Floor Statements

Mr. PresIdent, I am pleased to rise today with Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Collins, Murray, Durbin, Clinton, Inouye, Levin, Lautenberg and Johnson to introduce legislation which would supply greatly needed support to college students struggling to balance their roles as parents with their roles as students. The Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act (CCAMPIS) would increase access to, support for, and retention of low-income, nontraditional students who are struggling to complete college degrees while caring for their children.

The typical college student is no longer an 18-year-old recent high school graduate. According to a 2002 study by the National Center for Education Statistics, only 27 percent of undergraduates meet the ``traditional'' undergraduate criteria of earning a high school diploma, enrolling full-time, depending on parents for financial support and not working or working part-time. This means that 73 percent of today's students are considered non-traditional in some way. Clearly, non-traditional students--older students, students with children and students with various job and life experiences--are filling the ranks of college classes. Why? Because they recognize the importance of college to future success. It is currently estimated that a full-time worker with a bachelor's degree earns about 60 percent more than a full-time worker with only a high school diploma. This amounts to a lifetime gap in earnings of more than $1 million.

Today's non-traditional students face barriers unheard of by traditional college students of earlier years. Many are parents and must provide for their children while in school. Access to affordable, quality and convenient child care is a necessity for these students. But obtaining the child care that they need is often difficult because of their limited income and non-traditional schedules, compounded by declining assistance for child care through other supports. Campus- based child care can fill the gap. It is conveniently located, available during the right hours, and of high quality and lower cost. Unfortunately, it is unavailable at many campuses. Even when programs do exist, they are often available to only a fraction of the eligible students. That is where the Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act comes in.

The Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act increases and expands the availability of campus-based child care in three ways. First, it raises the minimum grant amount from $10,000 to $30,000. For most institutions of higher education, $10,000 has proven too small relative to the cost and effort required to complete a federal application.

Second, the Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act ensures that a wider range of students are able to access services. Present language defines low- income students as students eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant. This language excludes graduate students, international students, and students who may be low-income but make slightly more than is allowed to qualify for Pell grants. CCAMPIS will open eligibility for these additional populations.

Third, the CCAMPIS Act raises the program's current authorization level from $45 million to $75 million so that we not only expand existing programs, but create new ones as well.

Research demonstrates that campus-based child care is of high quality and that it increases the educational success of both parents and students. Furthermore, recipients of campus-based child care assistance who are on public assistance are more likely to never return to welfare and to obtain jobs paying good wages.

Currently, there are approximately 1,850 campus-based child care programs but over 6,000 colleges and universities eligible to participate in the CCAMPIS program. Currently, CCAMPIS funds only 427 programs in states and the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, the number of non-traditional students across America is increasing. As these numbers increase, the need for campus-based child care will increase as well.

Just last week in Connecticut, I went to Eastern Connecticut State University where I met a number of students who would benefit from this legislation. One woman is attending part-time as an accounting major. She works as a restaurant supervisor and just gave birth to her first child. She is balancing work, family and school. Another woman is a junior social work major with two children. Having already received an associate's degree, she is now working towards a bachelor's degree to increase her competitiveness in the job market. A third woman is pursuing her second degree in physical and health education. A stay-at- home mom prior to re-enrolling, she has three children at home. These are the students that need our assistance--hard working parents trying to improve their lot in life for the good of their children.

This is a modest measure that will make a major difference to students. It will offer them new hope for starting and staying in school. I am hopeful that it can be considered and enacted as part of the Higher Education Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important measure forward.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, it is not my intention to debate the amendment at this moment, but I wanted to get in the queue. I will defer any debate on the amendment until a later time.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Alexander in reintroducing the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers Who Deliver Infants Early (PREEMIE) Act--legislation intended to address the growing crisis of premature birth in our nation.

I think when many of us hear about a baby being born early, we don't give much thought to what it means. After all, it is not all that uncommon--I'm sure that almost all of my colleagues knows someone born prematurely. Thanks to modem medicine it is also not uncommon for a baby born early to end up healthy and happy.

But this feeling that prematurity is somehow ``normal'' or to be expected masks a growing health crisis. Prematurity has real consequences in health and economic terms. We need to bring to light this issue that affects some of the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn babies.

As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee I, along with my colleagues, have devoted much time and effort to improving the health of our nation's children and infants. And yet despite our efforts, the problem of prematurity continues to persist and even grow. What is so striking about prematurity is how many parents face these enormous emotional and financial burdens. Nearly 1 out of every 8 babies in the United States is born prematurely--that's 1,300 babies each day, and over 470,000 each year (including more than 4,000 in my home state of Connecticut).

Despite all of the health care advances of the last decades, the problem of prematurity is not in any way abating. According to recent data released by the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2002 the infant mortality rate actually increased for the first time since 1958. Much of this increase is attributable to infant death in the

first month of life--of which prematurity is the leading cause. Since 1981, the premature birth rate has increased by 27 percent. This stands in stark contrast to some of the breathtaking medical discoveries of the past two decades. We can now treat and even cure many types of cancer, but we can't prevent babies from being born too soon.

Mr. President, the consequences of prematurity are devastating. As I mentioned earlier, it is the leading cause of neonatal death--a tragedy that no family should have to face. For those infants that survive, a lifetime of severe health problems is not uncommon. Prematurity has been linked to such long-term health problems as cerebral palsy, mental retardation, chronic lung disease, and vision and hearing loss. Premature babies have the deck stacked against them from the moment they are born. And even in the fortunate cases where there are no life- long health consequences, the experience of a premature birth takes an enormous emotional toll on a family.

Prematurity also carries a significant economic cost. According to a recent study conducted by the March of Dimes, hospitalizations due to prematurity cost a total of $15.5 billion during the year 2002-- accounting for nearly half of all hospital charges for infants in this country. And this number does not even include the cost of care for problems later in life resulting from a premature birth. Much of this cost falls on employers who are already bearing the weight of skyrocketing health care costs.

Given the emotional and economic toll that prematurity takes on this country, we know remarkably little about why it happens, and how it can be prevented. Some of the risk factors associated with preterm birth are known, including advanced age of the mother, smoking, and certain chronic diseases. But nearly 50 percent of all premature births have no known cause. And because we know so little about the causes of prematurity, we also do not know how to prevent it.

For such a large (and growing) problem, it is astounding how little we know. It is critical that we make a national commitment to solving this puzzle. We must do everything we can to expand research--both public and private--into the root causes of prematurity.

Senator Alexander and I are introducing the PREEMIE Act for precisely this reason. Our bill would coordinate and expand research related to prematurity at the Federal level. It would also educate health care providers and the general public about the risks of prematurity, and measures that can be taken before and during pregnancy to prevent it. Pregnant mothers need to know the warning signs and symptoms of premature labor--and they need to know what to do if they begin to notice those signs.

Finally, because we will never eliminate prematurity completely, our legislation would provide support services to families impacted by a premature birth. As we're investigating the causes of prematurity and increasing awareness in expectant parents, we need to reach out to the mothers and fathers across our country whose children are born too soon. We need to give them emotional support during the difficult days, weeks, and months that often follow a premature birth. We need to make sure that the doctors, nurses, and other hospital staff who care for premature babies are sensitive to the needs of their parents, their brothers, and their sisters. And we need to make sure that when the time finally comes to bring a premature baby home, parents have all the information they need to make that transition.

It is my hope that this legislation will complement and support some of the efforts going on in the private sector--such as the March of Dimes ambitious campaign to increase public awareness and reduce the rate of preterm birth. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Alexander in reintroducing the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers Who Deliver Infants Early (PREEMIE) Act--legislation intended to address the growing crisis of premature birth in our nation.

I think when many of us hear about a baby being born early, we don't give much thought to what it means. After all, it is not all that uncommon--I'm sure that almost all of my colleagues knows someone born prematurely. Thanks to modem medicine it is also not uncommon for a baby born early to end up healthy and happy.

But this feeling that prematurity is somehow ``normal'' or to be expected masks a growing health crisis. Prematurity has real consequences in health and economic terms. We need to bring to light this issue that affects some of the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn babies.

As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee I, along with my colleagues, have devoted much time and effort to improving the health of our nation's children and infants. And yet despite our efforts, the problem of prematurity continues to persist and even grow. What is so striking about prematurity is how many parents face these enormous emotional and financial burdens. Nearly 1 out of every 8 babies in the United States is born prematurely--that's 1,300 babies each day, and over 470,000 each year (including more than 4,000 in my home state of Connecticut).

Despite all of the health care advances of the last decades, the problem of prematurity is not in any way abating. According to recent data released by the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2002 the infant mortality rate actually increased for the first time since 1958. Much of this increase is attributable to infant death in the

first month of life--of which prematurity is the leading cause. Since 1981, the premature birth rate has increased by 27 percent. This stands in stark contrast to some of the breathtaking medical discoveries of the past two decades. We can now treat and even cure many types of cancer, but we can't prevent babies from being born too soon.

Mr. President, the consequences of prematurity are devastating. As I mentioned earlier, it is the leading cause of neonatal death--a tragedy that no family should have to face. For those infants that survive, a lifetime of severe health problems is not uncommon. Prematurity has been linked to such long-term health problems as cerebral palsy, mental retardation, chronic lung disease, and vision and hearing loss. Premature babies have the deck stacked against them from the moment they are born. And even in the fortunate cases where there are no life- long health consequences, the experience of a premature birth takes an enormous emotional toll on a family.

Prematurity also carries a significant economic cost. According to a recent study conducted by the March of Dimes, hospitalizations due to prematurity cost a total of $15.5 billion during the year 2002-- accounting for nearly half of all hospital charges for infants in this country. And this number does not even include the cost of care for problems later in life resulting from a premature birth. Much of this cost falls on employers who are already bearing the weight of skyrocketing health care costs.

Given the emotional and economic toll that prematurity takes on this country, we know remarkably little about why it happens, and how it can be prevented. Some of the risk factors associated with preterm birth are known, including advanced age of the mother, smoking, and certain chronic diseases. But nearly 50 percent of all premature births have no known cause. And because we know so little about the causes of prematurity, we also do not know how to prevent it.

For such a large (and growing) problem, it is astounding how little we know. It is critical that we make a national commitment to solving this puzzle. We must do everything we can to expand research--both public and private--into the root causes of prematurity.

Senator Alexander and I are introducing the PREEMIE Act for precisely this reason. Our bill would coordinate and expand research related to prematurity at the Federal level. It would also educate health care providers and the general public about the risks of prematurity, and measures that can be taken before and during pregnancy to prevent it. Pregnant mothers need to know the warning signs and symptoms of premature labor--and they need to know what to do if they begin to notice those signs.

Finally, because we will never eliminate prematurity completely, our legislation would provide support services to families impacted by a premature birth. As we're investigating the causes of prematurity and increasing awareness in expectant parents, we need to reach out to the mothers and fathers across our country whose children are born too soon. We need to give them emotional support during the difficult days, weeks, and months that often follow a premature birth. We need to make sure that the doctors, nurses, and other hospital staff who care for premature babies are sensitive to the needs of their parents, their brothers, and their sisters. And we need to make sure that when the time finally comes to bring a premature baby home, parents have all the information they need to make that transition.

It is my hope that this legislation will complement and support some of the efforts going on in the private sector--such as the March of Dimes ambitious campaign to increase public awareness and reduce the rate of preterm birth. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation.

Mr. President, it had been my intent to offer an amendment No. 193, to S. Con. Res. 18, the FY 06, Congressional Budget Resolution, to fully fund the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, P.L. 107- 252, by increasing discretionary spending in FY 06 by $822 million. This issue is too important, however, to be relegated to 30 seconds, or less, of debate, and so under the circumstances, I will not offer this amendment to fully fund HAVA today.

However, I want to serve notice to my colleagues, that Congress must act soon to provide funds to the States to finance the mandatory election reform requirements we imposed on the States in HAVA. If not, we will have created an unjustified and unfunded mandate on State and local governments and lost the opportunity to ensure that every eligible American voter has an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted in the 2006 Federal elections.

The amendment was supported by a broad coalition of organizations representing the civil rights communities, voting rights groups, disabilities groups, and State and local governments, spearheaded by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the National Association of Secretaries of State. I am grateful to LCCR and NASS for their consistent leadership in ensuring that Congress, and the President, fulfill our commitment to fully fund the HAVA reforms. I applaud the non-partisan work of the LCCR/NASS Coalition and look forward to continuing to work with them to see this commitment come to fruition.

No civil right is more fundamental to the vitality and endurance of a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people, than the people's right to vote. In the words of Thomas Paine, ``The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected.'' To ensure this right, Congress passed the bipartisan Help America Vote Act. At a time when we are spending millions of dollars to ensure the spread of democracy across the globe, we must also remember that building democracy and freedom for every American must begin at home. Ensuring that primary right to vote for all eligible American voters was the bipartisan goal of HAVA.

Nearly two and one-half years ago, the Senate overwhelmingly passed this bipartisan landmark legislation and on October 29, 2002, President Bush signed HAVA into law. At the White House signing ceremony, surrounded by a bipartisan group of Members, President Bush said in a brief speech, ``When problems arise in the administration of elections, we have a responsibility to fix them . . . Every registered voter deserves to have confidence that the system is fair and elections are honest, that every vote is recorded and that the rules are consistently applied. The legislation I sign today will add to the nation's confidence.''

I could not agree more with the President. However, for the second year in a row, while the President's budget assumes millions in funding for democratic elections in foreign countries, the President's budget assumes no funding for elections at home. Our shared bipartisan vision for HAVA as the vehicle to restore the nation's confidence in the results of our elections cannot be realized without the promised funding to the States.

In the aftermath of historic elections in Iraq, it is critical that America take stock of our own decentralized elections systems. There is much we can learn from the Iraqi experiment in democracy that can strengthen the equal opportunity for participation of all Americans in our democracy. In light of the continuing barriers that Americans found at polling places across this Nation in November 2004, we cannot fail to fully fund HAVA. America's ability to promote free societies abroad is inextricably linked to our ability to promote, expand and secure Federal elections at home.

HAVA has been acknowledged as the ``first civil rights law of the 21st century.'' For the first time in our Nation's history, Congress acknowledged the responsibility of the Federal government to provide leadership and funding to States and local governments in the administration of Federal elections. Congress required States to conduct Federal elections according to minimum Federal requirements for provisional balloting, voting system standards, and statewide voter registration lists, including new requirements to prevent voter fraud. Finally, Congress refused to impose an unfunded mandate on States by authorizing nearly $4 billion in payments to States over three fiscal years to implement the HAVA requirements and disability access services.

To date, Congress has appropriated over $3 billion for these purposes and States are currently in varying stages of implementing HAVA requirements to meet the pending 2006 effective date. But Congress has failed to fully fund HAVA and as a consequence, there remains a $822 million shortfall in Federal funds. In addition to the $600 million authorized in FY 05, but not appropriated, Congress has underfunded HAVA by an additional $222 million for a total of $822 million.

To remedy this, the amendment I intended to offer would have increased function 800 by $727 million in BA in FY 06 for election reform requirements

payments to the States, and increased function 500 by $95 million in BA in FY 06 to fund election reform disability access payments to the States. The amendment was fully offset by adjusting the reconciliation savings assigned to the Finance Committee in order to allow for the closing of corporate tax loopholes and provided additional deficit reduction in an equivalent amount in the amount of $822 million.

The absence of these funds will at best impede, or at worst stop, statewide election reforms for the 2006 Congressional elections, the 2008 Presidential elections, and beyond. According to a letter issued by the LCCR/NASS Coalition in support of my amendment, State and local governments cannot enact the requirement reforms on time without full Federal funding. The coalition letter states, in pertinent part: ``Without full federal funding, state and local governments will encounter serious fiscal shortfalls and will not be able to afford complete implementation of important HAVA mandates.''

Similarly, the National Association of Counties, NACO, in a letter dated March 17, 2005, noted that a recent NACO report ``demonstrates that the funds counties have received so far for implementation of the Help America Vote Act are clearly insufficient.'' The letter goes on to conclude that HAVA has ``clearly become an unfunded mandate on the nation's counties.''

Some have expressed concerns that States do not need additional Federal funding, nor should Congress appropriate additional funding, because States still have millions in unspent HAVA funding. This argument is contrary to both the law and the facts. As a matter of law, HAVA does not require States to spend Federal funding by a date-certain within any fiscal year. To the contrary, HAVA merely requires States to comply with specific Federal requirements by certain effective date deadlines, depending upon the timing of the first Federal election in that State. Since the time, place and manner of Federal elections may differ from state to state, HAVA accommodates the diversity of state circumstances by ensuring that States could retain Federal funding without making premature obligations or expenditures and without threats of a Federal recoupment of such funds.

Similarly, HAVA did not mandate a ``one-size'' fits all approach to how States will implement the HAVA requirements or other election reforms. As a result, HAVA contains a savings clause requiring that Federal funds remain available until expended pursuant to 42 USC 15462. As a matter of fact, while some States have unspent HAVA dollars today, it is also a fact that all States are in varying degrees of compliance with HAVA, including enacting state implementing legislation, establishing certain processes such as administrative complaints procedures, contacting or obligating funds for new or retro-fitted voting systems, or otherwise enhancing any number of election-related programs and procedures to improve state-based election administration. At this time, there does not appear to be any State that is fully compliant with HAVA and that also has a significant surplus of funds.

Moreover, the most important requirements in the Act do not have to be implemented by the States until the first Federal elections on or after January 1, 2006. Also, because of the delay in the issuance of the voluntary voting system standards by the Election Assistance Commission, some States have delayed purchases of voting systems and technology until that guidance is issued. Consequently, such States have unexpended funds.

However, that does not lessen the critical need for full funding in fiscal year 2006. Although the FY 06 funds will not be available to the States until October 1, 2005, just 3 months before some States must have these requirements in place, States will be able to issue contracts, obligate funds for programs, and otherwise fully implement real election reforms if Congress signals its intent to provide these necessary funds.

After the concerns raised by the November 2000 general election, Congress made a commitment to the States, and to the voters of this Nation, that we would be a full partner in the conduct of Federal elections. While Congress accomplished much with the passage of HAVA, 4 years later in the November 2004 general election, voters faced many of the same barriers in different forms and new barriers to voting that HAVA promised to remove. After the 2000 November elections, Americans recognized that real election reform changes must be made to ensure the integrity and security of our democracy. We can do better and we must do better. Full Federal funding is critical to ensuring that America will do better.

HAVA began a new era in election law--one where the Federal Government is a supporting partner to help State and local governments, in conjunction with civil rights, voting rights and disability rights organizations, to conduct fair, free and transparent elections in our Nation. HAVA is our collective promise to the American people to fix the problems in our Federal elections.

If we fail to honor our commitment now and provide the States with only partial funding, we may jeopardize the opportunity of the States to implement the most historic and comprehensive election reforms in American history and may ensure that the public's confidence was misplaced in Congress. Full Federal funding is critical to ensuring the integrity and security of Federal elections and the confidence of the American people in the final results of those elections.

It is time to fulfill that promise and we must do so yet this year.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter issued by the coalition of organizations spearheaded by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the National Association of Secretaries of State dated March 8, 2005 and a letter issued by the National Association of Counties, dated March 17, 2005, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the budget resolution that the Senate just voted on.

This budget is irresponsible and takes the country in the wrong direction. It adds to our Nation's debt, continues to slash taxes for those in our Nation who least need tax breaks, and would enact massive cuts in critical domestic priorities. And it is for these reasons that I was unable to support this budget resolution.

The budget of the United States is a declaration of our Nation's moral priorities. It is a statement of where our Nation is now, and where we aim to be, years down the line. On all of these counts, this budget fails to reflect this Nation's values.

I know that Members of this body have strong differences on our budget priorities, but I think that we can all agree on the following two items. First, that our Nation is currently experiencing record-high deficits.

Second, that these deficits are impeding our ability to meet our needs in education, transportation, communication, health care, national security, and homeland security. There are strong views on both sides on how we got here. I believe that our change from record surpluses to record deficits was not an accident, nor was it a product of unforeseen events, but was a direct result of the fiscal policies pursued by the current administration. This result was not unforseen, not unexpected, and in some corridors even desired since there are those who have told us that deficits are ``good'' on the theory that chronically high deficits will preclude what they consider to be unwise and wasteful government spending, by which they mean spending on education, transportation, research and development, among other priorities.

Unfortunately, the budget that just passed does not in good faith address our record deficits. In fact, it worsens our Nation's fiscal health. This budget is a continuation of the reckless and unfair policies that have been pushed forward by this administration since its first days in office, and by its supporters in Congress. The majority's budget resolution would make deficits and debt worse, not better as they have claimed. Over the next 5 years, this budget proposal would increase deficits by $130 billion over what they would be under current law. And while the majority claims to be cutting the deficit in half with this budget resolution, I am afraid that that this assertion is false. This budget resolution actually leaves out large and significant costs, and in so doing masks the true size of the deficit.

The reality of the fact is that when omitted costs are factored in, such as the 10-year cost of AMT reform, $770 billion, and ongoing war costs, $380 billion, the operating deficits will remain above $500 billion and climb to $569 billion in 2010. These figures do not include the President's Social Security privatization plan, which would likely add an additional $4.4 trillion over 20 years to the national debt.

To make matters worse, by failing to provide estimates of the effects of its proposals beyond 2010, this budget resolution, obscures the fact that its tax cuts would increase the deficit by a much larger amount in the second 5 years--2011 through 2015--than in the first 5 years--2006 through 2010. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax cuts proposed in the budget would increase the deficit by another $1.4 trillion from 2011 through 2015.

The national debt would continue to skyrocket under this budget resolution. In 2001, when President Bush took office we were actually having serious conversations about paying off the national debt by 2008. Under this budget resolution, including the costs of AMT reform and ongoing war costs, we will see the publicly held debt go from its current level of $4.3 trillion to at least $5.9 trillion by 2008. In 2001, this would have seemed inconceivable. This budget resolution also includes a reconciliation instruction for a $446 billion debt increase which means that a debt increase could happen in an expedited manner without affording the Senate full and proper consideration. While there was an amendment to remove the reconciliation instruction on the debt increase, it unfortunately did not pass.

Over the past few years, the administration has told us that figures like the deficit and the national debt are merely numbers that have little impact on Americans' lives. This is yet another reflection of an administration out of touch with reality.

What will be the ultimate result of our record budget and trade deficits? Higher interest rates on small business loans, families' mortgages, and education loans. These amount to a tax hike on working families and small businesses.

Americans may wonder, how does their government finance these deficits? The answer is that our government does much what many families or businesses do when faced with bills they can't pay--we borrow money. The money our government spends has to come from somewhere--and with each passing year, more and more of it comes from foreign nations.

Since President Bush took office, foreign debt holdings have increased almost 100 percent. We now owe $700 billion to Japan, $200 billion to China, and $69 billion to South Korea. This makes us more vulnerable to the decisions of foreign central bankers since they can decide that it's time to collect their debt--and we will have to pay up. If this were to happen, the implications for our economy would be catastrophic.

The majority had an opportunity this week to truly tackle the skyrocketing deficit--by restoring a strong pay-as-you-go rule, PAYGO, that would require any new mandatory spending or tax legislation to be paid for, or require 60 votes to pass. In 1983, I was one of the first Senators to offer a pay-as-you-go budget. It is smart budgeting; it works. One major reason why we were able to move from deficit to surplus in the 1990s is because we had a strong PAYGO rule. Unfortunately, the majority refused to support this important amendment this week, thereby sending a message that it is okay that we continue to drown in deficits.

As I said at the outset, the budget that the Senate just passed is not just a fiscal document. It is a statement about the majority's values. And just as this budget is fiscally irresponsible, it is also morally irresponsible.

This budget will cause pain and debilitation to working families throughout our country. In essence this budget tells working families that they need to do more with less. This budget tells them that as a nation we just do not have money to buy new computers for schools, to provide better health care, to provide services to the poor, the sick, the frail, and the elderly. This is appalling, but what makes it even more so is that at the same time, this budget turns around to the affluent of this country and gives more to them. This budget finds room to include tax cuts for millionaires, but does not have enough for the needs of middle-class families.

Despite record deficits and debt, and despite our efforts to address this, the budget before us provides for another $70 billion in tax cuts over 5 years using the ``reconciliation'' process which is a fast-track process that ensures that such legislation would need 51, rather than 60 votes to pass. ``Reconciliation'' was originally established to ensure fiscal responsibility, and here the majority is now using it to extend the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. These tax breaks, which would average $35,000 a year, would disproportionately go to households that have incomes in excess of $1 million, a group that constitutes only 0.2 percent of all households.

Such policies will bankrupt the country and unfairly place the burden on the backs of middle-class workers. I strongly believe that this budget sets us on a dangerous course when we consider the challenges we face in the coming years.

In the global economy of the 21st century, America faces ever- increasing competition from foreign nations. How we fare in that competition will be a direct consequence of our willingness to make concrete investments in the capabilities of our greatest and most abundant resource: the American people.

Investing in the American people begins with ensuring each and every American receives a quality education. A quality education--beginning when a child is only a few years old, and continuing through college and beyond--is the key that opens the doorway to a lifetime of opportunity. Our competitors--nations like India and China--have realized that. They are making serious investments in the intellectual capacity of their citizens.

What are we doing?

One in every three programs slated for elimination in the President's budget are education programs. Aside from the eliminations, No Child Left Behind is underfunded by $12 billion, special education is underfunded by $3.6 billion, and afterschool programs are underfunded by $1.25 billion. How does the administration expect schools to raise the level of achievement for students without the resources needed to do it?

In today's global economy, we can ill afford to give our children any less than the best education available. As I have said many times before, education may be expensive but ignorance costs even more.

I was also appalled when I saw how little this budget provides for concrete investments in scientific progress.

In real terms, the total Federal R&D portfolio would decline for the first time since 1996. Total Federal support of research--basic and applied--would fall 0.6 percent to $54.8 billion.

The proposed Federal Research and Development portfolio in fiscal year 2006 is $132.3 billion, 0.6 percent or $733 million above this year's funding level, far short of the $2.2 billion increase needed to keep pace with inflation.

In many respects, I feel as if those who wrote this budget have forgotten the lessons of history. If we look at the groundbreaking scientific innovations over the past two centuries, we learn that an overwhelming number of them have been inextricably linked to real investments this Nation has made in research and development.

Where will we see the next great scientific achievement? Will it be here in the United States? Or will it be in China? Or England? Or Japan? Or Italy? The answer to that question lies in our willingness to make the right choices. Unfortunately, this budget does just the opposite.

While the budget contains an overall shortfall in R&D funding, I am pleased, however, that an amendment that was introduced by our colleague Senator George Allen and myself was accepted and included in the budget resolution. The budget had proposed to cut over $700 million out of NASA's Aeronautics budget over the next five years. Our amendment increases subsonic and hypersonic aeronautics research and development funding by $1.58 billion over 5 years, with an offset.

Aerospace and aviation are important assets for America and for my home State of Connecticut. In addition to its obvious national security benefits, the aeronautics industry makes a critical contribution to our Nation's economic growth and standard of living. We cannot continue to just give the minimum to aeronautics research and development if we want to be able to effectively compete in aeronautics and in the world economy. Acceptance of this amendment is a step forward in demonstrating that the United States is committed to our aviation and aeronautics industry and innovation.

If I listed every area in which this budget fails our Nation, I would be here much longer than my allotted time. But I would like to quickly outline just a few more of the critical priorities that this budget has shortchanged in order to provide tax cuts for millionaires:

Veterans funding would by cut by $14.5 billion. This administration constantly preaches the rhetoric of supporting our troops, yet it has consistently come up short when it comes to meeting the needs of those who have made great sacrifices for our freedoms.

Just as this budget fails those who protected our freedoms abroad, it endangers those who keep us safe here at home. It cuts firefighter assistance grants--grants that have helped fire departments buy new trucks, safety equipment, radios, hazmat suits--by 31 percent. It cuts funding for the COPS program--which supports police officers throughout our nation--by 96 percent.

We have known since the first roads of the Roman Empire that the fate of nations hinges in many respects on their ability to move people, goods, and services as efficiently as possible. Yet this budget cuts $15.9 billion in transportation funding.

Reductions in natural resource and environmental programs would total $29 billion over five years. This budget also fails to protect the Arctic refuge from drilling.

The budget also cuts child care assistance for 300,000 children through 2009. It is absurd to be cutting child care assistance for struggling parents at the same time that the President proposes that more low-income parents work longer hours. It is not just absurd, it is irresponsible. If you want welfare reform, you simply must have child care, as well.

This budget would terminate the Community Services Block Grant, leaving working poor families affected by the President's budget cuts with nowhere to turn for assistance.

I know that we can do better than this budget. Actually, we must do better, so that we can truly move our country forward, and do what is best for families everywhere.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators

Kennedy, McCain and others in condemning ongoing violence and criminality by the Irish Republican Army.

Our actions are prompted in part by our meeting yesterday with the sisters and fiance of Robert McCartney, a Catholic resident of Belfast who was brutally murdered on January 30, by individuals who are members of the IRA. These six young women, Catherine McCartney, Paula Arnold, Gemma McMacken, Claire McCartney, Donna Mary McCartney, and Bridgeen Karen Hagans, have publicly challenged the code of silence that generally surrounds IRA activities, including the brutal murder of their brother, an innocent bystander.

These brave women came to Washington seeking our help to ensure that this heinous act is not forgotten as time passes and that justice is done, not only on behalf of their brother, but for all the people of Northern Ireland--Protestant and Catholic alike. They have called upon the IRA and Sinn Fein to stop covering up Robert's murder, and to begin immediately to cooperate directly with the Northern Ireland Policing Service in order to bring to justice those responsible for this heinous crime.

In response to their appeal we believe that it is important that the United States Senate express itself on their behalf. That is why we have asked the Senate to act on the pending resolution. That is why President Bush met personally with these brave women at the White House earlier today--to highlight the importance of justice being done.

Our actions on this resolution and the President's meeting earlier today put the world on notice that we condemn such acts. In addition, with this resolution we call on the leadership of Sinn Fein to insist that everyone responsible for this murder be brought to justice and that anyone with knowledge about the crime cooperate fully and directly with the Police Service of Northern Ireland in making that possible.

As an Irish American, I look forward to the annual celebration of Saint Patrick's Day. Earlier today we participated in the Annual Speaker's luncheon with visiting Prime Minister of Ireland, Bertie Ahern to commemorate this day.

I must tell you that we did so with less exuberance than in past years when there was frankly more to be joyful about.

Ten years ago on this day, there was excitement and promise at our Saint Patrick's Day celebration--the 1994 IRA ceasefire had been in place for more than 6 months and there existed a positive climate conducive to finding a political resolution to a quarter century of sectarian violence.

Seven years ago, in 1998, there was even more concrete evidence that sectarian violence was over as we were literally days away from the parties signing the Good Friday Accords which they did on April 9 of that year. That document was crafted by the political parties under the able leadership of former Majority Leader George Mitchell with the active involvement of President Bill Clinton, and Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern. It spelled out in black and white an agenda and institutions for delivering justice and equality to both traditions within a framework of inclusive self-government.

Our annual Saint Patrick's Day celebrations since 1998 have been an opportunity to take stock of the progress toward full implementation of the Good Friday Accords. I for one have approached this day each year with the hope that we might finally declare that the Accords were fully functioning, and that violence and terror were no longer a part of the fabric of Northern Ireland's society.

Sadly, this Saint Patrick's day we struggle to call the glass half full with respect to progress on the Accords. The Northern Ireland Assembly is in suspension, the assembly's Executive is vacant. The parties are deadlocked over what must be done to restart the process. Collectively, Northern Ireland's political leaders must accept responsibility for the political impasse that now exists. But Sinn Fein and the IRA carry a heavier burden than others for restarting the process. Sinn Fein, as an organization, must commit itself fully and unequivocally to solely political means to advance its agenda of equality and inclusion. There is no place in a democracy for a political organization to have its own private paramilitary organization. Sinn Fein cannot call itself a democratic organization if it does not severe all ties with the IRA, an organization which espouses, condones, and covers up unlawful acts such as murder and robbery. And, if the IRA is in fact committed to the full implementation of the Peace Accords as it has publicly stated, then it must fully and verifiably decommission its weapons and go out business entirely.

In my opinion, nothing short of these actions is going to repair the damage done to the peace process by the recent acts of criminality by the IRA. Public demonstrations by the Catholic community in Belfast in support of the McCartney sisters' quest for justice made it patently obvious that whatever support might have existed for the IRA in that community exists no longer. It is very clear that the people of Northern Ireland want to live in peace--they want an end to vigilantism and intimidation--they want transparency and the rule of law. They want a future for themselves and their children.

Today, Northern Ireland is a struggling democracy--at a crossroad. Elections have occurred. Elected representatives have been chosen. The mechanisms of self-government are clearly spelled out in the Good Friday Accords. Everyone knows what needs to be done to move the process forward. I hope and pray that those with the power to make a difference will have the courage to do the right thing. The people of Northern Ireland deserve and expect nothing less.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch and Senator Brownback in introducing legislation to advance the use of umbilical cord blood for clinical applications and research. I first became aware of the potential therapeutic benefits of cord blood when my first daughter was born three and a half years ago. At that time, our doctor informed me and my wife that preserving a small amount of blood from the umbilical cord could prove enormously beneficial later in her life. Should she become ill with a disease requiring bone marrow reconstitution, such as leukemia, her own cord blood stem cells could be used. This would eliminate the need to find a suitable bone marrow donor.

The bill that we are introducing today will begin a new national commitment to the development of this technology--which has the potential to reduce pain and suffering and save the lives of so many Americans afflicted with some of the most debilitating illnesses. Cord blood has already been used successfully in treating a number of diseases, including sickle cell anemia and certain childhood cancers. However, the use of cord blood is still fledgling. Recent developments have suggested that the stem cells derived from cord blood may be useful in treating a much wider range of diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and heart disease.

Like many Americans, I had never heard of cord blood before the birth of my daughter. It is not widely used--at least in this country. Approximately 95 percent of all bone marrow reconstitutions were done using a bone marrow transplant. Only five percent used cord blood. This figure is surprising when we consider the potential benefits of cord blood relative to bone marrow.

First, it can be very difficult to find a suitable bone marrow donor. According to a General Accounting Office (GAO) report, of the 15,231 individuals needing bone marrow transplants between 1997 and 2000 who conducted a preliminary search of the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry (NBMDR), only 4,056 received a transplant--a 27 percent success rate. This number is even lower for minorities. Cord blood would not only produce an additional source of donation; it also does not require as exact a match as bone marrow.

In addition, cord blood is readily available. While it can take months between finding a bone marrow match and actually receiving a transplant, a unit of cord blood can be utilized in a matter of days or weeks. Cord blood also lowers the risk of complications for both the donor and the recipient. The need to extract bone marrow from the donor is eliminated, and the risk of infection or rejection by the recipient is significantly reduced. Finally, research has suggested that cord blood might produce better outcomes than bone marrow in children.

Why then, given all of these benefits, has the use of cord blood not become much more prevalent in the United States? In Japan, where the use of cord blood in clinical setting is more advanced, nearly half of all transplants now use cord blood rather than bone marrow.

The relatively infrequent use of cord blood in our country is at least partly attributable to the lack of a national infrastructure for the matching and distribution of cord blood units. There are a handful of cord blood banks around the country doing excellent work, but there is a much more developed infrastructure for bone marrow. This is thanks to legislation passed by Congress in 1986 that established a National Registry for bone marrow. By the way, that legislation is due to be reauthorized--and I would like to voice my strong support for that reauthorization.

Our bill would create a similar infrastructure for cord blood. Specifically, it would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), to establish a National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Network, as well as a registry of available cord blood units. The network and registry would be required to collect a minimum of 150,000 units, which should be sufficient to provide a suitable match for 90 percent of the U.S. population.

Donor banks would also be required to educate the general public about the potential benefits of cord blood, and encourage an ethnically diverse population of cord blood donors. Given the untapped potential of cord blood, at least ten percent of the available units must also be made available for research. Finally, the legislation authorizes an appropriation of $15 million for fiscal year 2006, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2010.

Before finishing today I would like to make it clear that I strongly support the continuation of the excellent work done by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP). Cord blood should act as a complement to-- not a replacement for--bone marrow. In many cases, a bone marrow transplant is still the preferred therapy. Physicians should have the ability to decide on a case by case basis which is best for their patient.

In the coming weeks, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) will release a report with recommendations about the appropriate structure for a cord blood registry. I look forward to reviewing those recommendations and, if necessary, making the appropriate changes to our legislation.

I firmly believe that the creation of a national infrastructure for cord blood will, in time, save the lives of thousands of gravely ill Americans. We have a responsibility to encourage use of cord blood where appropriate today, and invest in research to fully tap the potential of this technology. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Social Investment and Economic Development Fund

for the Americas Act of 2005. This legislation would authorize critical assistance to fight poverty and increase economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere.

In January, my colleagues Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Lincoln Chafee and I visited Venezuela, Paraguay, Argentina, Peru and Ecuador. Our trip and discussions with political and economic leaders throughout the region underscored to me the danger that poverty and economic inequality continue to pose to regional stability, the rule of law, and to the continuation of market reforms.

One third of the population in Latin America currently lives in poverty. 128 million people survive on less than two dollars a day, and 50 million people on less than one dollar a day. In Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, 65 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. Despite economic growth throughout the 1990s, moreover, unemployment in Latin America actually increased. And as we all know such factors have the potential to increase instability and undermine democratic reforms and the rule of law. Indeed, individuals living in poverty are often forced by circumstances to engage in illicit activity, including narco-trafficking and even supporting terrorist related activities.

But there is not only tremendous poverty. Income inequality in Latin America is the highest in the world. To illustrate that fact, consider that the richest one-tenth of all Latin Americans earn 48 percent of the total national income, whereas the bottom one tenth earns only 1.6 percent. By contrast, in developed countries, the top ten percent earns 29.1 percent, and the bottom 10 percent earns 2.5 percent. Is it any wonder that economic inequality in Uruguay, the most equal country in Latin America, is still greater than in the most unequal country in Eastern Europe?

Poverty and inequality are not simply social injustices. They threaten the political stability of Latin America and the national interests of the United States. Indeed, according to a 2004 report by the United Nations Development Program, progress in extending elective democracy across Latin America is threatened by ongoing social and economic turmoil. Most troubling, the report suggests that over 50 percent of the population of Latin America would be willing to sacrifice democratic government for real progress on the economic and social fronts. That is a frightening statistic. And it should make crystal clear the urgency of this situation. Two decades of progress in our hemisphere is at risk.

The Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas Act of 2005 would seek to address these issues by investing in the peoples of the Americas. This important legislation would make it United States policy to promote market-based principles, economic integration, social development, and inter-American trade. To that end, it would authorize $250 million annually in bilateral economic assistance to the hemisphere through fiscal year 2010. It would also authorize multilateral assistance, directed through the Inter-American Development Bank, of no more than $250 million per year and $1.25 billion in total.

Certainly, strong trade relations remain a key to creating healthy economies both here in the United States and throughout the region. But trade alone cannot address the myriad challenges facing Latin America, when millions of citizens in the hemisphere remain marginalized by economic insecurity and social dislocation. That is another reason why this bill is so critical.

To confront these challenges, we have to start at the grass roots. We have to start with the people. And the Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas would do that by supporting public- private partnerships and micro-enterprise developments. It would give honest, hardworking families the chance to become entrepreneurial and to create a broad based ownership society in their countries. We promote these values here at home, and we should do so abroad.

Investing in people also means investing in human capital. And there is clearly a need. According to the World Bank large portions of the population do not receive adequate services such as education and health care. Education, in particular, is identified as critical to development. Yet the quality of education varies significantly based on social status and income distribution. In Mexico, for example, the average individual in the bottom 20 percent income bracket has only 3.5 years of schooling, whereas an individual in the top 20 percent income bracket has 11.6 years. My legislation would address these inequities by targeting assistance at projects which would invest in education. It would also build human capital by investing in basic needs such as health care, disease prevention, nutrition, and housing.

To move forward, we also have to help the people invest in good governance. Public corruption remains an especially persistent and pernicious problem in this hemisphere. Both Transparency International and the World Economic Forum report high levels of corruption throughout the region. Moreover, while full citizen participation in government is a key to strengthening democracy and ensuring that civil services work, many Latin American citizens do not express confidence in their political institutions. This Act would attempt to overcome these barriers to progress by enhancing efficiency and transparency in government services as well as increasing civil society participation in government.

Lastly, marginalized populations, including indigenous groups, people of African descent, women, and people with disabilities, are particularly affected by problems of poverty and income inequality. This act would target funds to reduce poverty and decrease social dislocation among these populations.

The funds authorized by this act would be distributed on the basis of competitive bidding and inter-American cooperation. To do so, this legislation would establish technical review committees which will partner with consultative committees in each country to make determinations on funding requests.

Finally, the historic Summits of the Americas made it clear that economic and social integration are the responsibilities of all nations in the Western Hemisphere. Through this act, the United States would send a strong signal to others in the region that we take these responsibilities seriously. And it will challenge the other countries in the hemisphere to collectively match our efforts.

We stand today at a moment of great opportunity and great risk in this hemisphere. The past two decades have witnessed the rise of democratic governments in nations that long languished under dictatorship. Yet this progress is endangered. Economic and social conditions for millions of men and women continue to lag dangerously far behind. It is in our moral and strategic interests to provide the necessary economic assistance to fight the scourges of poverty and social dislocation in this hemisphere. The Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas Act of 2005 is a vital first step to achieving this goal. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch and Senator Brownback in introducing legislation to advance the use of umbilical cord blood for clinical applications and research. I first became aware of the potential therapeutic benefits of cord blood when my first daughter was born three and a half years ago. At that time, our doctor informed me and my wife that preserving a small amount of blood from the umbilical cord could prove enormously beneficial later in her life. Should she become ill with a disease requiring bone marrow reconstitution, such as leukemia, her own cord blood stem cells could be used. This would eliminate the need to find a suitable bone marrow donor.

The bill that we are introducing today will begin a new national commitment to the development of this technology--which has the potential to reduce pain and suffering and save the lives of so many Americans afflicted with some of the most debilitating illnesses. Cord blood has already been used successfully in treating a number of diseases, including sickle cell anemia and certain childhood cancers. However, the use of cord blood is still fledgling. Recent developments have suggested that the stem cells derived from cord blood may be useful in treating a much wider range of diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and heart disease.

Like many Americans, I had never heard of cord blood before the birth of my daughter. It is not widely used--at least in this country. Approximately 95 percent of all bone marrow reconstitutions were done using a bone marrow transplant. Only five percent used cord blood. This figure is surprising when we consider the potential benefits of cord blood relative to bone marrow.

First, it can be very difficult to find a suitable bone marrow donor. According to a General Accounting Office (GAO) report, of the 15,231 individuals needing bone marrow transplants between 1997 and 2000 who conducted a preliminary search of the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry (NBMDR), only 4,056 received a transplant--a 27 percent success rate. This number is even lower for minorities. Cord blood would not only produce an additional source of donation; it also does not require as exact a match as bone marrow.

In addition, cord blood is readily available. While it can take months between finding a bone marrow match and actually receiving a transplant, a unit of cord blood can be utilized in a matter of days or weeks. Cord blood also lowers the risk of complications for both the donor and the recipient. The need to extract bone marrow from the donor is eliminated, and the risk of infection or rejection by the recipient is significantly reduced. Finally, research has suggested that cord blood might produce better outcomes than bone marrow in children.

Why then, given all of these benefits, has the use of cord blood not become much more prevalent in the United States? In Japan, where the use of cord blood in clinical setting is more advanced, nearly half of all transplants now use cord blood rather than bone marrow.

The relatively infrequent use of cord blood in our country is at least partly attributable to the lack of a national infrastructure for the matching and distribution of cord blood units. There are a handful of cord blood banks around the country doing excellent work, but there is a much more developed infrastructure for bone marrow. This is thanks to legislation passed by Congress in 1986 that established a National Registry for bone marrow. By the way, that legislation is due to be reauthorized--and I would like to voice my strong support for that reauthorization.

Our bill would create a similar infrastructure for cord blood. Specifically, it would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), to establish a National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Network, as well as a registry of available cord blood units. The network and registry would be required to collect a minimum of 150,000 units, which should be sufficient to provide a suitable match for 90 percent of the U.S. population.

Donor banks would also be required to educate the general public about the potential benefits of cord blood, and encourage an ethnically diverse population of cord blood donors. Given the untapped potential of cord blood, at least ten percent of the available units must also be made available for research. Finally, the legislation authorizes an appropriation of $15 million for fiscal year 2006, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2010.

Before finishing today I would like to make it clear that I strongly support the continuation of the excellent work done by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP). Cord blood should act as a complement to-- not a replacement for--bone marrow. In many cases, a bone marrow transplant is still the preferred therapy. Physicians should have the ability to decide on a case by case basis which is best for their patient.

In the coming weeks, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) will release a report with recommendations about the appropriate structure for a cord blood registry. I look forward to reviewing those recommendations and, if necessary, making the appropriate changes to our legislation.

I firmly believe that the creation of a national infrastructure for cord blood will, in time, save the lives of thousands of gravely ill Americans. We have a responsibility to encourage use of cord blood where appropriate today, and invest in research to fully tap the potential of this technology. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Social Investment and Economic Development Fund

for the Americas Act of 2005. This legislation would authorize critical assistance to fight poverty and increase economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere.

In January, my colleagues Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Lincoln Chafee and I visited Venezuela, Paraguay, Argentina, Peru and Ecuador. Our trip and discussions with political and economic leaders throughout the region underscored to me the danger that poverty and economic inequality continue to pose to regional stability, the rule of law, and to the continuation of market reforms.

One third of the population in Latin America currently lives in poverty. 128 million people survive on less than two dollars a day, and 50 million people on less than one dollar a day. In Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, 65 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. Despite economic growth throughout the 1990s, moreover, unemployment in Latin America actually increased. And as we all know such factors have the potential to increase instability and undermine democratic reforms and the rule of law. Indeed, individuals living in poverty are often forced by circumstances to engage in illicit activity, including narco-trafficking and even supporting terrorist related activities.

But there is not only tremendous poverty. Income inequality in Latin America is the highest in the world. To illustrate that fact, consider that the richest one-tenth of all Latin Americans earn 48 percent of the total national income, whereas the bottom one tenth earns only 1.6 percent. By contrast, in developed countries, the top ten percent earns 29.1 percent, and the bottom 10 percent earns 2.5 percent. Is it any wonder that economic inequality in Uruguay, the most equal country in Latin America, is still greater than in the most unequal country in Eastern Europe?

Poverty and inequality are not simply social injustices. They threaten the political stability of Latin America and the national interests of the United States. Indeed, according to a 2004 report by the United Nations Development Program, progress in extending elective democracy across Latin America is threatened by ongoing social and economic turmoil. Most troubling, the report suggests that over 50 percent of the population of Latin America would be willing to sacrifice democratic government for real progress on the economic and social fronts. That is a frightening statistic. And it should make crystal clear the urgency of this situation. Two decades of progress in our hemisphere is at risk.

The Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas Act of 2005 would seek to address these issues by investing in the peoples of the Americas. This important legislation would make it United States policy to promote market-based principles, economic integration, social development, and inter-American trade. To that end, it would authorize $250 million annually in bilateral economic assistance to the hemisphere through fiscal year 2010. It would also authorize multilateral assistance, directed through the Inter-American Development Bank, of no more than $250 million per year and $1.25 billion in total.

Certainly, strong trade relations remain a key to creating healthy economies both here in the United States and throughout the region. But trade alone cannot address the myriad challenges facing Latin America, when millions of citizens in the hemisphere remain marginalized by economic insecurity and social dislocation. That is another reason why this bill is so critical.

To confront these challenges, we have to start at the grass roots. We have to start with the people. And the Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas would do that by supporting public- private partnerships and micro-enterprise developments. It would give honest, hardworking families the chance to become entrepreneurial and to create a broad based ownership society in their countries. We promote these values here at home, and we should do so abroad.

Investing in people also means investing in human capital. And there is clearly a need. According to the World Bank large portions of the population do not receive adequate services such as education and health care. Education, in particular, is identified as critical to development. Yet the quality of education varies significantly based on social status and income distribution. In Mexico, for example, the average individual in the bottom 20 percent income bracket has only 3.5 years of schooling, whereas an individual in the top 20 percent income bracket has 11.6 years. My legislation would address these inequities by targeting assistance at projects which would invest in education. It would also build human capital by investing in basic needs such as health care, disease prevention, nutrition, and housing.

To move forward, we also have to help the people invest in good governance. Public corruption remains an especially persistent and pernicious problem in this hemisphere. Both Transparency International and the World Economic Forum report high levels of corruption throughout the region. Moreover, while full citizen participation in government is a key to strengthening democracy and ensuring that civil services work, many Latin American citizens do not express confidence in their political institutions. This Act would attempt to overcome these barriers to progress by enhancing efficiency and transparency in government services as well as increasing civil society participation in government.

Lastly, marginalized populations, including indigenous groups, people of African descent, women, and people with disabilities, are particularly affected by problems of poverty and income inequality. This act would target funds to reduce poverty and decrease social dislocation among these populations.

The funds authorized by this act would be distributed on the basis of competitive bidding and inter-American cooperation. To do so, this legislation would establish technical review committees which will partner with consultative committees in each country to make determinations on funding requests.

Finally, the historic Summits of the Americas made it clear that economic and social integration are the responsibilities of all nations in the Western Hemisphere. Through this act, the United States would send a strong signal to others in the region that we take these responsibilities seriously. And it will challenge the other countries in the hemisphere to collectively match our efforts.

We stand today at a moment of great opportunity and great risk in this hemisphere. The past two decades have witnessed the rise of democratic governments in nations that long languished under dictatorship. Yet this progress is endangered. Economic and social conditions for millions of men and women continue to lag dangerously far behind. It is in our moral and strategic interests to provide the necessary economic assistance to fight the scourges of poverty and social dislocation in this hemisphere. The Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas Act of 2005 is a vital first step to achieving this goal. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise with our colleague, Senator Lieberman, to reintroduce two pieces of legislation intended to improve the process by which the Federal Government considers petitions of American Indians and their tribal governments for Federal recognition. The first bill is called the Tribal Recognition and Indian Bureau Enhancement Act, or the TRIBE Act. The second bill is a bill to provide assistance grants to financially needy tribal groups and municipalities so that those groups and towns can more fully and fairly participate in certain decision-making processes at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA. I offer these bills with a sense of hope and with the expectation that they will contribute to the larger national conversation about how the Federal Government can best fulfill its obligations to America's native peoples, and uphold the principles of fairness and openness in our laws.

The persistent problems that plague the current tribal recognition process have been well-documented and widely acknowledged. A General Accounting Office report concluded in November, 2001 that ``weaknesses in the process create uncertainty about the basis for recognition decisions, and the amount of time it takes to make those decisions impedes the process of fulfilling its promise as a uniform approach to tribal recognition.'' This conclusion has been shared by many tribal and non-tribal governments. The Chairwoman of the Duwamish Tribe of Washington State has testified that she and her people ``have known and felt the effects of 20 years of administrative inaccuracies, delays and the blase approach in . . . handling and . . . processing the Duwamish petitions.'' And it has even been shared by the BIA itself, when in 2001, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs admitted that ``. . . it is time for Congress to consider an alternative process.'' Clearly, tribes, municipalities, and others interested in the recognition process have been ill-served over the years by a broken system. I believe that we have an obligation to restore public confidence in the recognition process.

The TRIBE Act would improve the recognition process in several ways. First, it would authorize $10 million per year to better enable the Bureau of Indian Affairs to consider petitions in a thorough, fair, and timely manner. Currently, there is an enormous backlog of tribal recognition petitions pending at the BIA. At current rates of progress, it takes many years for a petition to be considered. It seems to me that is an unacceptably long amount of time. Indeed, I can think of no other area of law where Americans must wait as long to have their rights adjudicated and vindicated. Second, the TRIBE Act would provide for improved notice of a petition to key parties who may have an interest in a petition, including the governor and attorney general of the State where a tribe seeks recognition, other tribes, and elected leaders of municipalities that are adjacent to the land of a tribe seeking recognition. Third, it would require that a petitioner meets each of the seven mandatory criteria for Federal recognition spelled out in the current Code of Federal Regulations. Unfortunately, in a number of highly controversial decisions, it appears that these criteria have not been applied in a uniform and consistent manner. Fourth, it would require that a decision on a petition be published in the Federal Register, and include a detailed explanation of the findings of fact and of law with respect to each of the seven mandatory criteria for recognition.

I want to emphasize what this legislation would not do. It would not revoke or in any way alter the status of tribes whose petitions for Federal recognition have already been granted. It would not restrict in any way the existing prerogatives and privileges of such tribes. Tribes would retain their right to self-determination consistent with their sovereign status. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the TRIBE Act would not dictate outcomes nor would it tie the hands of the BIA. It would simply create a uniform recognition process that is equal and fair to all.

My second bill would provide grants to allow poor tribes and municipalities an opportunity to participate fully in important decision-making processes pertaining to recognition. Consequently, these grants would enable these communities to provide to the BIA more relevant information and resources from which to make a fair and fully- informed decision on tribal recognition. When the Federal Government, through the BIA, makes decisions that will have an enormous impact on a variety of communities--both tribal and non-tribal--it is only right that the Government should provide a meaningful opportunity for those communities to be heard.

I believe that every tribal organization that is entitled to recognition ought to be recognized and ought to be recognized in an appropriately speedy process. At the same time, we must make sure that the BIA's decisions are accurate and fair. Every recognition decision carries with it a legal significance that should endure forever. Each recognition decision made by the BIA is a foundation upon which relationships between tribes and States, tribes and municipalities, Indians and non-Indians will be built for generations to come. We need to make sure that the foundation upon which these lasting decisions are built is sound and will withstand the test of time. We cannot afford to build relationships between sovereigns on the shifting sands of a broken bureaucratic procedure.

Mr. President, I rise with our colleague, Senator Lieberman, to reintroduce two pieces of legislation intended to improve the process by which the Federal Government considers petitions of American Indians and their tribal governments for Federal recognition. The first bill is called the Tribal Recognition and Indian Bureau Enhancement Act, or the TRIBE Act. The second bill is a bill to provide assistance grants to financially needy tribal groups and municipalities so that those groups and towns can more fully and fairly participate in certain decision-making processes at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA. I offer these bills with a sense of hope and with the expectation that they will contribute to the larger national conversation about how the Federal Government can best fulfill its obligations to America's native peoples, and uphold the principles of fairness and openness in our laws.

The persistent problems that plague the current tribal recognition process have been well-documented and widely acknowledged. A General Accounting Office report concluded in November, 2001 that ``weaknesses in the process create uncertainty about the basis for recognition decisions, and the amount of time it takes to make those decisions impedes the process of fulfilling its promise as a uniform approach to tribal recognition.'' This conclusion has been shared by many tribal and non-tribal governments. The Chairwoman of the Duwamish Tribe of Washington State has testified that she and her people ``have known and felt the effects of 20 years of administrative inaccuracies, delays and the blase approach in . . . handling and . . . processing the Duwamish petitions.'' And it has even been shared by the BIA itself, when in 2001, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs admitted that ``. . . it is time for Congress to consider an alternative process.'' Clearly, tribes, municipalities, and others interested in the recognition process have been ill-served over the years by a broken system. I believe that we have an obligation to restore public confidence in the recognition process.

The TRIBE Act would improve the recognition process in several ways. First, it would authorize $10 million per year to better enable the Bureau of Indian Affairs to consider petitions in a thorough, fair, and timely manner. Currently, there is an enormous backlog of tribal recognition petitions pending at the BIA. At current rates of progress, it takes many years for a petition to be considered. It seems to me that is an unacceptably long amount of time. Indeed, I can think of no other area of law where Americans must wait as long to have their rights adjudicated and vindicated. Second, the TRIBE Act would provide for improved notice of a petition to key parties who may have an interest in a petition, including the governor and attorney general of the State where a tribe seeks recognition, other tribes, and elected leaders of municipalities that are adjacent to the land of a tribe seeking recognition. Third, it would require that a petitioner meets each of the seven mandatory criteria for Federal recognition spelled out in the current Code of Federal Regulations. Unfortunately, in a number of highly controversial decisions, it appears that these criteria have not been applied in a uniform and consistent manner. Fourth, it would require that a decision on a petition be published in the Federal Register, and include a detailed explanation of the findings of fact and of law with respect to each of the seven mandatory criteria for recognition.

I want to emphasize what this legislation would not do. It would not revoke or in any way alter the status of tribes whose petitions for Federal recognition have already been granted. It would not restrict in any way the existing prerogatives and privileges of such tribes. Tribes would retain their right to self-determination consistent with their sovereign status. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the TRIBE Act would not dictate outcomes nor would it tie the hands of the BIA. It would simply create a uniform recognition process that is equal and fair to all.

My second bill would provide grants to allow poor tribes and municipalities an opportunity to participate fully in important decision-making processes pertaining to recognition. Consequently, these grants would enable these communities to provide to the BIA more relevant information and resources from which to make a fair and fully- informed decision on tribal recognition. When the Federal Government, through the BIA, makes decisions that will have an enormous impact on a variety of communities--both tribal and non-tribal--it is only right that the Government should provide a meaningful opportunity for those communities to be heard.

I believe that every tribal organization that is entitled to recognition ought to be recognized and ought to be recognized in an appropriately speedy process. At the same time, we must make sure that the BIA's decisions are accurate and fair. Every recognition decision carries with it a legal significance that should endure forever. Each recognition decision made by the BIA is a foundation upon which relationships between tribes and States, tribes and municipalities, Indians and non-Indians will be built for generations to come. We need to make sure that the foundation upon which these lasting decisions are built is sound and will withstand the test of time. We cannot afford to build relationships between sovereigns on the shifting sands of a broken bureaucratic procedure.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. He makes a point. Next year, more than 1 million single women will file for bankruptcy in the United States. Most of them are women with children, significant numbers of children. This is far too harsh for this constituency.

We urge adoption of the Kennedy amendment. It is only right and only fair and ought to be done to provide relief to these people under the bankruptcy system.

Mr. President, I am here today in support of a bipartisan bill that would reauthorize the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. Few issues are as critically important to the future of the country as the competitiveness of our workforce. This bill will help to ensure America's economic dominance for years to come.

Essential to strengthening the workforce, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act not only prepares youth and adults for the careers of today, it prepares them for the careers of tomorrow. For that reason, it is the first line of defense in ensuring America's competitive advantage in a global economy.

We have heard a lot lately about American students losing their competitive edge. In math and science our fourth graders are among the best in the world but by their senior year of high school, they score near the bottom of all industrialized nations. Our college dropout rate is one of the highest in the world. The United States has dropped from first to fifth in the percentage of young adults with a college degree. Singapore has displaced the United States as the top economy in information technology competitiveness. And, the number of patents awarded to Americans is declining. Clearly, all of this is having an effect on our global competitiveness.

The problem is further compounded by the fact that our universities are facing intense competition in higher education and are slipping in their ability to attract the world's best students. Yesterday, the Council of Graduate Schools released a study showing that foreign applications to graduate schools are down 6 percent. These are individuals that contribute to the cutting-edge research American universities and corporations have long been known for.

Do we need to increase our efforts to attract these students back? Yes. Do we also need to do everything we can to increase our competitiveness from within? Yes. The bill before us will help us to do that.

The bill before us does a number of important things. First and foremost, it emphasizes accountability and improved results. Second, it improves monitoring and enforcement. Third, it disaggregates performance goals and report information by special populations so no one falls through the cracks. And fourth, it strengthens the ties between industry, high schools, and higher education by ensuring that teachers are well trained, that students are academically ready for college, and that high schools are training students for the actual needs of their communities.

The premise of the bill is that high schools, industry and higher education need to work together to provide our workforce with the skills that they need in order to achieve and compete in the 21st century. This bill works to ensure that American students are not just getting a world-class education, but the best education in the world.

I would be remiss in my remarks if I did not mention the President's proposed elimination of the Perkin's program in his fiscal year 2006 budget. And, I would be remiss if I did not commend the leadership of Senator Enzi, our committee chair, in bringing this

bill forward despite the President's plan. Senator Enzi's unwavering commitment in this area is unparalleled. I hope that the administration understands that our decision to make this the first major piece of education legislation that we take up this Congress is reflective of our unwavering commitment to career and technical education. We will not let this program fall by the wayside. Perkins will not be eliminated.

We often hear the pledge that we will leave no child behind. May I suggest that we also make every effort to ensure that we leave no career and technical education student behind? Passage of these important provisions today will go a long way toward ensuring that career and vocational education students are not left behind in the classroom, that they are being held to high academic standards, that their teachers are provided with the training they need to keep up to date with the latest industry needs, and that high schools, industry and higher education work seamlessly together to provide our workforce with the skills that they need to maintain America's economic dominance in the 21st century.

Career and vocational programs are an essential part of keeping students in school and helping our Nation train its workforce. I am confident that this bill will go a long way in helping another generation of Americans succeed, and, in doing so, strengthen our economy.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment I offered yesterday. It is an amendment designed principally to protect children and families caught in the bankruptcy situation.

Let me state again at the outset, clearly there is a need to reform the bankruptcy laws--none of us disagree with that--but it must require a sense of balance. People are moving through the bankruptcy courts, but we also need to keep in mind that families, particularly children, the innocents in this, are not going to be so disadvantaged by the process that we create a more serious problem than the bankruptcy issue suggests.

Under this bill as presently crafted, there are several areas where we could do a far better job of seeing to it that children and families are going to be protected to the extent possible, while creditors are also going to have an ability to reach assets. This bill provides too strong a straitjacket for families.

I offer four different parts in this amendment. The first modifies the means test to require greater flexibility and reasonableness in calculating a debtor's ability to pay. Under the bill you have $1,500 a year as the total amount allowed for educational expenses for children. The reality of the 21st century, putting aside parochial school education, even for a public school, $1,500 is too low a figure for the children to get the proper education they need. Our amendment raises that ceiling from $1,500 to $5,000.

Second, the amendment ensures that support payments, child support payments, alimony, if there are any resources coming from the earned income tax credit or the child tax credit, specifically money intended to support children and their needs, should not go to creditors. Those moneys ought to be kept out of the estate. Again, child support, alimony, EITC, child tax credits. The bill does not presently allow that. We specifically passed that legislation to assist poor families and families with children.

Third, the amendment enables debtors going through bankruptcy to keep personal property normally found in and around the home. The bill does list some new items that were not in the earlier versions of the bill. That is a simple reasonableness test. Rather than having a finite list, if these goods have no resale value at all, and they are used for children and used for providing for the needs of the household, they ought to be excluded. That is the third part of this amendment.

Fourth, the amendment ensures that debtors are not forced into bankruptcy court to seek to prove that food, diapers, school uniforms, and other items are luxury items. Under the present law, the bankruptcy current law allows $1,225 to be charged within 60 days of filing bankruptcy. This bill drops that number to $500 within 90 days. That is a totally unrealistic number. Anyone who has young children will tell you $500 over 90 days to provide for your children is far too low. We tried to offer a compromise, saying any charges amounting to $1,000 within 70 days. As I say, existing law is $1,225 within 60 days. The bill says $500 within 90 days. Our amendment says $1,000 within 70 days.

Lastly, as part of this amendment, if the creditors think these are luxury items, let them make the allegation in court. This bill requires these dependent women, most of them single women raising children, have to prove these are not luxury items. The burden ought to be on the opposite side of the equation.

That is what the amendment is designed to do. There are four pieces to it. It is specifically designed to offer some relief to the innocents, the children and the families who are going through this process--not to blame them or put them in an untenable situation.

This amendment is supported by a long list of organizations across the country dealing with women and children. I ask unanimous consent that list be printed in the Record.

This bill deserves to make some changes. I hope our colleagues look closely at what is in the bill and support this amendment and see we can provide a sense of balance and relief for children and families who need some protection when they go through the bankruptcy process.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this amendment was going to be voted on, actually, earlier this morning, but there was a reason to delay it until this afternoon. I ask unanimous consent to have 1 minute to explain the amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment is simple and straightforward. More than 1 million women in the coming year will file bankruptcy. The overwhelming majority of these women are mothers of young children. This amendment is designed to see to it that the needs of children will be met as persons go through the bankruptcy act. The credit card companies certainly have a right to receive what resources are due them, but they should not be able to trump the needs of children.

Too often in this bill, in a variety of places, that is exactly what happens. My colleague from Utah said this bill has been 8 years in the making. It would only take a couple of minutes here to try to redress some of the inequities that exist when it comes to questions of providing for the basic needs of children--educational needs, utilizing child support, the earned-income tax credit, the child tax credit, and alimony to support the needs of children.

For over 100 years, since 1903, women and children have come first in our Nation's bankruptcy laws. This will be the very first time, without this amendment being adopted, that children and families will take a backseat to the credit card industry. That is a wrong priority for our Nation.

Every major child advocacy group in this country supports this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. This is one exception we ought to make to get right the balance in this bill of the needs of the credit card companies with the needs of America's children and families. I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 67.

Mr. President, this amendment--we have checked with the Parliamentarian--is a germane amendment to the bill. It was filed prior to the appropriate time, at the hour of 2:30 p.m. yesterday. Let me explain what this amendment does and why I am offering it this afternoon.

I am offering this amendment to enable parents to meet the needs of their children. We just heard our good friend and colleague from Ohio talk about Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the problems that occur with underage drinking. It is appropriate, after that discussion, that I offer this amendment because it is not unrelated, we know the difficulty of single parenthood, of how hard it is for single parents, the overwhelming majority of whom are women, to try to raise children on their own, all of the pressures of holding down jobs and managing a family. It will not come as any great surprise to my colleagues to know that a significant percentage of underage drinking and children who have problems with the juvenile justice system and other related issues come from broken homes, unfortunately. The tremendous pressures of a single head of household holding down a job and keeping their family together is not easy.

This amendment I am offering today on this bankruptcy bill relates to these familial circumstances, and it comes in several parts. I am going to take a few minutes and explain this amendment and why I believe it is important.

Very simply, during the financial crisis of living through a bankruptcy, children should be protected to the maximum extent possible. That is my strong belief. I believe it is the belief of all of us. Regardless of one's politics or ideology, I think we all understand that when a family is going through bankruptcy, we ought to do what we can to protect the innocent. Whatever one's feelings may have been about the parents, about their responsibility or irresponsibility, children should not be penalized because of the sins or the faults of their parents. This amendment is designed to at least attempt, under those trying circumstances of a family going through bankruptcy, to protect those who are innocent--the children--to the maximum extent possible.

About 39 percent of those filing bankruptcy in the United States are single women raising children, almost 40 percent. About 29 percent, almost 30 percent of those filing for bankruptcy are men, and 32 percent of households filing for bankruptcy are married couples. So we are talking about 70 percent of those who are filing fall into the area of single parents and their problems related to it. While there may be some people who are trying to scam the system--and there certainly are, and I do not argue with that point at all--I believe most people do not file bankruptcy lightly. It is a highly emotional time and one of financial crisis.

The most common reasons for 90 percent of women filing for bankruptcy include medical emergencies, job loss, and divorce. Women are especially vulnerable because they tend to have lower incomes and fewer assets and are more likely to be caring for children on their own.

If my colleagues truly cared, and I believe they do, about protecting mothers and the innocent children who are caught up in the tremendously disruptive time of bankruptcy, I think they will end up supporting this amendment. At least I hope they do. If our colleagues truly care about marriage and strengthening marriages, they also would support this amendment. I cannot think of many more things more stressful on a marriage than filing bankruptcy.

My amendment covers four main areas to protect children during this turbulent and emotional time. The amendment would modify the means test to provide greater flexibility and reasonableness when calculating a

debtor's ability to pay. Allowable expenses are broadened to ensure that parents, whether married or divorced, can still support their children as they live through a bankruptcy.

For example, the amendment would allow a single mother, recently deserted by her husband, raising children who has filed for bankruptcy to continue paying education expenses for her child. Let us say that the mother, being a religious person and from a family that had used parochial schools for generations, is struggling to keep her child in one of these parochial schools. In this case, her 10 year old son has gone to a parochial school since kindergarten. It is where his friends go. After being fairly shy and withdrawn, he has begun to thrive there, has developed close relationships with several of his teachers. The mother was able to obtain a hardship reduction in tuition from the archdiocese, reducing the tuition to $3,500 a year.

Under the means test in the pending legislation, under our bankruptcy bill, this mother could not file chapter 7 or chapter 13 if she continued to send her son to parochial school. The means test allows only $1,500 for tuition and any other education expenses--not enough for any religious school. We are not talking about some fancy prep school or boarding school; we are talking about a basic parochial school education, which in many areas of the country costs around $5,000 per year, sometimes even slightly more. One of my neighbors told me that the parochial high school his son attends costs roughly $8,000 a year.

The child did not file for bankruptcy. Why during this turbulent time should the child be ripped away from his circle of friends and moral mentors? This should be a time when the child needs his friends and trusted teachers the most, his circle of security, particularly during a time of separation by parents and a bankruptcy.

The amendment would allow expenses associated with employment, such as child care, and it would allow alimony and child support to be used as intended to cover the needs of children in the household. Particularly with children, there are emergency expenses that arise, and any means test ought to reflect that reality.

Second, this amendment would ensure that support payments and other funds, such as refunds from the earned income tax credit or child tax credit, intended for the current needs of children do not become the property of the bankruptcy estate with the corollary potential of being distributed to creditors. Money intended to support children and their needs should go to children who need it, not creditors, in my view. Why should the earned income tax credit or the refundable child credit be yanked away from supporting children so that the depth of poverty in which they may live becomes even greater?

Thirdly, the amendment enables debtors going through bankruptcy to keep personal property normally found in or around the home, excluding automobiles. This would ensure that in bankruptcy situations, families with children are able to keep, without fear of repossession, household goods that typically have no resale value.

Fourth, the amendment would ensure that debtors are not forced into bankruptcy court to seek to prove that some of these items have any value for resale and would necessarily have to be added, forced into bankruptcy court to prove these items were not luxury goods.

This amendment, which I had hoped the managers of the bill would agree to, it is more technical than anything else. I am sorry it is not being accepted, because it goes to the very heart of what many of us have talked about and tried to accomplish over the years since bankruptcy laws were first modernized and adopted over a century ago in 1903. This amendment deals with families and spouses, with child support issues and where they come into context of priorities when it comes to discharging responsibilities under the Bankruptcy Act.

In 2003, as much as $95 billion in child support payments remained uncollected in the United States. It is a staggering sum of money and makes a huge difference to children growing up under adverse circumstances. It is estimated that one out of every other child living in poverty could be taken out of poverty if we were able to collect child support. Forget about appropriations or tax provisions we may adopt. if we could just collect the $95 billion in unpaid child support, we could virtually eliminate poverty in one out of every two children growing up under those circumstances in the United States.

The bankruptcy bill before us is going to make it more difficult in many ways for those families out trying to find those spouses who owe this child support to make it available. Thus, I believe we are going to exacerbate the problem of children who rely on child support and families who rely on alimony being able to get those resources to minimize the effects that a divorce and separation can cause.

When one excludes the ability to receive the financial support necessary to make ends meet, the problem becomes, obviously, even more pronounced, and children bear the price. Again, I repeat, whatever one may feel about the parents and their irresponsibility, putting themselves and their families in jeopardy, we ought to be highly sensitive to what happens to children. It is not their fault that their parents are filing bankruptcy. I do not believe necessarily it is the parents' fault either in many instances, with medical expenses, with divorce and job loss being the reason a large percentage of bankruptcies occur.

Putting aside that for a moment, whether one agrees with those numbers, I do not know of a single person in this Chamber who would disagree with what I am about to say. Children should not have to pay the price of their parents' mistakes, and yet that is what we are going to do with this bill if we do not take some steps to try to correct the situation.

Since 1903, our Nation's bankruptcy laws have been guided by the firm principle that women and children must be first in the distribution line of available assets during a bankruptcy proceeding. For over a century, debt owed to children and families has been nondischargeable. Thus, if a head of a household fails financially, whatever remaining assets he has could be used to spare his spouse or ex-spouse and his children from impoverishment. We do this because those who are most vulnerable in our society deserve the most protection.

Today's bill, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, would fundamentally alter this delicate balance achieved after a century of jurisprudence. We are altering the bankruptcy landscape for the benefit of credit card industry without understanding or recognizing what the consequences for families will be. Women and children will be disproportionately affected by this legislation unless it is amended, which is what I am trying to do with the amendment now before us.

Whether as debtors filing for bankruptcy themselves or as creditors, three-quarters of a million women will be affected this year by the bankruptcy system, and it is estimated that as many as 1 million women will be affected in the coming year. I agree with those of my colleagues who think the bankruptcy law needs to be reformed and tightened. I do not disagree at all with that. But in my view it is possible to enact legislation that tightens the laws without depriving debtors and their families of reasonably necessary living expenses to care for their children.

As this legislation is currently drafted, however, the credit card industry is protected, more protected than they have ever been. Unfortunately, families are not, in my view. This bill could turn the lives of children and families literally upside-down.

I think it is enough of an emotional roller coaster for a parent to file bankruptcy, but I think to elevate the needs of the credit card companies over the needs of children is simply wrong. I am greatly concerned about the means test, which requires the trustee in bankruptcy to review all chapter 7 cases for ability to pay debts under a rigid IRS formula devised originally for delinquent taxpayers, now to be applied to bankruptcies. These standards neither take into consideration differences in the cost of living from region to region, nor do they ascribe rational expenses for the use of individual families. In my view, these rigid standards will deprive children and families of reasonably necessary living expenses.

While moving child support to a first priority among unsecured creditors in chapter 7 sounds good, it is virtually meaningless, however.

Listen to this. Fewer than 4 percent of chapter 7 debtors have anything to distribute to unsecured creditors. Listen to that again. Fewer than 4 percent of chapter 7 debtors have anything to distribute to unsecured creditors. That is to say 96 percent of these debtors have nothing to give out. So saying under chapter 7, ``you are first in line,'' means absolutely nothing except to 4 percent of those debtors. First in line when there is nothing means nothing. This is not a protection for women and families. It sounds good, but it is totally hollow when it comes to seeing to these children and these families whom, for 100 years, we have done a better job of protecting.

Additionally, because the means test increases the potential for dismissing chapter 7 cases, this bill channels many debtors into the 5- year, chapter 13 repayment plans, even though we know for a fact that two-thirds of such plans fail today. What will families live on during this time? What are proponents of this legislation going to do, go back to the time of Charles Dickens or debtors prisons?

Under chapter 13, the bill would require that larger payments be made to credit card companies. As a result, payments of past-due child support would be made in smaller amounts and over a longer period of time, thus increasing the risk that children will not receive the support they need and the full debt would never be paid.

Mothers and children would be in direct competition with credit card companies employing well-financed collection departments. How do you think mothers and children will fare when it comes down to competing? It is hard enough under the present system for these people to collect the $95 billion they are owed in one single year in child support, when they now are going to also have to compete, under chapter 13, with credit card companies who are well heeled and in a far better position financially, with teams of lawyers, to go after these debtors. I do not believe anybody could rationally conclude that a mother raising two or three children on her own, with limited resources, is going to be able to hire the lawyers to compete with the credit card companies going after the debtor husbands in these cases.

Those are the practical realities. So for children and families, this bill makes life a lot worse because of exactly what I have explained: we are moving people out of chapter 7, where there was nothing much to give anyway, into chapter 13, where it becomes far easier for larger amounts of these resources, larger payments, to be made to the credit card companies.

I am very concerned about the provisions of the legislation that make certain credit card debt nondischargeable. While the family support provisions added to this legislation are positive improvements, they have not cured the problems caused by the other provisions of the bill. In fact, they are negated by them, in my view. These are provisions that give far greater collection rights to the credit card lenders and fewer, in my view, to families and children.

This bill elevates credit card debt to a presumed nondischargeable status. If a debtor purchases items or services on credit from a single creditor within 90 days of bankruptcy, and such items exceed $500 in value, these items would be presumed luxuries.

Listen to that again. Within 90 days, if you make purchases from a single creditor exceeding $500, they are presumed luxuries--in 90 days--3 months.

Again, if you are a single parent with two or three kids, over 90 days $500 is not a huge amount when you are talking about groceries or other essentials. Over a 3-month period--stretch it out and do the math--$500 over 90 days is really, in 21st century dollars, even if you go to the best discount stores, not going to be enough to make it. Current law allows up to $1,225 to be discharged within 60 days of bankruptcy. The bill as reported would limit it to $500 within 90 days, as I have said. The amendment I will offer when the time comes to vote on it will allow not $500 but less than $1,200 to $1,000 within 70 days. So it is less than 90, a bit more than 60. It is less than $1,200 under current law but certainly more than $500 to get you to $1,000.

Again, I don't think this is any great luxury. You are trying to meet the needs of your family. To declare them to be luxuries--it doesn't seem a lot to me. Over a 90-day period it is not that hard to spend $501 at Wal-Mart to meet kids' needs. Most would agree such purchases are not luxuries. In 90 days alone, a family with children could exceed $500 on other expenses that arise with children.

My amendment requires creditors to prove at a hearing that such items were not reasonably necessary for the maintenance and support of the debtor and her dependents, shifting the burden to creditors rather than the parents. If the creditor wants to make the case, let them do it, but don't lay the burden for $501 on a single mother with young kids to hire lawyers to go in and make the case these are not luxury items. I shift the burden over to the creditors. If they want to make the case, they can do so.

I don't know what the proponents of this legislation are intending here, other than to protect the credit card companies at the expense of children. If you have $501 of food, medicine, and clothing expenses, and it is incurred within the last 90 days, then you have to go to court and spend money to prove these are not luxuries--food, medicine, and clothing. This point is one I find stunning in its potential implications. By the very fact that you are in bankruptcy court, how are you going to hire a lawyer to go in and prove that $501 was for necessities and not luxuries? We need to be far more practical than that, it seems. To go to Wal-Mart and buy food and clothes for your children, necessities they may need, that is considered a luxury if it is more than $500.

If you are a single woman as a creditor, then you must wait until your ex-husband tries, or does not try, to defend a similar purchase. If he is unsuccessful, there will be less money for him to pay child support.

So on either side of the equation, if you are the woman raising children on your own, either as a debtor or a creditor, this places tremendous burdens on your family. If this section is sustained in the bill, then I urge the President to veto it, which I am told he would not do, but I hope he would. This legislation, regardless of what else is here, I think putting credit card debt ahead of kids is just wrong.

I think all my colleagues are probably familiar with the popular TV ad where a father takes his son to a baseball game, they rack up maybe $100 in costs--tickets, parking, hot dogs, sodas, maybe a popcorn to share and a small souvenir. The tag line in the commercial says: ``Cost of the memory--priceless.''

What the commercial doesn't tell you about is the memory may be priceless, but if the next day that dad is unlucky enough to lose his job, have a heart attack, incur enormous hospital expenses without health insurance, and can't make his minimum payments on time, the credit card companies are only too happy to turn priceless into pricey. Unfortunately, pricey for the family with finance charges, overcharges, penalty fees, and other means, can turn a dream into a nightmare.

This bill allows families to take a backseat to lenders, if lenders say their claims are secured by the debtors' property. For the first time in over 100 years, we have allowed these heretofore unsecured creditors to get into the bankruptcy courthouse. Currently, child and family support, taxes, and student loans are not dischargeable debts. For the first time in a century, the proposed legislation before us would bring into this unique category these other creditors--i.e., credit card companies--which will make the competition for scarce assets that much more fierce. These creditors have historically been unsecured because they have received the benefit of high interest and finance charges. Now they are becoming effectively secured creditors.

With all of these concerns in mind, the amendment I am offering this afternoon seeks to address some of these problems. I hope these efforts will win broad bipartisan support. I have been terribly disappointed that there has been no willingness to even talk about some of these amendments. I don't know why we can't do this. This is not the end of the session. We are only in the month of March.

This is an important bill. I understand that. But it is going to have huge implications for years to come if we don't sit down and listen to each other carefully to try to work out some of these matters so we can put a bill together. Yes, it may require a conference; it may require some negotiation. But isn't that a wiser course to follow than to rubberstamp a proposal because the other body doesn't want to sit down in conference on the bankruptcy bill, particularly when we are talking again about the most vulnerable in our society; that is, our children?

Again, I emphasize what I said at the outset. We are talking about the innocents here. I don't want them to fall prey to the claim that people taking bankruptcy are guilty of something somehow.

Again, if you accept the notion that most people who file bankruptcy are not doing so lightly, I don't know of anyone who likes to admit they are so messed up in every way possible that they put themselves in that situation. Are there people who take advantage? Yes. I know that is true. As we try to cure that problem, let us not create more problems for those who through no fault of their own find themselves in that situation; and, even worse yet, those who are completely innocent who find themselves so disadvantaged that the ability of parents-- particularly single women raising children--to find it harder and harder to collect those child support payments they desperately need to lift these children out of poverty, to make ends meet in the 21st century, with companies going bankrupt every day. We must see to it that those families who are already going through an awful lot don't find themselves going through even more.

This amendment is a modest attempt to readjust this section of the bill, to inject some practicalities, to say that as we consider the rights of credit card companies we are not going to forget the rights of children, so we will put some reasonable ceiling in here to make it possible for everyone to be a winner, so people can go to bankruptcy court to get themselves out of debt, get on their feet again, see to it that creditors are going to have an opportunity to collect the obligations that are owed them, and not penalize those who ought not be a part of this debate in any consideration.

I urge my colleagues to think about these amendments. I know it means changing the bill. I know it may mean going to a conference for a day or two. But I urge my colleagues to at least look at these proposals. If they make some sense, as some of them do, can't we sit down and try to resolve some before we go ahead and pass a bill that I think many may regret down the road when we consider the implications for those who are going to be adversely affected by this legislation?

I also would like to add as part of the Record a couple of pieces of correspondence that speak to these particular issues. One is from the National Women's Law Center, a letter dated February 23, 2005. I will not read the whole letter. Let me read a couple of paragraphs, because they go to the heart of what I am talking about here.

The letter reads:

S. 256 would make it harder for women to access the

bankruptcy system because the means test requires additional

paperwork of even the poorest filers, harder for women to

save their homes, cars and essential household items through

the bankruptcy process and harder for women to meet their

children's needs after bankruptcy because many more debts

would survive. The bill also would put women owed child or

spousal support who are bankruptcy creditors at a

disadvantage by increasing the rights of many other

creditors, including credit card companies, finance

companies, auto lenders and others. The bill would set up an

intense competition for scarce resources between mothers and

children owed support and these commercial creditors during

and after bankruptcy.

The letter goes on.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the National Women's Law Center be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to quote a letter from the Children's Defense Fund, again expressing their concern about these sections of the bill. I will read from this letter as well.

The Children's Defense Fund is writing to urge you to

oppose S. 256, the bankruptcy bill, that would hurt many

Americans facing financial problems through job loss,

divorce, child rearing, lack of medical insurance, or

predatory lending practices. This bill would inflict hardship

on more than 1 million economically vulnerable women and

families who are affected by the bankruptcy system each year.

Medical emergency, job loss and family breakup are important

factors which account for nine out of ten filing for

bankruptcy. The bill would also hurt women who are owed child

or spousal support by men who file bankruptcy. The bill would

make it far more difficult for women to collect support

because credit card companies and other commercial creditors

will have greater claims to the debtor's resources during and

after bankruptcy. Being first among unsecured creditors in

chapter 7 bankruptcy is meaningless when over 95 percent of

debtors have no resources to pay unsecured creditors.

In chapter 13, the bill would require larger payments to be

made to many commercial creditors resulting in smaller

payments to past-due child support over longer periods of

time increasing the risk that child support debts will not be

paid in full. And after the

bankruptcy is over, more and more debts owed to commercial

creditors will survive, and mothers and children owed support

are not a match for the collection departments of the

commercial credit industry.

S. 256 contains a number of provisions which would have a

severe impact on families trying to regain their economic

stability through the bankruptcy process.

The letter goes on. Those are pertinent paragraphs when it comes to the amendment which I am offering here today.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support is supporting this amendment and opposes the legislation. The American Association of University Women, American Medical Women's Association, the Business and Professional Women of the United States, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the Center for the Childcare Workforce, Child Welfare League of America, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Organization for Women, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the YWCA of the United States--all are groups which support the amendment and oppose this legislation.

Again, I realize the hour is late. We are getting closer to passage of this bill. I don't think it is so late, however, not to try to make some modest changes in this legislation that I think would go a long way to providing some relief for families.

Again, this is one of the areas of law that is written into our Constitution. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, drafted back in the 18th century, specifically provided and called upon the Congress of the United States to enact bankruptcy laws. To understand why they did so, go back and look at the Federalist Papers. They talked about doing it as an opportunity for people to get back on their feet again. That was the idea--to see to it that creditors could be compensated to the maximum extent possible, but that also those filing for bankruptcy would begin a new chapter in their lives, to get on their feet again.

It seems to me we ought to be trying to do that with this legislation, not only helping the creditors collect what is due them, but simultaneously making it possible for good people to get a fresh start.

If in the process of helping the creditors get paid we make it more difficult for people to get on their feet again, we are lacking the balance which I think we ought to be striking with this bill.

I urge my colleagues not to necessarily rely on what I have said here today, but to review these sections of the bill and ask yourself realistically whether in this day and age the kind of caps we are putting on, kind of forcing people into the chapter 13 category, if we are not exactly undoing what we have done for 100 years to modern bankruptcy laws.

The modern bankruptcy laws put not only families first but they also left them alone. If you were dealing with child support and alimony, once you paid those, or set up a payment schedule, whatever is left over, you dispensed to your creditors, you were not only the first in line, you were the only one in line. This changes that. You can be first in line under this bill, but you are not the only one in line, and other people in line have far more resources and strength to be able to compete for those debtors' funds to compensate these creditors. It puts families at a disadvantage.

There are a lot of other reasons to be concerned about this bill. I know my colleagues care about children. I know they care about families. They want to see these innocents have a chance for a decent life. This bankruptcy bill, if not amended, will make it far more difficult to achieve those goals.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.