Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to explain an amendment that I offered and was accepted by unanimous consent on Friday, June 4, 2004. The amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the Department of Defense should set aside funds to assist those school districts with school-aged populations that are severely affected by the Army's Residential Communities Initiative-- RCI. In essence, it urges the Department to build and improve its housing with an eye toward the needs of the surrounding civilian community, to contribute to that community's public school system and to assist with those expansions and accommodations that are driven by an increased military presence.

In 1996, the Department began a project that will result in approximately 120,000 new housing units at 34 installations across the United States. The increase in family housing units will bring a corresponding increase in school-age children to these bases. These children will be educated primarily at public schools. Indeed, of the approximately 750,000 current school-aged children of members of the active duty Armed Forces in the United States, approximately 650,000 attend public schools.

President Truman created the Impact Aid Program in 1950 to reimburse

public school districts for the loss of traditional revenue sources resulting from a Federal presence or Federal activity. Since that time, numerous school districts throughout the country have received direct assistance from the program. Impact Aid is unique among the Federal education programs because it is one of the only programs in which funds are sent directly to the school district with little or no intervening bureaucracy.

Although in recent years the program has not been fully funded, it still provides critical support to school systems that contain Federal bases. School systems have three main sources of revenue for each student: State aid, local property taxes, and local taxes on businesses. Districts that contain Federal installations do not have the benefit of collecting property taxes on the property upon which military bases sit. Their schools educate children whose parents are stationed on base, but they do not receive the benefits of a tax base that includes the property that these parents would occupy in normal school districts. In other words, these districts have less money per child with which to support their public schools.

The Impact Aid Program was created to alleviate some of the pressures created by a large military presence by providing funding for additional students and programs to meet growth-related needs. But the Department's RCI program presents a unique situation for communities across the country, including that of Anne Arundel County, which contains Fort Meade. On the one hand RCI provides a commendable solution. By rehabilitating dilapidated military housing, our service men and women have safer, more comfortable places to live. We in Maryland are very proud of and grateful for our military presence and strongly support the right of military families to have livable dwellings. But on the other hand our communities must have the Department participate as a full partner in those facilities its personnel use.

It is only proper that the Department, as it improves its housing, consider the impacts those improvements are likely to have on the surrounding community, particularly the school system. My amendment asks the Department to do just that--to not only build and improve housing, but to think of the community it is creating and to contribute to that community's needs as a partner. I believe this is the only responsible way for the Department of Defense to proceed and I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment would authorize a land exchange between the State of Maryland and the Naval Air Station, Patuxent River.

Specifically, the amendment directs the Secretary of the Navy to convey approximately 5 acres, including the Point Lookout Lighthouse and related facilities, as well as an archaeological site and recovered artifacts pertaining to the military hospital located on the property during the Civil War. In exchange, the State of Maryland would transfer a similar parcel to the Navy for the location of the new tracking station.

At present, the Navy's Range Theodolite Tracking System is located on an historic parcel at the edge of Point Lookout State Park in St. Mary's County, Maryland. Navy Range Operations operates and maintains support facilities in historically significant structures formerly associated with the operation Point Lookout Lighthouse. These facilities, which date to the 19th century, now house radio relay, range surveillance radar, and a Remote Emitter System, all of which are controlled at Cedar Point via fiber optic link. Over the years, the facilities have deteriorated and can no longer meet the critical needs of the Navy.

This amendment has the support of both the Navy and the State of Maryland. In fact, last year, the State made available $450,000 for the preservation and restoration of the lighthouse so that it might be incorporated into the park and open for public use.

In my view, this amendment represents a real win-win for both the Navy and the people of the State of Maryland. This transfer will ultimately result in overall cost-savings for the Navy--and the preservation of the structures and the historic site.

I am pleased that Senator Mikulski has joined me in cosponsoring the amendment. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting its adoption.

Mr. President, in 1963, President Kennedy began an important tradition of designating a time for our country to honor our older citizens for their many accomplishments and contributions to our Nation. I rise today to continue that tradition and recognize May as ``Older Americans Month.'' Those of us who have worked diligently in the U.S. Senate to ensure that older Americans are able to live in dignity and independence during their later years welcome this opportunity to pause and reflect on the contributions of those individuals who have played such a major role in shaping our great Nation. We honor them for their hard work and the countless sacrifices they have made throughout their lifetimes, and look forward to their continued contributions to our country's welfare.

In line with the theme of this year's Older Americans Month, ``Aging Well, Living Well,'' I want to take this opportunity to highlight the importance of quality and comprehensive health care for our seniors. They deserve nothing less. I have significant concerns about what the future holds in this regard. I voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, which is currently being phased in, because I believed it would jeopardize promises we as a Nation have made to seniors. Many of the concerns that I shared with a number

of my colleagues at that time and during the Senate's consideration of this measure are unfortunately now coming to fruition.

One of my principal concerns is that the new law will fail to provide a comprehensive, consistent and affordable prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. And now as we look at the uncertainty of monthly premiums and incomplete coverage for drug costs under the new law, it is increasingly clear that corporate interests won out over the interests of the elderly. Indeed, at least 2.7 million retirees are expected to lose their existing retiree prescription drug benefits-- which are of higher quality--and will instead have to use the Medicare drug benefit.

Moreover, I continue to be deeply concerned that existing Medicare beneficiaries will be forced into managed care organizations in order to receive substantial prescription drug benefits. Because of the recent history with Medicare+Choice plans, it has been suggested that requiring seniors to rely on the private market for coverage represents a significant threat to the very existence of Medicare as we have known it for the last 40 years.

On top of all of this, the Medicare trustees have predicted exhaustion of the Medicare Trust Fund 7 years earlier than previously predicted. With the rising costs of drugs and health care in general, and the implicit lack of means to reduce drug costs in the new law, we will be faced with hard decisions sooner than originally anticipated. Hopefully, the answer will not be to seek to decrease benefits.

To address these concerns, I am in favor of proposals to provide Medicare beneficiaries with full prescription drug coverage. In fact, a number of my colleagues and I supported legislation during the Senate's consideration of the Medicare overhaul that would have controlled drug prices by allowing our Government to negotiate directly with drug companies.

Unfortunately this amendment was defeated when it came to the Senate for a full vote, but I continue to work with my colleagues on this and other proposals in an effort to bring these prices under control.

In addition to health care access, our seniors deserve adequate protection through our Social Security Program. There are those who have suggested that to enable the Social Security fund to meet the expanding demand of our growing number of retirees, we should decrease benefits.

The key strength of the Social Security system is its guaranteed benefit and we must work to preserve it rather than diminish it. Social Security has been effective in improving the standard of living and reducing poverty among the elderly and disabled by providing an inflation-indexed, defined benefit no matter how long an individual lives. Throughout their lives, seniors have paid into a system with the understanding that their benefits will be there for them when they retire. We ought to uphold our end of the bargain and ensure that these benefits are available.

President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law against a backdrop of increasing poverty among elderly Americans. President Roosevelt sought to give ``a measure of protection for the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.'' In my view, the words of President Roosevelt should continue to guide our conscience.

America's Older Americans add great value to our Nation. We ought to take this month as an opportunity to show our appreciation for the value they add and redouble our efforts to support their needs.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation right now?

Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the pending amendment offered by my very able colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, and by my able colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich. I commend both of them for their work on this issue. I particularly want to underscore the determination and the perseverance Senator Cantwell of Washington has shown in pressing this issue forward.

This amendment, simply put, seeks to reinstate the Temporary Extended Unemployment Insurance Benefits Program which lapsed at the end of 2003. Long-term unemployment, the very problem this program of temporarily extending unemployment insurance benefits is intended to deal with, is at near record levels. There are 1.8 million long-term unemployed workers in America today. That is, they have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks, the period that is traditionally covered by unemployment insurance benefits.

Some of my colleagues have argued we do not need to pass this amendment because jobs are beginning to pick up. They assert we have an unemployment rate lag, after the end of a recession.

We have not even recovered the jobs we have lost, as we now move out of this recession. This administration is the first administration since the Hoover administration not to produce a net gain of jobs in the course of its tenure. Long-term unemployed workers today constitute 22 percent of all unemployed workers. That level is near a 20-year high. It has been above 20 percent for the last 19 months--in other words, of the unemployed, this large a portion have been long-term unemployed. That is the longest such stretch since the Department of Labor began keeping such statistics in 1948.

It has been 37 months since the recession began. The economy has 1.6 million fewer jobs today than it did 37 months ago. In no other recession since the Great Depression has the economy failed to recreate all the jobs it lost after 37 months. We are still down 1.6 million fewer jobs than when the recession began 37 months ago. In every other recession other than the Great Depression, the economy had recreated all the jobs that had been lost within 31 months. I stress this to make the point that the job market has not strengthened adequately in order to take care of these people. Job growth is far too slow.

It is not as though the level of benefits that is being sought is historically excessive. In previous recessions we have passed extensions beyond what is contained in this amendment. When we had a recession from July of 1990 to March of 1991, we extended unemployment benefits until April of 1994. At the program's peak, benefits were available for 26 to 33 extra weeks. It was in the previous Bush administration that this took place.

It is not as though providing these benefits is not supported by prominent economists. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified before the Joint Economic Committee on April 21, only a few weeks ago, that re-instating the extended unemployment insurance program is ``a good idea. I think it is a good idea, largely because of the size of the degree of exhaustions.''

We built up this unemployment insurance trust fund to fund these benefits. The money is in there, paid for, for this very purpose. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment from my able colleagues from Washington and Ohio.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Cover the Uninsured Week. I take this opportunity to highlight the crisis of the uninsured in the United States and to underscore the significant impact that this crisis has on our population.

The number of Americans without health insurance is equal to the combined populations of 24 States and the District of Columbia. As of a September 2003 National Bureau of Census report, the most recent set of comprehensive figures on this problem, nearly 44 million people had gone without health insurance for the span of an entire year or longer. Millions more had been uninsured for part of a year.

The estimated 43.6 million people who are currently uninsured face constant financial vulnerability. At any moment they could face financial devastation by the costs associated with an unexpected injury or disease. In Maryland alone, there were 595,500 uninsured in 2003-- approximately 13 percent of Maryland's population. According to the Baltimore Sun, 700,000 people younger than 65 have no insurance.

Lack of insurance takes a huge financial toll on families. On average, the uninsured are forced to pay 35 percent of the overall costs of their medical coverage. As a result, medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy and are cited as a reason for half of all personal bankruptcy filings.

In my own State of Maryland, we hear the worries of people with preexisting conditions who cannot change their job because they fear they will never again be eligible for affordable health insurance. I hear about recent college graduates who are no longer eligible for coverage under their parent's insurance policy and are going without, hoping nothing happens to them until they find a job that has health benefits.

I hear the stories of those who have had to forego care because they are uninsured; mothers, fathers, children who have fatal disease, forced to face fatal consequences because they cannot effectively access the health care system. Statistics show that up to 18,000 people die each year because we ignore the plight of the uninsured. That is the equivalent of 49 people a day.

Who are the uninsured? Often we are led to believe that if people are working they will have health coverage for themselves and their families. This is not the case. Eighty percent are in families in which at least one person is working. Many employers and workers are finding it difficult to afford health insurance due to the continual increases in health care costs. Service and labor jobs, which make up a significant portion of our workforce, are less likely to offer insurance. Moreover, part-time workers are often ineligible for employer-sponsored insurance and low-wage workers often cannot afford to pay their premiums.

This phenomenon has a very negative impact on the lives of children. Mr. President, 8.5 million of our children are uninsured, which is more than the number of children in first and second grade in all of our public schools combined. A Florida Healthy Kids Corporation study showed that uninsured kids are 25 percent more likely to miss school than insured children. Such a percentage represents a significant disadvantage for children, especially for those who likely face other obstacles as well.

Often those with insurance take these benefits for granted. We tend to ignore that which does not directly affect us. But those who are ignoring this problem for that reason should think again. There are consequences to all of us for ignoring the plight of the uninsured. According to a recent Institute of Medicine report, the United States loses $65-$130 billion each year as a result of the poor health and early deaths of uninsured adults. These numbers are called lost ``health capital,'' also known as individual work losses and development losses in children due to poor health. A community's high rate of uninsurance can adversely affect its overall health status, including the financial stability of its health care institutions and providers. Moreover, such communities face decreased access to services such as emergency departments and trauma centers.

I hope the Senate in the near future can begin to engage in discussions about meaningful ways to provide quality, comprehensive, affordable health care for all of our citizens. I would like to comment the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and their cosponsors for creating Cover the Uninsured Week. I urge my colleagues to use this week as an opportunity to redouble our efforts to work toward a collective and comprehensive solution to address this critical problem.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the hundreds of thousands of civilian and military employees who have chosen to dedicate their lives to public service. This week, from May 3 through May 9, we celebrate Public Service Recognition Week. Organized by the Public Employees Roundtable since 1985, this week allows us to honor those who have chosen to serve their country and to educate the public about the broad variety of services government provides.

President Kennedy once said: ``Let the public service be a proud and lively career. And let every man and woman who works in any area of our Nation's government, in any branch, at any level, be able to say with pride and honor in future years: `I served the United States Government in that hour of our Nation's need.' '' Our Nation is most certainly in a time of need. Great uncertainty exists about the state of world relations, the direction our Nation is headed, and the economic welfare of our society. Unfortunately, the pride and honor associated with public service has been diminished by a lack of respect. Rather than commending the important work Federal civilian employees do side-by- side with our military employees, society too often seeks to belittle their contributions; choosing instead to characterize the civil service as a large, inflexible bureaucracy.

At the Federal level, we are experiencing a disturbing trend. The ranks of bright, active, and well-trained Federal employees are slowly diminishing. Of our 1.8 million Federal civil servants, 50 percent will be eligible to retire over the next five years. At the same time, a national poll by the Partnership for Public Service found that only one in four college-educated Americans expressed significant interest in working for the Federal Government. A recent survey by the Council for Excellence in Government said that young people, while eager to find a job that will allow them to help people, are less likely to choose government jobs than work in the non-profit sector.

In my view, however, if our young people understood the expertise, the sacrifice, and the dedication required to serve the public, they would be less inclined to belittle this calling and more inclined to answer it. Young people should know, for instance, that civilian employees from agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Capitol Police and the FBI worked side by side with the Coast Guard and the Marine Corps Chemical Biological Incident Response Force from Indian Head, MD to respond to the discovery of ricin in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Without the civilian Federal researchers at the Human Genome Project, we would know much less about the make-up of the human body and, more importantly, be much further away from providing cures to genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. Their work--a complete description of the draft of the DNA sequence of the human genome--was completed faster than originally planned.

Without the hard work done by the civilian employees at the National Security Agency, we would likely be without a few things that today we consider basic necessities, such as computers and cassette tapes. Further, the development of more advanced theories and technologies such as quantum mathematics, nanotechnology, biometrics, and semiconductors--which are quickly changing our world's technological landscape--would have been hindered or never started but for the efforts of NSA's dedicated and innovative employees.

The employees at the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Building and Fire Research Laboratory are about as inconspicuous a group of researchers as exist. But without them there would be no standard coupling for fire hoses or hydrants. If you do not know why that's important, consider the devastating fire that destroyed 2,500 buildings in an 80-block area in the heart of Baltimore in 1904. Responders came from fire departments in D.C., New York, and Philadelphia to help put out the blaze. But each department's hoses had different threads, so they could not be linked to Baltimore's hydrants, making them almost useless. After the fire, the Building and Fire Research Laboratory's predecessor, the National Bureau of Standards, worked with the National Fire Prevention Association to develop national standards and codes for fire equipment, which departments still use today.

Finally, thanks to scientists at the National Cancer Institute, NCI, and the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, women's chances of detecting ovarian cancer earlier and possibly recovering have increased. Working together, NCI and FDA discovered that patterns of proteins found in patients' serum may reflect the presence of ovarian cancer, even at early stages. Currently, more than 80 percent of ovarian cancer patients are diagnosed at a late clinical stage and have a 20 percent or less chance of survival. This research may increase those chances.

During this Public Service Recognition Week, I urge my colleagues to take a moment to appreciate advances such as these that our Nation and society have made as a result of the hard work of Federal civil servants. When President Kennedy initially released his Peace Corps proposal, the reactions he received convinced him that ``we have, in this country, an immense reservoir of such men and women--anxious to sacrifice their energies and time and toil to the cause of world peace and human progress.'' Things have not changed. The American populace is still full of men and women who want to serve. The challenge for us, as a Congress and a Federal Government, is to convince more of those men and women that civil service is a laudable way to serve their country.

Mr. President, I pay tribute today to Laura Joss, superintendent of Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine and Hampton National Historic Site, NHS. Laura has recently been appointed superintendent of Arches National Park in southern Utah and I wish her and her family the best of luck with this new assignment and thank her for the outstanding job she did in managing and enhancing Fort McHenry and Hampton NHS since coming to Maryland in 2000.

Over the past 4 years, I have had the opportunity and privilege to work closely with Laura Joss in efforts to protect and restore the historical resources of Fort McHenry and Hampton NHS and to develop a Star Spangled Banner National Historic Trail to help educate our citizens about a pivotal, but sadly neglected period in our Nation's history. In every instance, Laura proved herself to be a skillful and highly effective leader. Under her direction, Fort McHenry's seawalls and many historic structures have been restored, plans have been advanced to develop a new visitors center to accommodate the increasing number of visitors to the fort, many preservation projects have been undertaken at Hampton and a new general management plan for this historic site has been completed. Laura and her dedicated staff have frequently gone beyond the call of duty, offering to assist with the recovery efforts from the recent water taxi accident in Baltimore's Harbor and the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and volunteering with the National Flag Day Foundation, Historic Towson Inc, and the Baltimore City Heritage Area, to name only a few examples.

Laura's dedication to the stewardship of the National Park System has earned her the respect of everyone with whom she has worked. During her 14-year career in the National Park Service, she has protected and improved some of our Nation's most precious natural and cultural treasures. Beginning as a volunteer at Mesa Verde National Park, she quickly advanced to serve in a number of national park units throughout the country, including Yellowstone National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Glen Canyon National Recreation. Through her accomplishments she has set a high bar for all those to follow in her path, and the visitors to these national parks will benefit from her efforts for years to come. I greatly value the assistance Laura provided to me and my staff. I extend my personal congratulations and thanks for her many years of hard work and dedication to the principal conservation mission of the National Park Service and join with her friends and coworkers in wishing her, her husband Stuart Meehan, and her daughters Lindsay and Elizabeth, well with this new assignment and relocation.

Mr. President, this week, from April 18th to 24th, we are celebrating the 46th anniversary of National Library Week. As a strong and vigorous supporter of Federal initiatives to strengthen and protect libraries, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take a few moments to reflect on the significance of libraries to our nation.

When the free public library came into its own in this country in the 19th century, it was, from the beginning, a unique institution because of its commitment to the free and open exchange of ideas embodied in the Constitution itself. Libraries have always been an integral part of all that our country stands for: freedom of information, an educated citizenry, and an open and enlightened society. They are the only public agencies in which the services rendered are intended for, and available to, every segment of our society.

It has been my longstanding view that libraries play an indispensable role in our communities. From modest beginnings in the mid-19th century, today's libraries provide well-stocked reference centers and wide-ranging loan services based on a system of branches, often further supplemented by traveling libraries or on-line libraries serving outlying districts. Libraries promote the reading of books among adults, adolescents, and children and provide the access and resources to allow citizens to obtain reliable information on a vast array of topics.

Libraries have gained even further significance in this age of rapid technological advancement because they are called upon to provide not only books and periodicals, but many other valuable resources as well. In today's society, libraries provide computer services, Internet access, audio-visual materials, facilities for community lectures and performances, DVDs, CD-Roms, tapes, and works of art for exhibit and loan to the public. In addition, special facilities libraries provide services for older Americans, people with disabilities, and hospitalized citizens.

Of course, libraries are not merely passive repositories of materials. They are engines of learning--the place where a spark is often struck for disadvantaged citizens who for whatever reason have not had exposure to the vast stores of knowledge available. I have the greatest respect for those individuals who are members of the library community and work so hard to ensure that our citizens and communities continue to enjoy the tremendous rewards available through our library system.

My own State of Maryland has 24 public library systems providing a full range of library services to all Maryland citizens and a long tradition of open and unrestricted sharing of resources. This policy has been enhanced by the State Library Network, which provides interlibrary loans to the State public, academic, special libraries, and school library media centers. The Network receives strong support from the State Library Resource Center at the Enoch Pratt Free Library, the Regional Library Resource Centers in our Western, Southern, and Eastern Shore counties, and a Statewide database of periodicals from over 100 libraries.

The State Library Resource Center alone gives Marylanders free access to approximately 2 million books, over 1 million U.S. Government documents, 600,000 magazines, newspapers and books in microform, 11,000 periodicals, 90,000 maps, 20,000 Maryland State documents, and 19,000 videos and films.

The result of this unique joint State-County resource sharing is an extraordinary level of library services available to the citizens of Maryland. Marylanders have responded to this outstanding service with almost 58 percent of the State's population registered as library patrons. Additionally, the total holdings of catalogued and uncatalogued book volumes, video and audio recordings, periodicals, electronic formats, and serial volumes have increased by 1.2 million from 1998 to 2002 to total almost 16.8 million library holdings.

I have had a close working relationship with members of the Maryland Library Association and others involved in the library community throughout the State, and I am very pleased to join with them and citizens throughout the Nation in this week's celebration of ``National Library Week.'' I look forward to a continued close association with those who enable libraries to make their unique and vital services available to all Americans.

Will the distinguished leader yield?

Do I understand after repeated efforts to hold, I take it, a thorough and comprehensive meeting with Senator Frist, which was to discuss this matter, when the time for the meeting had arrived-- which had been delayed, I gather, repeatedly--it was scheduled then for only 10 minutes?

Hardly enough time to say hello and goodbye, I might observe.

The other question I wanted to put, do I understand the proposal that has now been brought--sprung to the floor, so to speak, because I don't know that it represents the culmination of any consultative process--for people who have been working their way through the existing system toward getting some recovery for the illness and the harm they suffered, they would be required to go back and start all over again under this? Is that correct? I find that very difficult to accept. I just wanted to be clear on that particular point.

It is pretty brutal treatment, it seems to me, to people who have suffered real harm. But for people to have worked their way through the system with all of the stress and strain involved in doing that, and to have either come up to the point of judgment or, as I understand it, perhaps even achieved judgment, then to be required to go back and begin all over it seems to me is just a completely unacceptable procedure. I am very concerned to hear that.

I thank the leader.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator 1\1/2\ minutes of the time allocated to me.

Mr. President, I commend the very able Senator from New Jersey for his very powerful statement and for putting everything in context.

First of all, I appreciate his taking the April 15 filing deadline, which most of us have just confronted in terms of filing our tax returns, and pointing out that corporations are paying hardly anything in income taxes. As I understand it, 60 percent of corporations filing show no tax liability. As I understand it, 95 percent were paying 5 percent or less.

Secondly, the Senator has pointed out this huge discrepancy in the tax benefit from the Bush tax cuts. His chart shows middle-income people were getting about $600, as I recall the figure. And for the top 1 percent, what was the figure?

That is the millionaires.

And the millionaires were getting $124,000. This is classic trickle-down economics. It doesn't work. Proof that it does not work is where we are on the jobs front. We have an administration that claims it has a successful economic policy, and it is not producing jobs. In fact, we have now over 2 million fewer jobs than we had when this administration took over in January of 2001.

The last time we had an administration that failed to produce a net increase in jobs over the course of the administration was the Herbert Hoover administration. Now, stop and think about that. I say to the Senator, is it not his understanding that every administration since Herbert Hoover has been able to show a net increase of jobs over the course of their administration--until this administration which now is over 2 million jobs in the hole below where we were when they came into office?

Furthermore, it is my understanding, I say to the Senator, that this recession we have experienced began 36 months ago. As we have said, we have fewer jobs now than we did when the recession first started. This is the first recession since the Great Depression in which 36 months after the recession began we have failed to come back and recover or recreate the jobs that were lost in the recession.

Stop and think about that. It is 36 months after the recession began. In every other economic downturn since the Great Depression, 36 months after the recession began we had recovered all the jobs lost and gone well beyond that in most instances in job creation. We have not done that in this business cycle. In fact, if we had grown at the job growth equal to the worst on record following a recession--I am just taking now the worst performance of previous economic downturns--if we had just the job growth now that we had in the worst recovery period, we would have 3.4 million more jobs than we have today. It is incredible what is happening on the jobs front. We are not closing this jobs gap. This administration doesn't seem to understand it or face up to it.

In fact, in the 2002 Economic Report of the President, the administration forecasted that in 2004--the year we are in--the economy would have 138.3 million jobs. Last year, the President lowered that estimate for the number of jobs we would have in 2004. In 2003, he predicted only 135.2 million jobs. In the most recent economic report, the administration lowered it again to 132.7 million jobs. In 2 years, they lowered the number of job predictions by 6 million jobs.

Yes.

You can see the effect on the earnings of workers that is taking place in the economy, for one thing.

Exactly.

The Senator is right to focus on the inadequacy of demand. If he would put up the chart that shows how much of the benefit goes to workers' wages as opposed to corporate profit in this so-called recovery, we can see that if you go back to the early 1990s, during that recovery, a majority--85 percent--of the benefits were going to workers. In this recovery, the workers are getting only 15 percent.

So 87 percent of it is going to corporate profit. That is one of the big differences. That is one of the reasons we are not creating jobs. When it goes to workers' wages, it makes its way back into the economy, stimulates economic activity. As a consequence, it helps produce jobs. Now it is so heavily weighted away from workers and toward the corporations that are showing these record profits that we are not getting the same economic stimulus.

Then they say, well, if the corporations make big profits, they will invest in plant and equipment. But the corporations won't invest in plant and equipment if they don't think there is going to be a demand for what that plant and equipment will produce. The major source of the demand comes from workers' wages, which is being grossly shortchanged in this so-called economic recovery. It is no wonder we are facing such a severe economic situation.

Twenty-four percent of the people who are unemployed have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. They are the so-called long-term unemployed. We are now at a record in that this percentage has been above 20 for 18 consecutive months. The last time we had long-term unemployed at that level for such a long period of time was in the 1982 recession, when the unemployment rate went up to close to 10

percent. So what is happening is a lot of the impact is being concealed or disguised. People have dropped out of the workforce. The workforce participation rate now is at a 16 year low, despite having previously risen almost every year in this postwar period. That is the situation we confront.

The Senator is absolutely right to put his finger on these gross inequities in the workings of the economy because more and more of its benefits are being pushed to the very top of the income and wealth scale. As a consequence, they do not get recirculated back through the economy to create jobs and meet the tremendous challenge that working people in this country are facing, which the Senator has very thoroughly outlined in the course of his statement. I commend my colleague from New Jersey for his very strong and powerful statement in underscoring this shift in economic benefits.

There is one strata up at the top that is reaping the benefits, and all the rest of us are feeling the economic burdens, stress and strain of this economy.

Yes.

That is right.

I thank the Senator for his very strong presentation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I recognize the American Public Health Association's 14th annual National Public Health Week. I specifically want to acknowledge and commend the Association on its theme this year: ``Eliminating Health Disparities: Communities Moving from Statistics to Solutions.''

Our public health practitioners affect all areas of life as they fulfill their mission of promoting health and preventing disease at the broader ``population'' level. The American Public Health Association is the oldest and largest organization of public health professionals and has had an enormous influence on public health priorities and policies for over 100 years.

As we begin National Public Health Week, it is clear how the Association's selection of a particular theme can make a significant difference in how we develop our health agenda as a nation. I think this year's choice will be no exception and that it will be an impetus for frank and thoughtful discussion about what should be one of the

Nation's most critical priorities, the need to address health disparities.

The first NIH Working Group on Health Disparities defined health and health care disparities as ``differences in the incidence, prevalence, mortality, and burden of diseases and other adverse health conditions that exist among specific population groups in the United States.'' I take a moment to highlight just a few of these differences.

Statistics from the Department of Health and Human Services Report entitled ``National Health Care Disparities'' bear out that minorities are less likely to be given appropriate cardiac medications or to undergo bypass surgery, and are less likely to receive kidney dialysis or transplants. The same study has shown that minorities are less likely to receive the most sophisticated treatments for HIV infection, which could forestall the onset of AIDS. Our minority communities are instead more likely to receive less desirable, non state-of-the-art procedures, such as lower limb amputations for diabetes and other conditions.

These disparities also put our children at significant risk. In my own State of Maryland, the Infant Mortality rate for African Americans is two times higher than for Caucasian Americans.

And these disparities do not only occur along racial lines. Healthy People 2010 and the National Health Care Disparities Report show that those who live in our more rural communities face similar inequitable treatment. Rural community residents have less contact and fewer visits with physicians, even though these residents tend to have a heightened need for health care. Indeed, injury rates in rural communities are 40 percent higher than in urban areas.

Women are 20 times more likely than men to die from a heart attack. Statistics from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality reflect that women receive less aggressive treatment for heart related ailments than men, and are less likely to receive life saving drugs such as lidocaine, beta-blockers and aspirin for heart attacks.

Persons with disabilities face significant disparities in the care they are afforded as do the indigent; the list goes on and on. These are just a few examples of how this inequity affects our population.

The State of Maryland has engaged in a number of statewide and local initiatives to address health care disparities in our communities. At the Federal level, I have cosponsored S. 1833, the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act, which seeks to eliminate racial and ethnic health disparities in health care. I hope we can use the momentum created by this week and redouble our efforts to ensure comprehensive quality health care for all of America's citizen's regardless of their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, education level, geographic location, disability or sexual orientation.

Again, I commend the American Public Health Association for focusing the Nation's attention on this important issue and for serving to increase the dialogue to rid the country of these inequities. I hope my colleagues offer their support to this important effort as well.

Mr. President, 5 years ago Salisbury University, which is located in the town of Salisbury on Maryland's Eastern Shore, established PACE, the Institute for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement. PACE has a dual mission: to serve the communities of the Eastern Shore, using campus resources, faculty-student research teams and off-campus opportunities like internships and a voter registration drive to promote responsible citizenship and good government; and to promote the active engagement of students in civic affairs. For Salisbury Professors Harry Basehart, of the political science department, and Francis Kane, of the philosophy department, who together founded PACE and serve as its co-directors, this is a personal mission as well.

Among PACE's many programs is an annual lecture series that brings to the campus distinguished guests to speak on issues of public life, especially issues that most concern Salisbury's students. The speaker this year, on March 29, was Congressman John R. Lewis, who represents Georgia's 5th Congressional District and is serving his ninth term.

It is fair to say that in all his life from his childhood in rural Troy, AL, through his years as a student leader in the civil rights movement, to his dedicated service in the Congress Congressman Lewis has never known a day of lassitude, apathy or indifference. He spoke to Salisbury's students from the perspective of his own student years, and I have rarely seen an audience listen with such focused intensity.

As it happens, I was born and raised in Salisbury. I was deeply honored to have the opportunity to introduce Congressman Lewis to the Salisbury community, and I ask unanimous consent to print my introductory remarks in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, earlier in the day, a number of my colleagues took the floor to pay tribute and respect to my dear friend and colleague, Senator Byrd. I was unable to be here because I was involved in a markup of legislation. I want to take a few moments now, as we bring the day's business to a close, to pay tribute to my very good friend on the occasion of his 17,000th vote in the Senate, an all- time record.

The distinguished Senator from West Virginia has given this Nation and his beloved State of West Virginia the very best in public service. The civility, the intelligence, the commitment, and dedication that Senator Byrd brings to this body commands the respect and admiration of every Member of the Senate. That has been expressed from time to time by many of us in this Chamber.

The vote today is but one of many milestones for Senator Byrd, but it does offer all of us the opportunity to reflect upon his very special place in the Senate.

Senator Byrd often refers to the Senate as a ``pillar of the Constitution.'' I think it is fair to refer to Senator Byrd as a ``pillar of the Senate.'' The Senator's dedication to this body and its history--he has written, after all, the definitive history of the U.S. Senate--its customs and its procedures are unequaled by any other Member I have known. And his dedication to the Senate ranks with his dedication to the country, to the State of West Virginia, and to the Constitution.

As this body's indisputable expert on parliamentary procedure, it is only fitting that Senator Byrd's first vote, the first of the 17,000 votes that we celebrate today, was cast on January 8, 1959, and was procedural in nature. That vote began, of course, a legacy of extraordinary leadership and service in this body.

The able Senator from West Virginia has not only employed his mastery of how the Senate functions effectively in floor debates, but he has used it to pass on and protect and perfect the spirit of this body which he has called ``the cornerstone of our constitutional system.''

Given this incredible record of service and experience, Senator Byrd now, I think fairly, stands as both the intellect and the conscience of this Chamber. He constantly reminds us of the fundamentals of our democracy and the role the Framers of our Constitution envisioned for the legislative branch.

No Member of the U.S. Congress has a deeper understanding of the Constitution and of the Legislature's vital function as a guardian of our fundamental national document.

It is because of this institutional knowledge, his devotion to the Senate's distinguishing characteristics, and his devotion to the civility that has customarily underpinned the interaction of the Members of this body that in times of severe national crisis, and on occasion constitutional crisis when the Senate is faced with the most difficult of choices, Members from both sides of the aisle have sought the leadership of Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.

I consider it a singular honor to serve with him in the Senate. I congratulate him on casting his 17,000th vote, and I look forward to seeing him cast many more.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

On the previous chart, am I to understand that in dollar terms the deficit now is at a record level?

Is the highest it has ever been?

It is the highest it has ever been.

I also understand when they try to put it in percentage terms as a share of the economy, that it is almost at the highest level it has been since the end of World War II. Of course, we had to fight World War II. We had a significant deficit and ran up the debt. But it is almost at the highest it has ever been, and it is projected, as I understand it, to go higher; is that correct?

Million?

Will the Senator yield on that point?

I say to the Senator, I think it is an extremely important point. Even if you reduce the deficit--and the President is making these enormously favorable assumptions about how much he can reduce the deficit. Every analysis has, in effect, undercut the administration's statement and said the deficit, year to year, will be larger. But any deficit you run becomes an addition to the debt, so the debt continues to grow.

As the chart of the Senator shows, it grows in alarming proportions. That is a burden that then is saddled on the next generation which they have to pay off almost indefinitely into the future.

I say to the Senator, I think he is making an extremely important point, to underscore the fact that the debt continues to explode even under favorable assumptions by the administration.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?

Those are huge sums we are borrowing from these various nations in order to cover our deficit. This is debt they hold which the United States has to pay back.

The fact is, if you connect everything, what is happening in effect is, in order to give tax cuts to the elite, to the very wealthy, we are borrowing money, and we end up borrowing money from all of these countries in order to finance the deficit that results from the tax cuts, and then saddling the next generation with the responsibility of paying on this debt out into the future.

It is incredible when you stop and think about it; that in order to finance tax cuts here we are borrowing money from over there in order to do that.

If the Senator will yield, do those projected deficits rise into double figures as a percent of the GDP? Am I correct in reading that chart? It is well up over 10 percent of GDP would be in deficit? Is that correct?

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Boxer-Kennedy amendment to raise the minimum wage. A fair increase is long overdue and the Congress must act to set a

minimum wage that accurately reflects current economic conditions.

The majority has decried this amendment as non-germane and accused the minority of holding up the underlying legislation. While the amendment may not be germane in a procedural sense, it is certainly relevant, it is certainly appropriate, and it deserves an up or down vote.

Indeed, as my able colleague Senator Kennedy mentioned earlier on the floor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as recently as March of 2002, has acknowledged that moving people to jobs that pay at least the minimum wage is the centerpiece of TANF. Minimum wage jobs are the centerpiece of TANF.

But in order for people to move off these rolls and still support their families, such jobs must provide a livable wage. Mr. President, if the true goal of this legislation--as has been stated--is to reduce the number of individuals enrolled in our Nation's welfare system, this amendment would directly serve to accomplish that goal.

To achieve self-sufficiency, a working family needs more. By working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, an employee will earn $10,700 at the current minimum wage. For a family of three, that represents an income that falls $5,000 below the poverty line.

And this is a pervasive trend. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that in 2002 the number of working poor in the United States stood at 8,954,000. This is unacceptable. If Americans are willing and able to work full time jobs, they should be able to provide for their family.

At the current minimum wage, this situation is not likely to improve any time soon. According to the Congressional Research Service, the minimum wage today is at its lowest level in terms of purchasing power since the 1940s. And each day we fail to act, inflation continues to erode this purchasing power. As this happens, workers earning the minimum wage will only become more and more dependent on the government assistance to make ends meet.

If enacted, at its full implementation, the Kennedy amendment would increase this wage to $7 an hour. This would provide an increase in the incomes of minimum wage earners by $3,800 a year, which represents a positive step toward purchasing power that comports with modern day needs and prices.

The other side will argue that increasing the minimum wage will hurt business and stunt job growth. They argue that we need to give more tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, run large and growing Federal deficits, and hope that things improve.

Mr. President, this has been our policy for over three years since this Administration took office. In that time, we have seen the largest job loss in our Nation's history. We have seen Federal surpluses erased in favor of record deficits. And we have been told time and time again by the Administration that things will turn around soon.

However, today's release of state-level job growth data by the Bureau of Labor Statistics flies in the face of the Administration's assertions in this regard. These statistics indicate that 49 states failed to meet the Bush Administration's projections for job creation in the month of February 2004. As of February 2004, 35 states have failed to get back to their pre-recession employment levels. Furthermore, 49 states have not created enough jobs to keep up with the natural growth in the number of potential workers, as job growth has lagged the growth in working-age population since March 2001. As for the unemployed, 43 states have higher unemployment rates than when the recession began. As a Nation, the cumulative job growth shortfall is over two million jobs since July 2003, when the first of this Administration's tax cuts went into effect.

Raising the minimum wage will not only benefit low-income wage earners, it will provide economic stimulus by putting additional dollars in the hands of those who must spend them to make ends meet. When the Congress last increased the minimum wage, the economy experienced its strongest growth in over three decades. Nearly 11 million new jobs were added. This is quite a different result from the economic policies we have pursued under the current Administration.

Mr. President, increasing the minimum wage is the fair thing to do and it is sound economic policy. I urge my colleagues to support the Boxer-Kennedy amendment.