Floor Statements

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I understand I have 7\1/2\ minutes. I yield myself 5 minutes.

The budget resolution for 2006, which we are now considering, essentially calls for the elimination of funding for an enormously effective and popular education program called the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, which we all know as Voc Ed, vocational education. This amendment restores the funding to Perkins vocational education and also reduces the deficit by billions of dollars in the future.

The costs of these needed steps, restoring vocational education and reducing the deficit, are offset by rescinding two new tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts which have not even gone into effect yet, the so- called PEP and Pease phase-out provisions.

The budget resolution currently calls, under the President's proposal, for eliminating funding for vocational education while allowing these two new tax cuts, which will cost $23 billion in the coming 5 years and $146 billion in 10 years that follow, with 97 percent of the benefits going to those earning at least $200,000 a year.

That is what this chart shows. The distribution of tax benefits under the phase-out of PEP and Pease, 54 percent go to people making over $1 million when it is fully phased in. Another 43 percent go to those making $200,000 to $1 million a year--97 percent of all the benefits of these tax provisions which hasn't even gone into effect yet. It goes into effect next year unless we do something about it. Ninety-seven percent goes to people making over $200,000 a year.

We have choices. To govern is to choose. We have a choice. We recently restored the Vocational Education Act, the Perkins Act, on a bipartisan vote of 99-0.

We know that vocational education makes possible a broad range of technical education programs and vocational programs for millions of young people and adults. Vocational education combines classroom instruction, hands-on lab work, on-the-job training, and it is a true lifeline for students at risk of dropping out of school.

In Iowa alone, elimination of the Perkins Vocational Education Program would directly impact 93,000 high school students and more than 337,000 community college students. The impact nationwide would be a disaster for millions of students.

The only way that we can be assured of saving vocational education, the Perkins Program, is by adding more overall funding to the education budget for that purpose. That is it. That is the only way it can be assured. And that is what my amendment accomplishes.

But, moreover, my amendment reduces the deficit as well. By rescinding these two tax cuts which haven't taken effect yet--they take effect next year--and after they would fully be in effect, we then begin to save $146 billion over the next 10 years.

When the phase out of PEP and Pease, as they are called, were passed in 2001, the phase-out--I guess the case could be made that they were affordable. Thanks to the budget surpluses that President Bush inherited from President Clinton, we were looking at a cumulative surplus of over $5 trillion over the coming decade, enough to eliminate the national debt and then some. That was then and this is now. Now we are looking at projected deficits in excess of $200 billion a year for as far as the eye can see--annual deficits in excess of $500 billion a year, a decade from now, if we keep on this way.

It makes good sense to eliminate these two proposed tax cuts. We are not rescinding anything that has gone into effect. They start next year. There is no reason they should start next year.

Let us have some common sense here. This amendment says we will fully restore vocational education and we will reduce the deficit. And the people who are making over $200,000 a year I don't think really need this tax cut. People making over $1 million a year don't need it. But I will tell you who does need it--kids who need vocational education in the United States. And, the American people need to avoid an added $146 billion deficit explosion that will occur in the decade after these tax provisions take effect in 2010. That is who needs this.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I respectfully answer my friend from New Hampshire, first talking about priorities. This is priorities, all right. You want a tax provision that goes into effect, starts phasing in next year that 97 percent of the benefits go to people making over $200,000 a year; or do you want to fund vocational exercise? It is as simple as that. Who gets these tax breaks? When fully phased in, those with over $1 million income, you get $20,000 a year, and if you are under $75,000, you get a big fat zero.

It is about priorities. My friend from New Hampshire said something about raising taxes. All we are saying is a tax that has been in effect for 15 years will continue and will not be phased out. We are not raising anyone's taxes at all.

Third, I point out this is the first budget in 10 years that has a reduction in education. My friend from New Hampshire says, well, we can make the decision in Appropriations about what we want to do. It is like this. This is what my friend from New Hampshire has presented. It is like a puzzle as this chart shows. We have Pell grants, we have afterschool, we have title I, special education, bilingual, impact aid, all in this box. We have the money for that. He says, well, if you want to put voc in, put it in, but if you put it in, take a piece out.

Would the Senator from New Hampshire tell us which of these to cut? Ed tech or TRIO are all left out, but this is the box we are in.

The Senator from New Hampshire says, well, you can put it back in. But that means we have to take out special education or title I. The only way to do it, I say, is to enlarge the box. And that is what we do with this amendment.

Mr. President, I have an amendment that I just sent to the desk. It is pending. I will not call it up now or ask unanimous consent, but I will do so at some point, probably tomorrow. I want to take this time to at least lay out the reasons for this amendment and what it does, because I know what the crunch will be like tomorrow when we come back here.

The budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 basically eliminates funding for an enormously effective and popular education program called the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. The straightforward purposes of my amendment, which I will offer for myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Murray, and others, are, first, to restore funding to the Perkins Vocational Education Act; second, to reduce the deficit; and, third, to offset the costs by rescinding two tax-cut provisions in the 2001 tax bill.

These tax-cut provisions, the so-called PEP and Pease phaseout provisions, are scheduled to start taking effect next year for the first time.

President Kennedy used to say that to govern is to choose. Right now the budget resolution chooses very unwisely. It eliminates funding for a critical education program, vocational education, while allowing to stand two new tax cuts. While these two new tax cuts cost $23 billion in the first 5 years, after that the costs explode. They will cost at least $146 billion in lost revenue in the coming decade, with 97 percent of the benefits going to those earning at least $200,000 a year.

This is the wrong choice. The budget resolution does not reflect the priorities of the American people. Overall, the budget resolution would cut funding for education, the first cut in education funding in 10 years. It underfunds the President's No Child Left Behind Act by $12 billion. It leaves behind nearly 3 million children who could be fully funded and fully served if title I were funded at the authorized level. And, as I said, it eliminates all the funding for the Perkins Vocational Education Act.

This is one I am particularly concerned about. It is a program that was just reauthorized in the Senate on a bipartisan basis by a vote of 99 to 0. The Perkins Act makes possible a broad range of vocational and technical education programs for millions of young people and adults. It is a true lifeline for students at risk of dropping out of school.

For millions of these at-risk students, vocational education programs are relevant, and they are meaningful. They give kids a reason to stick it out until graduation, maybe to go on to a community college, and they lead to good, solid jobs.

In Iowa alone, elimination of the Perkins Vocational Education Program would impact 93,000 high school students and more than 37,000 community college students. The impact nationwide would be a disaster for millions of students.

We are eliminating the Perkins Vocational Education Program for two new tax cuts? Overwhelmingly for the most affluent? This makes no sense. In fact, it borders on the obscene.

Our friends on the other side might claim the budget resolution does not expressly eliminate the vocational education program, but the reality is this budget resolution effectively endorses the budget proposed by President Bush, and President Bush endorsed eliminating the Perkins program.

So there are only two ways to retain funding for vocational education under this budget resolution: either cut other educational programs or increase the overall allocation for education.

This chart here shows what I mean. Right here basically you have a puzzle. We put it all together. This is education. We have title I, we have afterschool centers, we have special ed, bilingual ed, impact aid, Pell grants--all the things that make up our education plan.

What is left out? Vocational education, ed tech, TRIO, Safe and Drug- free Schools, arts education. These are left out.

Someone on the Budget Committee might say, we didn't say that voc ed couldn't be funded, but here are all the things we fund. If you want to put voc ed back into the puzzle, what do you take out? Because, you see, this is the limit. We only have this much money. If you put voc ed in, do we take the money away from title I or do we take it away from Pell grants? How about special ed; do we take money away from special ed to put it back in? Or do we make the square bigger and then put it in, so we don't take anything away from the educational programs that are already there.

That is exactly what my amendment accomplishes. We add more overall funding to the educational budget. How do we do this? Where do we get the money? My amendment offsets the cost of restoring the Perkins program. It also reduces the deficit by rescinding two tax cuts that have not even taken effect yet. Both of these tax cuts, the so-called PEP and Pease provisions, were enacted in 2001 and they start next year.

We have a unique opportunity. We are not proposing to repeal or undo a tax cut that is already in effect. Rather, we are saying that because of radically transformed budgetary circumstances--that is the huge debt we are in, the deficits we are running up--we are not going to go forward with two new tax cuts that haven't even taken effect yet, two new tax cuts we can no longer afford.

When PEP and Pease were put in in 2000, the argument was made that we had all of these budget surpluses that were left over from President Clinton, and we could afford it. That was then and this is now.

Because of the surge in Federal spending, because of the deficits since President Bush has taken office, the surpluses left by President Clinton are gone. Instead, we are looking at projected deficits in excess of $200 billion a year, and annual deficits in excess of $500 billion a year decades from now, unless we straighten out our house.

It makes good sense to stop these two new tax cuts from going into effect next year--$146 billion that this will cost us over 10 years.

Who gets the gravy? Here it is right here. Under PEP and Pease, the tax cuts that start next year, for those making over $1 million, when they are phased in, $19,234 a year; $500,000 to $1 million, $4,000 a year; under $75,000 a year, you get nothing, zero.

In fact, if these two new tax cuts go into effect next year, 97 percent of all the benefits will go to people making over $200,000 a year. Fifty-four percent will go to people making over $1 million a year. We can't afford these tax cuts.

There are two things we can't afford. We can't afford these tax cuts, and we can't afford to underfund and to eliminate the Perkins vocational education bill.

We now have a unique opportunity to rescind these tax cuts before they even go into effect.

The Perkins program is a lifeline to low-income Americans struggling to obtain job skills, the essential rung on the ladder of opportunity.

I also refer to this editorial that was in the Washington Post, February 22, last month. ``PEP, Pease, Presidents.''

I will refer to this. It says:

The cuts would repeal two provisions enacted as part of the

first President Bush's deficit reduction plan. The

provisions--known as PEP, for Personal Exemption Phaseout,

and Pease, for its author, the late Rep. Donald J. Pease of

Ohio--essentially make more income of wealthy Americans

subject to taxation.

As they said:

Given the deficits that have piled up on his watch, and the

growing costs of war in Iraq, it makes sense to ask: Why does

President Bush think this tax break is necessary?

It is not necessary. It hasn't even started yet. I will lay 10 to 1 that not one Senator in this Senate on either side of the aisle has ever been contacted by someone making over $200,000 a year who says we have to have it. Nonsense.

My amendment basically says we are not repealing these, we are just saying these two tax cuts won't go into effect next year. We will save a lot of money. We will put that money into deficit reduction, and we will put the money into restoring Perkins funding.

We just recently voted 99 to 0 to reauthorize the Perkins program. Every Senator said, yes, we need vocational education. The President sends his budget out and says get rid of the whole thing. And this budget has the same money figures in it for education that the President wants.

Now is our opportunity. We can vote to not let these tax cuts go into effect. We can do two good things: Reduce the deficit and make sure we continue with vocational education in this country.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the Washington Post editorial.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will prevent workers from losing a large chunk of their pension when they work for a company that sells their division.

This legislation is prompted by articles written by Mary Williams Walsh in the New York Times outlining the story of how a group of workers in Olean, NY lost $25 million in promised benefits when their division was acquired and then spun off.

Current law says that if a company wants to amend their pension plan, they have to give workers the share of their early retirement subsidy that they have already earned. However, a company doesn't have to do that if your division is bought and sold--even if the workers are in the same building, sitting at the same desk, and doing the same job the whole time. That's just ridiculous.

In this case, Halliburton purchased a division of Dresser Industries, and seventeen months later spun off the Olean, NY division, netting $215 million. They treated those employees as if they had resigned and gone to work for Ingersoll-Rand. While employees who were 55 years old were kept whole, anyone younger lost up to half the value of their pension overnight, without being informed. They realized what had happened in June 2002 when they got notices in the mail telling them that they had 90 days to either collect a much smaller benefit than they had anticipated, or lose their right to a lump sum payment forever. Some recent retirees were even told that they got paid too much, and had to give back pension money they already received.

Meanwhile, the CEO during that period, now Vice President Dick Cheney, got a special pension deal from the board totaling an estimated $10 million in benefits, even though he hadn't worked there long enough to qualify for a pension under the usual rules.

This is a completely unconscionable way to cheat hard working people out of their promised pension benefits.

My will would simply require that companies must follow the same rules about applying credits toward pension under mergers and acquisitions that they do under any other kind of pension plan amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce a bill originally introduced in the 106th Congress that seeks to create an Office of Pension Participant Advocacy at the Department of Labor.

When I first introduced this bill, it was just a good idea. Now, it has become an absolute necessity. Since 2000, unimaginable pension loss horror stories have cropped up in the wake of major corporate bankruptcies like Enron and WorldCom. People have lost their guaranteed pensions to mergers and acquisitions and to misinformation and to just plain irresponsibility.

On March 3, the New York Times reported that companies are still desperately seeking ways to scrape funds out of their pensions--despite market downfalls and despite the dire situation at the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. And who ultimately ends up paying the price when the company ends up bailing on its obligation? Pension plan participants pay.

Many of these people have absolutely nowhere to turn. People who have a genuine legal claim to their pension, but have been unfairly denied it, can end up spending countless hours calling phone number after phone number and getting the run around, and maybe receiving technical assistance years later.

Individual pension plans are complex, as are the laws that govern them. Currently, multiple Federal agencies share jurisdiction over pension law. Time and time again, the needs of pension participants are ignored, and pensioners don't get help in navigating the government's pension bureaucracy.

This office would accelerate good public policy. Several years ago, I heard from an employee of a large technology manufacturer that gave early retirees the choice between taking either an annuity of $1,470 per month, or an annuity of $200 per month plus $107,300 as a lump sum, both payable at age 55. While the lump sum package may appear more lucrative at first glance, the annuity option for a given employee had a value of approximately $228,000--more than 80 percent greater than the lump sum option touted by the employer.

I also heard from a 53 year old man with 26 years of service. He shared with me the complicated summary of his pension options he received from his employer. The first line offers a $423,000 lump sum, which looks like it is based on the value of the $3,140 per month annuity he would normally receive. However, the true actuarial value of the annuity option turns out to be closer to $511,000. Stated another way, the $423,000 lump sum offer is equivalent to a monthly benefit of $2,590, almost $500 a month less than the annuity option would provide. People lost half the value of their pensions to this kind of misinformation, many of whom never found out how they had been hurt.

Hearing stories like that prompted me to write to the Treasury requesting that they close this loophole and require that employees get an apples-to-apples comparison of their benefits, and Treasury did. However, how many fewer people would have been given misleading information about their pensions if there were someone within the government specifically charged with seeking out problems like these?

In the years that I have been working to fight age discriminatory practices sometimes used when converting from traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance pensions, I heard from a number of people who lost huge amounts of money in their pensions to ``wear away,'' again, often not realizing what had happened to them until their nest egg was gone.

For example, take Larry Cutrone. He was one of thousands of people who figured out how much they lost in their cash balance conversion. He said that before AT&T converted his pension, it was valued at $350,000. After the conversion, in July 1997, the value dropped to $138,000. The calculation period for his pension was frozen at 1994-1996 salaries, so no value to his retirement account was added for any years he worked after the conversion.

He said:

In September 2001, I was ``downsized'' out of AT&T and

decided to take my pension. I discovered that it translated

into an annual income of just $23,444 instead of the $47,303

income under the old plan.

When these plans were changed over, workers were not

informed that this could happen. They woke up one day and

found out: they have less than 50 percent of what they

thought they were going to get in their retirement.

Good public policy on pensions should never, ever have allowed that. People need someone on their side, because large corporations have plenty of people on their side.

This office would not only provide technical assistance to participants, but would serve as a voice to advocate for participants' rights in general within the Administration. Corporations who cheat employees out of their pensions should not be able to wait for a retiree to notice that they've been taken. There should be someone in the Federal government actively pursuing companies who use their employees' pension plans as their own private piggy bank.

The Office of Pension Participant Advocacy created in this bill would: actively seek out information and suggestions on pension policies and on Federal agencies which affect pension participants.

Evaluate the efforts of Federal agencies, businesses and industry to assist pension participants.

Identify significant problems faced by employees and retirees.

Make annual recommendations documenting significant pension problems and recommending legislative and regulatory solutions.

And examine existing pension plans and determine the extent to which current law serves pensioners in those plans.

We need one central place where pension participants can turn to when problems arise. We need one place in government whose sole obligation is to look out for the general pension interests of employees and retirees concerning their pensions. We need an office that will be an advocate for pension participants. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will prevent workers from losing a large chunk of their pension when they work for a company that sells their division.

This legislation is prompted by articles written by Mary Williams Walsh in the New York Times outlining the story of how a group of workers in Olean, NY lost $25 million in promised benefits when their division was acquired and then spun off.

Current law says that if a company wants to amend their pension plan, they have to give workers the share of their early retirement subsidy that they have already earned. However, a company doesn't have to do that if your division is bought and sold--even if the workers are in the same building, sitting at the same desk, and doing the same job the whole time. That's just ridiculous.

In this case, Halliburton purchased a division of Dresser Industries, and seventeen months later spun off the Olean, NY division, netting $215 million. They treated those employees as if they had resigned and gone to work for Ingersoll-Rand. While employees who were 55 years old were kept whole, anyone younger lost up to half the value of their pension overnight, without being informed. They realized what had happened in June 2002 when they got notices in the mail telling them that they had 90 days to either collect a much smaller benefit than they had anticipated, or lose their right to a lump sum payment forever. Some recent retirees were even told that they got paid too much, and had to give back pension money they already received.

Meanwhile, the CEO during that period, now Vice President Dick Cheney, got a special pension deal from the board totaling an estimated $10 million in benefits, even though he hadn't worked there long enough to qualify for a pension under the usual rules.

This is a completely unconscionable way to cheat hard working people out of their promised pension benefits.

My will would simply require that companies must follow the same rules about applying credits toward pension under mergers and acquisitions that they do under any other kind of pension plan amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce a bill originally introduced in the 106th Congress that seeks to create an Office of Pension Participant Advocacy at the Department of Labor.

When I first introduced this bill, it was just a good idea. Now, it has become an absolute necessity. Since 2000, unimaginable pension loss horror stories have cropped up in the wake of major corporate bankruptcies like Enron and WorldCom. People have lost their guaranteed pensions to mergers and acquisitions and to misinformation and to just plain irresponsibility.

On March 3, the New York Times reported that companies are still desperately seeking ways to scrape funds out of their pensions--despite market downfalls and despite the dire situation at the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. And who ultimately ends up paying the price when the company ends up bailing on its obligation? Pension plan participants pay.

Many of these people have absolutely nowhere to turn. People who have a genuine legal claim to their pension, but have been unfairly denied it, can end up spending countless hours calling phone number after phone number and getting the run around, and maybe receiving technical assistance years later.

Individual pension plans are complex, as are the laws that govern them. Currently, multiple Federal agencies share jurisdiction over pension law. Time and time again, the needs of pension participants are ignored, and pensioners don't get help in navigating the government's pension bureaucracy.

This office would accelerate good public policy. Several years ago, I heard from an employee of a large technology manufacturer that gave early retirees the choice between taking either an annuity of $1,470 per month, or an annuity of $200 per month plus $107,300 as a lump sum, both payable at age 55. While the lump sum package may appear more lucrative at first glance, the annuity option for a given employee had a value of approximately $228,000--more than 80 percent greater than the lump sum option touted by the employer.

I also heard from a 53 year old man with 26 years of service. He shared with me the complicated summary of his pension options he received from his employer. The first line offers a $423,000 lump sum, which looks like it is based on the value of the $3,140 per month annuity he would normally receive. However, the true actuarial value of the annuity option turns out to be closer to $511,000. Stated another way, the $423,000 lump sum offer is equivalent to a monthly benefit of $2,590, almost $500 a month less than the annuity option would provide. People lost half the value of their pensions to this kind of misinformation, many of whom never found out how they had been hurt.

Hearing stories like that prompted me to write to the Treasury requesting that they close this loophole and require that employees get an apples-to-apples comparison of their benefits, and Treasury did. However, how many fewer people would have been given misleading information about their pensions if there were someone within the government specifically charged with seeking out problems like these?

In the years that I have been working to fight age discriminatory practices sometimes used when converting from traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance pensions, I heard from a number of people who lost huge amounts of money in their pensions to ``wear away,'' again, often not realizing what had happened to them until their nest egg was gone.

For example, take Larry Cutrone. He was one of thousands of people who figured out how much they lost in their cash balance conversion. He said that before AT&T converted his pension, it was valued at $350,000. After the conversion, in July 1997, the value dropped to $138,000. The calculation period for his pension was frozen at 1994-1996 salaries, so no value to his retirement account was added for any years he worked after the conversion.

He said:

In September 2001, I was ``downsized'' out of AT&T and

decided to take my pension. I discovered that it translated

into an annual income of just $23,444 instead of the $47,303

income under the old plan.

When these plans were changed over, workers were not

informed that this could happen. They woke up one day and

found out: they have less than 50 percent of what they

thought they were going to get in their retirement.

Good public policy on pensions should never, ever have allowed that. People need someone on their side, because large corporations have plenty of people on their side.

This office would not only provide technical assistance to participants, but would serve as a voice to advocate for participants' rights in general within the Administration. Corporations who cheat employees out of their pensions should not be able to wait for a retiree to notice that they've been taken. There should be someone in the Federal government actively pursuing companies who use their employees' pension plans as their own private piggy bank.

The Office of Pension Participant Advocacy created in this bill would: actively seek out information and suggestions on pension policies and on Federal agencies which affect pension participants.

Evaluate the efforts of Federal agencies, businesses and industry to assist pension participants.

Identify significant problems faced by employees and retirees.

Make annual recommendations documenting significant pension problems and recommending legislative and regulatory solutions.

And examine existing pension plans and determine the extent to which current law serves pensioners in those plans.

We need one central place where pension participants can turn to when problems arise. We need one place in government whose sole obligation is to look out for the general pension interests of employees and retirees concerning their pensions. We need an office that will be an advocate for pension participants. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 66 on behalf of myself, Senators Rockefeller, Leahy, Dayton, and Kennedy.

The amendment is pending?

I understand under the rule I have 5 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. President, this is a straightforward amendment that protects the ability of workers to receive their pay, including vacation and sick pay and severance pay, when their company goes bankrupt. Under bankruptcy law, wages owed have long been

given an extremely high priority, as they should be. This bill raises the cap on how much pay can be received as a high priority to $10,000. Unfortunately, however, the bill puts a time limit on this of 180 days. In other words, under the bill a worker gets this preference, gets first-in-line priority preference for getting backpay and wages but only for the last 180 days prior to the company filing for bankruptcy. My amendment simply strikes the 180-day limitation. It doesn't touch the $10,000 limit.

Why is this important? Many courts have ruled that severance pay is earned during the entire time a worker works for a company. If a worker, let's say, has worked for a company for 10 years and under the contractual agreement gets $500 per year severance pay for every year one worker worked for the company, if this worker has worked for the company for 10 years, this worker is due $5,000 in severance pay. The company goes bankrupt. He gets first in line, he gets his priority, but he can only get it for the last 180 days. So, instead of $5,000, he or she only gets $250. That is grossly unfair.

We faced a similar problem with vacation pay. Again, vacation pay has been held to accrue over a certain time period, usually 1 year. So a 1- year time period is when you accrue vacation pay. Let's say, though, that your company goes bankrupt. Let's say you have earned vacation pay for the whole year. Now you only get 180 days' credit, so you are getting about half of what you normally would get.

Last, we have the issue of when does the 180-day clock start ticking. A lot of times, a company will file for bankruptcy long after it has closed a division here or a division there or closed an operation someplace and they have laid off people. This happens a lot.

Let's say you have worked for a division in Louisiana, and the company, a national company, closed operations in that plant and they just laid you off. They have not gone bankrupt yet; they laid you off. Then 181 days later or 190 days or 200 days later the company files for bankruptcy, OK? Now that worker who worked in that division wants to get priority for back wages. I am sorry, you are out of luck. Why? Because you only get 180 days going back. You may have been laid off, but the company did not go bankrupt, so now you only get to go back 180 days, and they lose their priority. This, again, is grossly unfair.

Are there other examples where there is no time period for the collection or for getting into priority preference? I would just mention two. There is a priority for creditors of grain storage facilities. Let's say a farmer has grain in a storage facility. We are familiar with that in Iowa. This has happened many times in the past. Let's say the storage facility goes bankrupt. The farmer gets first-in- line priority to get his pay for the grain stored in that facility. There is no time limit. It could be 2 years, 3 years; there is no time limit whatsoever. But under this bill, for workers, there is a 180-day time limit.

For the child support and alimony priority--we have heard a lot of discussion about that--there is no cap and there is no time limit. For farmers on grain elevators there is a cap, but there is no time limit. For child support and alimony there is neither a cap nor a back-time limit.

This amendment is very simple. It just says, if you are a worker, if your company goes bankrupt--we leave the $10,000 cap. That is fair. That has been raised from $5,000 to $10,000. It was $5,000 under the old bill. But it does away with the 180-day time limit. It just takes off that time limit and lets workers get in the priority queue to get severance pay, vacation pay, sick pay--their back wages--when and if the company goes bankrupt.

Mr. President, if there is no one here seeking to speak on the bill, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the Governor of California, Governor Schwarzenegger, who just the other day, the day before yesterday, announced his support for a California initiative to get junk food out of our schools. I refer here to a newsclip that came out on Monday. I will read from it.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a longtime advocate of

healthier food in schools, said Sunday that all ``junk food''

in vending machines on California campuses should be replaced

with nutritious snacks such as fresh vegetables. ``I think we

should use our vending machines in the schools--fill them

with good food, with fresh vegetables, with milk and products

that are really healthy for the body,'' said Schwarzenegger,

speaking at the annual fitness exhibition here that bears his

name.''

I say: Bravo Governor Schwarzenegger. Thank you. Thank you for taking the lead on this issue. I hope other Governors will follow suit and follow his leadership.

I have been concerned about our kids' eating habits for many years now. In the 1996 farm bill, I tried to get vending machines taken out of schools. That didn't quite happen, of course. But we are still making the effort to try to get fresh fruits and vegetables to kids in school for healthier eating. More and more, we see schools making agreements with soft drink companies for exclusive contracts. You walk down the hallways in schools: Coke, Pepsi, this and that, all over the place. Kids are bombarded with this. The fact is, these kids in school are creating for themselves bad habits which, when they go into adulthood, lead to chronic diseases. So we have to start with our kids and start in the schools where vending machines and other sources of junk food have a profoundly negative impact on students' nutrition.

A recent study took a group of students who ate only USDA-approved school lunches up through the fourth grade. Then they tracked them into the fifth grade, where they gained access to school vending machines, snack bars, and other food sources. Up to the fourth grade they had only USDA-approved school lunches. In the fifth grade they got to go to vending machines and stuff like that. Guess what the study found. As fifth graders, they consumed 33 percent less fruit, 42 percent fewer vegetables, 35 percent less milk than they did as fourth graders. In addition, they ate 68 percent more deep-fried vegetables--French fries--and drank 62 percent more soft drinks and other sugary beverages. In 1 year, from fourth to fifth grade.

Our Nation spends a whopping $1.8 trillion on health care, and 75 percent of that goes to treat chronic diseases. A large share of that is preventable. If we are going to turn this situation around, if we are going to move from a current sick care system to a genuine health care system and emphasize prevention and wellness, then our schools are on the front line, and that is why what Governor Schwarzenegger did is so vitally important. Kids today face a minefield of nutritional risks from the time they get up in the morning to the time they go to sleep at night, opportunity after opportunity to eat unhealthy foods.

Guess what. They are bombarded with ads all day long. Whether it is on television, signs in their schools, they are bombarded with ads to eat junk food, drink sugary beverages.

When was the last time you saw an ad for an apple? When was the last time you saw an ad to eat fresh vegetables? No. You see ads to eat all kinds of junk food every single day. That is what our kids see.

Ninety-three percent of our teenagers exceed Government guidelines for consumption of saturated fat. One-quarter of our kids show 5 to 10 early warning signs of heart disease.

This is from the CDC. I am not making this up.

One-third of today's children will go on to develop diabetes.

This is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Fifteen percent of America's children and teenagers are overweight. That is 3 times what it was 35 years ago. It is higher than any other industrialized country in the world.

We are placing our kids at risk in schools. They are inundated by candy, soft drinks, snacks high in sugar, salt, and fat. And to make matters even worse, physical education is being squeezed out of schools.

I saw a recent figure that on average in the United States, grade school kids get less than 1 hour of physical activity in school. We are squeezing physical activities out of school. If they are on the football team or the basketball team, or some other varsity, they are all right. But if they are not up to that

standard, what physical activity is there for a kid in school today?

Lastly, I have worked on a bipartisan basis with members on the Senate Agriculture Committee and the Appropriations Committee to increase physical activities in school and get funding for fresh fruits and vegetables. We started this in the farm bill. It has been a great success, giving free fresh fruits and vegetables to kids. We found that when you give free fresh fruits and vegetables to kids in school, they eat them, it solves the hunger pain, and they study better. Guess what. They are not putting their money in the vending machines to buy junk food.

We have had 3 years of experience. We took four States and 100 schools to test this theory, and every single one of those schools has been a resounding success. Now we are up to 9 States and over 200 schools. It is growing.

I again commend Governor Schwarzenegger and hope we can get California to move ahead on that also. The Governor said they were introducing legislation to ban all junk foods in schools. I say, Congratulations, Governor Schwarzenegger. Evidently, this is being written or introduced in California to rid schools of vending machines of sodas, bad foods, and stuff such as that. I again want to congratulate the Governor of California.

He also spoke on Sunday about the ``broader need for parents to pay attention to what children eat''--saying ``they shouldn't feed them 1,000-calorie cheeseburgers just to avoid an argument.''

Good for you, Governor.

He said:

I know it's easy to go in that direction. I know when I

come home I don't want to fight at home with my kids about

what they should eat. Because there are already fights about

their homework and about reading and math.

You've got to make an effort. What you give a child or what

you put in your body is exactly what we become. So the more

garbage you put in there, the more you're going to look like

a garbage disposal.

Again, I want to take the time to commend the Governor for his leadership on this issue. He is a great example of physical fitness. He is also a great example of endurance and of leadership. I hope the Governor of California will not confine himself on this issue only to California. I hope he will take his message nationwide. I hope the other States and other Governors will follow his lead on what he has done in California.

I ask unanimous consent that the articles I read from--one that appeared in the Associated Press and also the Los Angeles Times--be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I commend the Governor of California. I say to him that whatever we can do here on a bipartisan basis to back you up, you have our support and our encouragement. Please take your message nationwide. Don't just keep it in California.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this amendment basically protects workers who are able to take a priority preference in back wages, vacation pay, severance pay, and sick pay when a company goes bankrupt.

Under the bill, there is a limit of $10,000. That is fine; I do not touch that. This amendment lifts the 180 days. For example, let's say a worker has worked for a company for 10 years and they get $500 a year severance pay. The company goes bankrupt. Normally, you get $5,000, but because of the 180 days, you only get $250 for which you get a priority; otherwise, you get in line with the other creditors.

What this does is lift the 180 days. There are other examples. If a farmer today has a warehouse receipt for grain in an elevator, there is no time limit on that. They can go 2, 3, 4 years. For alimony there is no time limit. For child support, there is no time limit. There ought not be an arbitrary time limit for a worker who has backpay, sick pay, or severance pay coming. That is all this amendment does.

I cannot believe the House will not send this to the President if we adopt this amendment. Do not even try to sell that to me.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Lauryn Douglas of my office be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's proceedings.

Will the Senator yield?

Did I hear the Senator correctly that someone was suggesting the minimum wage is communistic?

If the Senator would yield, it seems we have settled that issue in this country. Going back how many years now have we had a minimum wage?

More than 60 years we have had a minimum wage in this country.

I don't have the data with me right now, but I have seen the data that indicates when the minimum wage was higher relative to, say, corporate salaries and what CEOs were making, that, in fact, our country enjoyed a higher standard of living. Is it not true that if people are making a more decent minimum wage, it lifts them out of poverty; they are better able to provide food and clothing and shelter for their kids and their family, better able to pay tuition to go to college.

It seems to this Senator, and I ask my friend from Massachusetts, under the underlying bill, the bankruptcy bill, we are providing all kinds of support, immunities, coverage, for creditors and especially credit card companies; we are providing them all protection, but now when it comes to providing minimum protection for the lowest income people in this country, we cannot seem to do it.

It seems incongruous that we would protect the biggest, but for the smallest we cannot seem to do that.

Parliamentary inquiry: Who controls the time?

Mr. President, how much time is left on either side?

I will take 12 minutes. Will the Chair please remind the Senator when 10 minutes is used up?

I appreciate that.

Mr. President, with the increase in the unemployment rate that we learned of last Friday, it is clear we are in the midst of a two-tiered economic recovery. We have one recovery for high-income Americans, for people on Wall Street, and we have a very different recovery for people working on Main Street.

The Neiman Marcus crowd is popping champagne corks, but it is a very different story for Wal-Mart and K-mart shoppers and for the Americans who work at Wal-Mart and K-mart and in other jobs paying low wages. The number of Americans in poverty has increased by more than 4 million since President Bush took office. Nearly 36 million people live in poverty, 13 million children. Among full-time year-round workers, poverty has doubled since the late 1970s, from about 1.3 million then to 2.6 million now. Every day that the minimum wage is not increased, it continues to lose value and workers fall further and further behind.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration's priority is not lifting working Americans out of poverty; its priority is keeping labor costs low for corporate America. But this is not surprising. The President has been quite frank and open about taking care of what he calls his ``base.''

I strongly support Senator Kennedy's amendment to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 in three steps. It is long overdue. It has been 5 years since we last had a vote on the minimum wage, and it has been 8 years since we last voted to raise the minimum wage. To have the same purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be nearly $8.50 today, not $5.15. Since the last increase in 1997, the value has eroded by more than 15 percent.

I noticed that the Senator from Pennsylvania was saying that this would increase the minimum wage by 40 percent. Actually, it is 37 percent that Senator Kennedy's amendment would raise the minimum wage. In three stages, it would increase it by 37 percent. The Senator from Pennsylvania said this was unprecedented. Under Franklin Roosevelt, it went up 53 percent; under Truman, 47 percent. Under Eisenhower, it went up 33 percent. Under the first President Bush, it went up 25 percent. The point is that since 1997, the last time we raised it, the value has eroded by 15 percent. So if we are going to boost it up over the next 3 years and it increases by 37 percent, you are really only going up by 22 percent more than what it was in 1997. I don't think that is an undue burden on business in America.

Since 1997, the last time we raised the minimum wage, Members of Congress have raised their own pay seven times in the last 8 years by $28,500. Think about that. We vote to raise our pay seven times in 8 years by $28,500, but for minimum wage workers earning $10,700 a year, we can't vote to raise their minimum wage--shame on the Senate.

We have heard in the past that it is mostly teenagers and part-time workers who are working for the minimum wage. That is not the case. The facts are, 35 percent of those earning the minimum wage are the family's sole breadwinners, 61 percent are women, and almost a third of those women are raising children.

The Senate Finance Committee may soon be marking up a welfare reauthorization bill. As the Senate contemplates welfare reauthorization, as we address the goal of moving people from welfare to work, it is especially important we act to raise the minimum wage. Since 1996, we reduced the number of welfare cases by half.

I was intrigued by the chart the Senator from Pennsylvania put up because many of the people who moved off of welfare did not move out of poverty. Why? Because the minimum wage is not a living wage; it is a poverty wage. But an increase to $7.25, such as Senator Kennedy wants to do, would make a dramatic difference. For a full-time year-round worker, that would add $4,370 in income. That could be a real value to a family living in poverty. For a low-income family of three, let's say one wage earner, single mother, two children, that would be enough money to pay for a year and a half of heat and electricity or a full tuition for a family member pursuing a community college degree.

The Senator from Pennsylvania said what really lifts people out of poverty is more work, not raising the minimum wage. I ask: How can a single mother of two working a minimum wage job work more? What is she supposed to do--work 16 hours a day at the minimum wage? How much more can people be expected to work?

The amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania changes the 40-hour workweek to an 80-hour work period over 2 weeks, with the maximum that anyone can work in 1 week of 50 hours. Add it up. It doesn't take a mathematician. Eighty hours for 2 weeks; you can work up to 50 hours in 1 week. So you work 50 hours 1 week, 30 hours the next week. Guess what. You just got cheated out of 10 hours of overtime. Before, you would work 40 hours. If you worked 50, you would get 10 hours of overtime. Now you don't get any overtime. That is what is happening to low-income workers in America today.

First of all, we have a bankruptcy bill that slaps them in the face. It makes them pay through the nose. I don't know if anyone read the article in the Washington Post yesterday. I will ask consent to print this article at the conclusion of my remarks. They mention a Ruth Owens in Cleveland who tried for 6 years to pay off a $1,900 balance on her Discover card, sending the credit company a total of $3,492 in monthly payments from 1997 to 2003. Yet her balance grew to $5,564.28 even though she never used the card to buy anything more. So she paid $3,492 on a $1,900 balance, and she still has yet to pay off her balance.

They mention another person, a special education teacher, Fatemeh Hosseini, who worked a second job to keep up with the monthly payment she collectively sent to five banks to try to pay $25,000 in credit card debt. Even though she had not used the cards to buy anything more, her debt nearly doubled to $40,574 by the time she filed for bankruptcy last June.

That is what is happening to poor people. The credit card companies suck them in with a credit card, go out and charge it up, nice and easy. They find they have a $1,900 bill to pay. They start paying a little bit here and there. They miss a couple of payments. All of a sudden they have $5,564 to pay.

Nearly 7.5 million workers would directly benefit from the Kennedy amendment. In Iowa, 87,400 workers would benefit from the increase. That is over 6 percent of Iowa's workforce. The minimum wage needs to be raised to a level that is not a subsistence wage. The way to do that is to raise the

minimum wage to a level that respects work, honors it, and rewards work at a reasonable level.

Just last week our friends on the other side of the aisle were touting what they called their ``Republican poverty alleviation agenda.'' I say watch what they do, not what they say. The President sent up a budget request replete with cut after cut to antipoverty programs. Now the Senator from Pennsylvania has launched a new attack on the minimum wage and the 40-hour workweek. Now the Senator from Pennsylvania says he wants to increase the minimum wage, albeit only $1.10 an hour over the next 2 years, about half of the Kennedy amendment. But again, he guts it by ending the 40-hour workweek and going to this 50-hour max, 80-hour work period over 2 weeks.

I thank the Chair.

Last year, the Bush administration's new rule effectively eliminated overtime pay protection for some 6 million American workers. The Senator from Pennsylvania is opening a second front in the war on the minimum wage and the 40-hour workweek. While 1.2 million workers would qualify for the minimum wage increase under the Santorum amendment, another 6.8 million workers would lose their current minimum wage protection.

As I said, then we get the 80-hour work period for a 40-hour workweek. This has only one purpose: to allow more employers to avoid paying overtime compensation. In my 30 years in Congress, I don't recall such a bold, brazen assault on the compensation of American workers than what we see in the Santorum amendment. It ought to be called the shock-and-awe amendment. Workers get the shock, and corporate America sits back in awe at the latest gift from the party it financed in the last election.

I am proud to stand with Senator Kennedy to raise the minimum wage to $7.25. The present one, at $5.15, is a poverty wage. It doesn't respect the dignity of their work, including the most humble. As Senator Kennedy said, of all the issues we are debating, this is a values issue. Think about this compared to all the things we are doing to help the credit card companies with the bankruptcy bill. Think about that. We are going to stick it to low-income people, hard-working Americans like Ruth Owens and Fatemeh Hosseini, and then we are going to stick it to them again by not allowing them to even have an increase in the minimum wage.

I would have hoped that the President would have come and asked for an increase in the minimum wage and got his party in the Congress to work with us to increase it. We have done it under Republican Presidents in the past and Democratic Presidents. I don't know why we cannot do it again.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article entitled ``Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors'' by Kathleen Day and Caroline E. Mayer, which appeared yesterday, be printed at this point in the Record.

Again, I urge my colleagues to disavow the Santorum amendment and support the Kennedy amendment. It is the least we can do for the least among us--to raise their minimum wage, give value to their work. This is a values issue. This is at the heart of it. It is an issue of what kind of country we want, what kind of Congress we are, and what kind of Senators we are.

With that, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

I ask that the pending amendments be set aside so I can offer a germane filed amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 66.

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

I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senators Rockefeller, Leahy, and Dayton, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be added as a cosponsor.

I ask that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Anderson of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I support the resolution of the Senator from North Dakota disapproving the U.S. Department of Agriculture's minimal risk rule allowing expanded trade in cattle and beef products from Canada. I take this opportunity to explain my reasons for doing so.

It is critical we restore beef and cattle trade with our trading partners, but we must do it right. Unfortunately, USDA's rule is flawed in several respects that need to be addressed. To the credit of our new Secretary of Agriculture, he swiftly recognized at least one of these significant shortcomings, and delayed USDA's proposal to allow shipment of Canadian beef from cattle over 30 months of age into the United States. USDA's ill-considered approach would have resulted in significant economic hardships for many U.S. beef packers, particularly those that slaughter culled dairy cows as their primary business. Secretary Johanns recognized this, and I commend him for his quick response.

Further recognizing the shortcomings of USDA's rule, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana has granted the Ranchers- Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America's, R-CALF, request for a preliminary injunction barring USDA's minimal risk rule from taking effect. This is the second time that USDA has lost in court on this issue.

While we still await the judge's rationale for this decision, I believe the unfortunate reality is that USDA has largely dug its own hole by failing to follow U.S. legal procedure and scientific guidelines in its rule for further reopening U.S. markets to Canadian cattle and beef. Sadly, it is U.S. producers and processors that bear the brunt of USDA's failings.

I have been concerned that USDA's final minimal risk rule strays from the World Animal Health Organization's--OIE--scientific guidelines in important respects. Specifically, USDA has crafted minimal risk criteria that are weaker than OIE standards specify. For instance, USDA's rule does not spell out what is required to have an effective ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, an effective BSE surveillance plan, or require a compulsory reporting and investigation system. In fact, USDA seems to have purposefully dropped elements of the OIE guidelines that might have required the United States to classify Canada as a moderate risk country for BSE instead of minimal risk.

At a hearing of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on these issues, USDA attempted to explain these discrepancies by stating that there are redundancies among the several types of measures against BSE, and therefore if a country is weaker in one measure it might compensate in another measure. However, in the case of Canada, USDA has failed to set forth what measures Canada might be stronger in that warrant allowing slippage in others.

I am fully aware that these concerns about Canada are relevant to our systems here in the United States for preventing and detecting the incidence of BSE. Since we first discovered BSE in this country, I have questioned the efficacy of both our restrictions on feeding ruminant byproducts and our BSE surveillance plan. I do not believe

there are grave problems that threaten human health, but I do believe there are areas where we need improvement, such as enforcement of our feed rules and the effectiveness of our surveillance efforts.

Ultimately, we need to come to a common agreement with our beef and cattle trading partners regarding an acceptable framework for classifying a country's risk of BSE. If USDA designates a minimal risk region for trading that does not stand up to the scientific principles that are established by OIE, we will hinder those efforts to reopen markets.

It is a sadly ironic footnote to this debate that, were USDA to correct the deficiencies in its rule, it would not prevent any of the Canadian cattle or beef products that USDA has proposed to allow from entering the United States. It would simply necessitate that some additional safeguards be put into place.

Unfortunately, USDA has turned a deaf ear to these valid concerns about the rule, and that is why we find ourselves here today. I hope USDA is listening to today's debate and will take these concerns more seriously. Our objective today is not to shut down trade indefinitely but, rather, to obtain the needed changes in the rule to facilitate the restoration of safe trade in cattle and beef products with countries that have experienced BSE. And that includes reopening now-closed markets for U.S. beef exports.

I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution.

Mr. President, today I, along with Senator Smith, introduce the Money Follows the Person Act of 2005. This legislation is needed to truly bring people with disabilities into the mainstream of society and provide equal opportunity for employment and community activities.

In order to work or live in their own homes, Americans with disabilities need access to community-based services and supports. Unfortunately, under current Federal Medicaid policy, the deck is stacked in favor of living in an institution. The purpose of this bill is to level the playing field and give eligible individuals equal access to community-based services and supports.

Under our legislation, the Medicaid money paid by states and the Federal government would follow the person with a disability from an institution into the community. This legislation provides 100 percent Federal reimbursement for the community services that an individual needs during the first year that they move out of an institution or nursing home. By fully reimbursing the states, it gives them some additional resources to allow people with disabilities to choose to live in the community.

President Bush first proposed the Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Initiative in his FY '04 budget and indicated that the demonstration project would provide full Federal reimbursement for community services for the first year that an individual moves out of an institution or nursing home. Senator Smith and I have worked with the disability community and others in drafting this legislation, and we look forward to working with the Administration and our colleagues to enact the Money Follows the Person concept into law.

We have a Medicaid system in this country that is spending approximately two-thirds of its dollars on institutional care and approximately one-third on community services. This bill is an important step toward switching those numbers around.

It is shameful that our federal dollars are being spent to segregate people, not integrate them. It has been 15 years since we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which said ``no'' to segregation. But our Medicaid program says ``yes'' and we need to change it. This is the next civil rights battle. If we really meant what we said in the ADA in 1990, we should enact this legislation.

The civil right of a person with a disability to be integrated into his or her community should not depend on his or her address. In Olmstead v. LC, the Supreme Court recognized that needless institutionalization is a form of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We in Congress have a responsibility to help States meet their obligations under Olmstead. An individual should not be asked to move to another state in order to avoid needless segregation. They also should not be moved away from family and friends because their only choice is an institution.

Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the consensus reached in the ADA that Americans with disabilities should have equal opportunity to contribute to our communities and participate in our society as full citizens. That means no one has to sacrifice their full participation in society because they need help getting out of the house in the morning or assistance with personal care or some other basic service.

This bill will open the door to full participation by people with disabilities in our neighborhoods, our communities, our workplaces, and our American Dream, and I urge all my colleagues to support us on this issue. I want to thank Senator Smith for his commitment to improving access to home and community based services for people with disabilities.

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

Mr. President, today I, along with Senator Smith, introduce the Money Follows the Person Act of 2005. This legislation is needed to truly bring people with disabilities into the mainstream of society and provide equal opportunity for employment and community activities.

In order to work or live in their own homes, Americans with disabilities need access to community-based services and supports. Unfortunately, under current Federal Medicaid policy, the deck is stacked in favor of living in an institution. The purpose of this bill is to level the playing field and give eligible individuals equal access to community-based services and supports.

Under our legislation, the Medicaid money paid by states and the Federal government would follow the person with a disability from an institution into the community. This legislation provides 100 percent Federal reimbursement for the community services that an individual needs during the first year that they move out of an institution or nursing home. By fully reimbursing the states, it gives them some additional resources to allow people with disabilities to choose to live in the community.

President Bush first proposed the Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Initiative in his FY '04 budget and indicated that the demonstration project would provide full Federal reimbursement for community services for the first year that an individual moves out of an institution or nursing home. Senator Smith and I have worked with the disability community and others in drafting this legislation, and we look forward to working with the Administration and our colleagues to enact the Money Follows the Person concept into law.

We have a Medicaid system in this country that is spending approximately two-thirds of its dollars on institutional care and approximately one-third on community services. This bill is an important step toward switching those numbers around.

It is shameful that our federal dollars are being spent to segregate people, not integrate them. It has been 15 years since we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which said ``no'' to segregation. But our Medicaid program says ``yes'' and we need to change it. This is the next civil rights battle. If we really meant what we said in the ADA in 1990, we should enact this legislation.

The civil right of a person with a disability to be integrated into his or her community should not depend on his or her address. In Olmstead v. LC, the Supreme Court recognized that needless institutionalization is a form of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We in Congress have a responsibility to help States meet their obligations under Olmstead. An individual should not be asked to move to another state in order to avoid needless segregation. They also should not be moved away from family and friends because their only choice is an institution.

Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the consensus reached in the ADA that Americans with disabilities should have equal opportunity to contribute to our communities and participate in our society as full citizens. That means no one has to sacrifice their full participation in society because they need help getting out of the house in the morning or assistance with personal care or some other basic service.

This bill will open the door to full participation by people with disabilities in our neighborhoods, our communities, our workplaces, and our American Dream, and I urge all my colleagues to support us on this issue. I want to thank Senator Smith for his commitment to improving access to home and community based services for people with disabilities.

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

Mr. President, we are now considering a bill that I am pleased to have cosponsored and which I worked on with my colleagues for a number of years, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005.

I thank our chairman, Senator Enzi, for expeditiously bringing this to the floor and guiding it, hopefully, to early passage tomorrow.

I also compliment Senator Snowe on being the chief sponsor of this bill, and for being in the forefront of this fight to protect people who want to understand perhaps the predispositions they might have for any illnesses because of their genetic history.

As we know, the bill makes it illegal for an employer or health insurer to discriminate against an individual based on genetic information.

The good news is that advances in genetics have opened major opportunities for medical programs. We are now able to diagnose and treat diseases earlier and more efficiently than ever before.

Again, my deepest thanks to Francis Collins for his great leadership at the National Human Genome Institute, for guiding and directing the mapping and the sequencing of the human gene. He has provided great leadership. I have followed it since Dr. Collins first took over, I think back in 1993, if I am not mistaken. It has just been amazing to watch this happen.

Some people said it was going to take 15 to 20 years to get this done, but thanks to Dr. Collins and his leadership and the great staff that he assembled at the National Human Genome Institute, we completed the entire mapping and sequencing by April of 2003.

We have this great information. You can go right on the Internet and you can find it all right there. It is all out there for the entire world to use. Quite frankly, they are using this genetic information on the human gene to understand and to do more research into the background of many of our illnesses that have genetic markers for them.

As a result, we are now able to diagnose and treat diseases earlier and more efficiently than ever before. I can daresay that in the years to come we are going to have more and more breakthroughs by scientists who are using this toolbox--as I have often called it--of genetic information that we have derived from the mapping and sequencing of the human genome.

That is the good news. The bad news is that this same genetic information could be used by employers or insurance companies to discriminate in hiring or in insurance decisions. Health insurers could charge higher copayments or deny coverage altogether to individuals who have a genetic predisposition for certain diseases.

When we passed the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990, we had little understanding of the range of genetic information that could be used by employers and health insurers to discriminate.

The problem is that the ADA does not expressly address genetic discrimination. What is more, the Supreme Court has made it more difficult to apply the ADA to discrimination based on the genetic information.

I think there have been mistaken decisions of the Supreme Court, but, nonetheless, they have spoken.

It is incumbent upon us to pass legislation to clarify this. That is what this bill is all about--prohibiting enrollment restrictions and premium adjustments based on an insurer's ability to determine someone's genetic makeup. The bill prohibits employers from discriminating and hiring discrimination.

We want people to access the diagnostic tools scientists and researchers have and will come up with in the future so they can take steps to protect themselves to prevent perhaps the onset of an illness that can be caused by a genetic predisposition. For example, there could be a genetic marker, as we know, for breast cancer. Both of my sisters passed away from breast cancer at too early an age. They had families and their children are grown up; now they have children who are growing up. Of course, there is a great concern among them about the genetic background of their mother, or grandmother in this case. They should, if they want to, be able to access information to better protect themselves. They should know if they get early screening, early mammograms, and

whether they might want to control their diet so they would be more acutely aware the earlier they detected this, if, God forbid, it should happen to one of them, that they would be able to address that and to live full and meaningful lives.

We know if breast cancer is addressed early, the chances of someone surviving and living a whole, full life is great. So many people do not detect it early is the problem. We want people to access the diagnostic tools and not be afraid that if they get this information, they might lose their job, their health care premiums would go up, that sort of thing. That is what this bill is about.

I thank my colleague and my friend from Wyoming, the chairman of our committee, for bringing this expeditiously to the Senate floor. Hopefully, the House will take steps also to pass it very soon, and we can send it to the President. It is incumbent upon the House to take prompt action and get it to the President's desk as soon as possible.

Wellness

While I am here, I diverge a little bit, but not a lot, to briefly mention an issue that does not relate directly to the provisions of the bill but does relate to the issue of prevention and the issue of health and how much money we are spending in this country. I will talk about the issue of wellness and the role that Government can play in promoting wellness and prevention in order to help address a crisis in our health care system, the crisis of exploding costs.

As the Senate takes important bipartisan steps forward to prohibit discrimination based on genetic information, as we are doing here today, we can and must take bipartisan steps forward to promote wellness. We have heard a lot recently about the projected shortfall in Social Security over the next 75 years of $3.7 trillion. That is a lot of money in anyone's book. That is over the next 75 years. That pales compared to the shortfall in Medicare, which is estimated to be $17 trillion. That is the real crisis. Social Security is not a crisis; the real crisis is Medicare.

It is not only the Federal budget that is being eaten alive, it is State budgets, family budgets, it is corporate budgets. Look at the numbers: Some 75 percent of health care costs in the United States are accounted for by chronic conditions and diseases, many of which are preventable. Last year, nationally, we spent more than $100 billion on obesity alone. Medicare and Medicaid picked up almost half that tab. There was an address the other day by the chairman of General Motors talking about what it is doing to their company: $1,500 of the cost of every car they produce is now because of health care insurance costs.

It is unwise uneconomic and totally unsustainable. If we are going to control Medicare and Medicaid costs and private sector health care costs as well, we need a significant, even a radical change of course in our country. We need a fundamental paradigm shift away from a sick care system. That is what we have now. In other words, if you get sick, you get care, but there is precious little out there now that encourages and gives incentives to stay healthy in the first place. We need a paradigm shift toward preventing disease, promoting good nutrition, encouraging fitness and wellness. This will be good for the physical health of the American people, and it will be good for the fiscal health of government, corporations, private businesses, and family budgets.

I believe strongly in personal responsibility. I believe people should take charge of their own health. I also believe in corporate responsibility, community responsibility, and government responsibility. I make no bones about it: It is past time for the Federal Government to step to the plate in a very robust way.

To that end, I introduced the HELP America Act last year, otherwise known as the Healthier Lifestyle and Prevention Act. This legislation takes a comprehensive approach to wellness and prevention. It provides tools and incentives to schools, employers, and communities. It aims to create better nutrition, physical activity, and mental health opportunities for kids in schools. I saw some data recently that said that 80 percent of elementary school kids in America today get less than 1 hour of physical exercise a week in school. That is unconscionable. We have to have better physical activity and nutrition for our kids in school.

The bill creates better nutrition, physical activity, and mental health opportunities for kids in school. It gives the Federal Trade Commission authority to regulate unfair marketing to children, especially junk food. It provides incentives to build paths, safe sidewalks and bike paths. It requires nutrition labeling on menus in chain restaurants. It does a lot more than that.

The HELP America Act is comprehensive. It is ambitious. But it is only at the beginning of a long legislative process. I am confident over time we can build a bipartisan consensus to move the Federal Government toward wellness, prevention, away from sickness, more in keeping people healthy. We have already made some progress.

Several elements of the HELP America Act passed late last year. For example, we secured $440 million for research at the National Institutes of Health into the causes and cures of obesity. We sent more than $50 million in grants to States to fund programs to address nutrition, physical activity, and obesity. We secured some $114 million for tobacco prevention and cessation activities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We also expanded the fresh fruit and vegetable program.

Three years ago when we passed the farm bill, I put a provision in there to test a theory. My theory was if we gave kids in school free fresh fruits and vegetables--not just at lunch but anytime during the day--they would eat them, they would like them, they would not be putting money in the vending machine to buy junk food, they would study better, they would be better behaved, and everyone would benefit. So we tried out the theory. We got a small amount of money in the farm bill. We took 4 States, 25 schools in each State, 100 schools, and 1 Indian reservation in Arizona. We provided enough money to bring free fresh fruits and vegetables into these schools. What has happened? In each one of those schools, it has been a resounding success. Not one of those schools has asked to be taken off the program. In fact, every single one of them has asked, please, don't take this away.

We have now gone from four States to nine States. We have gone from 100 schools to a little over 200 schools. It is growing. Visit one of these schools where these kids get the free fresh fruits and vegetables.

These little kids in school, at about 9:30 in the morning, get the ``growlies,'' they get a little antsy. If they have an apple to eat or an orange or a clementine or kiwi fruit or a banana or grapes, or they get fresh broccoli in the afternoon or cauliflower or carrot sticks, you would be amazed how much they eat of these fruits and vegetables.

As I said, the teachers love it. The principals find it is a great system. Even parents now are weighing in. Parents love it. Kids are even going home and asking their parents to buy these at grocery stores. Again, I mention that because this is getting to the early part, getting kids to eat the proper foods, getting them tuned in to fresh fruits and vegetables at an early age. But there is so much we have to do. It is time for the Federal Government to start moving in that direction. If we do not, we are never going to be able to save Medicare and Medicaid, we are never going to be able to pay for it. It is going to bust us.

So we have to start preventing, we have to start keeping people healthy in the first place. That is what this is all about--so that we have taken some positive steps forward. They are small steps, kind of baby steps, but I am convinced there is a solid, bipartisan consensus to pursue this course of wellness and prevention. I know that Senator Frist has been one of the great leaders in this area of prevention and wellness. I look forward to working on this agenda with my colleagues of both parties in the months ahead. I hope we can get a strong, bipartisan effort.

I hope the President, who, by the way, is a great example of physical fitness--though I may have some disagreements with the President on some things, that is one thing I agree with him on. He is good at physical fitness. He does not smoke. He does not drink.

As far as I know, he eats well and exercises well.

Wishing Senator Specter Well

Mr. President, I understand this is now on the news wires, so I want to comment on something that has just come to my attention this afternoon. I received a call from one of the best friends I have ever had, a close friend here in the Senate, someone whom I have admired for his personal qualities as well as for his senatorial qualities for so many years. I have been privileged to work with him side by side now going back almost 20 years.

I received a call a little while ago from Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, who informed me that doctors at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital had diagnosed him with Hodgkin's disease. Well, it kind of took my breath away. There is no one for whom I have a higher regard than Senator Arlen Specter. I think how hard he has worked to double the funding for NIH for basic research, and then to have this happen. But he assured me that it is at an early stage. The doctors have said he has an excellent chance of full recovery and will be back here very soon after our break next week. He will have to undergo some treatments, but I understand the doctors say that Arlen Specter has an excellent chance of full recovery.

I know all of my colleagues wish him the best. Our prayers are with him. We know he is a strong person. He has a strong will. He is a person of strong faith. And we know that his will and his faith will carry him through. I know we will have Senator Specter back here with us leading the charge to make sure we address the real needs of health care and biomedical research, to make sure we fulfill our obligations in education in this country, where he has been a great leader.

Again, Mr. President, we wish Senator Specter well, a full and speedy recovery, and look forward to having him back here as soon as possible.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, Senator Specter and I and others introduce the Medicaid Community-Based Attendant Services and Supports Act of 2003 (MiCASSA). This legislation is needed to truly bring people with disabilities into the mainstream of society and provide equal opportunity for employment and community activities.

We anticipate that there will be some discussions of so called ``reform'' of the Medicaid system in this Congress. The Medicaid program is a critical source of services and supports for millions of Americans with disabilities. Any attempt to cap resources or decrease the availability of services under that program will meet strong opposition from myself and others.

But there is one area where Medicaid should be improved. Services should be expanded to increase access to personal attendant services. In order to work or live in their own homes, Americans with Disabilities and older Americans need access to community-based services and supports. Unfortunately, under current Federal Medicaid policy, the deck is stacked in favor of living in an institutional setting. Federal law requires that states cover nursing homes in their Medicaid programs. But there is no similar requirement for attendant services. The purpose of our bill is to level the playing field and give eligible individuals equal access to community-based services and supports they need.

The Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act will accomplish four goals.

First, the bill amends Title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide a new Medicaid plan benefit that would give individuals who are currently eligible for nursing home services or an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded equal access to community-based attendant services and supports.

Second, for a limited time, States would have the opportunity to receive additional funds to support community attendant services and supports and for certain administrative activities. Each State currently gets federal money for their Medicaid program based on a set percentage. This percentage is the Medicaid match rate. This bill would increase that percentage to provide some additional funding to States to help them reform their long term care systems.

Third, the bill provides States with financial assistance to support ``real choice systems change initiatives'' that include specific action steps to increase the provision of home and community based services.

Finally, the bill establishes a demonstration project to evaluate service coordination and cost sharing approaches with respect to the provision of services and supports for individuals with disabilities under the age of 65 who are dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare.

Although some states have already recognized the benefits of home and community based services, they are unevenly distributed and only reach a small percentage of eligible individuals. Every State offers services under home and community based waiver programs, but they only serve a capped number of individuals. Some states also are now providing the personal care optional benefit through their Medicaid program, but others do not.

Those left behind are often needlessly institutionalized because they cannot access community alternatives. A person with a disability's civil right to be integrated into his or her community should not depend on his or her address. In Olmstead v. LC, the Supreme Court recognized that needless institutionalization is a form of discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act. We in Congress have a responsibility to help States meet their obligations under Olmstead.

This MICASSA legislation is designed to do just that and make the promise of the ADA a reality. It will help rebalance the current Medicaid long term care system, which spends a disproportionate amount on institutional services. For example, in 2003, 67 percent of long term care Medicaid dollars were spent on institutional care, compared to 33 percent community based care.

And that means that individuals do not have equal access to community based care throughout this country. An individual should not be asked to move to another state in order to avoid needless segregation. They also should not be moved away from family and friends because their only choice is an institution.

Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the consensus reached in the ADA that Americans with Disabilities should have equal opportunity to contribute to our communities and participate in our society as full citizens. That means no one has to sacrifice their full participation in society because they need help getting out of the house in the morning or assistance with personal care or some other basic service.

I applaud the President's New Freedom Initiative for People with Disabilities and believe that this legislation helps promote the goals of that initiative. I will be reintroducing the Money Follows the Person legislation that is part of the New Freedom Initiative and believe that MICASSA and Money Follows the Person complement each other. Together these two bills could substantially reform long term services in this country.

Community based attendant services and supports allow people with disabilities to lead independent lives, have jobs, and participate in the community. Some will become taxpayers, some will get an education, and some will participate in recreational and civic activities. But all will experience a chance to make their own choices and govern their own lives.

This bill will open the door to full participation by people with disabilities in our workplaces, our economy, and our American Dream, and I urge

all my colleagues to support us on this issue. I want to thank Senator Specter for his leadership on this issue and his commitment to improving access to home and community based services for people with disabilities. I would also like to thank Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Biden, Dayton, Landrieu, Corzine, Schumer, Lautenberg, Lieberman and Dodd for joining me in this important initiative.

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

Mr. President, today, Senator Specter and I and others introduce the Medicaid Community-Based Attendant Services and Supports Act of 2003 (MiCASSA). This legislation is needed to truly bring people with disabilities into the mainstream of society and provide equal opportunity for employment and community activities.

We anticipate that there will be some discussions of so called ``reform'' of the Medicaid system in this Congress. The Medicaid program is a critical source of services and supports for millions of Americans with disabilities. Any attempt to cap resources or decrease the availability of services under that program will meet strong opposition from myself and others.

But there is one area where Medicaid should be improved. Services should be expanded to increase access to personal attendant services. In order to work or live in their own homes, Americans with Disabilities and older Americans need access to community-based services and supports. Unfortunately, under current Federal Medicaid policy, the deck is stacked in favor of living in an institutional setting. Federal law requires that states cover nursing homes in their Medicaid programs. But there is no similar requirement for attendant services. The purpose of our bill is to level the playing field and give eligible individuals equal access to community-based services and supports they need.

The Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act will accomplish four goals.

First, the bill amends Title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide a new Medicaid plan benefit that would give individuals who are currently eligible for nursing home services or an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded equal access to community-based attendant services and supports.

Second, for a limited time, States would have the opportunity to receive additional funds to support community attendant services and supports and for certain administrative activities. Each State currently gets federal money for their Medicaid program based on a set percentage. This percentage is the Medicaid match rate. This bill would increase that percentage to provide some additional funding to States to help them reform their long term care systems.

Third, the bill provides States with financial assistance to support ``real choice systems change initiatives'' that include specific action steps to increase the provision of home and community based services.

Finally, the bill establishes a demonstration project to evaluate service coordination and cost sharing approaches with respect to the provision of services and supports for individuals with disabilities under the age of 65 who are dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare.

Although some states have already recognized the benefits of home and community based services, they are unevenly distributed and only reach a small percentage of eligible individuals. Every State offers services under home and community based waiver programs, but they only serve a capped number of individuals. Some states also are now providing the personal care optional benefit through their Medicaid program, but others do not.

Those left behind are often needlessly institutionalized because they cannot access community alternatives. A person with a disability's civil right to be integrated into his or her community should not depend on his or her address. In Olmstead v. LC, the Supreme Court recognized that needless institutionalization is a form of discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act. We in Congress have a responsibility to help States meet their obligations under Olmstead.

This MICASSA legislation is designed to do just that and make the promise of the ADA a reality. It will help rebalance the current Medicaid long term care system, which spends a disproportionate amount on institutional services. For example, in 2003, 67 percent of long term care Medicaid dollars were spent on institutional care, compared to 33 percent community based care.

And that means that individuals do not have equal access to community based care throughout this country. An individual should not be asked to move to another state in order to avoid needless segregation. They also should not be moved away from family and friends because their only choice is an institution.

Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the consensus reached in the ADA that Americans with Disabilities should have equal opportunity to contribute to our communities and participate in our society as full citizens. That means no one has to sacrifice their full participation in society because they need help getting out of the house in the morning or assistance with personal care or some other basic service.

I applaud the President's New Freedom Initiative for People with Disabilities and believe that this legislation helps promote the goals of that initiative. I will be reintroducing the Money Follows the Person legislation that is part of the New Freedom Initiative and believe that MICASSA and Money Follows the Person complement each other. Together these two bills could substantially reform long term services in this country.

Community based attendant services and supports allow people with disabilities to lead independent lives, have jobs, and participate in the community. Some will become taxpayers, some will get an education, and some will participate in recreational and civic activities. But all will experience a chance to make their own choices and govern their own lives.

This bill will open the door to full participation by people with disabilities in our workplaces, our economy, and our American Dream, and I urge

all my colleagues to support us on this issue. I want to thank Senator Specter for his leadership on this issue and his commitment to improving access to home and community based services for people with disabilities. I would also like to thank Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Biden, Dayton, Landrieu, Corzine, Schumer, Lautenberg, Lieberman and Dodd for joining me in this important initiative.

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