Floor Statements

I would use 3 to 5 minutes.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from California for both raising the issue and addressing it with resources through this budget resolution. There is hardly an issue in America that is more important than that which has been very ably demonstrated by the series of charts the Senator from California has provided.

We have before us the worst record of job creation in the last 70 years. It is one that is not getting better anytime. The only observation I will add to the presentation of the Senator from California is that not only are we losing jobs, but when we lose those jobs it makes the competitive market for wages and real income for Americans go down.

The reality is for those people who lose their jobs--and there have been roughly 3 million in the private sector--their likelihood of retaining another job that pays the same as the one they have lost or the benefits they had in the job they have lost is virtually nil. You see about 75 or 80 percent of the equivalency of the compensation for individuals who lose their jobs.

The problem is, we are putting more people on the job market. The normal economics of supply and demand are undermining the real wages of the people who remain in the workforce. So not only are we getting more unemployed and fewer people working in the overall workforce, but we are seeing a reduction in real wages in the economy.

This is an extraordinarily negative cycle that is being set up. It is absolutely important that we reverse it. That is why this amendment is so important. It will encourage the creation of American jobs in a way that begins creating greater demand which is going to raise the wage of what we pay for the jobs we have.

Certainly, we need to stop this mad rush of sending jobs overseas which is undermining also not only the number of jobs in America but, as I say, is lowering the real cost of real wages, which is undermining the quality of life for everyone, not only the people who are unemployed but those who are working.

This is a dangerous phenomenon. The Senator from California has absolutely focused on the right thing, making sure we are using our tax system to generate jobs. It is one of those issues that is going to resonate most strongly with the American people in 2004 because it matters in people's lives more than anything else.

We have the worst job creation record in 75 years. Contrast that with what went on in the previous 8 years up through 2000, where we created 22.5 million jobs with an entirely different tax structure. We were focused on making sure we were increasing the real wages, increasing the earning power of Americans. We did it by increasing the demand.

The Senator from California has focused on just the right issue. Frankly, as the chart now before us illustrates, in job creation not only for the 1990s but all the way back through President Bush 1 and President Reagan as well, there was a serious effort to try to create jobs. We have a series of economic policies right now that are undermining not only job creation but the real wages of American workers. It is time we all take steps to try to correct that.

Certainly.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

First, a week ago Friday in New Jersey, we closed our next to last oil production facility. At the end of 2005, an industry that used to have several hundred thousand workers in New Jersey, as recently as 10 years ago, will have zero autoworkers now. We closed a Ford plant a week ago Friday. At the end of 2005, our final auto production facility for GM will close.

We have seen the shrinkage of workers in the telecommunications industry, Lucent, and AT&T, which have been truly remarkable. Over 100,000 telecommunications jobs have been lost over the last 4 years. It is incredible the tension and the anxiety that people feel about both their ability to work and to care for their families. But

then to think about the responsibility of health care and their retirement security is overwhelmingly a part of the concerns that middle-class Americans have. The kind of proposal the Senator from California is putting forth addresses those real concerns. I reemphasize, it is not only the people who lose their jobs; it is the people who live next door to those folks who see their real wages being depleted to low levels. We are undermining the economic health and well-being of the Nation.

I think the Senator from California is talking straight common sense. I think even those who are doing very well in our society can understand it.

First, the millionaires you are talking about are two-tenths of 1 percent of the total amount of the taxpayers who would be impacted-- two-tenths of 1 percent. What the Senator is talking about is moving marginal tax rates back to the level where they were during the nineties, at a time when 22.5 million jobs were created.

Think about it. Moving it back on two-tenths of 1 percent of the population, to a point in time when economic growth was the highest and the most sustained we had in the 20th century, the most expansionary period we had in the 20th century.

What we are trying to do is turn around the economic performance of the Nation so all will benefit as the performance of our economy spreads out. I think it is fair. It is smart because it actually has been exhibited by history that these kinds of rate structures are not inhibiting to the economy; they were a part of the economy at the most successful period in the 20th century.

Will the Senator make the Senator from New Jersey a cosponsor?

Mr. President, has the chairman and the ranking member been able to resolve the question on the floor with regard to the other withdrawals? If that is the case, I will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make India eligible for assistance under the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

India is facing a critical moment. An estimated 4.58 million people are infected with the HIV virus in India and HIV/AIDS has been reported in almost all the states and union territories of the country. The epidemic is spreading rapidly from urban to rural areas and from high- risk groups to the general population. Given India's size and the mobility of its population, there is a serious threat of catastrophe.

India's political leaders, public health officials, non-governmental organizations, and medical and scientific communities have taken important steps to combat HIV/AIDS. India, the world's largest democracy, has skilled governmental and civil society actors who are committed to a new awareness of the AIDS crisis and strategic approaches to combating the disease. But significant gaps remain in the Indian health care system's ability to address the full scope of the crisis. These gaps require immediate and sustained U.S. engagement and contribution of resources.

We must continue to expand the list of eligible countries in recognition of the global nature of this pandemic. We must also accelerate assistance to African and Caribbean countries already included as focus countries. Finally, we must increase overall funding to combat HIV/AIDS. India is but one example of the enormity of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. But it is also an example of the opportunities for America to reach out and find partners in combating this scourge. It is not true that programs to fight AIDS cannot absorb more resources. There is critical and urgent work to be done and committed professionals ready to do it. They just need our help.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make India eligible for assistance under the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

India is facing a critical moment. An estimated 4.58 million people are infected with the HIV virus in India and HIV/AIDS has been reported in almost all the states and union territories of the country. The epidemic is spreading rapidly from urban to rural areas and from high- risk groups to the general population. Given India's size and the mobility of its population, there is a serious threat of catastrophe.

India's political leaders, public health officials, non-governmental organizations, and medical and scientific communities have taken important steps to combat HIV/AIDS. India, the world's largest democracy, has skilled governmental and civil society actors who are committed to a new awareness of the AIDS crisis and strategic approaches to combating the disease. But significant gaps remain in the Indian health care system's ability to address the full scope of the crisis. These gaps require immediate and sustained U.S. engagement and contribution of resources.

We must continue to expand the list of eligible countries in recognition of the global nature of this pandemic. We must also accelerate assistance to African and Caribbean countries already included as focus countries. Finally, we must increase overall funding to combat HIV/AIDS. India is but one example of the enormity of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. But it is also an example of the opportunities for America to reach out and find partners in combating this scourge. It is not true that programs to fight AIDS cannot absorb more resources. There is critical and urgent work to be done and committed professionals ready to do it. They just need our help.

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

Mr. President, I compliment both the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership in this debate. I hope people understand how civil and effective the views in the debate have been carried forward. They will be pleased to know we have pulled the other three amendments I submitted.

With that, Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is an amendment that is very simple in nature. It calls for the elimination of tax breaks for those with incomes greater than $1 million, that is less than two-tenths of 1 percent of income-tax payers in the United States with incomes greater than $1 million, and reserves the savings for the Social Security fund. I emphasize that is two-tenths of American taxpayers, basically setting a new bracket, returning it to 39.5 percent for those who have adjusted gross income over $1 million.

The amendment uses the savings to establish a reserve fund for Social Security which would be used only to extend the solvency of the Social Security trust fund and prevent future cuts in Social Security benefits. It is straightforward.

Social Security represents the best of America's values. It promises all Americans, if you work hard, pay your taxes, play by the rules, you can live out your life in dignity. Social Security is not a handout. It is not welfare. It is an earned benefit. It honors and rewards work, a basic American value. The promise of Social Security, when you get right down to it, is a guaranteed promise of retirement security. Regardless of how long you live, regardless of the rate of inflation, regardless of the state of the economy or the state of the stock market, you worked all your life, you contributed to our Nation's productivity. Social Security promises you will have enough to have dignity in your senior years.

In fact, the benefits promised by Social Security are quite modest. The average monthly benefit is about $900; $900 per month for a senior. I don't think, at least not in New Jersey--that is not exactly luxurious living that one would be benefiting from, from Social Security. But it does provide an important safety net.

For nearly one-third of the seniors in retirement, it is at least 90 percent of their income or more--one-third. For another one-third it is 50 percent or more of their retirement security. And for the balance, it is a major support, that third third; it is a little less than 50 percent but a significant part of their retirement security.

As a result of Social Security, the poverty rate among seniors today is less than 10 percent. It is actually about 9 percent. Without the program, nearly half of all retirees would live below the poverty level--48 percent is what the calculations would be--which, by the way, is where seniors were before the institution of Social Security. It has provided a major support for the quality of life for America's seniors.

We hear a lot of conversation around here about the problems facing Social Security. Let me first say that talk is way overblown. Even if Congress does nothing, the Social Security system is secure and solvent to 2042. After that date, a substantial portion of benefits could continue--about 75 percent, I guess, according to the actuaries.

That said, we all have a responsibility to address the long-term solvency problem of Social Security. It is not in crisis, but it needs to be addressed. It is better to deal with it earlier rather than later. That is one of the reasons I believe my amendment makes sense. If we get started on that process now, we can protect seniors as time goes forward.

The Social Security trust fund faces a long-term shortfall. The last 30 years of the trust fund needs to be addressed. We ought to be preparing for it. That is what I am trying to talk about.

Given the angst that so many people in the country have with regard to Social Security, the President proposed a very radical reform program which we heard about in the State of the Union. It is something I think we ought to start putting money aside for now to protect our seniors as we go forward.

The reality is that this budget resolution does nothing to preserve or save Social Security. That is why I think it is so important that we address it. This is one of those means to do it.

Actually, this budget resolution in many ways will make the problem worse. This budget resolution takes every penny out of the Social Security trust fund and spends it either on funding additional tax cuts or spending it on other programs, depending on how you look at it. But the fact is, over the next 10 years we are going to--if we don't eliminate tax cuts or some portion of it--use $2.5 trillion. That is the cost of the Bush tax cuts over the next 10 years. That is almost dollar per dollar what would be coming into the Social Security trust fund over the period of time ahead. That is what the excess is. Almost dollar for dollar, we match the funding of those tax cuts and use up the Social Security trust fund. I don't think that is what the American people had in mind. I know they don't have in mind running this country deeper and deeper into debt. In fact, this budget resolution continues what this Congress and this President have done over recent years, which is absolute abandonment of fiscal discipline.

For the year 2005, the majority is proposing that the Government run a deficit of more than $512 billion with this resolution. That is the full on-budget element, and I think it is very hard to argue it is fiscally responsible. In fact, I consider that a pretty egregious figure hardly reflecting the kind of fiscal responsibility we all seem to hold close to our chests. Even that figure is misleading because it excludes known costs such as the cost of addressing the alternative minimum tax beyond 2005; similarly, the cost of our continued presence in Afghanistan and Iraq after 2005.

By the way, I compliment the chairman and others for putting together a resolution that actually acknowledges there will be additional expenditures. But I don't think we have addressed it.

Most importantly, we are not addressing, and there is no allowance for, the provisions that are embedded in Social Security reform that is talked about both by the President and many of those on the other side of the aisle.

Everyone knows that the total cost of the transition to private accounts, which is so readily embraced by many, will be over $1 trillion and that nothing is allowed in this budget for the beginning of that transition. I think it is even more aggravated with regard to where we will end up relative to what the reflected budget deficit is that is included. I think it will be considerably larger.

We are fooling ourselves if we think that running such deficits comes without a cost. In the long run, these deficits will have a substantial impact on our economy and on every American family.

In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that by the end of 10 years we would have $36 billion in publicly held debt. Instead, today we are looking at a projection of $5.5 trillion by 2008. It is a rather significant swing in cashflow by this country. It calls into question whether we are really thinking about the long-run impact this is going to have on our Nation. Our level of national savings will go down, interest costs will go up, investment will go down, and the end result is likely to be a reduced standard of living in the long term for all Americans.

There is one thing that is absolutely certain in this context, and that is the certainty that every American will be carrying the debt burden that goes well beyond where we are today, which is about $24,000 per person and up to about $35,000 just in 2009. I hate to see how this explodes over the longer period of time because we have all seen the charts about how deficits grow as the baby boomers retire. We have a real problem. It is going to undermine the quality and level of standard of living in America through a period of time.

That is why I believe we need to revisit at least some of the huge tax breaks enacted in recent years. Over the next 75 years, the cost of the Bush tax cuts is about $12 trillion in present value terms. By contrast, the amount needed to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security is less than $4 trillion. This is what the tax cuts cost for 75 years. This is how much it costs to fix Social Security, according to the actuarials. In other words, those tax cuts cost more than three times the entire Social Security shortfall.

What will happen if we make the tax cuts permanent, as the President wants? It is a real problem in our capacity to fix this problem; by the way, Medicare as well. It will lead inevitably to benefit cuts in Social Security, and more than likely will be dealt with quite deeply.

Many of us, by the way, have thought and long suspected that the rising deficits of recent years have been no accident but rather part of a strategy designed to force deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare to change the basic underlying fix of the social safety net we have in this country.

Recently, it became a little more clear in a lot of people's minds exactly what is going on here. No less a figure than the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, came out and publicly stated it is time to do two things: make permanent tax breaks which go largely to those doing the most well in our society, or make significant cuts-- long run cuts--in Social Security benefits. No doubt many politicians who believe in such an approach were hoping to defer this debate until after the election. But I think we need to have that debate out in the public and fully understood.

I compliment Chairman Greenspan for at least raising this issue so it is on the table. I don't necessarily agree with the strategy of execution, of making permanent these tax cuts which undermine our ability to deal with it, but I think it is absolutely one we need to debate.

We need to be saving today to make sure we can protect those benefits for tomorrow. We can't do it if we are going to continue to live with this absolute binge of tax cuts, especially for the most fortunate. Yet that is what this resolution proposes. That is why I feel so strongly we should take steps to try to address something that is so fundamental to the American people.

My amendment proposes to limit those tax breaks that go to those with incomes greater than $1 million.

By the way, just returning to the tax bracket at the very high end, .2 percent of the American taxpayers use those savings to establish a Social Security reserve fund. The fund would be available only for legislation to extend the solvency of the Social Security trust fund and to prevent future benefit cuts. This would not entirely save Social Security's long-term challenge. Roughly $4 trillion is what we have, but it is a heck of a downpayment. It is about $1 trillion on the present value basis in the direction of a big step towards trying to preserve and make sure we can deal with the Social Security shortfall over a period of time.

Again, let me recap why this amendment is so important. Social Security is a promise we must keep. It is a promise millions of hard- working Americans will depend on to keep them out of poverty in their old age. Keeping that promise in the future will require increasing our savings now. That is why we cannot afford to build massive deficits with huge new tax breaks for the most fortunate Americans among us.

We need to be disciplined. We need to be responsible. This amendment says instead of going deeper and deeper into debt, let's save a portion for the future. Let's hold off on tax breaks for those with incomes greater than $1 million so we can keep our promise to Social Security and prevent future benefit cuts for our seniors as the years go on.

That is the right thing to do. It is the responsible thing to do. I hope the majority of my colleagues will support the amendment.

Certainly.

The Senator is right, except for the 2001. It is moving back up to the 39.6 percent rate for those over $1 million.

It would.

It would.

Madam President, would the chairman acknowledge the $160 billion is only for 5 years? If you were to implement this policy over the full 75-year timeframe, the present value would be roughly $1 trillion. My calculation is not down to the last decimal point. But the point being not that $160 billion will save Social Security, nor $1 trillion, but doesn't the Senator think we ought to be making steps, even if it is not this approach, to begin to address these shortfalls as we go forward?

Madam President, I would like to make just a couple observations relative to the views of the Senator from Oklahoma.

The last time I checked, when marginal rates were 39.6 percent for a whole wider range of Americans--and I do believe marginal rates and large increments do make a difference on the motivation to work--the economy grew for 8 straight years, producing 22.5 million jobs. We had 4, 5 percent productivity, the highest growth in small business in the history of the country.

It is hard for one to imagine just exactly how that marginal rate ended up being so dampening to economic growth given the reality of the economy's performance in the 1990s. And now what we are talking about with this suggestion applies to two-tenths of 1 percent of taxpayers.

I would also suggest that there are many differentials already in the Tax Code with regard to tax payments on dividends. It is not a flat application of the dividend rate for all businesses. So there are many circumstances where you could end up having a differential of rates.

I think the choice that we are making here is: Is it worthwhile to protect guaranteed benefits--again, where one-third of Americans now are 100 percent dependent on Social Security as their sole protection for their senior years and another third are 50 percent or more dependent? Do we want to continue to have a social safety net, a guaranteed benefit for Americans? I think that is a compact and a trust we put together.

This is one of the ways that we can begin to address it: a $1 trillion present-value step, if we were to implement it. So I hope my colleagues will take into account whether we want to maintain Social Security with its guaranteed benefit structure or are we going to put ourselves at risk, having to change that program because we do not have the long-term actuarial protection of the ability to fulfill the obligations that are accumulating by Americans who work, the fundamental value that we take on here.

The folks from the State that I call home tell me that Social Security is vital to their long-term security. And I hear from those folks that they would like to see a program that is not at risk, but they want to maintain that guaranteed benefit.

This is one of those steps we can take to make that happen.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, if I might ask the Senator from Nevada a simple definitional question, I think government bonds and treasury bills are assets. They may not be as high yield assets as those available to the investment profile that is the Nevada PERS fund, but then again, it is also an asset that provides presumably greater security and less volatility and less risk to those who would benefit from it down the road. Social Security, while it has pay-as-you-go characteristics, has never been a system that was without accumulated reserves or deficient reserves.

There is a time for us to have a debate about Social Security that goes further than we do tonight, but my view is if we reduce the amount of borrowings that are taken out of the Social Security trust fund to fund everything else we do in government, we would be a lot safer in the long run, and that is what my amendment is really to accomplish.

The reserve is going to lower actually the amount of borrowing the Federal Government has to do.

I think it is up to us to express the self-discipline of not having unlimited tax cuts and also discipline with regard to spending. It is not just on the spending side that we have shown a lack of discipline that has allowed us to get to $5.5 trillion of publicly held debt.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004, legislation to eliminate a major inequity that has existed for several years among certain year-groups of military retirees already enrolled in the Survivors' Benefit Plan.

In the interest of a strong national defense, it is critical that we keep faith with the men and women who serve in our military. This applies both while military members are serving, and as they move beyond their working years. Our military retirees and their families have made significant sacrifices in the defense of their country. They deserve benefits commensurate with those sacrifices.

In 1972, Congress created the Survivors' Benefit Plan (SBP), giving career military members the option of taking less retirement pay in their own lifetime in return for the continuation of that pay to the surviving spouse, in the event the retiree pre-deceased his or her spouse.

SBP was a wise and important decision by the Congress; hundreds of thousands of military members have enrolled in SBP since 1972, and the program has given much-deserved security and peace of mind to those spouses who, along with military members, share the burdens of a military career.

Congress expanded the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) in 1999, by creating the ``Paid-Up Provision.'' Under that provision, retirees who are at least seventy years old and have already been paying into SBP for at least thirty years are considered ``paid up'' and do not have to continue paying in to receive benefits.

This change provides a modest but frequently important boost to retirees' income at a stage in their lives, in their 70's, when they may be less able to supplement their retirement income from other employment.

However, there is a major caveat, and a significant inequity here. The ``Paid-Up Provision'', under the 1999 legislation, does not take effect until October 2008. As a result, those who enrolled before 1978 will continue under the current law to have to pay in as much as six years longer than enrollees from 1978 or after.

The SBP program was created in 1972. An effective date of 2008 for the SBP's ``Paid-Up Provision'' means that those who enrolled in the first six years of the program, i.e., between 1972 and 1977, must, in order to get the same retirement benefits, pay in longer, as much as six years longer, than those who enrolled in 1978 or later.

In other words, those who signed up before 1978 get the same benefits but have to pay a much higher price. This arrangement is unfair on its face and should be corrected.

My bill, the Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004, simply takes the ``Paid-Up Provision''--already established by Congress in 1999, and moves its effective date ahead four years, from October 1, 2008 to October 1, 2004. That is the only change it makes.

This bill, if approved, would benefit some ninety-two thousand military retirees nationwide, those who enrolled in SBP between 1974 and 1977. The Military Officers Association of America has estimated that the cost would be $2.7 billion over ten years.

Under my bill, ninety-two thousand military retirees participating in the SBP program, from every State and congressional district, will no longer be forced to pay more for their retirement than military retirees who enrolled in SBP in 1978 or later. This is only fair--the benefits for which these 92,000 are paying are identical, and their service was just as worthy.

The 1999 legislation establishing the ``Paid-Up Provision'' was a good idea with the wrong effective date--it was given a 2008 effective date because that Congress wanted to defer any budgetary impact. Accounting conventions and budgetary targets, however, should not determine whether we are going to keep faith with our military men and women. Any arrangement that treats them with any trace of unfairness or lack of appreciation for their service is not right, is not in our national interest and should be fixed.

The Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004 is such a fix it-- corrects a significant inequity among an important group of military retirees, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004, legislation to eliminate a major inequity that has existed for several years among certain year-groups of military retirees already enrolled in the Survivors' Benefit Plan.

In the interest of a strong national defense, it is critical that we keep faith with the men and women who serve in our military. This applies both while military members are serving, and as they move beyond their working years. Our military retirees and their families have made significant sacrifices in the defense of their country. They deserve benefits commensurate with those sacrifices.

In 1972, Congress created the Survivors' Benefit Plan (SBP), giving career military members the option of taking less retirement pay in their own lifetime in return for the continuation of that pay to the surviving spouse, in the event the retiree pre-deceased his or her spouse.

SBP was a wise and important decision by the Congress; hundreds of thousands of military members have enrolled in SBP since 1972, and the program has given much-deserved security and peace of mind to those spouses who, along with military members, share the burdens of a military career.

Congress expanded the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) in 1999, by creating the ``Paid-Up Provision.'' Under that provision, retirees who are at least seventy years old and have already been paying into SBP for at least thirty years are considered ``paid up'' and do not have to continue paying in to receive benefits.

This change provides a modest but frequently important boost to retirees' income at a stage in their lives, in their 70's, when they may be less able to supplement their retirement income from other employment.

However, there is a major caveat, and a significant inequity here. The ``Paid-Up Provision'', under the 1999 legislation, does not take effect until October 2008. As a result, those who enrolled before 1978 will continue under the current law to have to pay in as much as six years longer than enrollees from 1978 or after.

The SBP program was created in 1972. An effective date of 2008 for the SBP's ``Paid-Up Provision'' means that those who enrolled in the first six years of the program, i.e., between 1972 and 1977, must, in order to get the same retirement benefits, pay in longer, as much as six years longer, than those who enrolled in 1978 or later.

In other words, those who signed up before 1978 get the same benefits but have to pay a much higher price. This arrangement is unfair on its face and should be corrected.

My bill, the Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004, simply takes the ``Paid-Up Provision''--already established by Congress in 1999, and moves its effective date ahead four years, from October 1, 2008 to October 1, 2004. That is the only change it makes.

This bill, if approved, would benefit some ninety-two thousand military retirees nationwide, those who enrolled in SBP between 1974 and 1977. The Military Officers Association of America has estimated that the cost would be $2.7 billion over ten years.

Under my bill, ninety-two thousand military retirees participating in the SBP program, from every State and congressional district, will no longer be forced to pay more for their retirement than military retirees who enrolled in SBP in 1978 or later. This is only fair--the benefits for which these 92,000 are paying are identical, and their service was just as worthy.

The 1999 legislation establishing the ``Paid-Up Provision'' was a good idea with the wrong effective date--it was given a 2008 effective date because that Congress wanted to defer any budgetary impact. Accounting conventions and budgetary targets, however, should not determine whether we are going to keep faith with our military men and women. Any arrangement that treats them with any trace of unfairness or lack of appreciation for their service is not right, is not in our national interest and should be fixed.

The Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004 is such a fix it-- corrects a significant inequity among an important group of military retirees, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. President, I also rise to support the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut. It is very hard for people in my State and across this country to read the President's

economic report and hear economic theory that is pronounced in economics 101, that somehow or another 19th century comparative advantage is the basis on which we ought to be working jobs in this country.

Folks are very concerned when they don't have work. That is a very simple principle of economics. We are seeing so many of our manufacturing jobs go, and now 40 out of 50 of our States are taking jobs that are government jobs and shipping them overseas and undermining our economy here. That is not highfalutin economics. That is taking money out of the pockets of people who drive our economy and make a difference in our communities. It has all those multiplier effects other economists might talk about. Then you don't collect tax revenues, you don't have people spending money back into the economy and driving it. A Senator talked about manufacturing jobs, but there is a leverage or multiplier effect on government jobs as well.

This is really out of touch with the American people, when we believe our policy ought to be to encourage outsourcing. Here, with taxpayer dollars, in the Federal Government, we have an opportunity to say, no, this is not the direction we ought to take. We should not be moving jobs overseas that would be very properly done here at home. We see it in the manufacturing sector. I am not sure I totally agree we ought to let everybody look at their quarterly bottom line and move. I think we need to understand there are national security interests at stake on jobs we have right here at home. We need to make sure we have a manufacturing sector that can actually produce steel, manufacture the weapons that protect our men and women when they go to war. We need to have that strength and it needs to be substantial.

We need to work to make sure our technology is under our control, the privacy of the information that flows in. I think we ought to push back against all this outsourcing for a lot of reasons that don't just deal with economics. But it is absolutely unfathomable that we would take State and local folks, Federal Government people, and ship their jobs overseas at the cost of not being able to have the overall economic impact of this. I think, particularly with the waivers the Senator from Connecticut has built into these programs, we have a program that will make a difference.

It is not enough to talk about translating hamburger-flipping jobs into reclassifying manufacturing as a means to solve an outsourcing problem. It is incredible, absolutely incredible, the illogic we see running through this economic report.

I think the Senator from Connecticut has put together a response that makes sense. We are going to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to make sure when we have Government jobs, they stay here. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I think it is absolutely essential the American people know we are fighting for their best interests at home on the floor of the Senate. This is the most direct, clear method of pushing back against what is a very wrongheaded approach to creating jobs in America.

Again, I am pleased to be a cosponsor.

If the Senator will yield for a quick statement, on Friday, we closed the last Ford production facility in New Jersey, and we are on track to have complete closure of the auto industry in New Jersey, which used to be one of the heartlands of auto production, outside of Michigan. It is very much reflected in the kinds of numbers the Senator is talking about.

We were supposed to be replacing those jobs with technology, information systems and telecommunications equipment, and now we see those jobs moving offshore just as much, and some are reflected in those numbers. That is why it is so important to stanch some of that movement by the kind of action that would be taken in reflection of the amendment of the Senator.

Well, the Senator from Connecticut raises a good point because I think when business decides it wants to outsource 14 time zones away or 12 time zones away, there are enormous synergies in business that are lost--the ability for people to work in similar space, to get the economies of the consolidation of ideas, working with people. It doesn't work nearly as well. As a matter of fact, a lot of businesses are consolidating so they can make a lot of their operations much more sympathetic with each other. These are business principles a lot of folks follow.

I don't think it is as obvious as is commented in the economic report of the President, but I guarantee sometimes the short-term benefits that somebody might see on a quarterly report, because they have lowered their loss, are grossly offset by long-term costs because they lose the technological innovation of having people work together. They lose the economies of scale, and the potential long-term costs, aside from the social costs the Senators from Connecticut, Minnesota, and New Jersey have been talking about, are huge.

Will the Senator yield?

The $140 billion the Senator from Connecticut spoke about with regard to salaries on the chart the Senator previously showed, there is a multiplier effect. It is almost three times that value to the economy. The Senator had the chart which showed the full implications. It is remarkable what is given up when our Nation loses these jobs overseas. It is not just those salaries. When you take the full implication, because you also have to look at the tax revenues that come back into the coffers of State, local, and Federal governments, these numbers could be even larger. This is just showing the impact of what the multiplier effect is for the economy.

These numbers are huge. So the undermining of the well-being of our economy by this outsourcing element is just way more profound than I think is being discussed and is an extraordinary misrepresentation and a mistake for the administration to believe that this is something we ought to be embracing and encouraging.

There is another element that needs to be thought about. Every time those outsourcing jobs cost an American job, then that individual has to compete for another job. Right now, for all but the top 20 percent of our economy, we are seeing declining real wages.

The fact is, people are competing for lesser quality jobs that pay less than the jobs that are leaving. I think we have seen estimates that it is about 20 percent less that an individual makes in the next job they take after they have been laid off. It is profoundly wrong for the administration to embrace such a dangerous idea both for the economic power and also the real hurt that I think it brings to the individual loss.

The Senator from Montana is exactly right, some of the regulatory restrictions or ability to actually penetrate some of these markets, while they may meet the letter of the law with regard to trade agreements, are virtually impossible, particularly in the services where we supposedly have the comparative advantage.

I think unless we are prepared to deal on all fronts--enforcing our trade agreements, particularly with large economies--we are not going to see even the theoretical benefits coming back of open trade markets. The situation is very true in the old industry that I worked in, financial services. It is very hard to penetrate these large economies about which the Senator has talked.

So we give up the jobs in outsourcing, but we are not getting the ability to actually provide the services that would make up for some of those jobs back here at home.

It goes back to a miscast presentation of a concept that is fine in Economics 101 books on comparative advantage but makes no sense in the everyday lives of working men and women in America.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Mikulski, Senator Kennedy, Senator Clinton, and Senator Boxer, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I strongly oppose the underlying legislation before the Senate which waives liability for gun dealers and manufacturers. In my view, this legislation strips away the legal rights of victims of gun violence and shields wrongdoers from accountability. It provides special exemptions for the narrowest of special interests, and it would make our country less safe.

The bill uses a variety of complicated legal concepts, narrowly drawn exemptions, to shield irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers from accountability. When we get beyond the legalese and Washington speak, the bottom line is the bill will limit the legal rights of gun violence victims.

I think that is wrong. In my view, no victim of gun violence should be denied their day in court. Each should be allowed an opportunity--a chance--to make their case. That is why I believe this whole bill is a mistake.

That said, I am a realist. I recognize the majority of my colleagues, based on the cosponsorship, disagree. On Tuesday, this legislation will likely be approved. That is why my amendment is so important and needs to be dealt with.

My hope is we can at least reach an agreement that even if we are going to strip away the rights for most Americans, we will not take away the rights from the men and women who serve as our Nation's law enforcement officers, the protectors of the peace, the people who serve on our streets, in our neighborhoods, our first responders.

I know all my colleagues appreciate the tremendous service and risk our law enforcement on our streets provides to our communities, so I hope they will share my interest in protecting their rights.

The importance of protecting the rights of our police officers was brought home to me and, I am sure, Senator Lautenberg through a case of two police officers in the State of New Jersey: New Jersey Police Detective David Lemongello and Officer Ken McGuire.

In 2001, they were seriously injured when a career criminal shot them while they were working undercover. This criminal was prohibited from purchasing a firearm but he obtained his gun illegally from a trafficker. As it turns out, the trafficker also was prohibited from buying weapons and had used a so-called straw purchaser to make multiple gun purchases from a store in West Virginia.

The cash sale for thousands of dollars was so obviously suspicious that the dealer apparently felt guilty. On the very same day, but after he took the money and after the guns walked out the door, the dealer called into the ATF and identified him. But that was

after the guns were gone. Unfortunately, at the time of the sale the dealer apparently thought it was more important to make a profit than to protect the lives of innocent victims.

Sure enough, Officers Lemongello and McGuire paid a severe price for that pawnshop's negligence. They suffered a serious injury and came very close to losing their lives. Their families suffered from their loss and both of them lost their careers and are no longer able to serve as policemen.

I will read a direct statement from one of these officers, Ken McGuire, because I think it expresses better than I can just how outrageous it would be for the Senate to strip them of their rights. This is some of what Officer McGuire said:

During a stake-out, Detective Lemongello and I were shot by

a felon. I ended up getting into a gunfight with the criminal

in a snowy backyard. That has changed my life forever. I was

shot through the right femur, and it blew apart my femur and

also caused extensive damage to my leg. I was also shot

through my stomach, and it hit the mesenteric artery. I lost

17 units of blood that night. . . . Because of the injuries I

suffered from that shooting, I will never be a police officer

again.

That is the same for Officer Lemongello.

He goes on to say:

I've heard some people say, ``Well, criminals can just get

guns,'' as if there is nothing anybody can do to stop them

from getting guns. Well, guns don't fall from the sky, or

grow from trees, this one didn't either. The man who shot us

got the gun because of an irresponsible gun dealer in West

Virginia . . . who sold 12 handguns to a straw purchaser who

gave them to a gun trafficker. What legitimate reason would

two people have to buy 12 handguns? . . . Why wouldn't the

gun dealer even ask the purchaser: Why would you need 12

guns? Why? Did I mention the purchasers paid for all of this

in cash? If there is any doubt of the destination of these

guns, which was northern New Jersey, months earlier I

arrested a suspect with the same gun make and model from the

same shipment in town.

Officer McGuire continues:

We have filed a lawsuit in West Virginia to hold the

irresponsible dealer accountable. The dealer argued in court

that it had no responsibility to use reasonable care in its

business, but a judge in West Virginia disagreed. She ruled

that we have a legitimate case under West Virginia law, and

that a jury should decide whether this dealer acted

reasonably.

That's all I want today: my day in court, to exercise my

right as an American to present my case before a jury of my

peers and let them decide, under the law, whether these gun

sellers were reasonable or whether they contributed to my

shooting.

Officer McGuire says:

If this bill is passed, Congress will be changing the laws

for gun sellers, overruling the West Virginia judge, and

taking away our rights. That is shameful.

I think it is, too.

I call on all Senators to do everything in their power to

prevent this bill from becoming law.

That was the message from Officer McGuire, but it could have just as easily come from the countless other law enforcement officers who have been injured or killed by guns trafficked by irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers.

I was talking to Senator Durbin about a situation in Chicago. There is case after case. How can any of us look into the eyes of any of these officers, such as Officer McGuire, and tell them we are going to take away their rights? How can we tell David Lemongello he risked his life on behalf of our community, and he almost lost it because of an irresponsible gun dealer, he will be suffering from the attack for the rest of his life but if he wants to go to court, if he wants justice, our answer to him is no?

Remember, the question before the Senate is not whether these two police officers, or any police officer, has a good case. It is simply whether they have a right to make their case. It is whether they have a right to try to convince a jury that a gun dealer acted irresponsibly and whether they deserve compensation as a result.

I do not call this a frivolous lawsuit. I consider this a right for a law enforcement officer to have a right to make their case in court before a jury. This bill would deny them that day in court. Not only would it strip these two heroes of their legal rights, it would do so retroactively.

I know we are going to hear about narrowly defined exceptions that will not allow for it. I do not think law enforcement officers should be limited in their ability to make their case before a jury. As far as I am concerned, it is an affront to these officers and an insult to every police officer who puts his or her life on the line for the community, and it sends precisely the wrong message when we are supposed to be enhancing homeland security and reinforcing the risks that people are taking to protect our families and our communities across this country.

My amendment is very simple. In fact, I will read it word for word:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in

this Act shall be construed as limiting the right of an

officer or an employee of any Federal, State or local law

enforcement agency to recover damages authorized under

Federal or State law.

I suspect we will hear about amendments that draw these narrow lines of exception. Why is it that a law enforcement officer cannot go into a court and get redress if they have been wronged in the illegal sale or the negligent sale of firearms to criminals? I do not get it.

That is the entire amendment. That is what we are working on. In essence, this amendment stands for the proposition that we should not strip police officers of their rights. It says that members of law enforcement who are victims of gun violence should have their day in court--no new rights, nothing guaranteed, just their day in court.

The advocates of this legislation argue that it is necessary to prevent frivolous litigation. I think they are wrong. But does this Senate really believe that law enforcement officers are flooding the courts with frivolous lawsuits? Is that what our law enforcement officers are doing? Do we really believe that men and women who devote their lives to enforcing our laws are trivializing the judicial process, that Congress needs to take away their rights because they are? I do not believe that and I do not believe anybody in this body does.

There is no evidence of it, and even to suggest it seems out of place given the trust that we give to these men and women in our local communities.

Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line for us every day. The least they should be able to expect from us is that we would not strip away their rights when they suffer from gun violence, and that is what I think we are doing. I hope my colleagues will stand with me and the men and women of law enforcement and support this amendment.

How much time is remaining?

I yield to my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. President, the issue before the Senate is pretty clear. This is a simple principle: Will we protect law enforcement officers such as Officer Lemongello from losing their rights under this bill or won't we?

The fact is, the narrow drawing of these exemptions is going to take cases like I identified in my opening remarks--such as buying guns in West Virginia from a negligent dealer, who admitted, themselves, on the same day they had a problem; and it went into the courts--and we are going to take away their rights to sue. This will not fit under those legal constraints.

The amendment is clear and straightforward. It says that nothing in this legislation will limit the legal rights of law enforcement personnel. All my amendment does is open that up. There are no conditions. There are no caveats. It is clear. It is simple. My amendment does not add any new rights. It just guarantees that officers will not lose any.

I am emotional about these individuals who put their lives on the line all the time. I accept that others feel the same way. But we should not be taking away the rights of these individuals to get into a court and not only pursue the person who perpetrated the crime, but if someone has facilitated that crime, because they have been negligent, that ought to be also someone who is subject to the law.

I think we are doing just the opposite. The Frist-Craig amendment is completely meaningless in this context because it is exactly the same language that is already in the bill. It is transparent and does not change a thing.

This officer will not be able to get into a court of law. This officer will lose his right to sue. That is not right. It is not right for the other 52 American police officers who lost their lives in 2002 or 2003, and the many, many who have been injured.

I don't understand why we don't want to give them the rights they deserve under our Constitution. This is not about whether you have a right to bear arms. This is not about the second amendment. This is about having the right, when there is negligence and criminal behavior, to go into a court of law and protect yourself.

We are doing it for law enforcement--for law enforcement--not just generally. These are not frivolous suits. These are people who know the law. They are not bringing up frivolous suits, and I do not think I am hearing that. So if we are not going to have frivolous lawsuits, which is the argument we are trying to make, we need this legislation.

Why are we taking away the right to sue from law enforcement across this country? I ask my colleagues to stand with me. I think we are undermining the safety and the security and the principles and the rights of law enforcement. I think the Senate ought to be standing with law enforcement to make sure they are protected. If we vote no against my amendment, we are doing the opposite. I hope we will stand strong and stand firmly with law enforcement because that is what we need to do if we say we appreciate what they are doing for our families and our communities.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. In fact, I will read it:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in

this Act shall be construed as limiting the right of an

officer or employee of any Federal, State or local law

enforcement agency to recover damages authorized under

Federal or State law.

This is a police officer who was shot, injured, and is no longer able to work in New Jersey. Fifty-two were killed in 2002 by guns in the hands of criminals, sold negligently--people should have the ability to go to court and get redress. These are not junk lawsuits, not frivolous lawsuits.

Law enforcement officers ought to have the ability to protect their rights in court. They should have their day in court. That is what this amendment does, and the narrow definitions that are allowed for in the underlying bill will keep Officers McGuire and Lemongello out of court.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joining my colleague Senator Russell Feingold and 12 others in reintroducing the End Racial Profiling Act.

I first want to recognize Senator Russ Feingold who has been a tremendous leader on this issue--during the last two sessions he held the first Senate hearings on racial profiling and he and his staff have worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue as a matter of civil rights. I also want to commend Representative John Conyers, who is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives today. This is just on example of his indefatigable work to address inequities in our society. I also want to thank Reverend Reginald Jackson, Executive Director of the New Jersey Black Ministers' Council. He and the entire council have worked tirelessly for years to address the issue of racial profiling in New Jersey and have provided immeasurable assistance in crafting this legislation.

The practice of racial profiling is the antithesis of America's belief in fairness and equal protection under the law.

Stopping people on our highways, our streets, and at our borders because of the color of their skin tears at the very fabric of American society.

We are a Nation of laws and everyone should receive equal protection under the law. Our Constitution tolerates nothing less. We should demand nothing less.

There is no equal protection--there is no equal justice--if law enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices that are premised on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after black and brown people on the hunch that they are more likely to be criminals.

Let me add, that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is simply not an effective law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping people of color adds up to catching bad guys.

In fact, there is statistical evidence which points out that singling out black motorist or Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher percentage of arrests. Minority motorists are simply no more likely to be breaking the law than white motorists.

But unfortunately racial profiling persists.

In 2001, minority motorists accounted for 73 percent of those searched on the New Jersey turnpike. But even the State Attorney General admitted that State troopers were twice--I repeat twice--as likely to find drugs or other illegal items when searching vehicles driven by whites.

Or take the example of the March 2000 Government Accounting Office report on the U.S. Customs Service.

The report found that black, Asian, and Hispanic women were four to nine times more likely than white women to be subjected to X rays after being frisked or patted down.

But on the basis of the X ray results, black women were less than half as likely as white women to be found carrying contraband.

This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants. No probable cause.

And what is the hunch based on?

Race--plain and simple.

No where was this more evident, than in my own home State six years ago.

Four young men on the New Jersey Turnpike in a minivan--on their way to North Carolina, hoping to go to school on basketball scholarships.

Two State troopers pulled them off the road, the frightened driver lost control of the van, two dozens shots rang out. Three of the four kids were shot.

I spoke to these kids a while ago. One of the them told me he was asleep when the van was pulled over.

He told me, ``What woke me up was a bullet.''

Stories like this should wake us all up.

The practice of racial profiling broadly undermines the confidence of the American people in the institutions that we depend on to protect and defend us. Different rules for different people do not work.

Now--We know that many law enforcement agencies, including some from my home State, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have taken steps to combat it. Indeed, I am proud to report that New Jersey has banned racial profiling. I commend them for their efforts.

That said, it is clear that this is a national problem that requires a national response applicable to all.

That is why Senator Feingold and I and many others introduced the End Racial Profiling Act in 2001 to end this practice. The legislation provided a clear, enforceable ban on racial profiling and established a ``carrot and stick'' approach to encourage law enforcement to take steps to end the practice.

The legislation helped bring much-needed attention to this critical issue and was positively received by the civil rights community and many in law enforcement. Soon after introduction, Senator Feingold held very informative hearings on the bill, at which I testified. We heard from several law enforcement leaders, including Oakland Police Chief Ronald Davis and Raymond Kelly, former Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service and the New York City Police Department, on the pernicious impact of racial profiling on the trust between law enforcement and communities that is essential for successful police work. They testified that racial profiling is contrary to effective law enforcement and indeed takes energy and focus away from finding real criminals.

Then, in June 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidelines to prohibit racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies, following up on President Bush's statement in his February 27, 2001, address to a Joint Session of Congress, that racial profiling is ``wrong and we will end it in America.''

In this guidance, the Department stated:

Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong,

but also ineffective. Race-based assumptions in law

enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereotypes that are

harmful to our rich and diverse democracy, and materially

impair our efforts to maintain a fair and just society.

These guidelines, as well as current efforts by State and local governments, to eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes, while laudable, have been limited in scope and insufficient to address this national problem. Quite simply, federal legislation is still very much needed.

In most respects the legislation we are now introducing today is very similar to the bill that we introduced in 2001.

It clearly defines racial profiling and bans it.

No routine stops based solely on race, religion, national origin or ethnicity. Religion is a new addition to the category of protected classes, in acknowledgment of some of the new law enforcement tactics developed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. For example, in the wake of the attacks, Arab-American, Muslim-American, South Asian-American and Sikh-American communities were made the target of generalized suspicion and subjected to searches and seizures based upon their religion and national origin, which has created a fear and mistrust of law enforcement agencies and failed to produce tangible investigative benefit.

We will also require the collection of statistics to accurately measure whether progress is being made. By collecting this data, we will get a fair picture of law enforcement at work. And we will provide law enforcement with the information they need to detect problems early on.

It is not our intention to micromanage law enforcement. Our bill does not tell law enforcement agencies what data should be collected. Instead, we direct the Attorney General to develop the standards for data collection, and he presumably would work with law enforcement in developing those standards. Our legislation also specifically directs the Attorney General to also establish standards for setting benchmarks against which the collected data should be measured--so that no data is taken out of context, as some in law enforcement rightly fear.

If the numbers reveal a portrait of continued racial profiling, then the Justice Department or independent third parties can seek relief in Federal court ordering that remedies be put into effect to end racial profiling.

Our bill would also put in place procedures to receive and investigate complaints alleging racial profiling.

It will require procedures to discipline law enforcement officers engaging in racial profiling.

Finally, we will encourage a climate of cultural change in law enforcement with a carrot and a stick.

First, the carrot: We recognize that law enforcement shouldn't be expected to do this alone. So we are saying that if you do the job right--fairly and equitably--you can be eligible to receive a best practices development grant--to help pay for programs dealing with advanced training.

To help pay for the computer technology that is necessary to collect the data and statistics we have demanded.

We'll help pay for video cameras and recorders for your patrol cars.

We'll help pay for establishing or improving systems for handling complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling.

We'll help to establish management systems to ensure that supervisors are held accountable for the conduct of subordinates.

But if you don't do the job right, there is the stick. If State and local

law enforcement agencies refuse to implement procedures to end and prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss of Federal law enforcement funds.

Let me be clear, this bill is not about blaming law enforcement, and it is not designed to prevent law enforcement from doing its job. In fact, we believe that it will help our officers maintain the public trust they need to do their jobs.

If race is a part of a description of a specific suspect involved in an investigation, this law does not prevent that information from being distributed. But stopping people on a random or race-based hunch will be outlawed. Race has been a never-ending battle in this country. It began with our constitution, when the founding fathers argued over the rights of slaves. And then we fought a war over race. We fought a war that ripped our country apart.

Our country emerged whole, but discrimination continued for decades-- discrimination sanctioned in part, unfortunately, by our own Supreme Court.

But our country's history has always been about change, about growth, about recognizing those things that weaken us from within.

A generation ago, we began to fight another war--a war founded in peaceful principles, but a war that killed our heroes, burned our cities, and shook us once again to the very core.

But we advanced, with important civil rights initiatives like the Voting Rights Act. Like the public accommodations law. We demanded and gained laws to fight discrimination in employment, in housing, in education. Today, it is time for us to take another step. Racial profiling has bred humiliation, anger, resentment and cynicism throughout this country. It has weakened respect for the law--by everyone, not just those offended.

Simply put--it is wrong and we must end it. Today we pledge to do just that--to define it, to ban it, and to enforce that ban.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joining my colleague Senator Russell Feingold and 12 others in reintroducing the End Racial Profiling Act.

I first want to recognize Senator Russ Feingold who has been a tremendous leader on this issue--during the last two sessions he held the first Senate hearings on racial profiling and he and his staff have worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue as a matter of civil rights. I also want to commend Representative John Conyers, who is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives today. This is just on example of his indefatigable work to address inequities in our society. I also want to thank Reverend Reginald Jackson, Executive Director of the New Jersey Black Ministers' Council. He and the entire council have worked tirelessly for years to address the issue of racial profiling in New Jersey and have provided immeasurable assistance in crafting this legislation.

The practice of racial profiling is the antithesis of America's belief in fairness and equal protection under the law.

Stopping people on our highways, our streets, and at our borders because of the color of their skin tears at the very fabric of American society.

We are a Nation of laws and everyone should receive equal protection under the law. Our Constitution tolerates nothing less. We should demand nothing less.

There is no equal protection--there is no equal justice--if law enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices that are premised on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after black and brown people on the hunch that they are more likely to be criminals.

Let me add, that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is simply not an effective law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping people of color adds up to catching bad guys.

In fact, there is statistical evidence which points out that singling out black motorist or Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher percentage of arrests. Minority motorists are simply no more likely to be breaking the law than white motorists.

But unfortunately racial profiling persists.

In 2001, minority motorists accounted for 73 percent of those searched on the New Jersey turnpike. But even the State Attorney General admitted that State troopers were twice--I repeat twice--as likely to find drugs or other illegal items when searching vehicles driven by whites.

Or take the example of the March 2000 Government Accounting Office report on the U.S. Customs Service.

The report found that black, Asian, and Hispanic women were four to nine times more likely than white women to be subjected to X rays after being frisked or patted down.

But on the basis of the X ray results, black women were less than half as likely as white women to be found carrying contraband.

This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants. No probable cause.

And what is the hunch based on?

Race--plain and simple.

No where was this more evident, than in my own home State six years ago.

Four young men on the New Jersey Turnpike in a minivan--on their way to North Carolina, hoping to go to school on basketball scholarships.

Two State troopers pulled them off the road, the frightened driver lost control of the van, two dozens shots rang out. Three of the four kids were shot.

I spoke to these kids a while ago. One of the them told me he was asleep when the van was pulled over.

He told me, ``What woke me up was a bullet.''

Stories like this should wake us all up.

The practice of racial profiling broadly undermines the confidence of the American people in the institutions that we depend on to protect and defend us. Different rules for different people do not work.

Now--We know that many law enforcement agencies, including some from my home State, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have taken steps to combat it. Indeed, I am proud to report that New Jersey has banned racial profiling. I commend them for their efforts.

That said, it is clear that this is a national problem that requires a national response applicable to all.

That is why Senator Feingold and I and many others introduced the End Racial Profiling Act in 2001 to end this practice. The legislation provided a clear, enforceable ban on racial profiling and established a ``carrot and stick'' approach to encourage law enforcement to take steps to end the practice.

The legislation helped bring much-needed attention to this critical issue and was positively received by the civil rights community and many in law enforcement. Soon after introduction, Senator Feingold held very informative hearings on the bill, at which I testified. We heard from several law enforcement leaders, including Oakland Police Chief Ronald Davis and Raymond Kelly, former Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service and the New York City Police Department, on the pernicious impact of racial profiling on the trust between law enforcement and communities that is essential for successful police work. They testified that racial profiling is contrary to effective law enforcement and indeed takes energy and focus away from finding real criminals.

Then, in June 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidelines to prohibit racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies, following up on President Bush's statement in his February 27, 2001, address to a Joint Session of Congress, that racial profiling is ``wrong and we will end it in America.''

In this guidance, the Department stated:

Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong,

but also ineffective. Race-based assumptions in law

enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereotypes that are

harmful to our rich and diverse democracy, and materially

impair our efforts to maintain a fair and just society.

These guidelines, as well as current efforts by State and local governments, to eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes, while laudable, have been limited in scope and insufficient to address this national problem. Quite simply, federal legislation is still very much needed.

In most respects the legislation we are now introducing today is very similar to the bill that we introduced in 2001.

It clearly defines racial profiling and bans it.

No routine stops based solely on race, religion, national origin or ethnicity. Religion is a new addition to the category of protected classes, in acknowledgment of some of the new law enforcement tactics developed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. For example, in the wake of the attacks, Arab-American, Muslim-American, South Asian-American and Sikh-American communities were made the target of generalized suspicion and subjected to searches and seizures based upon their religion and national origin, which has created a fear and mistrust of law enforcement agencies and failed to produce tangible investigative benefit.

We will also require the collection of statistics to accurately measure whether progress is being made. By collecting this data, we will get a fair picture of law enforcement at work. And we will provide law enforcement with the information they need to detect problems early on.

It is not our intention to micromanage law enforcement. Our bill does not tell law enforcement agencies what data should be collected. Instead, we direct the Attorney General to develop the standards for data collection, and he presumably would work with law enforcement in developing those standards. Our legislation also specifically directs the Attorney General to also establish standards for setting benchmarks against which the collected data should be measured--so that no data is taken out of context, as some in law enforcement rightly fear.

If the numbers reveal a portrait of continued racial profiling, then the Justice Department or independent third parties can seek relief in Federal court ordering that remedies be put into effect to end racial profiling.

Our bill would also put in place procedures to receive and investigate complaints alleging racial profiling.

It will require procedures to discipline law enforcement officers engaging in racial profiling.

Finally, we will encourage a climate of cultural change in law enforcement with a carrot and a stick.

First, the carrot: We recognize that law enforcement shouldn't be expected to do this alone. So we are saying that if you do the job right--fairly and equitably--you can be eligible to receive a best practices development grant--to help pay for programs dealing with advanced training.

To help pay for the computer technology that is necessary to collect the data and statistics we have demanded.

We'll help pay for video cameras and recorders for your patrol cars.

We'll help pay for establishing or improving systems for handling complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling.

We'll help to establish management systems to ensure that supervisors are held accountable for the conduct of subordinates.

But if you don't do the job right, there is the stick. If State and local

law enforcement agencies refuse to implement procedures to end and prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss of Federal law enforcement funds.

Let me be clear, this bill is not about blaming law enforcement, and it is not designed to prevent law enforcement from doing its job. In fact, we believe that it will help our officers maintain the public trust they need to do their jobs.

If race is a part of a description of a specific suspect involved in an investigation, this law does not prevent that information from being distributed. But stopping people on a random or race-based hunch will be outlawed. Race has been a never-ending battle in this country. It began with our constitution, when the founding fathers argued over the rights of slaves. And then we fought a war over race. We fought a war that ripped our country apart.

Our country emerged whole, but discrimination continued for decades-- discrimination sanctioned in part, unfortunately, by our own Supreme Court.

But our country's history has always been about change, about growth, about recognizing those things that weaken us from within.

A generation ago, we began to fight another war--a war founded in peaceful principles, but a war that killed our heroes, burned our cities, and shook us once again to the very core.

But we advanced, with important civil rights initiatives like the Voting Rights Act. Like the public accommodations law. We demanded and gained laws to fight discrimination in employment, in housing, in education. Today, it is time for us to take another step. Racial profiling has bred humiliation, anger, resentment and cynicism throughout this country. It has weakened respect for the law--by everyone, not just those offended.

Simply put--it is wrong and we must end it. Today we pledge to do just that--to define it, to ban it, and to enforce that ban.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from New Jersey, Senator Frank Lautenberg, and Congressmen Frank Pallone and Rob Andrews, who are introducing comparable legislation in the House of Representatives today, to introduce a bill to protect from privatization the Medicare program that more than 1 million New Jersey seniors rely on.

As a result of a provision in the new Medicare law, more than 1 million Medicare beneficiaries nationwide, including 186,000 New Jersey Medicare beneficiaries who live in Camden, Salem, Burlington and Gloucester counties, will be subject to a risky Medicare privatization scheme beginning in 2010. This scheme, which is called premium support, will give seniors a set Medicare premium payment--similar to a voucher--that would be based on a combination of the prices that private plans in their area charge and the cost of Medicare fee-for- service in their area. Seniors choosing to enroll in a plan that costs more than the amount of that voucher would have to pay the difference.

While it may seem like an easy and straightforward choice to seniors who currently enjoy and thrive on traditional Medicare to choose to remain in the fee-for-service program, under this privatization scheme, those seniors who make that choice will end up paying significantly higher premiums than their counterparts in private plans. Because the private plans will be able to cherry pick the healthiest seniors to enroll in their plans and will receive huge subsidies from the federal government, they will be able to provide lower cost health care than the traditional Medicare program. That means that sicker, older beneficiaries will remain in the traditional Medicare, thereby increasing costs in that program, while younger, healthier beneficiaries will choose to enroll in private plans where they will pay lower premiums.

That's right, Under this privatization scheme, seniors who choose to remain in the Medicare program they know and trust will pay more-- significantly more than they pay now--for their coverage.

Not only will these seniors pay significantly higher premiums than they do now for fee-for-service Medicare, and much more than they would if they enrolled in a private plan, but also depending on where a senior lives they will pay a different price for the same Medicare coverage that a senior in a neighboring community might pay. So, for the first time in history, seniors in some areas will pay higher premiums for their Medicare coverage than seniors in other areas.

How much more will seniors who want to stay in the traditional Medicare program pay? According to documents released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary on August 9, 2003, seniors living in Gloucester and Hudson counties in New Jersey could pay as much as $1,700 more than they pay now for traditional Medicare. Yet, seniors in these counties could, depending on the plan they select, join an HMO for a premium that is $2,000 less. Why is that? This is because private plans will select healthier seniors will offer fewer choices than traditional Medicare and, at the same time will receive grossly inflated payments from the government.

In fact, the new Medicare law overpays private plans by $1,920 per beneficiary--at a total cost of $14 billion to taxpayers--so that these plans may compete with Medicare. This sounds like socialized privatization to me. Indeed, in the last 6 months I have struggled to understand the logic behind paying private plans more than we pay Medicare. The only logical reason I've come up with is that this is the perfect plan to make the Medicare program fail--to give my Republican colleagues the read meat they need to raid and privatize Medicare.

This is not competition. It is a plan to force seniors into private plans and out of the Medicare program they trust. There is no real choice here. Very few seniors will have the luxury of choosing to pay $2,000 more a year for traditional Medicare. Most seniors will be forced into managed care plans.

Seniors in my State want no part of this privatization scheme. Baby boomers in my State want no part of this. New Jerseyans want to know that the Medicare program, as we know it, will be there for them when they need it. My legislation provides that assurance. Under my bill, no New Jersey county and no New Jersey senior will be subject to this disastrous privatization scheme.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and the many other bills that Democratic members are introducing today to exempt their States from this program and to protect and preserve the Medicare program for our seniors today and our seniors tomorrow.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from New Jersey, Senator Frank Lautenberg, and Congressmen Frank Pallone and Rob Andrews, who are introducing comparable legislation in the House of Representatives today, to introduce a bill to protect from privatization the Medicare program that more than 1 million New Jersey seniors rely on.

As a result of a provision in the new Medicare law, more than 1 million Medicare beneficiaries nationwide, including 186,000 New Jersey Medicare beneficiaries who live in Camden, Salem, Burlington and Gloucester counties, will be subject to a risky Medicare privatization scheme beginning in 2010. This scheme, which is called premium support, will give seniors a set Medicare premium payment--similar to a voucher--that would be based on a combination of the prices that private plans in their area charge and the cost of Medicare fee-for- service in their area. Seniors choosing to enroll in a plan that costs more than the amount of that voucher would have to pay the difference.

While it may seem like an easy and straightforward choice to seniors who currently enjoy and thrive on traditional Medicare to choose to remain in the fee-for-service program, under this privatization scheme, those seniors who make that choice will end up paying significantly higher premiums than their counterparts in private plans. Because the private plans will be able to cherry pick the healthiest seniors to enroll in their plans and will receive huge subsidies from the federal government, they will be able to provide lower cost health care than the traditional Medicare program. That means that sicker, older beneficiaries will remain in the traditional Medicare, thereby increasing costs in that program, while younger, healthier beneficiaries will choose to enroll in private plans where they will pay lower premiums.

That's right, Under this privatization scheme, seniors who choose to remain in the Medicare program they know and trust will pay more-- significantly more than they pay now--for their coverage.

Not only will these seniors pay significantly higher premiums than they do now for fee-for-service Medicare, and much more than they would if they enrolled in a private plan, but also depending on where a senior lives they will pay a different price for the same Medicare coverage that a senior in a neighboring community might pay. So, for the first time in history, seniors in some areas will pay higher premiums for their Medicare coverage than seniors in other areas.

How much more will seniors who want to stay in the traditional Medicare program pay? According to documents released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary on August 9, 2003, seniors living in Gloucester and Hudson counties in New Jersey could pay as much as $1,700 more than they pay now for traditional Medicare. Yet, seniors in these counties could, depending on the plan they select, join an HMO for a premium that is $2,000 less. Why is that? This is because private plans will select healthier seniors will offer fewer choices than traditional Medicare and, at the same time will receive grossly inflated payments from the government.

In fact, the new Medicare law overpays private plans by $1,920 per beneficiary--at a total cost of $14 billion to taxpayers--so that these plans may compete with Medicare. This sounds like socialized privatization to me. Indeed, in the last 6 months I have struggled to understand the logic behind paying private plans more than we pay Medicare. The only logical reason I've come up with is that this is the perfect plan to make the Medicare program fail--to give my Republican colleagues the read meat they need to raid and privatize Medicare.

This is not competition. It is a plan to force seniors into private plans and out of the Medicare program they trust. There is no real choice here. Very few seniors will have the luxury of choosing to pay $2,000 more a year for traditional Medicare. Most seniors will be forced into managed care plans.

Seniors in my State want no part of this privatization scheme. Baby boomers in my State want no part of this. New Jerseyans want to know that the Medicare program, as we know it, will be there for them when they need it. My legislation provides that assurance. Under my bill, no New Jersey county and no New Jersey senior will be subject to this disastrous privatization scheme.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and the many other bills that Democratic members are introducing today to exempt their States from this program and to protect and preserve the Medicare program for our seniors today and our seniors tomorrow.

Mr. President, my distracted driving amendment addresses one of the most serious highway safety problems in our Nation: distracted and fatigued driving.

When drivers talk on their cell phones, change radio stations, eat, or otherwise fail to devote their full attention to driving, they pose a threat not only to themselves, but to others. Drivers who are drowsy or tired pose a similar threat.

I am particularly concerned about the use of hand-held cell phones while driving, which the California Highway Patrol recently reported was the number one cause of distracted driver accidents in their State. According to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, ``the use of cell phones by drivers may result in approximately 2,600 deaths, 330,000 moderate to critical injuries and 1.5 million instances

of property damage in America per year.'' Other studies have reached similar conclusions. One, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, concluded that the ``use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risks of a collision during the brief period of a call.'' That study went on to say ``this relative risk is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit.''

States, counties and municipalities around the country have considered legislation affecting the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. New York enacted a ban against the use of hand-held cell phones while driving in 2001. A number of municipalities in my own State of New Jersey have also chosen to enforce bans within their borders, including Marlboro, Carteret and Nutley. New Jersey itself has enacted a law that imposes additional penalties on those driving infractions where cell-phone use has been determined to be a factor.

This patchwork of laws, however, does not take the place of a consistent, Nation-wide ban. That is why I introduced the Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act last year. That bill would provide incentives for States to adopt bans on hand-held cell phones, and I hope that we can build more support for this legislation in the future. However, this amendment proposes a more modest first step that I have worked out with the managers of the bill from the Commerce Committee, Senators McCain and Hollings.

The main provision in the amendment would provide Federal funds for States to implement programs designed to address distracted and fatigued driving, by making such programs an eligible use of funds under the Section 402 highway safety program. These programs might include public education campaigns, additional training for law enforcement, and implementation of laws that specifically address fatigued or distracted driving.

The amendment also calls for several demonstration projects to specifically test ways of combating distracted driving. And it directs States to work with local law enforcement officials to find ways to collect more accurate data about how the use of electronic devices in vehicles affects traffic safety.

In sum, this amendment helps address some of the most important highway safety issues we confront. And it does so without requiring any new funds, or putting any additional burdens on the States. I want to thank Senators McCain and Hollings for their cooperation on this matter, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment which addresses the serious national problem of drunk driving by helping to ensure that when drunken drivers are arrested, they can't simply get back into their car and put the lives of others in jeopardy. The amendment is based on legislation known as ``John's Law'' that I have introduced in the Senate and that has already been enacted at the State level in New Jersey.

On July 22, 2000, Navy Ensign John Elliott was driving home from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis for his mother's birthday when his car was struck by another car. Both Ensign Elliott and the driver of that car were killed. The driver of the car that caused the collision had a blood alcohol level that exceeded twice the legal limit.

What makes this tragedy especially distressing is that this same driver had been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI, just 3 hours before the crash. After being processed for that offense, he had been released into the custody of a friend who drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind the wheel, with tragic results.

We need to ensure that drunken drivers do not get back behind the wheel before they sober up. With this amendment, States would be allowed to use some of their drunk driver prevention grant money from the Federal Government to impound the vehicles of drunk drivers for no less than 12 hours. This would help ensure that a drunk driver cannot get back behind the wheel until he is sober. And that would make our roads safer, and prevent the loss of many innocent lives.

I hope my colleagues will support this commonsense measure. And I want to express my appreciation to Senators McCain and Hollings for their cooperation on this matter.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Oklahoma will allow for 20 minutes speaking as in morning business.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I, too, respect very much the challenges the chairman of the committee and the ranking member have been able to work through. I look forward to a good, healthy debate about some of the specifics. I think we are on the right track.