Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concern about the negative impact the President's proposals that carve out private accounts will have on our Social Security system and also on our mounting Federal debt and the solvency of our Social Security Program in general and, ultimately, the economic prosperity of the Nation over many years.

President Bush's plan to create private accounts within Social Security would lead to the following, I believe, very unfortunate effects:

It would require a massive increase in Federal debt.

It would weaken the Social Security solvency.

It would not increase national savings and could lower it. National savings is a key function of our economy. Without national savings, we do not have the pool of capital we need for investment, innovation, and economic progress.

Finally, it would sharply cut the guaranteed Social Security benefits under the President's preferred full plan.

Let me go into some detail on these issues, drawing upon the excellent work of the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee. I am very privileged to be the ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee. We have assembled a staff of professionals who have looked at all of these issues in great detail. They have concluded, as I suggested, that there are serious problems, not only in terms of solvency of the fund, not only in terms of the increase in Federal debt, but also large cuts in the guaranteed benefits of all of the beneficiaries. That will be a very unfortunate and, indeed, unnecessary consequence of any proposed reform of Social Security.

Let's take a look at this first chart. It lays out the debt issue with respect to Social Security. First, the President has proposed that his plan for private accounts and Social Security reform would begin in the year 2009. He has put no money into his budget or his long-term budget. Typically, when we budget, we at least look ahead 10 years.

In that first 10-year increment, which would be precisely from 2006 to 2015, there would be an increase of $754 billion as a result of these private accounts. Again, beginning in 2009 and essentially stretching to 2015, you would accumulate almost $1 trillion, $754 billion of debt.

But the real staggering number is the first 20 years of these programs if the private accounts are made law. That increased debt would be $4.9 trillion, an extraordinary amount of money. Again, I believe it is appropriate to look at least 20 years. We are talking about solvency for the fund for 75 years. Just in the 20 years, we would have almost $5 trillion in additional Federal debt.

The other issue that is important to point out is that this debt is on top of existing debt. This chart just describes the rapid increase of Federal debt as a result of private accounts from the year 2010 to the year 2060. By 2060, 35 percent of GDP will be equal to the debt we have accumulated for private accounts. I think we will stop for a moment: 35 percent of GDP; the debt will equal 35 percent of gross domestic product in the year 2060, but add that to current debt, the debt we are funding to operate our Government, and by 2060, the staggering total of debt relative to GDP is 70 percent.

We have not run those debt levels since the end of World War II in which we all know we dedicated every resource we had to defeat the Axis. This is a much different world than 1945 and 1946. In 1945 and 1946, we were at the sanctuary, if you will, of economic productivity for the world. Our infrastructure had not been destroyed. We had tooled up to create the most technologically advanced military force in the world. We quickly transitioned our tanks to Oldsmobiles and Chrysler automobiles and washing machines. Now we are in a world of intense competition, global competition, and if we believe we can live with debt equal to 70 percent of our gross domestic product, I think that is a fanciful notion, but that is the consequence of the President's proposal for private accounts.

The other point we should note, too, is that this proposal for private accounts actually accelerates the insolvency of the Social Security fund. Again, the President's proposal is premised on saving Social Security, of making it more solvent. His private accounts would accelerate the insolvency date. This chart shows current law. Again, it is a function of GDP, but it shows where the fund's assets cross the zero line, and that is about 2042. The President's proposal of private accounts would drive the funds into insolvency much earlier--about 2030. It makes no sense to me, if your goal is to increase the solvency of the fund, to have a proposal that actually weakens solvency. In a sense, searching for an analogy, if the boat is leaking, don't break a big hole in the bottom and have more water come in. That is not the way you save a leaking ship.

Turning away from the charts, let's go to the mathematics of how this all works.

The current Social Security shortfall, an estimate by the trustees, the actuaries of the Social Security Administration, is minus $4 trillion. That is how much money we would have to have today to cover the shortfall for the next 75 years.

Here is what the President's plan for private accounts does: First, it costs $4.7 trillion, so that is an additional $4.7 trillion. But what the President proposes is that there is essentially a privatization tax, that those private account holders will have to pay back some money at the time they exercise their retirement benefits. That is $3.1 trillion. Still we have a gap of $1.6 trillion, the net cost of the private accounts.

Add that to $4 trillion and now we have a shortfall of $5.6 trillion. We have created a bigger problem; we have not solved the problem.

The next table also suggests the possible consequences on national savings. Again, national savings is a key macroeconomic construct when it comes to progress in terms of our economy because it is from those national savings which we draw the investment capital and resources to train people, to innovate new equipment, to invest in new plant and equipment.

This is what happens, and national savings is a simple function of private savings, what you and I, our households are saving, together with public savings, what the Government is saving. We have stopped saving. We were saving, which means we had a surplus, until 2000, 2001, and now we are in a huge deficit, about $450 billion a year.

Let us see what would happen with these private accounts. First, the public borrows more money. Public savings go down. Private savings go up because we give that money back to people and say now put it into the stock market. The net effect is zero at best, but it could even be worse than that because something could happen in terms of public behavior.

First, they could reduce their current savings saying, well, I do not have to save anymore for contingencies because now I have this private savings plan. It is a possibility. To what extent it happens in reality, it is a projection, but that is a possibility.

The second is early retirements for these funds. My sense is, every time we have constructed some type of retirement benefit we have found ways to allow people to borrow from it for emergencies. We will probably do the same here. But even if those factors do

not take place, zero national savings at best. We need to develop policies that encourage national savings. We should not be devoting huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans. We should be devoting tax cuts to encourage average Americans to save more, and we cannot do both if we have a deficit. My preference obviously would be to encourage average Americans to save more.

Now, chart No. 5 walks through the effect on individuals. The President has not offered a plan yet. He has been talking about it around the country, but the suggestions, the intimations are that in order to help address the solvency problem he is going at benefit payments. Essentially, the Commission to Strengthen Social Security put out the blueprint, and this blueprint would suggest cuts in benefits. One proposal was moving away from wage replacement to simple cost-of- living increases in benefits. That would effectively be a cut over time.

If we look at the combination of guaranteed benefits and the best estimates of the yield on private accounts, here is what happens over time. This is from the Congressional Budget Office. The average earner retiring in the year 2005 is protected. I think we recognize that because we have not made a change yet. By 2015, however, if one is participating in private accounts, they are doing worse than this 2005 beneficiary, and it goes down all the way. We can see as the guaranteed benefits decrease, the private accounts do not make up the difference, and this is some of the work of CBO.

So we have a situation that, frankly, is not a good deal for the retirees and not a good deal for the country when the debt is increased so precipitously. More national savings are not encouraged. A situation is created in which the problem is not getting fixed but is being made worse in so many different dimensions.

When we look at this issue of benefit payments, many people fail to recognize that this is not just about retirees. I have a retiree here. There are a significant number of Americans who collect Social Security because they are disabled. They will not have the benefit of private accounts because by definition they cannot work. They are disabled. So they are not going to be taking their paycheck each month and putting it into their private account. All the most vulnerable Americans are going to see is a benefit reduction, and that is not fair. It is not smart either.

Moreover, there is a suggestion that this is just an issue for seniors and that is all. The Social Security Administration has an interesting statistic, at least I found it very interesting. Their estimate is, of the cohort of 20-year-olds who are out there today just joining the workforce, who are healthy and running around, who have no immediate cares for retirement like middle-aged people, that 3 out of 10 will become disabled before they reach 65 years old. So I ask, where are they going to get the disability insurance to cover the benefits that today Social Security pays to people who become disabled? They cannot afford it. They will not buy it. There will be some disability program, but it will not be the kind of program that today provides at least some modicum of support for individuals who have been disabled through no fault of their own.

This is a topic that will be discussed again and again, but it is important to look at these issues and to make a practical and pragmatic assessment. That is what the American people are doing today. They are looking at the proposal of private accounts. They are seeing it jeopardize our economic future and seeing it eventually cut their prospects for retirement or for protection if they become disabled, and they are rejecting it out of hand. I think they should.

We have to continue to keep the focus on this particular proposal.

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

Mr. President, I join with my colleagues, Senators DeWine, Dodd and Burr to introduce the Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act, (SELHA).

It is estimated that two to three million Americans experience a period of homelessness in a given year. While the majority of these individuals find themselves homeless for a brief period of time, a growing segment are experiencing prolonged periods of homelessness. Roughly 200,000 to 250,000 Americans fall under the category of chronically homeless.

In March 2003, former Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson issued a report from a work group and an interagency subcommittee that was assembled to define the issues and challenges facing the chronically homeless and develop a comprehensive approach to bringing the appropriate services and treatments to this population of individuals who typically fall outside of mainstream support programs.

Similarly, the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health recommended the development of a comprehensive plan to facilitate access to permanent supportive housing for individuals and families who are chronically homeless. However, affordable housing, alone, is not enough for many chronically homeless to achieve stability. This population also needs flexible, mobile, and individualized support services to sustain them in housing.

The legislation we are introducing today is critical to the development and implementation of more effective strategies to combat chronic homelessness through improved service delivery and coordination across Federal agencies serving this population. It directs the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to coordinate their efforts not only with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but with other Federal departments and the various agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services that provide supportive services.

Mr. President, SELHA is an important bipartisan measure which will help to ensure that the growing number of Americans experiencing chronic homelessness have access to the range of supportive services they need to get them back on their feet, living in permanent supportive housing and taking the steps necessary to become productive and active members of our communities again.

I look forward to working with my colleagues toward expeditious passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I join with my colleagues, Senators DeWine, Dodd and Burr to introduce the Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act, (SELHA).

It is estimated that two to three million Americans experience a period of homelessness in a given year. While the majority of these individuals find themselves homeless for a brief period of time, a growing segment are experiencing prolonged periods of homelessness. Roughly 200,000 to 250,000 Americans fall under the category of chronically homeless.

In March 2003, former Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson issued a report from a work group and an interagency subcommittee that was assembled to define the issues and challenges facing the chronically homeless and develop a comprehensive approach to bringing the appropriate services and treatments to this population of individuals who typically fall outside of mainstream support programs.

Similarly, the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health recommended the development of a comprehensive plan to facilitate access to permanent supportive housing for individuals and families who are chronically homeless. However, affordable housing, alone, is not enough for many chronically homeless to achieve stability. This population also needs flexible, mobile, and individualized support services to sustain them in housing.

The legislation we are introducing today is critical to the development and implementation of more effective strategies to combat chronic homelessness through improved service delivery and coordination across Federal agencies serving this population. It directs the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to coordinate their efforts not only with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but with other Federal departments and the various agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services that provide supportive services.

Mr. President, SELHA is an important bipartisan measure which will help to ensure that the growing number of Americans experiencing chronic homelessness have access to the range of supportive services they need to get them back on their feet, living in permanent supportive housing and taking the steps necessary to become productive and active members of our communities again.

I look forward to working with my colleagues toward expeditious passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, today many Americans in communities across the Nation are being left behind in our economy. Federal community and economic development programs, such as Community Development Block Grants, Community Development Financial Institutions, and Economic Development Administration grants, have a history of ``being there'' for communities--providing funding for housing rehabilitation, job creation, and infrastructure. I thank Senator Sarbanes for offering his amendment to save these important programs from elimination, and I am glad to be a cosponsor. Senator Sarbanes' amendment will restore funding to these vital programs by closing tax loopholes that the majority of the Senate supported closing in the FSC/ETI bill.

The President's Strengthening America's Communities Initiatives, SACI, would fundamentally change Federal economic and community development programs serving our communities. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget eliminates 18 successful programs serving low-income urban, rural, and Native American communities. It reduces the Federal commitment to funding community development by 33 percent, cutting funding from $5.6 billion to $3.71 billion. And the President's proposal will also reduce the number of communities served. A program that serves fewer Americans with less resource can only place more families and low-income neighborhoods at risk, rather than create vibrant and strong economies as CDBG, CDFI, EDA, the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative and Section 108 loan guarantees are doing.

The real issue with federal community development assistance is the lack of financial resources for the thousands of communities struggling to remain economically competitive, not the current structure of the existing programs. While the budget resolution includes funding for tax loopholes that the Senate voted to close last year, it fails to adequately fund programs that provide affordable housing to American workers, programs that create or retain jobs in the economy, and programs that provide vital public services to our senior citizens.

In fiscal year 2003, the economy lost 486,000 jobs. CDBG projects created or retained 108,700 jobs for Americans. CDBG also has a strong record in business retention. While businesses have left American shores for other countries, CDBG ensured that over 80 percent of the businesses assisted through this program were still in operation after 3 years.

There is overwhelming opposition to the Strengthening America's Community Initiative. Mayors, local and State community development agencies, housing assistance agencies, and others from Rhode Island to Utah, and from Michigan to Texas, have written letters to Congress and to the administration opposing these devastating cuts and changes to Federal economic and community development assistance. They know that CDBG, CDFI, and EDA programs are the foundation of strong communities-- these programs are literally the building blocks of community development. A unified grant program, as proposed by the administration, will leave gaping holes in community and economic development assistance.

CDBG is the glue that holds other Federal programs serving low-income communities together. On the 30th Anniversary of CDBG in 2004, HUD Deputy Secretary Roy Bernardi said the following about the program:

HUD has a long history of 'being there' and providing help

for people, particularly those with the greatest needs--our

lower income constituents. CDBG has certainly been there,

during boom years and most importantly in times of tightening

budgets, which place greater demands on existing services. We

must continue to support and build upon programs that work,

those that have a proven record of flexibility and the

ability to fit in with locally determined needs. CDBG is such

a program and ranks among our nation's oldest and most

successful programs. It continues to set the standard for all

other block grant programs.

I want to tell my colleagues about CDBG's history of ``being there.'' In Rhode Island, CDBG was there when the West Elmwood Housing Development Corporation, a not-for-profit community based organization, needed to build and renovate affordable homes. CDBG gave Rhode Island families, who would otherwise be unable to achieve the American dream of homeownership, the chance to own their own home. In Florida, Congress turned to CDBG to provide relief after last year's devastating hurricane season, and in New York City, CDBG helped the city rebuild after the September 11 tragedy. In New Hampshire, CDBG is there for the Concord Area Trust for Community Housing to layer with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits to build affordable housing. In Ohio, Community Development Financial Institutions are there for communities across the State helping to finance businesses and microenterprises that support new jobs in the economy. And EDA was there to provide planning and technical assistance to help save 466 existing jobs and

create 78 new jobs near Billings, MT. There are no other Federal programs or tax loophole that have the history of ``being there'' like CDBG, CDFI, and EDA.

Senator Sarbanes' amendment to restore funding to these programs deserves the full support of my Senate colleagues, whether Republican or Democratic, representing an urban state such as Rhode Island or a rural state such as Montana. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for Senator Sarbanes' amendment so that all workers, families, neighborhoods, and communities can participate in our Nation's economic growth.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Kennedy's amendment to the, fiscal year 2006 budget resolution. This amendment would ensure the necessary investment in education to secure our Nation's continued prosperity.

This amendment would focus on three areas critical to boosting educational opportunity and our economy. First, it would make college more affordable and accessible. The amendment would raise the maximum Pell grant by $450, to $4,500, a long overdue and necessary increase for millions of students who struggle to keep up with ever-rising college tuition. It also would restore a host of programs that give low-income Americans a lifeline to college. The President seeks to eliminate programs like TRIO, GEAR UP, and LEAP, which have opened doors for students who otherwise might never consider a college education, let alone be able to afford it.

Second, this amendment would make a crucial difference for high-need schools. We cannot remain global leaders in technology if we do not maintain a world-class standard of education in math and the sciences for all students. Yet we have a shortage of highly qualified teachers in these very areas. This amendment would use loan forgiveness as an incentive to attract and retain 57,000 teachers in math, science, and another woefully understaffed arena, special education.

Finally, this amendment would ensure the future competitiveness of the workforce by preserving investments in workforce development, adult literacy, and vocational education. In voting to reauthorize and improve the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, 99 Senators just last week recognized the indispensable nature of the act, despite the President's efforts to eliminate it. With this amendment we can restore funding for Perkins programs as well as for job training and literacy programs that give adults the tools they need to be economically productive.

The investment in these commonsense measures is one we cannot afford to forego. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment.

Amendment No. 234

Mr. President, today I introduce the Liquefied Natural Gas Safety and Security Act of 2005.

The siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals is an issue that has taken on critical importance for me and for the people of Rhode Island in recent months, as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is now considering proposals by KeySpan Energy and Weaver's Cove Energy to establish LNG marine terminals in Providence, RI and Fall River, MA, respectively.

I recognize that natural gas is an important and growing component of New

England's and the Nation's energy supply, and that imported LNG offers a promising new supply source to complement our domestic natural gas supplies. In a post-September 11 world, however, we must consider the substantial safety and security risks associated with siting LNG marine terminals in urban communities and requiring LNG tankers to pass within close proximity to miles of densely populated coastline.

The LNG Safety and Security Act would address these concerns by improving FERC's siting process, requiring closer collaboration between FERC and the Coast Guard, and protecting States' permitting rights under Federal and State law.

First, the bill would improve FERC's approval process for LNG terminals. Instead of reviewing proposed LNG projects on a first come- first served basis, the bill would require FERC to work with states and the Coast Guard to pursue a regional approach to LNG terminal siting, including a review of offshore and remote sites and a determination of how many LNG terminals a region needs. To address the substantial new costs faced by state and local agencies responsible for security and safety at the LNG terminal and along shipping routes, the bill would require the developer to create a cost-sharing plan describing direct cost reimbursements to these agencies. To make sure that FERC addresses all relevant safety and security issues in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an LNG terminal--and that the public has access to this information before FERC makes a final decision--the bill requires FERC to await the completion of an Incident Action Plan by the Coast Guard before issuing a Final EIS. It would require FERC to incorporate the non-security sensitive components of the Incident Action Plan into the Final EIS, including all safety and security resource requirements identified by the Coast Guard.

Second, to ensure that States continue to have the authority to establish meaningful safety and security standards and to protect their fragile coastal environments, the bill requires FERC to comply with Federal laws that may be enforced by States, including the National Historic Preservation Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act; clarifies the right of a State to review an application to site an LNG facility under any of these laws; and establishes that FERC has no authority to preempt a State permitting determination under federal or state law.

Third, to ensure that the Department of Transportation's safety standards for LNG terminals truly encourage remote siting as Congress intended, the bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue new regulations establishing standards to promote the remote siting of LNG terminals.

Finally, to protect coastal communities along LNG shipping routes, the bill requires the Coast Guard to issue regulations establishing thermal and vapor exclusion zones for vessels transporting LNG, based on existing DOT regulations for LNG terminals on land.

I again want to emphasize that I recognize LNG's important role in the energy infrastructure of Rhode Island and the Nation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure reliable supplies of natural gas to our homes and businesses without siting LNG import terminals in densely populated urban areas. I am confident that we can achieve this goal by requiring FERC and other federal agencies to explore a broad list of alternatives--including offshore LNG facilities--to bring more natural gas to our communities while minimizing the risk to our citizens.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Liquefied Natural Gas Safety and Security Act of 2005.

The siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals is an issue that has taken on critical importance for me and for the people of Rhode Island in recent months, as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is now considering proposals by KeySpan Energy and Weaver's Cove Energy to establish LNG marine terminals in Providence, RI and Fall River, MA, respectively.

I recognize that natural gas is an important and growing component of New

England's and the Nation's energy supply, and that imported LNG offers a promising new supply source to complement our domestic natural gas supplies. In a post-September 11 world, however, we must consider the substantial safety and security risks associated with siting LNG marine terminals in urban communities and requiring LNG tankers to pass within close proximity to miles of densely populated coastline.

The LNG Safety and Security Act would address these concerns by improving FERC's siting process, requiring closer collaboration between FERC and the Coast Guard, and protecting States' permitting rights under Federal and State law.

First, the bill would improve FERC's approval process for LNG terminals. Instead of reviewing proposed LNG projects on a first come- first served basis, the bill would require FERC to work with states and the Coast Guard to pursue a regional approach to LNG terminal siting, including a review of offshore and remote sites and a determination of how many LNG terminals a region needs. To address the substantial new costs faced by state and local agencies responsible for security and safety at the LNG terminal and along shipping routes, the bill would require the developer to create a cost-sharing plan describing direct cost reimbursements to these agencies. To make sure that FERC addresses all relevant safety and security issues in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an LNG terminal--and that the public has access to this information before FERC makes a final decision--the bill requires FERC to await the completion of an Incident Action Plan by the Coast Guard before issuing a Final EIS. It would require FERC to incorporate the non-security sensitive components of the Incident Action Plan into the Final EIS, including all safety and security resource requirements identified by the Coast Guard.

Second, to ensure that States continue to have the authority to establish meaningful safety and security standards and to protect their fragile coastal environments, the bill requires FERC to comply with Federal laws that may be enforced by States, including the National Historic Preservation Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act; clarifies the right of a State to review an application to site an LNG facility under any of these laws; and establishes that FERC has no authority to preempt a State permitting determination under federal or state law.

Third, to ensure that the Department of Transportation's safety standards for LNG terminals truly encourage remote siting as Congress intended, the bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue new regulations establishing standards to promote the remote siting of LNG terminals.

Finally, to protect coastal communities along LNG shipping routes, the bill requires the Coast Guard to issue regulations establishing thermal and vapor exclusion zones for vessels transporting LNG, based on existing DOT regulations for LNG terminals on land.

I again want to emphasize that I recognize LNG's important role in the energy infrastructure of Rhode Island and the Nation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure reliable supplies of natural gas to our homes and businesses without siting LNG import terminals in densely populated urban areas. I am confident that we can achieve this goal by requiring FERC and other federal agencies to explore a broad list of alternatives--including offshore LNG facilities--to bring more natural gas to our communities while minimizing the risk to our citizens.

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

Mr. President, I would like the Record to reflect that I was necessarily absent for the vote on the Byrd amendment offered to S. Con. Res. 118 on Wednesday, March 16, 2005. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted in favor of the amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act. By passing this legislation today, the Senate recognizes the critical need to maintain the Perkins program--the Federal Government's single biggest investment in our nation's high schools.

The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act provides a vital link between students and the high-skilled workforce American business depends on to thrive. It funds rigorous and challenging career and technical education programs that give more than 10 million Americans the opportunity to attain the specific skills needed to successfully embark on careers and undertake further education.

The President's decision to eliminate this program in his fiscal year 2006 budget proposal is exceedingly short-sighted. It would aggravate the skills gap that employers already face and cost our country in future competitiveness, productivity, and innovation. The President seeks to eliminate a $1.3 billion investment, $6.4 million of which would be a loss to my state, Rhode Island.

Instead, the Senate's action today will help ensure this program's continued success.

I am especially pleased that this legislation contains provisions I authored to address the needs expressed to me by educators in Rhode Island. As I have in other education reauthorization bills, I worked to strengthen professional development programs for career and technical educators, principals, administrators, and counselors. I also ensured the legislation gives states more flexibility in their use of funding and in implementing innovative statewide initiatives. In addition, I added language to ensure schools can offer students the benefit of real-world internships and other work-based learning experiences to enhance their skills.

These and other provisions in the bill will strengthen the Perkins Act. I sincerely hope that we will maintain the same cooperative and bipartisan spirit as we work toward final passage of this bill.

Mr. President, today I share my concern over S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, and urge my colleagues to vote against this flawed legislation. This legislation provides a misguided and uneven approach to combating bankruptcy abuse, especially because it leaves so many causes of bankruptcy unaddressed.

Most provisions in this bill were written years ago and do not target abuses which have recently gained public attention. When this bill was originally drafted, corporate fraud at Enron and elsewhere had not yet come to light. The executives at these corporations had not yet been caught enjoying huge personal gains at the expense of shareholders and employees only to later file for bankruptcy. This bill does not fully address these types of bankruptcy abuses, and unfortunately efforts to close these loopholes failed.

At the time this bill was drafted, companies were less likely to file for bankruptcy to shed health care and pension obligations to their retirees. In fact, the number of senior citizens in bankruptcy tripled from 1992 to 2001,

representing the largest increase of any group. Today, nearly a million Americans have had their pension plans taken over by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and their benefits reduced; this is a substantial increase from when the bill was drafted. I am disappointed that this body not only voted against the Feingold amendment that would have helped elderly Americans protect their houses, but also against the Rockefeller amendment to improve employees' claim for owed wages and benefits. The Rockefeller amendment would have also required companies that dropped retiree health benefits to reimburse each affected retiree for 18 months of COBRA coverage upon reemerging from bankruptcy.

The bill adds a means test, which supporters of the bill say will significantly reduce abuse. The nonpartisan American Bankruptcy Institute found that over 96 percent of families seeking to go into chapter 7 bankruptcy would be judged as unable to pay under the new means test. However, the means test would likely deter qualifying families from filing for bankruptcy due to the addition of regulatory requirements and legal costs.

I am not opposed to sensible bankruptcy law reform, but this is a reverse Robin Hood--squeeze the down-on-their-luck middle class and impoverished Americans and give the proceeds to the financial services industry. Contrary to the claims of creditors, many of these families simply cannot pay. About half of families going into bankruptcy have had their utilities or phone shut off, and 60 percent went without medical care. One in five families that are bankrupt because of medical bills went without food. Surveys have shown that many of them want to repay their bills but are unable to, and they must ultimately file for bankruptcy to stop the harassment of collection agents.

This bill does nothing to prevent bankruptcy by targeting its causes. We should work to ensure adequate worker compensation, lower the high cost of health care, improve financial education, and stem predatory lending.

Our middle class is increasingly squeezed. Median family income has been relatively stagnant, rising by only 12 percent in constant dollars from 1978 to 2003. This increase has not kept up with families' sharply increasing costs. Health care costs have risen by 327 percent in constant dollars from 1988 to 2004. The real cost of tuition at a four year public university increased by 646 percent from 1978 to 2003. Child care costs have risen by 35 percent more than inflation from 1986 to 2003.

With less disposable income, families are less able to make it through difficult financial times and can be devastated by a single unexpected event. It saddens me that many of my colleagues in the majority voted against Senator Kennedy's amendment to raise the minimum wage for the first time in eight years. This measure could have meant the difference to countless Americans between being able to pay their bills and having to file for bankruptcy.

Indeed, according to a new Harvard Law School study, illness or high medical costs cause half of personal bankruptcies. Certainly this is sure to affect the 45 million uninsured Americans, up from 30 million in 1978. It also has a traumatic effect on those who do have health insurance, one-third of whom lost it while they were sick. Yet again, I believe it was a mistake for this body to have killed an amendment to offer protections to patients with high medical bills.

We also continue to see some banks cross the line into predatory lending practices. We must continue to find a balance between providing access to credit and capital and protecting individuals from predatory lending. Unfortunately, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, members of our Armed Forces have become a top target of these unsavory practices. Senator Durbin's G.I. protection amendment would have extended protections to military members who have been forced into bankruptcy because of income loss connected to their service. It would also have protected them from predatory ``pay day'' loans. Unfortunately, this amendment was voted down.

For all of these reasons, I intend to vote against this flawed legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I, too, want to commend Senator Dole for her stirring comments about the valiant Marines on Iwo Jima. My brother was a Marine officer. I followed not in the Marine Corps but to West Point, so one of us was right.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about the direction that the President is taking the country in terms of our Nation's commitment to providing retirement security to the elderly and income security to the disabled, widows, and survivors. I am speaking, of course, about the President's plan for privatizing Social Security.

President Bush writes in his recently released Economic Report of the President, ``The greatest fiscal challenges we face arise from the aging of our society.'' Yet his annual Economic Report devotes little more than a page and a half to this important subject.

As his Economic Report reveals, the President has no real plan to address the fiscal challenges arising from the retirement of the baby boom generation, let alone a plan to fix Social Security. All the President has is an unaffordable plan to create private retirement accounts, with few specifics and many unanswered questions.

That is not stopping the President from barnstorming the country telling the American people that Social Security is a sinking ship and private accounts are the lifeboats into which we should jump. But the administration is manufacturing a crisis that does not exist in order to dismantle Social Security.

Despite the administration's claims, Social Security will remain solvent for nearly 50 more years. Even after that, Social Security would still be able to pay 70 to 80 percent of benefits. Modest changes to the system would enable Social Security to pay full benefits well beyond the next 50 years.

No other retirement system or Fortune 500 company in the United States can make that same claim. In fact, the weakness of traditional pensions makes Social Security look like the most secure part of our retirement system right now.

To put the problem into perspective, making the Bush administration's four enacted tax cuts permanent would cost three to five times more than the Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years.

For over 60 years, Social Security has provided a dependable and predictable stream of income to retired or disabled workers, their dependents and their survivors. Forty-eight million men, women, and children rely on Social Security benefits each month to help them live with dignity. The benefits are protected from inflation and one cannot outlive them.

Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment plan, and private accounts would destroy much of the insurance value of the program. More than one-quarter of Social Security benefits go to survivors and disabled workers and their families, and these benefits would be at risk under the President's proposal.

We all acknowledge the long-term fiscal imbalance of the Social Security trust fund. However, it is equally critical to recognize that the President's private accounts do absolutely nothing to address this imbalance, as a senior administration official recently acknowledged. In fact, diverting payroll tax revenues exacerbates insolvency and accelerates the date of trust fund imbalance.

For obvious reasons, the President has not mentioned this or other facts that are so critical to the Social Security trust fund. His privatization scheme requires cutting benefits by more than 40 percent, even for those who choose not to invest in privatized accounts.

Those choosing a private account could be hit with an additional ``privatization tax'' of 70 percent or more of the value of their account, which would be deducted from their Social Security benefits upon retirement.

President Bush has urged Congress to fix Social Security for younger workers and not pass on the problem to future generations. However, the President's plan for private accounts would place a huge burden on our children and grandchildren by increasing Federal debt by over $750 billion in just the next 10 years. This debt would rise to nearly $5 trillion over the first 20 years that the plan is in place.

The President's private accounts would cut Social Security's funding, weaken the program, and make its financial problems worse, not better. In short, private accounts pose a serious threat to the future economic security of all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable members of our society.

This is why last week I joined 41 of my fellow Democratic senators in calling on the President to publicly and unambiguously abandon his support for private accounts funded with Social Security dollars or cuts in guaranteed benefits.

At a time when our country is saving so little and fewer employers are offering traditional pension plans, Social Security's predictable, inflation-protected benefits that can't be outlived occupy a critical role in ensuring our retirement security.

Before we can roll up our sleeves and delve into the very serious question of shoring up Social Security for all, we must set aside ideology and acknowledge the demographic and fiscal challenges facing this bedrock retirement security program.

I want to work with President Bush to promote personal wealth and saving through investment, but not at the cost of Social Security. I urge the President to take private accounts off the table so that we might achieve bipartisan agreement to strengthen Social Security for the long-term and enhance the retirement security of all Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Dodd, Kennedy, and Murray in once again introducing the Child Care Quality Incentive Act, which seeks to redouble our child care efforts and renew the child care partnership with the States by providing incentive funding to increase payment rates.

This legislation seeks to put high-quality child care within the reach of more working families. As things stand, States too often fund only a fraction of prevailing child care costs.

Under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), States are required to perform market rate surveys every two years. Yet many States

disregard them when it comes time to setting their payment rates, the level at which States reimburse child care providers who care for low- income children who receive a child care subsidy. As a result, States are unable to meet the law's promise to give eligible low-income families the same access to child care services as non-eligible families.

At stake are safe, supportive, and educationally enriching environments for children during the formative years that set the stage for future performance in school and beyond. When payment rates are set too low, child care centers that serve low-income children struggle to survive and may have to close. If they choose to stay afloat despite the limited ability of families to pay, the tradeoffs directly impact the quality of care. Such tradeoffs include smaller staffs, underpaid employees with few or no benefits, and limited employee training, educational materials, and community services like health screenings. Those centers that avoid this route may turn low-income children away or be forced out of business.

Under welfare reform we expect the neediest parents to hold jobs to sustain their families. We must also afford them responsible choices to protect their children while they pursue their economic future.

Our legislation creates a new mandatory funding pool under the Child Care and Development Block Grant to help States increase payment rates, while requiring States to set payment rates in line with updated market rate surveys. As such, it will allow more low-income families access to quality child care, and increase the availability of quality child care for all families.

Support for this legislation is strong among leading national organizations such as USA Child Care, the Children's Defense Fund, the YMCA of the USA, Catholic Charities of the USA, the Child Welfare League of America, and many more. A range of local and State organizations and providers have also offered endorsements.

This year, Congress is slated to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Dodd, Kennedy, Murray, and me in this endeavor to improve the quality of child care by cosponsoring the Child Care Quality Incentive Act and working to include its provisions in the CCDBG reauthorization. The time to bring payment rates in line with market realities is now. Only then will the commitment to offer equal access to quality child care ring true.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Dodd, Kennedy, and Murray in once again introducing the Child Care Quality Incentive Act, which seeks to redouble our child care efforts and renew the child care partnership with the States by providing incentive funding to increase payment rates.

This legislation seeks to put high-quality child care within the reach of more working families. As things stand, States too often fund only a fraction of prevailing child care costs.

Under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), States are required to perform market rate surveys every two years. Yet many States

disregard them when it comes time to setting their payment rates, the level at which States reimburse child care providers who care for low- income children who receive a child care subsidy. As a result, States are unable to meet the law's promise to give eligible low-income families the same access to child care services as non-eligible families.

At stake are safe, supportive, and educationally enriching environments for children during the formative years that set the stage for future performance in school and beyond. When payment rates are set too low, child care centers that serve low-income children struggle to survive and may have to close. If they choose to stay afloat despite the limited ability of families to pay, the tradeoffs directly impact the quality of care. Such tradeoffs include smaller staffs, underpaid employees with few or no benefits, and limited employee training, educational materials, and community services like health screenings. Those centers that avoid this route may turn low-income children away or be forced out of business.

Under welfare reform we expect the neediest parents to hold jobs to sustain their families. We must also afford them responsible choices to protect their children while they pursue their economic future.

Our legislation creates a new mandatory funding pool under the Child Care and Development Block Grant to help States increase payment rates, while requiring States to set payment rates in line with updated market rate surveys. As such, it will allow more low-income families access to quality child care, and increase the availability of quality child care for all families.

Support for this legislation is strong among leading national organizations such as USA Child Care, the Children's Defense Fund, the YMCA of the USA, Catholic Charities of the USA, the Child Welfare League of America, and many more. A range of local and State organizations and providers have also offered endorsements.

This year, Congress is slated to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Dodd, Kennedy, Murray, and me in this endeavor to improve the quality of child care by cosponsoring the Child Care Quality Incentive Act and working to include its provisions in the CCDBG reauthorization. The time to bring payment rates in line with market realities is now. Only then will the commitment to offer equal access to quality child care ring true.

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