Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, more than 1.5 million of our servicemen and women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other nations. We have mobilized more than 630,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves, including 92,000 who are on active duty right now. These service men and women have courageously defended our country overseas, but tens of thousands of them have come home to find that they have lost their employment benefits or even their jobs, and the Government has failed to defend their rights. Today, Senator Daniel Akaka and I are introducing legislation to guarantee that veterans won't have to wait years for the Government to act to restore their benefits or return to work. Thirteen years ago, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, specifically to protect our servicemembers when they return home. We understood that, to maintain strong focus and a strong National Guard and Reserves, servicemembers needed confidence that they could return to their civilian jobs when they came home from their tours of duty. That legislation was a clear promise that the Federal Government would step in and defend servicemembers who were wrongly denied their jobs or benefits. We pledged that the Department of Labor would investigate violations of the act, and that if employers refused to follow the law, the Attorney General would take employers to court to protect our servicemembers' rights. Today, however, the administration has clearly broken that promise to enforce the law and get our veterans back to work. Last month, during a Senate Committee hearing, I released a Department of Defense survey showing that for tens of thousands of veterans, their service to our country has cost them the salary they deserve, their health care, their pensions, or even their jobs. Among members of the Reserves and National Guard, nearly 11,000 were denied prompt reemployment. More than 22,000 lost seniority and rightful pay. Nearly 20,000 had their pensions reduced. More than 15,000 did not receive the training they needed to resume their former jobs. Nearly 11,000 did not get their health insurance back. The problem is that employers aren't following the law, and Federal agencies aren't effectively enforcing it. Mr. President, 38 percent of servicemembers who asked the Department of Labor to defend their rights did not receive a prompt response. Servicemembers are forced to wait months or years even to find out whether the Government will agree to represent them and defend their rights. One veteran waited 7 years before the Department of Labor told him whether it would take his case to court. No veteran can afford to wait seven months to return to work or have his health insurance reinstated, let alone wait 7 years. With these unbelievable delays, it is not surprising that 44 percent of servicemembers who asked the Department of Labor for help said that they were dissatisfied with the assistance they received. When servicemen and women hear about these delays, they ask themselves, ``Why should I even bother to ask for help.'' In fact, the Pentagon tells us that 77 percent of servicemembers whose rights are violated don't contact anyone to defend their rights. They simply give up. Nearly half of them say that they have no confidence that the Government will resolve their problems, or that it is just not worth the effort. Even worse, a quarter of them don't even know where they can go for help. It is beyond dispute that the administration has broken its promise to help them. Our veterans deserve better than this. They deserve to know that their Government is working as quickly as possible to get them back to work and restore their benefits. The current law needs reform as well. It makes no sense to have four different agencies tracking the problems of our servicemembers in four different ways. We also need to know whether disabled veterans are being properly assisted in making their own difficult transition back to work. It is time for the administration to keep its promise, and end the long delays for veterans who need help in defending their rights. The bill that Senator Akaka and I are introducing imposes timely and reasonable deadlines on Federal agencies to investigate complaints, to attempt to resolve them, and, if necessary, to refer them for litigation. The legislation also makes the Federal enforcement of the law more transparent and responsive to the needs of veterans. It assures veterans that they won't have to wait years for an answer about whether they will receive the help they deserve. By imposing timely deadlines on the Federal agencies, we are also stepping up the pressure on employers that violate the rights of our brave soldiers. With these new deadlines, employers won't be able to drag their heels as the Department of Labor spends months or years investigating violations. They will know that they have to settle each veteran's case quickly and fairly, or else face the U.S. Government in court. The legislation also implements a number of reforms recommended by the Government Accountability Office--reforms that have received bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. In particular, our bill requires agencies to gather and report information on these cases in a uniform manner, so that we can understand trends and better address the needs of each servicemember. Agencies will also be required to report on cases involving veterans with disabilities, so that we have accurate information on the reemployment problems of our wounded soldiers. Enacting this legislation alone obviously won't end the job discrimination that too many servicemembers face when they come home. But it will certainly improve the assistance they receive in obtaining the help they have earned and deserve. Our legislation has the support of the Nation's largest veterans' organization, the American Legion, which emphasizes that the ``enforcement of veterans' employment and reemployment rights . . . can only be achieved through aggressive oversight and timely investigation.'' This legislation, the American Legion says, will ``strengthen veterans' employment and reemployment rights'' by imposing ``timely, realistic deadlines on Federal agencies to process'' their claims. We are proud to have the American Legion's support for this legislation. We know we can never truly repay our veterans for their immense sacrifices. They have fought hard for our country, and it is up to us to fight just as hard for them when they return home to the heroes' welcome they so justly deserve. An important part of that welcome is keeping the promise that we made to them to protect their employment rights when they return. That is what this legislation seeks to do, and I urge my colleagues to enact it as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, how much time do we have?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 10 minutes. Madam President, I came over to speak on an extremely important issue dealing with the public safety of employer-employee cooperation. First, I listened with interest to our colleagues talk about the issues of malpractice and the costs to the health care system. The fact is we have had in the Judiciary Committee extensive hearings on this issue, and the root cause of the increases are not so much the problems with the doctors and the patients, it is the insurance industry in and of itself that has made poor investments. As a result of poor investments, they have raised the tariff on the various doctors and communities. This has been well documented. I wish to have material printed at the appropriate place in the Record about these issues. It is a serious issue--malpractice insurance--but it is important that we find out the real reasons for that. It does appear to me we are not getting the full story, certainly here on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. Today's vote on the Gregg malpractice amendment is a test of the Senate's character. In the past, this body has had the courage to reject the simplistic and ineffective responses proposed by those who contend that the only way to help doctors is to further hurt seriously injured patients. Unfortunately, as we saw in previous debates on this issue, congressional Republicans are again advocating a policy which will benefit neither doctors nor patients, only insurance companies. Caps on compensatory damages and other extreme ``tort reforms'' are not only unfair to the victims of malpractice, they do not result in a reduction of malpractice insurance premiums. We must not sacrifice the fundamental legal rights of seriously injured patients on the altar of insurance company profits. We must not surrender our most vulnerable citizens--women and newborn babies--to the avarice of these companies. The idea of denying pregnant women living in rural areas the same legal rights as pregnant women living in urban areas is truly absurd. It is a transparent gimmick designed to make this amendment appear relevant to a totally unrelated farm bill. This bill contains most of the same unreasonable provisions which have been decisively rejected by a bipartisan majority of the Senate many times before. The only difference is that previous proposals took basic rights away from all patients, while this bill takes those rights away only from women and newborn babies who happen to live in rural communities. That change does not make the legislation more acceptable. On the contrary, it adds a new element of unfairness. This legislation would deprive seriously injured patients of the right to recover fair compensation for their injuries by placing arbitrary caps on compensation for non-economic loss in all obstetrical and gynecological cases involving women in rural areas. These caps will hurt patients who have suffered the most severe, life-altering injuries. They are the children who suffered serious brain injuries at birth and will never be able to lead normal lives. They are the women who lost organs, reproductive capacity, and in some cases even years of life. These are life-altering conditions. It would be terribly wrong to take their rights away. The Republicans talk about deterring frivolous cases, but caps by their nature apply only to the most serious cases which have been proven in court. These badly injured patients are the last ones we should be depriving of fair compensation. A person with a severe injury is not made whole merely by receiving reimbursement for medical bills and lost wages. Noneconomic damages compensate victims for the very real, though not easily quantifiable, loss in quality of life that results from a serious, permanent injury. It is absurd to suggest that $250,000 is fair compensation for a child who is severely brain injured at birth and, as a result, can never participate in the normal activities of day to day living; or for a woman who lost her reproductive capacity because of an OB/GYN's malpractice. Caps are totally arbitrary. They do not adjust the amount of the compensation ceiling with either the seriousness of the injury, or with the length of years that the victim must endure the resulting disability. Someone with a less serious injury can be fully compensated without reaching the cap. However, a patient with severe, permanent injuries is prevented by the cap from receiving full compensation for their more serious injuries. The person with a life-altering injury may only be permitted to receive a relatively small portion of the compensation to which he or she is entitled. The proponents argue that they are somehow doing these women and their babies a favor by depriving them of the right to fair compensation when they are seriously injured. It is an Alice in Wonderland argument which they are making. Under their proposal, a woman in a rural county whose gynecologist negligently failed to diagnose her cervical cancer until it had spread and become incurable would be denied the same legal rights as a man living in the same county whose doctor negligently failed to diagnose his prostate cancer until it was too late. Is that fair? By what convoluted logic would that woman be better off? Both the woman and the man were condemned to suffer a painful and premature death as a result of their doctors' malpractice, but her compensation would be severely limited while his would not. She would be denied the right to introduce the same evidence of medical negligence which he could. She would be denied the same freedom to select the lawyer of her choice which he had. She would be denied the right to have her case tried under the same judicial rules which he could. That hardly sounds like equal protection of the law to me. Yet that is what the advocates of this legislation are proposing. Consider another real world example of how this bill would work. A woman visits her OB/GYN to be treated for infertility. She is given a medication which causes her to experience severe complications. A man goes to his doctor with an infertility problem. His doctor also prescribes medication, and he too experiences serious complications. Both suffer permanent injuries as a result, and each sues the pharmaceutical company which manufactured the two drugs. The woman's noneconomic compensation will be arbitrarily limited to $250,000 no matter how devastating her injuries and she will be unable to recover punitive damages even if the court determines that the drug company acted ``recklessly.'' In contrast, there will be no legal limitations on the compensation which the man is able to recover, and he can receive punitive damages if the drug company in his case is found to have acted ``recklessly''. How do the sponsors justify treating two patients with similar injuries so differently based solely on their gender? Of course, this bill does not only take rights away from women. It takes them away from newborn babies who sustain devastating prenatal or delivery injuries as well. These children face a lifetime with severe mental and physical impairments all because of an obstetrician's malpractice or a defective drug or medical device. This legislation would limit the compensation they can receive for lost quality of life to $250,000--$250,000 for an entire lifetime. What could be more unjust? This is not a better bill because it applies only to patients injured by obstetrical and gynecological malpractice. That just makes it even more arbitrary. The entire premise of this bill is both false and offensive. Our Republican colleagues claim that women and their babies in rural areas must sacrifice their fundamental legal rights in order to preserve access to OB/GYN care. The very idea is outrageous. It is based on the false premise that the availability of OB/GYN physicians depends on the enactment of draconian tort reforms. If that were accurate, states that have already enacted damage caps would have a higher number of OB/GYNS providing care. However, there is in fact no correlation. States without caps actually have 28.2 OB/GYNs per 100,000 women, while states with caps have 27.9 OB/GYNs per 100,000 women. No difference. And that is only one of many fallacies in this bill. If the issue is truly access to obstetric and gynecological care, why has this bill been written to shield from accountability HMOs that deny needed medical care to a woman suffering serious complications with her pregnancy, a pharmaceutical company that fails to warn of dangerous side effects caused by its new fertility drug, and a manufacturer that markets a contraceptive device which can seriously injure the user. Who are the authors of this legislation really trying to protect. In reality, this legislation is designed to shield the entire health care industry from basic accountability for the care it provides to women and their infant children. It is a stalking horse for broader legislation which would shield them from accountability in all health care decisions involving all patients. While those across the aisle like to talk about doctors, the real beneficiaries will be insurance companies and large health care corporations. This legislation would enrich them at the expense of the most seriously injured patients; women and children whose entire lives have been devastated by medical neglect and corporate abuse. In the last few years, the entire nation has been focused on the need for greater corporate accountability. This legislation does just the reverse. It would drastically limit the financial responsibility of the entire health care industry to compensate injured patients for the harm they have suffered. When will the Republican Party start worrying about injured patients and stop trying to shield big business from the consequences of its wrongdoing? Less accountability will never lead to better health care. In addition to imposing caps, this legislation would place other major restrictions on seriously injured patients seeking to recover fair compensation. At every stage of the judicial process, it would change long-established judicial rules to disadvantage patients and shield defendants from the consequences of their actions. (1) It would abolish joint and several liability for noneconomic damages. This means the most seriously injured people may never receive all of the compensation that the court has awarded to them. Under the amendment, health care providers whose misconduct contributed to the patient's injuries will be able to escape responsibility for paying full compensation to that patient. The patient's injuries would not have happened if not for the misconduct of both defendants, so each defendant should be responsible for making sure the victim is fully compensated. (2) The bias in the legislation could not be clearer. It would preempt state laws that allow fair treatment for injured patients, but would allow state laws to be enacted which contained greater restrictions on patients' rights than the proposed Federal law. It is not about fairness or balance. It is about protecting defendants who provide negligent care. (3) This bill places extreme restrictions on the right of injured patients to present expert testimony to help prove their cases. It establishes arbitrary requirements that would make it virtually impossible to qualify many of the most obviously accomplished medical experts as witnesses. Without the ability to present highly relevant expert testimony, the patient's right to her day in court will in many cases be a hollow one. (4) The amendment preempts state statutes of limitation, cutting back the time allowed by many states for a patient to file suit against the health care provider who injured him. Under the legislation, the statute of limitations can expire before the injured patient even knows that it was malpractice which caused his or her injury. (5) It mandates that providers and insurance companies be permitted to pay a judgment in installments rather than all at once. Delaying payment amounts to a significant reduction in the award. If the patient does not receive the money for years, he in reality is getting less money than the court concluded that he deserved for his injuries. (6) It places severe limitations on when an injured patient can receive punitive damages, and how much punitive damages the victim can recover. This is far more restrictive than current law. It prohibits punitive damages for ``reckless'' and ``wanton'' misconduct, which the overwhelming majority of States allow. (7) It imposes unprecedented limits on the amount of the contingent fee which a client and his or her attorney can agree to. This will make it more difficult for injured patients to retain the attorney of their choice in cases that involve complex legal issues. It can have the effect of denying them their day in court. Again the provision is one- sided, because it places no limit on how much the health care provider can spend defending the case. If we were to arbitrarily restrict the rights of seriously injured patients as the sponsors of this legislation propose, what benefits would result? Certainly less accountability for health care providers will never improve the quality of health care. It will not even result in less costly care. The cost of medical malpractice premiums constitutes less than 1 percent of the Nation's health care expenditures each year. For example, in 2003, health care costs totaled $1.5 trillion, while the total cost of all medical malpractice insurance premiums was $8.2 billion. Malpractice premiums are not the cause of the high rate of medical inflation. A study by the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences determined that as many as 98,000 patients die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors. That is more than die from auto accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS each year. These disturbing statistics make clear that we need more accountability in the health care system, not less. In this era of managed care and cost controls, it is ludicrous to suggest that the major problem facing American health care is ``defensive medicine.'' The problem is not ``too much health care,'' it is ``too little'' quality health care. Republicans in Congress and other supporters of caps have argued that restricting an injured patient's right to recover fair compensation will reduce malpractice premiums. But, there is scant evidence to support their claim. In fact, there is substantial evidence to refute it. Caps are not only unfair to patients, they are also an ineffective way to control medical malpractice premiums. Enacting malpractice caps has not lowered insurance rates in the states that have them. There are other much more direct and effective ways to address the cost of medical malpractice insurance that do not hurt patients. The claims regarding the recent malpractice reform in Texas has also been misleading. Prior to Proposition 12, 152 counties reported having no actively practicing OB/GYN doctors and 2 years after implementation, 152 counties still remain without doctors. In fact, it has not made care available to women residing in rural counties. Even more disturbing, the quality of care has diminished in urban areas and according to the Texas Medical Association, the physician organization of the state, the practice of ``defensive medicine'' has not diminished and is likely on the rise. If a Federal cap on noneconomic compensatory damages for rural obstetrics and gynecological patients were to pass, it would sacrifice fair compensation for injured patients in a vain attempt to reduce medical malpractice premiums. Doctors will not get the relief they are seeking. Only the insurance companies, which created market instability, will benefit. Doctors and patients are both victims of the insurance industry. Spikes in premiums have much more to do with the rate of return on insurance company investments than with what is actually taking place in operating rooms or in courtrooms. Excess profits from the boom years should be used to keep premiums stable when investment earnings drop. However, the insurance industry will never do that voluntarily. Only by recognizing the real problem can we begin to structure an effective solution that will bring an end to unreasonably high medical malpractice premiums. I want to quote from the analysis of Weiss Ratings, Inc., a nationally recognized financial analyst conducted an in-depth examination of the impact of capping damages in medical malpractice cases. Their conclusions sharply contradict the assumptions on which this legislation is based. Weiss found that capping damages does reduce the amount of money that malpractice insurance companies pay out to injured patients. However, those savings are not passed on to doctors in lower premiums. Weiss is not speaking from the perspective of a trial lawyer or a patient advocate, but as a hard-nosed financial analyst that has studied the facts of malpractice insurance rating. Here is their recommendation based on those facts: First, legislators must immediately put on hold all proposals involving noneconomic damage caps until convincing evidence can be produced to demonstrate a true benefit to doctors in the form of reduced med mal costs. Right now, consumers are being asked to sacrifice not only large damage claims, but also critical leverage to help regulate the medical profession--all with the stated goal that it will end the med mal crisis for doctors. However, the data indicate that, similar state legislation has merely produced the worst of both worlds: The sacrifice by consumers plus a continuing--and even worsening--crisis for doctors. Neither party derived any benefit whatsoever from the caps. Unlike the harsh and ineffective proposals in Senator Gregg's amendment, these are real solutions which will help physicians without further harming seriously injured patients. Doctors, especially those in high risk specialties, whose malpractice premiums have increased dramatically over the past few years do deserve premium relief. That relief will only come as the result of tougher regulation of the insurance industry. When insurance companies lose money on their investments, they should not be able to recover those losses from the doctors they insure. Unfortunately, that is what is happening now. This amendment is not a serious attempt to address a significant problem being faced by physicians in some states. It is the product of party caucus rather than the bipartisan deliberation of a Senate committee. It was designed to score political points, not to achieve the bipartisan consensus which is needed to enact major legislation. For that reason, it does not deserve to be taken seriously by the Senate. It should be soundly rejected. Public safety workers are on the front lines of our efforts to keep communities in America safe. They are on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week doing back-breaking, difficult work. They never blink, they never falter. They do their duty and they do it well. When the devastating fires raged in southern California, they battled the blazes. When the I-35 bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, they were the first on the scene. When the massive tragedy hit New York City on 9/11, their heroic work inspired the Nation and restored our spirit. Just last week in Everett, MA, a tanker truck hauling 10,000 tons of fuel suddenly exploded on the highway. Forty cars caught fire. It took more than 3 hours to put out the flames. But because the police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians responded so quickly, no one was killed in the accident. Words cannot begin to express our gratitude. These heroic men and women have earned our thanks and respect, and they have also earned the right to be treated with dignity. That is why it is a privilege to join with Senators Harkin and Gregg on this bipartisan public safety cooperation amendment to the farm bill, to guarantee that all firefighters, police officers, emergency medical personnel, and other first responders have a voice at the table in the life-and-death discussions and decisions about their work. It will ensure that they are treated fairly. It will help them keep our communities safe. It is no wonder that this amendment has received such strong, bipartisan support. It passed the House of Representatives with 314 votes. The amendment guarantees that every first responder will have the same basic right that most other workers in the public sector already enjoy--the right to collective bargaining. Many first responders already have this fundamental right. Every New York City firefighter, emergency medical technician, and police officer who responded to the disaster at the World Trade Center on 9/11 was a union member under a collective bargaining agreement. So were the 7,000 firefighters who responded to the crisis in California. They were able to respond more efficiently and effectively to the crisis because they had a voice on the job. Many other first responders, however, are not so fortunate. Twenty-nine States and the District of Columbia guarantee all public safety workers the right to collective bargaining. But 21 States--this chart reflects it--still deny some or most or even all such workers this fundamental right. Their first responders don't have a voice in policies that affect their safety and livelihoods. That is both illogical and unfair. We see all too often how dangerous these jobs can be. In 2005, 80,000 firefighters were injured in the line of duty; 76,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted or injured; and almost 300 of these public safety employees paid the ultimate price. First responders face chronic long-term health problems as well. The brave men and women who responded at Ground Zero now suffer from crippling health problems, such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. These men and women are profiles in courage. They walk into the fires, wade into floods, and put their lives on the line to protect our homes and families. They know what they need to have to be safe on the job. They deserve the right to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. The amendment grants these basic rights in a reasonable way that respects existing State laws. States that already grant collective bargaining to public safety workers are not affected by the bill. States that don't offer this protection can establish their own collective bargaining systems or ask the Federal Labor Relations Authority for help. That amendment sets a standard. Each State has full authority to decide how it will provide these basic rights. These rights for first responders are not just important for the workers, they are key to the safety of our communities and our Nation. In the post-9/11 era, first responders have an indispensable role in homeland security. It is vital to our national interest that the essential services they provide are carried out as effectively as possible. As study after study shows, cooperation between public safety employers and employees improves the quality of services and reduces fatalities. That is why strong, cooperative partnerships between first responders and the communities they serve are essential to public safety. As Dennis Compton, the fire chief of the city of Phoenix, has said: When labor and management leaders work together to build mutual trust, mutual respect, and a strong commitment to service, it helps focus [a] fire department on what is truly important . . . providing excellent service to the customers. Our families, communities, and farms, deserve the best public safety services we can possibly provide. It starts with the strong foundation that collective bargaining makes possible. We cannot call these brave men and women heroes in a time of crisis but turn our backs on them today. We need to act now to make these basic rights available to all of America's first responders. It is a matter of fundamental fairness, an urgent matter of public safety. The best way to give our heroes the respect they deserve is by supporting this amendment. I urge them to do so. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, let me go through some charts. This chart is on California wildfires, farmland, crops, and livestock. This is Riverside County. I think all Americans remember these extraordinary fires that dominated the national news and newspapers and were so devastating to scores of families out West not many weeks ago. Riverside County lost $15 million in crop and farm products. The fire scorched over 900 acres of farmland. There was between $10 million and $15 million in damages to the avocado farms in Ventura County. These men and women who fight these fires understand how to be effective and how to preserve both life and the farms in those communities. That is what this is all about--that they have a voice in the development of the policies, about how they are going to proceed. Nobody who watched and listened to those extraordinarily brave firefighters doubted the extraordinary competency and commitment these individuals have. They serve, and serve our country very well. This is an indicator that firefighter fatalities are on the rise. All of us have seen the growth of fires. This is a rather awesome chart. Firefighter fatalities are on the rise. The red line indicates this. So we are asking more and more of them each year. This chart says that every year firefighters put their lives on the line to ensure our safety. In 2005, 80,000 firefighters suffered injuries and 115 died in the line of duty. This year, approximately 100 firefighters will pay the ultimate price while on duty. Again, the point we are underlining here is that firefighters must have a voice in the development of policies, whether it is in the agriculture area or other areas. We need to give the first responders a voice in the development of safety measures and how to use equipment and use it effectively. You will have a more efficient kind of effort in terms of controlling fires, and it increases the safety and productivity of the firefighters. These law enforcement officers are at risk on the job. In 2005--this legislation would apply to first responders here--76,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted or injured on the job and 157 died in the line of duty. Injuries and assaults have increased by 21 percent in the last 10 years. These jobs are becoming more hazardous. We have a responsibility to do everything we can to work with these first responders to help them do the job they can do and should do. This chart shows that 9/11 firefighters enjoyed collective bargaining rights. I don't think any American who witnessed that extraordinary tragedy of 9/11 and witnessed those extraordinary men and women, those firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty on September 11-- they were union members with collective bargaining rights. They were prepared to do their jobs, and they did it like no others. They inspired a nation with their courage. Many are faced, as I mentioned, with many of the lung diseases, carpal tunnel syndrome, and bad backs. They need to be able to have those particular health care needs met and attended to. Finally, the Cooperation Act protects the rights of dedicated public safety workers. This is a chart that tells what this legislation does and what it doesn't do. First, it establishes the right to form a union and bargain over working conditions. It gives workers a voice in the working conditions, which is so important in terms of both the efficiency and effectiveness of their work. They would have the right to sign legally enforceable contracts and resolve stalled disputes through mediation or arbitration. There is a specific prohibition in terms of striking, but they can solve this through mediation. That is how disputes will be solved. It doesn't take away the authority of the State and local jurisdictions. It doesn't require any specific method to certify unions. It doesn't interfere with State right-to-work laws. It doesn't infringe on the rights of volunteer firefighters. This is legislation which has been carefully considered and reviewed. There are, at last count, more than 60 Members of our body, Republicans and Democrats, who have indicated support for the legislation. As we have seen and mentioned earlier, when we saw these devastating fires that went across the country and ravaged the farmland of this Nation and we saw the extraordinary work of so many first responders, it reminded us of our responsibility to make sure these extraordinary men and women who exhibited such extraordinary courage will be treated fairly and equitably. By doing so, they will be able to do their job and protect America's families and the farmland in our country more effectively. Madam President, I withhold the remainder of our time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in passing the reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act today, the Senate has taken an important step toward making a difference in the lives of some of our Nation's most deserving citizens: our soldiers and our children. It is a privilege to have worked with my colleague, Senator Hatch, on this legislation. It is an important and timely bill that helps an especially deserving group of people. Brain injuries have become the signature wound of the war in Iraq. Up to two-thirds of our wounded soldiers may have suffered such injuries. Here at home, an unacceptably large number of children from birth to age 14 experience traumatic brain injuries--approximately 475,000 a year and some of the most frequent of these injuries are to children under the age of five. In Massachusetts alone, more than 40,000 individuals experience brain injuries each year. As a result of such injuries, over 5.3 million Americans are now living with a permanent disability. Today, we have taken a step toward ensuring that these citizens and their families will receive the best care we can provide. The bill reauthorizes grants that assist States, Territories, and the District of Columbia in establishing and expanding coordinated systems of community-based services and supports for those with such injuries. When Congress approved the Traumatic Brain Injury Act as part of the Children's Health Act of 2000, we included a specific provision called the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Traumatic Brain Injury Program. This program has become essential because persons with these injuries have an array of needs beyond treatment and health care, including assistance in returning to work, finding a place to live, obtaining supports and services such as attendant care and assistive technology, and obtaining appropriate mental health, substance abuse, and rehabilitation services. Often these persons--especially our returning veterans--must remain in extremely expensive institutions far longer than necessary, because the community-based supports and services they need are not available, even though they can lead to reduced government expenditures, increased productivity, independence and community integration. Those who provide such assistance must have special skills, and their work is often time-intensive. Our legislation allocates funds for CDC programs that will provide important information and data on injury prevention. A recent Institute of Medicine report showed that such programs work. Their benefit is obvious, and we must do all we can to expand this appropriation in the years ahead to meet the urgent and growing need for this assistance. A recent report by the Institute of Medicine calls the current TBI programs an ``overall success.'' It states that ``there is considerable value in providing funding,'' and ``it is worrisome that the modestly budgeted TBI Program continues to be vulnerable to budget cuts.'' Current estimates show that the Federal Government spends less than $3 dollars per brain injury survivor on research and services. As the IOM study suggests, this program must be able to grow, so that each State has the resources necessary to maintain vital services and advocacy for the large number of Americans who sustain such a brain injury each year. Today's passage of this bipartisan bill moves us closer to continuing and strengthening these important programs which say to our Nation's wounded soldiers and injured children: ``You deserve the best we can provide''. I hope very much that Congress will continue to expand these programs, so that we can truly do all we can for these deserving individuals and their families.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the torture debate took another deeply troubling turn yesterday. The Nation learned the CIA had destroyed videotapes of its employees in the act of using torture or other harsh interrogation techniques on detainees. Those tapes were not shown to Congress. They were not shown to any court. They were not shown to the bipartisan 9-11 Commission. Instead, they were destroyed. What would cause the CIA to take this action? The answer is obvious-- cover up. The agency was desperate to cover up damning evidence of their practices. In a letter to agency employees yesterday, CIA Director Michael Hayden claimed that the tapes were a security risk because they might someday ``leak'' and thereby identify the CIA employees who engaged in these practices. But that excuse won't wash. I am second to no one in wanting to protect the brave men and women of the CIA. But how is it possible that the director of the CIA has so little faith in his own agency? Does the director believe the CIA's buildings are not secure? Would it be beyond the agency's technical expertise to preserve the tapes while hiding the identity of its employees? Does the director believe that the CIA's employees cannot be trusted not to leak materials that might harm the agency? Or does he know that the interrogation techniques are so abhorrent that they could not remain unknown much longer? It is particularly difficult to take the director's explanation at face value when the news that these CIA tapes were destroyed came the very same week that we learned that as many as 10 million White House emails have not been preserved, despite a law that requires their retention. At the same time, the President continued to insist that we grant immunity to the phone companies for their role in the illegal wiretapping of American citizens. The pattern is unmistakable. The past 6 years, the Bush administration has run roughshod over our ideals and the rule of law. For 4 of those 6 years, the Republican Congress did little to hold the administration accountable. Now, when the new Democratic Congress is demanding answers, the administration is feverishly covering up its tracks. We haven't seen anything like this since the 18\1/2\-minute gap in the tapes of President Richard Nixon. These efforts are wrong, and they must be stopped. I and other concerned Senators will today call upon Attorney General Mukasey to immediately begin an investigation into whether the CIA's handling and destruction of these tapes violated the law. We also must redouble our efforts to make sure that future interrogations by the CIA conform to our laws and values. No part of our Government should engage in practices that are so horrific that we cannot bear to see them on tape. To that end, I introduced legislation to require that all Government agencies, including the CIA, follow the standards of the Army Field Manual. Language that would take that important step was recently included in the conference report on the Intelligence authorization bill, and we must act to adopt it as soon as possible. As founder John Adams said, our Nation is ``a Nation of laws, not men.'' That basic principle is at risk today from an administration that is engaging in a coverup--systematically destroying records, commuting sentences, and stonewalling congressional investigations. The CIA's role in this coverup is only the latest reminder that Congress must fight harder to prevent this administration from making a mockery of the rule of law, and to preserve the right of the American people to know what the Government has been doing in their name.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the American workplace has changed significantly in recent years. In the new global economy, many businesses are open around the clock--and employees often work long shifts and unpredictable hours. With computers and cell phones, employers can reach employees almost any time, anywhere. Hard economic times require many men and women to work longer hours or hold multiple jobs. Almost 8 million Americans now juggle the demands of at least two jobs, and tens of millions more find it increasingly difficult to achieve a fair balance between their work and their family. These and other shifts in our society mean that many Americans and their families are stretched to the limit. Two-thirds of all families in our country are headed by either two employed parents or a single working parent, and parents are working outside the home longer hours than ever--an average of 91 hours a week for dual income couples. As the population ages, more and more Americans must also care for elderly parents and relatives. An aging population also means more older workers, who want to stay on the job, but don't want or can't manage long hours any more. Expanding populations in metropolitan areas mean longer commutes. A recent Gallup poll found that about a third of American workers spend an hour or more a day getting to and from work. Our working families deserve a 21st century answer for these 21st century job challenges. Greater flexibility is an essential part of the response. More than 80 percent of workers would like more flexibility in their jobs. Almost half of them, however, worry that asking for such flexibility will jeopardize their careers. The Working Families Flexibility Act I am introducing today will give employees the ability to ask for flexible arrangements without fear. Flexible scheduling will enable working parents to coordinate child care more effectively and spend more time with their children. It can even help workers be better parents. Studies show that parents with greater control over their schedules spend more time with their children. For employees with long commutes, telecommuting reduces stress and time wasted time wasted on the road. Many workers say they are just as productive at home, and sometimes even more so. Flexibility also lets more people stay in the workforce who otherwise could not. Often coming into the office for a traditional 8 hour day, five days a week isn't possible for elderly workers or persons with disabilities. With flexible scheduling and telecommuting, these workers can continue on the job. Flexibility is also good for business. Persons with flexible work arrangements are more reliable employees. In a recent survey, two- thirds of workers with flexible schedules missed less work because of such arrangements. They are also happier employees. Another study showed that almost three times as many workers in companies that offer flexibility felt satisfied with their jobs, compared to workers without such options. Companies that offer flexibility also discover that it helps them attract and retain better employees. The Working Families Flexibility Act brings workers and employers together to find creative ways to provide such flexibilities. Our legislation allows those who know their jobs best--the ones actually doing the work--to suggest changes as to when and where they do their work. It creates a process for workers and employers to come up with solutions that best fit their particular circumstances. We know that laws like this will benefit both employers and employees. Great Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands, have adopted similar laws with great success. 90 percent of British workers now have flexible work options, compare to only about a quarter of American workers. Last year 91 percent of British employers who had employee requests for flexibility were able to grant them. It is making the workers more satisfied with their jobs. Those who took advantage of flexibility were 50 percent more satisfied with their work arrangements than workers who did not. We all fill many roles in our lives. We are workers, parents, sons and daughters, and members of our communities. We struggle to do well in each responsibility. But when the demands of work overshadow the rest of our lives, our lives feel out of balance. This legislation gives millions of American workers the opportunity to restore that balance--to be good employees and responsible citizens and family members, too. They deserve no less.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the American workplace has changed significantly in recent years. In the new global economy, many businesses are open around the clock--and employees often work long shifts and unpredictable hours. With computers and cell phones, employers can reach employees almost any time, anywhere. Hard economic times require many men and women to work longer hours or hold multiple jobs. Almost 8 million Americans now juggle the demands of at least two jobs, and tens of millions more find it increasingly difficult to achieve a fair balance between their work and their family. These and other shifts in our society mean that many Americans and their families are stretched to the limit. Two-thirds of all families in our country are headed by either two employed parents or a single working parent, and parents are working outside the home longer hours than ever--an average of 91 hours a week for dual income couples. As the population ages, more and more Americans must also care for elderly parents and relatives. An aging population also means more older workers, who want to stay on the job, but don't want or can't manage long hours any more. Expanding populations in metropolitan areas mean longer commutes. A recent Gallup poll found that about a third of American workers spend an hour or more a day getting to and from work. Our working families deserve a 21st century answer for these 21st century job challenges. Greater flexibility is an essential part of the response. More than 80 percent of workers would like more flexibility in their jobs. Almost half of them, however, worry that asking for such flexibility will jeopardize their careers. The Working Families Flexibility Act I am introducing today will give employees the ability to ask for flexible arrangements without fear. Flexible scheduling will enable working parents to coordinate child care more effectively and spend more time with their children. It can even help workers be better parents. Studies show that parents with greater control over their schedules spend more time with their children. For employees with long commutes, telecommuting reduces stress and time wasted time wasted on the road. Many workers say they are just as productive at home, and sometimes even more so. Flexibility also lets more people stay in the workforce who otherwise could not. Often coming into the office for a traditional 8 hour day, five days a week isn't possible for elderly workers or persons with disabilities. With flexible scheduling and telecommuting, these workers can continue on the job. Flexibility is also good for business. Persons with flexible work arrangements are more reliable employees. In a recent survey, two- thirds of workers with flexible schedules missed less work because of such arrangements. They are also happier employees. Another study showed that almost three times as many workers in companies that offer flexibility felt satisfied with their jobs, compared to workers without such options. Companies that offer flexibility also discover that it helps them attract and retain better employees. The Working Families Flexibility Act brings workers and employers together to find creative ways to provide such flexibilities. Our legislation allows those who know their jobs best--the ones actually doing the work--to suggest changes as to when and where they do their work. It creates a process for workers and employers to come up with solutions that best fit their particular circumstances. We know that laws like this will benefit both employers and employees. Great Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands, have adopted similar laws with great success. 90 percent of British workers now have flexible work options, compare to only about a quarter of American workers. Last year 91 percent of British employers who had employee requests for flexibility were able to grant them. It is making the workers more satisfied with their jobs. Those who took advantage of flexibility were 50 percent more satisfied with their work arrangements than workers who did not. We all fill many roles in our lives. We are workers, parents, sons and daughters, and members of our communities. We struggle to do well in each responsibility. But when the demands of work overshadow the rest of our lives, our lives feel out of balance. This legislation gives millions of American workers the opportunity to restore that balance--to be good employees and responsible citizens and family members, too. They deserve no less.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary life and work of Joseph Atkins Nickerson, Jr., of Chatham, MA, a retired builder and prominent local historian who passed away on November 23 at the age of 89. Joe lived his entire life in the town of Chatham. The only exception was during his service to the Navy during World War II. Joe was a direct descendent of the founders of Chatham, and he will always be remembered for his leadership in preserving the town's history. He had an extraordinary ability to recall people, places, and dates, and his story-telling skill was legendary. Joe was a member of numerous local sports teams in his youth, and at the age of 22 he pitched a no hit, no run, no walk, 22 strike-out perfect baseball game for the local Chatham team. He was also an original member of the Chatham Town Band, and played the clarinet beautifully in concerts and parades for over 50 years. His skills as a town musician were a great source of pride for all his family. Joe served the town in many other ways as well. He was a volunteer fireman, a member of the School Building Committee, president and historian of the Chatham Historical Society, a founding member of the Conservation Association, president of the Boston Glass Club, and a member of the Retired Men's Club. In recent years, Joe and his beloved wife Gerry worked together to write a book, ``Chatham Sea Captains in The Age of Sail.'' Before he passed away he was delighted to learn that his long-awaited book would be published by History Press, Inc. of Charleston, SC, in February 2008. I am sure it will be a wonderful memorial to Joe and a delight to the people of Chatham and all of us who love Cape Cod. His remarkable life and his commitment to the community will continue to inspire us all for years to come, and we mourn the passing of this amazing son of Chatham.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my statement, the Senator from Colorado be recognized.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened with interest to my friend from Kentucky comment about my statement on Iraq and the importance of disengagement with the withdrawal of American troops. I don't intend to restate my positions on the war this afternoon. I came to the floor to address another issue. But I will point out that one of the best votes I have cast in the Senate was in opposition to the resolution, supported by the Senator from Kentucky, that took us into Iraq, where American forces have been fighting for a longer time than all of World War II and where we see the continued loss of American lives--some 37 American lives lost last month--and billions in taxpayer dollars flooding into the sands of Iraq. Still, there is not the reconciliation by the Iraqi political leadership to develop some kind of Government that could be the basis for independence in the future. As our brave men and women are fighting gallantly and with great valor there, they are entitled to a policy that is worthy of their valor. Today they are effectively being held hostage by Iraqi politicians who refuse to negotiate among themselves and form a government. That might be satisfactory to the Senator from Kentucky but not to the Senator from Massachusetts. Evidently, the Senator from Kentucky wants to give a blank check to the Iraqi politicians: Continue your squabbles over there, while we continue to see the loss of American lives and blood. Not the Senator from Massachusetts. They have had their time. What is going to convince the Iraqi politicians we are serious? What will send the message is when we demonstrate that we are starting to withdraw American troops. Then they are going to make political judgments for their survival. But not today. If the Senator from Kentucky wants to continue an open-ended commitment with American lives and American treasure, that is his position. It is not mine. I don't think that is where the American people are. How long is it going to take for the Iraqi politicians to get together? They are not doing it now. They didn't do it yesterday. They don't appear to be willing to do it tomorrow, even though we have had assurances from the administration that success was around the corner. This is a matter of enormous importance and consequence. We will continue the debate. That is why I am a strong supporter of what our leader pointed out earlier today, talking about a proposal that has been put forward in terms of what is called bridge funding.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to take a few moments to talk about the state of our economy. I do so because during the break, I had the opportunity to talk with a lot of people in my own State of Massachusetts. Our State is not greatly different from many other States, certainly in the northeastern and central part of the Nation, older industrial States. The conclusion of working families and the middle class is pretty consistent across the country, that the state of our economy has given working families a good deal of fear. Let me review quickly what our current situation is. The vast majority of Americans are anxious about the economy. This is from the latest poll in November of 2007: 78 percent say the economy is getting worse, the most negative outlook in the past 16 years. We have to ask ourselves: Is this a Democratic, Independent or Republican view? Let's look across the spectrum: 89 percent of Democrats feel that way, and these are representatives of working families; Independents are 78 percent. Even among Republicans, 65 percent believe the economy is getting worse. This sense of anxiety about a growing economy has been there for some time. Look where it was in January of 2001. Fifty-six percent of Americans were concerned about the economy. Now look at November of 2007. It has gone from 56 percent to 78 percent who are concerned about the economy. Let's look at how working families view the future for the next generation, their children. Working families feel insecure about their children's economic future. This is a current assessment of how working families view what is going to happen to their children: 23 percent believe their children will be better off than they are today; 30 percent believe their children will have the same future as they have; and 42 percent believe their children will be worse off than today. This is a defining aspect of what our country is about. It is about the American dream. It is about hope and opportunity, not only for themselves but for their children and their children's children. When you lose that hope, you begin to lose working families' views about the American dream. This chart shows an explanation of why this has happened. We are growing further apart in terms of wages and productivity for middle- income families. From 1947 to 1962, as we came out of World War II, as productivity increased, wages increased, and the economy went along together, all of the different quintiles of the American economy went along together. We all grew together. There was a sense of optimism and hope because we had a shared economy, a shared future. But look at what has happened in terms of real wages and productivity. Productivity has escalated 205 percent. Wages have effectively gone up about 5 percent over the last 7 years in terms of real dollars and the rest of that productivity has gone to the wealthiest individuals. One of the principle reasons is because wages have effectively remained stagnant. We have seen what has happened to the price of gasoline. It is up 66 percent. Health care is up 38 percent. Education is up 43 percent. Home ownership is up nearly 40 percent, and effectively wages are stagnant at 5 percent. These are the things that families are concerned about, how they are going to get to work. How they are going to be able to afford health care, to send their children to school? Are they going to have a home? This is what all of us have seen in many of the colder regions of the country. As the temperature drops, home heating oil prices have gone through the roof: $1.83 a gallon in 2001; in 2007, $3.29. It has gone up 33 percent in real terms since last year. So homes have gotten more expensive. Education is more expensive. Fuel is more expensive. Health care is more expensive. Heating oil is more expensive. This has all contributed to the growth of insecurity. The price of food has risen faster than the rate of inflation. Whether it is a pound of beef or whether it is eggs, prices are rising up to 50 percent faster than the rate of inflation. Even milk is higher than the rate of inflation. All of this has been happening while working families have been working longer and harder than those in any other industrial nation of the world. Here, as shown on this chart, we have nearly 40 million Americans--28 percent of the American workforce--who work more than 40 hours a week. Also, 1 in 10 workers works more than 50 hours a week. So almost 30 percent work more than 40 hours a week. Mr. President, 7.9 million Americans are working two or more jobs. American working hours are the second highest of any of the developed countries. This chart is a good indicator. Americans' work has increased more than any other industrialized country of the world. Here it is: 20 percent from 1970 to 2002. Here, as shown on this chart, is the United States. Workers are working longer. They are working harder. Many of them are getting two jobs. And the essential elements that are necessary for their livelihood have far exceeded their wages and, therefore, they find increasing apprehension about their own future and about the future of their country. This chart is an indicator about where we are in terms of savings. Credit card debt has exploded, bringing cash available for an average family down to $1,600. The credit card debt has gone absolutely up through the roof. This chart shows that Americans now owe $900 billion in credit card debt. This is the escalation: People are borrowing this money, relying more and more on the credit card; and the fees that are being charged are extraordinary. But Americans will have to pay them because they cannot see any other way. This chart is an indicator of where the savings have been going over the period of the last 40 years. The red line indicates that the savings have gone right down. We are talking about working families with virtually no savings. There is an extraordinary escalation in terms of the cost, and all of this is happening at the same time. This chart shows that millions of American families are facing losing their homes. Foreclosures are rising dramatically--177 percent from 2005. Pick up any newspaper in the country today and you will see that kind of pressure that is on working families. With all the apprehension they have, can they afford the mortgage, particularly at this time of the year, Christmastime? Can they afford the mortgage? And can they afford to try to celebrate Christmas with their children? These are the mortgage woes that are creating a ``subprime'' Christmas for consumers in stores. This is the Harriman family who normally spends about $500 on holiday gifts. This season they have a wrenching choice: celebrate Christmas or keep their home out of foreclosure. Many families have gone into that situation. There is an increasing number of bankruptcies. This chart shows the escalation now in terms of the number of bankruptcies that are taking place among working families in this country--escalating, escalating, escalating. As shown on this chart, this is by quarters. This is 2007: the first quarter, the second quarter, the third quarter--and it is continuing to escalate and grow and grow. Houses are being lost. Bankruptcies are taking place. This is one of the very distressing charts. This couple and child represent a middle-class family, middle-income family from the last generation, which would be 40 years ago. This is the current situation for the last generation's children. You will see that 19 percent rise to the top of the economic ladder; 17 percent fall to the bottom. Look what the total is: 36 percent of the children of middle-income families rose somewhat, and 41 percent of the children fell--fell slightly or fell to the bottom. These are the children of middle-income families, the backbone of this country, our society, and this is what has happened to them. These are the latest figures, and families know that. It is bad enough for the average family, but it has been particularly damaging in terms of a number of the minority groups. In this case, African Americans born to middle-class parents have fallen out of the middle class. In the last 20 years, in middle-income families, 69 percent of the children--effectively 70 percent--have fallen into lower economic standing. This has probably been true in terms of other minority groups as well. We are growing farther and farther apart, increasing inequality, increasing uncertainty, at a time when the safety nets are effectively disappearing--disappearing in terms of pensions, disappearing in terms of health care costs, disappearing in terms of unemployment compensation. All of those safety nets have been put in tatters at a time when working families and their children are in the greatest need. This chart shows the number of uninsured Americans. We are familiar with the figures. They are used daily. Now the number is close to 47 million. This is even in spite of the fact that the CHIP program was implemented during this period of time and has actually provided health care for up to 7 million children. This chart is interesting because we have too many working Americans lacking insurance. Look at this: More than 80 million adults and children--1 out of every 3 nonelderly individuals--have spent some part of the last 2 years without health insurance. Without insurance: 80 million--80 million in a country of 300 million people. So 80 million people have spent some time over the last 2 years without health insurance. And 85 percent of them were working adults. These are working men and women. These are men and women who are working, in many instances, two jobs--working longer and harder than at any other time in the history of our country, and they are still facing this situation. This chart shows that half of American workers do not have any form of retirement savings at work. They effectively have no pension savings. That is half of all the workers in this country. It is a rather important shift and change in recent times. Now it is going in the absolutely wrong direction. Mr. President, 4 million fewer Americans have pensions than 7 years ago. In 2000, 46 million workers had one. Now it is 42 million workers, and these numbers are going right on down. They are not going in the right direction. They are going in the wrong direction. This chart is another way of saying that only one in five workers now has a defined benefit pension which will give the workers some assurance there will be benefits there. Others have the 401(k)s that may be going up or may be going down, and we have seen a period where they were going down, and they have lost their security in terms of their future. That has been happening over the period of the last 16 years, where increasing numbers have lost their security. American workers lack access to the needed paid sick days. What is happening in the middle class is there are increasing numbers of children who need focus and attention because two members of the family are working and their child is sick. Also, because parents are living longer, working families have more responsibilities to provide care for needy members of their family. But only 48 percent have paid sick days, and 70 percent do not have paid days to care for sick children. So it is a very small number of parents who have that. They are caught in the situation where they have a sick child, and they let the sick child go to school, where the child gets sicker and, chances are, contaminates other children as well. Unemployment has risen under President Bush and his failed economic policies. Unemployment has increased by 1.2 million people from January 2001 to October 2007. But long-term unemployment has gone up 59 percent. This is long-term employment. These are people who have lost their jobs and are unable to get a job. They effectively were participants in the job market. This figure is unusually high and it's been high for an unusually long period of time. There are a final few points I want to mention. The majority of the unemployed workers do not receive benefits. We used to think if you were unemployed, you were going to get unemployment insurance. Not anymore. Sixty-four percent of unemployed workers receive nothing at all from unemployment insurance. For those who do now collect benefits, they are often inadequate. Average unemployment insurance checks are down to 28 percent of income. This is an antiquated system. Now workers who actually pay into it are ineligible to get it for a variety of different kinds of technical reasons. We are trying to work with the Finance Committee, with Senator Baucus and others to address this issue. These are workers who have paid in or are otherwise eligible for unemployment compensation and are unable to collect it. Effectively, as shown, this is the inadequacy in terms of childcare. Only 14 percent of eligible children have access to Government-assisted childcare. These charts give you some idea why the working families of America have such apprehension in terms of the future and in terms of their own lives. We need the programs to be able to deal with this situation. We have a number of recommendations, and I will mention them very quickly this afternoon and will put in additional kinds of information. First, we need to safeguard working families from the turbulence of the modern economy by providing stronger and better support for families in crisis. Our country is going through profound economic shifts, and too many workers are losing their jobs in the wake of these changes. I have introduced bipartisan legislation, the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act, to make sure those who have worked hard and paid into the system get the benefits they deserve. I hope we will see progress on the bill soon so that much more that needs to be done will be done to help Americans who are struggling to find a job. We also need an aggressive agenda to help families facing a health care crisis. We must make more progress toward a universal, comprehensive program that is going to be there and be available and accessible to all Americans. In the meantime, we can follow the examples of my own State, Massachusetts, which has taken the lead in providing our residents access to quality health care. It is absolutely essential, as these charts pointed out, that we address this problem. Strengthening the safety net alone is not enough. We need to redouble our efforts to restore economic opportunity for families. Americans are working harder than ever, and they need the additional kinds of training. In my State now we have 145,000 unemployed. We have 75,000 job openings. They are good jobs. Yet, we have seen a continuing reduction in terms of training programs. Those people could get the jobs and be taxpayers and be committed and productive members of society. But we have seen over the period of the recent years, including with this last budget request, a continued reduction in terms of training programs by this administration. We know workers have to have a continuing, ongoing upgrading of their skills in order to be able to deal with these jobs. I think we need labor law reforms, such as the Employee Free Choice Act, to protect the right to organize so employees can stand up and fight for what is fair. I think we need to address again the earned income tax credit to help those at the bottom of the economic ladder who have worked hard and played by the rules. We have to continue, I think, the progress we have made in the increase in the minimum wage so we do not fall back in terms of providing working families with a decent income. The late Barbara Jordan once said: What the [American] people want is very simple. They want an America as good as its promise. The promise of America is that it is truly a land of opportunity, where every working family can share in the Nation's prosperity, where we all rise together, and we can be confident that our children have a bright future. For decades we enjoyed that vision of shared prosperity. I am confident we can make that promise a reality for American families again. We owe it to all the workers who have seen their bills go up, while their paychecks go down. We owe it to all the parents who cannot sleep at night because they are worried about their children's future. We owe it to all the families who are struggling and need a reason to celebrate this holiday season. We owe the American people our best efforts, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the weeks and months ahead to put working families back on track. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to Sandra Cook who retired last week from the Department of Education. For almost 20 years, Sandra has worked in the Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs at the Department, providing invaluable and dedicated service. She will be missed by all who worked with her, both at the Department and in Congress. Improving education for each and every child in this country is one of the most important priorities for our Nation, and Sandra has been committed to that priority throughout her dedicated service. Her commitment to education began in the classroom in Indiana as a teacher of history and language arts. She came to Washington to work in Congress and then moved to the Department of Education. From there she has provided constant guidance and support to us as we work to improve Federal education policy. She has been an indispensable part of the past two reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--the Improving America's Schools Act and the No Child Left Behind Act, as well as many other Federal education bills. We all owe Sandra an immense debt of gratitude for her outstanding work. She knows the education laws inside and out, and she always goes the extra mile. She has always been able to work in a truly bipartisan way with Members of both parties. She doesn't just get the job done-- she gets it done well, and with grace. We have been fortunate to have her. As Sandra retires to Illinois, I know her colleagues at the Department of Education will miss her. Her knowledge and skills will be difficult to replace. Certainly, all of us in Congress and our staffs who have had the privilege of working with her will miss her assistance and support. I wish her a long and happy and healthy retirement. She has certainly earned it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, on tomorrow, we will be voting on several items. Two are going to be related to our policy on Iraq. Tonight, I wish to express my views on the choices that are before the Senate and the American people. I know later in the evening a number of colleagues will speak to this issue. I welcome the chance to now express my view. Madam President, I oppose the minority leader's effort to provide a $70 billion blank check to President Bush for his failed Iraq policy. I will support legislation approved yesterday in the House of Representatives requiring the President to begin to bring our combat troops out of Iraq in 1 month and complete the withdrawal by December of next year. I hope the Senate will support it, and I hope President Bush will sign it into law. Earlier this month, we reached another tragic milestone in Iraq. We have lost more Americans in Iraq this year than in any other year. It is another painful and somber reminder of the enormous price in precious lives the Iraq war continues to impose. It is long past time for the administration to change course and end the national nightmare the Iraq war has become. Our military has served nobly in Iraq and done everything we have asked them to do. But they are caught in a continuing quagmire. They are policing a civil war and implementing a policy that is not worthy of their enormous sacrifice. The best way to protect our troops and our national security is to put the Iraqis on notice that they need to take responsibility for their future so that we can bring our troops back home to America safely. As long as our military presence in Iraq is open-ended, Iraq's leaders are unlikely to make the essential compromises for a political solution. The administration's misguided policy has put our troops in an untenable and unwinnable situation. They are being held hostage to Iraqi politics, in which sectarian leaders are unable or unwilling to make the difficult judgments needed to lift Iraq out of its downward spiral. BG John F. Campbell, deputy commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq, spoke with clarity about the shortcomings of Iraq's political leaders. He said: The ministers, they don't get out. . . . They don't know what the hell is going on on the ground. Army LTG Mark Fetter said that ``it is painful, very painful'' dealing with the obstructionism of Iraqi officials. About conditions on the ground, Army MG Michael Barbero said: . . . it's not as good as it's being reported now. All of these military deserve credit for their courage in speaking the truth. We should commend them for it. These are courageous, brave military speaking the truth. Yet the President continues to promise that success is just around the corner. He continues to hold out hope that Iraq's leaders are willing and capable of making essential political compromises necessary for reconciliation. The American people know we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed policy that is making America more vulnerable and putting our troops at greater risk. The toll is devastating. Nearly 4,000 American troops have died, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured, and over 4 million more have been forced to flee their homes. Nearly a half trillion dollars has been spent fighting this war. It is wrong for Congress to write a blank check to the President for this war. It is obvious that President Bush wants to drag this process out month after month so he can hand off his policy to the next President. It is time to put the brakes on this madness. It is up to us to halt the open-ended commitment of our troops that President Bush has been making year after year. We need to tell the Iraqis now that we intend to leave and leave soon. Only by doing so can we create the urgency that is so clearly necessary for them to end their differences. We cannot allow the President to drag this process out any longer. This war is his responsibility, and it is his responsibility to do all he can to end it. It is wrong for him to pass the buck to his successor when he knows thousands more of the courageous members of the Armed Forces will be wounded or die because of it. Every day this misguided war goes on, our service men and women and their families continue to shoulder the burden and pay the price. If this issue were only about the tragedies of the war, there would be reason enough to end it. But it has become about so much more. Now we are also starting to see the fallout at home as the President refuses to deliver the relief our families need. Earlier this week, the President signed a Defense appropriations bill that includes a 10-percent increase in funding compared to last year, but he vetoed a bill that includes an increase half that big that would fund cancer research, investments in our schools, job training, and protection for our workers. That bill included $4.5 billion more than the President proposed for education. He said that $4.5 billion more for students is too much. Yet he has asked for 35 times that much more for the war in Iraq. He wants us to say yes to $158 billion for Iraq when he says no to $4.5 billion for American children. In Iraq, anything goes. The sky is the limit. Billions and billions of dollars for Iraq. But here in America, right here at home, a modest investment in our school children gets a veto. The bill included $3 billion to improve the quality of our teachers. Those funds would have been used to hire 30,000 more teachers, provide high-quality induction and mentoring for 100,000 beginning teachers, and provide high-quality professional development for an additional 200,000 teachers. One week of the failed policy in Iraq is the cost. We could do all of this for our teachers for the cost of a single week in Iraq, but the President says no. The bill that he vetoed included $7 billion to provide high-quality early education through Head Start. Yesterday, the Senate approved a Head Start bill to strengthen the program and make Head Start even better. The bill goes a long way in strengthening the quality of the personnel, tying Head Start to kindergarten and other education programs in the States and consolidating all the various programs in the States that are available to children to make them more effective. Each of these improvements make an enormous difference in the lives of Head Start children. Funds the President vetoed would be used to build a basic foundation for learning that will help low-income and minority children for the rest of their lives. We can improve this foundation for the cost of a little more than 2 weeks in Iraq. But even as we work in Congress to improve this vital program, the President says no. No, no, no to this program, no to the Head Start children. We are only reaching half of those who are eligible for the program at this time. We have over 4 million poor children under the age of 5 in the United States of America; we only reach 1 million of them. We all know what a difference early intervention makes for children in education. It is critically important for us to continue strengthening the academic programs, socio-emotional support, and health services delivered through Head Start and yet the President continues to say no. The same misguided rationale applies to other investments in this bill. The President's choices cast aside urgently needed research on heart disease, diabetes, asthma, infectious disease, and mental health, and many other areas that could find cures and bring relief to millions of our fellow citizens. This chart shows $4.9 billion in cancer research which would fund over 6,800 grants; diabetes research, pandemic flu, with all the dangers we are facing with the potential for a pandemic flu--that is necessary--support for the CDC, one of the prime health agencies to help protect Americans. It does such a good job in terms of immunizations and community health centers, which is a lifeline for 15 million of our fellow citizens, so many of whom have lost their health insurance. And the answer is no to those individuals. It is true, in terms of American workers, the President rejects funding to enforce the labor laws that keep workers safe and to give them a level playing field. Instead, the President's veto takes bad employers off the hook and puts the safety and lives of American workers at risk. The President's choices are devastating to veterans as well. Listen to this, Mr. President. Each year nearly 320,000 brave servicemen return to civilian life, many coming from Iraq and Afghanistan. Tens of thousands--here is the chart. These are the returning veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq. Tens of thousands of reservists and National Guard have lost their benefits and even their jobs because they served their country. That is why the appropriations bill provided $228 million to help veterans find jobs, obtain training, and protect their right to return to former jobs. They are guaranteed now under existing law, but what is happening is that law is not being implemented. We found that three-quarters of returning veterans do not even know about their rights and, in many instances, they are losing their jobs, they are losing their overtime pay, and they are losing their pensions. That is why today one out of four homeless people in the United States is a former veteran. The bill we approved would help address this issue, but that was also vetoed. The bill we will have a chance to vote on tomorrow in the Senate, which was approved by the House of Representatives yesterday, also takes an important step in reining in the Bush administration's use of torture. It is difficult to believe that in this day and age, Congress needs to legislate against the use of torture to prevent the President of the United States from abusing prisoners. Torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment are already prohibited by law. Yet, once again, we must legislate, not because the conduct we would prohibit is somehow unlawful, but because the Bush administration continues to twist and distort existing law in its misguided, immoral interrogation practices. The Nation was shocked by the horrible images from Abu Ghraib prison, and America was shamed in the eyes of the world. The administration tried to whitewash the episode by blaming it on low-level soldiers, but the truth about our use of torture couldn't be concealed. Led by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Gonzales, the administration had set a course that undermined fundamental American values in the craven belief that torture could somehow make us more secure. Our interrogators were authorized to shackle prisoners in stress positions, induce hypothermia, and use sleep deprivation, extend isolation, bombardment with lights and loud music, and even now the infamous practice of waterboarding. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel--listen to this, Mr. President--the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel gave its approval to the legality of these practices in the morally outrageous Bybee torture memorandum. The Bybee torture memorandum was in place for more than 2\1/2\ years until Mr. Gonzales appeared before the Judiciary Committee when he wanted to be the Attorney General of the United States. He could look over that committee and tell that if he had to defend that memorandum, he would never make it, and he was right. What happened? The administration repealed the Bybee torture memorandum, and Mr. Gonzales got through the Judiciary Committee, although there were more than 40 votes in the Senate against his confirmation. Under the Bybee memorandum, if the President approved the use of torture, no one could be prosecuted for breaking our Nation's laws or international obligations. Do my colleagues understand? Under the Bybee memorandum, if you were going to prosecute an individual for using torture, you had to demonstrate a specific intent that the purpose of the torture in which you were involved was not to gain information but just to harm the individual. Unless a prosecutor would be able to demonstrate that the purpose of torturing an individual was not to gain information, you were effectively let off, free. As the distinguished Dean of Yale Law School, Dr. Koh, said, it was the worst piece of legal reasoning he had seen in the history of studying laws in the United States and legal opinions. The administration withdrew the Bybee memo in embarrassment when it became public. Indeed, the now-Attorney General Mukasey refused to denounce waterboarding as torture. Only leaders who fail to understand the founding principles of America could approve such behavior. Our country needs to stand beyond reproach for the sanctity of each individual, for freedom, for justice, for the rule of law. But the administration turned its back on all these traditions and on the ideals of America itself. In 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act to ensure that all interrogations conducted by the Department of Defense would comply with the Army Field Manual, a comprehensive and effective approach to interrogation that prohibits the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading techniques in favor of techniques that are most likely to be effective in gaining necessary information. LTG John Kimmons said, when releasing the manual: No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that. The Manual itself tells us that the use of torture is not only illegal, but also it is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the [interrogator] wants to hear. Last May, General Petraeus echoed these statements in a letter to all our servicemembers in Iraq saying that ``torture and other expedient methods to obtain information'' are not only illegal and immoral, but also generally ``neither useful nor necessary.'' We now know, however, that the 2005 act left open a loophole that undermines the basic safeguards against torture and cruel and degrading treatment. We applied the field manual to the Department of Defense, but not to the CIA. Last year in the Military Commissions Act, Congress left it to the President to define by Executive order the interrogation practices that would bind all Government interrogators, including the CIA. The President's Executive order drove a Mack truck through this small loophole. The vague terms of the order permit many of the most heinous interrogation practices. The provisions of the bill we will have an opportunity of voting on tomorrow closed that loophole. They require that all U.S. interrogations, including those conducted by the CIA, conform to the Army Field Manual. This very simple and easily implemented reform means no more waterboarding, no more use of dogs or other extreme practices prohibited by the Manual. There will still be great flexibility in use of interrogation methods and our interrogators will be able to effectively get the required information, but torture will be off the table. This bill is an opportunity to restate our commitment to the ideals and security of our Nation. It is an opportunity to repair the damage done to our reputation by the scandal of Abu Ghraib and the abuses of Guantanamo. It is an opportunity to restore our Nation as the beacon for human rights, fair treatment, and the rule of law. It is an opportunity to protect our brave service men and women, both in and out of uniform, from similar tactics. It is a simple but vital step in returning our Nation to the rule of law and the ideals on which America was founded, and it deserves to be enacted into law as soon as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, we have 9 minutes left. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Ohio and 3 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, and I will take the last 3 minutes, and we will alternate with our Republican colleagues.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back whatever time remains, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, for his strong advocacy and extremely effective work on this legislation. I also thank the staff of the HELP committee for their work on this important piece of legislation. This is an important moment in the Senate because this reauthorization of Head Start focuses on the most vulnerable members of society, the children, and it delivers a message of hope for these children and their families. HELP Committee members are extremely involved and active in all the matters that come before our committee, but never more than on issues of education and early childhood development. We have before us legislation that reflects a coming together of both parties and both chambers of Congress to address the needs of children in our society. Reflected in this legislation are the interest of some of those who aren't with us physically, colleagues who are involved in the Presidential campaign. Senator Dodd, who has been a longtime leader in the Senate on children and children's interests, has had important suggestions and recommendations. Barack Obama has followed this process very closely and has been in frequent communication with us. Senator Clinton has been very much involved in crafting this legislation, as well as a number of other pieces of legislation we approved in the committee earlier today. We welcome an overwhelming vote this afternoon. There was an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives, 381 to 36. I am hopeful we will have a similar expression of support in the Senate. We have an hour. I know I have several colleagues who want to talk. I will yield myself 12 minutes. I don't know how much I have used so far.

Mr. KENNEDY. No, a total of 12. If the Chair will let me know when I have a minute and a half, I would appreciate that. Planning for Head Start began in the early 1960s, before we knew all that we know today about how to best intervene and support the lives of young children living in poverty. At that time, as Attorney General, my brother Robert Kennedy decided to tackle the problem of juvenile delinquency. Research pointed to poverty as the root of the Nation's social and economic challenges. It was agreed that a strategy based on early education could be a significant part of the answer. In August 1964, President Johnson and Congress launched the war on poverty by passing the Economic Opportunity Act. The Nation's poor numbered 10 million, with nearly half under the age of 12. In the fall of that year, my brother-in-law, Sargent Shriver, convened a panel of experts in child development, education, public health, and social work to lay a foundation for the Head Start program. He envisioned a bold national commitment to prepare our neediest children for kindergarten and first grade. He conferred with experts like Dr. Edward Zigler, who is still a vigorous, forceful advocate for children, and they agreed that a comprehensive approach was needed. Preschool was the centerpiece of the plan, but a major emphasis was placed on health care and parent involvement, too. The following year, Head Start came into being as an 8-week summer program. With the help of thousands of volunteers, it served 560,000 children through preschool classes, medical and dental care, and health services. Over the years, it would reach over 24 million. Today the face of poverty and of America's neediest families has changed. The American workplace has changed, and our education system is being challenged to keep up with the global economy. Head Start has always adapted, finding new ways to respond to the demands on low- income, working families. But its mission has remained the same--to help our most vulnerable children succeed in school and in life. When parents are asked what they most want to accomplish in life, their answer undoubtedly includes a desire to open the doors of opportunity for their children. They want a fair chance for their children to grow up in a healthy and safe environment, to graduate from high school and go on to college, and to achieve the American dream. That dream should be available to every child in America. But far too often, families are still struggling to put food on the table, buy clothes for their children, pay the rent, or see a doctor. Poverty is again on the rise. Today, one out of every five children in America grows up poor. Poverty has many dimensions. It is a labor issue, because pay is so low and workers are exploited. It is a civil rights issue, because so many African American and Latino families are often the ones left behind. It is a health care issue, because the health care that families in poverty receive is so substandard. Most of all, it is a children's issue, because the children of the poor have done nothing wrong. But they still pay the price. It is our responsibility as a Nation to help those in need. The Federal bedrock of that commitment is Head Start. It has always been an important symbol of our responsibility to others. At its core are the values that shaped our democracy: Equity, opportunity, community empowerment, and economic progress. Head Start is based on the premise that education is the key to the future and to breaking down the destructive forces of poverty. It provides the starting point for a child's day, with a healthy meal each morning and a promise to parents that while they are at work and balancing two jobs, their children will see a doctor and dentist, and receive immunizations. It provides children with the building blocks they need to enter school ready to learn. It teaches the social and emotional skills needed by children to pay attention in the classroom and get along well with others. It expands their vocabulary, gets them excited about reading, and teaches them to count. It welcomes parents into its programs, gives them opportunities to make decisions about their child's learning and development, and sometimes helps families find a roof for over their head. Over the years, with each new educational and developmental advance in research, we have learned more about how Head Start can be improved. And with that learning, modifications have been made to enable the program to be even more effective. In 1972, the Child Development Associate program was established, to provide a standard of quality for Head Start teachers and aides. In 1974, the reauthorization of Head Start established the comprehensive Program Performance Standards to guide Head Start centers in providing essential educational, health, and social services, and achieving parental involvement. The reauthorization also paved the way for a network of training and technical assistance activities to help Head Start agencies enhance the quality of their programs. In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Indian and Migrant Head Start programs were formed, and family service centers were established to combat illiteracy, substance abuse, and unemployment in Head Start communities. At that time, Head Start also began its important focus on improving transitions for preschool children to public schools. In 1994, we created Early Head Start to serve low-income infants and toddlers in the first 3 years of their development. That legislation also led to the development of improved performance measures to assess outcomes in Head Start and new guidelines for monitoring Head Start programs. The current reauthorization applies the lessons learned from the past with the new knowledge of child development and early education to enable Head Start to be even more successful in the years ahead. There is no question that Head Start is effective. Our own federally mandated study of Head Start found that it expands children's vocabularies, and makes the greatest difference for those with the greatest needs. Head Start improves children's writing skills, and helps children grow in their social skills and behavior. By the time Head Start children complete their kindergarten year, their skills and developmental abilities are near the national average, with scores of 99 in early literacy, 98 in early writing, 95 in early math, and 95 in vocabulary. We are talking about the most disadvantaged children in America. They are often well behind in terms of their ability to enter school ready to start. Look at the results at the end of kindergarten. Head Start children catch up to their peers, to the national norm. It brings the children up so, hopefully, we will be, as a country and society, more equitable, more fair. This reauthorization maintains high standards and comprehensive services in Head Start. It upgrades educational components of the program, and ensures that it delivers the skills and support that children need to succeed in kindergarten and the early grades. It promotes greater partnerships between Head Start programs and local schools, and ensures that services continue to be framed by the highly effective Head Start Child Outcomes Framework. It also provides a needed bridge for parents to their local schools, to promote greater coordination and ease the transition of children from preschool to kindergarten. We also terminate the flawed National Reporting System, and ensure that new educational standards and measures used in Head Start will be informed by the National Academy of Sciences. Two years ago, the Government Accountability Office confirmed many of our long-standing concerns with this assessment, concluding that the test is not valid to make determinations about programs and students. The study also confirmed that the test was inconsistent with nationally-recognized testing standards, and unclear in its purpose. This reauthorization ensures that any assessments used in Head Start will be valid and reliable, fair to children from all backgrounds, and measure the whole child. Head Start children and their families deserve nothing less. Head Start teachers and staff are the heart and future of the program. They help children learn to identify letters and arrange the pieces of puzzles. They teach them to brush their teeth, wash their hands, make friends, and follow rules. This reauthorization sets important and unprecedented goals for enhancing the skills and qualifications of Head Start teachers and staff. In this reauthorization, we are striving to help all teachers earn their associate's degree over the next 6 years, help half of all teachers in Head Start earn their bachelor's degree, and help all assistant teachers work toward completing a CDA or another early education credential. These are ambitious goals. But we know that learning and development of young children require good teachers and that there is a strong link between educational qualifications and the quality of programs. The quality of a program doesn't just depend on the educational background of its teachers, which is why we are also calling for professional development and a career advancement plan for every Head Start employee including family service workers, assistant teachers, and curriculum coordinators. We have established new partnerships to increase staff in Head Start who are prepared to serve the diverse children enrolled in the programs. Most of all, we have worked to ensure that Head Start agencies have a dedicated stream of funds to provide needed training for teachers. The reauthorization dedicates $2 million this year to local training and improvement efforts, much of which will be used to improve and strengthen the Head Start workforce. We commit to confronting the persistent challenge of compensating Head Start teachers as the professionals that they are. Head Start teachers earn half the salary of kindergarten teachers, and turnover is about 11 percent per year. This conference report commits 40 percent of new funds in Head Start to program quality and teacher salaries, to do more to attract and retain caring and committed leaders. It ensures that each Head Start Center will receive an annual cost-of-living increase to keep up with the rising costs of operation and overhead. We grant additional flexibility in this reauthorization for Head Start to serve thousands of additional low-income children in need, by including families just above the Federal poverty level. It is essential for Head Start to prioritize its services to the neediest families in their communities. But this new flexibility enables those living near poverty and earning less than what they need to get by to receive assistance too. It is the right thing to do, and it is what Head Start is all about. The reauthorization also makes a long-overdue commitment to expanding Head Start programs in Indian country, and programs for migrant and seasonal farmworkers. By reserving up to $20 million annually to expand services in these programs, we can hopefully reach an additional 5,500 migrant children and an additional 5,100 Native American children living in poverty. New provisions are also included to enhance services for homeless children, children who are English language learners, and children with disabilities in order to ensure that these populations receive the care and attention they deserve. Accountability is a cornerstone of excellence and should start early. Head Start should be accountable for its commitment to provide safe and healthy learning environments, to support each child's individual pattern of development and learning, to build community partnerships in services to children, and to involve parents in their child's growth. This reauthorization makes significant progress in increasing accountability and investing in excellence in Head Start. It continues the comprehensive monitoring that has become a hallmark of Head Start, and ensures that reviews are fair and balanced in order to account for challenges and strengths in programs. It also establishes a new system for the designation of Head Start grants, to be phased in over the next several years. We know that the vast majority of Head Start programs provide outstanding services--fewer than 20 percent of programs are found to be deficient each year. But where serious deficiencies exist, we must see that substantial problems do not languish at the expense of children. If a local program is unable to meet Head Start's high standards of quality, timely action should be taken. This new system will facilitate accountability and funding decisions, and do so in a manner that is transparent, fair, and responsive to the local needs of families and children. We have established greater accountability for enrollment in programs and delineated a clear system of governance in Head Start. The reauthorization also takes important steps to expand Early Head Start. Since its inception, results have proven that Early Head Start is one of the most effective programs of the Department of Health and Human Services. In this legislation, we improve the training and assistance network serving Early Head Start and guarantee a dedicated expert in each State to work with programs to meet the needs of infants and toddlers. We also expand the screening available to infants exposed to trauma, violence, or other circumstances detrimental to their development. We commit to expanding Early Head Start to serve an additional 8,000 low-income infants and toddlers over the next 5 years. As in elementary and secondary education, reform in early childhood education requires resources. Today, half of all children eligible for Head Start have no access to it. Early Head Start however, serves only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers--we leave behind a shameful 97 percent. When Sargent Shriver discussed the war on poverty, he said ``You have to put immense resources into winning a war.'' He was right, and he wasn't talking about wars like Iraq. He was talking about the war on poverty. This conference report increases authorizations for Head Start to $7.3 billion in fiscal year 2008, $7.6 billion in fiscal year 2009, and $7.9 billion in fiscal year 2010. On a bipartisan basis, the conferees have signaled a commitment to invest more in our youngest children, and to assist Head Start in responding to the changing and evolving needs of the communities it serves. Research shows that the first 5 years of life make an immense difference for a child. Those who attend high-quality early education programs are more likely to do well when they reach elementary school, are less likely to be held back a grade, and are more likely to graduate from high school and go on to college. Our Federal investment in early childhood education clearly pays off-- for every dollar invested in high-quality early education, there is a 16 dollar return later in life. All children--regardless of their background--deserve to learn and develop. We need to strengthen early childhood for young children, in order to help them succeed later in school and in life. A comprehensive curriculum and a stable and well-qualified workforce are cornerstones of a good early education. I am especially pleased that this reauthorization of Head Start includes a blueprint to strengthen the array of early childhood programs and services for young children. The bill establishes an Early Childhood Advisory Council to examine needs of early childhood programs, develop a plan to improve professional development, upgrade standards, enhance collaboration among programs, and improve data collection. More than 40 States have early learning standards in place or under development. States such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Illinois have developed the systems needed to improve program quality and expand access to programs in the early years. We need to build on that progress. States that are ready to take on the challenge of implementing needed improvements in their early education programs will qualify for incentive grants to get such improvements under way. One of our highest priorities in Congress is to expand educational opportunities for every American. In this age of globalization, every citizen deserves a chance to acquire the skills needed to compete in the modern economy. That challenge begins at birth, and accelerates in the early years of life well before children even begin kindergarten. This reauthorization helps us reach this essential goal. It keeps Head Start on its successful path, and enables it to continue to thrive and improve. We still haven't won the war on poverty in America. But thanks to Head Start, we are getting closer. Day by day, and one child at a time. This conference report continues that indispensable progress, and I urge my colleagues to approve it. Mr. President, we have others who desire to speak at this time. I will have a chance with the remaining time, perhaps, to get into some of the additional items. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, who has been particularly involved in making sure parents are going to be included in this program. She has been such an outspoken advocate for the homeless and foster children who so often get left out and left behind. She is a former schoolteacher herself and member of a school board. She brings extraordinary knowledge, experience, and understanding to this problem. We are very fortunate to have her on our committee, and the Senate is very fortunate to have her as well. I hope they listen to her message. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Wyoming. He believes we ought to listen to experts before we actually legislate, which was a rather dramatic thought to many around here. He certainly is right. He reminds us of our unfinished business in terms of higher education and the workforce legislation. We are strongly committed, and we will get a response on that. Unanimous-Consent Agreement--H. Con. Res. 258

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the adoption of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1429, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 258, a correcting resolution; that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, I would take a few moments to mention the staff who worked on this bill. I want to personally mention those who have worked so hard on this legislation. Some have been working on this for 4 years. I will not get into the reasons for that. This has been a very long and, in the past, contentious piece of legislation and without them, there is no way we could have completed this bill. I would like to thank Michael Myers, Carmel Martin, Roberto Rodriguez, David Johns, Lily Clark, Liz Maher, and Raquel Alvarenga from my staff. I would like to thank Katherine Graham Hildum of Senator Dodd's staff; Janelle Krishnamoorthy of Senator Harkin's staff; Mildred Otero of Senator Clinton's staff; Michael Yudin of Senator Bingaman's staff; Robin Juliano of Senator Mikulski's staff; Seth Gerson of Senator Reed's staff; Kathryn Young of Senator Murray's staff; Will Jawando of Senator Brown's staff; Huck Gutman of Senator Sanders' staff; and Steve Robinson of Senator Obama's staff. This has been a bipartisan process all the way. I would also like to thank Senator Enzi's wonderful staff, specifically Katherine McGuire, Beth Buehlmann, Lindsay Hunsicker, and Adam Briddell. I would also like to thank David Cleary and Sarah Rittling of Senator Alexander's staff; Celia Sims of Senator Burr's staff; Juliann Andreen of Senator Hatch's staff; Allison Dembeck of Senator Gregg's staff; Elizabeth Floyd of Senator Coburn's staff; Karen McCarthy of Senator Murkowski's staff; Suzanne Singleterry of Senator Allard's staff; Glee Smith of Senator Isakson's staff; and Alison Anway of Senator Roberts' staff. It is important to mention the work done by our colleagues in the House and I would like to thank Ruth Freidman of Congressman Miller's staff; James Bergeron, Kristen Duncan and Susan Ross of Congressman McKeon's staff; Lloyd Horwich of Congressman Kildee's staff and Jessica Gross of Congressman Castle's staff for all of their work on this legislation. I would like to thank especially Roberto Rodriguez and David Johns who have taken the lead on Head Start in my office. Their good work has made all the difference. I know Roberto is especially pleased to see the Senate and House pass this conference report, as he has worked on this legislation for several years now. I commend him for his expertise, diligence, good nature and all of his efforts. Mr. President, finally, the Head Start Program reaches the neediest children in this country. It reaches them to help and assist by providing health care, teaching proper nutrition, and by supporting proper development of cognitive abilities to ensure that children are ready to successfully transition to school. Head Start is targeted to the neediest children in this country. Even with the small numbers we reach--we only reach a million, and there are 4 million poor children who are between ages 0 and 5--we see the difference it makes. Head Start raises them to a level playing ground. That is what our country is really about--trying to raise people to a level playing ground. Head Start alone does not guarantee success, but it gives them the opportunity to be successful. If we have a group in our society that needs this kind of support, it is our children. As pointed out in this debate, through no fault of their own many children are born into difficult and challenging circumstances. As a nation we have a responsibility to get them up to a point where they can succeed in school and in life. That is what Head Start is about--a recognition that our Nation believes that children who are living in poverty, in some of the most challenging circumstances, should have the opportunity to be on a level playing field. Finally, there is one thing we have learned in the area of education; that is, the more resources are targeted to early education, the better the opportunities these children have to succeed. In this reauthorization we have taken advantage of the lessons we have learned from Head Start's successful history and built upon excellent recommendations made by members of our committee. This is a very solid and important piece of legislation that will make a difference in the lives of millions of children. I urge the Senate to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following three letters in support of the Head Start reauthorization conference report be printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks on the conference report.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.