Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to initiate a study of the feasibility of designating the route of Captain John Smith's exploration of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries as a National Historic Trail. Joining me in sponsoring this legislation are my colleagues Senators Warner, Allen and Mikulski.

Our system of National Historic Trails, NHTs, commemorate major routes of historic travel and mark major events which shaped American history. To date, 13 National Historic Trails have been established in the National Park Service including the Lewis and Clark, the Pony Express, Selma to Montgomery, and Trail of Tears National Historic Trails. To be designated as a National Historic Trail, a trail must meet three basic criteria: it must be nationally significant, have a documented route through maps or journals, and provide for recreational opportunities. In my judgment, the proposed Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail meets all three criteria.

Captain John Smith was one of America's earliest explorers. His role in the founding of Jamestown, VA--the first permanent English settlement in North America--and in exploring the Chesapeake Bay region during the years 1607 to 1609 marks a defining period in the history of our Nation. His contemporaries and historians alike credit Smith's strong leadership with ensuring the survival of the fledgling colony and laying the foundation for the future establishment of our nation.

With a dozen men in a 30-foot open boat, Smith's expeditions in search of food for the new colony and the fabled Northwest Passage took him nearly 3,000 miles around the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from the Virginia capes to the mouth of the Susquehanna. On his voyages and as President of the Jamestown Colony, Captain Smith became the first point of contact for scores of Native American leaders from around the Bay region. His relationship with Pocahontas is now an important part of American folklore. Smith's notes describing the indigenous people he met and the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem are still widely studied by historians, environmental scientists, and anthropologists.

The remarkably accurate maps and charts that Smith made of his voyages into the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries served as the definitive map of the region for nearly a century. His voyages, as chronicled in his journals, ignited the imagination of the Old World, and helped launch an era of adventure and discovery in the New World. Hundreds, and then thousands of people aspired to settle in what Smith described as one of `` the most pleasant places known, for large and pleasant navigable rivers, heaven and earth never agreed better to frame a place for man's habitation.'' Even today, his vivid descriptions of the Bay's abundance still serve as a benchmark for the health and productivity of the Bay.

With the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown quickly approaching, the designation of this route as a national historic trail would be a tremendous way to celebrate an important part of our nation's story and serve as a reminder of John Smith's role in establishing the colony and opening the way for later settlements in the New World. It would also give recognition to the Native American settlements, culture and natural history of the 17th century Chesapeake. Similar in historic importance to the Lewis and Clark National Trail,

this new historic watertrail will inspire generations of Americans and visitors to follow Smith's journeys, to learn about the roots of our nation and to better understand the contributions of the Native Americans who lived within the Bay region.

Equally important, the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Watertrail can serve as a national outdoor resource by providing rich opportunities for education, recreation, and heritage tourism not only for more than 16 million Americans living in the Bay's watershed, but for visitors to this area. The water trail would be the first National Watertrail established in the United States and would allow voyagers in small boats, cruising boats, kayaks and canoes to travel from the distant headwaters to the open Bay--an accomplishment that would inspire today's explorers and would generate national and international attention and participation. The Trail would complement the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Initiative and help highlight the Bay's remarkable maritime history, its unique watermen and their culture, the diversity of its peoples, its historical settlements and our current efforts to restore and sustain the world's most productive estuary.

This legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Congress and in the States through which the trail passes. The legislation has been endorsed by the Governors of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. The measure is also strongly supported by The Conservation Fund, Izaak Walton League, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the latter two organizations expressing support for the legislation be printed in the Record. I want to commend Pat Noonan, Chairman Emeritus of The Conservation Fund, for his vision in conceiving this trail and urge that the legislation be quickly enacted.

As John Smith wrote four centuries ago and as many Americans today agree, ``no place is more convenient for pleasure, profit and man's sustenance'' than the Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Collins, Akaka, Warner, Lieberman, Allen, Mikulski, Snowe, Johnson, Dayton, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Durbin, Corzine, Landrieu, Bingaman, and Murray in submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that parity between Federal civilian pay and military pay should be maintained.

During this unprecedented time in our Nation's history, both members of the uniformed services and civilian Federal employees are maintaining our Nation's defenses, ensuring the security of the homeland, and making remarkable contributions to the general welfare of the United States. Pay parity among all those who serve our Nation appropriately recognizes the crucial work and honorable sacrifices of the civilian Federal workforce. The contributions of civilian employees range from Department of Defense employees working alongside the military in hostile environments abroad to those at the Department of Health and Human Services who consistently achieve critical breakthroughs in science and medicine. The sacrifice of these individuals is made evident by individuals such as CIA employee Mike Spann, the first casualty of the conflict in Afghanistan; Lawrence Foley, an employee of the U.S. Agency for International Development who was assassinated by terrorists in Jordan; Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr., postal workers who died as a result of the anthrax attacks of 2001; and many others.

Congress has demonstrated a bipartisan and longstanding commitment to the principle of pay parity by providing for equal pay adjustments in each of the last three years and 17 of the last 19 years. The budget proposal presented to Congress for Fiscal Year 2005 included a 3.5 percent pay raise for members of the uniformed services, but only a 1.5 percent pay raise for our dedicated public servants. However, both Houses of Congress reaffirmed their support for equal pay by including a 3.5 percent raise for both civilian and military employees in their respective resolutions and relevant Fiscal Year 2005 appropriations bills.

Providing equitable pay raises for federal employees is not just an issue of fairness. It is also critical to recruiting and retaining talented individuals in public service, and therefore, to successfully administering important Federal programs. Our Federal Government is facing a ``human capital'' crisis that threatens institutional experience and knowledge at every level. Within the next five years, our government could lose up to half of its workforce to retirement. These vacancies will occur in an era in which those entering the workforce are far less likely to join public service. Numerous studies by groups such as the Partnership for Public Service and the Council for Excellence in Government indicate that young Americans have developed a more positive attitude towards government and politics in recent years, but are still unlikely to consider government service as a career. One way to address this looming crisis is to take tangible steps to make Federal service more financially attractive.

I should note that despite the pressing need to draw more qualified candidates to Federal service, the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA)--designed to bring Federal pay in line with private sector pay--has never been fully implemented. If we are serious about resolving our Federal workforce shortage issue, we must also begin a conversation about implementing FEPCA. At a minimum, however, we should recognize the importance of civilian Federal employees by providing equal pay raises to all those who choose to serve our country. Otherwise we risk further reducing the number of qualified candidates we can recruit to civilian federal jobs.

The dedication of both the uniformed services and our civilian employees embody the greatness of our Nation, day in and day out, through their commitment to public service. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution so that the contributions of both are recognized in an equitable manner.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the International Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 2005. This legislation extends basic consumer protection rights to those who send remittances, and it creates new avenues and incentives for federally insured financial institutions to provide remittance and basic banking services to those who currently do not use such institutions to send remittances.

The practice of sending remittances is not new. Immigrants to the United States traditionally have used remittances to provide financial assistance to family members who remained in their country of origin, but the practice has been largely overlooked; it has not been systematically studied and its implications have not been fully understood. The 2000 census shows that 30 million people in this country are foreign-born--the largest number in our Nation's history-- and the vast majority of them--22 million are citizens or legal residents. More than 40 percent of our Nation's foreign-born population immigrated to the United States in the 1990s, and some 15.4 million, or more than half the immigrant community, have come from Latin American countries. Immigrants make a vital contribution to the economic and social life of our Nation.

In a recent study, Sending Money Home: Remittances to Latin America from the U.S., 2004, the Inter-American Development Bank, IADB, found that nationwide over 60 percent of Latin American immigrants send remittances. On average, each immigrant sends $240 at a time, 12 times per year. Although these individual transactions are not large, they have constituted an aggregate amount of over $30 billion from America to our Latin American neighbors in this year alone.

In my State of Maryland, we have 175,000 immigrants from Latin America and the vast majority send remittances back home. According to the IADB's study 80 percent of Maryland's immigrants from Latin America send remittances. The typical sender remits an average of $245, 14 times per year--in other words, remittances are a monthly matter, with special gifts for Christmas and Mother's Day.

The subject of remittances has been a major interest of mine for some time. As chairman of the Banking Committee, in February, 2002, during the 107th Congress, I chaired what I understand was the first Congressional hearing devoted exclusively to the subject. Dr. Manuel Orozco, a leading researcher on remittances at the Inter-American Dialogue, told the Committee that remittances from the U.S. to Latin America had grown substantially--at that point to an estimated $20 billion in 2001--and that between 15 to 20 percent--$3-$4 billion--was being lost in fees and other transaction costs. Since Dr. Orozco testified, remittances to Latin America have grown by $10 billion, or 50 percent, in just three years, and continued growth is expected.

That an estimated 15 percent to 20 percent of the money sent in remittances is diverted to fees and other transaction costs, often hidden from the remittance sender, is evidence of the abusive practices that exist in the remittance market. There are two primary factors that account for this abuse. First, studies have shown that people who send remittances tend to be relatively low-wage earners, with modest formal education and relatively little experience in dealing with this country's complex system of financial institutions. As a result they are susceptible to unscrupulous actors who can take advantage of them by charging all sorts of exorbitant fees, which are often hidden or misrepresented. The exchange rate conversion is often the mechanism for this abusive practice.

Second, remittances are currently not subject to the requirements set by Federal consumer protection law, including the disclosure of fees. There is no requirement that a remittance transfer provider disclose to the consumer the exchange rate fee that will be applied in the transaction. Without knowing the exchange rate fee that the company is charging, a consumer has little ability to gauge accurately the full cost of sending a remittance. As Sergio Bendixen, a leading researcher of public opinion and behavior, with a specialty among Hispanic consumers, testified before the Banking Committee: ``an overwhelming majority of Hispanic immigrants are unaware that their families in Latin America receive less money than what they send from the United States.'' Further, a remittance sender cannot effectively shop between remittance transfer providers. The lack of basic information limits the amount of competition in this market.

The legislation I am introducing today extends basic consumer rights to those who send remittances. Further, by requiring clear and understandable disclosures to the remittance sender of the cost of the remittance, thus presenting to the consumer the full cost of sending money, the legislation will enhance competition, which in turn should lead to an overall decrease in the cost of sending remittances. As Sergio Bendixen testified to the Banking Committee, ``Full disclosure should unleash market forces that, hopefully, will result in a significant reduction in the cost of sending cash remittances.''

This legislation amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, EFTA, which is the primary vehicle for providing basic protections to most persons who engage in electronic transactions, to cover remittances, and to provide the basic rights associated with EFTA to remittance transactions. The two most important components of EFTA are the requirement of full disclosure of fees and the establishment of a process for the resolution of transactional errors. These rights have been an integral part of the regulations that govern our banking infrastructure since EFTA's enactment in 1978. The new legislation will build upon the success of EFTA by extending these basic rights to remittance senders.

The cornerstone of this legislation is the requirement that remittance transfer providers make three key disclosures to their consumers: One, the total cost of the remittance, represented in a single dollar amount; two, the total amount of currency that will be sent to the designated recipient; and three, the promised date of delivery for the remittance. These disclosures follow the core recommendations of the Inter-American Development Bank, which in its publication, Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean: Goals and Recommendations,

states: ``Remittance institutions should disclose in a fully transparent manner, complete information on total costs and transfer conditions, including all commissions and fees, foreign exchange rates applied and execution time.''

The total cost disclosure will include the cost of the exchange rate conversion as well as all up-front fees. This single item will both give consumers a more accurate representation of the cost of the remittance transaction and allow consumers to more effectively compare costs between remittance transfer providers.

In order to calculate the cost of the exchange rate conversion, which is part of the total cost, the legislation requires that the Treasury Department post on its website, on a daily basis, the exchange rate for all currencies. At present the Treasury receives this information on a daily basis, but posts it only on a quarterly basis on the Treasury website. By posting the information daily, the Treasury could create a uniform and credible source for exchange rate information.

To calculate the cost to the consumer of the exchange rate differential, remittance transfer providers will use the difference between the previous business day's exchange rate, as posted on the Treasury website, and the exchange rate that the remittance transfer provider offers. Using the exchange rate posted by the Treasury will ensure that the exchange rate cost is calculated on a uniform base. When the exchange rate cost is disclosed to the consumer as part of the total cost of the remittance transfer, the consumer will be better able to understand the full cost of the transaction and to shop between different remittance transfer providers.

In addition to fee disclosure requirements, this legislation establishes an error resolution mechanism so that consumers whose remittance transactions experience an error have a fair, open, and expedient process through which they may resolve those errors with the institution that conducted the flawed transaction. This basic right is already afforded to consumers who are protected by EFTA, and now this right will be extended to cover consumers who send remittances as well. Further, the legislation establishes an error resolution mechanism for remittance transfer errors that is responsive to the different types of errors that can occur in a remittance transaction and is reflective of the unique characteristics of the remittance market and its participants.

Under this legislation, a consumer has one year from the date that the remittance transfer company promised to deliver the money to notify the company that an error has occurred. The company is then required to resolve the error within 90 days. To resolve the error, the company must either 1. refund the full amount of the remittance that was not properly transferred, 2. resend that amount at no additional cost to the consumer or the designated recipient, or 3. demonstrate to the consumer that there was no error. The Federal Reserve Board is also granted the authority to establish additional remedies for specific situations that cannot be addressed by the three specific remedies that are described in the legislation.

It is urgent that we continue to encourage efforts to bring those who send remittances into the financial mainstream. In his testimony to the Banking Committee, Dr. Orozco pointed out that, ``About two-thirds of immigrants cash their salary checks in check cashing stores that charge exorbitant fees. Many of these same immigrants then use what remains of their income to send remittances back home. In this common scenario, immigrants are penalized in both receiving and sending their earnings.'' In order to further bank those who are currently unbanked, the legislation that I am introducing today requires that the Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration provide guidelines to financial institutions regarding the offering of low-cost remittance transfers and no-cost or low-cost basic consumer accounts. This legislation also amends the Federal Credit Union Act to allow credit unions to offer remittances and to cash checks for persons who are in their field of membership but are not credit union members. The guidelines set out in the legislation will help educate the financial services industry about the importance and potential profitability of providing these services.

The sending of remittances in a fair and scrupulous manner is likely to be profitable for the institution that provides the remittance service, and indeed we have begun to see aggressive moves into the remittance market by many of the largest banking institutions. Individuals who send remittances but are currently unbanked represent an expanded and profitable customer base for financial institutions.

By its very nature, the issues involved in sending remittances affect both the United States and other nations. As Professor Susan Martin of Georgetown University, who also testified at our hearing, told the Banking Committee: ``Until relatively recently, researchers and policy makers tended to dismiss the importance of remittances or emphasize only their negative aspects . . . but recent work on remittances show a far more complex and promising picture. . . . Experts now recognize that remittances have far greater positive impact on communities in developing countries than previously acknowledged.'' In fact, the size of the remittance market is such that for six Central American and Caribbean nations--Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Guyana and Jamaica--remittances constitute more than 10 percent of GDP; Haiti and Jamaica receive more in remittances than in revenues from trade. The World Bank estimates that Mexico receives more in remittances than it does in foreign direct investment. Reducing the costs of remittances is in the interest of both the United States and the countries that receive them.

Given the growing importance of annual remittance flows, we must work to increase their efficiency. One mechanism for accomplishing this objective, and for increasing the ability of financial institutions to offer remittances, is linking our banking infrastructure with the banking infrastructures of other nations. The Federal Reserve operates an international automated clearing house system, ACHi, that is currently linked to seven countries, of which the vast majority are highly developed trading partners that receive relatively low levels of remittances. The ACHi was recently connected to Mexico, however, which will allow financial institutions throughout the United States, especially those institutions of smaller size, to provide remittance services more easily and cheaply to Mexico. This legislation directs the Fed to take into account the importance of remittance flows to other countries as it continues to expand the ACHi system. Linking the ACHi to countries that receive significant remittances has the potential to result in great benefits to consumers who send remittances from America as well as to those who receive the remittances around the world.

Finally, I am acutely aware of the need for better and more broadly available financial literacy and education for all Americans. I am pleased to report that in the last Congress, as part of the reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, we established a Presidential Financial Literacy and Education Commission, which is charged with developing a national strategy to promote financial literacy and education. The Act addresses the issue of remittances by including in the Commission's work a focus on increasing the ``awareness of the particular financial needs and financial transactions, such as the sending of remittances, of consumers who are targeted in multilingual financial literacy and education programs.'' The legislation that I am introducing today builds on that framework by instructing the bank and credit union regulators to work with the Commission to specifically increase the financial education efforts that target those persons who send remittances.

Millions of Americans send remittances to family members around the world, for a total far exceeding the $30 billion that goes to Latin America alone. Yet almost all of these transactions take place without the basic consumer rights and protections that apply to other electronic transfers. Consumers who send remittances are often immigrants and workers who earn modest wages, who are not aware of the full costs of each remittance,

and as a practical matter have no way of finding out, and, as a consequence, in the aggregate pay billions of dollars in costs and hidden fees. They do not have available to them an established procedure for resolving transactional errors. This legislation rectifies this situation by extending to remittances the basic consumer rights established in EFTA. The bill also contains provisions that, when implemented, will allow more insured financial institutions to provide remittance services--and potentially at lower costs to consumers. The bill contains important provisions to help bring the unbanked--men and women without an account at a bank or credit union into the financial mainstream. Taken together, these measures will increase transparency, competition and efficiency in the remittance market, while helping to bring more Americans into the financial mainstream.

A broad range of community, civil rights, and consumer groups have endorsed this legislation including the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, United Farm Workers of America, the Farmworker Justice Fund, the NAACP, Casa de Maryland, the National Federation of Filipino American Associations, the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the Center for Responsible Lending, U.S. PIRG, ACORN, Woodstock Institute, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates. The Credit Union National Association and the World Council of Credit Unions, both of whom provide remittance services, have also endorsed this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of International Remittance Consumer Protection Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is with great sorrow that I mark the passing of Representative Robert Matsui. In his quarter-century of service representing California's Fifth District in the House of Representatives, Robert Matsui won the deep respect and affection of everyone who ever worked with him. When he first ran for Congress, in 1978, he pledged to bring to the office ``a new form of statesmanship.'' For more than 25 years, on a daily basis, he fulfilled that promise, and his constituents honored him for it. This past November they returned him to the Congress for his fourteenth term, with 71 percent of the vote.

Bob Matsui was a third-generation Japanese American. Like so many of us, he was part of a family that had come to the United States for the great opportunities this country offers, to build a better life for their children. Because Bob Matsui's family was Japanese-American, however, he and his parents were taken from their home in Sacramento in 1942, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. They were interned for more than three years at Tule Lake, in one of the ``relocation centers'' specifically created for Japanese Americans. Bob Matsui himself was very young at the time--barely 6 months old at the time of internment, not yet 4 years old when the war ended but he felt deeply the confusion and anguish of the adults around him. Yet he never lost faith in his country and in himself. Inspired by the Kennedy administration to enter public service, he dedicated his professional life to serving and protecting the rights of all Americans, first as a lawyer and then as a public official. He served 8 years on the Sacramento City Council before entering the Congress. But the experience of his early childhood never left him, and in 1988 he was instrumental in ensuring enactment of the Japanese American Redress Act, which offered recognition of the terrible, unconstitutional wrongs done to Japanese Americans.

As a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Bob Matsui worked unstintingly to assure the safety net for those most in need: children, seniors, the disabled, the poor and others who needed an advocate. As the ranking minority member of the Social Security Subcommittee, he was one of the Social Security system's best-informed and most eloquent advocates in the Congress. No one understood better than he the indispensable role that Social Security plays in assuring basic standards of security and dignity to Americans when their working years are over, and no one was more dedicated to keeping the system intact. Robert Matsui believed in the social insurance system that Rockefeller created to care for retirees, but we as a society expanded to care for younger citizens in need, the disabled, widowed and survivors. He made politics personal, and because he cared so deeply for others, he was able to be a real leader in this realm. His voice will be sorely missed.

Congressman Matsui leaves a legacy of extraordinary integrity, commitment and strength. It is fitting that in his memory Bob Matsui's family and friends have established The Matsui Foundation for Public Service, which will carry forward the principles to which he dedicated his life. I express my deepest sympathies to his wife, Doris Okada, his son Brian, daughter-in-law Amy, and granddaughter Anna, and thank them for sharing him with us these many years.

Mr. President, with the retirement of Senator Fritz Hollings, the Senate is losing its fourth most senior member, an extraordinary and important repository of institutional history. The people of South Carolina are losing an outspoken and respected spokesperson for their needs and concerns. All of us who have served with him are losing an effective colleague, a wise counselor, and a good friend.

Friz Hollings has spent well over half a century in public service, beginning with nearly 3 years of military service during World War II in the North African and European theaters. He returned to civilian life, received his law degree at the University of South Carolina, and in 1948 was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives, where he served three terms, two of them as the House speaker pro tempore. In 1954 he was elected lieutenant governor, and 4 years later he was elected Governor. He was then 36 years old--the youngest governor of South Carolina in the 20th century.

Over many years and on many issues, Fritz Hollings has shown himself to be a public servant with solid common sense. He is also a visionary. Very early he foresaw the need for technical education, and as Governor nearly 50 years ago, he established South Carolina's system of technical colleges. In the late 1950s, when other Governors in the South were setting out plans to preserve legal segregation notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the young Governor of South Carolina rallied the people of South Carolina to comply with the law. ``He managed the peaceful integration of Clemson University back when other Southern Governors were fighting to keep their universities all-white,'' Mike Wallace has observed.

The people of South Carolina, the Members of this body, and people in every corner and region of the United States have seen Fritz Hollings' forceful combination of common sense and vision at work on issues like hunger, the environment, jobs, and fiscal policy. Soon after coming to the Senate, he helped focus the Nation's attention on hunger; WIC, the Women, Infants and Children's Special Supplemental Food Program, was modeled on a pilot program in South Carolina. For more than three decades he has played a major part in the vital movement first to establish, then to maintain and strengthen the legislative framework for protection of the natural environment. It was Fritz Hollings who wrote this Nation's first land-use law to protect coastal wetlands. Admiral James Watkins, USN (Ret.), who chairs the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, recently recognized his efforts saying: ``Senator Hollings' tireless work on behalf of this Nation's ocean and coasts will help preserve and protect our precious marine and coastal resources for generations to come. . . . (including) his work to establish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) over 30 years ago. . . .''

It was his concern for jobs in South Carolina that led him to establish the State's technical colleges while Governor, and in recent years has made him a forceful critic of policies that facilitate outsourcing. ``In South Carolina,'' according to the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court, Jean Toal, ``we have heard him talk about the debt and outsourcing jobs for 30 years, and all of that is now what the American public is so focused on. He was always ahead of his time.''

Fritz Hollings believes in the good that government can accomplish. In a recent interview on ``Sixty Minutes,'' he said: ``We believe in feeding the hungry, and housing the homeless, and educating the uninformed and everything else like that . . . in `We the people' in order to form a more perfect Union.'' In his many years of service to the people of South Carolina and of this Nation, Fritz Hollings has faithfully honored that principle. His common sense, his vision, and his great humor will be missed, but surely not forgotten.

Mr. President, with the adjournment of the 108th Congress, Senator John Breaux is retiring. With his departure Louisiana loses a vigorous and effective advocate, the Nation loses a dedicated and skillful legislator, and the Members of this body, on both sides of the aisle, lose a trusted and respected colleague and a dear friend.

John Breaux has spent 35 years serving the people of Louisiana in one capacity or another. In 1969, as a recent law school graduate, he came to Washington for the first time to become a legislative assistant to the Representative from Louisiana's Seventh Congressional District. When the seat became open 3 years later, John ran for Congress himself, and won. He was then 25 years old. From 1973 until 1977, we served together in the House of Representatives. John continued serving the House for another 5 years, before being elected to the first of three terms in the Senate, in 1986.

The decision to come to Washington was a very major decision for the Breaux family, so much so that one child prayed: ``Good-bye God. We are moving to Washington.'' For the people of Louisiana and the Nation, it has proved to be a most fortunate decision.

John Breaux's accomplishments over 18 years in the U.S. Senate are legion. He has served on the Finance Committee; the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; and the Rules Committee. He has chaired the Special Committee on Aging. For 8 years he served his Senate Democratic colleagues as Chief Deputy Whip. He has left his mark on virtually every piece of legislation that passed through the committees on which he has served. He has been a tireless advocate for older Americans, and a proponent of universal health care.

Above and beyond any specific issue, John Breaux has sought to make government work. He has won the respect and affection of his colleagues--and, time and again, their attention--with what Charlie Cook, in ``The Cook Report,'' described as ``his moderation, personality, manner and legislative style.'' In commenting on John's decision to retire, The Shreveport Times called him ``a Louisiana natural resource'' and ``the bridge-builder in an era of burning bridges.''

Mr. President, in 1998, John Edwards was elected to the U.S. Senate from his home State of North Carolina to fill the seat once held by Senator Sam Ervin. He had never before run for, or served in, public office. From the time he received his law degree in 1977 until he entered the Senate, he was an attorney in private practice. For two decades John represented in court North Carolinians who had been grievously injured or disabled and had no one to speak up for them. He quickly made the transition from the courtroom to the Senate Chamber, however, because in both he has been guided by the same unwavering principle: putting to work his formidable talents and energy, along with his training, on behalf of ``the people I grew up with.''

John Edwards grew up in Robbins, NC. Robbins was a mill town. John's father spent nearly four decades working in textile mills; his mother worked in a number of jobs as well. As David Broder once put it, his parents and their friends and coworkers were people who ``earn their bread by the sweat of their brow.''

John was the first person in his family to go to college. For the millions of Americans who were the first in the

family to receive a college education--and I count myself among them-- this has very special meaning. He worked his way through school in 3 years, finding summer jobs in the mills. He went on to study law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one of the Nation's ranking law schools, and there he met, and soon married, a fellow student, Elizabeth Anania. In his book, ``Four Trials,'' which was published just this year, John pays tribute to the men and women who have played some part in his life, but none is more moving than his richly deserved tribute to Elizabeth: ``I have spent many years trying to live up to what she believed I could be, and I am the better for it.''

In the 108th Congress, John served on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; the Judiciary Committee; the Small Business Committee; and the Intelligence Committee--and also for a while on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, where we first had an opportunity to work together. These are formidable, wide-ranging jurisdictions. In every assignment he undertook, John fought for policies, as he has put it, that ``reward work--not just wealth, work-- and (to) ensure that the American dream stays alive and available to every single American, no matter where they live or who their family is or what the color of their skin.''

Together with the senior Senator from Massachusetts and the senior Senator from Arizona, John Edwards led the successful effort in the Senate to pass landmark patients' rights legislation, only to see the bill falter in the face of implacable opposition from the White House. John has been a forceful advocate for the thousands of North Carolinians, and indeed Americans, who ``did everything right,'' but were still powerless to prevent their jobs from being swept overseas.

When the 109th Congress convenes in January, John Edwards will no longer represent his beloved State of North Carolina in the U.S. Senate. He will be home in the State he loves--``the place that made me love America to begin with''--with the family he loves so dearly. Whether in the Nation's Capital or in North Carolina, however, we know that John will continue to do what he has always done so well, fighting ``for those who do not have a voice, to make sure that ``no one--no one--is lost in America, that that dream is everlasting.'' He will be sorely missed in this Chamber.

Mr. President, with the adjournment of the 108th Congress, Bob Graham completes about 40 uninterrupted years of dedicated service to the people of Florida as an elected public official. Floridian's first elected him to their State house of representatives in 1966, where he served two 2-year terms. In 1970 they elected him to the State senate, where he served two 4-year terms. In 1978 Floridians across the State chose him for their Governor; no one from south Florida had ever before been elected. He served in that office with great distinction for two terms, until in 1986 Floridians sent Bob Graham to the first of three terms in the U.S. Senate.

Bob Graham has not only worked for the people of Florida; he has worked with them. While a State senator, he established a workday program for himself that regularly took him out of the halls of government and into literally dozens of different jobs. Since coming to the Senate, Bob has made time for 214 workdays, which means that roughly once a month, for 18 years, he has worked alongside his constituents, all the time learning from them.

Bob began his workdays while a State senator, teaching a semester of civics at a Miami high school. Over the years, though, he has not limited himself to a single form of employment: on the contrary, he has been an agricultural worker, a factory worker, a construction worker; he has worked in the public sector as a policeman and as a trash collector. Writing in the Washington Post on May 4, 2003, Michael Grunwald observed that the regular, wide-ranging workdays became ``a remarkable window'' for Bob Graham's political education. Working as an auto mechanic, Bob Graham learned first-hand that ``Florida auto inspections were a joke. He learned at a nursing home that orderlies earned only $17 a day. He learned as a parking attendant that tiny curb cuts changed the lives of disabled workers.'' Bob used the workday program to learn directly from his own observation and experience, and not simply from the reports of others.

Florida is an extraordinarily diverse State in its demography, its environment, and its economy. In many ways it encapsulates the broad range of challenges that we confront not just in our States, but in the Nation at large. Senator Bob Graham brought to the great debates in the Congress over education, health care, the economy, environmental standards, and many other issues, domestic and foreign, his substantial experience as a State legislator and Governor. The legislation enacted in 2000 to restore the Florida Everglades was built around a program that Governor Bob Graham had established in 1983. It was not only his State that benefited, it was our Nation; for the Everglades are a precious national resource. As chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the 107th Congress, Bob Graham provided vigorous and clear-headed leadership in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11.

Broadly experienced in public governance as Bob is, he has had the wisdom to remain a student of government. The U.S. Senate is both a place to protect and advance the needs and concerns of constituents, and also a place to learn; as he put it in his remarks in this Chamber on December 7: ``The Senate is our country's best graduate school.'' He leaves the Senate with an abiding and profound concern for programs to keep our country safe, improve our children's schools, improve our health care, and strengthen employment opportunities, among many others. Above and beyond these programs, however, as he observed on December 7, is the very institution of the Senate itself, with a ``unique role'' to play ``in balancing our Government in order to avoid excessive power falling into the hands of any one person or governmental institution.''

For over 18 years Bob has worked to ensure that this body does indeed honor its unique role among our institutions of government. The Senate is stronger for having Bob Graham as a Member. He will be greatly missed.

Those were the halcyon days.

Will the Senator yield for a question? As I read this provision, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee could send what are called agents--which I take it means staff?

Then the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is required to give them access to the Internal Revenue Service facility and access to any tax returns or return information contained therein. So they, in effect, have a carte blanche to gain access to any tax information involving any tax return. Is that correct?

The Senator is absolutely correct. I thank the Senator for answering the question.

Mr. President, when the 109th Congress convenes this coming January, the Senate will be a poorer place for not having Tom Daschle among its Members.

By nature, Tom Daschle is a South Dakotan to the core, born and raised and regularly returning to his hometown of Aberdeen, with a population today of not quite 25,000. He was the

eldest of four children in a family who knew the meaning of hard work and family. He went to college, the first in his family to do so, at South Dakota State University, some 150 miles from his home. When his colleagues elected him Democratic leader, Tom Daschle asked an old friend back in South Dakota, as he told us on the floor only a few moments ago, for advice, and was promptly told: Never forget where you came from.

That was something Tom Daschle knew without being told. If he had set out to forget where he came from, he could not have done it. The unscheduled driving tour that he made every year around South Dakota was a kind of pilgrimage. It did not create his close ties to South Dakota and its people; rather, it reflected them. As an editorial published on November 6 in Tom's hometown newspaper, the Aberdeen American news, noted, ``Personal stories abound of how Daschle and his staff have been able to get things done for the average South Dakotan.''

The editorial concluded with a tribute worth quoting:

On behalf of all the thousands of people you have helped,

we would like to offer you our deep gratitude and respect.

With quiet dignity, you fought for the State that raised you

and which still so obviously holds a special place in your

heart. Thanks, Tom, and good luck.

If by nature Tom is a South Dakotan, by choice he is a public servant. After receiving his college degree in 1969, he served 3 years in the Air Force Strategic Air Command, one of the relatively small number of Members now serving in the Congress who served in the military in that period. And he has remained a forceful advocate for veterans throughout all his years in public office.

He entered the House of Representatives after a vote so close that it took a recount almost a full year, and Tom became known as ``landslide'' Daschle.

Following his service in the House in 1986, he was elected to the Senate. In his 18 years in this body, Tom's agenda for action on behalf of the people of South Dakota has focused on health care, education, the outdoors, security and safety, economic opportunity, and rural life. Any State would be doubly fortunate to have an agenda and an advocate as dedicated and skillful as Tom Daschle.

By temperament, Tom Daschle is a Democrat in the fundamental meaning of that word--respectful of others, a scrupulous listener, seeking consensus in the middle ground on complex and controversial issues.

Time magazine has accurately described his instinct for courtesy, reputation for humility, a willingness to compromise, and a sense of Midwestern civility.

Tom Daschle's steadiness and reasonableness made him especially well- suited to assume the responsibilities of majority leader in that painful period when the country was dealt successive hammerblows by a recession, the crisis in the capital markets, and, above all, the tragic attacks of 9/11 and their aftermath.

While others shouted at fever pitch, Tom Daschle never raised his voice because it is not in his temperament to do so. His calm manner was profoundly reassuring to worried Americans, as was the strength of his resolve.

In the end, it is Tom Daschle's own words that tell us all we need to know about him.

They explain why he is so respected around his State and here in the Senate. His November 3 statement to the people of South Dakota who support and love him speaks again and again of gratitude--gratitude for the opportunity to serve, gratitude to his family, gratitude to his devoted staff, gratitude to the State that is his extended family. It speaks of belief-in our people, in the future, in what can be accomplished by people working together. It speaks of work--of work yet to be done. And it speaks of hope.

On November 3, Tom compared the sunset over the mall with the sunrise over Mount Rushmore and concluded, ``Having seen sunsets and sunrises, I like sunrises better.''

There is no question of Tom's public service having ended; the only question is the direction it will now take. Tom Daschle has honored Teddy Roosevelt's dictum that ``Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.''

It has been my privilege to work with so dedicated and honorable a public servant, a dear friend. I like to think that our work together on behalf of the people of this great country will continue as we move on into the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I pay tribute today to Terry R. Carlstrom, a distinguished and respected steward of our Nation's natural and cultural resources. Terry is retiring after more than four decades of dedicated public service in the U.S. Department of the Interior, including 8 years as Director of the National Park Service's National Capital Region. I want to extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his many years of service and contributions to protecting and enhancing our national treasures.

Throughout his career, Terry has distinguished himself for his leadership and commitment to public service and to managing some of our Nation's most precious natural and cultural resources. Beginning as a young forester at Bridger National Forest in Wyoming in the early 1960s, Terry also served in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before joining the National Park Service in 1972. He quickly advanced to positions in senior management in the National Park Service including Chief of Planning for the Denver Service Center Western Team and the Alaska Regional Office, Associate Regional Director for Professional Services in the National Capital Region and, most recently, as Regional Director.

During his 22-year tenure in the National Capital Region, I had the opportunity to work closely with Terry and members of his staff on a number of National Park initiatives in the State of Maryland and the broader Washington metropolitan region including land acquisitions at Monocacy Battlefield, the renovation of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, the restoration of historic structures in the C&O Canal National Historical Park, at Fort Washington, and the restoration and joint management of Glen Echo Park in Montgomery County. Terry was also responsible for the difficult task of overseeing the construction and dedication of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial, the Korean Veteran War Memorial, and the World War II Memorial, among other monuments. I know firsthand the extraordinary leadership and expertise Terry brought not only to the National Parks and Monuments in this region, but equally important, to building and encouraging one of the finest, most professional teams of Federal employees in the Nation.

The legacy of Terry Carlstrom's 41-year career can be seen in our national parks across the country and especially here in the National Capital region but it can also be seen in the people who have been fortunate enough to come to know him. He has earned the admiration and respect of his colleagues in the National Park Service as well as the visitors to the parks he has worked to improve. It is my firm conviction that public service is one of the most honorable callings, one that demands unwavering dedication to the citizens and country they serve. Throughout his career, Terry has exemplified this commitment to his country and to his fellow citizens. I want to extend my personal congratulations to Terry on his very distinguished career and join with his friends and coworkers in wishing him well in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I am deeply troubled by the pending legislation, which would raise the federal debt limit by $800 billion. The fact that we are considering this legislation illustrates how deeply the policies of this administration have plunged us into deficits and debt, and yet, the President continues to push for more of the same: tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which are not paid for and which will continue to run up deficits and debt as far as the eye can see. I am very concerned that if the President continues to pursue this reckless fiscal policy, our Nation's long-term economic strength will be seriously compromised.

Despite the fact that the President signed into law the largest debt limit increase in our country's history only 18 months ago, the Treasury Department has now informed us that it will need to borrow even more to keep the government functioning. The legislation we are considering today would allow federal debt to grow to $8.184 trillion, truly a staggering sum.

When President Bush took office, he promised that his fiscal policies would include ``maximum possible debt retirement.'' At that time, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting that our net debt to the public would decline to $36 billion by 2008, when this President leaves office. Now, instead of achieving ``maximum possible debt retirement,'' the President is asking for historically high debt increases. In fact, the CBO is now projecting that publicly-held debt will rise to $5.6 trillion in 2008--almost 40 percent of our GDP. Gross Federal debt, which includes our commitments to Social Security and Medicare, will be almost $10

trillion by the time this President leaves office.

These figures demonstrate how seriously our economic situation has deteriorated under this administration. Let me just emphasize that point with one further example. When the president took office, he inherited a 10-year surplus estimated at $5.6 trillion. Now, when you factor in some of the costs we know are coming, such as the continuing costs of the war in Iraq and the cost of reforming the alternative minimum tax, plus the cost of some of the President's proposals, such as making his tax cuts permanent and continuing his defense buildup, the projections are for a $3.5 trillion deficit over that same period, a reversal of $9.1 trillion. That is a seismic shift in our position.

Much of this shift is a direct result of the fiscal policies pursued by the President during his first term. For example, consider this year's budget deficit. When President Bush took office, the CBO was projecting a surplus for 2004 of $397 billion. Instead, we have a deficit this year of $413 billion--a shift of $810 billion. More than one-third--37 percent--of this reversal is directly attributable to the tax cuts this President has enacted, tax cuts that primarily benefitted the wealthiest Americans. And the President is seeking to increase our debt burden by permanently extending many of these tax cuts, utterly ignoring the fact that these massive tax cuts for the rich have led to budget deficits so large that they could jeopardize our future economic strength.

In part, my concern for our economic future stems from a change in the United States' international economic position. Two decades ago, the United States was a creditor nation internationally, by about 10 percent of our GDP. Now, because of the deterioration of our position over those intervening two decades, we are a debtor nation, to the tune of about 22 percent percent of our GDP. Our status as a debtor nation has worsened considerably since President Bush took office: between January 2001 and July 2004, foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury debt increased by 79 percent. The large budget deficits that have appeared during the last 4 years have made us inordinately dependent on the influx of capital from abroad in order to sustain ourselves.

What will happen to the United States if foreign buyers of our debt decide to make their investments elsewhere? As the Washington Post explained in an article on October 19, 2004:

Foreign governments and individuals hold about half of the

$3.7 trillion in outstanding U.S. Treasury bonds, for

example, and the government has been heavily dependent on

continued overseas bond purchases to finance the roughly $1

billion a day it has to borrow to pay its bills. Foreign

lending and investment are also needed to finance the

country's roughly $50 billion monthly trade deficit, while

foreign capital has been a key prop to U.S. stock prices. A

turn in overseas attitudes toward the United States could

ripple deeply through the economy, depressing the market,

raising interest rates and pushing down the value of the

dollar.

There are already signs that this is beginning to happen. The Treasury Department reported in October that net monthly capital flow from the rest of the world into the United States fell in August, for the sixth time this year. As reported last week by the Wall Street Journal,

Since Election Day, the dollar has fallen 1.4 percent to an

all-time low against the euro. . . . The catalyst for its

most recent decline was President George W. Bush's re-

election last Tuesday. Investors perceive his policies as

likely to aggravate the steep U.S. budget deficit.

What is more, if it were not for the currency manipulation that many of our Asian trading partners are engaged in, the dollar would be significantly lower than it already is against those currencies as well. If this trend continues, the United States could be in for a period of significant economic contraction.

As I said 18 months ago, during the debate on the last debt limit increase, the United States' international financial position reminds me of Tennessee Williams's Blanche DuBois in ``A Streetcar Named Desire,'' who said: ``I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.'' That is what has happened to the United States in the international economic scene. We have deteriorated into a debtor status so that we are now dependent upon the kindness of strangers. That is not where the world's leading power should find itself.

This dramatic change in our economic situation comes at a time when the United States is facing a demographic tidal wave as the baby boom generation approaches retirement. When President Bush first took office, that retirement was almost a decade away. But time has run out. The first of the baby boomers will begin to retire in 2008, on this President's watch. Unfortunately, rather than prepare for the obligations we know are coming, this President has squandered every opportunity to save for the future.

Moreover, his policy of deficit-financed tax cuts makes us less able to make needed investments today. Every increase in the government's debt means we are siphoning off resources that could be used for other purposes simply to pay the interest on that debt. Net interest payments on our debt are expected to consume more than $1 trillion over the next 5 years. Instead of making investments in education, in health care, in transportation, we are paying billions of dollars in interest costs that would not have existed in the absence of the reckless fiscal policy of the last 4 years.

Not only do these policies jeopardize our current and future economic strength, they place a tremendous burden on our children and grandchildren who will have to pay off this debt. By cutting taxes for the wealthiest, the President is really raising taxes on everyone, including our children and grandchildren, by leaving them with the responsibility for paying off this enormous debt.

It is unfortunate that this Administration has demonstrated such a single-minded focus on cutting taxes, regardless of the very serious change in our economic situation and our country's current and future needs. The fact that the President is calling for still more tax cuts at the same time the Congress is being asked to add $800 billion to the Federal debt ceiling is beyond reckless--it places in jeopardy our future economic strength and the economic security of all Americans.

Will the Senator yield on that last point?

The fact of the matter is, the tax cuts for the very wealthy, which is the centerpiece of the Bush economic plan, are being financed by borrowing overseas, primarily from China and Japan. That is what it comes down to. We do these excessive tax cuts, we run a deficit, and we have to finance the deficit. Where do they find the money to finance the deficit? They sell U.S. Government paper overseas, primarily to Japan and China. So we are borrowing money from overseas in order to finance these tax cuts.

It is bad enough to borrow internally, from our own people, in order to do this. But to go overseas and do it, as the Senator points out, and then give them this claim on American production on out into the future as far as one can see is absolutely irresponsible.

The Senator from Massachusetts made a very important point.

The President and his associates are busy out in the countryside trying to put the spin on the jobs figures. The fact is, the economy picked up 96,000 jobs last month. That is not enough to keep pace with the growth in population. This is the first administration since Herbert Hoover not to produce a net gain of jobs in the course of the administration. The Bush administration is down 800,000 jobs, a total of 1.6 million private sector jobs, and 2.7 million manufacturing jobs.

The last time you have an administration which failed to have a net gain in jobs in the course of its 4 years was 75 years ago in the administration of Herbert Hoover. This is a dismal job performance record. Yet the President is going around the country telling people we have turned the corner. The trouble is every time you go around the corner we are going in the wrong direction. That is the problem with the President's policies. He may have turned the corner, but the corner is taking us in the wrong direction.

Second, as the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out, if you factor into the unemployment rate the people who have dropped out of seeking a job because they are so discouraged by the economic conditions they encounter, and people are working part time for economic reasons-- namely, they want to work full time but they can't find a full time job, so they are working part time--if you include that in the unemployment figure as well, which is the most comprehensive measure of unemployment, the unemployment figure is 9.4 percent, coming up to 10 percent unemployed.

The final point I want to make is that unemployment benefits usually--and it is a very important point because I see many colleagues on the floor who have joined with the Senator from Massachusetts and myself to try to extend unemployment insurance benefits, and the Senator from Washington was very much involved in that effort and we welcome so strongly her leadership in it--usually are for 26 weeks. When we hit an economic downturn, we extend it because the job market doesn't pick up quickly enough to get people back to work. We usually extend it out to 39 weeks. The administration has resisted efforts to extend the payment period for unemployment insurance. We now have a record number of long-term unemployed.

This is the record even before the Bush administration of the long- term unemployed. It ran along here, and now it has shot up to almost 22 percent of those unemployed who have been long-term unemployed.

The Senator is absolutely right. We are confronting a very serious economic situation for our workers. There is real anxiety--indeed even fear--in working America about what is going to happen to people in terms of their employment and how they support their families. But we are not producing jobs fast enough to put people back to work. Yet the administration won't support extending payments for unemployment insurance.

How are these people supposed to support their families? These are working people. By definition, you cannot draw unemployment insurance benefits unless you have a work record. You must have been working and have built up a working record in order to qualify. We are talking about working Americans. How do they support their families?

The President talks about 95,000 jobs as though it is some success. It is not a success. This is the only President in 75 years in that entire period of time who has not had a net gain of jobs during his administration.

Will the Senator yield?

The bill that was passed by the Senate contained within it the provision that provided authority to the FDA to protect children; is that correct?

And that provision was then taken out in the conference with the House Members, stripped out of the bill; is that right?

Will the Senator yield on that point?

It is unparalleled in coming out of a recession that so much of the growth is going to profits and so little of the growth is going to wages. It is a stark contrast with what occurred as we tried to move out of previous recessions in the entire post-World War II period.

The point the Senator makes is extremely important. Productivity is up. The workers are producing, but they are not getting a return in their wages. The benefits are going heavily into corporate profits. The Senator is absolutely correct. And it is a marked departure with previous performance, where there was a much more equitable sharing of the economic benefits of the growth that was taking place, and the wage earner was doing better than under the circumstances we face today.

Madam President, on Friday the Bureau of Labor Statistics came out with the latest unemployment figures. I commend the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They are professionals. They bring us the figures. They do not try to put a spin on them. They just lay out the facts. That is a kind of unusual thing in our public discourse nowadays, I have to say. We do not seem to pay much attention to the facts anymore. It is all spin--spin, spin, spin, spin, deception, misstatement, so forth and so on. But there are still professionals in various parts of our Government, and I simply at the outset commend them for sticking to the facts. Members of the Joint Economic Committee tried to draw the Commissioner and her associates into the spin efforts, and she resisted, as she should.

I wish to talk this afternoon briefly about some of the figures and the facts, and I will try to lay them out as best I can.

We produced last month 96,000 jobs--I say a mere 96,000 jobs because we need to produce about 140,000 jobs per month simply to stay abreast of the growth in population. So if we are producing fewer jobs than that, we are obviously slipping backward.

This performance of this administration should be a matter of very deep concern for people in the country. Back at the beginning of the year, the administration did have a couple of months of good, solid production, and I want to put that right up front because, as I said, I want to stay with the facts. But what has happened is over the course of the year, their job production has fallen very sharply, as this chart shows. We are now down to just below 100,000 jobs produced in the last month of this Bush administration.

The cumulative record of this administration over the course of the time it has been here has been a loss of 1.6 million private sector jobs. Private sector jobs are down 1.6 million. In total jobs, because we have had some uptick in Government jobs, the administration is down 825,000 jobs over the course of its tenure. It is down 825,000 total jobs, 1.6 million private sector jobs, and 2.7 million jobs lost in manufacturing employment. Manufacturing employment is down 2,700,000 jobs.

This job performance--or more accurately put, lack of performance--is the worst in 75 years. We have to go all the way back to the administration of President Hoover to find another administration which lost jobs in the course of its tenure; in other words, failed to produce a net gain of jobs. Some administrations in the interim have done very well, others fairly well, others not so well. All have had a net gain in jobs except for this administration.

The unemployment rate which was reported on Friday as 5.4 percent does not tell the full story of the depth and breadth of unemployment which exists in the country. If we count in amongst the unemployed--and the Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps this index--if you count in people who have dropped out of looking for a job because they are so discouraged by how poor the labor market is and a very substantial number of people who are working part time for economic reasons--in other words, they want to work full time, but they cannot find a full- time job, so obviously in order to try to support their family, they take a part-time job, but they are seeking a full-time job--if you factor in that underemployment, and if you factor in the people who dropped out of the workforce in terms of seeking employment, we end up with an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent--9.4 percent. That is what we are confronting. And that rate, of course, is a consequence of failing to have a net gain in jobs over the course of this administration.

I was fascinated to watch the spin artists go out and try to spin this 96,000 figure into some big success. Quite to the contrary. It shows a serious shortfall in economic performance. And the thing that makes it an even deeper concern is the fact that the administration's performance over the course of this year in producing jobs has seriously weakened. In other words, if we go back to the beginning of this year, job creation has dropped markedly.

Some of the spin is to sort of say 9/11 did it all. They attribute it all to 9/11, but obviously this chart indicates to the contrary because we had some fair job production here, and then it has fallen. The cumulative impact of having that happen is, in fact, now to have an administration which does not have a positive job creation performance over the course of its tenure.

Now, we all know that everyone gets up on the Senate floor and they make long speeches about the best social program is a job. I agree with that. I doubt that there is anyone in this body who would disagree that the best social program is a job, but the jobs are not being produced.

As I said, we can go back through our history to every previous administration, Democratic and Republican alike, until we get back to Herbert Hoover, who had a net positive creation of jobs in the course of his tenure. This administration has failed to do that.

There are now 825,000 jobs less than when this administration came into office. There are 1.6 million jobs less in the private sector. There are 2.7 million jobs less in manufacturing, which, of course, has been the hardest hit of all, and which I think this administration has badly neglected in terms of a whole range of policies. But 2.7 million jobs less in manufacturing, 1.6 million jobs less in the private sector, 825,000 jobs less total, because there has been some increase in jobs in the public sector.

This is the performance of this administration. As I said, if one factors in all of the components of unemployment, including those that have part-time work but want full-time work, those who dropped out of the labor force because they are so discouraged by the job market, we have an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent.

There is one other point I want to make, which I think is highly relevant, and it also, of course, affects efforts in this Congress to deal with the unemployment insurance benefits question. We define long- term unemployed as people out of work for more than 26 weeks--in other words, more than 6 months. The unemployment insurance benefit program is geared to pay 26 weeks of benefits. The assumption is to help people through a difficult period to support their families.

I hasten to point out that one cannot draw unemployment benefits unless they have a work record. In other words, one must have worked and had a work record in order to qualify to draw these benefits.

In previous recessions, when the economy has not strengthened and jobs have not picked up, we have extended the period of time to pay unemployment benefits because how can someone be told, after 6 months, well, they should have found a job and gone back to work, when the job market has not picked up and there is no job to be found and they find themselves in the difficult situation, how are they going to provide for their family if the benefits are cut off and the benefits, of course, pay only a fraction of what they earn, and there is no job to be found?

So now, we have extended the benefits as a consequence. We have done that in this recession, but much less than previously. The administration has not been supportive of further extension, even though the number of long-term unemployed, amongst all the unemployed-- in other words, people out of work for more than 6 months, has almost tripled. It has gone from 680,000 long-term unemployed when George Bush took office as President in January of 2001--in other words, we have really brought that figure way down because of the high job production that had occurred in the Clinton administration. It is now up to 1,750,000 long-term unemployed.

As a consequence, the percentage of the unemployed who are long-term employed, in other words, a consequence of this incredible growth in the long-term unemployed from 680,000 to 1,750,000, is almost triple. The percentage of workers unemployed who are long-term unemployed has jumped from about 10 percent to over 20 percent. It is now almost at 22 percent.

In this period, these high figures above 20 percent of the long-term unemployed, this percentage of unemployed workers, this rapid runup and then this continuing high figure, is a record. It has been above 20 percent for 24 continuous months, which is dramatic evidence of the failure of the economic policies of this administration.

These figures reflect real human hurt. These are men and women who had jobs, who worked, who lost their jobs, and cannot find another job. As a consequence, when their benefits run out and the administration and the Congress fail to extend their benefits, they find themselves in an incredibly difficult situation. How are they then to support their family?

We have made repeated efforts on the floor to extend the unemployment insurance. They have been blocked by the other side. The administration has not been supportive of this effort. So we have one and three- quarter million people long-term unemployed no longer eligible for benefits, not able to find work in a job market last month, where they produced 96,000 jobs. That is not even close to keeping abreast of the growth in population, let alone putting people back to work. In my judgment, there is no way that these economic figures can be spun to represent some economic success which is, of course, what the President has gone across the country to try to do.

In fact, he keeps going into States and saying we have turned the corner. I think when one looks around the corner that we have supposedly turned, one finds we are moving in the wrong direction. This is not the right direction to be moving with respect to the long-term unemployed. Who would want to turn a corner and find that the long-term unemployed is rising from about 10 percent of those unemployed to over 20 percent of those unemployed? This steady diet of over 20 percent for 24 months is unparalleled. Who would want to turn the corner and find that the monthly job creation was on this downward trajectory?

The President says we have turned the corner, and I say to myself, well, let us look at what we see when we turn the corner. What we see when we turn the corner is this decline in job creation.

We see, when we take a look in context--in other words, when we look over the period--that this administration has not created a net gain in jobs. It is no wonder that working people all across America are concerned and anxious, not only those who have lost their jobs, but those who fear they are going to lose their jobs, or those who maybe found another job but found themselves in this situation, that the jobs gained on average pay $20,000 less than the jobs lost. In other words, you have long-term unemployed who cannot find a job, you have people very apprehensive about their job situation because the number of jobs produced month by month is on a declining line, and then you have those who manage to find a job only to find it is at pay levels far less than they were previously receiving. The consequence of this is to put an enormous squeezing pressure on working and middle-income people in this country.

The costs of everything are up, wages are almost level, and all across the country working families are sitting down at their kitchen tables, trying to figure out how they are going to pay their bills.

I said earlier, when we were having this discussion, that in this economic cycle a far greater percentage of the benefits are going to corporate profits than are going to wages. When you look at the figures, it is absolutely startling the contrast with what we experienced at this point in previous economic cycles. So there is a tremendous skewing of whatever benefits there are from growth to profits and away from working people. This, I submit, ought to be a matter of deep concern all across the country.

I yield the floor.