Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend William D. Wagoner of Royal Oak, MI, who last week retired from a long and distinguished career in public service. For the past 35 years, Dr. Wagoner dedicated his career to the public good, working to establish innovative and sustainable practices in urban planning, emergency management, and teaching the next generation of planners and emergency responders. His extraordinary career spanned the entire spectrum of government service, from the local level to the Federal level. Dr. Wagoner began his career in service by teaching history and political science at a public high school in Clarkston, MI. He went on to earn his master's degree in urban planning and his doctorate in public administration. For 18 productive years, he served as assistant city manager in Berkley, MI, a large suburb of Detroit, and for the past 16 years has been director of planning and community development for Livingston County, the fastest growing county in Michigan. Dr. Wagoner has written several books on urban planning and emergency response, and has served for decades as an instructor for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. President Kennedy asked a generation of Americans to give of themselves for our country and for its future. Dr. Wagoner answered President Kennedy's call and has inspired countless others, who have worked with him or who have been his students, to do the same. I congratulate Dr. Wagoner for his remarkable public service, and I wish him a long and healthy and happy retirement. He has served America well.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to Wayne Riddle, who is retiring at the end of this year from the Congressional Research Service. Wayne is the model of a dedicated and talented public servant. He has spent his career working out of the public eye for the greater good, providing excellent assistance to all of us in Congress for over three decades, and also taking time to mentor younger staffers. Wayne is a graduate of the University of Virginia. He earned a master's degree in economics from George Washington University while working at the Congressional Research Service, where he has spent the past 36 years serving as a key analyst on elementary and secondary education, and twice as head of the Education and Labor Section at CRS. Throughout that time, Congress has given high priority to strengthening the Nation's schools, and Wayne has been helping us immensely every step of the way. He began not long after the passage of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--the Federal Government's major program to improve educational opportunities for low-income students. Wayne has been indispensable in our work on every subsequent reauthorization of the act and on all our other efforts on elementary and secondary education, including the Goals 2000 Act during the Clinton administration and the No Child Left Behind Act during the current Bush administration. His guidance, support and knowledge on issues big and small have been invaluable to us time and again. As Wayne retires to devote more time to his family, I know that his colleagues at CRS will miss him, and so will we. I wish him a long, healthy, and happy retirement. He certainly deserves it, because he has served our country well, and made a very real difference in the lives of countless children who have benefited in their education because of his expertise and dedication.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, next week we will celebrate Thanksgiving--a holiday to be with family and to give thanks for the many blessings we enjoy. But this year, American families gathering around the Thanksgiving table are burdened with serious worries: Are we going to lose our home? Can we afford to retire when our savings have been wiped out? Will we have to choose between sending our children to college and paying our medical bills? One of the greatest hardships millions of Americans are facing is the loss of their jobs. The current job market is the worst in the past quarter century. Over 1 million people have lost their jobs this year-- half a million in September and October alone. Last week, more workers filed for unemployment benefits than at any time since the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Economists predict the unemployment rate will continue to climb from its current 14-year high of 6.5 percent to well over 8 percent in the coming year. Earlier this year, Congress approved additional unemployment benefits for workers. That was an important step, but families need additional support. Unemployment benefits have expired for many workers, and finding a new job is far more difficult as the recession deepens. More than 2 million Americans have been unable to find work for more than 6 months. If Congress fails to extend benefits again this year, nearly 1.2 million Americans will have exhausted their benefits by the end of the year. That's why this legislation is so essential. It provides 7 additional weeks of unemployment assistance to workers whose benefits have expired, and an additional 13 weeks for jobless workers in high- unemployment states. This bill has already passed the House overwhelmingly, with strong bipartisan support. By acting today, we will deliver immediate aid to many of the neediest Americans who are unable to find work. Not only does the extension of unemployment benefits provide a lifeline for struggling families, it also serves as a needed and immediate stimulus for the economy--each dollar of unemployment benefits generates $1.64 in economic growth. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical extension of unemployment assistance. Providing these additional unemployment benefits, however, is not the only step we must take to help working families meet the tough challenges that lie ahead. Jumpstarting our economy and restoring American prosperity will take bolder vision and more decisive action. We need to create good jobs for the millions of Americans who want to work. That means investing in our workers, investing in our infrastructure, and investing in technology for the future. It also means repairing the broken safety nets, so that more families who are being hurt by this downturn can get back on their feet. I wish we could have done more in this lame-duck, but at least we are taking an important step. I look forward to working with our new President and the new Congress in January to meet these difficult challenges and to restore the vitality of our economy.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we continue to debate national strategy and the way ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is one thing that is not debatable, and that is the courage and valor of our troops. Today, I wish to honor one of those brave troops, MSgt Brendan O'Connor, a medic in the Special Forces of the U.S. Army. Master Sergeant O'Connor distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in action during a fierce battle in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, when his small detachment engaged an estimated 200 Taliban fighters on June 24, 2006. For his heroism, Master Sergeant O'Connor, who held the rank of sergeant first class at the time of the battle, was honored with the Nation's second highest award for valor, the Distinguished Service Cross. After awarding the Distinguished Service Cross to Brendan, ADM Eric Olson, the head of U.S. Special Operations Command, hailed the contributions of the Army's Special Forces and said, ``Master Sergeant Brendan O'Connor exemplifies the spirit of these warriors.'' Leading a quick reaction force during a mission against Taliban leaders, Master Sergeant O'Connor and his team found themselves outnumbered and surrounded by hundreds of Taliban fighters in one of the most hotly contested areas of Afghanistan. After calmly maneuvering his force through enemy Taliban positions, Master Sergeant O'Connor crawled over 150 yards alone through enemy machine-gun fire across an open field to rescue two wounded comrades. Rallying and motivating his severely outnumbered team throughout a day-long battle, he saved the lives of 21 soldiers and prevented his detachment's destruction while inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy. The heroism of Brendan O'Connor and his team in Afghanistan received national media attention on the CBS News program ``60 Minutes,'' which aired a segment on April 20 of this year, ``Ambush in Afghanistan.'' Brendan O'Connor comes from a long and distinguished family history of military service to our Nation, with deep roots in the U.S. Army and at West Point. Brendan's father, LTC Mortimer O'Connor, who graduated from West Point in 1953, was killed in action in Vietnam in 1968 while leading men into battle as commander of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Infantry, in the famed ``Big Red One,'' the oldest continuously serving division in the U.S. Army. A true ``warrior-poet'', Mort O'Connor was not only decorated several times for valor on the battlefield, but taught English at West Point and earned a graduate degree in English literature from the University of Pennsylvania. A remembrance of Mort O'Connor in a March 1978 West Point Alumni publication recalled his spirit on the athletic fields as a young cadet: When victorious he would exultantly claim to be descended from ancient Irish warrior kings. And it may be true, for he had in him a wild romanticism, a tragic lilt of heart, which only the Irish have. Brendan O'Connor's grandfather, and Mort O'Connor's father, was BG William ``Bill'' O'Connor, a graduate of West Point in 1924. Bill O'Connor served in Europe in World War II, including in the Battle of the Bulge. And three of Brendan's great-uncles followed their brother Bill to West Point--Richard O'Connor in the Class of 1926, George Brendan O'Connor in the Class of 1936, and Roderic O'Connor in the Class of 1941. Today, the O'Connor family tradition of military service continues with the next generation. Attending his Distinguished Service Cross award ceremony on April 30th were two of Brendan's cousins, Brian O'Connor, who is now at the Air Force Academy, and Rory O'Connor, who is now at West Point. We are grateful to families such as the O'Connors, who for generations have answered the Nation's call and worn the uniform with such courage and distinction. There is no finer example of this tradition than MSgt Brendan O'Connor and his heroic action in Afghanistan. I ask unanimous consent to have the full text of his Distinguished Service Cross citation, as well as the narrative that accompanies the award, printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Your support of the Zumwalt program is appreciated.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, the language also identifies a requirement for the Navy to have future shipbuilding requirements reviewed by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, or JROC, before moving forward with any modifications to the existing Navy shipbuilding program of record and before any funds can be obligated for surface combatants. I understand that this requirement is a result of significant instability in the Navy's surface combatant shipbuilding program; however, I would like to be clear that the intent of the bill is to award a contract for a third DDG-1000 in fiscal year 2009 that would be split funded between fiscal year 2009 an fiscal year 2010.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr Chairman, I would like to clarify language included in the fiscal year 2009 Defense Appropriations bill that addresses the Navy's DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer program.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose H.R. 6842. This bill would be a disastrous blow to gun safety in the District of Columbia. For almost three decades, the District's handgun and assault weapon ban has helped to reduce the risk of deadly gun violence. City residents and public officials overwhelmingly supported the ban, and courts have upheld it--until the Supreme Court's recent misguided decision in the Heller case in June. Now, we are facing an orchestrated assault that jeopardizes public safety. It is hard to understand how the increased availability of handguns and assault weapons in our Nation's Capital will make residents and visitors safer. Introducing more guns onto the streets and into the community will only increase the number of violent deaths in DC, including homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. The increased availability of firearms will make it more likely that deadly violence will erupt in our public buildings, offices, and public spaces. This bill will have dangerous consequences for residents and visitors alike. It removes criminal penalties for possession of unregistered firearms. It legalizes the sale of assault weapons in the District. It allows handguns and assault weapons to be kept legally in the city's homes and workplaces. It hobbles the authority of the Mayor and the City Council to deal with gun violence. Absurdly, this bill even prevents the City Council from enacting any laws that ``discourage'' gun ownership or require safe storage of firearms. As Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has emphasized, this bill sets no age limit for possession of guns, including military-style weapons. It permits a person who is voluntarily committed to a mental institution to own a gun the day after the person is released. It prevents gun registration, even for the purpose of letting police know who has guns and tracing guns used in crimes. It prevents the DC government from adopting any regulations on guns, leaving only a bare Federal statute that would leave DC with one of the most permissive gun laws in the Nation. This bill is a frontal assault on the well-established principle of home rule. It is an insult to the 580,000 citizens of the District of Columbia. It tramples on the rights of its elected leaders and local residents to determine for themselves the policies that govern their homes, streets, neighborhoods, and workplaces. Congress wouldn't dare do this to any State, and it shouldn't do it to the District of Columbia. Congress has consistently opposed giving the residents of the District the full voting representation in Congress they deserve. Many of our colleagues have frequently attempted to interfere with local policymaking and spending decisions. This bill is a blatant interference with DC law enforcement by denying the right of the City Council to regulate firearms and firearm ownership. I commend Senator Feinstein and Senator Lautenberg for their leadership in opposing this shameful legislation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless, special-interest bill that will endanger the safety of the District of Columbia's residents and visitors. The solution to DC's gun crime problem lies in strengthening the Nation's lax gun laws, not weakening those in the District. The tragic and graphic stories of gun violence that capture front-page headlines in the District show that current gun-safety laws need to be strengthened, not abolished. I have long been committed to reasonable gun control laws, and I am concerned that the Supreme Court's decision on the DC gun ban opens a Pandora's box. Much of the progress we have made in making Americans safer by placing reasonable restrictions on the possession of firearms is now in doubt. It is a bitter irony that this gross setback comes in the name of a right to self-defense, and I urge the Senate to oppose it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in addition to the many other vital matters the Congress has considered this year, the issue of pay equity remains of critical importance. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would restore a fair rule for filing claims of pay discrimination based on race, color, gender, national origin, religion, disability, or age. This measure, which passed the House last year, has broad public support, and I hope the Senate will pass it as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a series of letters of support for the bill which I have received from civil rights and workers' organizations.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I regret that I am not able to be in the Senate today to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico. Throughout my years in the Senate, I have been honored to serve with some of the brightest, most committed elected leaders in our Nation. But Senator Domenici stands out in particular. He has the unique ability to rise above partisanship and find real solutions to real problems. He comes to every issue with a deep knowledge and desire to improve the lives of the people of New Mexico and the Nation. It has been a special honor to work with him for nearly 36 years, including many years on mental health issues. We both share a deep commitment to those issues because we know the immense toll that mental illness has taken on beloved members of our families, his daughter Clare and my sister Rosemary. Pete and I are on opposites of the aisle in the Senate, but he has never approached mental health issues in a partisan way. Instead, he thinks of himself as an advocate for mental health reform and basic fairness for all our citizens. Through Pete's skillful guidance and leadership, Congress has made major progress in breaking down the walls of discrimination against the mentally ill, especially in the judicial system and in education. On reform in mental health care, it has been a long, difficult battle for over a decade, but Senator Domenici's will and dedication has never wavered. Years ago, young Pete played baseball for the Albuquerque Dukes, which was part of the old Brooklyn Dodgers farm system. Back in those days, disappointed Dodger fans coined the phrase, ``Wait 'til next year'' after coming up short of a championship season so often. Now, at last, because of Pete, Americans suffering from mental illness may not have to ``wait 'til next year'' any longer. We are now closer than ever to finally passing mental health parity and putting an end to the longstanding shameful practice of discrimination in health insurance against persons with mental illness. On this issue, Senator Domenici has been absolutely relentless and absolutely brilliant. We could never have made it this far without him. My only regret is that at the signing ceremony, when President Bush signs this landmark bill into law and looks up and hands the signing pen to Senator Domenici, we will all be sad that Pete is retiring from the Senate this year. He has been a continuing source of hope and inspiration to me and to millions of other people and their families across the Nation. He has made a truly extraordinary difference in the lives of families struggling with mental illness. It has been a great honor to serve with such a talented and dedicated public servant as Senator Pete Domenici. I will miss him very much in the years ahead. John Warner Mr. President, I wish very much that I could be here in person today to pay tribute to the extraordinary career of my friend John Warner. I know that when we return to the Senate in January, all of us on both sides of the aisle will miss the decency, thoughtfulness, commitment, and friendship of our outstanding colleague from Virginia. We often speak about the high value of friendship in the Senate, about the importance of sustaining it despite the strong political and philosophical differences that often erupt between Senators, and about the way it sustains us in times of personal and political crisis. I know that many of my colleagues feel the same way, and I am sure we all cherish our friendship with John Warner. The Senate will not be the same without him. In many ways, he epitomizes the words of Shakespeare, that we should ``do as adversaries do in law, strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.'' John's life is proof that individual persons make a difference for our country, if they have the will to try. From the time he enlisted in the Navy at the age of 17 during World War II, to joining the Marine Corps in 1950 after the outbreak of the Korean war, to his service as Secretary of the Navy, and to his brilliant career as a Senator representing the people of Virginia, John Warner has demonstrated a commitment to public service that few people in the history of this Nation can match. As my brother, President Kennedy, once said: ``Any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction, `I served in the United States Navy.' '' It is been a special privilege, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, to serve with John Warner, particularly during his years as chairman or ranking member of the committee. John deserves immense credit for his contributions to our country, and America is a stronger and better Nation today because of his life's work. Perhaps more than anyone I know, Senator Warner understands that we are Americans first and members of a political party second. Throughout his 30 years in the Senate, he has consistently demonstrated an all- too-rare willingness to reach across the aisle to achieve results for the American people. When the partisan passions of the day become heated in this Chamber and threaten progress on fundamental issues, we always know that John Warner is available to help find the way forward--even if it costs him politically. President Kennedy would have called him a profile in courage, and I agree. It is no secret that John and I don't agree on everything, but even in times of disagreement, I have never questioned that his position was the result of deep thought and his special wisdom and experience. Our Founders would regard the Senate career of John Warner as a shining example of the type of person they envisioned should serve in this body of our Government. I am sad to see him leave, but as John and his wife Jean look to the future and the new challenges and possibilities that lie ahead, we know that he will always be available to answer the call of service, and we are very grateful for the opportunity to have served with him. We will miss him very much. wayne allard

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, in strongly supporting Senate passage of S. 2304, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008. This bicameral, bipartisan legislation demonstrates strong Federal support for helping local communities address the current crisis in which far too many persons with mental illness are subjected to incarceration, not treatment. With full funding, this proposal has the potential to achieve significant reforms in the criminal justice system's treatment of people diagnosed with mental illness. I commend Senator Domenici for his leadership on this bill and on many other initiatives to improve our Nation's mental health system. I also commend the leadership of Representatives Bobby Scott and Forbes in the House of Representatives on this issue. This important legislation will promote cooperative initiatives that will significantly reduce recidivism and improve treatment outcomes for mentally ill offenders. Based on the most recent studies by the Bureau of Justice, more than half of all prison and jail inmates in 2005 had a mental health problem, including 56 percent of inmates in State prisons, 45 percent of Federal prisoners, and 64 percent of jail inmates. According to a report by the Council of State Governments' Criminal Justice-Mental Health Consensus Project, the rate of mental illness in State prisons and jails is at least three times the rate in the general population, and at least three-quarters of those incarcerated have a substance abuse disorder. Far too often, individuals are subjected to the criminal justice system, when what is really needed is treatment and support for mental illness or substance abuse disorders. Families often resort in desperation to the police in order to obtain treatment and assistance for a loved one suffering from an extreme episode of a mental illness. During times of such distress, families feel they have no other alternative because persons with symptoms such as paranoia, exaggerated actions, or impaired judgment are unable to recognize the need for treatment. It is unconscionable, and may well be unconstitutional, for these vulnerable individuals to be further marginalized after they are incarcerated. Too often they are denied even minimal treatment because of inadequate resources. Most mentally ill offenders who come into contact with the criminal justice system are charged with low-level, nonviolent crimes. Once behind bars, they may well face an environment that further exacerbates symptoms of mental illness that might otherwise be manageable with proper treatment, and they may soon be back in prison as a result of insufficient and inadequate services when they are released. This bill reauthorizes critical programs to move away from troubled systems that often result in the escalating incarceration of individuals with mental illness. Through this legislation, State and local correctional facilities will be able to create appropriate, cost- effective solutions. In particular, I am very supportive of the crisis intervention teams that many communities have developed to expand cooperation between the mental health system and law enforcement. These teams have been very effective in enabling officers to spend less time arresting mentally ill individuals and more time directing them toward treatment. I also support the continued expansion of mental health courts, so that defendants can be placed into judicially supervised community-based treatment programs, which often result in better outcomes and reduced recidivism. To date, we have seen only a fraction of the possible potential of this legislation, because only a small number of communities have been able to benefit from this legislation. Because of limited Federal funding, only 11 percent of applicants have been able to receive one of these grants, even though demand for them is high. No magic solution will solve the problems faced by communities across America. But this bill will effectively address local needs by fostering greater cooperation between law enforcement and mental health providers. In addition, members of State and local law enforcement need access to training and other alternatives to improve safety and responsiveness. It reauthorizes the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment Program and maintains its authorized funding at $50 million a year. The legislation also authorizes grants to States and local governments to train law enforcement personnel on procedures to identify and respond more appropriately to persons with mental illness, and develop specialized receiving centers to assess individuals in custody. The broad support for this legislation includes the Council of State Governments, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Sheriffs Association, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Campaign for Mental Health Reform and Mental Health America. These organizations understand it will provide much needed assistance to help solve this complex problem. Courts, law enforcement, corrections and mental health communities have all come together in support of this legislation, and Congress is right to respond. Individuals and their loved ones struggle with countless challenges and barriers during a mental health crisis. With this bill, Congress will be providing significant new support for needed cooperative efforts between law enforcement and mental health experts. I am pleased that the Senate supports this legislation, and I am optimistic it will be enacted before the end of this current session of Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank all my colleagues in the Senate and their staffs who have worked so long and hard and well to bring us to this historic day on mental health parity. In particular, I recognize our late friend and colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, who championed this fight for so many years. Without the leadership of Senator Wellstone and our colleague Senator Domenici, we would not be here today. Americans believe we are all created equal. This legislation brings us closer to that ideal by ending a particularly invidious form of discrimination--discrimination in health insurance against tens of millions of Americans who suffer from mental illness. One in five Americans will face mental illness this year. Today at least, the Senate can say to them loud and clear, you will no longer have to suffer in the shadows. Through the miracle of modern medicine, mental illnesses are just as treatable as physical illnesses--but patients with mental illnesses are still treated very differently. That difference is unfair and unacceptable. It makes no sense for health insurance companies to charge patients more for mental health care than they do for physical health services. It is tragic when any family member is diagnosed with an illness; it is heart-wrenching for a parent to watch their child suffer. But the tragedy is even greater, when treatment is denied solely because the child's illness is a mental illness. This discrimination can tear families apart, exactly when they should be coming together to support their loved one. The last thing any parent should have to worry about is whether insurance will pay for the needed care and treatment. When mental illnesses of our fellow citizens are treated, they get their health back--and we get back our friends, our family members, and our coworkers. The parity legislation before us is a landmark agreement after 10 years of stalemate, not only in Congress, but also with the mental health community, businesses, and the insurance industry. Now, we have come together and agreed at long last to end the senseless discrimination at all levels of society that has plagued persons living with mental illness. Together, we have worked to end injustice that has denied them the care and treatment they deserve. We have agreed that equal treatment of mental illness is not just an insurance issue--it is also an issue of civil rights. At its heart, mental health parity is an issue of fundamental justice, and today that fundamental justice arrives in the lives of millions of our fellow Americans, and I thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for making this day possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we celebrate Constitution Day, the 221st birthday of the founding document of our country. Now, more than ever, it is time to reaffirm our commitment to defending the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, and to recognize that strengthening civic education is an important part of this commitment. ``Democracy must be reborn in every generation, and education is its midwife,'' wrote John Dewey. In fact, civic education was the original mission of American public education. Sadly, students today know too little about the civil liberties established in the Constitution that define our American way of life. On the most recent national civics assessment in 2006, only 20 percent of eighth grade students scored at or above the proficient level. Less than one-third could identify the purpose of the Constitution. Less than a fifth of high school seniors could explain how citizen participation strengthens democracy. Gaps in understanding like these translate later in life to reduced voter turnout, decreased civic engagement and community service, and a weaker sense of national identity. As a result of legislation enacted in 2005, more students across the country are receiving instruction on the Constitution, civics, and American history in their schools today. To become responsible citizens, students need to know that the Constitution is not about the 39 men who signed it. It is a vital document that shapes events today and in the future. Instilling an understanding of the American ideals of liberty, justice, equality, and civic responsibility should be a central task in every school, every day. It should encourage the type of civic-mindedness displayed by the actions of community-based organizations and private citizens who rushed to aid victims of Hurricane Katrina and the September 11 terrorist attacks. The long-term health of our democracy and America's standing in the world depend on our own understanding of our past. In the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act next year, we can strengthen our commitment to history and civics education, and encourage them to be integrated into all subject areas, extracurricular activities, and service-based learning. Our Nation's Founders understood that education was critical to the strength of our democracy. As James Madison said to Thomas Jefferson after the Constitution was written, ``Educate and inform the whole mass of the people . . . They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.'' As we commemorate the anniversary of the ratification of the Constitution, those words are especially timely, because they remind us that their work alone cannot sustain American democracy. Our democracy depends heavily on enlightened and engaged citizens, and high-quality civic education is the best way to ensure that its fundamental principles will continue to guide America for the next 221 years, as we and future generations do our best ``to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.'' May it always be so.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I strongly support the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, and I commend Senator Harkin and Senator Hatch for their leadership on this important measure to restore the vitality of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which has jurisdiction over this legislation, I know too well how urgently this legislation is needed to protect the civil rights of persons with disabilities. America's strength and success as a nation have been fueled by its founding promise of equal justice for all. Yet for much of the Nation's history, persons with disabilities were treated as people who needed charity, not opportunity. Out of ignorance, the Nation accepted discrimination for decades, and yielded to fear and prejudice. In the 35 years since passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which outlawed discrimination against persons with disabilities in programs and activities receiving Federal funds, our Nation has made great progress toward making the promise of equal justice a reality for such persons. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 continued this progress by extending housing protections to persons with disabilities, but it was the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 which opened wide the doors of opportunity by providing long-overdue protections against job discrimination and greater access to public accommodations. The 1990 act was a giant step toward guaranteeing that persons with disabilities would be full participants in the American dream. Unfortunately, however, in many job discrimination cases, the courts have interpreted the act so narrowly that many of us who were original sponsors of the act barely recognize it today. Courts have ruled that many of the very persons the act was designed to protect are not covered by its provisions. These decisions have improperly shifted the emphasis in ADA cases away from the central question of whether discrimination occurred. The bill we are considering today reaffirms Congress's intent that the courts should interpret the ADA broadly to fulfill its important purpose. In deciding whether to grant relief under the act, courts should respect the act's goal of expanding opportunities for persons with disabilities. In particular, courts have narrowed the first prong of the ADA's definition of disability, which defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that ``substantially limits'' one or more life activities. As explained in the statement of managers, the bill seeks to remedy this problem by clearly rejecting the reasoning of cases like Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams in 2002, in which the Supreme Court held that this prong of the definition must be ``be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled,'' and that ``substantially limits'' means ``prevents or severely restricts.'' The bill also rejects the Supreme Court's earlier holding in Sutton v. United Air Lines, which also imposed too heavy a burden on plaintiffs seeking relief under the act. Although the House of Representatives' consideration of the pending legislation was of significant assistance to the Senate on this issue, in one important respect the Senate diverged from the reasoning expressed in the reports of the committees of jurisdiction in the House. The House version of the bill defined ``substantially limits'' as ``materially restricts,'' and the House Committee reports explained this term with reference to a spectrum or range of severity. The term ``materially restricts'' in the House bill and these portions of the House reports set an inappropriately high standard for the determination of whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity and pose the risk of confusing the threshold determination of who is covered by the act. Fortunately, our Senate bill avoids this problem and provides the broader coverage needed to correct the excessively restrictive and unintended interpretation in the litigation. In addition, the bill's findings and purposes section states that ``the question of whether an individual's impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis.'' This statement makes clear that courts normally should not require an extensive examination of an individual's disability in cases under the ADA. In such cases the main focus should be on whether discrimination has occurred, not on the threshold issue of whether an individual's impairment qualifies as a disability. As the Senate Statement of Managers explains, courts should not interpret this statement to constrain plaintiffs from offering evidence needed to establish that their impairment is substantially limiting. Of course, this statement in the bill does not impose any limitation on what evidence the party with the burden of proof on the issue of disability may offer. Indeed, such a position would be inconsistent with clearly established evidentiary and procedural rules, and constitutional requirements as well. The party with the burden of proving disability is free to introduce all the evidence of disability that he or she believes is appropriate, consistent with evidentiary and procedural rules. As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has stated in a related context, the plaintiff's evidentiary burden is minimal. Our goal in this bill is to greatly enhance the protections against discrimination for persons with disabilities, and I hope these clarifications will avoid further confusion in future litigation. I am proud to join with Senators Harkin and Hatch and the other sponsors in support of the act, and I strongly urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is always sad when a World War II veteran leaves us. These men and women served our country with immense courage, skill, and dedication, and came home from war to make immense contributions to our society. They have rightly been called ``the greatest generation,'' and we mourn the loss of each and every one of them. On February 18, another member of the ``greatest generation'' died. Navy veteran Leo Kelly was 87 and lived in Burlington Township in New Jersey with his wife of 58 years, Claire. Leo was the father of six daughters and a son, and I came to know him because his daughter Beth is married to my nephew Joe Kennedy, a son of Robert Kennedy and a former Congressman from Massachusetts in the House of Representatives. It is Leo Kelly's extraordinary career in the Navy that I want to call to the attention of my colleagues in Congress. Leo Kelly answered the Nation's call soon after World War II began. He enlisted in the Navy in 1942 at the age of 21 and retired in 1964 with the rank of lieutenant commander. He became a Navy fighter pilot and earned numerous awards and medals for valor and bravery under fire during the war. He served on the USS Langley, which was named for the great American scientist and aviation pioneer Samuel Pierpont Langley. The ship was on the front lines during the critical final years of the war in the Pacific, and the crew as a whole was cited in glowing terms by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal for their outstanding heroism in action that contributed so much to our Nation's victory. Leo Kelly himself was awarded both the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal for his special heroism on January 12, 1945 in an attack on Japanese shipping in Camranh Bay in French Indo-China, which is now Vietnam. As the citation by President Roosevelt stated. Kelly fearlessly dove his plane through a heavy curtain of powerful anti-aircraft fire to score two direct hits with his rockets and contribute to the damaging of an enemy merchant vessel. Then, joining in an attack against a group of hostile seaplanes on the water, he executed a series of strafing runs and, striking furiously at his target, personally destroyed one of the enemy aircraft. Courage like that is what made Leo Kelly a true American hero, and the Nation owes him a debt we can never fully repay. After the war, Leo Kelly continued his career in the Navy for nearly two decades. From 1953 to 1955 he was assigned to a Naval ROTC unit in Philadelphia and earned his bachelor's degree in political science and attended the Navy's postgraduate school. He retired from the Navy in 1964 and went to work for Tenneco Plastics Company in Burlington, where he and Claire raised their wonderful family. He had many interests. He was an excellent golfer, and had played for various Navy teams early in his career. He loved classical music, especially playing the violin. He had a profound faith in God, was a member of St. Paul's Roman Catholic Church in Burlington, and had been a member of the Bridge Prison Ministry. He was also a wonderful family man, as so many members of his family said so movingly at the service held for him in February. His daughter Beth said it beautifully in her eulogy at the service: Our father was a strong, quiet force in our lives, guiding us, always encouraging, smiling or nodding his approval. . . . He always adjusted to whatever came his way. The very qualities that made him excel at being a pilot prepared him for a life with six daughters and one son. America is grateful to Leo Kelly for all he did for our country during his extraordinary life, and I know that future generations of his family will always treasure his memory. I ask unanimous consent to have his daughter Beth's eulogy printed in the Record, along with the full texts of the World War II citations he received.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to personally thank the two leaders and Senator Enzi. This is important legislation involving national security. I am grateful for the opportunity to work with my friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, to try to make recommendations here in the Senate. I know there are diverse views on this issue. We will try to work out an orderly procedure so that Members will be able to get their views out and considered in the Senate and do it in a timely way. Again, I thank the two leaders and the Senator from Wyoming as well for his cooperation, as always.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I just want to say in terms of the voting that we are prepared to vote on our side on the underlying amendments, but we were notified by the other side that we would not be permitted to vote. There was objection from the Republican side to voting on a Democratic amendment, and we insist on getting that worked out so we can move ahead. Hopefully, we can put aside the games and get moving on this underlying legislation, which is so important. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent further that after Senator Webb, the speakers be rotated from side to side and the time, as mentioned earlier, be evenly divided.

Mr. KENNEDY. I so modify, with the understanding that following the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Virginia be recognized.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, may we have order? The Senator is entitled to be heard.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.