Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to discuss an amendment, amendment No. 936, which I have filed to this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following Senators as cosponsors of this amendment: Senator Baucus, Senator Leahy, and Senator Lincoln.

Mr. President, let me begin by commending the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, for introducing S. 761, the America COMPETES Act, and bringing it to the floor, along with the minority leader, Senator McConnell, Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici, and a number of other Senators in a true spirit of bipartisanship.

There is no question the Congress has to do a better job in making sure the United States is able to compete in the global economy. The America COMPETES Act will begin to accomplish this important undertaking by doubling the investment in basic research at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science in the next 5 to 10 years.

I am also pleased this bill will improve teacher training in math and science and help low-income students succeed in college preparatory courses. I applaud these provisions and thank my colleagues for working on this important piece of legislation.

But in my opinion, if we truly want to provide the tools necessary for American workers to compete in the global economy, much more needs to be done. That is why I will be offering this amendment, which I hope will attract bipartisan support.

This amendment is simple and it is straightforward. At a time when the United States has lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs, at a time when we are on the cusp of losing millions more of high-paying information technology jobs, this amendment would begin to reverse that trend by providing employees with the resources they need to own their own businesses through employee stock ownership plans and eligible worker-owned cooperatives.

Specifically, this amendment would authorize $100 million to create a U.S. employee ownership competitiveness fund within the Department of Commerce to provide loans, loan guarantees, technical assistance, and grants to expand employee ownership throughout this country.

Why is it so important for the Senate to provide incentives to expand employee ownership in this country? The answer is pretty simple: Employee ownership is one of the keys to creating a sustainable economy with jobs that pay a living wage. This amendment has the strong support of the ESOP Association, a nonprofit organization serving approximately 2,500 employee stock ownership plans throughout the country. Let me quote from a letter they recently sent to my office:

Your amendment is a modest first step in awakening our

government to the fact that in the 21st Century the inclusion

of employees as owners of the companies where they work in a

meaningful manner should be a key component of any national

competitiveness program. If the Senate adopts your amendment

and it eventually becomes law, we assure you that the ESOP

community will work constructively to ensure that the loan

and grant program you propose works effectively to benefit

the employee owners, the employee-owned companies, and our

American economy.

The concept of an ESOP or a worker-owned company is not a radical idea.

Not only are there some 11,000 ESOPs in our country, but there are some major corporations that everybody is very familiar with, including Procter & Gamble and Anheuser-Busch, that are also ESOPs.

Interestingly, the Tribune Company, one of the major publishers in America, is in the process of becoming a 60-percent employee-owned company.

Every day we read in the papers about plants that are being moved to China, Mexico, and a number of other low-wage countries. Since a number of these factories were making profits, they were doing well in the United States. Shutting them down was unnecessary and could have been avoided if these plants were sold to their employees through ESOPs, or worker-owned cooperatives. In other words, in my State, the State of Vermont, and throughout this country, there are companies, large and small, that are making a profit where owners--who may be retiring, who started a company and now they are retiring--want to be able to leave their companies to their employees if these workers had the resources, if they had the technical assistance and legal advice to know how to put together that transaction--which in many cases is pretty complicated.

Further, study after study has shown when employees own their own companies, when they work for themselves, when they are involved in the decisionmaking that impacts their jobs, workers become more motivated, absenteeism goes down, worker productivity goes up, and people stay on the job for a longer period of time because they are proud of and involved with what they are doing.

Most important to the communities throughout this country is when workers own the place in which they work, shock of all shocks, they are not going to shut it down and move the plant to China.

Since 2000, the U.S. manufacturing sector has lost 3.2 million good- paying manufacturing jobs. Put another way, since President Bush was elected President, this country has seen one out of every six factory jobs disappear--one out of every six.

In addition, the Associated Press recently reported a study by Moody's which found: ``16 percent of the nation's 379 metropolitan areas are in recession, reflecting primarily the troubles in manufacturing.''

I suspect this problem is even worse in rural areas in my own small State of Vermont. We have lost about 20 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the last 5 years. Let me give an example of some of the jobs we have been losing as a country and why, in fact, we need to be competitive and why, in fact, we need to encourage ESOPs and worker- owned industry. From 2001 to 2006, the United States of America has experienced a loss of 42 percent of our communication equipment jobs, 37 percent of our jobs have been lost in the manufacture of semiconductors and electronic components, 43 percent of our textile jobs have disappeared, and about half of our apparel jobs have vanished.

Not only are we losing good-paying manufacturing jobs, we are also losing high-paying information technology jobs.

While the loss of manufacturing jobs has been well documented, it may come as a surprise to some that from January of 2001 to January of 2006, the information sector of the American economy lost over 640,000 jobs, or more than 17 percent of its workforce.

The trends there are pretty ominous. Alan Blinder, the former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has recently concluded that between 30 million to 40 million jobs in the United States are vulnerable to overseas outsourcing over the next 10 to 20 years. While, of course, we have to invest in math and science, of course, we have to educate our students as best we can, we cannot ignore the significant impact globalization is having on our blue-collar factory jobs and on our white-collar information technology jobs.

Today there are some 11,000 employee stock ownership plans, hundreds of worker-owned cooperatives, and thousands of other companies with some form of employee ownership. Many of them are thriving. In fact, employee ownership has been proven to increase employment, increase productivity, increase sales, and increase wages in the United States. Yet despite the important role that worker ownership can play in revitalizing our economy, the Federal Government has failed to commit the resources needed to allow employee ownership to realize its true potential, and that is why this amendment is so important.

While this issue may be new to this bill, I have actually been working on it for several years. In the House, when I was the ranking member of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, I was able to hold a hearing on this issue nearly 4 years ago and we had some wonderful testimony.

I fear in the next 10 to 20 years, if we do not change course, there will not be a major automobile industry in this country. We must not allow that to happen. We must protect good-paying jobs in this country. I believe employee ownership may be one of the ways we can keep good- paying jobs in America.

Let me conclude by saying in my opinion it would be much more important to provide this assistance to employees who could be creating and retaining jobs right here in the United States by the expansion of employee ownership. This is a very important issue. There is a lot of excitement all over the country about it. Let us protect American jobs. Let us give working people in this country the opportunity to own the places in which they are working. Let us make this country more economically competitive. I very much hope my colleagues will be supporting this amendment when it is offered.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Clean Power Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. This legislation is modeled after legislation spearheaded by my predecessor and ardent protector of the environment and the public health, Senator Jim Jeffords. I am proud to sit on the Environment and Public Works Committee that was under his leadership for a time, and I am also honored to be a member of another Committee of significant importance, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The Clean Power Act of 2007 gets to a problem on the minds of those in the northeast, who suffer insults to their health and their environment in the form of dirty air and polluted lakes, as well as those all across the country who want to see power plants shape up their act. This legislation will help clean the air and reduce global warming pollution by dramatically reducing the four major pollutants emitted by power plants--carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and mercury.

Congress must work toward an economy-wide approach to addressing global warming, along the lines of the legislation I introduced with Senator Boxer and others: S. 309, the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. However, power plants should begin reducing their greenhouse gas emissions now, at the same time they are reducing emissions of other air pollutants. The Clean Power Act of 2007 would set this process in motion by using a cap and trade approach for reducing carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide emissions. Additionally, the legislation makes specific linkages to an economy- wide reduction of pollutants responsible for global warming by specifying that if Congress has not passed, and the President has not signed, legislation affecting at least 85 percent of manmade sources of global warming pollutants by 2012, that the emissions from power plants must be decreased each year by 3 percent until atmospheric concentrations of global warming pollutants are stabilized at 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent. So, while I am putting forward this power plant only bill today, let it be clear that I remain firm in my belief that we must tackle the problem of global warming in a way that will actually make a difference to the future of the planet.

I am happy to be joined in introducing this legislation by Senator Lieberman, Senator Leahy, and Senator Feingold. Additionally, I am glad to have the support of many national organizations, including the Clean Air Task Force, National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, National Environmental Trust, the American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, and U.S. PIRG.

As we move forward to address global warming and to protect current and future generations, dealing with power plant emissions is a good start. I look forward to gaining the support of my colleagues on this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Clean Power Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. This legislation is modeled after legislation spearheaded by my predecessor and ardent protector of the environment and the public health, Senator Jim Jeffords. I am proud to sit on the Environment and Public Works Committee that was under his leadership for a time, and I am also honored to be a member of another Committee of significant importance, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The Clean Power Act of 2007 gets to a problem on the minds of those in the northeast, who suffer insults to their health and their environment in the form of dirty air and polluted lakes, as well as those all across the country who want to see power plants shape up their act. This legislation will help clean the air and reduce global warming pollution by dramatically reducing the four major pollutants emitted by power plants--carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and mercury.

Congress must work toward an economy-wide approach to addressing global warming, along the lines of the legislation I introduced with Senator Boxer and others: S. 309, the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. However, power plants should begin reducing their greenhouse gas emissions now, at the same time they are reducing emissions of other air pollutants. The Clean Power Act of 2007 would set this process in motion by using a cap and trade approach for reducing carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide emissions. Additionally, the legislation makes specific linkages to an economy- wide reduction of pollutants responsible for global warming by specifying that if Congress has not passed, and the President has not signed, legislation affecting at least 85 percent of manmade sources of global warming pollutants by 2012, that the emissions from power plants must be decreased each year by 3 percent until atmospheric concentrations of global warming pollutants are stabilized at 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent. So, while I am putting forward this power plant only bill today, let it be clear that I remain firm in my belief that we must tackle the problem of global warming in a way that will actually make a difference to the future of the planet.

I am happy to be joined in introducing this legislation by Senator Lieberman, Senator Leahy, and Senator Feingold. Additionally, I am glad to have the support of many national organizations, including the Clean Air Task Force, National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, National Environmental Trust, the American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, and U.S. PIRG.

As we move forward to address global warming and to protect current and future generations, dealing with power plant emissions is a good start. I look forward to gaining the support of my colleagues on this important legislation.

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

I ask consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, we hear much from the Bush administration and our Republican friends, almost on a daily basis, about how wonderfully our economy is doing. I recall not so long ago being at a Budget Committee hearing when we heard the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Paulson, indicating in fact that the economy is doing ``just marvelous.''

Yet, for obvious reasons, the American people do not seem to agree with the Bush administration or with our Republican friends as to how well the economy is doing. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record segments of two polls that were recently released, one by CBS News and one by Gallup.

When the American people were asked by CBS News the question, ``Do you think the economy is getting better, getting worse or staying about the same?'' 11 percent of the American people said the economy is getting better, 44 percent thought it was getting worse, and 44 percent thought it was about the same.

Then, interestingly, in that same poll, when the American people were asked by CBS the question, ``Over the past 10 years, do you think life for middle class Americans has gotten better or worse?'' 30 percent said life has gotten better, 59 percent, almost a 2-to-1 margin, said life is getting worse, and 7 percent said the same.

Technology has exploded in recent years. Our workers are far more productive than used to be the case. Yet by a 2-to-1 margin the American people have said that life for the middle class is getting worse, not better.

In terms of the Gallup Poll, the Gallup people, from April 2 to April 5, asked some very interesting questions that we very often do not speak about here on the floor of the Senate. In my view, what we have seen since President Bush has been in office, in a general sense, is the shrinking of the middle class, an increase in poverty, and a growing gap between the rich and the poor--not something we talk about terribly often on the floor of the Senate, not something that is talked about terribly often in the corporate media. But here is the question, very interestingly, that Gallup asked the American people, between April 2 and April 5: ``Do you feel that the distribution of money and wealth in this country today is fair, or do you feel that the money and wealth in this country should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people?'' Answer: Distribution is fair, 29 percent; should be more evenly distributed, 66 percent.

Then the next question they asked, which was rather a clumsy question, I thought, and I was surprised by the answer, but this was the question. Question: ``People feel differently about how far a government should go. Here is a phrase which some people believe in and some don't. Do you think our Government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?''

That is a pretty clumsy question. Do you know what the answer was to that rather clumsy question? Yes, should redistribute wealth, 49 percent; no, should not, 47 percent.

I mention this poll because it is important to understand that despite a lot of the rhetoric we hear from the White House and on the floor of the Senate, the American people understand that in terms of our economy, something is fundamentally wrong. They understand it because they are living the experience of working longer hours for lower wages; of working day after day, trying to pay the bills for their family, trying to send their kids to college, trying to take care of health care, trying to provide childcare for their kids. They know the reality of the economy because they are the economy.

Every single day the people of our country are seeing an economy which is forcing them in many instances to work longer hours for lower wages, an economy in which they wonder how their kids are going to be able to go to college, able to afford college; an economy in which they worry that for the first time in the modern history of our country, their children will see a lower standard of living than they do. That is the reality of the economy, in the eyes, I believe, of millions of American workers.

That perception that the American worker has of the economy is, in my view, the correct perception of what is going on. Since George W. Bush has been President, more than 5 million Americans have slipped into poverty, including 1 million children. This country now has the very dubious distinction of having by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major industrialized country on Earth. How do you have a great economy, a booming economy, when 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty? Median income has declined in our country for 5 years in a row. Americans understand that the economy is not doing well when the personal savings rate is below zero, which has not happened since the Great Depression. How do we talk about a strong economy when 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance since President Bush has been in office, and when we now have, unbelievably, 47 million Americans who have no health insurance at all?

How can anybody come to the floor of the Senate, or anybody in the Bush administration talk about a strong economy, when we have 47 million Americans who have no health insurance at all; when 35 million Americans in our country, the richest country in the history of the world, struggled to put food on the table last year; and the number of the poorest, most hungry Americans keeps getting larger? The American people understand this is not an economy that is working for ordinary people. In this economy today, more and more of our brothers and sisters, our fellow Americans, are going hungry. Let's not talk about a booming economy when we have children in America who are hungry.

Mr. President, you and I have heard, over and over again, people talking about the importance of education for this country. Yet millions of working families do not know how they are going to be able to send their kids to college when the cost of college education is soaring, when the average person graduating a 4-year college leaves that school $20,000 in debt, when hundreds of thousands of young people are now giving up the dream of going to college because they don't want to come out deeply in debt? How do we talk about a booming economy when so many of our young people, some of the brightest, most able of our young people, are giving up the dream of going to college? How do you compete on the international and global economy if so many of our young people are not able to get the kind of education they need?

When we talk about a booming economy, how does that correlate with the fact that our manufacturing infrastructure is falling apart, that since President Bush has been in office we have lost over 3 million good manufacturing jobs, and when people go out to the store to shop, when they look at the product, they know where that product is manufactured today? It is not manufactured in the United States. Over and over again they see it is manufactured in China.

We have a trade deficit now of over $700 billion. In my small State of Vermont, not a manufacturing center, we lost 20 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the last 5 years and that phenomenon is going on all over this country. How do you have a booming economy when we are losing huge numbers of good-paying manufacturing jobs and we are on the cusp of losing millions of good-paying, white-collar information technology jobs?

Three million fewer American workers today have pension coverage than when President Bush took office. Half of private sector American workers have no pension coverage whatsoever. How does that speak to a strong economy? It was not so many years ago that workers understood that when they left their job, there would be a defined pension available to them. They knew what they were getting. Today, those days seem like ancient history. Fewer and fewer workers have solid pensions on which to depend.

What is important to understand is, while poverty is increasing, while the middle class is shrinking, while more and more people are losing their health insurance, while hunger is growing in America, while good-paying jobs are going to China, the truth is not all is bad in the American economy. We have to acknowledge that. Are there some people who in fact are doing well? The answer is yes. Today, the simple truth is the top 1 percent of the families in our country have not had it so good since the 1920s. When that poll I mentioned from Gallup talks about the American people wanting to seek an understanding of the unfair distribution of wealth, this is precisely what they are referring to.

Today in the United States we have by far the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on Earth. Let me highlight very briefly a recent study done by Professor Emmanuel Saez from the University of California-Berkeley and Professor Thomas Piketty from the Paris School of Economics. This is what they found. In 2005, while average incomes for the bottom 90 percent of Americans declined by $172, the wealthiest one one-hundredth of 1 percent reported an average income of $25.7 million, a 1-year increase of $4.4 million.

In other words, for the people at the very top, a huge increase in their income, while 90 percent of the American people saw a decline. The gap between the rich and the poor, the rich and the middle class, continues to grow wider.

The top 1 percent of Americans received, in 2005, the largest share of national income since 1928. And some people may remember what happened in 1929. The top 300,000 Americans now earn nearly as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans combined.

You and I have heard many of our friends here on the other side of the aisle talk about how much the wealthy are paying in taxes. My, my, my. Yet the reason for that is what we are seeing is, with the decline of the middle class, a huge increase in the percentage of the income being made by the people on top. Let me repeat it. The top 300,000 Americans now earn nearly as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Is that the kind of country we really want to become, with so few having so much and so many having so little? I do not think that is the America most people want to see us evolve into, an oligarchic form of society. That is wrong.

According to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $120 billion last year to $1.25 trillion--$1.25 trillion for the wealthiest 400 Americans. That is an astounding number. The reality is that in America today, we have the people on the top who have more income, in some cases, than they are going to be able to spend in a thousand lifetimes, while people in Vermont, people in Ohio, people in Minnesota, people all over our country are struggling so hard to provide basic needs for their families.

One of the reasons the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider and why we now have by far the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country is due to the passage of massive tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires since President Bush has been in office.

Now, you stop and you take a look at the needs of the people of our country in the most basic sense.

Hunger is increasing. Well, what do we think? Should we eliminate hunger in America or do you give tax breaks to billionaires? I don't think too many people would disagree with what we should be doing.

We have a crisis in affordable childcare in America. We have single moms, working families, both parents going to work, trying to provide well for their 2-year-old, 3-year-old. They cannot provide affordable childcare. The Federal Government provides totally inadequate childcare. Do we increase funding for childcare or do we give tax breaks to millionaires?

We are all aware of the scandal at Walter Reed Hospital. We are all aware of the outrageously inadequate way we treat our veterans, men and women who put their lives on the line defending this country. Yet when they come home from Iraq, there is inadequate care at the hospital at Walter Reed and inadequate care and waiting lines at VA hospitals all over America. What is our priority? Do we take care of our veterans or do we give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires?

In America, millions of children do not have any health insurance. What are our priorities?

People are paying 50 percent of their limited income for housing because we are not building affordable housing. What are our priorities?

We have a major crisis in global warming. We should be investing in sustainable energy, energy efficiency, not giving tax breaks to billionaires. What are our priorities?

Let me conclude by saying that I think the American people, on issue after issue, are far ahead of where we are in Congress. So we are going to have to work very hard to catch up to where the American people are. I think we should begin the process of doing that.

We need to fundamentally change our national priorities. We have to have the courage now to stand up to the wealthiest people and the largest corporations and say to those people: The free ride is over.

Our job is to represent the middle class, working families, the lower income people who are not getting justice from the Congress. When we stand and do the right thing for the middle class and working families of this country, I believe we are going to see a significant increase in the respect this body receives.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will be very brief.

Pursuant to the agreement reached last night, I call up an amendment I have at the desk, Sanders amendment No. 737, as modified by No. 808.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is a bipartisan amendment cosponsored by Senators Sununu, Bingaman, Menendez, Kerry, Harkin, Dodd, Wyden, and Clinton. It is also strongly supported by the AARP.

This modification, which has the bipartisan support of the Appropriations Committee, would partially restore funding for weatherization programs. The amendment does not use new money. It simply instructs the Department of Energy to use its fiscal year 2007 appropriations to increase the amount it will spend on weatherization by $25 million over its current plan.

I think all of my colleagues know the weatherization program is important for a number of reasons. First, when people have a limited amount of money, it is absurd that their scarce resources simply go up into the air because they do not have the money to adequately insulate their walls or their roofs.

Secondly, if we are serious about global warming, we had better move toward energy efficiency. We are wasting huge amounts of energy by seeing people living in homes with inadequate weatherization.

I would ask strong support from my colleagues for this amendment.

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

Madam President, I would like to briefly discuss amendment No. 808 which will be voted upon tomorrow. This amendment deals with a very serious problem facing our country; that is, we have millions of low-income Americans who lack the resources to properly weatherize their homes.

I know, coming from a cold-weather State such as Vermont, this is a very serious problem. It gets cold in Vermont, sometimes 20 or 30 below zero. It is a real shame we have people who simply lack the financial resources to put in the proper insulation, roofing material, windows, doors to keep heat from literally disappearing. The result of that is low-income people are forced to pay a higher and higher heating bill, at a time when many of them do not have the funds to do that.

The other aspect to this issue, which is equally or even more important, is if the U.S. Congress and the American people are serious about dealing with the issue of global warming, then we have to make a major effort to retrofit homes all over this country so we are not wasting enormous amounts of energy.

We cannot come here and say we have a major global warming crisis and not be serious about energy efficiency and not be serious about making sure all our homes, especially those of lower income people, are properly weatherized.

As part of the continuing resolution, Congress level-funded the weatherization program at $242.2 million. Unfortunately, the administration's spending plan for fiscal year 2007, which came out about 2 weeks ago, reduced funding for the weatherization program by $38 million compared to what it received in fiscal year 2006.

In other words, despite the global warming crisis, despite the increase in poverty, despite the need to spend substantially more to weatherize homes throughout this country, the administration is actually lowering the funds available for weatherization. This makes no sense to me at all.

Tomorrow, I am going to be offering an amendment which is cosponsored--it is a bipartisan amendment--by Senators Sununu, Bingaman, Jack Reed, Menendez, Kerry, Harkin, Dodd, Wyden, and Clinton.

This amendment will add $25 million more to the weatherization program compared to last year's level. I hope we will have strong support for this effort. It will help us address global warming, and it will provide real assistance to many low-income families throughout this country.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would provide greater assurance to the citizens of our Nation that their elected officials will do everything within their power to provide the highest levels of safety at nuclear facilities. The bill does this by allowing certain State officials to request that the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conduct an independent safety assessment at key times in the life of a reactor. I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Too often we have found that the NRC has been uninterested in the legitimate concerns of national and State legislators who have requested greater safety oversight, especially at problem-plagued nuclear plants. In some instances, safety violations of the highest level have been allowed to continue, undetected, for years before discovery. Citizens deserve to have some greater assurance that when a plant has reached what was the intended end of its useful life and has applied for a license extension--another few decades of operating life--or when a plant seeks an ``uprate''--an increase in power output from what it was permitted previously--or when there have been significant safety problems, that a facility will get a thorough review to protect the public safety. Without this bill, the public will continue to worry.

Under the legislation I am introducing, State officials would be able to request that a special Independent Safety Assessment Team be assembled to thoroughly review the safety of plants that meet the criteria listed in

this bill. The team would be composed of individuals selected by the NRC and the requesting Governor or State public utilities commission to insure greater balance and independence on the Team. The Team's report would make recommendations on safety features that should be improved before additional licensing requests and other operational matters are favorably acted upon.

My legislation offers a simple and fair solution to a technical problem faced by citizens across the Nation and I encourage my colleagues to join me to ensure greater safety at our nuclear facilities.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would provide greater assurance to the citizens of our Nation that their elected officials will do everything within their power to provide the highest levels of safety at nuclear facilities. The bill does this by allowing certain State officials to request that the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conduct an independent safety assessment at key times in the life of a reactor. I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Too often we have found that the NRC has been uninterested in the legitimate concerns of national and State legislators who have requested greater safety oversight, especially at problem-plagued nuclear plants. In some instances, safety violations of the highest level have been allowed to continue, undetected, for years before discovery. Citizens deserve to have some greater assurance that when a plant has reached what was the intended end of its useful life and has applied for a license extension--another few decades of operating life--or when a plant seeks an ``uprate''--an increase in power output from what it was permitted previously--or when there have been significant safety problems, that a facility will get a thorough review to protect the public safety. Without this bill, the public will continue to worry.

Under the legislation I am introducing, State officials would be able to request that a special Independent Safety Assessment Team be assembled to thoroughly review the safety of plants that meet the criteria listed in

this bill. The team would be composed of individuals selected by the NRC and the requesting Governor or State public utilities commission to insure greater balance and independence on the Team. The Team's report would make recommendations on safety features that should be improved before additional licensing requests and other operational matters are favorably acted upon.

My legislation offers a simple and fair solution to a technical problem faced by citizens across the Nation and I encourage my colleagues to join me to ensure greater safety at our nuclear facilities.

Mr. President, the amendment the majority leader and I are offering today is the first step in our effort this Congress to undo a fundamental unfairness that affects over 300,000 disabled veterans in this country who also happen to be military retirees. In short, this amendment creates a reserve fund that will allow this Congress to once and for all eliminate the offset that exists between military retiree pay and VA disability benefits.

At a time when we have men and women in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan and in other locations around the globe, it is appropriate that the budget resolution we pass out of the United States Senate acknowledge and seriously address the unmet needs of our Nation's veterans.

It is wrong that our veterans are enduring long waiting lines to receive health care from the VA due to inadequate funding. It is wrong that the Bush administration slammed the doors of the VA health care system on hundreds of thousands of so-called ``higher income'' veterans--veterans who in reality make as little as $28,000 a year. And it is wrong for this administration to try to impose higher copayments and enrollment fees on our veterans. As someone who sits on both the Budget Committee and the Veterans Affairs Committee, I am incredibly proud that on all these issues, this budget resolution is on the side of veterans and rejects administration proposals that short-change and nickel and dime those who have served.

The scandal at Walter Reed has highlighted that even here in Washington, only a short distance from this chamber, some of our servicemembers were living in sub-standard conditions with moldy walls, rodents, and holes in the ceilings. Thankfully, this budget resolution also addresses this outrage.

In addition, this budget resolution also provides for substantial, new investments in mental health services for our veterans to help us treat the thousands of veterans returning from the Iraq War with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD. Also this budget resolution recognizes that we need to significantly increase funding to treat the large number of servicemembers returning with traumatic brain injury.

Finally, this budget resolution includes an amendment I added in committee that will allow us to make other important improvements to veterans' programs later this year. In short, the budget resolution we are considering is a huge step in the right direction when it comes to veterans' health care and benefits. Chairman Conrad and his staff deserve tremendous credit for recognizing the very serious needs of our veterans and moving boldly to address them. I also want to commend Chairman Akaka of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and his staff for their work and support throughout this budget process.

Even with the tremendous strides forward we have made for veterans in this budget resolution there is one additional issue that needs to be addressed. Today, Senator Reid and I are offering this amendment to take care of that very important issue. Before getting into the details first let me start off by saying that I am honored to be working with the majority leader on this issue. I know that, year after year, he has been the leading voice in the Senate to eliminate the Disabled Veterans Tax. And today, he continues that leadership with this amendment.

This amendment would create a reserve fund to allow for the elimination of the remaining offset between military retiree pay and VA disability payments. In my view, this is an issue of basic fairness. Military retirees earned their retiree pay based on their long-term service to the Nation. They earn their VA disability benefits based on the disability they acquire or aggravate in the service of their country.

The current offset between these separately-earned benefits originates from a 19th century law that required a dollar-for-dollar offset of military retired pay for VA disability compensation. In my view and the view of millions of veterans across the country, it is clear that veterans deserve to receive both their military retirement which they receive for their service and their VA disability payments as additional compensation for the injuries and lost earning power due to their service-connected disabilities.

Let me provide just a bit of background on some of the progress Congress has made on this issue in recent years, thanks in large part to the work of Senator Reid. In the fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense Authorization, Congress created a special benefit called ``combat-related special compensation'' or CRSC. It expanded it in the fiscal year 2004 DoD Authorization. CRSC gives certain combat disabled veterans a cash benefit equivalent to what they would receive if full concurrent receipt were allowed.

In the fiscal year 2004 DoD Authorization bill, Congress approved phasing-in concurrent receipt for military retirees rated as at least 50 percent disabled. The fiscal year 2005 DoD Authorization ended the phase in for 100 percent disabled veterans.

So, today we find ourselves in a situation where retirees who are less than 50 percent disabled are getting no relief from the Disabled Veterans Tax and veterans at least 50 percent disabled but less than 100 percent disabled are in the middle of the phase period that will not be complete until 2014. Frankly, if Congress has made the determination that the ban on concurrent receipt of military retiree pay and VA disability compensation is wrong--and I think the legislation passed so far demonstrates that Congress has made that determination--there is no excuse for making veterans wait for the benefits that we have acknowledged they are due. Now is the time--once and for all--we need to eliminate the disabled veterans tax.

The Reid-Sanders amendment is just one important step we need to take to

keep faith to the promises we made to our veterans. I look forward to working with the majority leader on this issue as it moves through the legislative process and I would ask that my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk which has been shared with the other side.

Mr. President, this amendment is being cosponsored by Senator Mikulski of Maryland. This amendment is about keeping the promises the Federal Government made to the people of our country 32 years ago. It is about keeping our word to the children of this country, especially those with disabilities. It is about keeping our word to the property tax payers of this country, whose property taxes in Vermont and throughout this country are going up and up and up.

When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Act in 1975, under the leadership of Senator Tom Harkin, that legislation said the Government would provide up to 40 percent--40 percent--of the national average per-pupil expenditure for special education. Unfortunately, however, the Federal Government has not kept its word. Today, its contribution stands at barely 17 percent. The promise was 40 percent; the reality is 17 percent.

In other words, the Federal Government passed legislation doing the right thing with regard to our children in 1975, but it has not followed through in terms of the kind of funding it promised, and school districts all over this country and children all over this country are suffering from that lack of action.

When Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle talk about unfunded mandates, the inadequate funding for special education is the poster child of that problem. We told school districts we would fund special education at 40 percent, and we are funding it at 17 percent. That is wrong. That speaks poorly of Congress.

In Vermont, and I suspect all over this country, school districts are demanding we rectify that problem, that we keep the promise made so many years ago.

When the Federal Government does not keep its word, school districts in my State, school districts in the Presiding Officer's State and throughout this country are forced to do one of two things: either they do not provide the quality of special education care the special needs kids require--and that is wrong--or else their limited budgets require them to cut back on other educational programs in order to fund the expensive needs of special eduction

kids. So what ends up happening is we take money from second languages, we take money from athletics, we take money from arts, and we put it into special education, and all of the children suffer as a result of that.

The third option facing school districts--which certainly is taking place in Vermont, and I expect all over this country--is that school districts are forced to ask for higher and higher property taxes. Those property taxes are becoming so high in areas of this country that people who have lived in their homes for their entire lives are now being forced to leave their homes.

The property tax is a regressive form of taxation. It hits working families very hard and unfairly. It hits senior citizens unfairly. More and more communities around this country are forced to raise property taxes, which is putting an increased burden on middle-class families.

The amendment I am offering, which is cosponsored by Senator Mikulski of Maryland, is a simple and straightforward amendment. At a time when the wealthiest people in this country are becoming wealthier, at a time when the wealthiest 1 percent have not had it so good since the 1920s, at a time when property taxes on the middle class are soaring all over this country, at a time when school districts are being forced to spend more and more on special education, this amendment increases funding for special education by $44.2 billion over the next 5 years.

It finally begins to do what this Congress should have done years and years ago. It adequately funds special education. It begins to move away from the unfunded mandate that so many communities around our country are suffering from.

This amendment raises the $44.2 billion by rescinding the 2001 income tax cuts that were given to millionaires. In other words, it would restore the top income tax rate to 39.6 percent on taxable income exceeding $1 million per year.

This amendment would only apply to millionaires. Those are the only people who would be asked to pay more because we would be rescinding the 2001 income tax reductions that President Bush and the Congress gave to them.

While we ask the wealthiest people in this country to pay a little bit more, what we would be doing is lowering property taxes for the middle class all over this country and improving the quality of education that our children receive.

By using this revenue for special education, as this amendment does, the Federal Government could begin to live up to its 40 percent commitment in fiscal year 2009. Not only would we be providing a much needed boost for children with disabilities, we would also be providing property tax relief to so many families throughout this country who are in desperate need of that relief.

The bottom line of this amendment is pretty simple. It has a lot to do about which side we consider ourselves to be on. We hear a lot of rhetoric in the Congress about the importance of education. The Presiding Officer understands the importance of education. I understand the importance of education. I suspect every Member of the Senate understands the need to improve the quality of education in this country. This is an amendment about improving education for all of our children.

We hear a lot of discussion in the Senate and the Congress about the growth of special education needs among our kids--whether it is autism, ADD, or other disorders. This is an amendment which addresses in a very serious way the needs of special education.

We hear a lot about unfunded mandates and the burden of higher and higher property taxes on working families all over this country. This amendment, if passed, takes a giant step forward in rectifying this unfunded mandate and lowering property taxes. Mostly, though, this amendment is about Congress keeping its word, keeping the promise it made so many years ago. We made a promise to school districts all over this country that if they mainstreamed kids into public schools, Congress would provide 40 percent of the cost. We have not kept that promise. We have given hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, but we have not reached out to school districts to help them with the cost of special education, the result being higher and higher property taxes. The time is long overdue for the Congress to keep the promises it made with regard to special education, and this amendment does just that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I always enjoy dialoguing with my neighbor from New Hampshire. Let me make just a few points. I think he understands, because if my son who lives in Claremont, NH, is accurate, what he is telling me is what Vermonters are telling me--that property taxes in New Hampshire and in Vermont and all over this country are soaring.

My friend from New Hampshire says the President and Congress are addressing special education needs, more money is going into it. But the reality is that for the last 3 years, the percentage of Federal contributions for special education has gone down. They were at a high of 18 percent. They are moving downward. They are now at 17 percent.

My friend can talk about raising taxes, and let me concede that he is right. We are raising taxes on the upper three-tenths of 1 percent because 99.7 percent of the American people would not see any increase in Federal taxes as a result of this amendment. Tens of millions of American families would see a reduction in their property taxes.

I believe that at a time when the wealthiest 1 percent have never had it so good, when we are seeing that, according to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans--400--increased by $120 billion last year to $1.25 trillion, it is time for this Congress to start worrying about middle-class families that can't afford higher and higher property taxes, about kids with disabilities who deserve quality education, about all of our children who deserve an education, and not worry about the upper three-tenths of 1 percent.

If my friend from New Hampshire says I am raising taxes on the upper three-tenths of 1 percent, people who are millionaires and billionaires, I concede that point. I am. That is the right thing to do.

Madam President, in 1975, Congress made a promise to provide 40 percent of the funding for special education. Congress has not kept that promise on that unfunded mandate. Today, we are providing a little over 17 percent of the costs of special education, and that percentage has gone down over the last 3 years. The result is higher and higher property taxes for the middle-class and working families of our country.

This amendment is very simple. It rescinds the 2001 personal income tax reduction that was given to people with at least $1 million in income--the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of the population--and puts the $44 billion raised over 5 years into special education.

Madam President, 99.7 percent of Americans would see no increase in their Federal taxes from this amendment. But it would lower property taxes for millions of middle-class and working families, improve the quality of education and, most importantly, keep the promise made to school districts all over this country.

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Chairman Kent Conrad and his staff for the very hard work they have done in crafting the important budget resolution that is before us. I know of their work because I am a member of that committee and have seen how much effort it has taken.

Mr. President, as you know, a budget is more than a long list of numbers and this budget certainly has many numbers and it adds up to a huge sum of money. But after all is said and done, a budget is a statement about our values, about our priorities, and what we as a nation stand for. That is what a budget is about. In my view, the time is long overdue for the Congress in its budget to get its priorities right, and by that I mean to begin to stand up for the vast majority of our people--the middle class, the working families of this country-- rather than just the large multinational corporations and the wealthiest people in our Nation who year after year have had their way on budget initiatives.

Mr. President, when we analyze the merits of a Federal budget, we have to begin by taking a very serious look at the economic reality which faces the American people. In other words, is the budget we are working on now reflective of the needs of our people? Is that what we are doing?

On many occasions, members of the Bush administration have come before the Budget Committee, of which I am a member, and they have given us their view of how our economy is doing. I am astounded each and every time by their worldly view with regard to the budget. We have heard members of the administration telling us how wonderful the economy is doing, how marvelous it is,

and how the economy is booming. I sit there, and I think millions of Americans sit there, and they begin to scratch their heads and they say: What world are these people living in?

I know that in my own State of Vermont, when we do town meetings, we always talk about the economy; how well the middle class is doing. I always ask people: How do you think the middle class is doing right now--doing well, not so well? With very few exceptions, people tell me that the middle class in this country, in the State of Vermont, in their own lives, that people are struggling economically to keep their heads above water. I find it hard to understand how people from the Bush administration can come forward and tell us just how great the economy is doing. I really wonder what world they are living in.

In my view, and I think the facts substantiate my view, the economic reality facing the vast majority of our working people is that the middle class is shrinking, that people today all over our country are working longer hours for lower wages.

When I was a kid growing up, the expectation was that one person in a family--in those days, almost always the man--could work 40 hours a week and earn enough money to pay the bills--one person, 40 hours a week. How many middle-class families do we know today where one person is working 40 hours a week? The answer is, likely not very many. Most of the middle-class families we know are seeing husbands working very long hours, wives working very long hours, and on occasion kids working to help save some money for college. In fact, at the end of the day, what we have to understand is that the American worker today is working longer hours than the people of any other industrialized country. We surpassed the Japanese a few years ago.

We also have to understand, when we talk about a shrinking middle class, that many millions of American workers today are working longer hours for lower wages than used to be the case. In Vermont, and throughout this country, in fact, parents are wondering why, despite a huge increase in technology, despite huge growth in worker productivity, there is a strong likelihood that for the first time in modern American history our children will have a lower standard of living than we do. The American dream has always been about parents working hard with the hope that their kids, the next generation, will do better than they have done. That was the case with my parents and in the case of millions of families in this country.

Unfortunately, now we are in a situation unique in modern history where, unless we turn this economy around, what we will see is our children having a lower standard of living than we do.

I wonder how the Bush administration can tell us how great the economy is doing when more than 5 million Americans have slipped into poverty since the President has been in office, including over 1 million children. That is not a booming economy.

How can the economy be doing well when median income for working-age families has declined for 5 years in a row and when the personal savings rate in this country now is below zero, something which has not happened since the Great Depression?

How can our economy be doing well when almost 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance since President Bush has been in office and when, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 35 million Americans struggled to put food on the table last year and hunger in America is increasing? If hunger is increasing, that, to my mind, does not sound like a booming economy.

How can people talk about our economy doing so well when college students are graduating with about $20,000 in debt and some 400,000 qualified high school students don't go to college because they can't afford it? We all talk about education, education, education. Hundreds of thousands of young people cannot afford to go to college.

How can our economy be doing great when home foreclosures have skyrocketed to the highest level in nearly four decades, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, and when we have lost over 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs since President Bush has been in office?

How can our economy be doing so great when 3 million fewer American workers have pension coverage today than when President Bush took office, and half of private sector American workers have no pension coverage whatsoever?

When the President of the United States and his administration tell us the economy is doing great, well, they are partially right. While the economy is not doing well for the middle class or working families of our country, it is doing very well for the wealthiest people in America. That is the truth.

Today, the wealthiest people in our country are becoming much wealthier. In fact, they have not had it so good since the 1920s. That is the reality. The middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, the people at the top have never had it so good since the 1920s, and we have, as a nation, the dubious distinction of now having, by far, the widest gap between the rich and the poor of any major country on earth.

Today, the upper 1 percent of families in America have not had it so good since the 1920s. According to Forbes Magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $120 billion last year to $1.25 trillion. The 400 wealthiest Americans are now worth $1.25 trillion at the same time that hunger in America is increasing and 5 million more of our citizens have slipped into poverty.

I have given this broad overview of the economy in order to place the discussion of our budget in what I think is a sensible context; that is, if the wealthiest people in America are becoming wealthier while the middle class is shrinking and poverty is increasing, what the budget should be about is responding to that reality. That is the reality to which the budget should be responding.

The President of the United States, in his budget proposal, told us what he thought. He said in his budget that, despite the growing health care crisis in our country, he was going to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $280 billion over the next decade and that he was going to inadequately fund the Children's Health Insurance Program. Today, the United States is the only nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care to all its people. We have millions and millions of children who have no health insurance, and this President refuses to adequately fund the health insurance program for children.

Despite the reality that we have 23,000 wounded coming home from Iraq and tens of thousands more who will be coming home with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury, the President, in his budget, once again inadequately funded the needs of our veterans, as he has done year after year. In fact, since President Bush has been in office, an estimated 1 million veterans have been denied access to health services at the VA.

Despite a horrendous crisis in childcare access and affordability for working families, so that all over this country working people are desperately trying to locate quality, affordable childcare while they are at work, the President, in his budget, reduced the number of children receiving childcare assistance by 300,000 and he cut funding for the Head Start Program.

Despite millions of homeowners paying outrageously high property taxes, the President has, in his budget, further retreated from the Federal commitment to special education and he has cut funding for that program. This will result in a lowering of the quality of education for all of our children, including those with disabilities, and an increase in property taxes. This is a very serious problem in my State of Vermont, where towns are divided every March when they go over the budget.

People understand the needs of the schools. They understand the high cost of mainstreaming kids with disabilities. Yet people cannot afford higher and higher property taxes. We as a Congress have to fully fund special education and keep the commitment we have made to school districts all over this country. Yet the President, in his budget, cuts funding for special education.

Interestingly enough, while cutting programs for the middle class and working families of our country, while inadequately funding the needs of our veterans, of our children, and of our senior citizens, the President has

reached the conclusion in his budget that we do have enough money as a government to provide enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our society--$739 billion in tax cuts for households earning more than $1 million per year over the next decade. We can't fund the needs of our kids, the President wants to eliminate a wonderful nutrition program for low-income seniors, we can't fund special education, we don't have enough money to put into sustainable energy, we can't take care of our veterans--we just don't have enough money--but somehow the President did manage to find in his budget $739 billion in tax cuts for households earning more than $1 million per year over the next decade.

Part of the President's budget calls for a complete elimination of the estate tax, a tax which now applies only to the wealthiest three- tenths of 1 percent of our population. The elimination of this tax would provide an estimated $1 trillion in tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires between 2012 to 2021. One, just one multibillionaire family, the Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, would receive an estimated $32 billion in tax relief--for one family. But we just don't have the money to take care of hundreds of thousands of veterans or our children or our seniors. Now, that may make sense to somebody, but that is not my sense of what moral values are about.

While the budget resolution, introduced by Chairman Kent Conrad, which we are debating now is far from perfect, it is much more responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans than the President's. Instead of cutting back on the educational needs of this country, this budget resolution provides over $6 billion more than the President's request for education, including significant increases for Pell grants, Head Start, title I, and special education.

Instead of cutting back on health care, this budget resolution provides an increase of $2.8 billion over the President's request for health care, including strong funding for a program that I think is enormously important for rural America and that is Community Health Centers and the National Health Service. Instead of cutting back or inadequately funding the needs of our veterans, this budget resolution provides over $3 billion in increases over the President's budget for our Nation's veterans--one of the priorities that I regard most important as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

But I think over the long run we can and must do much better in establishing our budget priorities than this budget does. This budget is much better than President Bush's budget, but in my view we have a long way to go to create a budget which responds to the needs of ordinary Americans.

As an example of where I think we should be going as a nation in terms of our budget, last week I introduced the National Priorities Act which would expand the middle class, reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, and lower property taxes all over America as well as reduce the level of poverty. The basic premise of this legislation is pretty simple: We raise $130 billion in new revenue by rescinding the tax breaks that President Bush gave to the most wealthy 1 percent.

I know a lot of my colleagues do not agree with me, but I think that at a time when we have a $8.5 trillion national debt, at a time when the middle class is being squeezed, at a time when the wealthiest people in our country have never had it so good, I believe that it is time to rescind the Bush tax breaks that have been given to the wealthiest 1 percent.

What we also do is ask the Pentagon to take a hard look at their budget and cut out the waste, the fraud, the unnecessary weapons systems that currently exist. When you do that, you end up raising $130 billion of new revenue. We propose that $30 billion go to deficit reduction and we propose the other $100 billion go to address the longtime unmet needs of the middle class and working families of this country.

If as a nation we are serious about addressing the long neglected needs of the working people of America and creating a more just society, we have to change our national priorities. The wealthiest people in this country are doing just fine. They are doing really well. It is time we pay attention to working families, to the middle class, to the people who are struggling.

I appreciate very much the hard work that Senator Conrad has done and I applaud his efforts. In the coming days I will be offering several amendments that I think will make the budget bill a stronger bill. One of the amendments is pretty simple. I hear a whole lot on the floor of the Senate about the need for deficit reduction, and I share that concern. The fact that we have a $8.5 trillion national debt should be of concern to every Member of the Senate and every Member of the House. So our proposal is going to be a pretty simple one--very simple.

What we are going to propose is that we rescind all of the tax breaks given to people who earn $100 million or more--a tiny fraction of 1 percent--and that we use those savings for deficit reduction. That is it. Pretty simple. If you are in favor of deficit reduction, I hope you will support that amendment.

There is another amendment that we will also be offering. We have not worked out all the details but again what this amendment would do is rescind tax breaks for upper income people and use all of those savings to start the process of fully funding special education. All over America, people are paying higher and higher property taxes. It is certainly true in Vermont; it is certainly true in many States. The question is, Do we continue to maintain tax breaks for the most wealthy people in this country while property taxes are soaring? I say no. I say we lower property taxes, provide quality education for our kids including the kids with disabilities, and we do that by rescinding tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country.

I think we are making some progress in terms of the budget, the budget before us today, far better than what the President presented to Congress. But we still have a long way to go. I ask my colleagues to support amendments which will strengthen the middle class and working families of our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, today in the United States of America there are 47 million people who are without health insurance and 35 million Americans who are completely without access to the most basic health care services. As a result, in the richest country in the world, 18,000 Americans die each year because their basic health care needs are not met. Despite the fact that we spend twice as much per person on health care than any other industrialized nation, Americans have a lower life expectancy and a higher infant mortality rate than Canada, Japan, and most of Europe.

We are also faced with an alarming dental care crisis in this country. The Surgeon General has reported that tooth decay has become the single most common chronic childhood disease in this country--five times more common than asthma and seven times

more common than hay fever. Surveys have also shown that dental problems cause children to miss more than 51 million hours of school and adults to miss more than 164 million hours of work each year.

This health care and dental care crisis bears down particularly hard on those who live in rural communities where there are few local health care centers and patients must travel many miles to seek the care that they need. Those living in inner-city neighborhoods also often have difficulty receiving the care they need because they lack health insurance and have no means to pay for regular doctors visits. As a result, far too many Americans do not have a primary care doctor or dentist and do not seek preventative care.

This means the only time they see a doctor is when their situation has become so advanced and so dire that they must seek treatment at a hospital emergency room. This is a result that is bad for patients, bad for doctors, and bad for American taxpayers.

Providing underserved patients with better access to primary care will allow doctors to catch problems before they become advanced and require invasive and expensive procedures. It will also, of course, benefit the patient--in many cases saving their lives. Studies have shown that patients with a primary care provider are far more likely to receive appropriate preventative care, need fewer prescription drugs, and spend less time in hospitals and emergency rooms.

The good news is that we have a program in this country that provides primary health care services to those who need it most. Forty years ago, Senator Kennedy had the foresight to author legislation creating community-based health care centers that treat underserved patients. These centers, now called Federally Qualified Health Centers or FQHCs, provide high-quality primary health care for millions of Americans, regardless of their income.

In addition to treating those who have Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance, FQHCs primarily serve those who have no health insurance and charge fees on a sliding scale basis. That means that whether you make $50,000 per year or $15,000 per year, you will be able to afford treatment. No one who walks into one of these centers is turned away because he or she lacks payment.

In addition to providing the quality care that patients expect to receive when they visit their local doctor's office, these centers also make sure that patients are able to afford the drugs they need by providing them with significant discounts on their prescriptions. The centers also provide critical dental and mental health care--often offering the only available services for those in need.

FQHCs provide primary, dental, and mental health care that is not only high quality but also tailored to meet the needs of the local community. In order to create an FQHC, Federal law requires not only that there be substantial community input in the development of the center, but also that a majority of the members on the governing board of directors are actual users of the facility.

In other words, those who know the most about the needs of their local community are responsible for overseeing the centers. It is a model that has been highly successful throughout the country, including my own State of Vermont, which has five of these health center organizations serving more than 10 percent of Vermont's population at 18 different locations.

These community health care centers serve as the family doctor for 16 million Americans in more than 5,000 communities across the country. Their success has been well documented with studies repeatedly showing that these centers are a highly cost-effective method for ensuring that underserved patients receive quality health care. In fact the Office of Management and Budget has reported that FQHCs use Federal taxpayer dollars more efficiently than any other federally funded health care program. In addition, studies have found that FQHCs save the Medicaid Program 30 percent or more in annual spending by providing preventative treatment that reduces the need for specialty care referrals and hospital admissions.

There are not many issues on which President Bush and I agree, but the importance of community health care centers is one area where we have found some common ground. The success of this program has earned support and praise from the White House, as well as members of this body on both sides of the aisle. With congressional support, over the past 5 years, nearly 900 underserved communities were able to establish or expand a health center, bringing the number of Americans served by these centers to more than 5 million patients.

Unfortunately, during that same period more than 800 centers were denied FQHC status, and the Federal funds that go with it, not because they were not qualified but simply because there was not sufficient funding to incorporate them. That is 800 communities throughout this country that are left desperately in need of the quality, low-cost preventative care that these centers provide.

Existing centers throughout this country are also in jeopardy. Over the past 2 years, Federal grant support for these centers has been reduced, threatening their ability to serve all of those in need.

It is for that reason that I introduced a bill yesterday, along with Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, to increase Federal support for community health centers over the next 8 years and ensure that millions of Americans living in medically underserved areas receive the care they need. This legislation would start by authorizing a funding level commensurate with our current need--an increase of $575 million for the upcoming year and increases between $400 and $600 million for the following 7 years. That will provide enough resources to fund not only the backlog of the 800 approved but unfunded health centers, but also future applicants who meet the criteria for FQHC status. It would also make sure that existing centers are able to grow with the communities that they serve by giving them annual funding increases that are commensurate with the number of patients they serve and the increased costs they incur.

This legislation would also correct the unfair and outdated system these centers are forced to contend with for Medicare reimbursements. While health centers provide care to more than 1 million medically underserved Medicare beneficiaries, their Medicare payments are subject to an arbitrary payment cap that was established in 1991 and adjusted only marginally since. The result is more than $50 million in lost Medicare reimbursement funds that health centers now are forced to find a way to subsidize. This legislation would eliminate the inaccurate payment cap and ensure that these centers are reimbursed fairly for the care they provide to seniors and disabled patients.

Finally, this important legislation would also ensure that our Nation's community health centers have the workforce they need by expanding the National Health Service Corps. Currently, health centers rely on the National Health Service Corps for more than 20 percent of their physician workforce. Unfortunately, last year, health centers experienced a 15 percent physician vacancy rate and a 19 percent dentist vacancy rate nationally. This legislation would more than double funding for the National Health Service Corps over the next 8 years in order to train and send more primary care doctors and dentists into rural and inner-city communities.

In the richest country in the world, no American should have to go without basic primary health care. Federally Qualified Health Centers serve as a lifeline for millions of low-income Americans, and we should build on their success by expanding this program for all those in need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, Calendar No. 48, that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, March 22; that on Thursday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 21.