Floor Statements

Mr. President, I, too, rise to stand in support of the Biden amendment. The concept of shared sacrifice is fundamental to the American life--something all of our predecessors on this floor and the people of America through history have understood. In times of war, we have understood we all have to participate.

It should be no different this time. It is clearly a time when we have not asked for our society to stand up and accept the responsibility--financial responsibility--of standing with those men and women who are sacrificing their lives for us. Instead of actually husbanding our resources so we can carry on that struggle and stand with our men and women in uniform, we are actually undermining that by putting our financial condition into real jeopardy, both now and for a long time into the future.

In guns-and-butter policy, one that is totally discredited throughout any kind of analysis, whether in the private sector or academia--and it should be here on the floor--we are now facing $535 billion budget deficits in the coming fiscal year, with budget deficits of that dimension long into the future, borrowing against the retirement security of our seniors and our Social Security trust fund, using the payroll taxes people are reportedly putting into Social Security to protect their retirement to fund tax cuts, at the same time we are actually at war to protect the American people.

It is time for us to husband our resources and make sure we don't sacrifice everything on the homefront, whether it is economic security, retirement security, homeland security; all of these issues are short of funding. We hear about it and we cut it back. We make sure we are very precise there, and then we are not willing, for those who are benefiting most in society, who have actually enjoyed the American prosperity the most, to sacrifice marginal amounts to be able to fund an initiative that is proper to protect our troops and take the responsibility for a broken economy, a broken society that, in many ways, is a responsibility we have had because we entered into this.

I think it is absolutely essential, and I think many of the people who benefit from the reduced tax rates we are talking about not going ahead and executing will benefit more because we will have a sounder economy, and we will create greater wealth in the economy, and they will welcome the idea that they are actually able to share in some of these burdens as we go forward. As a matter of fact, I know that at a personal level, from conversations I have had across this country, there is a desire to be asked to help.

It is really a major mistake, a major shortfall, on our sense of responsibility to the Nation if we don't call for making sure we provide funding for this initiative--this $87 billion the President has asked for. I stand strongly in favor of the Biden amendment. I encourage colleagues to as well. This Nation believes in shared sacrifice. We should show it by supporting this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Modernization Act of 2003, legislation to establish a new, world-class regulator for our housing Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs)--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--as an agency within the Department of Treasury.

There is no doubt that housing finance is essential to our economy and has been one of our Nation's few economic bright spots in recent years. Given its critical role, and the size and complex financial structures of the GSE's, which account for billions of mortgage-finance dollars, we need a credible, world-class regulator that can provide effective oversight.

Regrettably, the current system of GSE supervision fails to meet that standard.

This legislation has four primary objectives: establishing a new, independent regulator that is credible and capable; ensuring safe and sound capital; promoting market discipline and transparency through enhanced disclosures; and providing an incremental approach to ultimately consolidating supervision of the Federal Home Loan Banks under the regulatory framework contained in this legislation.

The proposal also recognizes the importance of the GSEs' underlying housing mission and leaves responsibility for establishing the GSEs annual housing goals and overseeing their compliance with fair housing laws with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The legislation would create a new agency, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Supervision (OFHES), as a bureau within the Department of the Treasury, with a structure similar to that of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).

The agency would have general regulatory, supervisory and enforcement authority with respect to the enterprises, be independent of Treasury with regard to its comments and congressional testimony, and have a director, appointed for a five-year term, who would be given a seat on the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). To ensure that the enterprises' activities remain consistent with the scope of their charter, the agency would be authorized to approve all new enterprise programs, but in close consultation with HUD.

Additionally, the agency would be given broad new authority to hire experienced personnel, a significant portion of whom will be designated specifically to carry out examinations and supervisory activities, to make certain that the agency can fulfill its safety and soundness responsibilities.

Central to that oversight function is ensuring that the enterprises maintain safe and sound capital through vigorous, continuous monitoring. The legislation therefore requires the new agency to ensure that the enterprises remain in continuous compliance with their statutorily prescribed minimum capital holding requirements.

By ensuring that the GSEs maintain adequate capital, we will mitigate the risks to the enterprises, and our financial markets, from unforeseen shocks that can, and do, occasionally occur in our financial markets. To accomplish this, the legislation takes a multi-pronged approach to the issue of risk-based capital.

First, the legislation requires the new agency to continually monitor the risk-based capital held by the enterprises, but it also provides the new agency's director with the flexibility to adjust the risk-based capital level of the enterprises in order to ensure their safe and sound financial operation.

The legislation also authorizes the new agency to conduct a comprehensive review of the enterprises' risk-based capital rule every five years. Part of the review would include a report to Congress entailing what, if any, proposed changes the new agency believes are needed to the risk-based capital rule to better align the capital held by the enterprises with risk, and reflect evolving best practices for risk-based capital standards for large, complex financial institutions. However, on a continual basis the Director would have the authority to adjust elements to the enterprises' stress test other than those specifically prescribed in the risk-based rule.

With regard to the GSE non-mortgage related investments, this legislation affirms the notion that those investments should be of the highest quality and within the scope of the enterprises' respective charters. It does so by requiring the new agency to continuously monitor the appropriateness of the investments in the liquid and non- liquid portfolios of the GSEs and by certifying that the liquidity management practices of the enterprises coinform with recommendations contained in the ``Sound Practices for Managing Liquidity in Banking Organizations'' established by the Basel Committee.

The capital and liquidity management provisions of this legislation are balanced. They ensure that the enterprises maintain appropriate minimum capital and are adequately capitalized relative to their risks. They also empower the new agency to take appropriate action if enterprises become undercapitalized, and promote sound liquidity management practices. At the same time, the bill is not so overly prescriptive that it would undermine the

essential liquidity the enterprises' provide, which has enabled America's housing markets to become the envy of the world.

The third element of this bill that should dramatically improve the GSE's regulatory framework promotes transparency through enhanced disclosures requirements.

This legislation statutorily requires Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks to disclose a variety of information that will provide the public, investors, and Congress with a better understanding of the underlying financial health of our housing enterprises.

First, the legislation requires the GSEs to register their equities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and to comply with SEC disclosure and reporting requirements contained under sections 12 (Registration Requirements for Securities), 14 (Proxy Voting Information) and 16 (Insider Sales) of the 1934 Act.

These disclosures are consistent with the highest standards of corporate governance and disclosure required of other public companies and in my mind there is no reason why the GSEs should not be required to do so as well.

Second, this legislation would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to disclose information regarding their interest rate and credit risks. Specifically, each enterprise would regularly report the impact on their mortgage portfolios of a 50 basis point change in interest rates and a 25 basis point change in the slope of the yield curve. They would also be required to disclose, on a quarterly basis, the financial impact on each enterprise of an immediate 5 percent decline in U.S. home prices.

Additionally, the bill requires the GSEs to acquire credit ratings from an SEC-recognized credit rating agency to provide an assessment of the risk to the government and independent financial health of each enterprise. This ``stand-along'' rating would be derived from the underlying credit quality of each enterprise and assume no direct support from the Federal Government.

These disclosures will ensure that the standards of financial disclosure of the GSEs are in line with the rest of corporate America, making the enterprises subject to public scrutiny and market disciplinary forces.

Finally, the bill takes an incremental approach towards incorporating oversight of the Federal Home Loan Banks into the new regulatory framework created under this bill.

The bill requires Treasury, in consultation with HUD, to issue a report to Congress no later than six months after the date of the bill's enactment on the appropriate manner upon which to consolidate the responsibilities of the Federal Housing Finance Board, and oversight of the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs), into the regulatory framework contained under this bill.

And as I mentioned earlier, the FHLBs would be required to immediately comply with financial disclosure and reporting requirements under the 1934 act in a manner similar to those required of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under this bill.

Lastly, the legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to designate an individual to serve as one of the five Federal Housing Finance Board members. This authority, transferred from HUD, would immediately involve Treasury in the regulatory rubric of the FHFB and ease the transition of the consolidation of the FHFBs regulatory responsibilities into this new agency.

In conclusion, the reforms contained in this proposal are very important. They would establish a new regulatory framework that promotes sound and safe financial operations at the GSEs. They would promote stability in our capital markets by providing investors with better information about the financial health of the enterprises. They would affirm the GSEs' critical role in our nation's housing market. And they would protect investors and taxpayers, while preserving the opportunity of millions of families to pursue the American dream of homeownership.

I urge my colleagues to support this, important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Modernization Act of 2003, legislation to establish a new, world-class regulator for our housing Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs)--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--as an agency within the Department of Treasury.

There is no doubt that housing finance is essential to our economy and has been one of our Nation's few economic bright spots in recent years. Given its critical role, and the size and complex financial structures of the GSE's, which account for billions of mortgage-finance dollars, we need a credible, world-class regulator that can provide effective oversight.

Regrettably, the current system of GSE supervision fails to meet that standard.

This legislation has four primary objectives: establishing a new, independent regulator that is credible and capable; ensuring safe and sound capital; promoting market discipline and transparency through enhanced disclosures; and providing an incremental approach to ultimately consolidating supervision of the Federal Home Loan Banks under the regulatory framework contained in this legislation.

The proposal also recognizes the importance of the GSEs' underlying housing mission and leaves responsibility for establishing the GSEs annual housing goals and overseeing their compliance with fair housing laws with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The legislation would create a new agency, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Supervision (OFHES), as a bureau within the Department of the Treasury, with a structure similar to that of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).

The agency would have general regulatory, supervisory and enforcement authority with respect to the enterprises, be independent of Treasury with regard to its comments and congressional testimony, and have a director, appointed for a five-year term, who would be given a seat on the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). To ensure that the enterprises' activities remain consistent with the scope of their charter, the agency would be authorized to approve all new enterprise programs, but in close consultation with HUD.

Additionally, the agency would be given broad new authority to hire experienced personnel, a significant portion of whom will be designated specifically to carry out examinations and supervisory activities, to make certain that the agency can fulfill its safety and soundness responsibilities.

Central to that oversight function is ensuring that the enterprises maintain safe and sound capital through vigorous, continuous monitoring. The legislation therefore requires the new agency to ensure that the enterprises remain in continuous compliance with their statutorily prescribed minimum capital holding requirements.

By ensuring that the GSEs maintain adequate capital, we will mitigate the risks to the enterprises, and our financial markets, from unforeseen shocks that can, and do, occasionally occur in our financial markets. To accomplish this, the legislation takes a multi-pronged approach to the issue of risk-based capital.

First, the legislation requires the new agency to continually monitor the risk-based capital held by the enterprises, but it also provides the new agency's director with the flexibility to adjust the risk-based capital level of the enterprises in order to ensure their safe and sound financial operation.

The legislation also authorizes the new agency to conduct a comprehensive review of the enterprises' risk-based capital rule every five years. Part of the review would include a report to Congress entailing what, if any, proposed changes the new agency believes are needed to the risk-based capital rule to better align the capital held by the enterprises with risk, and reflect evolving best practices for risk-based capital standards for large, complex financial institutions. However, on a continual basis the Director would have the authority to adjust elements to the enterprises' stress test other than those specifically prescribed in the risk-based rule.

With regard to the GSE non-mortgage related investments, this legislation affirms the notion that those investments should be of the highest quality and within the scope of the enterprises' respective charters. It does so by requiring the new agency to continuously monitor the appropriateness of the investments in the liquid and non- liquid portfolios of the GSEs and by certifying that the liquidity management practices of the enterprises coinform with recommendations contained in the ``Sound Practices for Managing Liquidity in Banking Organizations'' established by the Basel Committee.

The capital and liquidity management provisions of this legislation are balanced. They ensure that the enterprises maintain appropriate minimum capital and are adequately capitalized relative to their risks. They also empower the new agency to take appropriate action if enterprises become undercapitalized, and promote sound liquidity management practices. At the same time, the bill is not so overly prescriptive that it would undermine the

essential liquidity the enterprises' provide, which has enabled America's housing markets to become the envy of the world.

The third element of this bill that should dramatically improve the GSE's regulatory framework promotes transparency through enhanced disclosures requirements.

This legislation statutorily requires Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks to disclose a variety of information that will provide the public, investors, and Congress with a better understanding of the underlying financial health of our housing enterprises.

First, the legislation requires the GSEs to register their equities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and to comply with SEC disclosure and reporting requirements contained under sections 12 (Registration Requirements for Securities), 14 (Proxy Voting Information) and 16 (Insider Sales) of the 1934 Act.

These disclosures are consistent with the highest standards of corporate governance and disclosure required of other public companies and in my mind there is no reason why the GSEs should not be required to do so as well.

Second, this legislation would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to disclose information regarding their interest rate and credit risks. Specifically, each enterprise would regularly report the impact on their mortgage portfolios of a 50 basis point change in interest rates and a 25 basis point change in the slope of the yield curve. They would also be required to disclose, on a quarterly basis, the financial impact on each enterprise of an immediate 5 percent decline in U.S. home prices.

Additionally, the bill requires the GSEs to acquire credit ratings from an SEC-recognized credit rating agency to provide an assessment of the risk to the government and independent financial health of each enterprise. This ``stand-along'' rating would be derived from the underlying credit quality of each enterprise and assume no direct support from the Federal Government.

These disclosures will ensure that the standards of financial disclosure of the GSEs are in line with the rest of corporate America, making the enterprises subject to public scrutiny and market disciplinary forces.

Finally, the bill takes an incremental approach towards incorporating oversight of the Federal Home Loan Banks into the new regulatory framework created under this bill.

The bill requires Treasury, in consultation with HUD, to issue a report to Congress no later than six months after the date of the bill's enactment on the appropriate manner upon which to consolidate the responsibilities of the Federal Housing Finance Board, and oversight of the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs), into the regulatory framework contained under this bill.

And as I mentioned earlier, the FHLBs would be required to immediately comply with financial disclosure and reporting requirements under the 1934 act in a manner similar to those required of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under this bill.

Lastly, the legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to designate an individual to serve as one of the five Federal Housing Finance Board members. This authority, transferred from HUD, would immediately involve Treasury in the regulatory rubric of the FHFB and ease the transition of the consolidation of the FHFBs regulatory responsibilities into this new agency.

In conclusion, the reforms contained in this proposal are very important. They would establish a new regulatory framework that promotes sound and safe financial operations at the GSEs. They would promote stability in our capital markets by providing investors with better information about the financial health of the enterprises. They would affirm the GSEs' critical role in our nation's housing market. And they would protect investors and taxpayers, while preserving the opportunity of millions of families to pursue the American dream of homeownership.

I urge my colleagues to support this, important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for sponsoring this debate on the future of America's Social Security system. It is one of the most important debates I think we can have as a nation, and I think many on this side of the aisle believe Social Security is the clearest expression of our Nation's values.

The Social Security system, for 70 years, has provided a promise, a commitment between generations, that if you work hard, pay your taxes, and play by the rules, one day you will be able to retire. Actually, no expression of the common good of our Nation has been more broadly accepted nor admired for the results: That the reduction in poverty of America's seniors went from about 50 percent to 8 percent during the existence of Social Security is a testimony to its great success.

It is not a handout; it is not welfare. It is an earned benefit that rewards work. It promotes and rewards what I think all of us would like to see in our society. Senator Durbin and I could not be more privileged to stand in support of this national commitment to America's seniors, disabled, and children who lose a parent.

This universal insurance program provides guaranteed security for all seniors. Let me emphasize the word ``guaranteed.'' Regardless of the state of the economy, rate of inflation, fluctuations in the financial markets, or the length of one's life, security is guaranteed, dignity is guaranteed.

It is hard to underestimate the importance of Social Security for our Nation's elderly. Of the two-thirds of our seniors and the disabled, 50 percent or more of their income comes from Social Security. For 20 percent of seniors in this society, it is their only income. For women and minorities, it is a much higher percentage of their protection as they go forward. Nearly 2 million children receive survivor benefits. For the disabled, it is more than 50 percent of their income. It is the ultimate safety net and one that is earned.

I think it is important for us as Democrats--and we certainly argue this--that Social Security's guarantee of financial security should be at the top of our Nation's priorities, along with educating our kids and protecting national security. ``Social Security first'' is more than a rhetorical phrase; it is a policy that works. That is why we so strongly oppose privatization views on Social Security through so- called personal accounts.

Privatization, in our view, is not about choice. Privatization is about mandatory cuts in guaranteed benefits. That is by the analysis from the President's own commission. All of the Social Security actuarial analyses admit that we will raid the trust funds for up to $2 trillion and will force deep cuts in guaranteed benefits--up to 25 percent for many current workers and, as the years unfold, as much as 45 percent for future enrollees. Those benefit cuts would not be voluntary. They would apply to all retirees--even those who choose not to invest in private accounts. We think that is a major problem, a major flaw in the direction you take.

Seniors simply cannot afford to have benefits cut, particularly those on the low-income side of our society. After all, today's Social Security guaranteed benefits are simply an average of $900 a month, or less than $11,000 a year. In fact, for women, it is $780 a month, or about $9,300 a year. I think that is pretty tough to live on in New Jersey; I don't know in Illinois, or Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire; but $9,300 doesn't cut it. It is very hard to presume that somebody is going to live successfully in their retirement. Many of us look at this and argue about priorities. Some argue that we need deep cuts to make sure Social Security is solvent. But the numbers prove that wrong, in my view.

In the next 75 years, the entire Social Security shortfall, in present value terms, is $3.8 trillion. That is a lot of money. Meanwhile, the Bush tax cuts would cost more than $12 trillion, present value, in the same amount of time. We need to make priority choices. We believe we can fund this, since it ought to be one of the highest priorities in society that would necessarily be on our agenda. We have the resources. It is a matter of will and of whether we want to make sure we have the fiscal discipline to set the priorities to make it happen.

I also want to talk about this rate of return. I am an old grizzled 30-year veteran of the financial markets, and I can tell you they go up, down, and move sideways for years on end. It is an uncertainty and a risk that you build into markets if you put it into these personal accounts.

We believe in that three-legged stool. We are not against private investing. We are not against personal savings. We encourage 401(k)s and IRAs, but I think it is a mistake to put at risk the guaranteed benefits for those 20 or 50 percent who are so dependent on Social Security.

There are a number of other problems I could find with private accounts. As to management fees, I assure my colleagues, the smaller the account, the higher the fees. They accumulate. We have had a number of problems with them in Great Britain and other countries. There are serious issues that need to be addressed before one even thinks about it.

I hope we do not lose track of that compact, of that commitment we have, that promise to make sure that if one plays by the rules, they pay their taxes and work hard, they will have a dignified retirement benefit. That is how the world has changed post the creation of Social Security, and we believe strongly that we ought to implement a plan that guarantees benefits.

I appreciate the comments of the Senator from New Hampshire about guarantees. The idea of making certain that those payments, that $900 average that we are talking about, is available is going to take some of those kinds of choices that the Senator outlined, as did the Senator from Pennsylvania. We have to make some tough choices.

We made a very tough choice when we said we are going to cut taxes, the present value of taxes, $12.1 billion, which put us into deficit financing of $550 to $600 billion in the upcoming fiscal year, when the Social Security shortfall in this country, on a present value basis as opposed to accumulating all those totals over 75 years, is $3.8 trillion--three times the coverage of the estate tax. Even if you reformed it up to a $4 million or $5 million exemption, it would fill about one-quarter of that hole. The dividend exclusion, the cut in capital gains, would take it up a little over half.

There are other options than just sitting here and suggesting that there are no ways to fund this Social Security gap. That was why it was so important to emphasize ``Save Social Security First'' when we were running surpluses. We wanted to build up that Social Security trust fund so there would be income from it, but also have the ability to meet those needs as we go forward.

I think it is absolutely essential that we focus on guaranteed benefits because we are looking at the core, the fundamental cornerstone of what retirement savings is for a vast number of Americans. Fifty percent plus depend mostly on Social Security.

So having that at the risk of the whims of the market is a whole different kettle of fish than having what a guaranteed benefit is about. That is why we emphasize it.

Thank you, Mr. President. Let me say on the constitutional question, the Court rules. But if there is a law that has to be changed, it has to come before this body. The political risk is no higher, in my view, than the market risk, being one who has lived with market risk for a fairly substantial period of my life and understanding that those risks are real and tangible. We have very real and tangible examples of that in the world today.

Look at the underfunded pension liabilities that are managed for some of those teachers and other people who have been talked about.

I think we are talking about two relationships. And I think when you are talking about--which gets to my question: Is $900 a month too much to promise our seniors? Is a guaranteed benefit of $900--and then adjusted for wage indexes so it is a standard of living and replacement wage--is that really too much? I ask the Senators.

If the Senator from Pennsylvania will wait, I will ask that question.

The question we have to get to when we are talking about an intellectually honest debate about Social Security and whether people have a plan--you can ask whether one wants to talk about capital gains, tax dividend exclusion, inheritance tax, as I suggested, as a means to fill some of this gap. Others may have other choices. It happens to be this Senator's choice with regard to these particular issues, but there are other ways to do it.

There is no answer that I am hearing from my Republican colleagues about where you get the $2 trillion that is going to finance these transitions to private accounts--there is none; I have yet to hear it-- without entering into the general funds at a time when we already have denigrated our fiscal posture in this country to an extraordinary degree, switching from $250 billion surpluses.

I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are a little resistant to talking about avoiding making permanent some of the Bush tax cuts, but I wonder if there is any proposal at all, among the tax cuts that the President has laid down and we as a Congress have supported, that one would feel were appropriate to help finance this incredible deficit that I think we all agree is so important, whether it is to fill that $2 trillion gap that you admit is there and will have to default. Is it looking at people who make more than $1 million? Is that worth trading off financing adequately the Social Security system? Is there no tax cut that has come through that would not be justified relative to the cost of having it?

The Senator from New Hampshire makes the assertion that the Social Security actuaries have said that these plans--at least the President's commission's plans--will resolve the problem related to solvency. I, for the life of me, do not read those actuarial reports with that conclusion. In fact, the reason we are talking about the $2 trillion that seems to be missing--the magic asterisk--is that that, in fact, is talked about in these actuarial reports as a basis for cutting guaranteed benefits--25 percent for near termers, 45 percent for people out in that 50-year timeframe.

There is a missing hole. It is not enough just to assert that this is actuarially sound when that is not, in fact, what the reports say, at least as I read them. And I do not understand how we are going to get through those transition costs, which are repeated by almost any objective analyst I have heard talking about moving to privatized accounts.

That is why we so strongly stand and speak to guaranteed benefits because that is what the program is about. Yes, it has the political risk, but, as I think the Senator from New Hampshire knows, markets have a risk. They have real risk.

The Senator talked about a 20-year timeframe. I think if one looked from 1929 to 1949, you would find a 20-year period where returns were at best flat, if not diminished. So it is a very tough analysis to show that any individual retiring at any given point in time is going to be secure because the markets have produced a 7-percent return, which, if you look at 100 years or 50 years, may very well be the actuarial result. But you don't eat actuarial results; you eat benefits.

Mr. President, we could get into a debate about whether making tax cuts that have not occurred yet permanent is a tax hike. I think that is not what we are talking about tonight.

Are there ways this can be financed? At least this Senator made some specific suggestions about where one could look for funding that would cover this gap, and I think there are a number of ways of looking at it. They require tough choices. Is providing $900 monthly income to seniors more important than eliminating the estate tax, providing a dividend exclusion to a very narrow sector of our society, or is it better to provide $900, $11,000 a year on average, to the American people, providing also for 2 million kids who lost their parents, dealing with the disabled in this country? It is hard for me to understand these tradeoffs, but at least I believe that that is an argument the American people would find winning.

I also believe Social Security has been a promise to the American people--again, that if you live by the rules, you pay your taxes, if you show up and work, if you are committed to a lifetime of work, you will have a dignified retirement. And putting this into the risk of a marketplace--a world that, both fortunately and unfortunately, from time to time I have lived in--can lead to results for individuals that are much different than what the expectations or whatever actuarial numbers are projected by people who are bureaucrats thinking about what returns will average out over some long period of time. Because people live in the here and now, in a 20-year timeframe or 40-year. They work and they retire at a certain point in time. And if the market is not performing at that point in time, when that account they own comes up, they don't have those guaranteed benefits.

By the way, this is a zero sum game. When you take out that $2 trillion, it requires that somebody else give, not only the people who are choosing to leave the system but those people who choose to stay in the system.

We should protect Social Security and oppose privatization.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Identity Theft Notification and Credit Restoration Act, to help prevent Americans from being victimized by the growing problem of identity theft. The bill would require financial institutions to notify consumers, credit reporting agencies and law enforcement entities when their security information systems have been breached in a manner that compromises the protection of their customers' personal financial information. By increasing awareness of identity theft and empowering consumers, early on, about potential threats, the legislation can help close the window of opportunity that criminals now exploit to abuse, and wreak financial devastation, on unsuspecting individuals.

There is no doubt that we should be doing all we can to reduce the threat of identity theft to consumers, and the harm it brings to our economy. Today, identity theft is the single most frequent consumer- related crime in the United States and it is growing at an alarming rate.

According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), reported instances of identity theft rose 88 percent in 2002, to 380,000 from 220,000 in 2001. And that does not even come close to reflecting the bigger threat posed by identity theft. A recent FTC survey suggests that the actual number of identity theft occurrences probably was in the ten million range--and that was last year alone. Over the past five years, over one in ten Americans has been a victim of identity theft. And I do not know anyone who does not have a close friend or family member who has been a victim of identity theft. It truly can happen to anyone, anywhere, at any time.

The cost of this crime also is astounding. In situations in which offenders use stolen information to open new credit accounts, identity thieves abuse victims' credit to purchase an average of more than $10,000 in goods and services. And those costs grow as identity thieves become savvier and

more brazen. From a macro-economic perspective, the damage is equally astounding. Last year, consumers spent an estimated five billion dollars in out-of-pocket expenses to cover losses attributed to identity theft.

This data underscores the magnitude of the growing problem. But it is one that can be mitigated, when detected early on. The FTC has reported that early discovery, and disclosure, of identity theft directly reduces the time and money victims must invest to undo the damage wreaked upon them. When identity theft is uncovered in less than 6 months, most consumers do not incur any costs. But, when this fraud is unnoticed for more than 6 months, an astounding 60 percent of victims must make payments out of their own pocket to cover the costs--and those numbers are often in the thousands of dollars.

Consumers' experiences and the FTC's data demonstrate that awareness and notification are critical to reducing the harm that identity theft inflicts upon consumers. My bill, the Identity Theft Notification and Credit Restoration Act is based on three key principles--disclosure, prevention and credit restoration.

First, the bill would require financial institutions to promptly disclose to affected customers, credit reporting agencies, and law enforcement when their information systems, either computerized or paper records, have been breached in a manner that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of the ``personal financial information'' of that institution's customers.

Second, the bill requires credit reporting agencies, upon notification of the breach, to place ``fraud alerts'' in the credit files of the affected individuals. This red flag will alert issuers of credit to undertake enhanced preauthorization procedures prior to issuing credit in the name of an individual who has this alert on their credit file, an important step that should prevent the fraudulent issuance of credit in the name of an identity theft victim.

Finally, the bill provides victims of identity theft with access to four credit reports the year following the theft of their identity, to ensure that inaccurate and credit damaging information resulting from the identity theft does not end up on their credit file.

The bill also improves the ability of all consumers to monitor the content, and accuracy, of the information contained in their individual credit file by providing them with access to one free credit report, and their credit score, per year.

Congress has taken important steps towards minimizing the threat of identity theft. The most important was recognizing the problem and making identity theft a Federal crime in 1998. Since then, other steps have been taken. Industry groups are proactively combating identity theft--by using cutting-edge data encryption and truncating credit card numbers. And later this week, the Senate Banking Committee will mark up reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which will include an entire section dedicated to identity theft protection.

But we can do more, and we must do more.

Empowering consumers and increasing awareness of identity theft will minimize the risk, and impact, of this particularly harmful crime. This bill does just that. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the Identity Theft Notification and Credit Restoration Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, thank you. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I come to the floor and stand with my good friend, Senator Boxer, and the women across America to express my support for the landmark Roe v. Wade decision and the importance of protecting a woman's fundamental right to choose. I think that really is what the issue is about--not the parliamentary procedures we are talking about. Earlier this year, we marked the 30th anniversary of this critical decision which clearly established a woman's fundamental right to reproductive choice. I strongly support that right. The decision about this difficult choice for an individual should be made by the woman, her doctor, and her moral counsel and, in my view, not by politicians and not by Government. Simply put, I trust the women of America to make their own health and moral decisions without the intrusion of Government. I think that is what Roe v. Wade indicates.

Having said that, I recognize women and men of good faith can and will reach different conclusions about this difficult moral question involved in the debate. But Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. I am very troubled by this administration's--and frankly Congress's-- attempts to undermine that basic right by that decision. Whether it is through the so-called partial-birth abortion bill, reduced access to family planning, efforts in redefining the legal status of fetuses, or far-right traditional nominations, this administration and this Congress are constantly knowingly chipping away at women's fundamental freedoms.

That is why I was pleased when, in the context of the so-called partial-birth bill, the Senate adopted the Harkin resolution expressing support for Roe v. Wade, which is what the debate is about today.

First, let me make clear I oppose the underlying bill, and I still do. I believe the bill is unconstitutional, and it doesn't take into account the health of the woman that the Supreme Court requires. Its practical effect would be to deny women access to some of the safest procedures at all stages. That said, with the Harkin amendment included, I was at least partially satisfied that the Senate has reaffirmed the importance of Roe v. Wade.

Again, the reason we are having this debate is to make sure our conferees are embracing something we supported here in an open vote on the floor of the Senate. All of us know the House has stripped away the resolution affirming Roe, laying bare, in my view, the true purpose of the underlying legislation--to undermine Roe and ultimately roll back women's rights.

When Roe v. Wade was decided in January of 1973, abortion, except to save a woman's life, was banned in two-thirds of the States, including my home State of New Jersey. Roe rendered these laws unconstitutional, making abortion services safer and more accessible to women throughout the country--not just to a select few--and certainly on a safe basis. Many of these statutes are still on the books waiting for an anti- choice majority in the Supreme Court to overrule Roe.

I hope my colleagues will think long and hard about the implications of forsaking Roe. We need to be very careful to avoid returning to a period in which abortion was illegal and when the only choice women had was to seek illegal and unsafe abortions--particularly when economic position determined who had a safe choice. In those days, thousands of women died each year as a direct result of the abortion ban. In

fact, 17 percent of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth were the result of illegal abortions. It would be tragic if we return to those days and forget the lessons of history.

The Supreme Court itself in 1992 noted that in addition to improving women's health, Roe has enabled women to control their reproductive lives, and thus ``participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.'' Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe, called his decision ``a step that had to be taken as we go down the road towards a full emancipation of women.'' That is a pretty straightforward sentence that I think most Americans believe in.

If we are really interested in reducing the number of abortions in this country, we should ensure that women have access to the full array of family planning services, including prescription, contraception, emergency contraception, and prenatal care. We should also support expansion of comprehensive sex education. That is the way to deal with this problem as opposed to putting it into the dark alleys and off of the front pages.

Every week 8,500 children in our country are born to mothers who lack access to prenatal care. Too many of these children are born with serious health problems because their mothers lacked adequate care during their pregnancy. As a result, 28,000 infants die each year in the United States. That is the real tragedy. We ought to act immediately to address this issue by expanding access to prenatal care, as several of my colleagues and I have proposed, to start helping them stay healthy. What we should not do, however, is pass legislation we know is unconstitutional and which would ban a common and safe form of abortion at all stages of pregnancy, and which would increase maternal mortality--all without improving the health of a single child.

We also should not forget Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, despite this administration's seizing opportunity after opportunity to undermine it. Unfortunately, though, Roe hangs by a thread, and the retirement of one Supreme Court Justice could mean a change and the demise of Roe v. Wade.

That is why it is absolutely essential for this Senate to affirm the importance--and indeed the very validity--of Roe v. Wade. That is why it is important for the Senate to oppose the House stripping of the Harkin resolution, which is what we are debating.

It is time for us to make sure we stand firm on what we believe in so strongly. I think there is a lot we can do to prevent unintended pregnancies. That is where we ought to be putting our efforts--not undermining Roe v. Wade.

I yield the floor.

Certainly.

There clearly is. The Senator from California recognized that. First, there are positive steps that can truly lift up and help children across the country, across the world, frankly, including more thoughtful planning processes. But more importantly, we are taking a decision away from individuals, which is the most private, the most moral, the most important decisions they can take, and saying we know best. I have a very hard time understanding how that fits with other philosophies that I hear at times expressed.

I know this is a difficult decision for every individual. They have to struggle with that in their own lives. There is no way, in my view, that we should be moving to have Government make that decision when, in fact, the individual, doctor, and people's moral counsel are the places where that decision lies.

I appreciate the Senator from California and her effort to make sure such an important and potentially divisive issue in our society, which has been decided by the courts, constitutionally decided by the Court, continues to be reaffirmed by all involved in elective public office.

The Senator from California is elegantly stating the case. I certainly have a strong sense that the people of New Jersey believe, the women of New Jersey believe, what the people across the country in the poll numbers that have been suggesting believe: Most Americans thought this issue was resolved once and for all by a very clear decision, tough decision of the Supreme Court, and should stand.

What we are doing by including the Harkin resolution--which is, as the Senator said, very elegant, simple, very straightforward, not the rule of law, the force of law--is very clearly underline something that has been decided by the American people and continues to be supported by the American people. It is important we have this language in the underlying bill which, by the way, as I suggested, I didn't vote for to start with. But I do believe it was made better by this resolution. I implore the Senator from California to continue to speak out with the kind of

elegance and care which gets at one of the most difficult and painful choices and issues we have to deal with in our society.

Since we have resolved this, we should live with it and go forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of the victims of the Katyn Forest Massacre in 1940. Katyn Forest is a quiet wooded area near the Gneizdovo village, a short distance from Smolensk in Russia. It was at this site, on Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's orders, that the Soviet NKVD shot and buried more than 4,000 Polish service personnel that had been taken prisoner when the Soviet Union invaded Poland in September 1939. Most of these victims were Polish army reservists--lawyers, doctors, scientists and businessmen, Poland's elite and intelligentsia--who were called up to active service following the Nazi invasion of Poland.

On September 17, 1939, under the terms of a secret Moscow-Berlin treaty, forces of the Soviet Union invaded Poland through its eastern border. Polish troops, overwhelmed by the German invasion on its western border, surrendered to the Red Army on the pretense they would be protected. More than 15,000 Polish soldiers and civilians were sent to prison camps at Kozielsk, Starobielska and Ostashkov in the Soviet Union.

In an effort to eliminate potential threats to Soviet control of Poland and what Stalin described as counter-revolutionary espionage and resistance organizations, Soviet troops, carried out what many have called one of the most heinous war crimes in history. Prisoners in all three Soviet Camps were executed and buried in mass graves. One of these graves was discovered in Katyn Forest, where between four and five thousand Polish bodies were found. There were no trials; there was no justice for these innocent victims.

Although the Soviet Government originally denied their role in this unspeakable atrocity, on February 19, 1989 Soviet scholars released documents that revealed that Stalin had indeed ordered the mass execution. The following year Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev apologized to the Polish people for the killings. While this admission of guilt provided some closure, it certainly does not erase the

pain and suffering felt by a nation whose entire population was affected by this horrific event. Sixty-three years later, the name Katyn still stirs passions in Poland.

Today, I honor the victims of the Katyn Forest Massacre and commend them for their courage and their sacrifice. For on that fateful day, more than six decades ago, these valiant men paid the ultimate price to secure their country's freedom.

It is my sincere hope that as more people learn about the carnage that occurred at Katyn Forest and the surrounding sites, we will be able to come to terms with this tragedy and help heal the wounds that the great nation of Poland and its citizens still suffer. When we honor the memories of those brave souls who were lost on that tragic day, we will prevent future generations from repeating the same horrors which occurred in our past.

Mr. President, my amendment is pretty simple. It restores cuts to student aid by prohibiting the use of funds for implementation of new regulations put out by the Department of Education reducing the amount of Federal student aid that individuals will receive. This is Federal aid, for Pell grants and subsidized loans.

The Department of Education estimates these reductions in State and local tax allowances in computing the expected family contribution formula will eliminate Pell grants for 84,000 students across the country; 49 out of the 50 States are impacted. It will cost $270 million in Pell grants. The ripple effect, using the same formula throughout all State grants and private grants, could reach into the billions of dollars. And I think all of you know, across the country colleges are raising their tuitions. State and local taxes are going up.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this fully offset amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to make a few additional comments beyond what I said last night about my student aid amendment, No. 1602. In particular, I want to describe my intent as to how the amendment would work.

The amendment says that the Department of Education cannot use any funds to implement the May 30, 2003 updates to the State and local tax allowances, to the extent that they would reduce aid for any student.

In effect, what the amendment means is that the Department must republish its State and local tax allowance tables, and use the prior allowances in all cases in which the prior allowances were higher, which is the case for the vast majority of States and types of students. There were a few cases where the Department got it right. That is, they increased the State and local tax allowances for independent students in a handful of States. And I don't want the amendment to hurt those students.

That is why the amendment qualifies the prohibition on implementation or enforcement of the May 30 updates by adding that the prohibition applies ``to the extent that such implementation or enforcement of the updates will reduce the amount of Federal student financial assistance for which a student is eligible.''

I want to clarify that it is the Department's responsibility to make sure this qualifier works by publishing new tables as I just described. It is not intended that college aid administrators would have to figure out which students would be hurt by the May 30 updates on a student-by- student, case-by-case basis at the college level. That would be an unnecessary, unwieldy and burdensome approach, and is not my intent.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution to recognize the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci, an Italian- American inventor who had both an extraordinary and a tragic career. Mr. Meucci made a great contribution as a pioneer in the

development of the telephone, and his legacy deserves recognition.

Born in 1808 in Florence, Italy, Antonio Meucci showed academic promise from an early age. After being educated at the Academy of Fine Arts, he rose to the position of assistant to the chief engineer for a leading Florentine theater. In 1835, he was recruited by a famous entrepreneur to work as chief engineer for a new theater in Havana, Cuba. There he began work on many of his inventions, including those relating to telephonic communication.

Meucci left Havana for the United States in 1850 in search of a better environment to develop his ideas relating to the telephone. In 1854, after his wife had fallen ill, Mr. Meucci set up a rudimentary communication link known as a ``speaking telegraph'' that connected her bedroom to his basement laboratory and the rest of his home.

Mr. Meucci spent the next several years trying to advance his idea, and his efforts culminated in December 1871, when he hired an attorney to secure a patent caveat, a 1-year renewable notice of an impending patent, which reflected the promise of his work on the telephone. Although Mr. Meucci retained the caveat for 3 years, he was unable to produce the necessary $10 renewal fee after 1874.

Unfortunately, Mr. Meucci died before he was able to complete his efforts. However, his work has not gone completely unnoticed. On the 100th anniversary of the telephone, both the Smithsonian Institution and the International Telecommunication Union honored Mr. Meucci as among the most important pioneers of the telephone.

Given his important contributions, I hope my colleagues will join in honoring both the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Clinton, 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, my amendment is simple. It would block the Department of Education from implementing recent changes in student aid eligibility that will reduce financial aid to college students by billions of dollars starting in the fall of 2004. Let me repeat that-- billions of dollars.

These changes come at a time when tuition is rising dramatically, double digits in many of our State schools across the country; just 9 percent in the State of New Jersey. Students and working families are straining to provide the financial wherewithal to access America's promise of access to higher education.

This challenge to working Americans has been vividly documented in a feature article in U.S. News & World Report September 8, entitled ``Beyond Their Reach.''

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

It goes through tuition hikes. It goes through how Federal funding for grants and loans has not kept pace with the rise in tuition. It talks about students having to work many additional hours to be able to meet the financial stress. It is a very complete review of what the burden on working families is with regard to paying for higher education and having access to the American promise that provides.

I put that into the Record because it sets the framework for what I am talking about with regard to these regulations on financial aid.

I will explain these cuts in student aid which I feel are inappropriate for the times, but I think I can show they are totally unfair within the context of what is happening in the real world. This is a case where people in the Department of Education are operating off of information that is dated and is not applicable to the current circumstances.

I will take a few minutes to explain the situation, which is not immediately obvious, but it is very clear it undermines access to higher education in a very substantial way. On May 30 of this year, the Department of Education changed the formula for determining eligibility for Pell grants and other types of Federal financial aid. The formula is complex. It looks a lot like a tax return. I guess people have to go to H&R Block to figure it out, but it is very clear what this does. A family starts with their gross income and through a series of calculations subtracts from that their income to calculate what is called the expected family contribution. They start with gross income and subtract away a number of items to get to expected family contribution.

As the name implies, this is the amount a family is expected to contribute toward the college education of their child in any given year, at least for those families above $15,000 in gross income--hard- working, middle-class families. Expected family contribution then is subtracted from the cost of education for that year to determine a student's need for the purpose of Federal aid, such as Pell grants. The expected family contribution is also used by many State and private institutions. This is important to understand. This doesn't just apply to Pell grants; it applies to private institutions as well, all kids who are going to school, not in every instance but in most instances. It impacts their ability to get financial aid and basic allocation of financial assistance for both loans and grants across the country.

In other words, changes in a student's expected family contribution has direct impact on that student's eligibility for all kinds of financial aid. As a student's expected family contribution goes up, their eligibility for financial aid goes down.

As I noted earlier, the way the student's expected family contribution is calculated is similar to the way Federal taxes are calculated. One of those similarities is the fact that you get credit for State and local taxes that you pay. For income tax purposes we call it a deduction, and it reduces the amount of your taxable income. In the financial aid world it is called an allowance, but it works in a similar way. A student's family gets an allowance for paying State and local taxes. This allowance then reduces the amount of their student's expected family contribution. So, as the State and local tax goes up, the student's expected family contribution goes down. The eligibility for financial aid goes up. If the allowance goes down, the opposite happens: A student's family gets less credit for paying State and local taxes and the student is eligible for a smaller amount of financial aid. This gets at the heart of the problem, this issue I am trying to address tonight.

The allowance for State and local taxes is not determined for families based on what they pay; it is not individualized; it is determined by the Department of Education, and through publication in the Federal Register they establish those for each and every State.

Each year, the Department of Education publishes a table, and the percentage of income that family can deduct from their income as an allowance for paying State and local taxes is established. Until this year, the Department of Education had not changed these allowances in 10 years. Let me repeat: They had not changed these allowances in 10 years. Somehow or another they decided to do it this year but had not done it in 10 years, while State and local taxes are moving up and down in different amounts in all different environments. On May 30 they decided to slash the allowances across the board.

I will just show you this chart, show what actually is taking place in many States. I would like to show, for instance in South Carolina, they would

argue taxes fell from 7 percent to 3 percent, so they reduced the allowance by 57 percent.

If I am reading this correctly, the Presiding Officer, who lives in Missouri--they have gone from 5 percent to 3 percent and they reduced the allowance for Missouri citizens 40 percent, the deduction to change the eligibility for families to access financial aid.

You can go through this chart for every State. Local tax allowances were cut in every State but one, Connecticut. Some of those allowances were 100 percent, 50 percent, 80 percent. New Jersey is one of the lucky ones; it was only 14 percent.

I see the Senator from Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's cut was, if I am reading it correctly, 50 percent.

It is important that people understand that, again, this is determining financial eligibility of families on a very wide basis. We can talk about each of the States and how much is being cut. Almost every State except, as I suggested, Connecticut has reduced the allowances we have here.

The bottom line is students and their families all across America will get less on allowance for State and local taxes next year for purposes of applying for Federal financial aid. I repeat, it also applies for many private institutions and private aid beyond that.

As a result, the expected family contribution, what families are expected to contribute, will go up for nearly all American families and students. While the financial aid impact will vary from family to family, it is clear that an increase will reduce aid for many students.

I am having a hard time understanding, as I read the newspapers and I hear that State income taxes and local income taxes are going up, why we have decided to implement this today.

This is a very hard thing to calculate for a lot of different issues, but one of the places the Department of Education has worked with CRS is with regard to local allowances as they apply to Pell grants. They have acknowledged that there will be 84,000 students across America who will lose their Pell grants entirely. Not everybody is going to lose them. Some are going to lose just a portion of their eligibility. I will go through an example later.

We know that for those 84,000, that is a $270 million drop in the amount of financial aid being provided for students in grants across the country. The fact is, if you sum it up for those who are partially participating and all the others, we are talking about billions of dollars. I emphasize, it is not just Pell grants.

Listen to the assessment of Bryan Fitzgerald, the Director of the Advisory Committee for Student Financial Assistance, created by Congress to advise it on higher education. Mr. Fitzgerald was quoted in the New York Times on July 18. Asked about whether damage from the Department's action would just affect the Pell Grant Program, Mr. Fitzgerald said:

It doesn't stop there. It will have a ripple effect through

all the other financial aid programs--State grants, loans and

institutional dollars. The cumulative effect will be much

larger.

Bryan Zucker, president of the Human Resources Capital, in the same New York Times article stated:

[I]n aggregate, there's no question that we're talking

about a swing of billions of dollars [in financial aid.]

I think it is important that we have laid out these facts, that tinkering around with the formula is going to end up undermining the ability of literally hundreds of thousands of middle-class Americans to have access to financial aid grants and loans. It is going to make something that is already very difficult even more troubling, to have access to higher education.

I think it is very difficult to understand why we are doing it.

Let's put this in the context of what is going on in our States. The Department of Education is reducing the allowance families get for paying State and local taxes. But I think everyone in this Chamber knows State and local taxes are not going down; they are going up. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, States raised taxes by more than $8 billion in fiscal year 2003 and already plan to enact additional tax increases of over $17 billion for 2004.

It is likely through the 2003 and 2004 period that we will see State taxes go up by $25 billion, compared to what the Department is using, where they are saying they are going down. That is before we take into consideration what is happening at the local level, local taxation in many places.

I want to use one example. Students and families in Pennsylvania, for example, will have their State and local tax allowance cut from 6 percent to 3 percent. For purposes of this calculation, Pennsylvania families will get 50 percent less credit next year than they did this year. But in fact the senior Senator knows, State taxes are going up in Pennsylvania. In fiscal year 2003 they were raised by $569 million, and in 2004 Pennsylvania is planning more increases. I don't think that is fair to Pennsylvania any more than I think it would be fair in New Jersey. In fact, we have many of the same situations.

I think you can go State by State and look at it, look at this possibility. I will not go through each State but I think you can calculate it for every State but Connecticut and you will see there is a loss. State taxes are going up. Local taxes are going up. The only people who do not realize it seem to be the Department of Education.

I want working families to have an opportunity at this American dream. I think this needs to be done.

I also would cite this article about which I spoke. There is a specific case of a lady named Lynn Caputo of Massachusetts, one of hundreds of thousands of students going through this process about which I spoke.

I am not going to read this article. We have a quote here that shows how deeply flawed this is when you apply it to an individual. Ms. Caputo lost a father. By these calculations, she will lose over $1,000 in financial aid next year. Just at the time when her personal situation is changing, taxes are going up in Massachusetts. By these standards of how we deal with expected family contributions, she is doing better than she would have been doing before. It is very hard to understand how that fairness fits with the reality of the world in which we live.

Eighty-four thousand students are losing Pell grant loans, and 270 million of them broadens it out to billions of dollars when you take into account all of the other higher education needs.

I think we need to do something about this. We can do that without impinging on our budget formulation. That is what my amendment would do. It says the Department of Education cannot use any funds to implement new State and local tax allowances to the extent that they would reduce aid for any student.

By the way, there are some technical things about one class of students here or there. But the vast majority are losing.

I should note that the amendment is fully offset by provisions to delay the obligation of $200 million in NIH funds until September 30, 2004. As a practical matter, this should have no real impact on their operations or change their needs. We are talking about a serious impact on a broad swath of middle-class Americans having access to financial aid.

This isn't partisan. There are Republican States and Democrat States. This is just bureaucracy not keeping up with the times.

Let me repeat that they haven't changed these formulas in 10 years. They somehow or other woke up on May 30 and thought we needed to change these formulas. They have not done it for 10 years. Now they are reducing that allowance for taxes at just the time taxes are going up. I don't get it. We are trying to do this in a fiscally sound way by getting an offset. I think we can make a big difference in a very substantial way for a lot of folks. It will not cut Pell grants in any way. I think it will make a big difference in providing access to higher education for kids who are really stretched.

I hope the Senate will consider this tomorrow. It really is something that I think goes to the heart of everyone in this Chamber. We are not talking about costing money. We are talking about costing working families in America money.

Exhibit 1

[From the U.S. News and World Report, Sept. 8, 2003]

Beyond Their Reach

(By Rachel Hartigan Shea)

In July, administrators of tiny Unity College in Maine

tagged 100 fish with vouchers totaling $165,000 in

scholarships and other goodies and dumped the finned

financial aid into a nearby lake. Nearly 100 students and

parents pushed off from shore in canoes, kayaks, and

rowboats, all hoping to snag the big one: a fish carrying the

$56,800 that would cover four years tuition at the private

collage, known for its outdoorsy majors such as aquaculture

and forestry.

It was a good day to be a smallmouth bass. After seven

hours, all but one of the students participating in Unity's

first annual ``Fishing for Scholarships'' paddled back empty-

handed. Mike Bradford, a sophomore from Bear, Del., reeled in

a $50 tuition coupon and a free sea-kayaking trip donated by

a local merchant. Nice, but it hardly covered those hefty

college bills.

A lot of families these days feel as if they're facing

college costs without enough funds on the line. Salaries are

flat, jobs are scarce, investments haven't fully recovered

and savings are tapped out. Financial aid can't seem to keep

pace with financial need, and now the Department of Education

has tinkered with the financial aid formula to some families'

detriment [story, Page 54]. Tuition, particularly at state

schools, continues to rise. Families aren't alone in their

anxiety: Colleges, too, wonder how they will pay the bills,

with endowments down 6 percent last year, the biggest drop

since 1974, and 25 states cutting higher education

appropriations by as much as 14 percent. Many schools have

had to cut classes and sports teams, freeze salaries, and lay

off employees to deal with the budget shortfalls.

Yes, it looks like a crisis. But before you despair, listen

to this: It's still possible to get help paying for college.

There's more financial aid money available today than ever

before, and more students are getting a piece of it. But the

piece is smaller, and it might be in the form of an IOU. It

all adds up to a substantial shift in who ends up footing a

big chunk of the bill for college: you. ``Students and their

families are paying more of the share than they did a decade

ago,'' says Donald Heller, senior research associate at the

Center for the Study of Higher Education at Penn State.

Financial aid was originally designed, of course, to make

college affordable for everyone. In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson

signed the Higher Education Act which gave colleges

government grants to distribute to needy students and

established a loan program for the middle class. Seven years

later came the debut of the Pell grant, the primary funding

mechanism for low-income students. In its early years, the

Pell--with a maximum award of $452 based on family income--

covered as much as 84 percent of college costs. But while

federal spending on Pell grants has gone up 8 percent since

1991, tuition and fees have increased by 38 percent. The

Pell's current maximum of $4,050 covers roughly 39 percent of

the average cost of tuition and room and board. And with the

White House and Congress eager to limit spending, it's

unlikely that the Pell will be raised this year.

Gap math. Because of the high cost of grants, the federal

government in the late 1970s began turning to loans to fill

the gap between federal grants and family need. Two thirds of

federal aid now comes in the form of loans. Subsidized

Stafford loans allow students with demonstrated need to

borrow up to $2,625 their first year ($6,625 for independent

students) and more in subsequent years, up to a maximum of

$22,265. The government pays the interest--currently 3.42

percent--until the student has been out of school for six

months. Students not deemed needy can take out unsubsidized

Stafford loans; parents can turn to Parent Loans for

Undergraduate Students. Both also boast low rates.

It sounds like a pretty good deal. But more loans means

more students (who are today outborrowing their parents) are

paying the bulk of their college costs. ``The student aid

system was based on the parental responsibility to pay for

college,'' says Brian Fitzgerald, staff director of the

Department of Education's Advisory Committee on Student

Financial Assistance. ``Loans mean it's the actual student

who is bearing the burden.'' Nationwide, student debt is up

66 percent since 1997.

Take Erin Brindell, a 21-year-old from St. Louis. In April,

her father, an accountant, took early retirement rather than

risk losing his job. Her mother, a teacher who's been

fighting cancer, also retired. With Brindell's family income

down almost 60 percent from last year, and two other siblings

in college (another four have already graduated), the senior

asked her school, a private university in Missouri, for more

aid. The college said it was out of money and pointed her to

a state loan agency. She borrowed $9,700, bringing the grand

total of her debt upon graduation next spring to $60,000.

Brindell, who is majoring in secondary education, will end up

paying for what her family could not, which promises to be a

struggle on a teacher's salary.

Deep debt. This fall, Congress will consider raising the

Stafford loan cap during the reauthorization of the Higher

Education Act. The combination of low interest rates and a

higher limit, some education experts argue, will help more

students pay for college without resorting to private loans,

which generally have higher interest rates and require

quicker repayment. But critics respond that the debt load is

already too high and looms darkly over students' futures,

forcing them to consider majors--and careers--based on

potential earnings rather than academic inclination. Some

experts suspect a higher loan limit would not translate into

more aid: Institutions will just reduce grant aid by the

extra amount students can borrow.

At the same time that federal policy is influencing the

growth of loans at the expense of grants, states are driving

up public university prices and accelerating the cost shift

to students. State support for universities has been steadily

declining over the past two decades. Legislators see that

colleges have sources of funds like tuition and private

donations that other pressing budgetary needs like primary

education and healthcare do not. And the recent fiscal

crises have just exacerbated the decline. This year was

the third in a row of drastic cuts to university funding

nationwide. The Maryland university system lost 14 percent

of its budget, while California lost $700 million of the

$9 billion it usually spends on higher education. Experts

predict an additional 2.3 percent decline next year. And

remember this all comes at a time when many states expect

higher enrollments. Nevada, for example, is bracing for a

33 percent boom in high school graduates by 2007.

So what can the state systems do? Mostly, raise tuition.

The tab at the University of Virginia and the University of

California shot up 30 percent this year; the University of

Arizona's, nearly 40 percent. And many of the increases are

on top of previous tuition spikes; 16 states raised tuition

by more than 10 percent last year. Of course, state

universities are still a bargain for in-state students,

almost 70 percent of whom pay less than $8,000 per year. But

low-income students can't afford even small jumps in their

share of college costs. For the poorest families, the cost of

attendance at a public university is more than half their

income. And according to a study last year by the Department

of Education's Advisory Committee, there is a $3,800 gap

between what families in the lower income brackets need to

attend public universities and the financial aid they

receive.

Some states, like Arizona, have tried to shield the

neediest students. ``We ran the numbers to see how we can

increase tuition and set aside enough to hold the most needy

harmless,'' says Jack Jewett, former president of the state's

board of regents, who notes that 14 percent of all tuition

revenue will be funneled into financial aid.

But many states are coming up short. Indiana managed to

boost spending but not enough to cover higher tuition, so it

will now have to limit the amount of the awards. And

Minnesota couldn't give out any grants to new college

students last spring, despite an extra $8 million in the

budget, because current students had already consumed the

available money. ``I think that policymakers are siding with

aid programs more than institutions in terms of cuts,'' says

Kristin Conklin, a senior policy analyst with the National

Governors Association, ``but that relative protection is not

translating into more buying power for students.''

Individual universities are exhausting their financial aid

dollars as well. Take Penn State: While it raised tuition 9.8

percent to about $9,500 for incoming freshmen, it has lost

$45 million in state funding over the past two years.

``Something would have to be traded off, like competitive

wages for faculty or forgoing already delayed maintenance on

buildings,'' says Anna Griswold, an assistant vice provost.

But there may be another significant reason why there's not

enough money to go around. Some critics say that too much is

being spent on merit aid. Over the past decade, state grants

have gone up 447 percent, but much of that is not need-based.

Since 1993, the Georgia HOPE Scholarship, the granddaddy of

all the state scholarship programs, has doled out more than

$1.9 billion to more than 693,000 students with B averages or

better in high school. But programs like Georgia's tend to

favor middle- and upper-class students whose families

probably could afford college without a scholarship. And with

several states funding the merit programs through lotteries,

a 2002 study by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard

University argues that lottery players, who are

``disproportionately low income, poorly educated, and

black,'' are paying for the college education of these

better-off kids. The study found that 12 states with merit

programs gave out nearly three times as much money for those

scholarships as they did for need-based aid.

Not surprisingly, colleges limit their financial aid bills

by being choosy in the admissions game. ``If a student is

marginal and has money, his chances of being admitted are

better than a student who is marginal and has no money,''

says Robert Massa, vice president for enrollment, student

life, and college relations at Dickinson College. That said,

the private Pennsylvania school, which finances most of its

aid through tuition, enrolled more students this year because

the class as a whole was needier. ``Those additional 30

students are helping us afford financial aid to assist the

entire student population,'' says Massa. Just a few dozen

schools--all of them private--still pledge that a student's

financial need won't influence the admissions process and

that they'll

meet the full need of the students they accept. Trouble is,

poorer students are gravitating to the few need-blind

colleges that are left. ``Places like Macalester are

reaching a point where we have to consider not being need

blind,'' says Michael McPherson, the Minnesota college's

former president.

Looking up. Yet there are bright spots on the horizon.

Institutional aid from private universities rose almost 197

percent in the past decade. Schools with generous endowments

can purposely keep loans to a minimum. ``A one-year downturn

doesn't necessarily severely impact our ability to maintain

our [financial aid] policies,'' says Joseph Russo, director

of financial aid at Notre Dame. And a group of wealthy

schools (called the ``568 Group'' for a section of federal

law that allows them to collaborate) are giving out more

grant aid this year, having decided to cap home equity at 2.4

times a family's income in its eligibility test. (The federal

government does not count home equity when assessing need.)

So, those families whose home prices shot up while their

salaries stagnated will find themselves with better aid

offers.

Even Erin Brindell, with her $60,000 debt, isn't gloomy.

``I can't worry too much,'' she says. ``I've had a great

college experience.''

Sure.

I wish I were. I wish the Senator from Pennsylvania could make the argument that I could be on that committee. I would be happy to be on that committee.

I very much will consider looking at all of the various ways. I think we have legislation pending to be reviewed in that committee. It just so happens this is one of those places where we deal with higher education. It seems quite appropriate since we have a budget-neutral approach both to raise this issue and to make sure we address it now so people can make their financial plans.

We have a bill that has been submitted. I will check out the number for the senior Senator from Pennsylvania.

I thank the President. I will respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

It is not the U.S. News & World Report calculations. The Congressional Research Service calculated what the impact is. It is a Federal study. The stimulus doesn't come from U.S. News & World Report. It is reporting to the public what some of the changes are. I think it is important that we do what is necessary to make sure higher education is openly available to every student and to every family.

That is what the amendment is about. It is very simple. It is not changing the law. It is dealing with an issue of regulation. The Department of Education has chosen to deal with one in 10 years. It is going to change the flow of funds that is made available--Pell grants, loans, and other financial aid--to students across the country.

I would be more than happy to provide my own copy of U.S. News & World Report. But they didn't do the analysis. The analysis was done by the Congressional Research Service in a study provided to the Department of Education.

I hope we can consider this not on the basis of publications but looking at it from the effective study of some of the Government agencies that have looked at it.

Certainly.

The distinguished Senator from Iowa is reading the chart correctly.

The Federal study has shown that 84,000 kids across this country would be dropped from the Pell grant program itself, completely eliminated.

This change in regulation is done once in 10 years, by the way, not on a systematic every-year basis looking at what is going on in the States. It will have the potential to affect your students in Iowa or my students in New Jersey and anywhere

across the country. The effect is quite substantial, and it also can reduce that amount somebody would be eligible for a Pell grant. So $4,000-plus could be reduced to $2,000. This could be meaningful dollars in grants that are lost to students across this country just at a time, by the way, when tuition is going up 10 percent a year--in that neighborhood--in State universities across the country, at the same time that universities are having to cut back classes because they do not have the resources coming and budgets are being reduced from the State governments. It is a difficult mix of things to be implemented.

We ought to act sooner rather than later. That is why we are talking about it now.

When students have to drop out or are not be able to go, and there is a decreased demand for higher education from students, that would happen. We are losing a major investment in human capital as time goes on.

Clearly, universities are hurt. They are having to deal with trying to find other sources of aid, basically trying to find jobs for kids so they can work at the same time they go to school.

It seems to me we are being very shortsighted in implementing such a regulation which does not conform with the facts anywhere. It has been talked about broadly, obviously in the media. There have been studies equally by a number of government institutions. I hope the Senate will consider this in the long run best interest of the country. We are not changing the fiscal year for the NIH funding, just delaying the timing.

That is correct. As a matter of fact, I am supportive of what both the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa have done to double NIH funding over a period of time. I will continue to support that. I believe very strongly in it.

The Senator from Iowa is exactly correct. He is talking about how budget accounting works in the Federal Government, which is a cashflow system. We are in no way trying to undermine the ability of NIH to be effective.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Pennsylvania is asking me a question. I would just remark that the Education Department indicates that Pell grant costs will be potentially impacted by $270 million or less. And they estimate--the Department of Education--based on the information of the CRS, that 84,000 students would lose eligibility altogether. They did not make an estimate about how many other students would lose partial eligibility, partial coverage. And they made no estimate with regard to how other people in private institutions or State institutions, using the same calculations of allowances for State and local taxes, would do it. Just know it will be quite substantial, not impacting the Federal Government but impacting how student aid is allocated nationally.

Now, very clearly, the Education Department accepts the estimation of 84,000 students losing eligibility for Pell grants. It is not U.S. News & World Report. It is their estimate from their own budget service.

I think the Senator is looking at the CRS report of June 25, 2003. And that point is made on--let's see if I can help the Senator from Pennsylvania. It is on CRS-8.

I think the Senator from Pennsylvania has heard me say that the only number I have used specifically is the 84,000 that CRS has estimated would lose all Pell grant assistance, not the full calculation of how many individual students would lose partial benefits on grants and student loans, by way of Stafford loans and other things, which would be much more complex. And that is what they are pointing out.

Mr. President, first I wanted to speak on Senator Harkin's amendment with regard to protecting overtime pay for hard- working Americans. I also want to second the efforts Senator Kennedy is making. Both Senators Harkin and Kennedy are giants with regard to protecting hard-working Americans who are under incredible stress in our economy today.

I heard Senator Kennedy talk about the people with $15,000 annual incomes who benefit from Pell grants. Tuitions are going up 15, 20 percent across the board. They are 9 percent in New Jersey, so I guess we are doing well at Rutgers. We are not increasing our financial aid at all. The Senator also knows that back in the drawing rooms of the Education Department they are changing the regulations that are reducing the amount of grants and availability of funding for both grants and financial aid for middle-class Americans. It is unbelievable what we are doing to and the pressure we are putting on the American people, the hard-working people who drive this economy. I compliment the Senator on his efforts in raising this issue on higher education.

I think what singles out more than almost anything I have heard debated is trying to take away overtime pay for the American people. I am just one individual who believes that the best way to grow our economy is to have rising tides lift all boats, making sure everybody participates in the excellence and the wealth of America. But we are doing everything we can to undermine that for millions of American workers. So I am proud to join Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, and all those who want to speak up for those who are making America work.

We are talking about the whole of America's economy. We need to put it in the context of what is happening in the American economy. People talk about the stock market going up, rising to the point that we have recouped $2 trillion of $7 trillion lost; but the fact is we have not recouped job one yet during any kind of economic turnaround. Nine million Americans are unemployed today. A million have dropped out-- actually 2 million have stopped looking for jobs. The unemployment rate hovers at 6.2 percent even today. We have heard that unemployment claims went up to 15,000 today, the highest in the last 12 weeks, above the threshold that shows there is weakening job growth in the economy.

The average length of unemployment is longer than it has ever been-- 19 weeks. It spiked this summer to the highest level in two decades. Quite honestly, we are seeing the worst employment recession we have had since the Great Depression. It is a real problem for working Americans. And now we are trying to make it really hard on the people who do have jobs. Not only are we not doing addressing unemployment in this country in a real sense, but we are now placing burdens on those who actually are delivering and working every day. I think it is just discouraging to undermine the economic well-being of those who are working, as well as ignoring those who are left out in this jobless recovery we have.

Senator Harkin has been so eloquent in talking about this back-to- history view of where we are taking ourselves. Looking at the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act and the 40-hour workweek--one of the highest ones in economically developed countries--nobody is arguing that we ought to change that; we are saying you ought to get time and a half when working overtime, and we should define it in a way that is really meaningful for people who work on hourly wages.

I just don't understand the timing. I don't understand the proposition of it. We should be encouraging having resources in the pockets of people who will go out and spend it and drive the economy. When we are talking about how we get jobs growing in this country, people need the ability to create demand. This does the opposite. It just seems hard to understand why we want to strip workers of their right to overtime pay, particularly at a time of economic stress in our economy.

American families are the drivers of our economy. It is the vast middle class in this country who are in these jobs. They are not in executive positions. This is not redefining what executive positions are. This is trying to cut away at the bulk of those people who are working on an hourly basis, really providing so much of what is good happening in our economy.

These changes mean real losses--on average, 25 percent of annual income--for an estimated 8 million Americans. By the way, if that happens, what does that do to the competitive labor market, or for changes in what is going on? This is about building up the bottom line of corporate America at the expense of working Americans. Again, I go back to rising tides lift all boats and why we want to undermine the economic well-being of policemen, nurses, firefighters, EMTs, and even journalists. Some of us sometimes have trouble with them, but journalists are also folks who would be carved out of this.

I have heard Senator Kennedy say--and I am sure Senator Harkin mentioned this before--that so much of this is focused on women in the workplace. It is incredible. We are asking families to have two wage earners so they can make it in today's society, and we have turned the situation into where overtime pay will be taken away from the folks making the sacrifices, trying to get their kids into higher educational environments where they can have access to the American promise.

I don't get it. I don't think the American people get it. I think we have to make sure everyone understands this administration, and those who believe they want to so-call ``clarify'' the rules and change them, is really undermining the economic health and welfare of our American middle class--the people who are paying the bills, living their lives within the rules, and doing the right things for everyone.

Mr. President, this country deserves better, in my view. I stand fully behind the efforts of Senator Harkin and those who are pushing very hard to block this work rule change that I think undermines the health of our economy and the health and welfare of working Americans in our economy. It is bad and it should not go through. We need to support this amendment that protects working Americans. By the way, that will be good for everybody. That will be good for business, good for creating demand in our society, and I hope we understand we have to look at this on a holistic basis, not on something that just helps special interests and a limited number of folks in our economy.

I think we can do a lot to improve our economy. One of the ways to do it is to stop these kinds of actions from taking place. I am proud to stand with Senator Harkin in this effort.

Mr. President, every two minutes a woman is sexually assaulted in the United States, and an estimated 25,000 annually will become pregnant as a result of rape. Though there is widespread consensus in the medical community that emergency contraception is a safe and effective means of preventing pregnancy after unprotected intercourse, studies indicate that many hospitals still do not provide emergency contraception to rape survivors. That is why today, along with my colleagues Senators Kerry, Murray, Durbin, Lautenberg, and Cantwell, I am introducing the Compassionate Assistance in Rape Emergencies Act, or CARE Act, which will ensure that women who are survivors of sexual assault have access to and information about emergency contraception regardless of where they receive medical care.

Emergency Contraceptive Pills (ECPs) are the most commonly used method of emergency contraception. ECPs are birth control pills taken in larger doses that can reduce a woman's risk of becoming pregnant by up to 95 percent when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. I want to be clear that emergency contraception does not cause abortion. Instead, emergency contraception works by inhibiting ovulation or fertilization, or by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg before a pregnancy can occur.

Despite the documented benefits of emergency contraception, many hospitals neglect their responsibility to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors. For example, a survey of emergency rooms in New York State found that 54 percent did not consistently provide emergency contraception to women who had been raped. In Pennsylvania, only 28 percent of hospitals routinely offer and provide emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors.

In short, survivors of sexual assault are not consistently getting access to all the treatment options available to them to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. I believe it is unacceptable that a rape victim's access to standard care depends on the hospital to which she is taken. All healthcare institutions that counsel or treat women who have been raped should consistently inform, provide or meaningfully refer women for emergency contraception. Indeed, the emergency care standards of the American Medical Association recommend that rape survivors seeking medical care be counseled about their risk of pregnancy and offered emergency contraception.

The legislation, which is identical to legislation recently introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives James Greenwood and Steven Rothman, would require hospitals that receive federal funds to offer information about and access to emergency contraception for victims of rape. This commonsense legislation will help ensure that women who have survived a heinous sexual attack will have access to comprehensive and compassionate emergency medical care.

We must not sit idly by while so many sexual assault victims are not given the opportunity to safely and effectively prevent a pregnancy caused by their assault. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this effort to help sexual assault victims across the country receive the medical care they need and deserve.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire Safety Incentive Act of 2003, legislation to improve fire safety and save lives by creating incentives for business owners to install automatic fire sprinkler systems. This bill would classify automatic fire sprinkler systems as five-year property for purposes of depreciation under the Tax Code.

In 2001, fire departments across the United States responded to 1.7 million fires. Not including victims from the September 11 terrorist attacks, 3,745 people died in fires, 99 of whom were firefighters. Fires also caused almost 21,000 civilian injuries and $8.9 billion in direct property damage.

On average, fire departments respond to a fire every eighteen seconds, with fires breaking out in a structure every sixty seconds and in a residential structure every eighty seconds.

Recent tragedies have demonstrated how the lack of effective fire safety precautions can have disastrous consequences. In February, 99 concertgoers were killed when a pyrotechnic display erupted into a fire that devastated the concert venue in the deadliest fire in Rhode Island history. Unfortunately, the building was not equipped with fire sprinklers to respond to the fire. In my home state of New Jersey, a fire on the campus of Seton Hall killed three college students and injured 58 more people. In response to that tragedy, I introduced the Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act of 2003, S. 1385, which calls for disclosure of fire safety standards and measures with respect to campus buildings.

The Fire Safety Incentive Act would go further by providing economic incentives to business owners to install automatic fire sprinkler systems.

It is difficult to dispute the effectiveness of sprinklers in controlling fire and saving lives and property. According to the National Fire Prevention Association, over a 10-year period ending in 1998, buildings with fire sprinkler systems were proven safer. There were 60 percent fewer deaths in manufacturing buildings equipped with fire sprinkler systems than in those without. Similarly, in hotels, there were 91 percent fewer deaths in buildings with fire sprinkler systems. In fact, the NPFA has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a public assembly, educational, institutional, or residential building in which a fire sprinkler system was installed and operating properly. The same study showed that property loss from fires was significantly reduced by the presence of fire sprinklers, from a low range of 42 percent in industrial buildings to an impressive high of 70 percent in public assembly occupancies.

While the effectiveness of fire sprinkler systems is well established, the major impediment to their widespread use has simply been their cost. Moreover, many State and local governments lack any requirements for structures to contain automatic fire sprinkler systems.

This bill would encourage businesses to install fire sprinkler systems by creating tax incentives to do so. Under the current Tax Code, assets are classified under different schedules of depreciation. The often-employed ``straight-line'' depreciation method uses an average deduction from year-to-year for 39 years. This legislation allows businesses to classify sprinklers under a 5-year schedule, creating a meaningful tax incentive to install automated sprinkler systems.

This legislation would save lives and prevent many tragedies. I hope my colleagues will support it, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, every two minutes a woman is sexually assaulted in the United States, and an estimated 25,000 annually will become pregnant as a result of rape. Though there is widespread consensus in the medical community that emergency contraception is a safe and effective means of preventing pregnancy after unprotected intercourse, studies indicate that many hospitals still do not provide emergency contraception to rape survivors. That is why today, along with my colleagues Senators Kerry, Murray, Durbin, Lautenberg, and Cantwell, I am introducing the Compassionate Assistance in Rape Emergencies Act, or CARE Act, which will ensure that women who are survivors of sexual assault have access to and information about emergency contraception regardless of where they receive medical care.

Emergency Contraceptive Pills (ECPs) are the most commonly used method of emergency contraception. ECPs are birth control pills taken in larger doses that can reduce a woman's risk of becoming pregnant by up to 95 percent when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. I want to be clear that emergency contraception does not cause abortion. Instead, emergency contraception works by inhibiting ovulation or fertilization, or by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg before a pregnancy can occur.

Despite the documented benefits of emergency contraception, many hospitals neglect their responsibility to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors. For example, a survey of emergency rooms in New York State found that 54 percent did not consistently provide emergency contraception to women who had been raped. In Pennsylvania, only 28 percent of hospitals routinely offer and provide emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors.

In short, survivors of sexual assault are not consistently getting access to all the treatment options available to them to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. I believe it is unacceptable that a rape victim's access to standard care depends on the hospital to which she is taken. All healthcare institutions that counsel or treat women who have been raped should consistently inform, provide or meaningfully refer women for emergency contraception. Indeed, the emergency care standards of the American Medical Association recommend that rape survivors seeking medical care be counseled about their risk of pregnancy and offered emergency contraception.

The legislation, which is identical to legislation recently introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives James Greenwood and Steven Rothman, would require hospitals that receive federal funds to offer information about and access to emergency contraception for victims of rape. This commonsense legislation will help ensure that women who have survived a heinous sexual attack will have access to comprehensive and compassionate emergency medical care.

We must not sit idly by while so many sexual assault victims are not given the opportunity to safely and effectively prevent a pregnancy caused by their assault. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this effort to help sexual assault victims across the country receive the medical care they need and deserve.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire Safety Incentive Act of 2003, legislation to improve fire safety and save lives by creating incentives for business owners to install automatic fire sprinkler systems. This bill would classify automatic fire sprinkler systems as five-year property for purposes of depreciation under the Tax Code.

In 2001, fire departments across the United States responded to 1.7 million fires. Not including victims from the September 11 terrorist attacks, 3,745 people died in fires, 99 of whom were firefighters. Fires also caused almost 21,000 civilian injuries and $8.9 billion in direct property damage.

On average, fire departments respond to a fire every eighteen seconds, with fires breaking out in a structure every sixty seconds and in a residential structure every eighty seconds.

Recent tragedies have demonstrated how the lack of effective fire safety precautions can have disastrous consequences. In February, 99 concertgoers were killed when a pyrotechnic display erupted into a fire that devastated the concert venue in the deadliest fire in Rhode Island history. Unfortunately, the building was not equipped with fire sprinklers to respond to the fire. In my home state of New Jersey, a fire on the campus of Seton Hall killed three college students and injured 58 more people. In response to that tragedy, I introduced the Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act of 2003, S. 1385, which calls for disclosure of fire safety standards and measures with respect to campus buildings.

The Fire Safety Incentive Act would go further by providing economic incentives to business owners to install automatic fire sprinkler systems.

It is difficult to dispute the effectiveness of sprinklers in controlling fire and saving lives and property. According to the National Fire Prevention Association, over a 10-year period ending in 1998, buildings with fire sprinkler systems were proven safer. There were 60 percent fewer deaths in manufacturing buildings equipped with fire sprinkler systems than in those without. Similarly, in hotels, there were 91 percent fewer deaths in buildings with fire sprinkler systems. In fact, the NPFA has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a public assembly, educational, institutional, or residential building in which a fire sprinkler system was installed and operating properly. The same study showed that property loss from fires was significantly reduced by the presence of fire sprinklers, from a low range of 42 percent in industrial buildings to an impressive high of 70 percent in public assembly occupancies.

While the effectiveness of fire sprinkler systems is well established, the major impediment to their widespread use has simply been their cost. Moreover, many State and local governments lack any requirements for structures to contain automatic fire sprinkler systems.

This bill would encourage businesses to install fire sprinkler systems by creating tax incentives to do so. Under the current Tax Code, assets are classified under different schedules of depreciation. The often-employed ``straight-line'' depreciation method uses an average deduction from year-to-year for 39 years. This legislation allows businesses to classify sprinklers under a 5-year schedule, creating a meaningful tax incentive to install automated sprinkler systems.

This legislation would save lives and prevent many tragedies. I hope my colleagues will support it, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will vote against the free-trade agreements, and I want to take a few minutes to explain why.

Having spent many years in the financial world, I understand the tremendous value of trade to America and to nations around the world. Free and open trade can enhance prosperity, create jobs, and increase opportunity. That is why I supported the North American Free Trade Agreement before I came to the Senate. And it is why I supported the free-trade agreement with Jordan. Measures like these held the promise of greater economic growth to the benefit of citizens in all countries involved and represented a growing movement toward freer trade around the globe.

Yet in recent years, we have seen a serious deterioration of the trade situation here in the United States, and our Nation's trade deficit has grown dramatically. The current account deficit in the first quarter of this year increased to more than $136 billion, and many project that it will surpass $500 billion this year. That means that every day, we are being forced to borrow nearly $2 billion because of our trade imbalance. That is a serious problem, and it is simply unsustainable. Something is not right with our ability to export American goods and services, but particularly manufactured products.

Beyond the enormity of the trade deficit, American businesses increasingly are shipping jobs overseas. Not just low-skilled jobs, but professional, highly skilled and well paid jobs. That is one reason the so-called economic recovery touted by the Bush administration has widely been characterized as a jobless recovery. In fact, it is worse than a jobless recovery, it is a job-killing recovery. And while workers in this country are losing jobs, our trade policy is helping to create jobs overseas. Today, many American firms are outsourcing high- technology jobs to low-wage environments to the detriment of American workers.

Sadly, this troubling trend has not received enough attention here in Washington. It is a matter affecting millions of Americans who are looking for work--well-paying, upwardly mobile work. And, I believe, it requires a serious rethinking of our Nation's whole approach to trade.

Unfortunately, the trade agreements considered last night failed to address this problem, and I have many concerns about them.

For example, I am quite concerned about provisions in the agreements that effectively overturn U.S. immigration laws and allow thousands of foreigners to enter our country to take what will often be highly paid positions. These people will take jobs away from Americans who want them and need them. And it is especially disturbing that such a significant change in immigration laws is being included in a trade agreement. As I see it, immigration is the type of matter that deserves close attention here in the Congress, with a full opportunity for debate. It is not something that should be rammed through without any meaningful opportunity for amendment or public input.

I also am concerned about the inadequacy of the labor protections, included in thee agreements.

Mr. President, I supported the Jordan Free Trade Agreement in part because it recognized the importance of protecting worker rights. That agreement ensured that both nations adhere to internationally recognized worker protection standards, and that worker rights could be enforced. It also ensured that labor standards were subject to the same procedural protections as the other provisions of the agreement. The Chilean and Singapore agreements fail to meet that standard.

To the contrary, the labor protections in these agreements are not only much more narrowly defined--essentially dependent on the laws of the respective countries--but enforcement of those protections is much more limited, as well. For example, not all violations of labor laws could be enforced through the agreements--only those that are ``sustained.'' Also, there are strict limits on the amount of fines and sanctions that are authorized in the case of labor violations, unlike violations of other provisions in the agreement. This disparity in the treatment of labor and commercial violations, in my view is wrong.

Mr. President, I am concerned that the labor provisions in these agreements, and other similar provisions relating to environmental protection, will serve as a template for other trade agreements already under discussion. As I see it, the Administration would be making a serious mistake if it uses these provisions as a model for future agreements. I hope that will not happened.

Mr. President, the types of commercial, labor and environmental issues addressed in these agreements are critical to the future of our nation, our economy, and millions of American workers. Yet, again, we are debating these agreements under expedited procedures that allow for every little debate and no amendments. In effect, while jobs continue to be sent abroad and millions struggle unsuccessfully to find work, the American people are being shut out of the process. In my view, that is not the right way to conduct the people's business.

Mr. President, I recognize that these agreements have, in fact been approved. But I would urge my colleagues, before we continue along the same theme path as we develop other similar agreements, let us take a step back and rethink our nation's whole approach to trade, Something is seriously wrong when America is hemorrhaging dollors and hemorrhaging jobs. We need to change course. And continuing blindly with a failed approach would be a dereliction of our responsibility to protect America's economy and America's workers.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to address these issues in the months and years ahead.