Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Financial Literacy and Education Coordinating Act of 2003. This legislation creates an intergovernmental coordinating Committee whose goal is to improve the financial decision making of all Americans by strengthening education to raise financial literacy levels.

The phrase ``financial literacy'' is one we often hear but often do not really understand. It is analogous in financial matters to basic literacy--the ability to read and understand what is read--in our everyday lives. We are keenly aware from our efforts to improve our schools and raise our students' ability to read that there are higher and lower levels of literacy. Numerous statistical studies indicate that in the field of personal finances, substantial numbers of people are financially illiterate. Among those who have some degree of literacy, the vast majority are performing below what their `grade level' ought to be.

This bill addresses that problem. It reflects my long-standing concern that inadequate knowledge of financial issues leaves our consumers seriously vulnerable to exploitation, with devastating consequences for them and their families. As Chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, during the last Congress, I chaired a series of hearings to examine the state of financial literacy and education throughout the Nation. The Committee received testimony from a wide range of witnesses on the state of financial literacy and education among Americans of all ages and from all walks of life--from school age children to retirees, small investors to those without bank accounts, and first time workers to those saving for retirement. The witnesses were unanimous in the view that we needed to increase financial education in this country.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated before the Committee

that: ``In considering means to improve the financial status of families, education can play a critical role by equipping consumers with the knowledge required to make wise decisions. . . . This is especially the case for populations that have traditionally been underserved by our financial system.'' Chairman Greenspan made the point that increased financial education has the potential to improve significantly the economic situation of the vast majority of Americans.

The goal of this legislation is to promote better financial decision- making among consumers. While at present substantial work is in progress both within the government and outside of it, it suffers from the lack of a single comprehensive strategy--there is too little coordination, and too much duplication. As Tess Canja, President of AARP testified before the Committee: ``We see a need for a coherent and coordinated national strategy for making available a well-researched and well-evaluated progression of financial literacy programs and services.'' By creating an underlying strategy to address these problems, the legislation will help enable Americans to make the financial decisions that best serve their needs and aspirations. This legislation seeks to address these problems and create a strategy to improve the financial choices and outcomes for all Americans.

The bill creates a Coordinating Committee chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, based in the Treasury Department's Office of Financial Education. The Committee will be responsible for coordinating and centralizing the various existing financial education activities in our government agencies as well as any future initiatives. Currently there are at least sixteen active financial-education programs. They operate in each of the Federal banking agencies--the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, and OTS; the NCUA; the SEC; in six executive departments-- Education, Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Labor, and Veterans Affairs; and in such agencies as the Social Security Administration, Federal Trade Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the Office of Personnel Management.

The Committee will coordinate these and other efforts. Additional members can be added at the discretion of the Chairperson of the Committee. All will benefit from the better coordination and the elimination of unnecessary duplication that the Committee will provide.

In addition, many State and local governments, non-profit entities, and private enterprises have developed and implemented excellent financial education programs. A successful national strategy to increase financial literacy and education must involve a partnership that engages all levels of government, including at the State and local level, along with leaders of the non-profit and private sectors. As Don Blandin, President of the American Savings Education Council noted in his testimony before the Committee: ``Organizations in both the private and public sectors must collaborate on all levels to help educate Americans about the importance of taking control of their financial future. By combining and leveraging our comprehensive networks and resources, we have a better chance of reaching people that none of us would be able to reach alone.'' The Coordinating Committee established by this legislation will undertake just such a collaboration. It will develop a national strategy in conjunction with State and local governments and with the private and non-profit sectors, and will report its findings back to the Congress.

It is disturbing to hear the statistics about the current situation and how financially under-educated the American people are. The Consumer Federation of America found that the typical American failed a 14-question test of basic knowledge of personal finances. Fewer than one in ten, 8, answered three-quarters of the questions correctly. Eighty-two percent of high school seniors failed a 13-question personal financial quiz on such basic questions as interest rates, savings, loans, credit cards, and calculating net worth.

The lack of financial education affects Americans of every age and background. There may be differing opinions on issues of financial security for retirees, but I suspect there is little disagreement on the importance to every family of budgeting and savings for retirement. We have data showing that households with a savings plan save twice as much as those without a plan, and yet surveys indicate that half of all Americans have not taken the basic step of calculating how much they will need to save for retirement. Teaching families how to budget and develop a savings plan as well as the importance of doing so would enhance many Americans' financial security.

There are far too many people today who lack a bank account, which is the passport for access to mainstream financial services. The Wall Street Journal, in an article appearing June 28, 2001, estimated that 10 million adult Americans have no relationship with a mainstream financial services provider. Of the millions of households that have no relationship with a bank, one-third are African American and 29 percent are Hispanic. The large costs of failing to bring people into the mainstream financial system makes it imperative to pursue all avenues to bring them in. A lack of basic consumer financial education on how a checking and a savings account work and why it's important to have such an account is one explanation for these disturbing figures. Once people enter into the financial mainstream a lot of the protections and safeguards which have been developed for the board mass of the public are enjoyed by these newly banked people.

The Banking Committee heard from witnesses that many college students have access to significant credit through credit cards, but have little experience and often little to no education on how to use them responsibly. Kentucky State Treasurer Jonathan Miller, who has held a series of hearings on financial literacy throughout his state, testified before the Banking Committee that: ``for a significant and growing minority of college students, credit card use and misuse can be devastating.'' The Department of Education estimates that the average credit card debt among college students was over $3,000 in the year 2000. College students are not the only ones susceptible to credit card debt: the average credit card debt per American family is over $8,000. Furthermore, too many people are unaware of their own credit score, how to access that score, and the impact that their credit score has on both their access to credit and the terms on which that credit is offered.

Students are entering college with insufficient knowledge of the financial system and as a result, they are getting into serious financial problems. One of the Committee's witnesses, Ms. Ellen Frishberg, Director of Student Financial Services at John Hopkins University, testified that, ``Because of the case of getting credit, the lack of financial savy on the part of these otherwise very bright students, and the unchecked solicitation and giveaways that were going on during orientation, in 1994 the Dean of Students decided it was best to prohibit credit card vendors from the Homewood campus.'' We can all agree that college students who are better educated in the basics of the financial system will be less susceptible to falling into serious credit card debt.

Special attention should also be paid to immigrants, often of modest means who send, or remit, a significant portion of their income to family in their country of origin. According to a recent study by the Inter-American Development Bank, in the aggregate $32 billion was remitted out of America last year, with over $10 billion going to Mexico alone. It is estimated that nearly 70 percent of all Hispanic immigrants send money home. The financial transaction of sending money internationally is complex: there are transaction fees, currency conversion fees and exchange rate spreads. The full costs can range up to $50 even when the amount being sent home is $300. A survey by Bendixen and Associates estimated that \2/3\ of Hispanic immigrants who send money home are unaware of the full costs. Before the Banking Committee, Mr. Bendixen testified that, ``When these immigrants were informed that besides a fee paid in the U.S., international money transfer companies often provide unfavorable exchange rates or discount additional commissions or charges in Latin America, a large majority of them felt that the fees paid for the service are excessive and unfair. Customers should have

access to information about the full costs of their transactions, and they need a level of financial literacy that enables them to interpret the information. Only then will they be able to shop effectively, compare costs, and make wise financial choices.

Increased financial education is a first step in the consumer education process but as Federal Reserve vice-Chairman Roger Ferguson testified before the Committee, ``legislation, careful regulation and education are all components of the response to these emerging consumer concerns.'' The legislation I introduce today will make a significant contribution to improving the quality of financial education in this country. It is modeled closely on the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee established by the Export Enhancement Act of 1992.

A number of Senators have taken a strong interest in this issue. Senator Corzine is a co-sponsor of this legislation and has been actively involved on the issue. I particularly want to acknowledge the outstanding leadership of Senators Stabenow and Enzi as well as Senator Akaka. I know that Senators Stabenow and Enzi are working on a bill and I look forward to working closely with them.

I also want to express my appreciation to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Shelby for the time and attention is devoting to this subject. Tomorrow Chairman Shelby is holding a hearing in the Committee on ``Consumer Awareness and Understanding of the Credit Granting Process.'' These issues are directly related.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the Financial Literacy and Education Coordinating Act and the bill be printed in the Record together with letters in support of the bill. I urge my colleagues to work toward speedy enactment of meaningful legislation to improve the financial literacy and education of all Americans.

Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the amendment introduced by Senators Mikulski and Dodd, of which I am a cosponsor, that would provide an additional $150 million for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program--FIRE Grants.

As a co-chairman of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am proud to have been a strong supporter of the original legislation that established and funded the FIRE Grant Program. Since that time, this program has proven itself, by all accounts, a tremendous success.

Just this past May, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Leadership Development Academy released a comprehensive evaluation of the program, noting that it was ``highly effective in improving the readiness and the capabilities of firefighters across the country.'' Moreover, the study found that 97 percent of those receiving grants reported that the assistance had a positive impact on their abilities to handle fire emergencies, and, of those receiving equipment through the FIRE Grant program, 99 percent of departments indicated that the acquisitions made with the funding had dramatically improved the safety of their firefighters.

The need for this additional funding is abundantly clear. In December of this past year, FEMA and the National Fire Protection Association jointly released the Congressionally-authorized ``Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service.'' The results of this report were startling. Among its findings, the report noted that an estimated 57,000 firefighters lack protective clothing, half of all fire engines are at least fifteen years old, and approximately one-third of firefighters are not equipped with essential self-contained breathing apparatus.

Furthermore, during this year's FIRE Grant application process, record numbers of fire houses around the country have requested assistance. By the April 11 application deadline, the Department of Homeland Security reports having received approximately 19,950 FIRE Grant applications, for a total request of over $2 billion in Federal funding. Unfortunately, with an appropriation of only $745 million, the Department expects to fund well under half of these requests. The amount contained in the Homeland Security Appropriations measure currently before the Senate barely exceeds this amount, at a level of $750 million.

The Mikulski-Dodd amendment would merely fund the FIRE Act at its fully-authorized level of $900 million. In light of the demonstrated need and inadequacy of current funding levels, I would prefer a larger amount. However, the Senate authorized $900 million for this program in the Fiscal 2002 Defense Authorization Act, and I believe we must at least meet this modest commitment.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

What is the parliamentary situation?

Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield me 8 minutes?

Mr. President, I am very pleased to cosponsor the amendment offered by my able and distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. I commend him for his very strong leadership on the important issue of enhancing the security of our Nation's public transit systems. By allocating $100 million for transit security, this amendment would enhance the safety of millions of Americans.

Every workday, 14 million Americans ride buses, subways, light rail, and ferries in cities and towns all across America. Transit systems throughout our Nation link people to jobs, to medical care, to shopping, to school, and to other essential services.

More and more, Americans are recognizing the benefits that transit has to offer. Over the last 6 years, transit ridership has grown faster than any other mode of transportation.

These riders expect and deserve transit systems that are reliable, that are safe, and that are secure.

As chairman of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Senator Reed, during the last Congress, convened six hearings to examine our Nation's public transit systems, with two of those hearings fully devoted to the security question. One hearing took place just a few weeks after the attacks on September 11, and the second shortly after the first anniversary of those attacks.

The witnesses at those hearings included the Federal Transit Administrator, representatives of transit agencies, including Richard White, the general manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and representatives of transit labor.

I commend the record of those hearings to all of my colleagues. They were extremely well done.

The witnesses testified about the contribution transit made to the Nation on September 11, something my colleague already made reference to. That morning, transit agencies across the country ran extra trains and buses as long as needed to move people safely out of city centers.

Transit played a particularly vital role in New York and Washington, the two cities directly under attack that day. Without the vibrant transit systems in place in those cities, timely movement of our people would have been impossible.

As more and more Americans are using public transportation, it is clear that transit must be a vital component of any city's emergency response plan.

As my colleague indicated, according to the Mineta Transportation Institute in San Jose, CA, surface transportation was the target of more than 195 terrorist attacks from 1997 to 2000, and transit systems are the mode most commonly attacked.

The witnesses before Senator Reed's subcommittee explained that public transportation faces unique security challenges.

By its nature, transit must be easily accessible. It runs on identified routes and at published times, and it uses an extensive network of roads and rails spanning a wide geographic area.

It obviously is not feasible to screen all passengers and baggage before boarding, as is done in airports, or to check the identity of all who wish to use the system.

But, according to the witnesses who appeared before Senator Reed at those hearings, there are measures that transit agencies can take to improve their security, such as conducting vulnerability assessments, developing emergency plans, investing in security equipment, and training employees--which was repeatedly emphasized to us as something that would improve the security of our systems.

But these improvements do not come without cost, and the lack of available funding was identified as a major impediment to making transit systems more secure.

Early last year, Senator Reed and I joined in asking the General Accounting Office to review transit agencies' response to the threat of terrorism, and to identify the challenges they face in enhancing the security of their systems.

The GAO report, released last December--and I commend this report to my colleagues--found that transit agencies have taken a number of steps, particularly since September 11, to improve security.

At the same time, the report identified significant remaining security needs. Consistent with the testimony of our witnesses, the report found that insufficient funding--insufficient funding--is ``the most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure as possible.''

In fact, at the 10 transit agencies they visited, the GAO found hundreds of millions of dollars in identified security needs.

Our Nation's transit agencies have made good use of the limited resources they have had available, but this report demonstrates that new resources will be needed in the future to safeguard the security of our Nation's transit systems.

The pending legislation does not demonstrate the commitment necessary to help transit systems become more secure.

I believe we owe it to our Nation's transit riders to do more.

This amendment takes a critical step in the right direction by making $100 million available for transit security, to be allocated by the Department of Homeland Security according to threat assessments that have already been conducted by the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Transit Administration.

Assessments have been conducted. The priorities are there. We can move these funds quickly out into the field in order to enhance security.

Transit agencies could quickly put this money to use, investing in security equipment, conducting training exercises for transit personnel, and otherwise enhancing their systems' ability to resist attack.

This is an investment that we cannot afford not to make--an investment we cannot afford not to make.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the able and distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Will the Senator yield for a question on that point?

Am I correct in understanding this Defense Appropriations Committee bill has no money in it for Iraq, either the military costs or the reconstruction costs? Is that correct?

If the Senator will yield for a further question?

How is the Congress expected to play its role with respect to appropriations, and overseeing the expenditure of the public moneys, if we are not furnished this information?

Will the Senator yield to me for a further question?

Of course, last year we were just getting into this situation. I understand in the past there have been instances in which, prior to actually going into operation, we weren't given figures because it is so hard to estimate them. Then they come to you for a supplemental. Of course, when they come for a supplemental, what can you do but give the supplemental? At that point you have no choice.

But now we are a year later and it seems to me it ought to be possible to make some estimates that would be contained in the budget.

It is my understanding that in the past, although we may not have gotten estimates before operations began, once they commenced and continued for a period of time, then estimates were contained in the budget requests because it was a continuing matter and you were in a period where you could make such calculations. Of course, that is not being done in this instance.

We are now well into it. It ought to be possible to make some estimates and contain those in the budget so we have an opportunity to review them. Would the Senator agree with that?

I thank the distinguished Senator. I think his answers have only underscored the importance of his amendment, which I very strongly support.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

If the Senator will yield.

It is my understanding--and I phrase the question carefully in this regard--that while it is accurate to say we have not had these figures requested prior to entering into hostilities, that once we have gone into hostilities which have continued over a period of time, that has not prevailed.

Second, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier out in the Pacific and said it was all over--``mission accomplished.''

We are now into--presumably by his own statement--a postwar period in which we are trying to do a lot of reconstruction and peacekeeping. It seems to me under that premise put forward by the President himself that we ought to be receiving budget estimates. They can put an asterisk on it that says this is our best estimate. It may prove out to be different as circumstances develop. But we are not being given any figures on which to pass judgment.

Then after the fact, we receive a supplemental. Of course, a supplemental is going to be approved. There is no meaningful review at that point because it has already been done.

Then we are told this money has already been expended. You have to replenish the coffers without having a chance to subject the figures to the requirement that they pass muster.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, this year marks the 40th anniversary of the March on Washington--a turning point in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans--and I am pleased that the Senate today has passed S. 470, a bill I introduced on February 27, 2003. This important legislation extends the authority for the memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to be constructed in the District of Columbia close to the spot from which Dr. King delivered his moving ``I Have a Dream'' speech at the March on Washington. I would like to thank the Senate for moving so expeditiously on S. 470--legislation that is crucial to ensure a fitting tribute to our Nation's greatest civil rights leader.

In the 104th Congress, Congress passed a bill that I sponsored authorizing the creation of a memorial to Dr. King as part of the omnibus parks legislation. The Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, of which Dr. King was a member, was designed to coordinate the design and funding of the memorial. The legislation provides that the monument be established entirely with private contributions. The Department of Interior, in consultation with the National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the Commission on Fine Arts, has approved the site of the memorial pursuant to this legislation. A design has been selected and the Alpha Phi Alpha National Memorial Project Foundation is in the process of getting that design approved by the Department of the Interior.

Pursuant to the Commemorative Works Act, there is a 7-year period of legislative authority in which the National Memorial Project Foundation must acquire a construction permit for the memorial. This 7-year period will expire in November of this year. Despite the enormous dedication of the National Memorial Project Foundation, additional time is necessary for the Foundation to erect a fitting tribute to Dr. King. Meeting the administrative procedures and fundraising requirements of the act has been a slow process. Therefore, the foundation requires more time in which to complete the process and acquire a construction permit.

That is why I and Congresswoman Diane Watson in the House of Representatives introduced this legislation to extend the period of legislative authority for an additional 3 years. This legislation gives the foundation additional time to raise the necessary funds to obtain the construction permit and will ensure that work on the memorial is completed. This extension of legislative authority has been done before for numerous other memorials, such as the World War II Memorial and the U.S. Air Force Memorial, given the length of time it usually takes to embark on a project of this magnitude, and I am pleased that it will be done for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial.

Since 1955, when in Montgomery, AL, Dr. King became a national hero and an acknowledged leader in the civil rights struggle, until his tragic death in Memphis, TN in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. made an extraordinary contribution to the evolving history of our Nation. His courageous stands and unyielding belief in the tenet of nonviolence reawakened our Nation to the injustice and discrimination that continued to exist 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation and the enactment of the guarantees of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution.

A memorial to Dr. King erected in the Nation's Capital will provide continuing inspiration to all who view it, and particularly to the thousands of students and young people who visit Washington, DC every year. While these young people may have no personal memory of the condition of civil rights in America before Dr. King, nor of the struggle in which he was the major figure, they do understand that there is more that needs to be done in this critical area.

Martin Luther King, Jr. dedicated his life to achieving equal treatment and enfranchisement for all Americans through nonviolent means. It is my hope that the young people who visit this monument will come to understand that it represents not only the enormous contribution of this great leader, but also two very basic principles necessary for the effective functioning of our society. The first is that change, even very fundamental change, is to be achieved through nonviolent means; that this is the path down which we should go as a Nation in resolving some of our most difficult problems. The other basic principle is that the reconciliation of the races, the inclusion into the mainstream of American life of all its people, is essential to the fundamental health of our Nation.

Forty years ago Dr. King declared ``I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.'' We must not let future generations forget the power of these words, and the importance of Dr. King's dream. The passage of S. 470 will ensure that work on the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial is completed, and that Dr. King's legacy will live on.

The committee amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to.

The bill (S. 470), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

I understood the Senator from Oklahoma was lined up to go next. If he wishes to defer, I would be happy to go now, if that is acceptable to him.

Mr. President, as I understand it, I am recognized for 5 minutes under the unanimous consent?

Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the Murray amendment. I commend the very able Senator from the State of Washington for coming forward with this initiative. It is a critical issue for millions of Americans across the country, and I know how concerned she has been about this issue. I am very happy to join in supporting it as a co-sponsor.

This, historically, has been a bipartisan issue. Unemployment insurance benefits were extended four times during the Reagan administration and three times during the Bush administration. The recent unemployment figures offer very strong support for acting on the Murray amendment.

Last week it was reported that the unemployment rate rose to 6.4 percent in June. This is the highest unemployment rate in over 9 years. We have to go back to April of 1994 for a higher rate. Mr. President, 9.4 million workers are unemployed, the most since December of 1992. This, of course, doesn't account for those who are so discouraged that they are not looking for work. Were we to count them, the unemployment rate would be well above 7 percent.

The economy has lost 394,000 jobs since January. We have lost jobs each of the past 5 months. Since this administration took office, private sector employment has fallen by more than 3 million.

Two million workers have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks, which is the period covered by regular unemployment insurance benefits. This morning, the Labor Department reported that an additional 439,000 workers filed initial unemployment insurance claims. More than 400,000 workers have been filing initial unemployment insurance claims for 21 consecutive weeks. The last time there was a longer streak of initial unemployment insurance claims over 400,000 was in September of 1992, more than 10 years ago.

Furthermore, the number of continuing claims is at its highest level in 20 years. You have to go back to February of 1983 to find continuing claims at the level which we are now experiencing.

There are over 1 million Americans who have exhausted all of their unemployment insurance benefits and are still not able to find a job, not because they don't want to work but because there are not jobs to be had.

Under current law, extended unemployed insurance benefits last only 13 weeks for most workers. Those in high unemployment States receive 26 weeks. This amendment would provide an additional 13 weeks to those who have already exhausted their benefits in most states and a further 7 weeks for those in high unemployment States.

It is not as though this proposal is excessive historically. In previous recessions, we have passed extensions comparable or, indeed, 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. That was in the previous Bush administration.

It is bad enough to get this level of unemployment in these administrations. That is a breakdown in policy. But it is even worse not to provide these benefits to help people go through the period of unemployment that they are experiencing, as the Senator from Washington so aptly stated in detailing the problems.

Let me make one final point. We build up an unemployment insurance trust fund in good times to fund the benefits when we encounter an economic downturn. The cost of this amendment, as I understand it, is $2.5 billion.

I ask the Senator from Washington if that is correct.

There is $19 billion in the trust fund specifically collected for the purpose of paying unemployment insurance benefits in an economic downturn. This amendment would take less than 15 percent of that trust fund balance in order to expend these benefits.

We are facing a very serious situation. We need to recognize it here. We recognized it when we had a downturn under the Reagan administration. We recognized it when we had a downturn in the first Bush administration. We ought to recognize it once again and make benefits possible for these families who are experiencing tremendous difficulties and burdens. We ought to help carry them through this economic downturn until we start getting substantial job restoration.

I commend the Senator from the State of Washington for offering this amendment. She has followed this issue very closely. I think it is imperative that the Murray amendment be agreed to.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. 1, the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003. I applaud my colleagues in working toward enactment of legislation to provide prescription drug coverage under Medicare. However, I am deeply concerned that the bill before us today would not ensure an affordable, guaranteed benefit that would cover seniors' outpatient prescription drug expenses.

Under this legislation, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services would temporarily issue prescription drug discount cards for seniors until the drug benefit begins in 2006. At that time, all Medicare beneficiaries would receive a standard prescription drug benefit whether they remained in traditional fee-for-service or in a private plan. For a $275 deductible and an estimated $35 per month, 50 percent of a beneficiary's drug costs would be covered up to $4,500. A beneficiary would receive no coverage for drug costs between $4,501 and $5,800, though they are still responsible for paying the monthly premium during this coverage gap. Furthermore, any assistance provided by employer-sponsored plans or third parties on behalf of the beneficiary does not count toward the out-of-pocket costs. After drug expenses reach $5,801, the plan would cover 90% of drug expenses.

The bill creates a new Medicare Advantage program, which would replace Medicare+Choice, and create a new agency, the Center for Medicare Choices, CMC, with authority parallel to the existing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The CMC would administer the Medicare Advantage program and the prescription drug plans. The drug plans would be administered through private plans, but when no private plans exist, the government would provide a fallback plan for seniors in fee-for-service. However, if a new private plan decides to enter an area, beneficiaries would again be forced to receive their coverage through that plan.

If this sounds terribly confusing, it is. One hundred Senators and their staffs found it difficult to work through this bill and understand exactly how the benefit would work. Seniors who don't sign up as soon as they are eligible are subject to a penalty similar to the penalty imposed on those who delay enrollment in Part B. It is unfair to expect seniors and their families to work through this web to make an informed decision.

The complexity of this drug plan is only one of numerous flaws with this bill. S. 1 does not provide a national fixed premium. The bill sets out an estimate of a $35 monthly premium, but there is no guarantee for seniors that they will not have to pay much more than that estimate.

The bill has the serious potential to cause a number of retirees to lose existing employer-sponsored prescription drug coverage. CBO estimates that as many as 37 percent of Medicare beneficiaries would lose existing coverage. This is an unacceptable consequence of legislation that is supposed to make life easier for seniors. This serious deficiency is the number one concern of constituents who have called into my office about this bill.

The bill before us leaves a large gap in coverage and forces seniors to continue premium coverage during that gap period. Seniors may have to face months without any assistance, waiting to reach the limit where catastrophic coverage begins. The seniors who fall into this coverage gap are among the most ill, with severe chronic conditions and prescription needs. It is difficult to support legislation that would cease coverage for prescription drugs for seniors at the very time when it is needed most.

Finally, because this proposal relies on private plans to deliver the drug benefit, seniors could be forced to shift from plan-to-plan, year- to-year as they did when Medicare+Choice HMOs pulled out of the Medicare program a few years ago. In my own State of Maryland, insurance companies left the Medicare program, abandoning more than 100,000 seniors.

This legislation makes our Nation's seniors the subject of an experiment to which none of us should be willing to subject our parents and grandparents. We don't know what the benefit is under this bill. We don't know how much it will cost. We don't know how private plans will participate and make a profit. We don't know how many seniors would lose existing coverage. What we know is we are prepared to spend approximately $400 billion over 10 years to create an inadequate drug benefit, a new bureaucracy, and subsidies for private insurance companies.

With modest additional resources, we could have closed the coverage gaps in this bill. Amendments offered by my colleagues to provide stability for seniors, move up the start date of the drug benefit, eliminate beneficiary premiums during the coverage gap period, and improve a variety of shortcomings have been defeated. We have lost so many opportunities to make this bill something all Medicare beneficiaries can support. I am hopeful that in the future we can improve upon this and create a system that is easier for seniors to understand, more affordable, and more reliable than what is offered today.

I want to highlight one amendment that would have provided Medicare beneficiaries with a substantial, reliable and straight-forward prescription drug benefit. I cosponsored and voted for this amendment offered by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin. His alternative would have provided a Medicare-delivered drug benefit that allows the Secretary of HHS to employ negotiating strategies used by the VA and other government entities to bring down drug prices. Under Senator Durbin's plan, seniors would have no deductible, pay only 30 percent of costs until reaching the catastrophic limit, and face no coverage gap. In addition, employer contributions would count toward out-of-pocket limits so there would be much less risk of employers dropping retiree coverage. This was the proposal we should be working from today, but unfortunately the Durbin alternative was defeated by a vote of 56 to 39.

Those opposed to providing a richer benefit argue we don't have the money. The selective amnesia of these so-called fiscal conservatives is baffling. Not too long ago, this body passed a tax cut that primarily benefited the wealthiest Americans. Where was their sense of fiscal responsibility then? As my colleagues Senators Durbin and Harkin noted yesterday, this is about priorities. I'm sure others have raised this very good point as well. We can risk greater budget deficits to give huge tax cuts to Americans who are already prospering, but we cannot provide the necessary resources for millions of Medicare beneficiaries to get an affordable, reliable drug benefit that they can understand?

I have long been a strong supporter of providing older Americans and disabled individuals who rely on Medicare an affordable, comprehensive, reliable and voluntary prescription drug benefit. However, I want to ensure we do so in a way that does not worsen the situation in which many seniors find themselves as they face rapidly rising drug costs. As we consider proposals to expand our Nation's major health entitlement programs, it is appropriate to follow a guiding principle in the practice of medicine--do no harm. Our seniors deserve a drug benefit that is a real improvement, not a complex experiment that may cause more trouble than it's worth. We must not enact a law intended to help that might eventually harm millions. The American people deserve better.

Mr. President, earlier this month the Franklin D. Roosevelt Distinguished Public Service Award was presented to Arthur Levitt, Jr., the widely respected former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The award is made annually by the Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, on whose board I am privileged to serve.

The speaker at the presentation was Conrad Black, now Lord Black, chairman of the Telegraph Group, Limited. Lord Black is active in numerous nonprofit boards, foundations and councils.

In his remarks Lord Black spoke vividly and in detail about Depression-era America, and the ``bold experimentation,'' as he put it, of the New Deal years.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of Lord Black's remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about the pending legislation, which raises the Federal debt limit by almost $1 trillion. In my view, this legislation shows very clearly that the fiscal policies the President has pursued over the last 2 years are imprudent and reckless.

We are considering today an increase of $984 billion in the Federal debt ceiling, which is expected to carry the Government through to September 2004. In other words, the Treasury Department will need to borrow almost $1 trillion more than is currently authorized--some $6.4 trillion--over the next 16 months to fund Government operations. This would be the largest single increase in the debt limit ever. We are really talking about an increase of historic proportions in our Federal debt.

It is enlightening to look back at where we were when President Bush took office. In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that our net debt to the public would decline to $36 billion by 2008. At that time, the President claimed that his budget would allow us to achieve ``maximum possible debt retirement.''

Now, only two years later, the President is seeking to increase the debt limit. In fact, under the President's policies, publicly-held debt will rise to $5 trillion in 2008--a staggering 36.4% of GDP. Gross Federal debt, which includes our commitments to Social Security and Medicare, will nearly double from $6.7 trillion this year to $12 trillion 10 years from now. Instead of achieving ``maximum possible debt retirement,'' the President is asking for historically high debt increases.

It is critically important to understand how seriously our economic situation has deteriorated under this administration. When the President took office, he inherited a 10-year surplus estimated at $5.6 trillion. Now with the policies that he has enacted and the policies that he is proposing--in particular, this very heavily weighted tax cut for the benefit of upper-income people--we will go from projecting a $5.6 trillion surplus to projecting a $2.1 trillion deficit over that same period. That is a seismic shift in our position.

I want to underscore one other thing that has happened. Twenty years ago, the United States was a creditor nation, internationally, to the tune of about 10 percent of our GDP. So we were in a strong economic position internationally.

Now, because of the deterioration of our position over those intervening two decades, we are a debtor nation, to the tune of about 25 percent of our GDP. Again, a seismic shift in our international position, which places us very much in the hands of others. Because we are running these huge deficits year-in and year-out, we have become enormously, inordinately dependent on the influx of capital from abroad in order to sustain ourselves.

I am reminded of Tennessee Williams's Blance Dubois in ``A Streetcar Named Desire,'' where she had that wonderful line: ``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 this 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.

Of course, the years since President Bush took office had been difficult. The economic downturn, combined with the attacks of September 11 and the war with Iraq, have contributed to the decline in Federal revenues that have led to the need to increase the debt limit. Another cause of that decline as the massive tax cut the President pushed through in 2001. As many of us said at the time, enacting such a large tax cut based on optimistic projections of a surplus that may never appear was the height of recklessness.

But the recklessness we saw in 2001 may actually be exceeded by what we are seeing today. Now, we are facing massive deficits, not surpluses. In fact, CBO's most recent projection is for a deficit of over $300 billion this year, the largest one-year deficit in our Nation's history. The Treasury Department recently reported a deficit of over $200 billion in the first 7 months of fiscal year 2003, more than three times the level at this point last year. We are so deeply in debt that we are being called upon to raise the debt limit by almost a trillion dollars. This increase comes on top of a $450 billion increase just last year. Our debt is skyrocketing with no end in sight.

Despite the change in our fiscal circumstances, the President is pushing for exactly the same economic policy he put forward in 2001: yet another round of massive tax cuts skewed toward the wealthy. Our colleagues across the aisle have been in such a hurry to enact this large tax cut that they chose to pass it through the Senate ahead of consideration of the debt limit, as if trillions of dollars in Federal debt is irrelevant to the decision to cut taxes.

Our economy is facing serious difficulties. Over the past six months, we have grown at an average rate of only 1\1/2\ percent, far less growth than what we ought to experience. Unemployment is up to 6.0 percent; it has not been higher since July 1994.

Despite these realities, the administration has not yet supported sensible economic programs, but has continued to push for massive new tax cuts, skewed towards the very wealthiest Americans, which will leave us with record deficits and debt. The increase in Federal debt that we are considering today will have a real impact on our economy, putting upward pressure on interest rates, and siphoning off resources that could be used for other purposes simply to pay the interest on our debt.

What we need is responsible approaches to put our economy back on track, not another round of massive tax cuts to benefit the wealthiest among us. Senator Daschle and other Democratic leaders have offered a responsible package that would create twice as many jobs as the President's package over the remainder of this year, extend unemployment insurance

benefits, and provide aid to State and local governments to forestall devastating program cuts and tax increases on millions of Americans. This alternative would provide over one million jobs at only a fraction of the cost of the President's proposal or those put forth by Congressional Republicans. It would create real jobs and economic growth without mortgaging our future through tremendous increases in deficits and debt.

The fact that the President is pushing for massive tax cuts at the same time the Congress is being asked to add almost a trillion dollars 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 for a question?

What are the people to do? They have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits in a labor market that, instead of opening up so there are opportunities for jobs, is actually closing down. The unemployment rate has now risen to 6 percent. The number of long-term unemployed is at a near 20-year record. The other side is talking about doing some kind of an extension, but as I understand it, they will not cover exhaustees; is that correct? Is that the Senator's understanding?

I think it is imperative to focus on the fact that we have people who have exhausted their benefits for the time period given to them, and they are not able to get a job. The argument is always made that they ought to get out and find a job. That is one of the premises of the system. But the job market is getting worse, not better.

Where are they going to find these jobs? How are they going to support their families? Furthermore, money has been paid into the unemployment insurance trust fund to build up a balance in order to make payments when we hit hard economic times.

Those surpluses that have been paid in are now about $20 billion. The purpose of paying them in to the fund is to draw on them when we hit economic times such as we are now confronting. This economy remains soggy. It is not picking up. We have the very human problem of people who have worked that are now left out. You do not collect unemployment insurance benefits unless you have built up a work record. In order to get the benefits, you must have an established work record. So we are not talking about nonworkers. By definition, we are talking about workers, people who have an employment record.

Through no fault of their own hard-working people have lost their jobs because the economy has gone soft. If you are at blame, you do not get unemployment; that is another provision of the system. They have drawn unemployment insurance benefits for a limited period of time. They then exhaust them. What are they to do?

The answer, ``You ought to go find a job,'' might be an answer in a time when the job market is opening up, but the job market is closing down. The unemployment rate is rising, and the proposal of the able Senator from Massachusetts which would encompass these exhaustees is extremely important.

Furthermore, it would provide an impetus to the economy in providing some stimulus to get the economy moving again.

Certainly, I yield for a question.

I yield for a question.

That is my understanding, but the Senator makes a very important point in the context in which she presented it. Typically, after the earlier layoffs that the Senator talked about at Boeing, the economy would have picked up again. Boeing would have resumed work and would have started hauling people back in off of the unemployment rolls and putting them back to work.

The fact that they are now laying off additional people confronts us with providing for them, which the extension the other side is talking about may do, but it does not provide for going back and picking up the previous people who were laid off and who have exhausted their benefits.

The economy is not working the way it has traditionally worked. It is a very serious concern. The earlier people, instead of being called back because

Boeing's job orders are picking up, in fact confront a situation in which Boeing is now laying off even more people.

Have we answered the able Senator's question, I hope, in the course of this discussion?

Certainly.

Exactly. These people, in effect, will fall off the cliff, and they are hard-working people. They would not have gotten the unemployment benefits to begin with if they had not had a job record, I say to the able Senator from New York.

I do not.

I think that is consistent with the economic slowdown-- --

I did not know the exact figures but I knew there has been a very significant increase. That reflects the broader fact that the number of the long-term unemployed has now risen, not just parents, which was the thrust of the Senator's question, but the number of long- term unemployed has risen to just under 2 million. These are the highest numbers we have had in almost 10 years.

That is my understanding, and it is further my understanding that the extensions which have been done thus far in this recession compare very poorly with what was consistently done in previous economic downturns under both Republican and Democratic administrations. It is a very marked contrast that the response this time to the unemployed problem falls far short of what occurred in previous economic downturns.

That is a very dramatic statement of what is happening out there in terms of the shrinking of the job market and the incredibly difficult situation in which the unemployed find themselves. As the Senator has emphasized in particular, those who are parents are confronted with how they are going to provide for the needs of their families. The Senator is absolutely correct.

In response to the Senator's question, that is just another dimension with respect to this problem. This problem really reaches throughout our society. As the able Senator from North Carolina stated earlier, he is encountering it all across the country. The former military personnel bring another dramatic dimension to this problem and the necessity, in my view, to enact the amendment the Senator from Massachusetts has offered.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to America's senior citizens. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy designated May ``Older Americans Month'' to acknowledge the accomplishments of our Nation's elder generations. I 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. For those of us in the Senate who have worked to ensure that the members of America's ``greatest generation'' will be able to enjoy their later years with dignity and independence, this is a chance to honor them for their hard work and the countless sacrifices they have made during their lifetimes, and to look forward to their continued contributions to the welfare of our country.

Today's senior citizens have witnessed more technological advances than any other generation in our Nation's history. Seniors today have lived through times of extreme economic depression and prosperity, times of war and peace, and have seen incredible advancements in the fields of science, medicine, transportation and communications. They have embraced these new technologies and used them to further develop their vital roles in America's communities. Older Americans are working and volunteering far beyond the traditional retirement age to give younger generations the benefit of their wisdom and experience. Moreover, they are in much better health than their counterparts in previous generations and far less likely to be impoverished, disabled, or confined to nursing homes.

Recent census figures reveal that the number of older Americans continues to grow. The population of those 85 and older grew 37 percent during the 1990s, while the Nation's overall population increased only 13 percent. Approximately 35 million people 65 and older were counted in the 2000 census as well as 50,500 Americans who were 100 or older. Baby boomers, who represented one-third of all Americans in 1994, will enter the 65-years-and-older category over the next 13 to 34 years, substantially increasing this segment of our population.

These figures reinforce the need to demonstrate our commitment to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, and to stimulate investment in biomedical research and treatments that are improving the lives of older Americans. One of our national goals must be to ensure all older Americans benefit from these improvements. In Congress, we must ensure our legislative priorities reflect our dedication to the support that older Americans deserve. This includes expanding and strengthening those programs that effectively aid older Americans, and addressing those that fall short of assisting this valuable and constantly expanding segment of our society. I have worked with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in her efforts to provide a $5,000 tax credit for individuals with chronic care needs. I regret this credit was not included in this year's budget resolution but I will continue to support her efforts to see that Congress passes the Family Caregivers Tax Credit Act.

By 2020, Medicare will be responsible for covering nearly 20 percent of the population. Though Medicare meets the health care needs of millions of Americans, it was created in a different time before the benefits of prescription medicines had become such an integral part of health care. Sixty percent of Medicare beneficiaries lack affordable, prescription drug coverage. Although people 65 and older are 12.5 percent of the population, they fill 34 percent of all prescriptions. Today it is impossible to imagine quality health care coverage that does not include affordable medicines to treat and prevent illness.

I have and will continue to fight for Medicare prescription drug coverage for all seniors. Earlier this year, I again cosponsored legislation to provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs under the Medicare program and to provide greater access to affordable medications. I recognize the predicament of many older Americans as they struggle to live independently on a fixed income and at the same time spend money on costly prescription drugs. The tremendous advances in biomedical research that have led to life-saving drugs and treatments are of little use if the population that stands to benefit the most cannot afford them. It is imperative that we address the needs of the Americans who have sacrificed so much for the benefit of our society. Like all Americans, they deserve access to comprehensive health care.

One of the strengths that I admire most about older generations is their devotion and concern for younger Americans. As we face the dilemma of funding Social Security and some of my colleagues make proposals to privatize the program, older Americans have been the most outspoken advocates of ensuring its existence for future generations. Their determination to preserve this important social insurance program is not weakened by questionable reports that privatization proposals would not alter or reduce their benefits. Instead, they fight on, trying to ensure the benefits of Social Security will be there for others for years to come. I support their efforts and strongly oppose altering the fundamental social insurance nature of the current system, the strength of which is the guaranteed benefit concept. It is our responsibility as legislators to make certain that this Nation's fiscal priorities reflect our enormous appreciation for America's senior citizens.

I continue to be impressed with the degree to which our elders contribute to American society. Our Nation's older generations are an ever-growing resource that deserve our attention, our gratitude, and our heartfelt respect. In accordance with President Kennedy's vision of Older Americans Month as a time to honor our older generations, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to implement public policies that recognize their contributions to our society. We have the opportunity to ensure the well-being of this Nation's most respected citizens, and it is my sincere hope that we pursue it with the same vigor that America's seniors have demonstrated throughout their many years of service to our country.

Reserving the right to object, have Members been given notice that a motion of this sort was to be offered? Have Members been given notice that a motion of this sort is to be offered?

Mr. President, I object to the request. I think it should be worked out with the chairman.

So everyone can have a fair opportunity.

Mr. President, I too am concerned that the language of Section 333 could have unintended consequences. It was my understanding that Section 333 was intended to exclude certain payments.

Mr. President, I am in support of the Dorgan amendment to the reconciliation tax cut bill that would strike a provision in the bill to privatize tax collection by the Internal Revenue Service.

The proposal to privatize tax collection is misguided. Privatizing tax collection will hurt both Federal employees, by contracting out Federal jobs, and taxpayers, who could be subject to the abuse and mismanagement of a private company. Privatization of tax collection has already been tried by the IRS in a 1996 pilot project. The pilot project was such an extraordinary failure that a further 1997 pilot project was cancelled. The contractors who conducted the project did not protect the sensitive information of taxpayers, and the project ultimately did not save the Federal Government any money.

The proposal would allow private companies to engage in collection activities without providing adequate safeguards for taxpayers against abusive activities. It is my understanding that the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, known as FDCPA, which provides the most important protections for consumers from abusive or unfair actions by debt collectors, would not fully apply to the activities of the private tax collectors. I am particularly concerned that a taxpayer's ability to recover certain damages from an abusive private tax collector may be severely limited under this proposal.

In addition, the privatization of tax collection is a major change to the way our Government works. To make such a change without holding any hearings on the matter, and without considering all aspects of the proposal, particularly the failed pilot project and whether or not the plan will actually save money, is irresponsible.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the pending legislation, S. 1054.

Our economy today is in a precarious position. It was reported yesterday that retail sales in April fell. Initial unemployment claims remain well above 400,000, the level typically associated with a weak labor market. This morning we learned that industrial production decreased by one-half of 1 percent last month and that capacity utilization fell to 74.4 percent, and is now at the lowest level in 20 years. Our industrial base is producing less, we have more plants and equipment idle which has led to fewer jobs, reduced consumer spending and increased economic insecurity for the vast majority of Americans. The unemployment rate has risen to 6.0 percent, the highest level sine 1994 and our economy has grown only at rate of 1.5 percent over the past 6 months, far below its potential. This growth rate is far too slow to create enough jobs for the nearly 9 million unemployed American workers who want to find work but can not because there are not enough jobs to be had.

The facts indicate the serious nature of the problem facing the economy in the short run. Our economic growth is not strong enough to even maintain our job base, much less create the jobs needed for those who lost their jobs during the recession.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us today will not help solve these serious problems. The administration's proposal would create very little stimulus this year, when it is needed the most. Two economic consulting firms used by the administration reached this conclusion. One estimate, performed by Economy.com, calculated that the President's proposal will add only 0.4 percent to our gross domestic product this year. The President's proposal will not create enough jobs this year, when people are out of work and can not find a job because there are none to be had. Macroeconomic Advisers issued a report, entitled `A Preliminary Analysis of the President's Jobs and Growth Proposals' which concluded that the plan would create only 242,000 jobs by the end of this year. That is less than half the 525,000 jobs that we have already lost this year alone.

The President's proposal falls far short of what the economy truly needs. Instead the administration proposal focuses on large permanent structural tax reduction aim at providing the maximum benefit to the wealthiest few. This will have very little stimulative effect while costing a great deal in both the present and the future. Far from stimulating the economy, the President's tax cut will create a large structural deficit which will slow future economic growth and result in fewer jobs. That is not just my conclusion. The Committee for Economic Development, CED, found that the President's proposal, ``would raise the cumulative 2004-2013 deficit by about $920 billion (including interest) and raise the annual deficit ten years from now by about $100 billion.

Large structural deficits have real consequences. They reduce national savings and investment, raise real interest rates and reduce economic growth. The costs of the President's plan over the long run are so substantial that the President's plan would actually reduce future economic growth. Macroeconomic Advisers concluded that ``as interest rates rise, the initial increase in the stock market and decline in the cost of capital are reversed. Weakening investments leads to a sustained decline in labor productivity and hence potential GDP.'' They found that the President's plan will reduce economic growth in the long run. Economy.com reached a similar conclusion. It estimated that the President's plan would actually shrink the economy over the next 10 years.

In his April 26 radio address, the President stated: ``Some Members of Congress support tax relief but say my proposal is too big. Since they already agree that tax relief creates jobs, it doesn't make sense to provide less tax relief and, therefore, create fewer jobs.'' In regard to that statement, the Washington Post reported, ``Asked to evaluate Bush's new argument, one Republican economist with close administration ties quipped, `I suppose it matters whether you think economics matters.'' '

I believe that economics matter. I also believe that when you pursue economic policies based on ideology instead of sound economic principles you end up hurting the lives of millions of Americans and threatening our economic future and prosperity. Look at the record of this administration: Since the President took office, the economy has lost 2.7 million private sector jobs. That is the largest job loss under any one President since we began keeping such statistics. This administration is on track to become the first administration since the Great Depression to witness a decrease in the number of jobs in America. When the President took office, what he, in effect, inherited was a 10-year surplus estimated at $5.6 trillion. That was a projection out for 10 years: a surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now with the policies that he has enacted and the policies that he is proposing, in particular, of course, this very heavily weighted tax cut for the benefit of upper income people, we will go from projecting a $5.6 trillion surplus over the 10-year period to projecting a $2.1 trillion deficit. That is a seismic shift in our position.

Many of my colleagues in the Senate as well as the President have argued that these deficit estimates are inaccurate because they fail to take into account the so-called dynamic effects from the President's proposed tax cuts. In a recent speech the President said that, ``in order to get rid of the deficit, you boost revenues coming into the Treasury by encouraging economic growth and vitality'' through his proposed tax cut. Yet when the Congressional Budget Office analyzed these dynamic effects under nine different models, it found that these dynamic effects made little difference on net and that under five of the nine models theses effects actually increased the deficit. That is under all of the various assumptions used by the CBO the so-called dynamic effects that the President has argued would help the tax cut pay for itself will not only fail to deliver on that promise but may actually increased the deficit. This is yet another example of engaging in a policy driven by political ideology instead of sound economics.

This bill is modeled on the failed economic policy that this administration has advanced: vast tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. The administration's proposal as estimated by the Brookings Institution creates a tax giveaway of over $89,000 to the average millionaire while providing only $482 to the average family with an income of $50,000. This truly represents the priorities of `Leave No Millionaire Behind' instead of `Leave No Child Behind.'

This does not have to be the case. The Congress could enact sensible, prudent policies which provide a real, substantial boost to our economy, create many more jobs now when they are needed, maintain our economic strength and security over the long run. Senator Daschle presented an alternative that would create real jobs, grow the economy, help unemployed workers, and assist State and local governments that are facing their worst fiscal crisis since WWII. Extending unemployment insurance benefits serves to stimulate the economy immediately as those receiving the benefits

are almost by definition sure to turn around and spend what they receive. Providing aid to State and local governments will allow them to forestall cuts to vital programs or tax increases, either of which would only exacerbate our current economic problems.

Comparing the Democratic alternative and the administration's proposal, the conclusions are the same using almost any economic model: The Democratic plan would create over 1 million jobs at by the end of this year, which is twice as many jobs as the administration's own estimate of their plan; the Democratic plan would provide more stimulus to the economy this year leading to higher economic growth; and the Democratic plan is temporary and far less costly than the President's proposal.

Mr. President, I oppose this legislation and I urge my fellow colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. President, pending before the Senate is legislation that marks a major step forward in addressing the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Although in my view we have been slow to come to terms with the enormity of the problem, we now have a broad bipartisan consensus on the urgent need for increased funding to address the HIV/AIDS crisis, which is reflected in two proposals before the Senate: H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 and S. 1009, the United States Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Act of 2003.

While they are broadly similar in their provisions, one, in my view, will equip us better with the tools we need. That is S. 1009, which I am cosponsoring. Within its overall authorization figures of $2.8 billion for fiscal year 2004 and $3.2 billion for fiscal year 2005 for HIV/AIDS initiatives, it obligates specified amounts for bilateral programs, The Global Fund to Fight Aids Tuberculosis, TB, and Malaria, The Vaccine Fund, The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, tuberculosis programs and the Malaria Vaccine Initiative. It promotes an integrated and balanced approach to fighting the disease, while at the same time embracing a wide range of established HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs. Indeed, S. 1009 is designed to complement and support existing development and relief funds, which have already proved their value.

Today in sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the globe we confront the tragic consequences of ignorance about HIV/AIDS, indifference to its effects and delay in marshalling worldwide efforts to contain and ultimately to eliminate it. First diagnosed in Los Angeles just over 20 years ago, it rapidly spread worldwide, especially as major mechanisms of transmission, like blood transfusions and unsterilized needles, were overlooked. While concerted efforts of the medical community and the public at large have helped control the number of new cases and reduced the death rate, the disease continues to spread in some parts of the world. According to the most recent report of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS, on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic, 3.5 million people were infected last year in Africa alone.

If not effectively treated, HIV/AIDS takes a truly terrible toll. In economic terms, the pandemic has turned back the clock on decades of development gains, creating a vicious cycle that exacerbates poverty among the already poor and reduces others to poverty. It displaces or marginalizes populations, making them even more susceptible to HIV infection. In South Africa, where the epidemic's grip has been especially deadly, AIDS has caused major social and economic disruption. What began as a health issue is now also a development crisis.

In every country where HIV/AIDS rages out of control, all sectors are affected. Public health services have been particularly hard hit, because the demand from the services of public health workers has increased. IMF indicators suggest that in the most afflicted countries health services have been overwhelmed by the epidemic, even as the number of patients is projected to double over the next few years.

HIV/AIDS has hit hardest in countries with limited budget resources. Scarce funds have been allocated to rising health care costs, at the expense of other critical public services. Additionally, because the disease debilitates and incapacitates well before it kills, and because it crosses all socioeconomic lines, it has effectively deprived struggling governments of a generation of civil servants--of urgently needed leadership, experience and expertise. This loss of human resources constitutes a new and insidious form of brain drain that governments can ill afford as they work to promote economic growth, alleviate poverty and improve the quality of life for its citizens.

Education in the affected countries has been particularly hard hit. Even if the demand for education falls over time as fertility rates decline, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain pupil- teacher ratios at constant levels. IMF indicators suggest that by 2010 the proportion of newly trained teachers replacing teachers who have died of AIDS will reach a staggering 67 percent--two in every three. The magnitude of this tragic epidemic further complicates the challenge of raising literacy rates in the developing world. The World Bank estimates that even absent the impact of HIV/AIDS, 55 of the world's poorest countries will be unable to achieve universal primary enrollment by 2015.

HIV/AIDS affects the private sector just as much as the public sector. As mortality rates rise and the working-age population declines in size, employers lose trained, experienced and productive workers. Medical care, death-related benefits and also absenteeism--a very important factor--all contribute to rising personnel costs.

The macroeconomic impacts are clear. When the HIV infection rate exceeds 5 percent in a country, HIV/AIDS begins to have significant economy-wide impacts. At least 24 African nations, along with Haiti, now fit into this category. The consequences are grim. UNAIDS estimates a loss of more than 20 percent of GDP by 2020 in the worst affected countries. The number of destitute families will rise as they face lower incomes, greater numbers of dependents and sharply higher healthcare expenditures. The ripple effects of continued reductions in labor, savings, and investment will mean lower economic output in the affected countries, inevitably slowing economic growth and causing trade balances to deteriorate further.

The economic ramifications of HIV/AIDS are one aspect of the crisis; the human dimension is another. According to UNAIDS, 42 million people worldwide are living with HIV. Of these cases, more than 28 million are in Africa alone. In 2002, 5 million people were newly infected with HIV; 28 million people have thus far died from the disease; 14 million children have been orphaned by AIDS without having contracted the disease themselves. Given the high mortality rates among young adults, the orphan population will inevitably increase; a recent report issued jointly by UNICEF/UNAIDS/USAID estimates that by the end of this decade the number of orphans will reach 25 million, an increase of nearly 80 percent. Social support systems in the affected countries are tragically inadequate in the face of the crisis. Children thus become part of a vicious cycle, with no one to care for them, still vulnerable to the disease, seeking to survive in a gang or militia--exacerbating social problems in these countries.

Available statistics tell only part of the story, since AIDS often goes unreported. There is no system of accessible AIDS testing and many cases go undiagnosed, given the sensitivity and social stigma too often surrounding AIDS. On the basis of what is available, however, experts agree that in Africa alone the disease threatens an entire generation that will either be lost to HIV/AIDS or severely affected by plummeting life expectancy, collapsing social institutions and decimated workforces.

As we consider our approach to AIDS, our recent experience with SARS should be instructive. With SARS we have learned in a few months what it took years to understand about HIV/AIDS: awareness, early intervention and international cooperation are critical factors in keeping the disease from spreading and in saving lives. We must apply the lessons we are learning from SARS to our efforts to treat and control HIV/AIDS.

A person infected with the HIV/AIDS virus may appear to show signs of the flu, or no symptoms at all for months or even years. Yet diagnosed in time, the disease is treatable. In the industrialized world, for example, research and intervention have reduced mother-to-child transmission of the HIV virus to less than 2 percent. Rigorous testing and surveillance can keep the blood supply safe. Effective, low-cost interventions have been developed. In high-risk groups in industrialized countries intensive education, vigorous political action and extensive drug therapy have been combined to bring the disease largely under control. Now we must

apply these strategies in the developing world, where the disease is raging out of control. Of the total HIV population worldwide, 95 percent live in the developing world. While there is no cure, we know that prompt intervention mitigates the terrible effects of the disease.

S. 1009 is not directed exclusively to HIV/AIDS; it includes important provisions addressed to tuberculosis and malaria. Unlike HIV/ AIDS, which was first diagnosed less than a quarter-century ago, these two terrible diseases have been known and feared for centuries. Tuberculosis claims nearly 3 million lives every year--more than all other infectious diseases combined. Among HIV/AIDS patients, it is the single most common cause of death. In fact, HIV patients are up to 50 percent more likely to convert the latent form of TB into the active, contagious form. Unlike many other infectious diseases, tuberculosis is an airborne disease transmitted like the common cold. Nearly one-third of the world's population is already infected, and cases of multidrug resistant strains, which are far more difficult and expensive to treat, are rising. Overall, tuberculosis is responsible for 25 percent of all preventable deaths in the developing world. S. 1009 authorizes $150 million for fiscal year 2004 and $170 million for fiscal year 2005 for programs devoted to tackling TB.

The developing world, especially sub-Saharan Africa is also in the grip of resurgent malaria, as resistance grows to traditionally effective antimalarial drugs. Resurgent malaria is estimated to cause 1 to 3 million deaths annually, and WHO projects between 300 to 500 new cases every year. S. 1009 authorizes $105 million for fiscal year 2004 and $125 million for fiscal year 2005 to malaria programs and to the Malaria Vaccine Initiative.

With the worst effects of the pandemic still to come, S. 1009 is timely and urgent. It will help to stop the terrible downward spiral in living standards in the countries it has ravaged, and the destabilization that occurs when families and communities are torn apart. It can save lives.

We can beat back this disease. In my view, S. 1009 provides us with the tools most urgently needed by those on the front lines in the fight against HIV/AIDS. It is vastly superior in its provisions to H.R. 1298. Nonetheless, I will work with my colleagues to strengthen the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes off of the bill.

Mr. President, I want to respond to the Senator from Oklahoma, and urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment.

What are workers to do in terms of supporting their family if they exhaust the 39 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits that they are eligible to receive? Senator Kennedy's answer is that under the current circumstances we provide an additional 13 weeks of benefits.

The labor market is not improving. It is worsening. The unemployment rate is rising, not falling. This notion that there are jobs to be had does not square with the facts. The economy is continuing to lose jobs. We lost 48,000 jobs last month. We have lost over half a million jobs already this year. The unemployment report stated that almost 9 million workers were unemployed in April. Just under 2 million workers have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. The number of long-term unemployed is as high as its been since January 1993.

The average duration of unemployed has risen to 19.6 weeks. This is the longest average duration reported during this recession, and it is the highest level in almost 20 years. What are these people to do?

The Kennedy amendment is very simple. It says that providing some continued support for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own is more important than providing some

of these tax cuts that are proposed in this legislation.

It makes sense for the individuals, and it makes sense for the economy. We are talking about trying to stimulate the economy. Extended unemployment insurance benefits are scheduled to stop and that will withdraw that much purchasing power out of the economy.

So I urge my colleagues to be supportive of this amendment. We face a worsening economic situation. Unemployment is rising. The opportunities in the job market are shrinking. We need to provide help to our workers and to their families to help them through this very difficult period. The Kennedy amendment seeks to do that.

The unemployment insurance trust funds have surpluses of almost $20 billion.

Madam President, I yield myself 30 more seconds.

The unemployment insurance trust funds have surpluses of approximately $20 billion. These moneys were paid into the trust fund for the announced purpose of paying unemployment insurance benefits in an economic downturn. Now we have an economic downturn. We have people out of work. We have the job market worsening, not improving. These surpluses ought to be used for the purpose for which they were intended; and that is, to provide extended unemployment insurance benefits. And those benefits ought to come ahead of any of the tax cuts.

I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of legislation to provide more bankruptcy judges for several States, including four additional bankruptcy judgeships for my own State of Maryland. This legislation is being introduced today by Senator Biden, and is being cosponsored by myself and Senators Carper, Nelson of Florida, Clinton, Edwards, Graham of South Carolina, Hollings, Levin, Pryor, Reid, Chambliss, Miller, Alexander and Graham of Florida.

This bill is another significant step forward in our efforts to strengthen Maryland's Federal bankruptcy court. We have been working for several years to get these additional judgeships approved, yet no legislation has been passed that would authorize them. With such inaction, the burden facing Maryland's sitting bankruptcy judges has grown, and Maryland has remained without the additional judgeships it so desperately needs to make our bankruptcy system work.

Maryland's four sitting bankruptcy judges continue to show remarkable dedication given the extraordinary burdens placed upon them. However, additional judgeships remain essential to the fair and timely administration of the Bankruptcy Code for all of the businesses and individuals that come before the Maryland District.

Since 1992, we have been requesting additional judgeships for the District of Maryland; thus far none have been approved. In 1992, there were approximately 15,000 bankruptcy filings in the District of Maryland. From 1998 to 2002, there were over 30,000 bankruptcy filings per year in Maryland. In the past few years the number of new filings per year has been closer to 35,000, and in 2002 there were 35,900 new cases. The caseload has more than doubled in the past ten years, and the Court still does its work with only four bankruptcy judges. This dire need for additional judgeships in Maryland has yet to be remedied by the Congress.

This legislation provides four additional judgeships for Maryland, in accordance with a September 2002 recommendation from the United States Judicial Conference. These four additional judgeships would help reduce the overwhelming workload of the four sitting bankruptcy judges. As of June 30, 2002, the national weighted filing average for bankruptcy judges was 1,641. The weighted filing per judge for Maryland's four bankruptcy judges was 3,030--almost twice the national average.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which would provide much needed help on the bankruptcy courts in Maryland and across the Nation.