Floor Statements

Parliamentary inquiry: If I do not reserve the Democratic leader's time, he can use that time throughout the day or do I need to reserve it?

The leader is here, so I will not do that.

Mr. President, I think that in addition to having Ms. Gorelick reassess her position, it would be good for the President and administration to reassess their positions and testify publicly, or at least separately, instead of this appearance that they have in secret.

Mr. President, tomorrow, in the White House, it is my understanding from press accounts--and I have talked to various Senators and one House Member who will attend the meeting--there is going to be a meeting with the President to talk about the highway bill. I think it is important, therefore, that I, who have worked on this most important bill--and I have worked on several others in years past--make some observations about what I think should take place at that meeting.

Of course, it is a typical meeting that takes place in this administration. It is done in secret, with no Democrats present, which is unusual; but that is in keeping with what this administration has done now for 3\1/2\ years. Let me say, though, that I believe Senator Jim Inhofe, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has been an exemplary legislator on the highway bill. He has been someone that has been very fixed in his ideas. He is someone, however, who is willing to work and, as legislators have to do, compromise. I have had to do the same thing. Senator Jeffords had to do the same thing. Senator Bond has had to do the same thing. The four of us have put this bill together. I think it is a good bill.

I appreciate the tireless efforts of Jim Inhofe on this most important legislation. He has always understood the importance of a highway bill. No one in this country can question the conservative credentials of Jim Inhofe. No one could ever accuse him of trying to give things away. That is why it is a mystery to most of us what the administration is doing on this bill.

Mr. President, first of all, understand that the chairman of the Transportation Committee in the House, Congressman Young from Alaska, believed

a bill of $300 billion just for highways alone--he was unable to do this because he could not get a proper rule in the House. The administration was opposed to him, and my understanding is that several other leaders in the House were opposed to him.

Finally, they came with a bill of $275 billion, which included transit. The legislation that we have passed in the Senate takes into consideration the needs of this country. We have $318 billion over six years. This is a bill that includes transit. We have worked very hard on this. Keep in mind, there are no new taxes. The bill is paid for in a number of different ways, not the least of which is highway trust fund moneys, which are supposed to be used for highways. We have been told by all outside organizations, by our own experts within the Federal Government--and the outside organizations can be exemplified and illustrated by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, AASHTO. They say, as we all say, simply to maintain our roads and bridges--not to have some Cadillac version, but simply to maintain our roads and bridges--the Federal Government must invest at least $40 billion a year.

Unfortunately, a 6-year bill at $275 billion that includes all the needs of this country simply doesn't do the trick when we talk about highways and transit. This means, then, more congestion, less safety, and increased maintenance and replacement costs.

The Senate bill is a good bill. It passed by 76 Members voting for it. It would create a $42.7 billion average annual highway investment. This is a good bill. It would generate real improvements in condition and performance. Let's not forget, it would create more than a million high-paying jobs. The spinoff from those direct jobs would be many thousands more.

I cannot understand the President. He is the first President since Herbert Hoover who has not had a net increase of private sector jobs. It doesn't matter how many jobs are created in the next 6 months, he will be the first President since Hoover to have a net loss of private sector jobs. Yet he is threatening to veto this. It is wrong.

Not only is the bill good for the reasons I have mentioned. That will allow us to at least keep even with the programs that we need in this country--highways, bridges--but it also consolidates all safety programs. It creates a very new program, with safe routes to school, which will allow children to walk and ride bicycles to school. It creates a good program at our ports, called a gateway program, which will not only be one that will create a more safe network of ports in our country, but will be more efficient, and it will save lots of time. There will be a new equity bonus program.

We have tried in this legislation to have a fair bill, not just to add up the number of Senators who are for the bill and run over those who don't get treated as well. By the end of our bill, every State will get at least 95 cents for every dollar they pay in. This is a tremendous improvement.

Mr. President, I hope at this meeting tomorrow the Republicans who are meeting in secret to discuss this matter will follow the lead of the Senate, and especially Senator Inhofe. This is a bill that we need to pass for the good of every State in the Union.

Mr. President, I am going to yield the remaining time I have to the Senator from New Jersey, with this preface. I say to my friend from New Jersey, who is going to discuss chicken hawk, I want the Senator to understand that when the President held his last press conference and said he could not think of a mistake he made--when I was at home during the last break, I reminded the people of Nevada that I could think of at least 2 mistakes he made. One is when he climbed on the USS Lincoln, the big aircraft carrier, and had the big sign in celebration of the ``mission accomplished.'' I think the second mistake was when he was asked the question whether there are some people in Iraq who, maybe, are going to cause some trouble, as you will remember, the President said, ``bring them on.'' I think those are two mistakes--``mission accomplished'' and ``bring them on.''

Since his statement, ``bring them on,'' we have lost more than 600 American soldiers. That is only the number of those who were killed; that doesn't take into consideration the thousands who are missing limbs, eyes, who are paralyzed, and in bad shape physically. So I think those are two mistakes, I remind the President. No. 1, the mission was not accomplished when he flew on the aircraft carrier in his borrowed jumpsuit; or, No. 2, when he said ``bring them on,'' I think that was an intemperate remark, and I think he made a mistake.

I yield the remaining time to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, could I ask the Senator to yield for a brief comment?

I had to step off the floor for a phone call, and I apologize. But what I wanted to say to the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Arizona, in my opinion, is exemplary in his statements on the floor and off the floor about what has been going on between the two people who are going to be running for President in November.

I believe the Senator from Arizona has defended the Democratic nominee, his war record.

That is right. I was going to say, and the President of the United States. We would be better off if everyone in this very delicate Presidential election would follow the lead of the Senator from Arizona. We do not need, in my opinion, to get into what went on in Vietnam.

We are proud of what Senator Kerry has done, and whatever President Bush has done, he is Commander in Chief now. It would be better off for everybody, I repeat, for the second time, if we followed the lead of the Senator from Arizona and not question what went on during those war years.

I would say, though, to my friend from Arizona, I feel as if I am in high school now--``They started it,'' that kind of thing. I think we need to get back to the real issues; that is, how we are going to finish the situation in

Iraq, what we are going to do about the economy, health care, the environment, and all those other issues.

The third time: We would all be better off if we followed the example of the Senator from Arizona. That is basically what I want to say. I apologize.

This is a he-said, she-said, they-said. My friend from New Jersey is a war veteran himself. He has a right to speak, as we all know. But I am sure he would not have spoken had this not started some other place. But I appreciate very much the Senator from Arizona yielding.

Mr. President, that would be easy to do. I think we can get people on this side to stop the discussion. If the administration wouldn't be doing what they are doing with ads and things of that nature, we would all be better off.

I repeat that I am not questioning someone's military record. As the Senator knows, this is an ongoing issue. I can't do anything about talk show people, but we can do something about the two Presidential candidates--one sitting President and one sitting Senator--and have them and their organizations not discuss this. I think it doesn't accomplish anything. Someone might say: They started it; we are going to try to finish it. We should wash our hands of that and try to start anew and not be talking about the service of either one.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator aware on this side we would be happy to agree to set aside, temporarily, the pending amendment? For example, Senator Kennedy wants to offer something on minimum wage. He would take a very short time agreement on that: 15 minutes divided on each side. We would be happy to allow the majority to offer an amendment either as it relates to this bill, as the Senator from Arizona wants to do, or whatever else they might feel is appropriate. We would look at that and see if we could agree to a short time agreement.

Even though we are in this parliamentary quagmire with three votes scheduled for tomorrow, three separate cloture votes, today we would be happy to work our way through this, doing one amendment per one amendment. Is the Senator aware of that?

Madam President, I ask the Chair to make an inquiry to the leadership as to whether it would be appropriate for us to recess at about 2:55 until about 4:05. The Secretary of Defense will be here. With the parliamentary situation we find ourselves in on the Senate floor, it would be appreciated if the Chair would check that out through the leadership.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

If the Senator would modify his request, at that time we come back on the bill.

Reserving the right to object, I appreciate very much the request of the Senator from Arizona. It is appropriate. By 4 o'clock we will know what position we are in on both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Healthy Employees, Healthy Small Businesses Act of 2004. This legislation addresses a number of fundamental problems: the fact that millions of hard working American families have no health insurance, they live in fear that financial ruin is just one illness away, or that a family member will need medical treatment that they simply can't afford; the fact that small businesses in this country are facing health care costs that are skyrocketing far beyond the rate of inflation, and that as much as many small business owners would like to provide health benefits to their employees, it is becoming more and more difficult for them to afford these costs; and the fact that this health care dilemma is damaging our Nation's competitive position internationally.

In 2002, 44 million Americans lived without health insurance for the entire year. 85 percent of these uninsured people belong to working families.

Think about that. The vast majority of the people in the United States of America who have no health insurance work.

These uninsured workers are trapped in the middle--in fact, most of them are middle class families. They do not receive health coverage through their jobs. They are too young to qualify for Medicare. They earn too much to qualify for a public health insurance program.

Yet they cannot afford private insurance plans.

For each one of those 44 million people, and each one of those millions of families, living without health coverage causes real and serious problems.

Living without health insurance is difficult for anyone. It is especially hard for parents with children. In addition to the constant worry about whether their child will have an accident or get sick, there are serious long-term consequences for kids who grow up without health insurance.

Uninsured kids have a higher rate of acute and infectious diseases than children who are covered by health insurance, and uninsured kids actually have a higher number of hospitalizations, because their problems don't get treated until they become serious.

Uninsured children are: four times as likely to have necessary care delayed; five times more likely to use a hospital emergency room as their regular source of care; and six times as likely as other children to go without the care they need.

But having no health care is a problem even when kids are not sick. It forces parents into the kinds of choices that none of us would want to make, and that nobody in America should have to make.

When your daughter is uninsured, you have to think twice about signing her up for a youth soccer league, because she might break her arm.

When your son has no health coverage, maybe it is not safe to let him ride his bike through the neighborhood, or try out his friend's new rollerblades.

Accidents happen to everyone, especially to active children. But when your family has no health insurance, a simple fall requiring a few stitches, a broken bone, or a minor sports-related injury could result in hundreds or even thousands of dollars in emergency room fees.

In the end, in a lot of families, living without health insurance sometimes means that kids do not get to do very much living at all.

In her book The Betrayal of Work, Beth Shulman asked Flor Segunda, a working mom with no health insurance, about how her family's uninsured status affects her kids. Segunda says:

Doctors require immediate payment before they will see you,

but many times I don't have the money. Right now, [my son]

Luis has a temperature. But I try to take care of it myself

because I can't afford to take him to the doctor every time.

It is one of the reasons I don't like my children to play

outside. They will get sick and I can't afford it.

A lack of access to health care can destroy a family's financial security in a heartbeat--that is certainly true. But it can also deny uninsured kids some of the most basic and simple pleasures of being a child: going outside to play, joining a tee-ball team, riding a bike.

Surely we can do better.

Living without health insurance is a terrible problem. So why are so many families forced to do it? Who are these families trapped in the middle--earning too much to qualify for free care, but not enough to pay for private insurance?

It turns out that more than half of the uninsured people in our country live in a family supported by someone who works for a small business--meaning a company that employs fewer than 100 workers.

This is not because small businesses are less committed to their workers than larger employers. On the contrary, the small business owners in my State seem to care a great deal about their employees. Most small business owners work closely with their employees, and they understand that the success of their enterprise depends on the loyalty of the people who work for them.

The reason small businesses are less likely to provide health insurance is simply a matter of economics.

At a small business, where people are delivering a product or service with just a handful of employees, the margin between revenues and costs can be pretty slim.

That does not leave much room for error--or for rising costs. But health care costs are spiraling out of control.

Every year for the last several years, we have seen double-digit inflation in health care prices. With health care costs rising out of sight, small business owners are rightly concerned about whether these uncontrolled prices represent too much of a risk to their overall business health.

My legislation would create a Federal refundable tax credit to reimburse small employers for part of the costs they incur for providing health insurance coverage to their employees.

The HEHSB tax credit would operate on a sliding scale, providing a large tax credit to all businesses with fewer than 50 employees, but giving the greatest tax relief to the smallest enterprises.

Last year, the average health insurance plan for a single person costs $3,383, of which the employee paid an average of $508 and the employer paid an average of $2,875.

For a family policy, the average cost totalled $9,068, with the employee bearing $2,412 and the employer shouldering $6,656.

Under my bill, companies with fewer than 10 employees would be eligible to claim a credit of 50 percent of the cost of each eligible employee's policy, up to a limit of $1,500 for an individual policy or $3,400 for a family policy.

Companies with 25 to 50 employees would be eligible to claim a credit of 35 percent of the cost of each eligible employee's policy, up to a limit of $750 for

a self-only policy or $1,700 for a family policy.

I believe that this legislation will give more small business owners the ability to do what they want to do in the first place: provide their first-rate employees with first-rate benefits.

It will shield them from the worst risks associated with rising health care costs.

And I hope that it will eventually result in families like the Segundas feeling a little more security and happiness.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Healthy Employees, Healthy Small Businesses Act of 2004. This legislation addresses a number of fundamental problems: the fact that millions of hard working American families have no health insurance, they live in fear that financial ruin is just one illness away, or that a family member will need medical treatment that they simply can't afford; the fact that small businesses in this country are facing health care costs that are skyrocketing far beyond the rate of inflation, and that as much as many small business owners would like to provide health benefits to their employees, it is becoming more and more difficult for them to afford these costs; and the fact that this health care dilemma is damaging our Nation's competitive position internationally.

In 2002, 44 million Americans lived without health insurance for the entire year. 85 percent of these uninsured people belong to working families.

Think about that. The vast majority of the people in the United States of America who have no health insurance work.

These uninsured workers are trapped in the middle--in fact, most of them are middle class families. They do not receive health coverage through their jobs. They are too young to qualify for Medicare. They earn too much to qualify for a public health insurance program.

Yet they cannot afford private insurance plans.

For each one of those 44 million people, and each one of those millions of families, living without health coverage causes real and serious problems.

Living without health insurance is difficult for anyone. It is especially hard for parents with children. In addition to the constant worry about whether their child will have an accident or get sick, there are serious long-term consequences for kids who grow up without health insurance.

Uninsured kids have a higher rate of acute and infectious diseases than children who are covered by health insurance, and uninsured kids actually have a higher number of hospitalizations, because their problems don't get treated until they become serious.

Uninsured children are: four times as likely to have necessary care delayed; five times more likely to use a hospital emergency room as their regular source of care; and six times as likely as other children to go without the care they need.

But having no health care is a problem even when kids are not sick. It forces parents into the kinds of choices that none of us would want to make, and that nobody in America should have to make.

When your daughter is uninsured, you have to think twice about signing her up for a youth soccer league, because she might break her arm.

When your son has no health coverage, maybe it is not safe to let him ride his bike through the neighborhood, or try out his friend's new rollerblades.

Accidents happen to everyone, especially to active children. But when your family has no health insurance, a simple fall requiring a few stitches, a broken bone, or a minor sports-related injury could result in hundreds or even thousands of dollars in emergency room fees.

In the end, in a lot of families, living without health insurance sometimes means that kids do not get to do very much living at all.

In her book The Betrayal of Work, Beth Shulman asked Flor Segunda, a working mom with no health insurance, about how her family's uninsured status affects her kids. Segunda says:

Doctors require immediate payment before they will see you,

but many times I don't have the money. Right now, [my son]

Luis has a temperature. But I try to take care of it myself

because I can't afford to take him to the doctor every time.

It is one of the reasons I don't like my children to play

outside. They will get sick and I can't afford it.

A lack of access to health care can destroy a family's financial security in a heartbeat--that is certainly true. But it can also deny uninsured kids some of the most basic and simple pleasures of being a child: going outside to play, joining a tee-ball team, riding a bike.

Surely we can do better.

Living without health insurance is a terrible problem. So why are so many families forced to do it? Who are these families trapped in the middle--earning too much to qualify for free care, but not enough to pay for private insurance?

It turns out that more than half of the uninsured people in our country live in a family supported by someone who works for a small business--meaning a company that employs fewer than 100 workers.

This is not because small businesses are less committed to their workers than larger employers. On the contrary, the small business owners in my State seem to care a great deal about their employees. Most small business owners work closely with their employees, and they understand that the success of their enterprise depends on the loyalty of the people who work for them.

The reason small businesses are less likely to provide health insurance is simply a matter of economics.

At a small business, where people are delivering a product or service with just a handful of employees, the margin between revenues and costs can be pretty slim.

That does not leave much room for error--or for rising costs. But health care costs are spiraling out of control.

Every year for the last several years, we have seen double-digit inflation in health care prices. With health care costs rising out of sight, small business owners are rightly concerned about whether these uncontrolled prices represent too much of a risk to their overall business health.

My legislation would create a Federal refundable tax credit to reimburse small employers for part of the costs they incur for providing health insurance coverage to their employees.

The HEHSB tax credit would operate on a sliding scale, providing a large tax credit to all businesses with fewer than 50 employees, but giving the greatest tax relief to the smallest enterprises.

Last year, the average health insurance plan for a single person costs $3,383, of which the employee paid an average of $508 and the employer paid an average of $2,875.

For a family policy, the average cost totalled $9,068, with the employee bearing $2,412 and the employer shouldering $6,656.

Under my bill, companies with fewer than 10 employees would be eligible to claim a credit of 50 percent of the cost of each eligible employee's policy, up to a limit of $1,500 for an individual policy or $3,400 for a family policy.

Companies with 25 to 50 employees would be eligible to claim a credit of 35 percent of the cost of each eligible employee's policy, up to a limit of $750 for

a self-only policy or $1,700 for a family policy.

I believe that this legislation will give more small business owners the ability to do what they want to do in the first place: provide their first-rate employees with first-rate benefits.

It will shield them from the worst risks associated with rising health care costs.

And I hope that it will eventually result in families like the Segundas feeling a little more security and happiness.

I chose not to object to the unanimous consent request dealing with what we are going to be doing tomorrow. We would just hope that the good offices of the majority leader would allow, if, in fact, cloture is not invoked on Daschle or Domenici, and we have to go to McCain, that we could have some arrangement that we could have a little bit of debate before voting on the McCain cloture because we have our party policy luncheon tomorrow. It may not be a bad idea, and we can certainly discuss this with others on the majority side, for Senator McCain and others, if, in fact, cloture is not invoked on those first two motions that have been filed, that we have a little time to get rid of the two energy matters and get back on Internet and discuss that, and that would put us with just a short debate of maybe an hour or so into the end of the policy luncheon.

Mr. President, the two leaders have some business to transact. I ask unanimous consent that when the Chair announces morning business, on our side Senator Boxer be given the first 5 minutes; Senator Durbin the next 5 minutes; Senator Wyden, 10 minutes; Senator Leahy, 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that, as the leader just indicated, the morning business time be a full 30 minutes on each side, taking into consideration the fact that the Democratic leader and, perhaps, the Republican leader will give statements to the Senate under their leader time--so a full 30 minutes on each side.

Mr. President, we ask unanimous consent that the majority have an additional 2 minutes as well, a total of 2 extra minutes.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Last week, I gave a speech about what is going on in Nevada. In Nevada, we have gas prices now approaching $2.50 a gallon. If someone wants to put 4 gallons of gas in a vehicle, they have to bring a $10 bill with them to do that.

I ask my friend his comments on this: Senator Ensign and I asked the Federal Trade Commission to take a look at what was going on in Nevada. They took a look and came back and said: We can't tell you why the price is that high. It is unusual, is what they said. It is unusual and they could not determine why gas prices were that high.

Does the Senator agree, with the prices going haywire as they are, and the consumer being hit very hard, especially in the western part of the United States, that the Federal Trade Commission should do something more aggressively than what they have done?

Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator one more question. The Senator heard the remarks of the Senator from California saying that the Bush administration was actually doing nothing to look at the prices. In fact, the administration is in the Supreme Court today trying to keep secret its dealings with big oil.

The Senator would acknowledge that this administration, the President, and Vice President made their living--certainly part of their wealth they have accumulated--dealing with oil companies.

Does the Senator from Oregon acknowledge that the President has the bully pulpit and can certainly ask our so-called friends, Saudi Arabia and other countries, to stop cutting back the supply of oil but increase the supply of oil? Would that not also help, I repeat, the President putting whatever pressure he has--and that is significant--to tell the Saudis to start giving us more oil?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what this does for Members and staff, so they fully understand, is this adds 20 minutes to the debate. That is all it does. I ask my friend modify his unanimous consent request to allow me to speak as in morning business, and following my remarks, we will go into our normal Tuesday recess.

Mr. President, I had the good fortune a week ago this past Saturday to be in Las Vegas. At that time, I spoke about the military record of Senator John Kerry. In fact, I not only spoke about the military record of John Kerry, but I read verbatim from the two citations for heroism he received.

The first citation for heroism he received was presented to him by Admiral Zumwalt. In that citation, it talked about what Senator Kerry did to earn the Silver Star. In effect, what he did is as follows:

Senator Kerry was the commander of a swift boat. A swift boat was a boat that would move very quickly, and they used it in the rivers of Southeast Asia. They were subject to ambushes and attacks, especially before there was something done to make sure the shoreline was free of foliage. They were attacked often.

In this instance, a rocket hit his swift boat, blew all the windows out of it, and, of course, injured people on board the boat. Senator Kerry at that time directed the swift boat to, rather than go away from the battle, go into the battle and go to shore. As soon as he got close enough to the shore to get off the boat, he got off the boat, and before the enemy had time to fire the second rocket, they were killed by Senator John Kerry. This is the reason he was given his first Silver Star.

The Bronze Star was awarded when again his boat was hit from shore. One crewman was blown off the craft in the water. They were taking fire at this time. Senator Kerry, even though he was injured--his right arm was bleeding badly--directed fire toward the enemy, got the swift boat close enough to the man in the water, and he personally pulled the man out of the water.

These are, in synopsis, the two acts of heroism for which Senator Kerry was decorated. He was decorated with the Silver Star and the Bronze Star. He was, of course, also given three Purple Hearts. Purple Hearts are given when someone is injured in battle.

There is no question that what John Kerry did in Southeast Asia, specifically in Vietnam, was heroic. That is why he was given these medals. I think it is outrageous for people to criticize his military service to our country.

It is obvious this administration knows America loves a war hero, and John Kerry is a war hero. So what does the administration do? They do everything they can to denigrate this fine man rather than talk about policy in Iraq, tax policy, environmental policy, economic policy, and health care policy. I think it is wrong that they are doing this, and I think they should get back to talking about the issues that are important.

America knows John Kerry is a war hero. No matter how many times the Vice President speaks at universities criticizing John Kerry's military record, you cannot take away the facts. He was presented by the military authorities of our country two medals for heroism. They speak for themselves.

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

Mr. President, there is a quorum call in effect at this stage. How is the time being charged?

I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against the three who will control time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.