in and the interest earned and some estimate we can only pay 70 to 80 percent of our Social Security obligation. Now that is a challenge. How do we make up the difference? How do we make up the difference of the 20 to 30 percent that needs to be made up in Social Security? It is a problem that could be 40 years away. Today, if we sat down and made bipartisan, commonsense suggestions for changes in Social Security, much as we did in 1983, we can come up with a reasonable solution. Instead, what has the administration proposed? The President has come forward and said: We have to change Social Security as you know it. The program that has served America for almost 70 years, this program, we should change dramatically.

So we asked the President, What do you have in mind? He says people should be able to take part of the money they are currently putting into payroll taxes and put it into private or personal accounts. That is appealing to some people because they think they would rather invest it in a mutual fund because they think they can make more money than the Social Security Administration can make. Other people say, well, what if you invest it in the mutual fund and it does not make as much money as in Social Security? Isn't there a risk involved?

There certainly is.

And then there are equally important questions. If you are going to take this money out of Social Security that was supposed to go toward paying current retirees, who will make up the difference? The President does not answer the question. The budget of the President does not answer the question. And in comes a memo from the White House which projects one of their solutions to Social Security is to change the way benefits are calculated. Currently, the formula is based on a wage index. It is based on the increase in wages. The White House memo says we ought to base it on the prices index, the increases in the cost of living. It does not sound like much, but it is a substantial change.

As we play out this White House suggestion, what we find is alarming. What the White House memo proposed would lead to a 40-percent decrease in Social Security benefits. So we step back and say, wait a minute. If we do nothing in the year 2042 we can see a 20- to 30-percent decrease in our payments in Social Security. But if we buy into the President's approach we know we will see a 40-percent decrease. How can that be a good solution? The President's plan does not make Social Security any stronger. The President's plan makes Social Security even weaker.

Then there is the kicker, the one thing that the administration does not want to talk about. This administration says their budget is focused on taming the budget deficit. I have to tell the President quite honestly, if you do not include in your budget the cost of the Iraq war, and you do not include in your budget the cost of privatizing Social Security, it is not complete, it is not an honest budget. We know in a period of the first 10 years we could have anywhere from $750 billion to $2 trillion added to our national debt. So you say to the President, How are you going do make up that difference, that you will take the money out of Social Security for private accounts and create that additional national debt? How are you going to pay for that?

Well, we will add it to the debt of America. For all the young people, the

pages that have been referred to in the Senate who are now becoming the object of many of our speeches, I don't think we are doing any favors by creating private accounts and saying, incidentally, here is a $2 trillion debt, a little mortgage for you to consider. Do not forget about your student loans and getting married and buying that first car and buying that home; here is a little debt from Uncle Sam that is part of the President's proposal.

When I listen to the President's privatization approach, I have to say there are several aspects that trouble me. First, this is not a crisis. We are not going to be in dire emergency circumstances in 2008. According to the Congressional Budget Office, almost 50 years from now Social Security is solvent. Social Security is making every single payment. Yes, we have a challenge beyond that. Secondly, the President's plan does not make Social Security stronger, it makes it weaker. And third, if this is such an obvious answer, why won't the President include this in his budget? You cannot take a plan seriously if the President does not put it in his budget.

I will yield to the Senator from Utah for a question.

I thank the Senator from Utah. I am afraid I did not hear his exact words, but he referred to the year 2008 as being a critical year.

As I understand it, we are currently collecting more from our workers across America for Social Security than we currently need to pay out to retirees. This has been the case since the mid-1980s because we saw this big tsunami of the baby boom generation coming at Social Security. This year, we may be collecting as much as twice the amount we need to pay the Social Security retirees, building up this surplus.

So to suggest we have this terrible situation today where we cannot meet the obligations of Social Security, or that we are going to have it in 2008, or that we are going to have it in 2018 is wrong. By all of the Government agencies mentioned by the Senator from Utah, we are going to make every single payment in Social Security for 37 years, maybe 47 years. There is no crisis because we prepared for this. It is as if we understood in a family situation that we are not going to earn enough money in the outyears to make a go of it, so we save money and take it from our savings account for those lean years. That is what we are doing for Social Security.

To suggest this is a crisis we did not anticipate, I was here when we did anticipate it. President Reagan and Tip O'Neill, in anticipation of it, came up with a good, bipartisan approach.

I yield to the Senator from Utah for another question.

Madam President, reclaiming my time, let me concede to the Senator from Utah, if I misstated his position, I apologize. I do want to make it clear, though, that I sincerely disagree with your conclusion. To suggest we are facing a crisis in 2008 is to suggest we did not anticipate what will happen in 2008, and that is plain wrong.

In 1983, we anticipated the baby boomer generation, larger numbers of retirees, and we did something about it because we made changes in the law. Because we are prepared for the baby boomers, we will not be in crisis in 2008. We will have the money to pay every single baby boomer every penny promised.

That is the point many on the other side of the aisle want to overlook. They want to overlook what we did in 1983. Instead, they should look to that as a model for what we should do in 2005.

If we want to do something for Social Security, let's do it on a bipartisan basis.

Madam President, before I yield, I would ask the Presiding Officer, how much time is remaining in morning business on our side?

Madam President, I will make a statement that will take about 7 or 8 minutes on Medicare prescription drugs. Then I will yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Washington.

I am happy to yield to the Senator for one question.

Madam President, in response to the question of the Senator from Washington, I obviously cannot answer that because no one knows what this privatization plan would do exactly. It certainly is not healthy for the Social Security system to see payroll taxes that had been anticipated and dedicated to paying retirees being removed and put into private investments with the risk attached to them. So I do not think there is any certainty for any retiree if the President cannot come up with more details on what he plans to do. I, for one, think the President's plan weakens Social Security and does not strengthen it.

(The remarks of Mr. Durbin and Mrs. Murray pertaining to the introduction of S. 341 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I rise today to continue the fight to right a wrong in America's visa program. I believe it's time for America to extend the Visa Waiver program to Poland. I'm pleased to have formed a bipartisan partnership with Senator Santorum to reintroduce our bill to get it done.

Last fall, Senator Santorum and I met with a hero of the Cold War, Lech Walesa. When he jumped over the wall of the Gdansk shipyard, he took Poland and the whole world with him. He told us that the visa issue is a question of honor for Poland. That day, we introduced a bill to once again stand in solidarity with the father of Solidarity by extending the Visa Waiver program to Poland.

This morning, I had the honor of hosting Poland's Foreign Minister, Professor Adam Rotfeld. We reaffirmed and cemented the close ties between the Polish and American peoples. Senator Santorum and I heard loud and clear that the visa waiver program remains a high priority for Poland.

My friends, Poland is not some Communist holdover or third-world country begging for a handout. The Cold War is over. Poland is a free and democratic nation. Poland is a NATO ally and a member of the European Union. But America's visa policy still treats Poland as a second-class citizen. That is just wrong.

Poland is a reliable ally, not just by treaty but in deeds. Warsaw hosted an international Conference on Combating Terrorism less than two months after the September 11 attacks. Poland continues to modernize its Armed Forces so they can operate with the Armed Forces of the U.S. and other NATO allies, buying American F-16s and Shadow UAVs and humvees.

More importantly, Polish troops have stood side by side with America's Armed Forces. Polish ships participated in Desert Shield and Desert Storm during the 1990-91 Gulf War. Poland sent troops to Bosnia as part of UNPROFOR and IFOR. Poland sent troops as part of the international coalition in Afghanistan.

Polish troops fought alongside American and British and Australian troops from day one of the Iraq war. They are there because they want to be reliable allies. Because they are ready to stand with us even when the mission is risky and unpopular. Today, Poland still commands multinational forces in the South Central region of Iraq. Nearly 2,500 Polish troops are still on the ground in Iraq, sharing the burden and the risk and the casualties.

So why are Singapore and San Marino among the 27 countries in the Visa Waiver program, but Poland is not?

President Kwasniewski raised this issue with President Bush last year and again this week. The President has said this is a matter for Congress. It's time for us to act.

The bill Senator Santorum and I are introducing today will add Poland to the list of designated countries in the Visa Waiver program. That will allow Polish citizens to travel to the U.S. for tourism or business for up to sixty days without needing to stand in line to get a visa. That means it will be easier for Poles to visit family and friends or do business in America. Shouldn't we make it easier for the Pulaskis and Kosciuszkos and Marie Curies of today to visit our country?

We know that our borders will be no less secure because of these Polish visitors to our country. But we know that our alliance will be more secure because of this legislation.

I urge our colleagues to join us in support of this important bill.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that is desperately needed by small and seasonal businesses all over the Nation. These businesses are in crisis. They need seasonal workers before the summer so that they can survive. For many years they have relied on the H2B Visa program to meet these needs, but this year they can't get the temporary labor they need because they have been shut out of the H-2B visa program. That program lets them hire temporary foreign workers when no American workers are available.

So today, I join with my colleague Senator Gregg to introduce legislation that provides a quick fix to the H-2B problem. The ``Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act'' will help these employers by doing three things--temporarily exempting good actor workers from the H-2B cap, protecting against fraud in the H-2B program and providing a fair and balanced allocation system for H-2B visas. I urge my colleagues to work with us to pass this legislation quickly to save these businesses and the thousands of American jobs they provide.

Many in this body know about the H-2B crisis. All this week we have been talking about the litigation crisis--but a real crisis to thousands of small and seasonal businesses is the worker shortage they face as they approach the summer season. These small businesses count on the H-2B Visa Program to keep their businesses afloat. And this year, because the cap of 66,000 was reached so early in the year, many of these businesses will be unable to get the seasonal workers that they need to survive.

Hitting the cap so early has had a great impact on Maryland. We have a lot of summer seasonal businesses in Maryland, on the Eastern Shore, in Ocean City or working the Chesapeake Bay. Many of our businesses use the program year after year. They hire all the American workers they can find, but they need additional help to meet seasonal demands. Because the cap was reached so early this year, for the second year in a row, summer employers face a disadvantage. They can't use the program, so they can't meet their seasonal needs and many will be forced to limit services, lay-off permanent U.S. workers or, worse yet, close their doors.

These are family businesses and small businesses in small communities in Maryland. If the business suffers the whole community suffers. For seafood companies like J.M. Clayton, what they do is more than a business, it's a way of life. Started over a century ago and run by the great grandsons of the founder, J.M. Clayton works the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, supplying crabs, crabmeat and other seafood, including Maryland's famous oysters, to restaurants, markets, and wholesalers allover the Nation. It is the oldest working crab processing plant in the world and by employing 65 H-2B workers the company can retain over 30 full-time American workers.

But its not just seafood companies that have a long history on the Eastern Shore. It's companies like S.E.W. Friel Cannery, which began its business over 100 years ago when there were 300 canneries on the Eastern Shore. But now those others are gone and Friel's is the last corn cannery left. Ten years ago, when the cannery could not find local workers, it turned to the new H-2B Visa Program. It has used the program every year since, and many workers are repeat users who come each year and then go home after the season. What's important is that having this help each year has not only allowed the company to maintain its American workforce, but it has paved the way for local workers to return to the cannery. They now employ 75 full time and 190 seasonal workers, along with 70 farmers and additional suppliers.

Now these employers can't just turn to the H-2B program whenever they want seasonal workers. First, employers must try to vigorously recruit U.S. workers. They must demonstrate to the Department of Labor that there are no U.S. workers available. Only after that are they allowed to fill seasonal vacancies with H-2B visa workers. The workers that they bring in often participate in the H-2B program year after year. They often work for the same companies. But they cannot and do not stay in the U.S. They return to their home countries, to their families and their U.S. employer must go through the whole visa process again the following year to get them back. That means an employer must prove again to the Department of Labor that they cannot get U.S. workers.

This legislative fix keeps that visa process in place. It's a short- term legislative fix to solve the immediate H-2B visa shortage. It does not take the place of comprehensive immigration reform.

This legislation is a temporary two year fix. And it does four things:

One, it exempts returning seasonal workers from the cap. These are workers who have already successfully participated in the H-2B Visa Program. They received a visa in one of the past three years and have returned home to their families after their seasonal employment with a U.S. company.

Everyone must still play by the rules. Employers must go through the whole visa process, prove they need the seasonal help and only after that are returning employees exempt from the cap. Employees must be those who have left the U.S. and are requesting a new H-2B visa to come back for another season. This new system rewards those who have played by the rules, worked hard and successfully participated in the program. And the bill gives a helping hand to businesses by allowing them to retain workers who they have already trained to do their seasonal jobs.

Next, this bill creates new anti-fraud provisions. To make sure that everyone is playing by the rules and that no one is misusing the program. And it gives government some teeth to prevent fraud and enforce our nation's immigration laws. A $150 anti-fraud fee ensures that government agencies processing the H-2B visas will get added resources to detect and prevent fraud. New sanction provisions for those who misrepresent facts on a petition further strengthens DHS's enforcement power. This section also sends a strong message to employers--don't play games with U.S. jobs. Our bill reserves the highest penalties for employer actions which harm U.S. workers.

And, this bill creates a fair allocation of visas. Now, summer employers lose out because winter employers get all the visas. This bill makes the system fair for all employers. We reserve half of the visas for the winter and half for the summer. Allocating visas ensures that, until a long-term solution is reached, all employers will have an

equal chance of getting the workers that they need.

Finally, the bill adds some simple reporting requirements. So that DHS gives Congress the information it needs to make informed decisions about the H-2B visa program in the future.

This is a quick and simple fix. It lasts just 2 years--the rest of this year and next. And it does not get in the way of comprehensive immigration reform.

I worked with my colleagues to get a bill with strong bipartisan support, a bill that would work.

This bill is realistic. It provides a temporary solution because immediate action is needed to help these small and seasonal businesses stay in business. Yes, we need to help them now. Their seasons start soon. And if they don't get seasonal workers this year, there may not be any businesses around next year to help.

Every Member of the Senate who has heard from their constituents-- whether they are seafood processors, landscapers, resorts, timber companies, fisheries, pool companies or carnivals--knows the urgency in their voices, knows the immediacy of the problem and knows that the Congress must act now to save these businesses. I urge my colleagues to join this effort, support the Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, and push this Congress to fix the problem today.

Mr. President, I am honored to rise with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, to introduce the Climate Stewardship Act. It is an urgent matter. I was thinking of one clause that I could remove from Senator McCain's comments. He said: Suppose Senator Lieberman and I are deluded.

It struck me that probably many times in the battles that we have fought together or individually, people have thought we were deluded. If I was going to be deluded, I would rather be deluded in the company of John McCain than anybody else I can think of. But let me say this: We are not deluded in our battle to get the U.S. Government to assume a leadership role in stopping this planet of ours from warming, with disastrous consequences for the way we and certainly our children and grandchildren will be forced to live if we do not do something.

When Senator McCain and I first started to work with people in the field, the scientists, the businesspeople, the environmentalists, we had a pretty clear picture of what was coming, but very often we had to rely on scientific models and assume their accuracy in terms of the worst consequences. That is over.

As Senator McCain's charts and pictures show, we can see with our eyes the effects of global warming already. The planet is warming. The polar ice caps are melting. One can see that with their own eyes. The sea level is rising in coastal areas already, and in other areas the water is diminishing, declining, as in the great State of my cosponsor, Arizona, and the State of the distinguished occupant of the Chair, Nevada. Forest fires are increasing. The evidence is clear that the problem is here, and that is why we have to do something about it.

Doing nothing is no longer an option. We have reached a point where the intractable must yield to the inevitable. The evidence that climate change is real and dangerous keeps pouring in and piling up. What this legislation is all about is pushing, cajoling, and convincing the politics to catch up with the science.

I will give real market-based evidence to back up what Senator McCain and I are saying about how compelling the science is. The leading insurance companies in the world--we are not talking about environmentalists--are now predicting that climate-driven disasters will cost global financial centers an additional $150 billion a year within the next 10 years. That is $150 billion of additional costs for the world as a result of climate-driven disasters.

Just a couple of weeks ago, at an international conference, the head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. R. K. Pachauri, said that we are already at ``a dangerous point'' when it comes to global warming, and ``immediate and very deep cuts in greenhouse gases are needed if humanity is to survive.'' Let me repeat those last words: ``If humanity is to survive.''

It should be noted that Dr. Pachauri is no wild-eyed environmental radical. In fact, the administration lobbied heavily for Dr. Pachauri's appointment to the IPCC leadership because it considered him a more cautious and pragmatic scientist than the other leading candidate.

To call global warming simply an environmental challenge is almost to diminish it or demean it with a kind of simplicity that puts it alongside a host of other environmental challenges that we face. Global warming is both a moral and an economic security challenge, as well as an environmental challenge.

I start with what I mean by calling it a moral challenge. Greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for about 100 years, so failure to take the prudent actions that our bill calls for--market-based, moderate, with caps--will force children still unborn to take far more drastic action to save their world as they know it and want to live in it. There is just no excuse for this.

We know it is real. I cited the melting glaciers, the coastal communities damage, the increased rate of forest fires. Previously, on this floor I have talked about the fact that a robin appeared in the north of Alaska and Canada among the Inuits native tribe, and they had no word in their 10,000-year-old civilization and vocabulary for robin.

Robins now linger longer into the winter in Connecticut, my State. Why? Because it is getting warmer.

Polar bears may soon be listed as an endangered species. Let me put it another way. We know that a petition will be filed soon to ask that polar bears be listed as an endangered species. Why? Because global warming is removing their habitat. It is wreaking havoc in the arctic climates where they live and grow. So to spoil the Earth for generations to come when we knew what we were doing and could have stopped it would be a moral failing of enormous and, I might add, Biblical proportions.

This time, it would be mankind that condemned itself, if I may put it again this way, to no longer living in the garden.

The challenge of solving global warming also presents our Nation with untold opportunities to reshape our world and assert our moral, economic, and environmental leadership. There is always opportunity in change. The world will transition to a world with limited greenhouse gas emissions, and the United States needs a program like the one we offer today to seize the new markets, as well as the environmental challenge.

In particular, Senator McCain and I are seeking now to develop additional provisions to this legislation that will provide American innovators and businesspeople with the technological incentives they need to make our bill work for them.

Looking at the recommendations of the International Climate Change Task Force, the National Commission on Energy Policy, and the Pew Center Workshop on Technologies and Policies for a Low Carbon Future, there are a number of consensus provisions that could help the U.S. transition to these technologies of the future.

These technologies are here. A recent paper in Science magazine showed that the scientific, technological, and industrial know-how already exists to limit carbon dioxide emissions substantially in the next 50 years. So we do not have to invent them. We just need the incentives and the motivation for industry, innovators, and individuals to deploy this knowledge and start us on the path toward a healthier, more sustainable future.

That is what the Climate Stewardship Act that Senator McCain and I are introducing today will do. It will provide the incentives. It will create a cap and let the market do the rest of the work, a real opportunity for change.

I am very pleased that one study being released today by the NRDC applying a method of evaluating which is advocated by the Energy Information Administration of our own Government says the Climate Stewardship Act will add 800,000 jobs to our economy by the year 2025. So it will not cost jobs, it will add them.

Over the last few years, we have seen our colleagues grappling with the challenge of global warming. So many of them seem to be of the same mind, feeling that something needs to be done but still unsure what should be done and how. Senator McCain and I want our legislation to work for them so they can come forward and join us in this effort. This is an opportunity to invest in our future to face this challenge, an opportunity to enhance our energy security, and therefore our national security, by placing a price on greenhouse gas emissions, which is what our legislation will do.

Our Nation's best energy options will become more cost competitive with foreign oil. It will make economic sense for dramatic growth in clean coal, alternative energy, and energy efficiency. It will be an opportunity for economic development in rural communities. By placing a price on carbon, it will create new value for range lands, farms, and forests by compensating landowners for the carbon they can store. It is an opportunity to innovate clean energy technologies for a growing global market. By placing this price that the cap and market will do on greenhouse gases, we will push demand for clean technologies, promoting innovation through both public and private enterprise and making that innovation profitable. It is an opportunity for our country to control the development of our own carbon market that will inevitably become part of a

global market someday soon. It is an opportunity, as Senator McCain said, to improve our relations with our allies and the rest of the world and gain a stronger voice and ability to bring in developing nations.

Without a price for carbon, these opportunities disappear. Our bill provides that price for carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. We know it is not the entire answer. A lot of people think it is too moderate and holds greenhouse gas emissions at today's levels.

By the end of the decade, it is less demanding than the Kyoto Protocol, which goes into effect as a result of Russia's ratification next week, but it is a cap that major utilities have told us they could meet. It may not be strong enough to reduce U.S. emissions as much as some would like, but it will be strong enough to start turning America around in the direction of dealing with global warming, reasserting our world environmental leadership, and moving our economy in the right direction. We cannot afford to be as shortsighted as we have been up until now. We cannot afford anymore to allow the special interests, who will also resist change because change is unnerving and sometimes more costly, to prevail.

We have to assert the public interest of ourselves and all those who will follow us on this Earth and in this great country to do something about global warming while we still can, before its consequences are disastrous. This is an enormous political challenge.

I go back to where I began. When we started, we had just models, so we were trying to portray what might happen over the horizon and ask our colleagues to join us in doing something now. It is not easy to do that because the crisis always seems further away than the immediacy of the changes a solution requires, but now we can see it. Shame on us if we do not do something about it.

I begin this battle today with Senator McCain and other cosponsors with not only a sense of commitment but a sense of encouragement and optimism that people ultimately are too reasonable and responsible to ignore the facts and do nothing about this looming disaster for humankind.

Senator McCain and I begin this battle again, and we are not going to stop until it is won.

I ask unanimous consent that several articles on climate be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to honor Abraham Lincoln in 2009, the bicentennial of his birth, by issuing a series of 1-cent coins with designs on the reverse that are emblematic of the 4 major periods of his life, in Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. The bill would also provide for a longer-term redesign of the reverse of 1-cent coins so that after 2009 they will bear an image emblematic of Lincoln's preservation of the United States as a single and united country.

Abraham Lincoln was one of our greatest leaders, demonstrating enormous courage and strength of character during the Civil War, perhaps the greatest crisis in our Nation's history. Lincoln was born in Kentucky, grew to adulthood in Indiana, achieved fame in Illinois, and led the Nation in Washington, DC. He rose to the Presidency through a combination of honesty, integrity, intelligence, and commitment to the United States.

Adhering to the belief that all men are created equal, Lincoln led the effort to free all slaves in the United States. Despite the great passions aroused by the Civil War, Lincoln had a generous heart and acted with malice toward none and with charity for all. Lincoln made the ultimate sacrifice for the country he loved, dying from an assassin's bullet on April 15, 1865. All Americans could benefit from studying the life of Abraham Lincoln.

The ``Lincoln cent'' was introduced in 1909 on the 100th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, making the front design by sculptor Victor David Brenner the most enduring image on the Nation's coinage. President Theodore Roosevelt was so impressed by Brenner's talent that he was chosen to design the likeness of Lincoln for the coin, adapting a design from a plaque Brenner had prepared earlier. In the nearly 100 years of production of the ``Lincoln cent,'' there have been only two designs on the reverse: the original, featuring two wheat-heads, and the current representation of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC.

On the occasion of the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth and the 100th anniversary of the production of the Lincoln cent, we should recognize his great achievement in ensuring that the United States remained one Nation, united and inseparable.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would speak for a moment, if I could, on an issue which is near and dear to not just seniors but their families.

Last night, CMS Administrator Mark McClellan acknowledged the cumulative cost of the Medicare prescription drug program between 2006 and 2015 will reach $1.2 trillion. Although Mr. McClellan said the number would be reduced to $724 billion after seniors pay their premiums and the Federal Government is reimbursed by States for coverage of their Medicaid populations, it is still much higher than originally thought. As recently as September, Mr. McClellan said this program would only cost $534 billion.

Remember this program? This was President Bush's Medicare prescription drug program.

Now, we all understand that Medicare did not cover prescription drugs. Seniors need that coverage because drugs are so expensive, and drugs are essential for them to maintain their health and stay independent and strong for a long period of time. But when we got into this debate on the floor of the Senate about creating this program, the pharmaceutical companies lined the hallways around the Senate with men in expensive three-piece suits and Gucci loafers and said: Whatever you do, don't touch the profits of the pharmaceutical companies.

Too many Senators on both sides of the aisle decided that the profits of the pharmaceutical companies were more important than the cost of the drugs for seniors. So, in the bill we included a provision that prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies to get lower prices for drugs for seniors.

What does it mean? It means every single year the cost of prescription drugs under this Medicare program will inflate like the cost of prescription drugs for people across the United States.

Take a look at the drug price comparisons, just for the years 2005 and 2016, on some common drugs listed on this chart--what we anticipate, using the Bush Administration's calculations for the rate of increase for prescription drugs, will happen to their costs.

Look at Norvasc. It will go from $170 to $525 in 2016; Plavix, $230 to $710; Prevacid, $120 to $374; and Zocor, $124 to $383.

So in this period of time, if you want to know why the prescription drug program's costs are going through the roof, it is because the cost of the drugs is going through the roof. Unless and until Medicare can negotiate the price of these drugs, and keep them reasonable for seniors, there is no way in the world this program is going to be cost- effective. It is interesting to me that when this estimate of cost came out, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, said $400 billion was the original cost of this program, and we have to cut the benefits back to hit that cost, instead of saying, why don't we find a way to reduce the pharmaceutical company profits so we can keep the drugs seniors across America are buying at reasonable prices.

Drug prices are going to continue to rise. The price of 26 drugs most commonly used by seniors increased 21.6 percent, on average, over the last 3 years, and they will continue to increase in the future.

I have gone through some basic drugs on this chart, but I want to tell my friends who are following this debate, this is no surprise. Those of us who voted against the bill said exactly this would happen: If you do not contain the cost of drugs, you cannot afford this program. It will explode in the outyears, and future Members of Congress and Presidents will decide to cut back on the benefits under the program rather than face the reality of what we did in passing this legislation.

Medicare actuaries estimate the prescription drug benefit premium will increase from $35 a month under the President's plan in 2006 to $68 a month in 2015. Deductibles will increase. I think we are at a point where we have to acknowledge the obvious.

Let me say a word about pharmaceutical companies. We want the pharmaceutical industry to be strong and profitable because in their profits is the money for research for new drugs. That is essential for America's health and the world's health. But what we find now is that pharmaceutical companies in America are spending more money on advertising than they are on research. You cannot turn on the television without finding another ad for another drug. Why? Because they want the consuming public to walk into their doctor's office and say: Doctor, I beg you, give me the little purple pill. And doctors do. It is an expensive pill. It may not be the necessary and required pill, but doctors do it. And if you sell more of those little purple pills, the pharmaceutical companies do quite well.

Take a look at the profitability of the Fortune 500 drug companies versus the profits of all Fortune 500 companies in the year 2002. When you take a look at the drug companies on these red bars, and the other companies on the yellow bars, you can see exactly the difference. Profits as revenues: 17 percent for drug companies, 3.1 percent for other companies. Profits as a percentage of equity: 27.6 percent for pharmaceutical companies, 10.2 percent for the rest of the Fortune 500 companies.

They are extremely profitable companies. We want them to make profits, but not at the expense of seniors who cannot afford to pay.

Mr. President, I want to give my colleague an opportunity to speak here. I would say the most important thing I can tell you today is there is an answer. I am reintroducing a bill today that I believe will go a long way to reducing the cost of prescription drugs. The Medicare Prescription Drugs Savings and Choice Act instructs the Secretary of HHS to offer a nationwide Medicare-delivered prescription drug benefit in addition to the current PDP and PPO plans available in the 10 regions. It instructs the Secretary of HHS to set a uniform national premium of $35 for the first year, and it instructs the Secretary of HHS to negotiate group purchasing agreements on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

This is the way to lower the costs of drugs. I am honored that my proposal, the legislation which I am introducing, has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, Campaign for America's Future, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Consumers Union, Families USA, and a host of other groups. It is an indication to me that they know, for their membership and seniors and Americans in general, this legislation is going to be an important step forward.

I invite my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation so we can bring the cost of drugs within the reach of senior citizens and keep a prescription drug program that is affordable.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the next generation of Hispanic Serving Institutions legislation. This legislation is critical if we, as a Nation, are going to continue to compete in a global economy. Education is the key to building a strong and dynamic economy, and therefore, it is our obligation to ensure quality educational opportunities for all Americans. That is why I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Hutchison, the Next Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions Act of 2005. This legislation is supported by the Hispanic Education Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of national organizations dedicated to improving educational opportunities for more than 40 million Hispanics living in the United States, including groups like National Council of La Raza, HACU, and MALDEF. Senators Bill Nelson and Clinton have joined in this effort as cosponsors.

According to Census Bureau data, Hispanic population in the United States grew by 25.7 million between 1970 and 2000 and continues to grow at a very brisk pace. The most recent census data puts the Hispanic population at over 40 million, representing approximately 14 percent of the U.S. population and making it the Nation's largest minority group. Estimates project that the Hispanic population will grow by 25 million between 2000 and 2020. By the year 2050, 1 in 4 Americans will be of Hispanic origin.

Currently, Hispanics make up about 13 percent of the U.S. labor force. While the overall labor force is projected to slow down over the next decades as an increasing number of workers reach retirement age, the Hispanic labor force is expected to continue growing at a fast pace. It will expand by nearly 10 million workers between now and 2020, through a combination of immigration and native-born youth reaching working age.

Our Nation's economic and social success rests, in large part, on the level of skills and knowledge attained by our Hispanic population.

I was one of the authors and lead supporters of the original Hispanic Serving Institutions proposal when it was enacted as part of the Higher Education Act in 1992 in order to increase educational opportunities for Hispanic students. Since then, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs, have made significant strides in increasing the number of Hispanic students enrolling in and graduating from college. Although Hispanic- serving institutions account for only 5 percent of all institutions of higher education in the United States,

HSIs enroll over half, 51 percent, of all Hispanics pursuing higher education degrees in the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

While Hispanic high school graduates go on to college at higher rates than they did even ten years ago, Hispanics still lag behind their non- Hispanic peers in postsecondary school enrollment. In 2000, only 21.7 percent of all Hispanics ages 18 through 24 were enrolled in postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the United States.

We must take HSIs to the next level. While the percentage of Hispanics attending college has increased significantly over the past few years, Hispanic students are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges, and are much less likely to finish college than their non- Hispanic peers. In 2001, only slightly more than 1 in 10 Hispanics ages 25 years and over had received a bachelor's degree or higher.

According to the Department of Education, in 2000, Hispanics only earned 6 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded, 4 percent of all master's degrees, and only 3 percent of all doctorates. But the pace of bachelor's degrees or higher earned by Hispanics is accelerating rapidly, according to the Department of Education. Therefore, we must keep pace. We must increase the capacity of our institutions of higher education to serve the increasing number of Hispanic students.

The Next Generation HSI bill does just that. Simply, this legislation will improve educational opportunities for Hispanic students by establishing a competitive grant program to expand post-baccalaureate degree opportunities at HSIs, and by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome administrative requirements HSIs must contend with.

Current law only provides support for 2-year and 4-year Hispanic Serving Institutions. This legislation will support graduate fellowships and support services for graduate students, facilities improvement, faculty development, technology and distance education, and collaborative arrangements with other institutions. This legislation will build capacity and establish a long overdue graduate program for HSIs.

In addition, current law places a number of unnecessary, burdensome administrative and regulatory barriers at the gates of our HSIs. If our goal is to increase educational opportunities for all students, and particularly Hispanic students, then we must eliminate bureaucratic barriers that impede access.

Accordingly, this legislation removes a 2-year period in which HSIs must wait before becoming eligible to apply for another grant under title V of the Higher Education Act. This 2-year wait out period obstructs the efforts of many HSIs to implement continuing programs and conduct long range planning. As a result, many HSIs cannot maintain continuity in educational programming. We should be creating opportunities to improve the quality of education, and eliminating this wait-out period is a step in the right direction.

In addition, this bill eliminates another onerous requirement on HSIs that other minority-serving institutions are not required to follow. Currently, in order to be eligible as an HSI, the institution must serve ``needy students''--meaning at least 50 percent of the degree students are receiving Federal need-based assistance or the institution's percentage of Pell Grant recipients exceeds the median percentage for similar institutions receiving Pell Grants. Also, to be eligible, 25 percent of the full time, undergraduate population must be Hispanic. However, unlike other grant programs in the Higher Education Act, HSIs must also show that 50 percent of the Hispanic population is low income.

This last requirement is particularly burdensome, as it is duplicative and unfair, and, in many cases, prevents HSIs from providing vital educational services to Hispanic students. This provision requires the institutions to collect information and data that is not readily available or easily acquirable. It requires the schools to come up with data beyond what is required for financial aid purposes. Further, there is no other requirement in Federal law for institutions to collect this type of data. As a result, many institutions with large Hispanic student populations must divert critical resources and staff to acquire this information, or they simply do not qualify as an HSI.

To ensure that the institution continues to serve low-income students, the Next Generation HSI Act maintains the requirement that the institution serve needy students, but eliminates the additional requirement that the school demonstrate that 50 percent of its Hispanic students are low-income. The elimination of this requirement will ease the administrative burdens placed on our schools, and further our goals of increasing access and improving quality.

Finally, this bill facilitates the transition of Hispanic students from 2-year colleges to 4-year colleges. As I noted earlier, Hispanics are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges as compared to their non-Hispanic peers. To encourage and support these students' continued education, this legislation adds as an authorized activity programs that assist a student's transfer from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution.

Hispanic students now account for nearly 17 percent of the total kindergarten through grade 12 student population. Estimates project that this student population will grow from 11 million in 2005 to 16 million in 2020. We must provide our institutions of higher education with the resources and flexibility they need to build capacity and serve the increasing Hispanic student population. We must be ready for the next generation of students to meet the demands of a competitive workforce and to fully participate in the global economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues and cosponsors Senators Jay Rockefeller and Richard Lugar as we introduce the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005. Senators Rockefeller and Collins, along with Senator Wyden, sponsored legislation with similar goals in the past and have provided invaluable support and counsel in drafting the bill we introduce today.

The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005 has a simple purpose: to encourage all adults in America, especially those 65 and older, to think about, talk about and write down their wishes for medical care near the end of life should they become unable to make decisions for themselves. Advance directives, which include a living will stating the individual's preferences for care, and a power of attorney for health care, are critical documents that each of us should have. The goal is clear, but reaching it requires that we educate the public about the importance of advance directives, offer opportunities for discussion of the issues, and reinforce the requirement that health care providers honor patients' wishes. This bill is designed to do just that.

Americans are afraid of death. We don't like to think about it, talk about it, or plan for it. And yet, we will all face it. Not only our own deaths, but our parents, siblings, friends, and sometimes, tragically, children. Today, most Americans face death unprepared. Family members frequently end up making critical medical decisions for incapacitated patients, yet they, too, are unprepared. Only 15-20 percent of adults have advance directives. Among this group, many have not discussed the contents of these important documents with their families or even the person named as the health care proxy.

It is time to bring this discussion into the mainstream. Too much is at stake to continue to deny our mortality. You all know about the tragic situation going on in Florida with Terri Schiavo. Here is a young woman in a persistent vegetative state who is the subject of a debate about her treatment between her husband and her parents, a debate that has been a court case and a legislative quagmire. Why? Because she didn't write down what type of care she would want in the event an accident, illness or other medical condition caused her to be in an incapacitated state. She is young and didn't think about death or dying. If she had an advance directive that made her wishes clear and named a health care proxy to make decisions for her should she be unable to do so for herself, the treatment debate might continue, but there would be no question as to who could decide. The Supreme Court has clearly affirmed that competent adults have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, Washington v. Glucksburg and Vacco v. Quill, 1997, but it also stressed that advance directives are a means of safeguarding that right should adults become incapable of deciding for themselves.

Fortunately, situations like Ms. Schiavo's are rare. Of the 2.5 million people who die each year 83 percent are Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, 27 percent of Medicare expenditures cover care in the last year of life. Remember, everyone who enrolls in Medicare will die on Medicare. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act encourages all Medicare beneficiaries to prepare advance directives by providing a free physician office visit for the purpose of discussing end-of-life care choices and other issues around medical decision- making in a time of incapacitation. Physicians will be reimbursed for spending time with their patients to help them understand situations in which an advance directive would be useful, medical options, the Medicare hospice benefit and other concerns. The conversation will also enable physicians to learn about their patients' wishes, fears, religious beliefs, and life experiences that might influence their medical care wishes. These are important aspects of a physician-patient relationship that are too often unaddressed.

Another part of our bill will provide funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of the importance of planning for care near the end of life. This campaign would explain what advance directives are, where they are available, what questions need to be asked and answered, and what to do with the executed documents. HHS, directly or through grants, would also establish an information clearinghouse where consumers could receive state-specific information and consumer- friendly documents and publications.

State-specific information is needed because in addition to the federal Patients Self Determination Act passed in 1990, most states also have enacted advance directive laws. Because the state laws differ, some states may be reluctant to honor advance directives that were executed in another state. The bill we introduce today contains language that would make all advance directives ``portable,'' that is, useful from one state to another. As long as the documents were lawfully executed in the state of origin, they must be accepted and honored in the state in which they are presented, unless to do so would violate state law.

All of the provisions in the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005 are there for one reason: to increase the number of people in the United States who have advance directives, who have discussed their wishes with their physicians and families, and who have given copies of the directives to their loved ones, health care providers, and legal representatives.

This new Medicare benefit and education campaign will also lead to a reduction in litigation costs. By encouraging advance directives, cases like Ms. Schiavo's would be less frequent; therefore the long and costly litigation surrounding these unfortunate situations would be reduced.

Senators Rockefeller, Lugar and I all believe that as our Medicare population grows and life expectancy lengthens, improving care near the end of life must be a priority. Helping people complete these critical documents is an essential part of making the final journey as meaningful and peaceful as possible. In addition, there are growing numbers of health care providers, nonprofit organizations and consumer advocates who recognize the need for change. New palliative care programs, pain protocols and hospice services are being instituted in facilities around the country.

This body is a legislative institution not a medical one--with the exceptions of the distinguished Majority Leader and Senator Coburn, of course. We cannot legislate good medical care or compassion. What we can do, what I hope we will do, is to enact this bill so that the American public can participate in improving end-of-life care--first, by filling out their own advance directives and talking to their families about them; and by raising their voices to demand that our health care systems honor their wishes and improve the way they care for people who are near the end of life. If we can do that, we will have done a great deal.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 352, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act. This legislation, which I'm proud to cosponsor, would provide emergency relief to thousands of small and seasonal businesses across the country, many of which are significant employers in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Virginia, Senator George Allen. I particularly would like to thank Senator Barbara Mikulski and Senator Judd Gregg, the sponsors of this bipartisan bill, for their leadership in this area.

Our legislation is simple. It makes common-sense reforms to our H-2B visa program that will allow our small and seasonal companies an opportunity to remain open for business. Without these modifications, these employers will continue to struggle in their efforts to find the necessary employees to keep their businesses running.

The H-2B visa program is designed to allow nonagricultural businesses to supplement their workforce with non-immigrant workers when American workers cannot be found. The cap is set at 66,000 per fiscal year, which begins on October 1 of each year. Employers can only apply for a visa 120 days before the work is needed.

For each of the last two years, this statutory cap was reached soon after the fiscal year began. In 2004, the cap was reached on March 20. As a result, many businesses, mostly summer employers, were unable to obtain the temporary workers they needed because the cap was filled prior to the day they could even apply for the visas.

Consequently, these businesses sustained significant economic losses.

This year the H-2B visa cap was reached on January 3, 2005. Now, even more businesses, especially in the seafood industry which has a long history in Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay, are susceptible to significant losses.

The hardships in these and other businesses are very real. Many in the seafood industry in Virginia have come to my office, looked me straight in the eye, and told me that their businesses aren't going to make it another year if something isn't done. Only through passage of this legislation can this detrimental cycle be interrupted and these business can be saved.

There are three main criticisms of this program which I am certain some will raise: these H-2B workers are taking jobs away from Americans; automation of these jobs makes H-2B workers unnecessary; and finally, these workers come into the U.S. under the guise of returning home after they've finished, but they never do. In my view, these criticisms of the H-2B program simply do not reflect the reality.

Believe me, I am a strong supporter of efforts to help those Americans who want to work get the skills they need to be successful in the workforce. But these H-2B workers are not taking jobs from Americans, they are filling in the gaps left vacant by Americans that don't want them. The jobs we are talking about here are seasonal, labor intensive, and require a certain amount of skill, mainly in the areas of oyster and crab harvesting, seafood processing, landscaping, reforestation, and seasonal resorts and other hospitality services.

Furthermore, most of these jobs cannot be automated. What kind of machine will you use to fully landscape a yard, to arrange and plant flowers? Some in the seafood industry already tried to automate parts of crab harvesting, but it was a complete failure. The machines failed to remove most of the bits of crab shells from the meat, and the consumers flat out rejected it.

As for the criticism that these temporary workers won't leave, a long review of the management of this program reveals otherwise. The employers have successfully ensured that the workers return to their home country. If they don't, employers aren't able to participate in the program next year, and neither are the workers. Most consulates in their home countries require the workers to present themselves personally to prove that they have returned home.

The future success of the H-2B visa program rests on the ability of businesses to participate in it, but right now, many will be denied access to the program for the second year in a row. The bill introduced today helps fix this problem by focusing on three main objectives to help make the H-2B program more effective and more fair.

First, the bill will reward good workers and employers by exempting from the cap H-2B workers who have participated in the program successfully in one of the past three years. These are companies and employees that have faithfully abided by the law, and they have a successful track record of working together.

Second, the bill will make sure that the government agencies processing the H-2B visas have the resources they need to detect and prevent fraud. Starting on October 1, 2005, employers participating in the program will pay an additional fee that will be placed in a Fraud Prevention and Detection account. The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Labor can use these funds to educate and train their employees to prevent and detect fraudulent visas.

Finally, the bill implements a visa allocation system that is fair for all employers. Half of the 66,000 visas will be reserved for employers needing workers in the winter and the other half will be reserved for companies needing workers for the summer. This provision allows both winter employers and summer employers an equal chance to obtain the workers they desperately need.

These seasonal businesses just can't find enough American workers to meet their business needs. And ultimately, that is why this program is so important. Without Americans to fill these jobs, these businesses need to be able to participate in the H-2B program. The current system isn't treating small and seasonal businesses fairly and must be reformed if we want these employers to stay in business.

In closing, I strongly support this legislation, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join with me to help these small and seasonal businesses by passing this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, there are many issues we confront these days that are significant and serious. I wanted to bring one to the attention of the Chamber as I introduce legislation.

I send a bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral on behalf of myself and Senator Clinton.

Mr. President, this legislation deals with trade. Let me describe what was announced this morning by the administration.

Last year's trade deficit was $618 billion. You can see from this chart what has happened in the last 8 or 9 years. Our trade deficit has gone in the red by a dramatic amount, ending up at $618 billion for 2004.

What does that mean? That means we purchased from other countries $618 billion worth of goods more than we sold to other countries. In other words, every single day, 7 days a week, $1.8 billion leaves this country and goes into foreign hands to pay for goods that we purchased from abroad.

As a result, foreign entities have $2.5 trillion worth of claims against our assets, our property, our stocks, and our assets. We are, with our trade policies, selling America.

With China alone, we have a $161 billion trade deficit. This is unbelievably out of balance. We purchase China's trinkets, trousers, shirts, and shoes. Now they're making plans to ship Chinese automobiles to this country.

By the way, as I told my colleagues before, in the last trade agreement with China we agreed they could charge a tariff on imported U.S. cars which is 10 times higher than the tariff we can charge on Chinese cars sold in the United States.

Who did that? I don't know; some trade negotiator.

It is the same old story with cars from China, cars from Korea, wheat to China, beef to Japan. It is the same old story.

I mentioned to my colleagues many times what Will Rogers said in the 1930s: ``The United States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference.'' He said we can't send negotiators to Costa Rica and come back with our shirts on. He surely must have been thinking about the people who had been negotiating trade agreements that resulted in these kinds of deficits.

Now our trade deficit on a yearly basis is over 5 percent of our gross domestic product. Who holds this debt? Japan holds $715 billion of asset claims against our country, and China, $191 billion.

Does anybody think this is healthy for our country? This kind of trade deficit and combined trade debt is going to injure America's future economic growth and continue to accelerate the movement of U.S. jobs overseas. That is what is behind all of these numbers.

American corporations in recent decades have discovered that you can move technology and capital at the speed of light. And they have discovered there are a billion people in other parts of the world who are willing to work for 30 cents an hour. When you can ship technology and capital to someone overseas willing to work for 30 cents an hour, you begin to hollow out the manufacturing sector in this country.

The news this morning of the largest trade deficit in the history of this country is sober news. This town will sleep through it once again. The White House will sleep through it, and so will the Congress. It doesn't matter much to most people.

We have a debt limit in this country that says once the government borrows a certain amount, we have to have a debate, and vote on it. Otherwise, you can't go any further.

But there is no trade debt limit. Whatever the trade debt is, it is. Katy bar the door, no matter how high it is. There is no requirement to do anything about it.

The legislation I introduced, along with my colleague Senator Clinton, will establish a trade debt limit and a trade deficit limit. When the trade deficit exceeds 5 percent of our gross domestic product, then it requires certain things. It is an alarm clock that requires the administration's trade review group to have an emergency meeting, and within 45 days the administration and the trade ambassador have to submit to Congress a plan to reduce the trade deficit.

Somebody someplace, someday, some way has to decide the current situation can't continue. This is all about jobs and future economic opportunity. This is real, and it is immediate. And we have to do something about it.

That is why we have introduced this legislation. This country has been in a deep sleep about an abiding trade problem in which we link with other countries in bilateral agreements. In almost every case these are not mutually beneficial. Instead, the agreements are beneficial to them and detrimental to us. Yet, we have people on street corners chanting ``free trade.''

I think trade is fine, I think fair trade is important, and I think expanding trade is valuable. But I believe free trade, if it means a trade agreement which undercuts this country's ability to compete, free trade which pulls the rug out from under our workers, and establishes conditions under which we cannot compete, is wrong for this country.

I will not go through again the list of issues of potato flakes going to Korea, beef to Japan, wheat to China. I could go through dozens of them. I will not do that again today. My point is that at some point somebody has to have the backbone and the will and the nerve to stand up for this country's economic interests. That has not been done for a long while. It needs to be done now because this trade deficit has reached crisis proportions.

One final chart: Some said that last month the trade deficit was actually a little better than the month before. This is a town of warped reality on a lot of issues. Let me describe what has happened to our trade deficit month by month since 1998. It does not take a sharp eye to see what is happening.

This trade deficit is growing. It is dangerous. It is harmful to the long-term economic interests of this country. We have to do something about it.