Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Akaka and Sarbanes to introduce the Financial Literacy for Self- Sufficiency Act.

Our bill would require States to promote financial education through their TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, programs. Financial education--education that promotes an understanding of consumer, economic, and personal finance concepts--is extremely important for all families, and is especially important for low-income families who are moving from welfare to work.

While TANF focuses on moving families off cash assistance and into work, it fails to provide recipients with the tools they need to maximize their earnings and manage their expenses in order to achieve financial stability once they are employed. If we truly expect to move these families to achieve financial independence, we must give them the tools they will need to make that transition.

One of these tools is a bank account. Millions of low-income families remain outside of the formal banking system, with many of them spending too much of their hard-earned dollars at costly check cashing operations. In fact, more than eight million families earning under $25,000 a year lack a checking or savings account. A study conducted by the United States Department of the Treasury in 2000 found that a worker earning $12,000 a year would pay approximately $250 a year just to cash their payroll checks at such an outlet. And, nearly 16 percent of the checks cashed at check cashing outlets are government benefit checks--including welfare benefit checks.

In addition to expanding the number of banks that do business in low- income communities, educating low-income unbanked families about the benefits of formal checking and savings accounts can significantly improve access to financial services.

But, financial education isn't just about bank accounts and savings. It is also about protecting low-income families form predatory lending and devastating credit arrangements. Financial education that addresses abusive lending practices can help prevent unaffordable loan payments, equity stripping, and foreclosure. I strongly support legislative efforts to end predatory lending practices in our country, but until we do, ensuring that consumers are aware of unfair and abusive loan terms is a measure that will provide them some protection from these tactics.

Finally, families leaving welfare for work face many challenges, including securing child care and transportation. One challenge that often is not mentioned, however, is the challenge of transitioning from a benefits-based income to a wage income. Financial literacy programs that educate families transitioning from welfare to work about taxes and tax benefits that they may be eligible for, such as the Dependent Care Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, will ensure that they have access to these important work benefits.

The Financial Literacy for Self-Sufficiency Act will allow States to use their TANF funds to collaborate with community-based organizations, banks, and community colleges to create financial education programs for low-income families receiving welfare and for those transitioning from welfare to work. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Chairman Greenspan has noted, ``Educational and training programs may be the most critical service offered by community-based organizations to enhance the ability of low-income households to accumulate assets.''

I hope members of the Senate Finance Committee will join my colleagues and me in promoting financial education for our nation's TANF recipients when they act to create a reauthorization framework for our nation's welfare program.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Akaka and Sarbanes to introduce the Financial Literacy for Self- Sufficiency Act.

Our bill would require States to promote financial education through their TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, programs. Financial education--education that promotes an understanding of consumer, economic, and personal finance concepts--is extremely important for all families, and is especially important for low-income families who are moving from welfare to work.

While TANF focuses on moving families off cash assistance and into work, it fails to provide recipients with the tools they need to maximize their earnings and manage their expenses in order to achieve financial stability once they are employed. If we truly expect to move these families to achieve financial independence, we must give them the tools they will need to make that transition.

One of these tools is a bank account. Millions of low-income families remain outside of the formal banking system, with many of them spending too much of their hard-earned dollars at costly check cashing operations. In fact, more than eight million families earning under $25,000 a year lack a checking or savings account. A study conducted by the United States Department of the Treasury in 2000 found that a worker earning $12,000 a year would pay approximately $250 a year just to cash their payroll checks at such an outlet. And, nearly 16 percent of the checks cashed at check cashing outlets are government benefit checks--including welfare benefit checks.

In addition to expanding the number of banks that do business in low- income communities, educating low-income unbanked families about the benefits of formal checking and savings accounts can significantly improve access to financial services.

But, financial education isn't just about bank accounts and savings. It is also about protecting low-income families form predatory lending and devastating credit arrangements. Financial education that addresses abusive lending practices can help prevent unaffordable loan payments, equity stripping, and foreclosure. I strongly support legislative efforts to end predatory lending practices in our country, but until we do, ensuring that consumers are aware of unfair and abusive loan terms is a measure that will provide them some protection from these tactics.

Finally, families leaving welfare for work face many challenges, including securing child care and transportation. One challenge that often is not mentioned, however, is the challenge of transitioning from a benefits-based income to a wage income. Financial literacy programs that educate families transitioning from welfare to work about taxes and tax benefits that they may be eligible for, such as the Dependent Care Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, will ensure that they have access to these important work benefits.

The Financial Literacy for Self-Sufficiency Act will allow States to use their TANF funds to collaborate with community-based organizations, banks, and community colleges to create financial education programs for low-income families receiving welfare and for those transitioning from welfare to work. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Chairman Greenspan has noted, ``Educational and training programs may be the most critical service offered by community-based organizations to enhance the ability of low-income households to accumulate assets.''

I hope members of the Senate Finance Committee will join my colleagues and me in promoting financial education for our nation's TANF recipients when they act to create a reauthorization framework for our nation's welfare program.

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

Mr. President, in a few minutes, I will send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Edwards and me. About a half hour ago, Senator Edwards talked about an issue that has been one of the most serious concerns of mine and a whole host of Americans--about the state of our security and the threat to the American people, which they face by the potential of a terrorist attack on our Nation's chemical plants. There are literally thousands of chemical producers, refineries, and similar facilities in the United States where chemicals released by any of these plants could kill or injure tens of thousands--and, frankly, even millions--of Americans through exposure to highly toxic gases. That is why these facilities are potentially so attractive to terrorists.

Unfortunately, there are no Federal security standards for chemical facilities--none. So the private sector has been left to do as it sees appropriate on a completely voluntary basis. Far too many facilities simply have not stepped up to accept the responsibility. There are a number of private companies that have done everything ever thought to be necessary, but there are many that have been left out and keep vulnerabilities in front of the American people and are basically putting millions of Americans at risk.

I have a chart here that will show where--in red--these facilities are that put more than a million Americans at risk. There happens to be 11 in my State of New Jersey. It is a serious issue. There is one of those in the State of the Presiding Officer. But in a broad cross- section of our country, there are huge numbers of these facilities located in highly populated areas.

According to the EPA there are 123 facilities in 24 States where a chemical release could expose more than 1 million people to highly toxic chemicals.

There are 750 facilities in 39 States where chemical release can expose more than 100,000 people to these chemicals. Those are the States in yellow. There are 3,000 facilities spread across 49 of the 50 States where chemical release could expose more than 10,000 people. Frankly, these are pretty staggering numbers, and I think it represents a broad vulnerability across America.

The consequences of an attack on a chemical plant are potentially so horrific that it is hard for me to understand or accept inaction in this area. In fact, I would argue this body has been in sort of psychological denial, I guess, about this problem. If September 11 taught us anything, it taught us that America can no longer avoid thinking about the unthinkable. We have to face up to the Nation's most serious vulnerabilities. We have to focus on them, and we have to confront them head on.

Let me repeat one statistic. There are 123 chemical facilities around the Nation that, if attacked, could threaten over 1 million American lives. This is a big deal in New Jersey. To bring this home in specific terms, there are 11 facilities in my home State, and one petrochemical plant in the middle of downtown Newark and south Carney that exposes nearly 8 million people in the greater New York-New Jersey region--8 million people potentially exposed to toxic fumes if there were a terrorist attack, a criminal attack, or, by the way, even if there was a safety violation bringing about an explosion. We have had a number of those incidents in my State that have taken lives just because of safety considerations, let alone if the plants were under an attack by a terrorist or criminal activity.

These facilities pose a serious threat to public safety because they contain the kind of toxic chemicals that, if released, could cause those injuries I am talking about--chemicals such as chlorine, ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, the types of chemicals that were used to manufacture the bomb in Oklahoma City and the type of chemicals in Bhopal. There are all kinds of these chemicals in our cities, in our States, chemicals that serve very positive and important industrial functions but could instantly be transformed into weapons of mass destruction at the hands of terrorists.

This is not just my opinion. This is not an enviroview. This is not some hyped-up point of view. It has been documented and acknowledged time after time by experts and by the current administration.

Most recently, on March 18, the General Accounting Office issued a new report on the matter. GAO found that chemical facilities may be attractive targets to terrorists because of the extent of harm they could inflict. Yet, as GAO explained, there are no Federal laws requiring chemical plants to assess vulnerabilities and to take action to guard against terrorist attacks.

I am going to submit a summary of the GAO report. For those who need thoughtful and systematic information about the vulnerabilities, about what is not being done, I suggest they read the whole report. I ask unanimous consent to print a brief summary of the GAO report in the Record.

Mr. President, in addition to this GAO assessment, they recommended the Department of Homeland Security and EPA, working together, develop a strategy, including a legislative proposal, to address the threats of attacks on chemical plants. I listed the highlights of their report which has a recommendation that there is a need for legislation in this area. There is a need now to protect the American people against chemical plant risks. The GAO report was released on March 18 of this year.

To continue with the acknowledgment that this is real, only a month earlier, the Department of Homeland Security, when it raised the Nation's alert to code orange, sounded the alarm about the threat facing chemical facilities. In its bulletin it sent out to State and local officials, the Department stated:

Al-Qaida operatives also may attempt to launch conventional

attacks against U.S. nuclear/chemical-industrial

infrastructure to cause contamination, disruption, and

terror. Based on information, nuclear powerplants and

industrial chemical plants remain viable targets.

That is from the Department of Homeland Security to all State and local officials: ``Chemical plants remain viable targets,'' and we have not done anything. It is time to recognize that there is broad recognition by the administration and by those who study this issue that it is time to act. That was on February 12 of this year.

Let me go back to October 6 of last year. On that day, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge and EPA Administrator Whitman had a letter published in the Washington Post. They stated in that letter:

The Bush administration is committed to reducing the

vulnerability of America's chemical facilities to terrorist

attack and is working to enact bipartisan legislation that

would require such facilities to address their

vulnerabilities.

They go on to say that while there have been good steps taken by private industry, there are over 15,000 chemical facilities nationwide that contain large quantities of hazardous chemicals, and they must be required to take steps that mimic industry leaders in this area.

That letter was from Secretary Ridge and EPA Administrator Whitman last October. I ask, Has the administration proposed such bipartisan legislation? Have they proposed any legislation? Have they issued any regulations to address the threat facing chemical plants? Have they even proposed any such regulations? Have they done anything--anything at all--to meaningfully address the security threats facing chemical plants? I think the fair answer is no to each and every one of those questions.

Periodically, we have seen press reports that the administration may be working on some type of proposal, and I commend that effort. I hope they will. But so far, they have shown no willingness to work on a bipartisan basis. I have sent letter after letter, question after question, made phone call after phone call, trying to enter into a negotiation, not only with the

administration, but the other side of the aisle, on this issue.

The bottom line is, a year and a half after the attacks of September 11, there still has not been a serious response with regard to what we are doing here.

In fact, the Nation has known about this problem for a very long time. The Department of Justice issued a report on this matter a year and a half before September 11. Let me read a brief excerpt from a summary of that report which was issued on April 18, 2000:

We have concluded the risk of terrorists attempting in the

foreseeable future to cause an industrial chemical release is

both real and credible.

Again, April 18, 2000:

Terrorists or other criminals are likely to view the

potential of chemical release from an industrial facility as

a relatively attractive means of achieving these goals.

That report was issued before September 11. Its conclusion has been echoed by other Government agencies and in private studies with regard to vulnerabilities in our infrastructure.

I will not relate them all, but the warnings have been repetitive, from the Hart-Rudman Commission to the Department of Homeland Security on February 12 when they issued their code orange alert.

While some companies may well be doing an outstanding job in securing their facilities, many are not. Simply relying on voluntary standards just is not working, and if we are going to protect America from the threat of terrorist attacks on chemical facilities, we need to do more. That is why in October 2001 I introduced the Chemical Security Act. That is why I worked with Senators on both sides of the aisle to move the legislation through the Environment and Public Works Committee. Ultimately, the committee approved the legislation on a rollcall vote of 19 to 0. Not a single Senator voted no--not a single Senator.

The amendment I am offering today, along with my good friend, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards, is based on the legislation that was approved by the committee on a 19-to-0 vote. However, we have made a few changes in good faith to make it more acceptable to industry and to win broader support.

The legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security and EPA to do three things: First, the Department has to identify high-priority chemical facilities, those that potentially put a large number of people at risk.

Second, they must require those high-priority facilities to assess their vulnerabilities to develop and implement plans to improve security and use safer technologies.

Third, these assessments and plans would have to be submitted for review by the Department of Homeland Security. The changes could be required if deficiencies are identified. That is the amendment in a nutshell. It is a simple, commonsense approach that would establish standards and ensure some balance at this time.

Last year, after my legislation was approved unanimously in committee, some in industry expressed concerns. Industry opposition ultimately killed the bill, kept it from even coming up for debate on this floor. Opposition to the bill was largely based on two points, both of which I am going to try to address, with changes from what came out of committee.

First, opponents argued that the responsibility for overseeing chemical security should rest with the Department of Homeland Security rather than the Environmental Protection Agency. I proposed giving the responsibility to EPA for a reason. They have the expertise on chemical plants. They have the expertise on dealing with these highly toxic chemicals. Under the Clean Air Act, they already have a requirement to oversee. They have the expertise. DHS does not.

On the other hand, I recognized from the start that the EPA did not have the expertise to evaluate security arrangements. So we originally asked the Department of Justice back in October of 2001--we have subsequently changed that to the Department of Homeland Security--and now we have put the Department of Homeland Security as the lead agency in charge of what has been requested by those in industry because they wanted security to be the primary element. So we have responded.

Having said that, I also acknowledge that in spite of EPA's expertise, the latter was necessary. So in an effort to broaden support for our proposal, we continue to modify and we reflect others' concerns.

The second concern raised by industrial lobbyists about the bill, again unanimously approved by the EPW Committee, focused on the bill's provision to require businesses to shift to safer technologies, to the extent practical.

I will take a moment to explain why this provision was included and why it is so important. It is not just enough to put barbed wire on high fences around the place when some attacks could come over those walls--planes and other things--which we have begun to understand can happen post-September 11. We know no matter how high we build those walls a committed terrorist can get to those facilities, and it becomes important to make sure the facilities are as safe as they possibly can be without putting companies out of business. To truly protect the public, we need to do more. We need to take steps to build in better inherent technology.

I have seen a great example of that in Washington, DC, as I think Senator Edwards mentioned, at the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant. Prior to September 11, they were storing chlorine and sulfur dioxide in car trains just across the river. Both are volatile, dangerous chemicals. If those tanks were attacked, a poisonous cloud could have been over Washington, DC. It would have been one of those places where roughly a million people could have been exposed--certainly hundreds of thousands, including the Capitol and the White House.

Business recognized this was a risk and did something about it. In fact, we should be quite proud of business taking an initiative on a voluntary basis to address this problem. They changed from chlorine to sodium hypochlorite, which is a strong version of bleach but much safer, less volatile. It is going to cost 25 to 50 cents a year for those who drink water in the District, but I think it is a small price to pay to bring about the kind of safety considerations that the public and the community would expect. It sounds like a bargain to me.

To the extent practical, we need to find ways to move away from dangerous and toxic chemicals to other chemicals or other processes that protect and make the processes safer. I understand it is an expensive process. So what I have done in this amendment, as opposed to in the original bill, is I have offered economic incentives and economic support to those companies that transform to safer technologies. For those businesses that need help, I have put $50 million into this bill to make that process better. So we have a second element that really has tried to accommodate some of the concerns that people had in this regard and how onerous it might be.

We have a problem. We have some obvious steps to deal with it and we have tried to get the private sector to move in a direction that will enhance both the security and bring about safer technologies that will protect people.

So that is it. I think it is an extremely important initiative that needs to be taken in the context of the homeland security efforts that are included in this supplemental. I hope people will take this seriously, as Senator Edwards, Senator Jeffords and others have, as 19 Senators in EPW did when we voted on this after much review and discussion.

I am eager to work with the administration. I am eager to work with those on the other side of the aisle to make sure we have an initiative to protect our chemical plants, which is really about protecting the American people. I hope we can move to this goal. This should be one of the No. 1 steps we have in this process.

I send the amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Edwards and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Again, I urge my colleagues, before we have a chance to vote on this amendment in the coming days, to sit down and look at this in a serious minded way, knowing that we have addressed some of the problems and that we can move forward to have a positive embracing of real steps to protect the American people from exposure we have to chemical plants.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered in order notwithstanding rule XVI.

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

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

This amendment which I offer today with Senators Kerry, Jeffords, Murray, Lautenberg, Clinton, Boxer, and Sarbanes, increases funding for environmental protection and natural resource conservation. Cleanup of brownfields, Superfund sites, MTBE, contaminated water supplies are a national and a bipartisan objective. These environmental challenges to public health stand as roadblocks to economic development and economic renewal across America. Addressing these issues with efficacy requires a constancy of purpose and funding. The amendment does just that.

In addition, this amendment provides resources to fund parks, open space acquisition, wildlife habitat, and beach conservation. These should not be shortchanged. They are investments in the future of America, not just for today's generation but future generations. Funding for the amendment adds $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2004 and the same amount in future years adjusted for inflation. The funding is offset by a corresponding reduction in the nonreconciled tax cut.

I ask for the support of my colleagues to be sure we protect our environment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues and the Nation in a strong and unequivocal expression of support for the courageous men and women of the United States military, who now defend America's values in the Persian Gulf.

This expression is far more than a personal expression. It is an expression of the feelings of the people of New Jersey--many who are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and spouses of those in harm's way. For all of us, these brave individuals are in our hearts and prayers.

Mr. President, today our Nation is united. United in support for our Nation's military. United in appreciation for the bravery and sacrifice of our service men and women, and their loved ones. United in our unshakable commitment to victory, a victory, with the grace of God, that will be achieved with maximum speed and minimum casualties.

Mr. President, we Americans obviously had our differences as we moved on the path that got us to this point. There are many reservations I could express and people more thoughtful than myself have done so. But in our democracy, there is a time for differences and a time for debate. That said, there comes a time to end debate and unite. That time is now. That unity is without regard to party, ideology, or philosophy. We all stand together as members of the great American family.

Mr. President, the United States military is unrivaled in its power and its competence. In that strength, I am confident that we will succeed in our mission. A mission to free the Iraqi people. A mission to help ensure that our Nation can live in peace, without the threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of madmen and terrorists.

So, Mr. President, on behalf of all New Jerseyans and in company with all Americans, let me again express my deep appreciation to the courageous Americans who are putting their lives on the line, and for their loved ones. They are America's heroes. Their Nation will support them every step of the way until the day comes, as we pray it will, when these hostilities are complete.

I yield myself up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I had a statement earlier today, but I would like to briefly say that I am pleased my colleagues passed the supporting resolution today for our troops. We need a strong and unequivocal expression of support for the courageous men and women who are fighting for our values and defending America tonight in the Persian Gulf. It is important to say that this is an expression that is far more than just a personal expression. It is an expression of feelings that the people of New Jersey--I see my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, is in the Chamber as well, and I know both of us feel powerfully for the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the spouses all of those who have loved ones in harm's way, that we strongly stand with them, and the people across this country do as well.

The gist of my statement is that no matter how we may have felt and debated and deliberated these issues, our united view is unshakable as we go forward.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment I would like to bring up tomorrow. It would increase funding for environmental protection and natural resource conservation, reduce pollution, and improve America's quality of life.

If I had my druthers, we would all be dealing with a ``patriotic pause,'' as far as I am concerned, until we were able to get a better handle on some of the costs. It seems incongruous to me that as our men and women are sacrificing on the ground in the Middle East, we are unwilling to think about and factor in those costs in this budget process as we go forward. I think it is particularly unusual to understand that maybe as soon as next week we will get a supplemental that covers this, and it may be literally hundreds of billions of dollars of expenditures that are not considered in the context of a budget that is already estimated at $300 billion on a unified basis, on an on-budget basis, and on an off-budget basis $400 billion.

It is hard for me to understand, but I am a realist. It is a quarter of 11 at night, and we will be debating amendments that make a real expression about what our budget is about, our priorities. I think it is absolutely essential that the budget process be about difficult choices and an expression of those choices.

For millions of Americans, and certainly for myself, I strongly believe we cannot neglect the environment and our natural resources, and our budget should reflect that importance. I ask my colleagues to consider in that vein

that the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request increases discretionary spending at an average rate of 4 percent for all discretionary spending. But with respect to his requests with regard to the environment and conservation issues, the President's budget actually cuts spending on the environment.

By the way, in the House budget resolution--that is where we will be negotiating when we go to conference--that is a cut of $1.3 billion relative to the enacted levels in fiscal year 2003.

Fortunately, the Senate resolution does restore some of that, but in my view we could do a lot better, and we should do a lot better. My amendment is a simple 1-year amendment to improve that, to meet that 4 percent discretionary standard that might be how we are looking at other spending.

In dollar terms, my amendment would increase our investment in environmental protection and resource conservation by up to $30.4 billion. That is $2.4 billion above what the President has asked for and $1.1 billion over the Senate resolution. The spending is offset by a corresponding reduction in the size of the tax cut.

By adopting this amendment, the Senate would make a strong statement that even in these difficult times we have not lost the desire, the faith, the will, to provide for environmental protection and natural resource conservation. They are really continuing important priorities of the American people.

By adopting this amendment, the Senate would make it possible to fund a number of very vital environmental programs. I will itemize a couple. The amendment funds clean water and drinking water State revolving funds--something that is important for economic expansion--at a combined level of $3 billion. It is only about $800 million over the level that is asked for in the budget resolution. This money flows directly to the State loan funds and will be used to build sewage treatment plants and water purification facilities, an important part of our infrastructure.

Forty percent of our Nation's lakes and rivers still do not meet the goal of the Clean Water Act of being fishable and swimmable. It is about 80 percent in New Jersey.

While my amendment will not get us all the way there, it goes a long way to close the gap between where people estimate we should be over the next 25 years and the $535 billion expenditure it will take to get us there.

Second, my amendment will also fully fund efforts to enforce environmental laws, clean up toxic waste dumps, and redevelop abandoned brownfield sites. Superfund is critical to my home State. My colleague from New Jersey has been one of the most articulate advocates in making sure we fully fund Superfund. He was one of the original authors of building this law in our Nation. We have 111 Superfund sites in New Jersey, most of any in the Nation. Forty-nine States have Superfund sites. One in four Americans lives within a mile of a Superfund site. That is a real health issue, a quality of life issue, and it is one that needs to be addressed.

There are lots of ways to go. We are cutting down the number of cleanup sites. Two years ago, we had 87 Superfund cleanups in a year. It has dropped below 40 now. We need to do better. We need to work at this now.

Of course, there are brownfield sites in every State in the Nation. We were all very proud that we passed the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, but getting around to funding that at authorized levels has not happened. My amendment would make this possible in fiscal year 2004. The amendment would fund important natural resource conservation programs, conservation programs that fight sprawl, protect open space, and improve quality of life for all Americans.

We have a long tradition of valuing and fighting to protect parks, wildlands, wildlife, open spaces, recreation resources, and cultural treasures. This is important to the heart and soul of this country, special places that need to be addressed.

Several years ago, as we entered the 21st century, we started the Conservation Trust Fund that would fund land and water conservation programs in a way that the toolbox would be available across the country to work on these issues--the sprawl, taking in parklands, and protecting our shorelines. It is unfortunate that we are not adequately dealing with this issue that will impact every American's life.

So I hope we can consider this amendment. It is funded, as I suggested, out of the tax cuts, and we can do a lot to really improve our society with relatively minimal expenditures in such an overwhelmingly large budget.

By adopting my amendment, the Senate will boost vital environmental protection and natural resource conservation programs. It will mean cleaner water, more Superfund sites and brownfields cleaned up, and more acres of open space and wildlife habitat protected. I hope the Senate will affirm this commitment to the environment as an important funding priority in our budget. I look forward to bringing up this amendment for debate tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator from North Dakota would reflect on a question. I think the numbers are we have 37 million seniors 65 and older, and we are on our way to something approaching 75 million in the next 15 years. Do

I understand that this amendment you are proposing is designed to make sure we begin to prepare for that inevitability, the charges against Social Security, which reduce the poverty rate of seniors in America from when it was conceived from about 50 percent of all seniors to right at 10 percent? Is that correct?

If the Senator from North Dakota would clarify another element of how budget practices work. Presumably payroll taxes, which each individual who is working pays into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, are designed so that people invest in receiving guaranteed benefits--in the case of Social Security--relative to what they expect will be there.

Is it true, or am I analyzing this properly, that we are now potentially, given the kind of framework of the budget outlay before us today, using payroll taxes that people were expecting to be used to build up the Social Security trust fund and Medicare trust fund, to be made available to cut taxes, maybe even dividend taxes for those who may be doing well already in society? We are using payroll taxes to indirectly fund the tax cuts being proposed or allowed in the budget resolution?

I thank the Senator from North Dakota.

Speaking in the context of what true fiscal responsibility is about, one needs to make sure the fundamental programs that are accepted by the American people, such as Social Security and Medicare benefits, are properly funded. It certainly strikes me that using the very taxes that are supposed to be supportive of those programs to fund tax cuts that are going to create deficits for as far as the eye can see is a very hard swallow when three out of four Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they actually pay in income taxes.

I would like to make a few comments with regard to the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to strongly support this amendment because I believe it is so important we understand that fiscal responsibility is really what is at stake. This amendment, more than almost anything that I see, actually addresses the issue of making sure we start to reserve for this great need, Social Security, that the able Senator from North Dakota has pointed out we will have to address in subsequent years. It does it by paying down debt now. It really addresses this issue of not using our payroll taxes to fund tax cuts for those who are already doing well in society.

We are making a very large mistake, as the analysis of the ranking member of the Budget Committee showed, with respect to using those resources in a way that is going to leave us with budget deficits over the next 10, 12, 13 years. I think that is hard to understand, particularly in the context of Social Security, which has been such a successful program in America, one that has reduced the poverty rates for seniors from well over 50 percent to down about 10 percent as we go forward.

This is one that is very difficult to understand, particularly in the context of trying to allow room for a dividend exclusion tax for which I have difficulty finding support based on the idea that it is going to be stimulus for job growth or, on any objective analytical basis, be promotive of the well-being of our economy.

One of the places we just turned--everybody has their favorite economist. We just happen to have 10 Nobel Prize-winning economists who spoke out on the tax cut plan proposed by President Bush, saying:

It is not the answer to our problems. Regardless of how one

views the specifics of the plan, there is wide agreement on

permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of

jobs and growth in the near term.

I cannot find people who say this proposal is going to do anything to turn around the current state of the economy. And what we are doing is financing it with one of those taxes that is the most heavy burden on those who have the least ability to pay.

It strikes me, again--I mentioned three out of four working Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes, than they certainly receive with respect to any kind of dividend taxation.

This is a very hard swallow--not particularly for the seniors today; we have the resources to fulfill our promises with respect to guaranteed benefits for seniors today. But if we do not address this problem with regard to Social Security over the long run, future generations are not going to have the same guaranteed benefits that have been promised, as they are being committed to as they pay into the Social Security trust fund today. It is a breach of faith. One of the things we need to do is make sure we address it today.

Frankly, the President's tax cut over the period of time that we are looking at the solvency of Social Security, on its lowest, it is about $12 trillion. That is over 57 years. That will help people evaluate the solvency of Social Security. Right now, it will be able to meet the guaranteed benefits out to about 2042, about halfway. Twelve trillion dollars, we are eroding the revenues of the Federal Government. Again, we are eroding it by using payroll taxes to fund tax cuts for the very best off in our society. And the obligation of fixing this Social Security problem is only $3.5 trillion. It sounds like not so much money, but when you compare it to what we are putting into this tax cut that the President is laying on the table and has allowed for in this budget resolution, it is about three times the size.

That is what this amendment is about. It is asking us to make those steps where we can begin to extend that solvency and protect Social Security. By the way, we are paying down the debt at the same time. At least we are limiting the growth of the debt relative to where it would be, which has all the other positive ingredients. The Federal Government is not in the capital markets of the country competing with the private sector to take capital that they will be borrowing to pay for these tax cuts and other expenditures we make for the overall levels of government involvement in the economy. It is called crowding out. It has been a problem at other times in our history. We are creating a format where this will absolutely be the case in the future, and that is why this amendment

is such an important one to support by protecting Social Security and putting in place a framework for fiscal responsibility for the long term. I support the amendment and hope my colleagues will as well.

Mr. President, today I recognize The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, NJ, which recently awarded its five billionth grant dollar to improve the health and health care of all Americans.

Established in 1972, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the Nation's largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to health and health care. It concentrates its grantmaking in four goal areas: to assure that all Americans have access to quality health care at reasonable cost; to improve the quality of care and support for people with chronic health conditions; to promote healthy communities and lifestyles; and to reduce the personal, social and economic harm caused by substance abuse.

Since its inception, the Foundation has spearheaded a number of important advances in Nation's health. Currently, 97 percent of all emergency management systems, EMS, use 911 as the universal access number for emergencies. This is the result of a program RWJF launched in the early 1970s to start multi-community emergency medical networks in 32 States. Today, Americans benefit from professional, organized, and effective emergency medical care as a result of this program

The foundation has also made significant contributions to the nursing and dental professions. It helped to create the fields of nurse practitioners and physician assistants during the early 1970s as part of its effort to increase health care access in the inner cities and rural areas.

All dental students are now trained to treat patients with disabilities, such as cerebral palsy or seizure disorders, building on a foundation-funded training program. The project, Health Care for the Homeless, became a model that was cited when the federal government passed the McKinney Act in 1987, providing Federal funds to improve access to health care for homeless people throughout the country.

The creation of school based health clinics represents another area where RWJF has had a major impact. The foundation's interest was sparked by reports that American teenagers suffered from deteriorating health. Approximately six million adolescents during the mid-1980s suffered from at least one serious health problem. Five million teenagers did not have health insurance. This was an especially alarming figure considering the increase in drug and alcohol abuse and rise in sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents. During the past 12 years, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has helped to establish more than 1,100 health centers in schools.

More recently, the foundation has recognized the need to focus increased attention on promoting healthy communities and lifestyles. For example, the recent grant to push the Foundation over the $5 billion threshold went to the Church Health Center in Memphis, TN, which will use its funds to test a model program designed to help people age 50 and older become more physically active. Physical inactivity is one of the greatest health risks for mid-life and older adults, contributing to illnesses and disabilities such as arthritis, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.

There are obviously a number of other noteworthy examples of efforts the Foundation has undertaken--from pediatrics to care at the end of life--which continue to result in important positive health outcomes for our citizens.

It is with great pride that I commend The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for its ongoing commitment to improving health and health care for all Americans. As we in the Congress face the daunting challenge of addressing a number of health care problems in this country, we must continue to draw on the experience and lessons learned from foundations and their grantees, which truly serve as the guideposts for experimentation and innovation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation, the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2003. I introduce this bill today, along with Representative Pete Stark (D-CA), in fond memory of our former colleague and friend, the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Paul was a crusader in many ways and for many causes; however, we will always remember his commitment to ensuring that all Americans have meaningful and equitable access to mental health treatment.

It is because of Paul's efforts that so many Americans, including many in the Congress, have rallied around the call for parity in the treatment of mental illness. Many of us are all too familiar with the stigma that still surrounds mental illness and the disparities in accessing treatment that permeate the private health insurance market. What many of us do not realize is that these inequities also exist in the Medicare program.

Our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries--our elderly and disabled population--have limited access to mental health services. Medicare restricts the types of mental health services available to beneficiaries and the types of providers who are allowed to offer such care. It also charges higher copayments for mental health services than it does for all other health care. In order to receive mental health care, seniors and the disabled must pay 50 percent of the cost of a visit to their mental health specialist, as opposed to the 20 percent that they pay for other services. Medicare also limits the number of days a beneficiary can receive mental health care in a hospital setting to 190 days over an individual's lifetime.

As we talk about modernizing the Medicare program we must address this problem. The need is glaring. Almost 20 percent of Americans over age 65 have a serious mental disorder. They suffer from depression, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, anxiety, late-life schizophrenia and, all too often, substance abuse. These are serious illnesses that must be treated. Unfortunately, they are often unidentified by primary care physicians, or the appropriate services are simply out of reach. Americans age 65 and older have the highest rate of suicide of any other population in the United States. An alarming 70 percent of elderly suicide victims have visited

their primary care doctor in the month prior to committing suicide.

Medicare is also the primary source of health insurance for millions of non-elderly disabled. More than 20 percent of these individuals suffer from mental illness and/or addiction. This very needy population faces the same discrimination in their mental health coverage.

As our population ages, the burden of mental illness on seniors, their families, and the health care system will only continue to increase. Experts estimate that by the year 2030, 15 million people over 65 will have psychiatric disorders, with the number of individuals suffering from Alzheimer's disease doubling. If we do not reform the Medicare program to provide greater access to detection and treatment of mental illness, the cost of not treating these diseases will rapidly escalate. Without the appropriate outpatient mental health services, too many of our seniors are forced into nursing homes and hospitals. If we truly want to modernize Medicare and make it more efficient, we must provide access to these services. Not only will they likely reduce costs in the long-term, but they will also increase Medicare beneficiaries' quality of life.

The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act takes critical steps to address these issues. First, the bill reduces the 50 percent copayment for mental health services to 20 percent. The proposed 20 percent copayment is the same as the copayment for all other outpatient services in Medicare. Second, the bill would provide access to intensive residential services for those who are suffering from severe mental illness. This will give people with Alzheimer's disease and other serious mental illness the opportunity to be cared for in their homes or in community-based settings. Third, the bill expands the number of qualified mental health professionals eligible to provide services through the Medicare program. This includes licensed professional mental health counselors, clinical social workers, and marriage and family therapists. This expansion of qualified providers is critical to ensuring that seniors throughout the nation, particularly those in rural areas, are able to receive the services they need.

In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to step forward to support the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2003. It is time for the Medicare program to stop discriminating against seniors and the disabled who are suffering from mental illness.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this legislation because I believe it is unconstitutional, and because its language is so broad that it effectively would ban standard and safe abortion procedures. I am concerned that, if approved, this bill would not only undermine a woman's right to choose, but it would endanger the lives of thousands of women who no longer would have access to safe abortion procedures when their health or their life is in jeopardy.

Before I go further, let me say that I fully understand the very real and legitimate concerns of those who support this legislation. The issue of abortion raises the most profound of moral and ethical dilemmas. These are emotional issues. They raise many hard questions. And the practical reality of abortion, all types of abortion, is hard for all involved.

Speaking for myself, I support a woman's right to choose. And I support it strongly. As I see it, a decision about abortion generally should be made by a woman and her doctor, not by politicians.

Having said that, I recognize that men and women of good faith can and will reach different conclusions about the difficult ethical questions involved in the debate on this legislation. And, I share concerns raised by many bill proponents about some of the most disturbing examples of procedures conducted post-viability. That's why I intend to support an amendment to restrict such procedures. The legislation I am supporting, however, is much more carefully crafted than the underlying bill, and it complies with the constitution by providing an exception where the health of the woman is at stake.

While I understand the genuine concerns of many advocates for this legislation, the language of the bill actually goes well beyond a ban on late-term abortions. In fact, its real effect would be to deny women's access to some of the safest abortion procedures at all stages of pregnancy. Because the legislation omits any mention of fetal viability, it bans abortions throughout all stages of pregnancy. And it bans one of the safest abortion methods--the ``intact D&E''--that is used when a woman's life and health are in danger and for severe fetal anomalies.

I hope my colleagues will think long and hard about the implications of the legislation before us. We need to be very careful to avoid returning to a period in which abortion was illegal and the only choice women had was to seek an illegal and unsafe abortion. In those days, thousands of women died each year as a direct result of these legal prohibitions. And it would be tragic if this Congress were to forget the lessons of that history.

It also would be unconstitutional. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that a woman has the right to choose legal abortion until fetal viability. States have the authority to ban abortion post-viability, so long as exceptions are made to protect a woman's life and health. And, indeed, 41 States have chosen to ban postviability abortions in instances in which a woman's life and health are not at stake. But, under no circumstances do the Congress or the States have the authority to ban medical procedures that are essential to preserving a woman's life or health, nor do they have the authority to completely ban access to abortion previability. This is a constitutionally protected right.

Unfortunately, the majority leader has brought to the Senate floor an abortion ban that has been struck down by courts in 21 States, including my State of New Jersey, and the Supreme Court. Based on that precedent, there is little doubt that, if this bill is enacted, it also will be struck down, and therefore it won't reduce the number of abortions at all. It makes you wonder: Why are we even spending our time debating this legislation?

If we really are interested in reducing the number of abortions in this country, we should ensure that all women have access to the full array of family planning services, including prescription contraception, emergency contraception, and prenatal care. We also should support an expansion of comprehensive sex education. I fully support the amendment offered by Senator Murray and Reid that would have addressed these issues.

Every week, 8,500 children in our country are born to mothers who lacked access to prenatal care. Too many of these children are born with serious health problems because their mothers lacked adequate care during their pregnancies. As a result, 28,000 infants die each year in the United States. That, Mr. President, is the real tragedy. And we ought to act immediately to address this issue by expanding access to prenatal care, as several of my colleagues and I have proposed.

What we should not do, however, is pass legislation that we know is unconstitutional, that would ban a common and safe form of abortion at all stages of pregnancy, and that would increase maternal mortality-- all without improving the health of a single child.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two letters, one from Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and the other from Mr. Felicia Stewart, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of California. I believe these letters describe better than I the important medical reasons for voting against this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to call attention to a little- known, little-understood, devastating ``orphan'' disease fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, or FOP--which strikes children between age 2 and 10.

Normally, when a young child sprains a wrist or an ankle, or bruises a knee, there's a natural healing process. But children with FOP-- develop catastrophic bone spurs at the site of the injury that continue to grow, encasing major organs and exerting painful, life-threatening pressure. According to Dr. Frederic Kaplan, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania, the worldwide center for FOP research, the average lifespan for people with this dreadful disease is about 45 years. But most sufferers are wheel-chair bound by age 20, breathing with the greatest difficulty, unable to feed or dress themselves.

Here's the sad problem: there are perhaps 300 FOP cases in the world--at least 12 in my state of New Jersey, 16 in New York, and 13 in Pennsylvania. This is the orphan of all orphan diseases. So we need to put a human face on this. For me, that face belongs to 10-year old Whitney Weldon, of Westfield, New Jersey. When first diagnosed two years ago, Whitney did all the things most all children do--run, play ball, skip down the street. Now she cannot lift her arms over her head. But she is able to ride a special bicycle and enjoy the art she loves, and time with her best friend. We want to give her the chance for more time, and to do that we need money for research. Right now Whitney's only treatment consists of painkillers and anti-inflammatory steroids. Nothing stops the bone growth.

Dr. Kaplan and his research partner at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Eileen Shore, have received a little more than $1 million over 4 years from the National Institutes of Health for research into the gene that causes FOP and to determine the pathways by which this abnormal gene causes extra bone production. This funding is a tribute to their progress so far, but there is still such a long way to go. Dr. Kaplan's annual budget is $1 million. About 20 percent of that comes from NIH funding--the other 80 percent comes from families and friends. And I'll tell you something interesting--Dr. Kaplan says that even though FOP affects only one person in 2 million, the answers that can be found in continued research can shed light on osteoporosis and extra-bone formation that occurs after head or spinal cord trauma. So there is the very real potential of beneficial effects for many millions of people.

There are some promising avenues. Adult stem cell research and examination of bone marrow from FOP sufferers have yielded possible directions to pursue. Wider stem cell research would be exponentially more helpful.

Whitney's parents enable her to live as normal a life as possible for as long as possible. And she shares fun and confidences with Mackenzie Roach, her friend since kindergarten. She also shares one of life's extraordinary connecting bonds with Mackenzie. Stephen Roach, Mackenzie's father, was killed on September 11 when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center. Stephen was very involved in raising funds

and awareness for FOP. In his memory, Mackenzie's family has created the Stephen L. Roach Fund for FOP Research, which to date has raised more than $800,000.

Last March, President Bush declared 2002-2011 as National Bone and Joint Decade. That is a very hopeful development, and hope goes a long way. When we join that hope with a sustained focus on finding a cure for FOP, we will go even further.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Round II EZ/EC Flexibility Act of 2003. This important legislation would secure vital funding for Round II Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities to ensure that communities throughout the country will be able to continue the important work of economic revitalization.

This legislation promotes the continued economic development throughout the EZ/EC program, particularly to the 15 Round II urban and 5 rural empowerment zones that were designated in 1999. Each of those communities has implemented a host of strategic initiatives aimed at economic growth and job creation in their respective communities.

The EZ/EC Act ensures that Round II communities EZs and ECs are provided with funding they were promised upon designation. It also authorizes the use of EZ/EC grants as a match for related Federal programs, providing the EZ/EC program with maximum flexibility to implement initiatives at the local level.

The Enterprise Zone/Enterprise Community program was created to provide Federal assistance over ten years in designated urban and rural communities that would fuel economic revitalization and job growth. The program does so primarily by providing Federal grants to communities and tax and regulatory relief to help communities attract and retain businesses.

Unfortunately, an inequity now exists between the way Round I and Round II EZs and ECs have been funded. Those communities that won EZ designations in the initial round, in 1994, received full funding from the Congress, which made all grant awards available for use within the first two years of designation. However, EZs and ECs designated in Round II did not receive this same funding authority.

Federal benefits promised to the Round IIs included funding grants of $100 million for each urban zone, $40 million for each rural zone and about $3 million for each Enterprise Community over a ten-year period beginning in 1999. In reliance on those ``promised'' funds, Round II zones prepared strategic plans for economic revitalization based on the availability of that funding. However, unlike Round I designees, who received a full funding up front, Round II zones have received a mere fraction of the funding promise.

The lack of a certain, predictable funding stream will ultimately undermine the ability of Round II EZs/ECs to effectively implement their economic growth strategies in their designated communities. And that's a shame, because the EZ/EC initiative has produced real results.

In fact, I'm proud to say that one of the best Round II EZs is located in Cumberland County, NJ. The Cumberland County Empowerment Zone, a collaborative effort of the communities of Bridgeton, Millville, Vineland and Port Norris, has been a model EZ, and committed all the funds made available to it by HUD.

Since the creation of the EZ, Cumberland County has witnessed more than 100 housing units rehabbed, renovated or newly built. A $4 million loan pool has been created to fund community and small business reinvestment. The EZ also has led to the funding for over 60 economic development initiatives, utilizing more than $11 million in funding to leverage $120 million in private, public and tax exempt bond financing.

These are real results. In fact, over 1,100 new jobs will be created in the County over the next year and a half alone if the Federal Government were to maintain its commitment to the EZ/EC program.

Cumberland County is just one example of how the EZ/EC initiative has brought hope and promise to communities throughout America. We need to do more to support and build on these initiatives. Now is the time for Congress to fulfill the promise made to Round II EZs and ECs.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill that will allow communities throughout the country to continue their work of economic revitalization. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Round II EZ/EC Flexibility Act of 2003. This important legislation would secure vital funding for Round II Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities to ensure that communities throughout the country will be able to continue the important work of economic revitalization.

This legislation promotes the continued economic development throughout the EZ/EC program, particularly to the 15 Round II urban and 5 rural empowerment zones that were designated in 1999. Each of those communities has implemented a host of strategic initiatives aimed at economic growth and job creation in their respective communities.

The EZ/EC Act ensures that Round II communities EZs and ECs are provided with funding they were promised upon designation. It also authorizes the use of EZ/EC grants as a match for related Federal programs, providing the EZ/EC program with maximum flexibility to implement initiatives at the local level.

The Enterprise Zone/Enterprise Community program was created to provide Federal assistance over ten years in designated urban and rural communities that would fuel economic revitalization and job growth. The program does so primarily by providing Federal grants to communities and tax and regulatory relief to help communities attract and retain businesses.

Unfortunately, an inequity now exists between the way Round I and Round II EZs and ECs have been funded. Those communities that won EZ designations in the initial round, in 1994, received full funding from the Congress, which made all grant awards available for use within the first two years of designation. However, EZs and ECs designated in Round II did not receive this same funding authority.

Federal benefits promised to the Round IIs included funding grants of $100 million for each urban zone, $40 million for each rural zone and about $3 million for each Enterprise Community over a ten-year period beginning in 1999. In reliance on those ``promised'' funds, Round II zones prepared strategic plans for economic revitalization based on the availability of that funding. However, unlike Round I designees, who received a full funding up front, Round II zones have received a mere fraction of the funding promise.

The lack of a certain, predictable funding stream will ultimately undermine the ability of Round II EZs/ECs to effectively implement their economic growth strategies in their designated communities. And that's a shame, because the EZ/EC initiative has produced real results.

In fact, I'm proud to say that one of the best Round II EZs is located in Cumberland County, NJ. The Cumberland County Empowerment Zone, a collaborative effort of the communities of Bridgeton, Millville, Vineland and Port Norris, has been a model EZ, and committed all the funds made available to it by HUD.

Since the creation of the EZ, Cumberland County has witnessed more than 100 housing units rehabbed, renovated or newly built. A $4 million loan pool has been created to fund community and small business reinvestment. The EZ also has led to the funding for over 60 economic development initiatives, utilizing more than $11 million in funding to leverage $120 million in private, public and tax exempt bond financing.

These are real results. In fact, over 1,100 new jobs will be created in the County over the next year and a half alone if the Federal Government were to maintain its commitment to the EZ/EC program.

Cumberland County is just one example of how the EZ/EC initiative has brought hope and promise to communities throughout America. We need to do more to support and build on these initiatives. Now is the time for Congress to fulfill the promise made to Round II EZs and ECs.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill that will allow communities throughout the country to continue their work of economic revitalization. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation, the Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families on TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, that will protect low-income families who are transitioning from welfare to work from losing their welfare benefits during periods of high unemployment. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murray, for joining me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Forcing families off welfare during a recession because they cannot find a job lacks commonsense. In fact, during an economic downturn, which we are in right now, low-skilled workers and recently employed workers are more likely to lose their jobs, and unfortunately, only 30 to 40 percent of former welfare recipients who become unemployed qualify for Unemployment Insurance. Furthermore, there are 1.5 million fewer jobs today than there were a year ago, when the economic downturn began, making it increasingly difficult for these individuals to find employment, particularly full-time employment.

A single parent receiving welfare assistance while working 30 hours a week who loses her job during a recession should not be penalized. For families like this, welfare is the only unemployment insurance they have. But, under current law, federal welfare time limits and work requirements continue to apply during periods of high-unemployment.

The Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families through TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, would require states to disregard federal TANF assistance for all recipients when the national unemployment rate reaches or exceeds 6.5 percent or when a state unemployment rises by 1.5 percentage points over a three-month period.

Every percentage point increase in unemployment results in a welfare caseload increase of 5 percent. In addition to enacting a strong contingency fund for states experiencing high unemployment and increased caseloads, Congress must act to ensure that welfare recipients are not time-limited off of welfare when the economy is weak and jobs are in short supply. In addition to promoting self- sufficiency, TANF programs should be a safety net for low-income families who are unable to find work or meet their needs.

My legislation will help parents who are trying to transition from welfare to work, but are unable to find work during a weak economy, to provide for their families without the fear of losing cash assistance. The TANF program is not only about moving people from welfare to work, it is also about reducing poverty and helping families in need.

While welfare reform has succeeded at moving thousands of people into work, its success has come in strong economic times. As people reach their 5-year time limits, we can only hope they will be able to find jobs in what is now a more difficult economy. The reality is that many states are experiencing high unemployment right now, making it extremely difficult for welfare recipients to find good paying full- time jobs. We shouldn't penalize people who are trying to transition from welfare to work just because the economy is bad. We need to continue to help these families build their skills and find employment when times are tough.

As Congress acts to reauthorize the TANF program I ask my colleagues to support legislation that will protect families transitioning from welfare to work from losing their benefits during a recession.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation, the Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families on TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, that will protect low-income families who are transitioning from welfare to work from losing their welfare benefits during periods of high unemployment. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murray, for joining me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Forcing families off welfare during a recession because they cannot find a job lacks commonsense. In fact, during an economic downturn, which we are in right now, low-skilled workers and recently employed workers are more likely to lose their jobs, and unfortunately, only 30 to 40 percent of former welfare recipients who become unemployed qualify for Unemployment Insurance. Furthermore, there are 1.5 million fewer jobs today than there were a year ago, when the economic downturn began, making it increasingly difficult for these individuals to find employment, particularly full-time employment.

A single parent receiving welfare assistance while working 30 hours a week who loses her job during a recession should not be penalized. For families like this, welfare is the only unemployment insurance they have. But, under current law, federal welfare time limits and work requirements continue to apply during periods of high-unemployment.

The Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families through TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, would require states to disregard federal TANF assistance for all recipients when the national unemployment rate reaches or exceeds 6.5 percent or when a state unemployment rises by 1.5 percentage points over a three-month period.

Every percentage point increase in unemployment results in a welfare caseload increase of 5 percent. In addition to enacting a strong contingency fund for states experiencing high unemployment and increased caseloads, Congress must act to ensure that welfare recipients are not time-limited off of welfare when the economy is weak and jobs are in short supply. In addition to promoting self- sufficiency, TANF programs should be a safety net for low-income families who are unable to find work or meet their needs.

My legislation will help parents who are trying to transition from welfare to work, but are unable to find work during a weak economy, to provide for their families without the fear of losing cash assistance. The TANF program is not only about moving people from welfare to work, it is also about reducing poverty and helping families in need.

While welfare reform has succeeded at moving thousands of people into work, its success has come in strong economic times. As people reach their 5-year time limits, we can only hope they will be able to find jobs in what is now a more difficult economy. The reality is that many states are experiencing high unemployment right now, making it extremely difficult for welfare recipients to find good paying full- time jobs. We shouldn't penalize people who are trying to transition from welfare to work just because the economy is bad. We need to continue to help these families build their skills and find employment when times are tough.

As Congress acts to reauthorize the TANF program I ask my colleagues to support legislation that will protect families transitioning from welfare to work from losing their benefits during a recession.

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