Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise this week to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the World War II Allied invasion of Normandy and to honor the courageous members of our Armed Forces, especially those from New Jersey, who participated in that decisive battle.

In the waning days of 1943, the Allied Command, led by General Dwight David Eisenhower, developed a plan to cross the English Channel and gain a foothold on France's Normandy coast. This bold strategy breached Hitler's western defenses and began the liberation of France and the rest of Nazi-occupied Europe.

The invasion known as Operation Overlord was to become the largest air, land and sea operation any military force had ever undertaken. After months of planning, training and preparation by the Allies, June 6, 1944 was selected as the invasion date, or D-Day.

Moving and fighting under stormy skies, the invasion force, led by the United States, Great Britain and Canada, and including Free French and Free Polish units, consisted of over 1 million service personnel. The American contingent included tens of thousands of ground combat troops who assaulted over Omaha and Utah beaches, airborne units which landed behind enemy lines, U.S. Navy sailors, Army logisticians and other specialists, and Army Air Corps aviators and ground crews who supported the landings.

The dangers were grave, and the stakes almost incalculable. Our troops' skill and determination won our Nation a world-changing success, a military victory which today remains a keystone of the liberties and security Americans and their partners still enjoy. The soldiers who fought their way ashore in Normandy and who there dropped into battle under heavy fire demonstrated unsurpassed tenacity and valor. Their superb performance and their sacrifices in the cause of freedom and democracy will always be remembered and appreciated by a grateful nation. May our D-Day veterans' memory and deeds be a constant reminder of Americans' courage, resolve and devotion to duty in World War II.

Mr. President, on the night of Tuesday, May 25, 2004, New Jersey lost one of its most dedicated public servants, Jersey City Mayor and State Senator Glenn Cunningham. It was a terrible tragedy and terrible loss to the people of Jersey City and New Jersey.

Mayor Cunningham was a compassionate public official who was deeply committed to his city, his State, and his country, serving 4 years in the U.S. Marine Corps before returning home and beginning a life-long career rooted in his pride in Jersey City and his caring for his fellow citizens.

He was a police officer, Hudson County freeholder, Jersey City councilman, and U.S. marshal. He distinguished himself further as a fierce and aggressive fighter for Jersey City as the city's mayor and State senator. His voice was strong and his love for his city boundless.

He worked every day to bring his diverse community together, to unite rather than divide. As the State's first African-American U.S. marshal and Jersey City's first African-American mayor, Glenn Cunningham plowed a path of excellence for others to follow.

Sadly, his tenure as mayor was far too short, and he will be missed by those he served. As Annette McMillian of Jersey City told the Jersey Journal last week, ``He was fair and decent and honest.'' Terry Suarez of Union City added poignantly, ``A light has been darkened by the silence of death.''

I join those who will miss Mayor Cunninghams great energy, creativity, and perspectives on government and public service. On behalf of the people of New Jersey, I extend my deepest condolences to the mayor's widow, Sandra Bolden-Cunningham, and my prayers are with his family and his beloved community of Jersey City.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Benigno family of Clinton, NJ, for their tireless efforts to advance the cause of brain injury research.

Nearly 20 years ago, Dennis and Rosalind Benigno's 15-year old son, Dennis John, was struck by a car while walking home from a football physical. Dennis John suffered severe, long-term brain injuries in the accident. Now 34, Dennis John cannot walk or talk. He communicates with his eyes and laughter, and seems to understand when his parents talk to him. Dennis and Rosalind have made a life of caring for their injured son.

Their personal tragedy, however, is not the end of the story. Mr. Benigno has turned tragedy into action. He has been a passionate advocate on behalf of his son, raising awareness and promoting research efforts that offer the prospect of a cure for traumatic brain injury. The Benigno's founded the Coalition for Brain Injury Research, which has donated more than $125,000 in the past 2 years to the study of brain cell repair. They raise funds through walkathons and a lecture series, and Mr. Benigno has traveled throughout the country for research dollars.

Mr. Benigno has also turned to his elected representatives in New Jersey and Washington, DC. His efforts have led to the creation of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, co-chaired by my good friend Congressman Bill Pascrell. For the last 6 years, Mr. Benigno has also lobbied local, State, and Federal legislators to support legislation that would create a dedicated source of funding for medical research into traumatic brain injuries.

His work has begun to pay off. On January 2 of this year, Governor McGreevey signed the Brain Injury Research Act into law. With this legislation, New Jersey becomes the first State in the Nation to create a funding stream for researchers devising treatments and cures for brain injuries. The act is expected to raise more than $3 million a year for brain injury research from a $1 surcharge on motor vehicle penalties.

Dennis John is one of more than 5.3 million Americans who currently suffer disabilities from brain injury, according to the Centers for Disease Control, CDC. Every year, 200,000 people sustain brain injuries, a number that exceeds the incidence of HIV/AIDS and breast cancer. Right now, there is no cure. In fact, brain injuries are the only catastrophic illness for which scientists have yet to readily identify a cure as their research goal. The Brain Injury Research Act, finally, offers hope to the hundreds of thousands who suffer from brain injuries that an effective therapy may be in sight.

While religious authorities, ethics scholars, and we here in the halls of government continue to debate the implications of stem and fetal cell research, the Benigno's remain focused

on one thing--supporting the research efforts that may find a cure for their son and others like him. As we make decisions that have the power to spark or extinguish the hopes of millions that the cures they pray for may be found, we should keep the Benigno's in mind.

One point is very clear--this new law and the hope it nurtures are a credit to Mr. Benigno's dedication, courage, and perseverance. He is an inspiration to all of us, and a testament to what one determined citizen can achieve in our democracy.

Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Wisconsin for his remarks. I will be giving a similar presentation, but I think there is not a more important domestic issue, one that is impacting the quality of life for middle-income and moderate-income Americans more than almost anything in their private financial affairs. Obviously, it is having a major impact on business and the quality of our economy. I don't think there is a more important issue for us to debate and to achieve those necessary elements that will change the terms and conditions so we can address the 44 million uninsured, but also provide the kind of underlying support for the quality of life for Americans we have come to expect. This is the priority domestic issue.

I compliment the distinguished Senator for his remarks. I hope I can be as eloquent.

I do want to make sure I speak out on this issue. I have been talking consistently about the state of our economy, particularly the squeeze middle-class Americans have. Health care costs are absolutely at the top of that list, but we see it in tuition costs at colleges and universities, property taxes, gasoline prices, and energy prices. There are a number of things that are impinging the ability of middle-income and moderate-income families to navigate the American economy. But none of those is more troubling than both the access and the affordability of health care.

Today there are roughly 44 million Americans without health coverage. Those who do have health coverage are seeing increases in their costs. Particularly those who are part of group programs see that costs rise exponentially. We are seeing that carry through into the challenges in our budgetary policies in Washington with regard to Medicare and Medicaid. Costs are truly phenomenal.

The average cost of a family health insurance policy today is roughly $10,000 a year. A study released this week by the Kerry campaign shows there has been a $2,700 increase in the average annual family premium per year over the last 3 years for those who have insurance, 4 times the rate at which family income has grown in the last 4 years.

I have to say this is a particularly troubling issue for those folks in the State of New Jersey, because we have had the highest rate of premium increase of any State in the Nation. I am hearing a lot of complaints back home. This is unsustainable and needs to be addressed. For the Senate, representing the people of our States, to not have a serious debate about the uninsured, with all of the pressures on the middle class, is hard for me to understand.

We used to take for granted that if you had a good job, guaranteed health benefits came along with the job. This is not the way it is today. In fact, you would usually be able to count on those health insurance benefits through retirement. That is no longer a certainty. Employers, on the other hand, have seen their costs rising 10 or 15 percent. We have a chart that shows how, over the period of time from 1996 to 2003, we have seen a surge in health care costs. For the third year in a row we have had double-digit increases in the cost of premiums for health care insurance. When employers have seen their costs rise, they have taken an obvious strategic step and shifted the cost to their employees, eliminated coverage for retirees, or eliminated coverage altogether for employees, or had all kinds of cost- sharing arrangements. It is amazing how the burden has shifted increasingly to working families.

Eighty-one percent of the uninsured, those 44 million, are actually people who are working. A lot of times you think it is folks who are unemployed or somehow are not connected to the economy. Eighty-one percent of the uninsured are in working families, people who have jobs.

Competitive pressure among employers to drop coverage is growing because it is such an important cost element in their overall means of doing business. We have to take steps to address the health care coverage and affordability crisis. Fewer and fewer people can afford to maintain the coverage they have; fewer and fewer businesses can afford to. It is time we actually get on with it.

To give you one example, the average annual premium for a standard plan for a healthy, nonsmoking 25-year-old in New Jersey is almost $5,000.

That is the average--$5,000 for a single individual. Just to contrast that with some of the initiatives we see out of the administration, which I find remarkably unacceptable and limited to addressing this problem, President Bush has proposed giving a $1,000 to $3,000 tax credit to low to moderate income-tax paying individuals and families. A $1,000 tax credit for a single individual earning $15,000 a year would leave that single 25-year-old I just mentioned paying 30 percent of the gross income to purchase coverage.

How does that work? What kind of help is that? A $5,000 premium, you get a $1,000 tax credit, and you make $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, and 30 percent of the income pays for coverage. This is the kind of problem with which individuals are dealing. You can do that across the income and age spectrum, and it is an enormous issue.

The President's tax credit proposal simply falls far short of offering the whole health care coverage for 44 million Americans. In fact, an independent study by Ken Thorpe of Emory University finds that the President's proposal would provide coverage to only 2.1 million of that 44 million uninsured. That

is over 10 years, by the way. So we are making no dent whatsoever. It would not even cover the 3.8 million who lost coverage since President Bush came into office.

Furthermore, the CBO determined the President's associated health plan proposal would actually increase health care premiums for a majority of employees working in small firms and would cause about 10,000 individuals to lose their coverage. So the second element of the President's proposal, beyond the tax credit, is going to actually increase the uninsured and increase premiums. It is hard to see how that will be helpful in this overall health care crisis.

We could begin to address these difficult issues by acting on health care in the way that a number of people put forward and, most particularly, Senator Kerry has put forward. His plan would reduce health care costs for those with health insurance and expand coverage to 27 million Americans who currently lack it. Senator Kerry's commonsense proposal builds on existing successful health care programs such as SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program; mandates coverage for all children; and provides incentives to States to expand coverage to uninsured adults. The Kerry plan would not only expand access to health coverage, it would reduce premiums by about 10 percent for those with insurance. He does this by making the Federal Government a secondary insurer, whenever an individual's health care costs exceed $50,000 in a year. So it is a catastrophic backstop that the Federal Government takes up and covers 75 percent of those costs above that level. It would reduce costs by 10 percent for everybody who has insurance. It is a very simple but important concept to add to the expansion of coverage the Senator has talked about.

We can provide coverage to more than half of those currently uninsured through these steps. I think we must take those programs and even expand them to make sure everybody has coverage. Expanding health coverage is not cheap, but the cost of refusing to expand access to health insurance is enormous as well, and it affects every one of us. We all pay more for health care because hospitals and other providers are forced to increase prices to compensate for those without coverage who use the services. They are mandated to do that at hospitals. We all pay higher State and local taxes to compensate providers who provide precare to those without coverage. We all know that. Emergency rooms, charity care--all of those places where we build up these costs. It is important that we understand the cost-benefit of actually having health insurance programs that work to take care of that and to eliminate some of those costs.

According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, we spent $41 billion in this Nation last year for uncompensated care for the uninsured. We hear about it from our hospitals, local providers. They give out care, and the total is $41 billion, according to the Kaiser Commission. The annual cost, by the way, of that program I just talked about with the Kerry proposal is $35 billion. So you have a cost-benefit tradeoff. If you could take care of the uninsured, you could take a big bite out of that $41 billion of uncompensated care. We would have to spend the money. Some folks would say we don't have the budget room. We don't have the budget room to pay for the $41 billion that we have. I think we can make major inroads if we work on it.

There are savings to be had if we are prepared to do it. I think making sure that we move on to preventive care, in conjunction with health care access, will make a huge difference in making sure that people deal with diabetes before it is chronic and critical, deal with hypertension before it is chronic and critical. All of these things will make a huge difference. People will deal with these in the normal course of preventive care as opposed to emergency or critical or chronic problems.

Madam President, there is a lot to be dealt with on this topic of access to health care in this country. We need to have that debate. Senator Kerry has laid down an incredibly important proposal--one that is self-financed by the costs that it would defray from the unreimbursed costs going through the system. We need to address these 44 million Americans and address the pressure that middle-class, moderate Americans are feeling every day as they see this 13-percent increase in health care.

I hope we can have a real debate on this floor so that we can move forward to take care of those 44 million uninsured and not have proposals that are dead on arrival, that have no real impact, maybe addressing 2 million of the 44 million and not even dealing with the numbers that are increasing. As we sit here and talk about it today, 3.8 million new Americans have gone on the uninsured rolls since this administration has been in office. We need to address that problem and the other 40 million that are without health insurance. There are proposals that make sense. It is time to address it. I hope we can have that debate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Feingold, Cornyn, Leahy, and Bingaman, I am submitting a resolution designed to make it easier for the American people to get information about Congress from the Internet.

Almost 10 years ago, the Library of Congress started the THOMAS website, which was one of the first electronic references for the public to get up-to-date information about legislation. The

Library did a tremendous job getting THOMAS ready, and I commend their hard work in maintaining it over the past 10 years. However, THOMAS recently has begun to show its age. Although there have been some improvements over time, the Library has been unable to devote the resources necessary to keep THOMAS up to the level the public expects for today's websites. One reason is that the Library has never been formally told by either Chamber of Congress that it has a responsibility to maintain a website for public access to legislative information.

In contrast, the Congressional Research Service was given a mandate to maintain a legislative information website for Members of Congress and their staffs in the 1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations conference report. The Legislative Information System that Congress uses is vastly superior to THOMAS, both in terms of functionality and ease of use. For example, LIS users are able to search across multiple Congresses to find information about bills; THOMAS users must search each Congress individually. In LIS, links to committee reports, if available, are provided along with the basic information about a bill. In THOMAS, a user must make a separate search to find the report. In LIS, the names of bill sponsors can be clicked on to find other bills sponsored by that Member; that feature is not available in THOMAS. And anyone who has used both LIS and THOMAS has seen that the LIS site is much more attractive and usable, and has benefited from continual improvements that have not been matched on THOMAS. When it comes to obtaining the public legislative information of Congress, there should not be such a significant difference between what we use and what the public uses.

Obviously, the American people have the right to see all the public documents of Congress. And, if we are to be true to our nation's democratic values, this information should be as easy to find as possible. It is not sufficient that those who are truly interested can make the extra effort necessary to find what they need; we should be encouraging people to become interested. Americans should be able to easily go to the Internet and get legislative information directly from Congress, instead of having to rely on what they see and hear from others. We can facilitate this by creating a visually appealing, helpful, useful, and accessible public portal to the United States Congress.

Although THOMAS was a good start, it badly needs to be improved. This resolution will tell the Library of Congress that the Senate is paying attention, and that we will insist on that improvement.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and help ensure we have a public legislative information website we can be proud of.

Madam President, like many of my colleagues I rise in strong support of the Harkin-Hagel amendment to require full funding of IDEA, providing these increases over 6 years on a mandatory basis. It is straightforward. I think it is absolutely necessary. As a number of my colleagues have said, there is nothing that strikes more at the heart of my dialog with my constituents and those who are involved in the educational system than getting to full funding on IDEA. It is absolutely essential.

Before I go into some of the reasons, I also want to say how pleased I am with the work of the committee, for taking up this legislation, structuring it, and moving it forward, and with reform, but also for including some things I think were essential. There are provisions that were added at our request with regard to making funds available to improve programs for autism spectrum disorder, which is a very significantly growing, recognized disability many children are facing. We need to have funding in addressing it, particularly the early childhood elements.

I am also pleased the committee was willing to work with us to clarify parents' rights to represent their children in due process hearings.

I think it makes a huge difference as we go forward in making sure all of our children are represented. But my main point is it is not enough to say we all embrace dealing with special education. This program is drastically underfunded, and it is posing a significant burden on the citizens of my State and across our Nation.

It gets at the heart of the tax question. We put down what I think is a terrific legislative initiative in 1975 to deal with disabilities among children and to improve their educational opportunity. But we also put down an objective that we were going to move to 40 percent of the average funding for each child with disabilities. We are nowhere close. I think it is 18.5 percent or so. We are way behind. That is why it is mandatory to step it up over the next 6 years. It is so important. It is real common sense.

I have to tell you in my home State of New Jersey, school budgets are capped at only 3 percent annual growth per year. When the spending on special education goes up more, we end by accommodating mandates which are required by cutting other costs in our educational system. We set up a horrific dynamic in our local communities. The only other out on that is local property taxes, which at least in my State are the highest in the Nation, and we are already extraordinarily burdened by them. That is true across the country.

It is absolutely essential that we get to full funding. The difference in 2004 versus where we are today and where we would be if we had fully funded 40 percent is almost $300 million--$320 million, $319 million is what we are going to receive, and $641 million is what we would have received if we had full funding. It is a huge difference on the tax base in our community.

I cannot tell you that there is any other issue which generates more heat because it sets neighbor against neighbor in the school districts about how they have to make tough choices, or it forces us to go to the taxpayer and raise local property tax burdens which are already extraordinarily high in my State. But it is also true in other places.

I have an example of a situation in New Jersey where an individual talks about her son whose needs are being addressed in special education but also reflecting what it has translated into not only for her son but to the special education programs and the rising burden on individual property taxes. It is setting up a system of failure and conflict in our communities. That is unacceptable.

We need to accept our responsibility here in Washington to fulfill our pledge and our promise to move to that 40 percent so we don't have these dynamics. It is time it happened.

I fully support and compliment the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to talk about an epidemic that affects not only children in my home state of New Jersey, but 1 in 250 children across the Nation--autism spectrum disorder (ASD). I have been working closely with groups such as Parents of Autistic Children and the New Jersey Center for Outreach and Community Services for the Autism Community (NJCOSAC) to address the staggering number of children who have been diagnosed with ASD. In fact, I introduced legislation, the TEACH Act, S. 1422, which highlights the needs of autistic children by bringing more qualified teachers into the classroom, helping families receive the support and services they need for their children, and helping ensure vocational programs to assist people with autism transition from school to work are functioning as intended.

With autism diagnoses skyrocketing, we must continue to make every effort to expand the quality and accessibility of treatments for children with ASD. That is why I am happy to report that some provisions of the TEACH Act have been included in the Senate reauthorization of IDEA, S. 1248. S. 1248 contains provisions making funds available to develop and improve programs using cutting-edge research in order to provide in-service training to

schools and personnel who teach children with ASD. These funds will ensure quality professional development for special education teachers through the use of scientifically based research on the treatment of autism.

With the demand for services grossly outpacing the supply of specially trained teachers and therapists, these provisions are critical to increasing the number of special education teachers qualified to teach children diagnosed with ASD. Expanding access to treatment, especially at an early age, is essential to improving the outcomes for children affected by ASD.

I thank Connie Garner and the entire HELP Committee for their assistance in getting this important language in the bill. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues and the autism community to ensure that all children with ASD have access to early intervention by quality teachers trained in providing the most effective treatments.

Mr. President, I also wish to mention a small but important part of this IDEA reauthorization that is crucial to parents of children with disabilities. I have had the privilege of working closely with Maura Collinsgru and the Parent Information Center of New Jersey to ensure the rights of parents to represent their children in due process hearings without an attorney. I am happy to report that S. 1248 includes language clarifying this right so that parents can be effective advocates for their children.

I would like to mention one New Jersey case in particular that highlights the issue of parental rights in due process hearings. In Collinsgru V. Palmra Board of Education, Robert and Maura Collinsgru were denied the right to represent their son, Francis Robert and Maura Collinsgru were denied the right to represent their son, Francis Collinsgru, during due process hearings. Far from an isolated case, the decision could have broad implications that could be detrimental to families of children with disabilities.

As we know, parents' access to attorneys is already very limited. Not only are there very few attorneys willing to take IDEA cases, but there are even fewer who actually specialize in IDEA. Moreover, of those attorneys who do specialize in IDEA, most are already overloaded with cases. Finally, the cost of many of these attorneys is prohibitively expensive, especially for parents who are caring for a disabled child. Attorney's fees are an extra cost that they often cannot afford. With so few available attorneys, therefore, it is essential that parents have the right to stand up for their children in court when faced with an injustice in the system.

I would like to take this time to thank Connie Garner for the HELP Committee for her help in getting this language included in the bill. Her efforts have made it possible for parents to retain their right to due process and help their children receive the services they deserve.

May I make an inquiry? Are there other of my colleagues requesting time?

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue that too easily comes off our agenda in America and around the globe. We accepted S. Con. Res. 99 which condemns the Government of the Republic of Sudan for its participation and complicity in the attacks against innocent civilians in the impoverished Darfur region of western Sudan. I think it is not enough just for us to be condemning in this situation. It has all of the makings of turning into a humanitarian crisis that rivals or at least approaches the kinds of problems we saw in Rwanda.

While we will take a stand in recognizing it as a problem, I think it is absolutely essential that we maintain attention and focus when there are so many events in the world that draw us away.

The United Nations, international humanitarian and human rights organizations, as well as our own Government, agree that the campaign by the extremist, theocratic Sudanese Government and their militia allies against Muslim civilians of African ethnicity in Darfur, western Sudan, over the last 14 months has driven over 1 million civilians from their home. We have the risk of another tragic genocidal action in place.

The 1 million Muslim civilians displaced within Darfur, Sudanese citizens victimized by their own Government, cling to life as displaced, homeless persons living in the open or in pathetic and inadequate camps, in constant fear of further attacks and depredation.

Their physical condition is severely weakened, food supplies are exhausted, and the international community so far has been unable to get critically needed food assistance into the interior, due to deliberate interference and

obstruction by the Khartoum government. These individuals, these Muslim civilians, are fleeing systematic attacks by their own Government, Sudanese armed forces, and their militia allies, the ``janjaweed.''

The horrors which civilian families in Darfur are fleeing include the cold-blooded murder of unarmed civilians; pillage and burning of villages; organized, systematic rapes of women--wives, daughters, sisters; rape used as a deliberate weapon of terror and political control; and the deliberate destruction of farms, the irrigation systems, and food stockpiles on which this already impoverished region depends; in other words, deliberately manufactured starvation that will lead to the kind of real potential for genocide that we have seen in other places on the African Continent. We must stay alert. We must keep the focus of public opinion on this issue.

Last is a key point. Even though from 10,000 to as many as 30,000 civilians have died so far in Darfur since February, 2003, the final death numbers for 2004 and 2005 may prove far higher because of the actions that are being taken and the lack of ability for the international community to actually participate and provide assistance for the unbelievable inhumane conditions.

This is all in the context of a very difficult environment-- underdeveloped, impassable roads, huge swings in the nature of the weather. It is an incredibly complex and debilitating human situation which needs to be brought to attention. While genocide may not yet have occurred in Darfur, the elements are in place. The possibility of such horrors should not be far from our minds. That is why I speak out about it on the Senate floor, and I will do it over and over. This needs to be made into something about which we have a positive sense of responsibility, both here in the United States and in the international community.

U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan has compared the genocide in Rwanda 10 years ago to events that are now unfolding. It will not be enough to go back and look, after the fact, to this kind of inhumanity to man.

We will have, later this year and next, an occasion to vow yet again, in the wake of another deliberately inflicted mass murder and disaster, to say: Never again. But we can do that now as opposed to after the fact. I hope all of us in this body, those of us who are part of the Foreign Relations Committee and are very focused on these issues, will make sure it stays a priority, although that is very hard in the complex world we have. So I hope by speaking out today and as we go forward that this Darfur situation will not fall off the radar screen.

This is a real risk of genocide evolving. I think it absolutely essential that our Government stand up, stand tall, be outspoken, make sure we are not tolerant of the developments that are so readily reported in that part of the world. It is important that we recognize it and keep it in the limelight so world public opinion can stop this kind of action before it happens.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, may I inquire of the time allocation for each side?

I request permission to use 5 of those minutes and be informed when 4 minutes have been used of the time allocated.

Mr. President, like you, I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee and I reviewed the nomination of this experienced diplomat, our U.N. Ambassador, John Negroponte. I, too, both in the Foreign Relations Committee and on the floor, will have voted for his confirmation.

I do that, acknowledging, however, there are legitimate questions that can be raised about previous concerns in his tenure as an ambassador in Honduras, and human rights violations which are so important in the context of some of the things that are of great concern to us today.

But more troubling to me is the context in which this confirmation is actually being considered.

The reality is, once again we are doing something on the fly. We are rushing to confirm an ambassador to maybe the most important choice and role we have. In and of itself, it is indicative of the crisis we have in Iraq--frankly, the mess Ambassador Negroponte will be walking into.

If the administration--I am very troubled about this--sticks with an arbitrary, artificial June 30 deadline, Ambassador Negroponte's job will begin in less than 2 weeks with little or no definition about what he will be doing. There are no secure or thoughtful political or security plans in place. We do not know who will be making those judgments, how those people will be chosen, their role, or what the true definition of sovereignty in the context of this June 30 transfer will be all about. We do not know how they will be selected. We do not know what the role of the Ambassador will be with regard to those individuals. It is very unclear what sovereignty means.

By the way, put into the most dramatic terms today, what is the role of the new ambassador with regard to what is happening to the prison guards? Who will be responsible for that? Sovereignty questions are totally unclear. We still do not have a structure for our forces and how they fit in and what we do going forward and what is the relationship with the United Nations.

This is a real problem. We continue with failed and confusing policies. They are true with regard to the U.S. Ambassador. But they reflect the basic incompetence we have seen with regard to our crippled occupation from the start, some might even say our crippled war from the start, because we executed this with real questions about what the justification was with regard to weapons of mass destruction in relation to al-Qaida. We have continued it with poor planning, or no planning, with regard to the occupation that has been in place.

Right from the start, there were questions about what the force structure needed to be on the ground. We have heard over and over again the warnings General Shinseki gave us, several hundred thousand troops, dismissed out of hand by the Pentagon. The administration has refused to talk about the cost of this occupation and what the cost to the American people will be, aside from the tragedy of the loss of life. When there have been predictions, they have been so far off base it has made no sense in the context of reality.

The administration promised or thought we would be greeted as liberators. We have been anything but that. Seventy percent of the Iraqi people believe we are occupiers. There has been serious resistance with the insurgency. By the way, history would have shown that would be the indication that would occur in the Middle East. But we dismissed every single outside expert, Member of Congress, who might have raised any questions about it and emphasized we had a coalition of the willing that was anything but a serious coalition.

Ninety percent of the cost, 90 percent of the troops, 90 percent of the effort, or more, were all American. It is an American occupation. The administration continues with these failed policies. As we go forward, I certainly think we see it very clearly in the lack of clarity with regard to this tragic situation we see now with regard to the administration of prisons and detainees. The fact is, no matter what we do, every time the administration executes one of these policies, there is a flip-flop.

The idea that we were not going to have the U.N. involved; now we have the U.N. involved. We were going to have de- Baathification; and then we have reentry of Baaths. The issue of deployment of troops.

I am supportive of this Ambassador, but it is high time we get a consistent, thoughtful policy that is vetted with more than a few, narrow interests inside the Pentagon and maybe inside the White House. We need to have a real discussion about the direction of our policies on occupation and transition of political power and sovereignty. It is too costly.

In the context of this series of events that all Americans are repulsed by, we need to stand back and say it is time to be thoughtful and fully vet the kinds of policies we are going to put in place because this is a long-term project.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on May 1-3, 2004, over 1,200 students from across the United States visited our Nation's Capital to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution. This program, administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the Department of Education, was developed specifically to educate young people about our great Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I am proud to announce that students from East Brunswick High School in East Brunswick, NJ, won first place in this prestigious academic event. After winning the statewide competition, these outstanding students demonstrated superior knowledge of the U.S. Constitution during the national competition.

The 3-day We the People competition is modeled after Congressional hearings. First, the students are given an opportunity to exhibit their knowlege before a panel of adult judges while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by questions designed to probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge.

This innovative program continues to be one of the best antidotes to apathy and cynicism in our Nation. Numerous evaluations and independent studies have validated the effectiveness of the We the People program on students' civic knowledge and attitudes. The program helps students to develop an increased understanding of the institutions of constitutional democracy and the fundamental principals and values upon which they are founded. It also teaches students the skills necessary to participate as effective and responsible citizens.

I commend the students from East Brunswick High School on their exceptional achievement--their accomplishment is truly inspiring. I wish them the best of luck in learning and advocating the fundamental ideals that identify us as a people and bind us together as a Nation.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Certainly.

Mr. President, first of all, let me go back and compliment my colleague from Oregon, who I think has analyzed a problem that fits into a pattern of economic pressure that we see building on the middle class in America.

There is nothing more fundamental today in life than filling the car with gasoline and using it for commuting and taking the kids to school and doing all the normal tasks that we have going on. We see the same problem, by the way, with health care costs, tuition costs, and with property taxes across this country.

While there may be some good economic statistics out there, middle- class Americans are being hit unbelievably hard on the fundamentals that drive their basic budgets. Nothing--nothing--more clearly demonstrates this than these rising gasoline prices we have been experiencing this year. There has been a 23-cent increase in the price of gasoline. Nationally, the average price for gasoline is $1.84 a gallon. Many places in the country it is over $2 a gallon.

This comes from flawed simple economics 101, supply and demand. This administration is doing everything that you can imagine to hold back supply by filling the petroleum reserve at accelerated rates, when it is already about 95 percent full. It does not need to be in this position.

As we go into the summer season, the ``perfect storm'' the Senator from Oregon talks about is also being implemented with regard to other policies. It is counter to any basic economic analysis that you would want, to be taking supply off the market that would run down prices. I don't know what people are thinking when they implement policies that are going to restrict supply, and when they are unwilling to confront OPEC as they are cutting back supply. What we are getting is the natural result of rising prices, which is coming right out of the pocketbook of middle-class Americans. It is just absolutely wrong.

If you are cynical, you can also say, well, maybe it is because some people benefit from these higher prices. Being someone who worked in the private sector for 25 years of my life, I don't think profits are a bad thing. But when the American people are suffering from this erosion of their quality of life--because of the rise in property taxes, health care costs, tuition costs, and now gas prices--you wonder why it is so appropriate that Exxon-Mobil's profits were up 125 percent in the first quarter of this year; BP's profits were up 165 percent; and Chevron- Texaco's profits were up 294 percent. Is that economic fairness, in any context, particularly when you put it into the perspective that what the Bush administration is doing is restricting supply?

This is just wrong. It is out of the context of what is best for the American economy and for growth and the quality of life of Americans. It needs to be addressed. We are creating a windfall for American business at the expense of middle-class Americans. And it is happening day after day after day.

I do not begrudge profits, but I don't think it ought to be done on the backs of the American middle class because of the general macroeconomic policies of the President. And that is exactly what we have right now. It is wrong and needs to be pushed back, just as we need to confront Saudi Arabia with regard to its leadership in OPEC. If they are our ally, as they claim to be, then we ought to be speaking to them about increasing the production of oil out of OPEC as opposed to the restrictions we have seen.

From what we understand from all news reports and actually the Saudi Foreign Minister has said, there has not been one word of contact from this administration to the Saudis about OPEC production.

So now we have two of those very large ingredients into the supply and demand equation. That is why we are getting high prices. That is why gas is $1.84 a gallon, on average, in the country. And that is why it is $2 a gallon on the coast and most of the places where our larger population segments work.

It is really troubling we cannot put together a response to something that is eroding the quality of life in the aftertax base of middle- class Americans to actually operate in a sound way. So I hope we will all follow Senator Wyden's lead. He has done a terrific job of bringing focus to it, as has the Senator from New York, talking about pushing back against OPEC on production cutbacks. We really need to take a stand for the American people, not for the oil companies and the profitability we are seeing brought forth.

At a time when we still have not recovered those 2.6 million private sector

job losses, when 8.5 million Americans are unemployed, why we are putting more pressure on middle-class Americans and their quality of life is just hard to believe. It is time for a change. Supporting the proposition of the Senator from Oregon is one that I think we all ought to get out and get to work on.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am proud to be introducing a bill, along with Senator Collins and Senator Lautenberg, to grant a Federal Charter to the Irish American Cultural Institute, an organization that promotes appreciation and recognition of the important contributions Irish-Americans have played throughout the history of the United States. A longstanding goal of the Irish American Cultural Institute has been to establish a museum of Irish American history and culture in Washington, DC, and I am pleased to introduce legislation that could represent a positive step towards achieving that goal.

The Irish American Cultural Institute is a national organization founded in 1962, with local chapters in 17 States. The Institute has spent the last 40 years fighting to promote, preserve and interpret Irish and Irish-American culture. Those involved with the Institute do this, in part, by fostering strong cultural and educational ties between the United States and Ireland: sending American high school students to Ireland, and bringing Irish scholars, musicians, craftsmen, actors, and artists to the Untied States. They also fund academic research projects that provide insights into Irish-American history, and provide fellowships for American professors to spend a year as a visiting scholar at the National University of Ireland. In short, the Irish American Cultural Institute serves as an important educational, informational, and financial resource for key initiatives important to the Irish and the Irish-American community in the United States.

Irish-Americans comprise more than 17 percent of the population of the United States, and have made enormous contributions to our Nation in countless ways. A Federal charter will help the Irish American Cultural Institute continue and expand activities that recognize and celebrate the heritage of Irish-Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Protecting America's Workers Act introduced by Senator Kennedy. I am proud to join him as a cosponsor of this important legislation.

Yesterday, this country recognized Worker Memorial Day. Created in 1989 to remember workers who have been killed or injured in the workplace over the past year, Worker Memorial Day has been designated April 28 as a tribute to the anniversary of the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In my view, there is no better tribute to the lives that have been lost than to think about how we can prevent future losses of this kind.

The facts tell a grim story: an eight-month examination of workplace deaths by The New York Times found that, over a span of two decades, from 1982 to 2002, OSHA investigated 1,242 horrific instances in which the agency itself concluded that workers had died because of their employer's ``willful'' safety violations. Yet in 93 percent of those cases, OSHA declined to seek prosecution.

Employees have a fundamental right to a safe work environment, and more needs to be done to ensure that businesses that deliberately put the lives of their workers at risk are held accountable for their actions. This legislation would go a long way to strengthen our workplace safety system in a variety of ways.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes provisions to shore up a fundamental weakness in American workplace safety law: the shockingly inadequate penalties associated with crimes under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. This legislation includes the provisions of the Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act, S. 1272, legislation that I introduced to increase the maximum criminal penalty for those who willfully violate workplace safety laws and cause the death of an employee.

It is unbelievable to me that, under existing law, that crime is a misdemeanor, and carries a maximum prison sentence of just 6 months. These provisions would increase the penalty for this most egregious workplace crime to 10 years, making it a felony. They also increase the penalty associated with lying to an OSHA inspector from 6 months to 1 year, and increase the penalty for illegally giving advance warning of an upcoming inspection from 6 months to 2 years.

In recent times, Congress has focused on a shocking succession of corporate scandals: Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, to name a few. These revelations of corporate abuse raised the ire and indignation of the American people. But corporate abuses can sometimes go further than squandering employee pension funds and costing shareholder value. Sometimes, corporate abuses can cost lives.

The provisions are based on the simple premise that going to work should not carry a death sentence. Annually, more than 6,000 Americans are killed on the job, and some 50,000 more die from work-related illnesses. Many of those deaths are completely preventable.

While many factors contribute to the unsafe working environment that exists at certain jobsites, one easily remedied factor is an ineffective regime of criminal penalties. The criminal statutes associated with OSHA have been on the books since the 1970s, but, over time, the deterrence value of these important workplace safety laws has eroded substantially. With the maximum jail sentence of 6 months, Federal prosecutors have only a minimal incentive to spend time and resources prosecuting renegade employers. According to a recent analysis, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted, only 11 employers who caused the death of a worker on the job were incarcerated.

The logic behind increasing criminal penalties in these cases is simple. It will increase the incentive for prosecutors to hold renegade employers accountable for endangering the lives of their workers and, thereby, help ensure that OSHA criminal penalties cannot be safely ignored. This will provide the OSHA criminal statute with sufficient teeth to deter the small percentage of bad actors who knowingly and willfully place their employees at risk.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this landmark legislation.

Mr. President, I rise along with several of my colleagues, the esteemed Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautengerg, to introduce legislation that will strengthen trade enforcement efforts, open foreign markets to U.S. exports, reduce the trade deficit, create export-based jobs, and provide a lift to America's economy.

This legislation would restore the so-called ``Super 301'' process, a tool that has been used by Republican and Democratic administrations to expand access for U.S. exporters to foreign markets. Super 301 requires the Office of the United States Trade Representative to negotiate with foreign countries that have established burdensome trade barriers in order to open those markets to U.S. exports. The legislation also requires the USTR to identify, and eliminate, the illegal protectionist trade barriers that most adversely effect American businesses and workers.

With more than 8 million Americans out of a job, we need to take strong action not only to get people back to work, but to get them into well-paying jobs. Unfortunately, in recent years, even when unemployed Americans have found new jobs, too often they've been forced to take a pay cut. That's one reason why so many middle class families are feeling the squeeze, and are having such a hard time making ends meet.

One of the areas hardest hit by job loss under this administration is the manufacturing industry. 2.9 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. In many ways, we are witnessing the slow decimation of the U.S. manufacturing industry. And the Bush administration has done little about it.

One way to deal with the decline in manufacturing--and the problems in our economy, more generally--is to do a better job of enforcing our trade agreements. U.S. businesses generally are the best, most competitive in the world. But, too often, they're not playing on a level playing field. Instead, they're being forced to contend with a wide variety of trade barriers that make it difficult or impossible for American businesses to compete. The end result is lost opportunities, lost jobs, and lost income for American workers.

Let's be clear. Trade is a good thing for America. And as a global leader we must be engaged in the global economy. Trade doesn't just help grow our own economy. It helps build the world economy, which, in turn, promotes democracy and greater security for everybody. I'm not arguing for building walls around the United States. To the contrary, I want to tear down protectionist walls that keep U.S. businesses out, and that destroy jobs here in our own country.

The Bush administration likes to advocate for free trade agreements. But it's not enough to sign a trade agreement and trust our trade partners to honor their end of the deal. Those deals need to be complied with. And if they're not, we need to be aggressive in ensuring compliance.

Unfortunately, when it comes to enforcing trade agreements, the Bush administration, as Senator Kerry said recently, has been ``asleep at the wheel.'' And there's no excuse for it.

After all, we face a trade deficit of nearly $500 billion, and a deteriorating fiscal situation that has led to increasing reliance on foreign creditors. Under the circumstances, you would have thought that the administration would be doing all it could to address these problems. But it's not.

There's a stark difference between the commitment of this administration to enforce trade compared to that of the Clinton administration. Between 1995 and 2000, the Clinton administration filed an average of 11 cases a year with the World Trade Organization to battle foreign protectionism. By contrast, the Bush administration has filed only 3 per year.

The White House also has repeatedly refused to respond when the bipartisan International Trade Commission has recommended remedies for U.S. businesses facing floods of imports from China--even when the ITC rulings have been unanimous. The President's determination to overrule the ITC has had a dramatic impact on many small businesses, including some in my State of New Jersey.

The administration also continues to sit idly by while China, and other Asian countries, manipulate their currency, to the detriment of U.S. exporters.

The administration's refusal to enforce our trade agreements, and the passive approach they have taken to problems like Asian currency manipulation, helps explain why we're now facing such massive trade deficits. In fact, the Bush administration is the first since the Hoover administration to preside over a decline in real exports.

Again, what we need is a commitment to let U.S. businesses compete on a level playing field. That is why we need to reestablish the Super 301 process.

Super 301 may sound like a technical legal mechanism. But it would help open up new markets, boost our economy, strengthen our export- based manufacturing sector, help reduce our trade deficit, and create new, well-paying domestic export-based jobs here in America.

Under the legislation, the USTR would, within 30 days of the release of the National Trade Estimate, submit a Super 301 report to Congress, listing the foreign trade barriers that most adversely affect U.S. exports.

Within 21 days of submitting the report, the USTR would be required to seek consultations with each trading partner identified in the report in order to resolve the issue. If consultations do not succeed in eliminating the trade barriers within 90 days, USTR would be required to take action that could lead to sanctions either by the U.S. or, ultimately, by the WTO.

As I said earlier, Super 301 is not new. It was signed into law by President Reagan, and renewed throughout the '90s by President Clinton. It was a tool that worked. The threat alone of being on the Super 301 list has, and will, force countries who have erected barriers to U.S. exports come to the table.

Some will argue that this is protectionism. Some will argue that it's unilateralism. In fact, it's the opposite. It's intended to protect U.S. businesses and workers from protectionist foreign trade barriers-- to knock down walls, not erect them. It's intended to encourage our trade representatives to engage in a constructive dialogue with those who have erected barriers to U.S. products. It equips the administration with a needed tool to fight for the rights of American workers and businesses against those countries who are unwilling to remove those barriers.

In a word, Super 301 would make trade more fair. And when trade is more fair--when U.S. companies are playing on a level playing field-- Americans win. American workers win. And when America's workers win, America's economy wins.

It is my ardent hope that we can get this much needed bill passed, and I urge my colleagues to give it their support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Super 301 Restoration Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am proud to be introducing a bill, along with Senator Collins and Senator Lautenberg, to grant a Federal Charter to the Irish American Cultural Institute, an organization that promotes appreciation and recognition of the important contributions Irish-Americans have played throughout the history of the United States. A longstanding goal of the Irish American Cultural Institute has been to establish a museum of Irish American history and culture in Washington, DC, and I am pleased to introduce legislation that could represent a positive step towards achieving that goal.

The Irish American Cultural Institute is a national organization founded in 1962, with local chapters in 17 States. The Institute has spent the last 40 years fighting to promote, preserve and interpret Irish and Irish-American culture. Those involved with the Institute do this, in part, by fostering strong cultural and educational ties between the United States and Ireland: sending American high school students to Ireland, and bringing Irish scholars, musicians, craftsmen, actors, and artists to the Untied States. They also fund academic research projects that provide insights into Irish-American history, and provide fellowships for American professors to spend a year as a visiting scholar at the National University of Ireland. In short, the Irish American Cultural Institute serves as an important educational, informational, and financial resource for key initiatives important to the Irish and the Irish-American community in the United States.

Irish-Americans comprise more than 17 percent of the population of the United States, and have made enormous contributions to our Nation in countless ways. A Federal charter will help the Irish American Cultural Institute continue and expand activities that recognize and celebrate the heritage of Irish-Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Protecting America's Workers Act introduced by Senator Kennedy. I am proud to join him as a cosponsor of this important legislation.

Yesterday, this country recognized Worker Memorial Day. Created in 1989 to remember workers who have been killed or injured in the workplace over the past year, Worker Memorial Day has been designated April 28 as a tribute to the anniversary of the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In my view, there is no better tribute to the lives that have been lost than to think about how we can prevent future losses of this kind.

The facts tell a grim story: an eight-month examination of workplace deaths by The New York Times found that, over a span of two decades, from 1982 to 2002, OSHA investigated 1,242 horrific instances in which the agency itself concluded that workers had died because of their employer's ``willful'' safety violations. Yet in 93 percent of those cases, OSHA declined to seek prosecution.

Employees have a fundamental right to a safe work environment, and more needs to be done to ensure that businesses that deliberately put the lives of their workers at risk are held accountable for their actions. This legislation would go a long way to strengthen our workplace safety system in a variety of ways.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes provisions to shore up a fundamental weakness in American workplace safety law: the shockingly inadequate penalties associated with crimes under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. This legislation includes the provisions of the Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act, S. 1272, legislation that I introduced to increase the maximum criminal penalty for those who willfully violate workplace safety laws and cause the death of an employee.

It is unbelievable to me that, under existing law, that crime is a misdemeanor, and carries a maximum prison sentence of just 6 months. These provisions would increase the penalty for this most egregious workplace crime to 10 years, making it a felony. They also increase the penalty associated with lying to an OSHA inspector from 6 months to 1 year, and increase the penalty for illegally giving advance warning of an upcoming inspection from 6 months to 2 years.

In recent times, Congress has focused on a shocking succession of corporate scandals: Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, to name a few. These revelations of corporate abuse raised the ire and indignation of the American people. But corporate abuses can sometimes go further than squandering employee pension funds and costing shareholder value. Sometimes, corporate abuses can cost lives.

The provisions are based on the simple premise that going to work should not carry a death sentence. Annually, more than 6,000 Americans are killed on the job, and some 50,000 more die from work-related illnesses. Many of those deaths are completely preventable.

While many factors contribute to the unsafe working environment that exists at certain jobsites, one easily remedied factor is an ineffective regime of criminal penalties. The criminal statutes associated with OSHA have been on the books since the 1970s, but, over time, the deterrence value of these important workplace safety laws has eroded substantially. With the maximum jail sentence of 6 months, Federal prosecutors have only a minimal incentive to spend time and resources prosecuting renegade employers. According to a recent analysis, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted, only 11 employers who caused the death of a worker on the job were incarcerated.

The logic behind increasing criminal penalties in these cases is simple. It will increase the incentive for prosecutors to hold renegade employers accountable for endangering the lives of their workers and, thereby, help ensure that OSHA criminal penalties cannot be safely ignored. This will provide the OSHA criminal statute with sufficient teeth to deter the small percentage of bad actors who knowingly and willfully place their employees at risk.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this landmark legislation.