Floor Statements

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, I rise today along with my colleagues, Senators Lautenberg, Stabenow, and Mikulski, to introduce legislation, the Preserving Access to Affordable Drugs (PAAD) Act. This legislation is essential to ensuring that no senior who has existing prescription drug coverage receives less coverage once the Medicare prescription drug program goes into effect.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that as many as 1.7 million retirees could lose their employer-based prescription drug benefits as a result of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Also as a result of the new law, hundreds of thousands of seniors currently enrolled in state pharmacy assistance programs (SPAPs) will be forced out of those programs and into a private Medicare drug plan. Additionally, approximately six million seniors who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid will lose access to their Medicaid prescription drug benefits, which are more generous and provide greater access to a variety of drugs than the Medicare benefit will. And, despite the fact that the new Medicare law has huge gaps in coverage, seniors who choose to enroll in the new drug benefit will be prohibited from purchasing Medigap coverage to pay for prescription drugs not covered by the new Medicare benefit.

No senior should be made worse off by the new Medicare law. The law should expand benefits--not rescind them. The PAAD Act will make critical changes to the Medicare law to ensure that the above-mentioned benefits are safeguarded.

First, the PAAD Act will preserve retiree prescription drug benefits by allowing employer contributions to count towards the out of pocket threshold. Under the Medicare law, retirees with employer-based coverage would receive less of a subsidy from Medicare than seniors without such coverage. This lower subsidy creates a disincentive to employers to continue to provide these benefits and will lead to a significant reduction in employer-based benefits. The PAAD Act will ensure that employer-based plans receive the same subsidization as the Medicare prescription drug plans.

Second, the PAAD Act will restore language that I added to the Senate-passed Medicare bill to allow states with pharmaceutical assistance programs to administer the Medicare prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in these programs. This will ensure a seamless transition for these seniors and will ensure that they maintain the generous prescription drug coverage that many states, including New Jersey, offer.

Third, the PAAD Act will enable states to supplement the Medicare prescription drug benefit for the neediest Medicare beneficiaries, those dually-eligible for the Medicaid program. Under current law, Medicaid wraps around Medicare, paying for copayments and premiums, for those beneficiaries who are extremely sick and poor. Under the new Medicare law, states will be prohibited from using Medicaid to wrap around the Medicare drug benefit for these seniors, stripping them of access to needed prescription drugs. The PAAD Act will ensure that states can provide supplemental Medicaid prescription drug coverage to complement the Medicare drug benefit for seniors who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

Fourth, the PAAD Act will restore seniors' access to supplemental drug benefits through the Medigap program. Seniors should be allowed to improve the Medicare drug benefit if they so choose.

Finally, the PAAD Act will also eliminate the risky demonstration program to privatize Medicare, a program which if not eliminated is likely to impact my state of New Jersey. Under the new Medicare law, seniors who live in areas where a large number of seniors are enrolled in Medicare managed care plans could end up in this privatization scheme. This new program is slated to go into effect in 2010. But, if it were to go into effect today, Gloucester, Burlington, Camden and Salem Counties in New Jersey would likely be chosen to participate in it.

One of the goals of medicine is to do no harm. The new Medicare law violates that tenet. My legislation is critical to preserving and protecting existing prescription drug coverage while expanding it to those who currently lack such coverage. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation and improve prescription drug benefits for all seniors.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Safe Healthcare Reporting (SHARE) Act, which Senator Lautenberg and I have developed to add nurses and other licensed health care professionals to the National Practitioner Databank.

In 1986, Congress passed legislation that established a national databank, the National Practitioner Databank (NPDB), to track licensing, disciplinary, and medical malpractice actions taken against U.S. physicians. While the NPDB has served as an important source of information on physicians, it fails to incorporate critical information on millions of non-physician licensed health care professionals, including nurses.

The recent case of Charles Cullen, a New Jersey nurse who has claimed responsibility for as many as 40 murders carried out at multiple hospitals in New Jersey and Pennsylvania over the last decade, has highlighted the need for a national reporting system on nurses and other licensed health professionals. As the health care workforce becomes increasingly mobile, such a system would be an invaluable resource to health care employers seeking information on potential employees.

The SHARE Act will help break the chain of silence currently plaguing our health care system. This chain of silence prevented critical employment history on Cullen--including five firings and at least one suspension--from ever reaching his future employers. While Charles Cullen kept killing people, hospitals kept hiring him. They didn't know his history. They didn't understand the risk he posed to patients. This is because hospitals and other employers are reluctant to share employee information because they are afraid of being sued.

The goal of our legislation is to make sure that hospitals know--to make sure that employers have access to critical information on health care practitioners. It will ensure that adverse employment actions, licensing and disciplinary actions, and criminal background information are available to all health care employers. The SHARE Act mandates that hospitals and other health care entities report adverse employment actions taken against employees who violate professional standards of conduct. This would include things like drug diversion and falsification of documents.

Importantly, the legislation protects health care employers from suit when they, in good faith, report information that they believe is truthful. Any employer who reports false information in an effort to smear a nurse's record would receive no protection under our bill. In fact, anyone who abused the information reported to the databank would be fined by the Federal Government.

Health care employers, such as hospitals and nursing homes, would be required to report to the National Practitioner Databank, which currently provides such information on physicians. They would also be required to report to the appropriate state licensing board. In turn the State licensing board would report the results of its investigations and licensing or disciplinary actions to the databank. The legislation also encourages nurses and other health care professionals to report suspected activities to state boards by providing whistleblower protections to those individuals.

The SHARE Act also ensures that a practitioner who is subject to reporting is informed of the report, offered a hearing on the issue, and allowed to comment on the report.

I believe that this legislation is a critical first step toward improving access to important information on our health care workforce. Since 1986, the Federal Government has required hospitals to report employment information on physicians. It's time we include nurses and other health care professionals that provide direct patient care. In fact, the average nurse spends more time at a patient's bedside than the patient's physician. We simply must ensure that the person at the bedside is competent and professional.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move this bill through Congress and get it to the President's desk. We must and we can improve patient safety and the integrity of our health care system. This bill takes an important step toward that goal.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about S. 2290, the pending bill on asbestos legislation before the Senate. Like many of my colleagues before me, I also want to express great frustration because it does not seem as though we are moving the ball down the field on something that I think a lot of us believe is a very important issue. It is one that demands to be addressed and looks for a legislative solution that we are all trying to find.

Among the many issues that I hear about from my constituents, this is one that very frequently shows up in our discussions and at townhall meetings. A lot of people have suffered devastating injuries after exposure to asbestos. Families have lost loved ones. It is a real deal in people's lives.

I have heard from companies, CEOs, and people who are trying to manage their company's liabilities, and it is a real problem. Insurance companies, many of which are headquartered in my State, have spoken about this issue and my old industry, the financial industry, is concerned about the penalties and its implications in the capital markets that are imposing very severe costs on defending companies and insurers because of the crisis. This is something that we ought to address.

Unfortunately, our current system is not working, and that is a reality for those who need it. It is not working for the defendant companies that want certainty for their business planning. It is not working for insurance companies that face accelerating claims, and it is certainly not working for asbestos victims. We need to make sure those who are truly injured receive the compensation they deserve in a timely fashion and on a basis that is fair to all involved. It needs to be done. We need to address it.

Decades of asbestos use and a coverup of its health effects have resulted in a massive occupational and environmental health crisis. By the way, we are still having exposure developed by a lot of the imports that we are now receiving into our Nation, where some of those who manufacture abroad are not dealing with the issues we have begun to deal with. It is a real killer, a silent killer, physically but also emotionally debilitating to many people across America.

Medical costs associated with asbestos-related diseases are astronomical. They are off the charts. It is not a matter of millions. It is billions and it is an annual affair and it cries out to be addressed.

Hundreds of thousands of workers and their family members have suffered and died from asbestos-related cancer and lung diseases. I think the number is about 10,000 die each year. Approximately 24 million have been exposed. In my home State of New Jersey, which is an old manufacturing State, 2,700 people have been killed by asbestos since 1979, and two of our counties in New Jersey are in the top 10 in the Nation in those asbestos-related deaths. That is Camden and Somerset Counties. So this is a real deal for us. We would like to see this addressed.

We cannot ignore the tragedy of these asbestos deaths and injuries. We can and we should be able to come up with a workable solution. As I said, like many of my colleagues, I would like to see a national trust fund to compensate victims through a no-fault system, ensuring that those who are most injured receive a just award as quickly as possible. It should not be going on for 5 or 10 years. I hope we can agree that we need to focus on paying those who are truly sick and that we must pay those people fairly.

That is why I was pleased last year when the Judiciary Committee held bipartisan hearings on the issue, had bipartisan negotiations, and seemed to be making progress towards arriving at a fair and balanced solution. Unfortunately, last year the Judiciary Committee reported out a bill that did not have broad bipartisan support and was not, in my view at least, balanced in its approach to the issue.

The bill before us has gotten worse. Good amendments that were added in committee have been dropped, and the size of the fund, frankly, is at the low end of anyone's expectations of what is appropriate.

I will take a few moments to discuss what I see are some of the most glaring flaws in the bill that we are debating and reasons, at least right now as it stands, I cannot support it. First, the size of the fund is quite simply out of touch with reality. I hear estimates of anywhere from $100 billion to $300 billion as the cost of settlement that people would expect for the probability of the associated problems with asbestos, and we have picked the low end of that number as the basis on which we are going to deal with it. The bill that was reported out of committee would have had $153 billion, and we have come up with $109 billion, absolutely at the very low end of any of the national estimates, any of the academic estimates of objective outside observers. We are starting at the wrong place in the negotiation.

In addition to the anemic overall funding, the bill has other weaknesses. For example, the Hatch substitute deprives victims of exposure adequate compensation. Awards just remain far too low for many victims with serious diseases that are an outgrowth of this. Funding would not pay for victims' medical bills, let alone compensate their families for any type of hardships.

To give an example, a worker with 15 years of asbestos exposure and lung cancer would be guaranteed only $25,000 in compensation. I do not see how that relates to the risk of life that individuals would be taking in that context.

In another example, victims with asbestos who lose 20 to 40 percent of breathing capacity or are disabled from work will receive only $85,000 for lost wages and medical costs. These numbers do not fit the circumstance. Now, $25,000 barely gets a family of four above the poverty line, and we are talking about $25,000 and $85,000 in lost wages and medical costs that accrue to those things. We are not in the right ballpark.

The pending bill also guts a Biden amendment adopted in the committee with strong bipartisan support to protect victims' rights in the event of fund insolvency. It would allow that once the fund was insolvent, if that $109 billion was not enough, then bring claims back into State court. That was overwhelmingly supported in committee.

Given the low level of funding in this bill, insolvency obviously is a problem. I believe it is unfair to ask the victims to give up their rights to enter into a fund without knowing that fund would have sufficient assets to cover the claims, and where do they go in those circumstances. So it is another major problem.

The pending bill would also treat victims with pending claims unfairly. This one is really hard to swallow. It would wipe out the claims of more than 300,000 people who have claims pending in the current system, even those who have already received jury awards.

We are looking back into history and changing history. I don't understand why, when we have had a judicial process, we have come to a conclusion or we are even in the process of that, we want to stop, start all over and move people into another system. It does not strike me as consistent with a commonsense sense of fairness. If you have an award, it ought to go through.

In addition, the bill significantly weakens key provisions that would protect victims without an effective remedy during the transition to a new system. The bill also lacks transparency with regard to companies and insurers and how they are going to contribute to the fund and in what amounts, which makes it difficult to determine whether companies are paying their fair share.

By the way, there is a lot of hooting and hollering among the insurance companies. A lot of them oppose this because they don't know what their deal will be. There is no certainty here, either for the victims or for a lot of the people who are going to participate here in funding this trust fund. That doesn't make sense and I think it is a real problem that also needs to be addressed. We need to amend it.

It also contains a windfall for certain companies. While we are taking it away from some folks, we are certainly giving it to others. It contains this windfall with regard to Halliburton, which has an estimated $4.8 billion in asbestos liability, but would only have to pay $1.2 billion under the Hatch-Frist bill. Why them? Why are they getting such a break, particularly after a judgment has already gone through? It is sort of the reciprocal or the reverse of what we already were talking

about with a lot of individuals. They are going to get slammed and somebody here is going to get the advantage. They are going to apply it in a way that is very uneven and lacking in balance. That should be addressed.

This is not a fair and balanced approach to this problem. It is not fair to the injured victims or the families of those who died, and it is not fair to companies that want relief from the growing problem, and it doesn't provide for the certainty and planning I think corporate America is looking for.

Let me take a moment to discuss what I think is also a misleading claim by supporters of the bill. This one is actually hard to understand, how this gets any circulation at all. Unfortunately, this administration, as a lot of us have talked about on other occasions, has been weak in the record of creating jobs. I don't have to go through the litany of 2 million lost jobs, 8.4 million unemployed Americans, 2.6 million private sector jobs lost. That was the only period of time, actually, since the Depression an administration has more than likely overseen a period of decline in job growth in the country. But somehow we have decided this is a jobs bill; somehow this is going to create jobs.

There are those who will argue many of the asbestos companies have been forced into bankruptcy and that cost has seriously damaged the American economy, particularly as it relates to jobs. The facts don't meet the description. This is sometimes a fact-free arena. We make assertions and do not necessarily follow through. But if anybody does any serious analysis of what goes on in these companies that have gone through these reorganizations under chapter 11 protection, they will know they have been able to use this device as a means to manage through their obligations and they are able to pay out some of their responsibilities but it has kept their companies going. The truth is, they have not gone out of business, many of them--most of them. Some are doing better than ever.

Let's take Halliburton, since I mentioned it once before. Halliburton has agreed to compensate the innocent victims and companies poisoned with a settlement of more than $4 billion. That is, of course, unless we pass this legislation, then only $1.2 billion. In order to pursue this settlement Halliburton has agreed to put two of its companies into chapter 11 temporarily until a court approves a trust arrangement to compensate asbestos victims.

Meanwhile, Halliburton on its own Web site is telling its customers that it:

. . . will continue in business and will continue to provide

all the excellent services our customers expect from us. In

other words, outside the asbestos and silica settlement, it

will be business as usual.

In what kind of shape are these companies that have chosen chapter 11 reorganization? The answer can be found in a new analysis conducted by Professor George Benston of Emory of the seven largest asbestos companies that sought chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization protection in 2000 and 2001. This is a real study by someone trying to bring an objective perspective. Professor Benston studied the asbestos companies and compared them to companies in their business that did not declare bankruptcy reorganization in order to determine how successful their operations would be under the supervision of the bankruptcy court. He concluded:

On the whole, they essentially have increased or stabilized

their sales, assets, employment, and profitability, and have

projected increases. It is fair to say they are viable and

likely to be increasingly successful companies that should

generate funds to exit bankruptcy significantly stronger than

when they went in.

We are doing this because this is a jobs bill, when it is fair to say they have increased or stabilized their sales, assets, employment, and profitability, and have projected increases. Somehow or another, objective evidence doesn't seem to match with the claims. This is hardly a jobs bill. The argument falls apart on the surface of it, as far as I can tell.

So while I am sympathetic to the corporations that generally want to fulfill their obligations with respect to asbestos victims and certainly I have an appreciation for their desire for serious financial planning, if this asbestos bill is the best we can do, the administration can do, the leadership--Senator Frist and Senator Hatch--can do to create jobs in our country and address this problem, then I think we have a lot higher objectives for which we need to set our standards.

That is why I think we ought to have a full debate. We ought to have a lot of votes on amendments that will actually address a number of these problems we talked about. I hope we can get back to those bipartisan negotiations, away from this floor, where we can talk about the size of the trust fund, we can talk about some of this ex post facto analysis about who is benefiting and who is not; where we can make sure the general awards to victims are actually higher and there is some serious backstop if the fund doesn't actually have the resources to be able to deal with these issues.

We sure the heck ought to stop talking about this in a context that makes no sense in economic reality, that this is a jobs bill. I go back to this. This is one of those things I think Americans across the board want to see Congress act on. This is not something that has a Republican or Democratic label. We want to find a resolution. I want to find a resolution. We have to do that in a fair and balanced manner. I thought the Judiciary Committee made a lot of progress on this on the bill they reported out. That is not what we are working on.

I don't understand why we don't turn the clock back just a little bit and get on with some of the hard work that was done when we came up with some of these bipartisan approaches to deal with this very thorny issue. On the basis of offering a helping hand to many victims and their families, for companies that need to have stability in their balance sheet and the ability to make plans for the future, to reduce the caseload we have in our court system, there are a lot of reasons we ought to be moving in this area. We are not pulling together, sitting down and negotiating a transaction formulation of legislation that makes sense for everybody.

Everyone is going to have to give a little bit, but this is something that could be done if we wanted to go to work to make it happen. The will is there. Certainly the demand is there. I think there is a lot of ground for positive, constructive dialog.

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

Mr. President, first of all, let me congratulate the distinguished Senator from Iowa for pointing out and being so persistent in dealing with this issue of overtime pay and how working Americans are being treated by the economic policies of the current administration.

I have been on the Senate floor a number of times over the last several months talking about the status of the American economy--the job losses that we have had: 2 million, roughly, generally, and 2.6 million private sector jobs. We have talked about the pressure on the middle class. Good gracious, we are now talking about cutting overtime pay for 8 million working Americans in the middle class.

Goodness knows, the budget situation in this country, under this administration, has been a fiasco. We have gone from projections of $5.5 trillion worth of budget surpluses to $5 trillion of budget deficits over the next 10 years--$18,000 of debt per American to $24,000 now, and projections it will get up to $35,000 over the next 10 years--an incredible failure of economic policy.

But today I want to talk about another indicator that is showing the weaknesses and the failures of this policy. Last week, millions of Americans paid their income tax. A lot of us struggled to figure out how to do that and send it in by the April 15 deadline. But the fact is, when all is said and done, about 30 percent of Americans' income was paid in Federal, State, and local taxes--about 30 percent. But while the average American is paying 30 percent of their income in taxes, the majority of corporations are paying far less. In fact, about 60 percent of all corporations reporting income did not pay income tax at all. That is according to the General Accounting Office. Sixty percent of corporations did not pay any Federal tax at all.

Moreover, about 95 percent of corporations pay less than 5 percent of their income in taxes. As a share of corporate profits, corporate taxes are now at their lowest level since World War II. There has been a dramatic shift in the tax burden from corporations and high-income folks to those middle-class folks who are now going to have their overtime cut. It is an incredible change in the direction of this country and in fairness.

While corporate taxes have declined, as the good Senator from Iowa pointed out, corporate profits have increased dramatically over the last several years, much greater than wages. Median income during the Bush administration has fallen about 3 percent for the average worker in America. Corporate profits, by contrast, have increased by 26 percent. There has been a huge growth in corporate profits at the same time median income for working Americans is down. In other words, workers have received relatively little benefit from the increase in corporate profits. With all this ``hootin' and hollerin''' about GDP growth, it is not showing up in the paychecks of working Americans.

In the early 1990s, when you had an increase in the economy as we are seeing now, 60 percent of those increases in income went to wages, and about 40 percent went to corporate profits. In today's recovery, the one that has occurred over the last several years, only 13 percent has gone to working men and women, and almost 87 percent has gone to corporate profits or corporate wages, to the CEOs. It is incredible, 60 percent versus 13 percent. There is something afoul here.

It fits into an overall flow of facts that middle-class income workers are getting hurt in this economy. The fact is, we have seen median income decline 3 percent for the average worker in America. And by the way, at the same time income has fallen for real families in America, the costs are going up. For example, a couple of items that go on in everybody's budget: Health insurance is up 14 percent at the same time these median incomes are going down. Corporate profits are going up. Gasoline prices are up 19 percent. College tuition, something that gives access to the American promise, is up 28 percent at the same time. I hate to get into property taxes, but in many parts of our country, all we have done is shift the tax burden from the Federal Government to the local level. The Bush record includes income falling for middle-income families and rising costs on things that matter in their lives.

It is incredible, particularly when put in the context that we haven't been creating jobs. The fact is, we have 8.4 million Americans without jobs. That is the latest survey. We have been hearing a lot of hootin' and hollerin' about growth and jobs. There are 8.4 million Americans without jobs. That is 2.4 million more jobs lost during this administration's tenure and stewardship of the economy. Something is wrong here. Income is going down. Jobs are going down. Costs are going up.

What is happening is we are putting incredible pressure on the average American. By the way, even when people get jobs after they have lost a job, there is an incredible loss of real income for those individuals. That is how that median income came down.

According to survey, for workers who lost jobs in 2001, the average salary was $44,570. Today, for those who have found jobs, the average salary an individual ultimately was able to get was $35,410. That is another 21-percent drop for those people who lost jobs and then ultimately reentered the workforce.

We have median income going down. We see job losses going up. We see corporate profits going up, and no sharing of that going on in the economy.

There is a real problem. The administration's proposals and policies have done an incredible job of actually undermining the well-being and quality of life for middle-income Americans.

Many people have different views about fairness, but since the tax date was last week and we talked about the fact corporations are not paying their fair share, I want to mention the fact for the middle 20 percent of Americans, a range of people who have an adjusted gross income from filings and income tax, the average tax break for that middle 20-percent, middle-class America, was $647. That is not something to throw out the window, but it is not a great amount of money given what tuition costs are doing, and given gasoline prices and health care costs. But it is a break. But if you were in the top 1 percent of Americans, on that same scale of adjusted gross income, you got an average tax break of about $35,000.

I thank the Senator from Maryland.

Finally, if you look at those individuals in America who have been blessed

with good earnings and opportunity, with $1 million of earnings or more, a tax cut of $123,500. I don't understand why anyone would think this is going to be stimulative to the economy, efficient to the economy. Let alone does it relate to the fairness most Americans expect. Here we have $1.5 trillion in tax cuts and a whole bunch of it is going to the people making $1 million or more, and the middle class is getting a very small portion. We have a major problem with economic policy. We clearly are not creating jobs. We clearly are undermining the quality of life of middle-income Americans.

There is a classic fairness issue that is going on here which I wanted to relate with regard to corporate income taxes and certainly with regard to how tax breaks work.

It is time for a rethink. The IMF and the OECD this week released reports that said the current administration's policies are going to end up undermining growth for the rest of the world because we are running such big deficits. There is something wrong. It is time for us to address it. I will come out here and talk about these kinds of pressures on the middle class, on our budget, on what is fair. We need to make sure the American people know they are not getting a fair shake.

We need to pass the legislation for which the Senator from Iowa has so assiduously fought to make sure 8 million people are protected on overtime. We need to make sure we change this tax policy so all Americans benefit from the great bounty we have. The choice is clear.

We were able in the 1990s, with a different set of policies, to create 22.5 million jobs, the greatest increase in wealth for all Americans, not just middle class but all Americans. We decreased poverty. All good indicators of what happened.

Now we have lost 2.6 million private sector jobs; 8.4 million people are unemployed; and we have a distribution of income that makes no sense for the middle class.

That was $124,000.

Excuse me, $35,000.

The Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. If you look at private sector jobs where a real economy is broadly creating wealth for individuals, 2.6 million jobs have been lost, and it is a horrific record relative to the performance of what should be enormous productivity and job growth in this country.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator from Maryland understands supply and demand. But if there are 6 million more Americans looking for jobs than is demand, what usually happens when there is excess supply of labor or any other element of our economic system versus demand?

It is a most important element. This jobs issue is not only impacting people who don't have jobs, it is impacting people who do have jobs.

It is undermining the ability of working Americans to actually get good wages. That is why median income is down. That is why you go from $45,000 for a job lost to picking up a job worth $35,000.

It is 13 percent.

Will the Senator yield?

I think the Senator from Maryland probably realizes--and correct me if I am wrong--I think there are 1.4 million or 1.6 million Americans that have even dropped out of looking for work.

The Senator most appropriately talked about the pain that is being inflicted on the unemployed because they are unemployed for a much longer period of time. But what is just as serious is that there are a lot of people who have said the heck with it; there is no chance of actually getting a job.

Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague from Massachusetts to say this is an extraordinary failure to deal with small business employers across this country and their workers.

I find it difficult to believe that what is necessary for the Fortune 500 is not necessary for the small grocery stores, construction contractors, and others across this Nation. These pension funds are at risk, and there is no reason we should not apply the same rules to the small companies and the workers who are at risk in their pensions as we do for the large companies.

We spent in 2003 $5 million on these small companies we have eliminated in this conference report. We spent billions on large companies--billions. Where is the sensibility, particularly from the administration and from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are so enamored with every economic argument they make that they

want to support small business, and they are walking away from this.

This is absolutely outside the context of reasonableness. We can turn this around and get this bill corrected and have it deal with small business and multiemployer pension funds, as well as the Fortune 500. We would make a major improvement. Thirty percent of the workers we are talking about who are exposed--almost 10 million--are being left out. As the Senator from Massachusetts so ably said, these are the same people who are getting pressed over and over on property taxes, the cost of tuition, rising gas prices--the middle class, the hardest working folks in America. We are turning our backs on them saying this is great.

By the way, I want this for major employers. We want it. Continental Airlines is headquartered in New Jersey. We need to do it. I support this effort by the Senator from Massachusetts.

We should oppose this conference report, fix it, and bring it back for a vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that managed care plans and other private health insurers pay health care claims in a timely fashion. I thank my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Reed, Bingaman and Cantwell for joining me in introducing this bill.

This legislation seeks to address the very serious backlog of HMO payments that hospitals and physicians are facing in my State of New Jersey and across the country. Specifically, the legislation requires private health plans to pay manually filed claims within 30 days and electronically filed claims within 14 days. Insurers that fail to meet these time frames would be required to pay interest for every day the claims went unpaid. Insurers that knowingly violate these prompt payment requirements would be subject to monetary penalties.

A Federal prompt pay law is critical to ensuring that our health care providers maintain adequate cash flows and are able to continue functioning. The need for such a law cannot be understated. In my State of New Jersey, almost half of all hospitals are operating in the red, and that number is growing. Physicians and hospitals are experiencing a severe medical malpractice crisis, which is further limiting their resources. Untimely payment of claims has only compounded this problem.

According to a survey of 50 New Jersey hospitals, only 39 percent of manually-filed clean claims are paid within 40 days. These institutions cannot afford to wait indefinitely for reimbursement for services they have provided. Each year, hundreds of millions of dollars in HMO payments to hospitals are held up for months at a time, worsening provider fiscal woes.

The problem of late payments has reached such a crisis that 47 States, including New Jersey, have enacted ``prompt pay'' laws to require insurers to pay their bills within a specific time frame. Unfortunately, New Jersey's law, like most similar State laws, is largely ineffective because it lacks strong enforcement provisions and offers no incentives for private insurers to comply. Furthermore, State prompt-pay laws only apply to non-ERISA regulated plans, which only cover approximately 50 percent of New Jersey insureds.

Shouldn't we hold private insurers to the same standards that regular citizens must adhere to? If you don't pay your health insurance premium when it's due, the company will simply cancel your policy. If you're late making your credit care payments, your credit care company charges you interest. Why shouldn't private health insurers also be penalized for making late payments?

In my view, it only makes sense to hold insurance companies to the same type of standards to which we hold Medicare. Medicare must pay claims within thirty days of receiving them. Why should private insurers be immune from any such time limits?

The bottom line is that patients, hospitals and other health care providers should not have to shoulder the burden of unpaid claims. My legislation will ensure that private insurers assume the financial responsibilities for the health coverage they are being paid to provide.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that managed care plans and other private health insurers pay health care claims in a timely fashion. I thank my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Reed, Bingaman and Cantwell for joining me in introducing this bill.

This legislation seeks to address the very serious backlog of HMO payments that hospitals and physicians are facing in my State of New Jersey and across the country. Specifically, the legislation requires private health plans to pay manually filed claims within 30 days and electronically filed claims within 14 days. Insurers that fail to meet these time frames would be required to pay interest for every day the claims went unpaid. Insurers that knowingly violate these prompt payment requirements would be subject to monetary penalties.

A Federal prompt pay law is critical to ensuring that our health care providers maintain adequate cash flows and are able to continue functioning. The need for such a law cannot be understated. In my State of New Jersey, almost half of all hospitals are operating in the red, and that number is growing. Physicians and hospitals are experiencing a severe medical malpractice crisis, which is further limiting their resources. Untimely payment of claims has only compounded this problem.

According to a survey of 50 New Jersey hospitals, only 39 percent of manually-filed clean claims are paid within 40 days. These institutions cannot afford to wait indefinitely for reimbursement for services they have provided. Each year, hundreds of millions of dollars in HMO payments to hospitals are held up for months at a time, worsening provider fiscal woes.

The problem of late payments has reached such a crisis that 47 States, including New Jersey, have enacted ``prompt pay'' laws to require insurers to pay their bills within a specific time frame. Unfortunately, New Jersey's law, like most similar State laws, is largely ineffective because it lacks strong enforcement provisions and offers no incentives for private insurers to comply. Furthermore, State prompt-pay laws only apply to non-ERISA regulated plans, which only cover approximately 50 percent of New Jersey insureds.

Shouldn't we hold private insurers to the same standards that regular citizens must adhere to? If you don't pay your health insurance premium when it's due, the company will simply cancel your policy. If you're late making your credit care payments, your credit care company charges you interest. Why shouldn't private health insurers also be penalized for making late payments?

In my view, it only makes sense to hold insurance companies to the same type of standards to which we hold Medicare. Medicare must pay claims within thirty days of receiving them. Why should private insurers be immune from any such time limits?

The bottom line is that patients, hospitals and other health care providers should not have to shoulder the burden of unpaid claims. My legislation will ensure that private insurers assume the financial responsibilities for the health coverage they are being paid to provide.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on America's economic security--rather, I should say America's economic insecurity at the moment.

Before the Senator from Oregon leaves the floor, let me compliment him on bringing up one of those issues that absolutely must be addressed, one of those issues that is squeezing middle-class Americans: their gas prices--natural gas prices and gasoline prices.

The idea that we are unwilling, after we are committing so many resources to the Middle East, to try to bring stability and democracy in the Middle East and not use our diplomatic capital to accomplish what the Senator from Oregon is speaking about, to bring forth a response from OPEC, is just unfathomable. It is absolutely an abject failure in the context of economic policy management and certainly on diplomatic efforts.

I compliment the Senator for his efforts. I hope he will include me as a cosponsor of his resolution.

As I said, I wish to speak about America's economic security. We have certainly heard in the last 48 to 72 hours a lot of celebration and victory laps being taken with regard to 1 month's economic report on employment in the United States.

All of us are pleased to see that jobs have been created in the United States. We are glad to see they finally met something that looked like the expectations that have been talked about for the 38 months this administration's stewardship of the economy has been in place. It is positive for those who have found jobs, but it is failing to take into account something that I think is very important in the reality of people's lives and something that is not being celebrated on the ground among working men and women in the United States, and that is an incredible squeeze on moderate and middle-class families in this country across the board.

It is great to celebrate big-picture statistics, but the last time I checked, statistics are not how people live their lives. The reality is we have almost 8.5 million unemployed Americans. That number actually grew last month by about 180,000. For those folks and for many people who feel as if they are at the edge of whether their job will continue, the situation is really quite serious. Those kitchen-table issues actually make a difference in people's lives.

I will be specific. Just last month, we closed the next to the last auto production facility in New Jersey. Mr. President, 1,500 manufacturing jobs were eliminated in New Jersey. By the way, we have one last plant, which is scheduled to close in May of 2005. Then we will have the auto industry completely eliminated from the State of New Jersey. We have already had the textile industry eliminated. We have seen AT&T and Lucent lose literally tens of thousands of jobs over the last 2 to 2\1/2\ years in my home State.

When people lose in these contracting industries, we see a decline in the real standard of living when people are reemployed. The statistics show that the average loss, since the last recession, for people who lose jobs at $44,000 when they were working to their next job at $35,000 was 21-percent decline in their real earnings. That is what happens when people are part of that growing job set but, unfortunately, they are losing their manufacturing jobs, they are losing their white-collar jobs, and they are moving into service sector jobs that are dramatically less valuable for their families and their own economic well-being. It is a big hurt, and I know it is a big hurt on those folks I see and talk with in my home State.

Think about it: We have gone from 6.5 million unemployed to 8.4 million unemployed under this administration's stewardship of the economy. When people get jobs--it is good we see job growth--they come back at a lower earning capacity than before.

That is not the only place we are getting hurt. For most middle- and moderate-income families, they have to deal with trying to make ends meet with regard to health care costs and tuition that goes on in their State and, as we just heard very eloquently expressed by Senator Wyden, increasing gas prices. These are items for which real dough is coming out of people's pockets. We have gone from earning $44,000 a year on jobs lost to $35,000 in jobs found, and we have income not keeping up with the cost of medical care.

We have seen an almost 15-percent increase in medical costs for individuals since 2001, while we are seeing less than 5 percent in real income growth. That is a huge gap. By the way, at the same time, there were 3.5 million, almost 4 million Americans who lost their insurance during that period of time, so these costs are actually real. They are coming right out of their pocketbooks. Those 3.5 million to 4 million people are having to pay those costs, and that is why I talk about economic insecurity. This is a reality in people's lives: lower income, higher costs, and they are having to deal with that around the kitchen tables across America.

We might have one great number out of 38 months of economic stewardship as far as job creation, but I do not think it is translating into reality in people's lives.

Let me use another example: increasing tuition costs. There has been a 14-percent increase in tuition costs last year alone. These numbers are up about 25 percent since the Bush administration came into office. We have seen Pell grants go from about 42 percent to about 35 percent. Income, relative to tuition costs for kids accessing the American promise through higher education, has just been a tragedy. We are seeing people not able to afford the kind of education that will allow them to grow their income.

The difference between having a college education and a high school education or high school dropout is a dramatic improvement in their real earnings. We are seeing incredible pressure being put on middle- class Americans in tuition, just as we are seeing in health care costs.

I could go through a whole laundry list of other expenses most Americans have to meet and discuss around the kitchen table. Property taxes in New Jersey have gone up 7 percent in the last 3 years. One of the reasons is we in Washington keep putting mandates on them, and all those mandates trickle down to the local level, the local

school board. They have to meet No Child Left Behind standards and IDEA, special education mandates, and the only way to meet those mandates is to raise property taxes. It is wonderful that we are cutting taxes in Washington, but they are going up dramatically in the State and local governments. It is a very substantial hit, particularly for middle-class and moderate-income Americans.

Again, it is great that we saw 1 month of job growth, but what about these trendlines with regard to college tuition?

What about the trendlines with regard to medical expenses? What about the trendlines with regard to property taxes? Now we are seeing an explosion in gasoline prices. I think that is why there is a sense of economic insecurity among Americans.

It is great to take these victory laps and put all the spin that one wants to put on what is going on with regard to job growth, but it is not matching reality in people's lives. It is not matching with those 1,500 families who are losing their major wage earner at the Edison Ford plant in New Jersey. That is happening across the country, and I think it is a shame.

We will talk a little bit about the job deficit in a macro term. We like to talk about 300,000 jobs grown in a month, but the fact is this is the only administration since Herbert Hoover that is actually going to be overseeing 4 years in office without having any job growth, unless there is a miracle that we have a job growth of 300,000 a month between now and next January.

There has been roughly 2.6 million jobs lost in the private sector, 1.8 in the overall sector because somehow or another we seem to be growing Government for an administration that thinks Government is not a good thing. Anyway, we are seeing job losses where we have not seen it before, all the way back to the Depression. No other President is going to have overseen an actual shrinkage of jobs. By the way, just for comparison purposes, there were about 22 million jobs created in the previous administration. So when the Democrat presumed Presidential candidate talks about 10 million jobs, at least there is a record to run on.

History will show that if we want to see job creation in this country, and we want to have balanced policies with regard to taxes and budget deficits, then we have to make sure we are investing back in the American people in a way that makes a difference.

We have seen these manufacturing jobs leave America, which has shown a reduction in the quality of the jobs that are replacing them. We have seen a reduction in the number of jobs overall.

I think that to get so focused on 1 month's number in celebration is a little bit like some of the other things we have seen that I think undermine the credibility of those who claim everything is so wonderful. There are credibility gaps on all kinds of issues, not only with regard to jobs where there is a 7 million job deficit from the economic report of the President of 2002, post-9/11, projecting there were going to be 5.6 million jobs and there are actually 1.8 million less. That is a 7 million deficit relative to what was projected at that point in time.

We have promised we would cut taxes without using Social Security trust funds. Well, we used every penny of the Social Security trust fund to pay for both the tax cuts and the expenditures that we made in the country.

The claim that any deficits would be small and short term, well, we all know they have not been small. There are record deficits right now, $500 billion-plus this year. People are talking about as much as $5.6 trillion worth of deficits in the next 10 years. We are seeing a $10 trillion swing in cashflow of the Federal Government in the 10 years that encompass the President's timeframe and analysis. It is hard to believe $10 trillion. I have a hard time even figuring out what trillion means, but it is a lot of money.

I know each American had $18,000 worth of Federal debt assigned to them when this President came into office. It is $24,000 now and it will be $35,000 at the end of the term. We are creating an enormous amount of debt burden on every American as we go forward, and there is a credibility problem. One cannot say they are a fiscal conservative, that they are fiscally responsible, and have this kind of debtload laid on the American people.

There are also other small issues such as the $140 billion miss with regard to the Medicare prescription drug plan. That is why people are frustrated when they hear about the great news that we had great growth in jobs, which everybody is glad to see, but we do not see it tracking with the reality of the other activities that are going on.

I wanted to make the point that while we are hearing all of this celebration, all of this spinning about how good this is--and again it is good--there were 2.6 million private sector jobs lost, the worst record in history. The quality of the jobs that are replacing the ones that are lost is substantially less in actual real earnings. Real median income earnings last year for the Nation were actually negative for the first time in decades. Massive deficits are occurring at the very same time. We are seeing all of these rising costs on health care, tuition, property taxes, and gas prices in this country.

I think there is a serious credibility problem. We need a new President who will put America first, rebuild our economy, and address the real needs of the middle class and moderate-income elements of our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to introduce a bill on behalf of Senator Frank Lautenberg and myself to authorize the renaming of the main post office in Fair Lawn, NJ as the Mary Ann Collura Post Office.

Mary Ann Collura was the first female police officer in Fair Lawn, where she served the people in her community as an outstanding officer and role model for eighteen years. On April 17, 2003, Officer Collura was fatally shot while attempting to arrest three men after a car chase. She was the first Fair Lawn police officer ever killed in the line of duty.

The idea for naming the Fair Lawn post office in honor of Officer Collura came from a Fair Lawn high school student, which is indicative of the admiration the people of Fair Lawn have for her. She was known for her courage, kindness, and genuine caring for others. Officer Collura was also a pioneer in Fair Lawn. She started a program to protect trick-or-treaters on Halloween by giving them glow sticks, which has expanded and is now a countywide program.

Senator Lautenberg and I are proud to be joining Representative Steven Rothman and the entire New Jersey congressional delegation in the effort to rename the Fair Lawn post office in honor of Mary Ann Collura. By naming the main post office in town after such a brave woman, we pay her the respect she earned, and memorialize her in a way befitting a person of her stature. She is a true hero and will be missed.

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

Madam President, it is good news to have an increase in employment in America today. Everyone is pleased to see more jobs are coming into our economy and Democrats, as well as Republicans, are pleased to see more Americans are going to work.

But that said, working men and women, and everyone, has to understand numbers of 1 month do not indicate a change in whether one assesses economic policy working for average Americans, for middle-class Americans, for moderate-income Americans, for those who are trying to make ends meet in our economy.

These good numbers we would like to see continued. We would like to see more Americans going to work, but the American people need to understand this number, this 1-month number, in the context of a whole 38 months of development of economic policy in this country, is a record that I believe, and I think many people would believe, has put enormous stress on the American people.

We are pleased with the job growth, but the fact is, we saw growth in the unemployed this month of about 184,000. We now have 8.4 million Americans unemployed in this economy. That is up substantially this month.

We have also seen the unemployment rate tick up about one-tenth of a percent. I heard some spinning about Senator Kerry saying 5.6 was pretty good in 1996. There is a difference when you come from 7.2 percent, which is where President Clinton's unemployment rate was when he came to office, going to 5.6--on the way, by the way, to 3.8 percent--than when we have a 5.6 or 5.7 percent rate, coming up from 4.2 percent, which is what the current administration inherited.

We have rising unemployment in this country, not declining. One month is a good thing to have happen, even a good quarter is a good thing to happen, but let's put it into the context of the 38 months of the stewardship of this administration's economic policies.

The fact is, we have had the worst record in 70 years, and it still stands. It has not been substantially altered by a 1-month performance in job growth in private sector jobs that we have seen since the Herbert Hoover years in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

The fact is, every other President from that point in time on-- Roosevelt right through Clinton; including George Bush 1, Ronald Reagan, Carter--produced private sector jobs. And we have about a .7- percent decline in jobs under this administration in the private sector. We have lost about 2.6 million of those jobs, even after these numbers.

In fact, we have been producing more jobs in Government during the Presidency of someone who said they did not believe in Government-- which is quite strange--relative to an emphasis on the private sector.

Again, I repeat, you have to look at this in the overall context. One month is good, and we are all pleased about that, but the fact is we have lost private sector jobs in this economy. It is a fact of which I think the American people have a real understanding.

Economic policy is something to analyze over a period of time, in context. It is not just a month. Remember, in the Clinton years, there were roughly 21 million jobs created--21 million jobs created--over that 8-year period. Right now, we have lost something in the

neighborhood of 2.5 to 2.6 million jobs over the term of this stewardship of the economy.

It is the context you have to think about, what kind of economic policy leads to sustained economic growth and sustained economic job creation, which is the end result that I think people will measure in their own lives--whether they have a job, whether they are working, whether they are actually able to take care of their families.

By the way, it is not just jobs; it is actually the earnings one gets on those jobs. One of the things that has been happening in our job market is, as people lose a job, and then they take another job, we have seen a 21-percent decline in the average wages of people who get reemployed.

So those factory workers in Edison, NJ, where our last Ford factory was closed--they go from a Ford manufacturing job to a service sector job that is, on average, 21 percent lower in real earnings than the job they had before. So they may be working but going into a Wal-Mart or going into hamburger flipping, which is not as good a job as the ones we are losing.

That is the problem in this economy, even though we might be seeing job growth. By the way, if you look at the actual numbers in this month's job creation, so many of them are in the service sector, where you are seeing this phenomenon happening, where there is a decline in the earnings of families and their purchasing power. They are losing their ability to go into the economy and have the strength to participate in the way they were before.

So it is not just the jobs; it is the quality of jobs that is at stake in the debate we have with regard to economic policy. So not only do we have a poor performance with regard to job creation, we have poor performance with regard to the quality and the earnings power that is associated with those jobs.

I think it is hard to hear some of the celebration and spinning that I have heard this morning on some of the television stations and from others who are focusing only on the good news of the 308,000 jobs created. That is great. How about the 184,000 people who lost their jobs? How about the 8.4 million people who are unemployed? How about the 2 million people who are on long-term unemployment in this country, who are detached or who have dropped out and are not looking for jobs? It is the highest number we have ever seen.

By the way, if you added that into the unemployment rate--the people who have stopped looking because they have given up hope looking for a job--the unemployment rate would be 7.2 percent. This is not just a single number. I know there is going to be a lot of focus on it, and that is a good thing. I hope it sustains itself over a long period of time so we can start correcting this malaise we have in our jobs market around this country. And it is serious.

People know about outsourcing. They know about offshoring. They know about the fact that the minimum wage has not increased so that real earnings can grow for working men and women in America. There is a real problem.

In January 2001, we had about 700,000 long-term unemployed. Today, we have 2 million. You tell me whether that is a good stewardship of our economic policy and our jobs policy in this country. Where I come from that does not sound like a good performance.

I saw one of my esteemed colleagues from the other side of the aisle--I know he was trying to make a positive case--saying we have record employment at 138.4 million jobs in this country. That may be true, but last time I checked the population just keeps growing every month. Every month, the population keeps growing. If the employment rate does not go up, do you know what. What happens this week or what happened in this month's numbers is exactly what is taking place. We get rising unemployment, particularly when you add in all those people who have dropped out of the workforce. It is not that hard to do fractions. If you keep the base the same, and the numbers go up, you are going to get a changed number. And that is what is happening. It is hard for me to understand why we want to take victory laps when there are 8.4 million Americans without jobs.

Now, this is something we all hope turns and continues along the path. By the way, it is sure coming at a fairly serious price. The last time I checked, the President's own OMB Director was projecting we are going to have a $540 billion budget deficit. I guess if you go out with a credit card and spend up a storm, you can get some activity going on in the marketplace. If you go to the malls and spend until you are in debt to the point where you cannot sustain it over a long period of time, you can get some economic stimulus, but that does not mean that is good economic policy. In fact, that means we are mortgaging our children's future so we can get results now. Funny, we want results about 6 months in front of an election, but we are spending in an uncontrolled manner, and almost everyone, on both sides of the aisle, is troubled. Spending and tax cuts and borrowing just make no sense, but they are getting some results in stimulating the economy. I do think we have a good thing going on with regard to the Federal Reserve. We have had the lowest interest rates now for 15, 16, 17 months--the lowest interest rates in 45 years. That actually does put some stimulus in the economy.

We could not do any more with regard to trying to stimulate. The problem is, we did not do it very efficiently. We put it in all at the top income brackets, and it sort of trickles down.

And that may create jobs. But I want to go back to what I think maybe is as important as anything that needs to be analyzed in the job market. When we trade manufacturing jobs, white collar technology jobs, for service sector jobs, what happens to the American people? Their standard of income goes down.

Madam President, $44,570 is the average wage for a job that was lost in 2001. And the average wage today, when you get a new job, is $35,410, according to this calculation. That is a decline of 21 percent. When you go from manufacturing and high-technology jobs to service jobs, you see a deterioration in the real earnings of the American people. That is happening. And we still have a major unemployment problem in this country: 8.4 million people, 2 million of whom are unemployed on a long-term basis. We have the longest average tenure on unemployment we have had in 20 years.

So, yes, it is a good thing that we saw 308,000 jobs created this month. It is a good thing that we are starting to see some pickup. But by my calculation--and by anyone's calculation--we still have the worst job performance record of any President since Herbert Hoover. Those are the facts. People can talk about the facts however they want. We have not performed for the American people in creating jobs and creating real earnings that will make a difference in their lives.

So I hope we do not start celebrating and spinning so much that we lose track of what the reality is for people in their own lives-- certainly what is the reality for those people in Edison, NJ, who just had their Ford plant closed. I can tell you, it is happening all across my State. We have seen the elimination of high-quality jobs, and people are replacing them with those lower earning ones. I think we have serious issues to debate as we go through this campaign season. We ought to stay focused on the facts--both the number of jobs created and the quality of those jobs. I look forward to having greater discussion about these issues in the weeks and months ahead.

Thank you, Madam President.

Will the Chair inform me when I have 1 minute remaining of the 10 minutes?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, today we are talking on a series of issues where credibility is at stake. Frankly, I think the credibility of the Senate is at stake with regard to this jobs initiative we are debating on the floor of the Senate today.

I understand it is very possible we will not be able to move this most important legislation that is about creating jobs in an economy where Americans are not getting access to available opportunities to protect their families, help their families, or improve their quality of life.

We have seen far too little job creation. For us to back away from this initiative today would be extremely disappointing and, in fact, lead to a roughly $4 billion tax hike for American business and for job creation.

I think it fits a pattern of failure and unfortunate emphasis with regard to the state of our economic affairs in this country. Apparently, we do not want to take a vote on providing overtime for 8 million Americans. That is what is keeping us from dealing with a fundamental jobs program.

We already overwhelmingly voted in this body to pull back from regulations that would strip overtime pay for 8 million working Americans. Because we do not want to go on record about that, we are going to allow a $4 billion tax hike that is going to end up undermining jobs. It is just the latest in steps of failed economic policy.

I think the administration, the President, ought to be demanding that we get this JOBS bill passed so we have the capacity to keep pushing forward on economic growth and, most importantly, job growth for individuals. This failure, in my view, comes against a backdrop that is remarkable for its, frankly, inanity and distorted perspectives with regard to economic policies that Senator John Kerry has proposed in his current campaign for the Presidency.

I say ``remarkable'' because it is incredible to me that anyone with the economic record that this administration has, which has basically failed, would have the temerity to try to attack the policies that are very consistent with ones that produced 22.5 million jobs and created the greatest economic boon in the 20th century that this country had. There was growth in productivity, growth in real wealth, and growth in average median income for all Americans. It is hard for me to understand how, when we have gone from that kind of success to the failed policies we have today, that we are trying to attack some return to that effort.

I will review the record in specific. Since President Bush came to office, we have lost about 3 million private sector jobs--I think it is about 2.2 million overall jobs because the Government was actually increased. So, literally, it is the worst jobs record since the Great Depression. Currently, the situation is not exactly getting better. In the month of February we created 21,000 new jobs in this economy. That is against a projection that was in the President's economic report to the country of presuming that we would produce 368,000 jobs per month. It was 21,000 in reality against a projection of 368,000; none in the private sector, by the way.

What 21,000 were created were created in the governmental sector. I again contrast that with the fact that under the policies of the previous administration, we created 236,000 jobs a month on average. Right now, on average, we have negative creation under the current economic policies, and before we have done any kind of analysis, we want to attack the kinds of proposals that actually lead us back to fiscal sanity and responsible funding of our Government. We would get on with job creation.

If we had the right leadership, we would pass this jobs bill that is on the Senate floor right now and get forward momentum building in our economy.

By the way, if we were to continue that pace of 21,000 jobs, just to replace the jobs we have already lost under this administration, it would take us to 2013, a remarkably slow pace. This is not what President Bush promised

when we saw these large tax breaks, particularly for those affluent in this society. We were told this was going to be a job creator. It has not worked. I think it is time for people to focus on the realities as opposed to trying to hyperventilate about what they would like to think is going to happen. The differences between projections and reality just continue over and over. So when it comes to jobs, this administration's record, in my view, is a complete failure.

Sadly, though, that is just the beginning on economic policy. The President has not only produced the worst jobs record in several generations, in fact, he has created the worst fiscal situation we have seen in the history of the country. Frankly, it is shifting the tax burdens and the financial burdens of paying for Government from one generation to the next. The reality is that we are putting on the backs of our kids and their kids the responsibility to pay for the actions of the Government both today and obviously future responsibilities as we go forward, but particularly creating debt. There is $530 billion worth of debt being created this year. Actually, it is about $630 billion because we are using the Social Security trust fund which is going to have to get paid back to be able to fund Social Security as we go forward.

Over the long term, in my view, this failure on fiscal policy is a more serious problem than even the job creation issue because it is going to undermine the capacity of our economy to be able to grow and be strong in future years, and we are going to get even greater resistance to job growth over a long period of time because the Federal Government is going to be out there competing for every dime in the private capital markets. That competition is going to end up dampening growth and creating a situation where we have very little opportunity to see job creation as we go forward.

To put it in perspective, when this administration came into office there were projections that we would have $5.6 trillion worth of budget surpluses over the succeeding 10 years. Today, the budget projections are $5 trillion worth of deficits. That is a negative cash flow swing-- that is an old term I remember from business--of over $10 trillion. It is mind-boggling that we could see a flip of the switch in policies that would take us from $5.6 trillion surpluses that would allow us to pay down the debt.

It is absolutely essential that we get focused on reality. I hear people suggest that Senator Kerry, because he wants to propose a health care plan that over 10 years will cost $900 billion, is going to impose a tax increase on the American people just to fund that. That is flat out wrong. It would be like saying the Bush administration is proposing a $10 trillion tax increase because they have run up budget deficits of these kinds.

There is a lot more to say about the economy--failure on jobs, failure on the deficit, and we ought to be passing this JOBS bill in this Senate today so that we put America back to work. I will come back at a later point and finish up with some of the other remarks.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that displaced workers whose jobs have moved overseas have access to affordable health care coverage.

Under the Trade Assistance Adjustment Act, unemployed workers who have seen their manufacturing jobs shipped overseas are eligible for Federal subsidies to help them maintain their employer-based health coverage through COBRA. Unfortunately, while these workers have access to these Federal subsidies for 24 months, they only have access to COBRA coverage for 18 months. This discrepancy means that displaced workers are unable to fully utilize these subsidies. Indeed, the discrepancy creates the anomalous situation in which displaced workers can remain in their COBRA plan for 18 months, using the Federal subsidy to help defray their costs, but once their COBRA coverage runs out, they have six additional months of Federal subsidy available but lose their existing health coverage. This leaves them no choice but to seek coverage in the expensive individual market where they are not guaranteed coverage and where their subsidy may not be sufficient to help them afford coverage.

My legislation would fix this problem by making COBRA coverage available for the full 24 months that the subsidy is available. This will ensure that displaced workers can take full advantage of the assistance that Congress made available to them in 2002.

As more and more Americans see their jobs outsourced overseas, many struggle to provide health insurance for their families. We have lost 3,000 manufacturing jobs in February alone and have lost a total of 2.8 million since 2000. Congress took a critical step in authorizing Federal assistance for those who have lost these jobs. Now we must ensure that displaced workers have access to health coverage so that they can utilize this assistance. My legislation will ensure this.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that displaced workers whose jobs have moved overseas have access to affordable health care coverage.

Under the Trade Assistance Adjustment Act, unemployed workers who have seen their manufacturing jobs shipped overseas are eligible for Federal subsidies to help them maintain their employer-based health coverage through COBRA. Unfortunately, while these workers have access to these Federal subsidies for 24 months, they only have access to COBRA coverage for 18 months. This discrepancy means that displaced workers are unable to fully utilize these subsidies. Indeed, the discrepancy creates the anomalous situation in which displaced workers can remain in their COBRA plan for 18 months, using the Federal subsidy to help defray their costs, but once their COBRA coverage runs out, they have six additional months of Federal subsidy available but lose their existing health coverage. This leaves them no choice but to seek coverage in the expensive individual market where they are not guaranteed coverage and where their subsidy may not be sufficient to help them afford coverage.

My legislation would fix this problem by making COBRA coverage available for the full 24 months that the subsidy is available. This will ensure that displaced workers can take full advantage of the assistance that Congress made available to them in 2002.

As more and more Americans see their jobs outsourced overseas, many struggle to provide health insurance for their families. We have lost 3,000 manufacturing jobs in February alone and have lost a total of 2.8 million since 2000. Congress took a critical step in authorizing Federal assistance for those who have lost these jobs. Now we must ensure that displaced workers have access to health coverage so that they can utilize this assistance. My legislation will ensure this.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the women of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., a service sorority dedicated to promoting sisterhood, scholarship and service, for their efforts in the battle against HIV/AIDS.

According to statistics from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as of the end of 2002, an estimated 42 million people worldwide--38.6 million adults and 3.2 million children younger than 15 years of age--were living with HIV/AIDS. Approximately 70 percent of these people, 29.4 million, live in Sub-Saharan Africa; another 17 percent, 7.2 million, live in Asia. Of the estimated 15,603 AIDS- related deaths in the United States in the year 2001, approximately 52 percent were among African Americans and Hispanics. Racial and ethnic minority populations constitute more than 57 percent of the more than 800,000 cases of AIDS reported in the United States since the epidemic was discovered in 1981. Further, the Centers for Disease Control reports that as of December 2001, African Americans and Hispanics represented 52 percent of AIDS cases reported among males and 78 percent of those in females. Fifty-eight percent of all women reported living with AIDS that year were African Americans and 20 percent were Hispanic. African American children represented 58 percent of all pediatric cases. Of the 175 pediatric AIDS cases reported in 2001, 139, 79 percent, were African Americans and Hispanic. AIDS is one of the leading cause of death among African-American men ages 24 to 44. Recognizing the urgency of the issue, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. has taken a leadership role in educating the global community on how to decrease the AIDS pandemic, thus promoting health and wellness.

Delta Sigma Theta's effort focuses on an intense HIV/AIDS Education Campaign beginning with encouraging local Delta chapters to implement internal

education awareness workshops. This enabled the sorority members to better understand the drastic impact HIV/AIDS is having on African American women of all ages. In addition, for the past 3 years, chapters have participated in the sorority's International Day of Service for HIV/AIDS, a public awareness program in which a day is committed to providing HIV/AIDS education and prevention services to communities around the world.

On Saturday, March 13, 2004, the more than 900 chapters of the sorority located in 44 States, the District of Columbia, and in 6 countries abroad will conduct forums and seminars, provide counseling and testing, raise funds for research and services, and petition lawmakers to enact legislation that effectively addresses HIV/AIDS issues. In my State of New Jersey alone, the Central Jersey Alumnae chapter will sponsor a community forum entitled ``Why Not Me? The Affect of HIV/AIDS on Our Families.'' The event will include key sessions for citizens of diverse age groups, helping participants to clarify perceptions/myths about HIV/AIDS and encouraging them to speak openly about the impact of the disease on their communities. There also will be an open general session in which TEEN PEP of Somerset County will perform some powerful and thought-provoking pieces.

The Montclair Alumnae chapter will provide direct services to the Academy Street Firehouse After-School Project. As part of the AIDS Resource Foundation for Children in Newark, the Academy Street Firehouse addresses educational, vocational, social and medical needs of children and teens who are dealing with the loss of a parent due to AIDS. Approximately 50 children between the ages of 7 and 17 will receive services.

The North Jersey Alumnae chapter will hold three seminars on topics related to the HIV/AIDS: (1) The Secret Lives of AIDS; (2) The role of the church in the fight against HIV/AIDS; and (3) How individuals can protect themselves. There will be free testing and counseling. Speakers will include community activists and church leaders. There also will be a dramatization by the ``POWER'' group, a youth organization that teaches about HIV/AIDS and its affects.

The Rancocas Valley Alumnae chapter will partner with the Township of Willingboro to present workshops for men, women and children on (1) HIV/AIDS prevention; (2) Functioning as a person living with HIV/AIDS; (3) Caring for people with AIDS; and (4) Volunteerism with HIV/AIDS organizations. The day will be filled with a variety of activities such as panel discussions, videos, dramatic presentations, praise dancers, and step teams.

The Trenton Alumnae chapter along with the Rho Epsilon and Tau Kappa collegiate chapters will host Trenton's 2nd Annual Aids Walk. The Walk will begin at a local school and end at City Hall where the chapters will host a rally and speakers who will discuss the impact of HIV/AIDS. Donations will be collected to benefit the Rainbow House, a nonprofit organization that provides housing for children and adults living with HIV/AIDS in the city of Trenton.

The membership of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. provides an extensive array of public service programs and projects through the sorority's Five-Point Program Thrust: Economic, Development, Educational Development, International Awareness and Involvement, Physical and Mental Health, and Political Awareness and Involvement. The ``International Day of Service'' is an activity of the sorority's mental and physical health focus ``Summit V: Let It Continue--Heal and Healing: Promoting Health and Wellness on HIV/AIDS.'' Summit V is a means through which Deltas throughout the world assist in informing and educating the public and families about women's health issues, develop community partnerships to help inform the public and provide access to services; provide leadership for supporting policy development and promoting and enforcing legal requirements that protect the health and safety of women; and support research and political efforts to gain new insights and innovate solutions to health problems impacting women.

Delta Sigma Theta Sorority was founded on the campus of Howard University in 1913 by 22 visionary college women. Notable members include our colleague in the other Chamber. Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio, civil rights pioneer and Congressional Gold Medal recipient Dr. Dorothy I. Height, and former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman.

I invite my colleagues to join me in saluting the women of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., for their global efforts in the battle against HIV/AIDS, and I urge fellow Americans to participate in the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., ``International Day of Service'' projects in their communities on March 13, 2004.