Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for Franklin Thompson Reece be granted floor privileges during debate on judicial nominations.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this month Hampshire College in Amherst, MA says goodbye to Greg Prince, who has served so impressively as its President since 1989. Dr. Prince came to Hampshire after a distinguished academic career as a professor of history and administrator at Dartmouth College, and he has spent the past 16 years building a strong record for Hampshire. Hampshire is a young college founded in 1970 as a model of interdisciplinary education without conventional grades. Its unique college setting promotes independent thought and activism on public policy, while at the same time participating in a five college consortium with traditional colleges Smith, Mount Holyoke, Amherst and the University of Massachusetts. Greg Prince is a president who believes in wide-ranging discussion, and so Hampshire students are encouraged to be active participants in the dialogue and activities of the college. He believes strongly that the institution must have a vision, and the president must support and encourage that vision. In Hampshire's case, the vision is firmly grounded in the value of social justice. Prior to his presidency, Hampshire had become the first college in the country to divest its stock in corporations doing business in South Africa. Greg Prince continued to set an example in everything he did. He has had an indelible impact on the campus by his strong commitment to the college's mission of self-expression and action. He has inspired all of us through his leadership on issues that affect college education--particularly on student aid and academic freedom. Through his speaking, his writing and most importantly his actions--he has demonstrated his commitment to the quality and diversity of higher education. Greg Prince has served Hampshire College, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the Nation well, and I know I join his many friends and admirers in extending our gratitude for his extraordinary service and our best wishes for the next phase of his outstanding career.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is shameful that in the richest and most powerful Nation on earth, nearly a fifth of all children--nearly 13 million--live in poverty. That is why I am introducing the End Child Poverty Act to address this fundamental moral issue. It will set a national goal to reduce child poverty by half within a decade, and to eliminate it entirely as soon as possible after that. The effect of child poverty is far reaching. Children in poverty are often malnourished. They have weaker immune systems and are more vulnerable to infections and illness. Poor children also suffer in school. They lack vital nutrition necessary for healthy brain development. They have trouble concentrating in class. They often attend schools that have the least resources. Their families move frequently, so their school attendance is low. Overcrowding, utility shutoffs, and poor heating interfere with homework. The End Child Poverty Act would commit the U.S. to ending these horrors of children growing up in such dire conditions. The bill would establish a Child Poverty Elimination Board to make recommendations to the President on how best to meet this commitment to children. It would offset the cost with a one percent surtax on income over $1 million to be invested in a Child Poverty Elimination Fund. We must begin with this moral vision, just as we did with America's seniors. The elderly were once the poorest in society. But in 1935, we made a commitment that growing old shouldn't mean growing poor. We enacted Social Security and later Medicare, and now the elderly in America are significantly better off. The End Child Poverty Act is a vital step to give comparable security to America's children. It's time for America to make a real commitment, and give real hope, real opportunity and real fairness to children and families mired in poverty in communities in all parts of our country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is shameful that in the richest and most powerful Nation on earth, nearly a fifth of all children--nearly 13 million--live in poverty. That is why I am introducing the End Child Poverty Act to address this fundamental moral issue. It will set a national goal to reduce child poverty by half within a decade, and to eliminate it entirely as soon as possible after that. The effect of child poverty is far reaching. Children in poverty are often malnourished. They have weaker immune systems and are more vulnerable to infections and illness. Poor children also suffer in school. They lack vital nutrition necessary for healthy brain development. They have trouble concentrating in class. They often attend schools that have the least resources. Their families move frequently, so their school attendance is low. Overcrowding, utility shutoffs, and poor heating interfere with homework. The End Child Poverty Act would commit the U.S. to ending these horrors of children growing up in such dire conditions. The bill would establish a Child Poverty Elimination Board to make recommendations to the President on how best to meet this commitment to children. It would offset the cost with a one percent surtax on income over $1 million to be invested in a Child Poverty Elimination Fund. We must begin with this moral vision, just as we did with America's seniors. The elderly were once the poorest in society. But in 1935, we made a commitment that growing old shouldn't mean growing poor. We enacted Social Security and later Medicare, and now the elderly in America are significantly better off. The End Child Poverty Act is a vital step to give comparable security to America's children. It's time for America to make a real commitment, and give real hope, real opportunity and real fairness to children and families mired in poverty in communities in all parts of our country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was wondering if our leader is familiar with the letter which members of our Judiciary Committee sent to the chairman of our committee that points out there are now some 30 vacancies on the Federal bench for which the President has not yet sent a nominee to the Senate. If he would work with Senators of both parties to identify qualified, consensus nominees for each of these spots, the vacancy numbers on our courts could be lowered even further. However, as much as we have offered to work with him finding these nominees and getting them confirmed, there has been absolutely no response. I am just wondering whether, as we are addressing the issues of one nominee--and the issue that is before the Senate is filling vacancies on the courts--I am just interested if the majority leader has any information from the administration as to when we are going to be able to fill these other nominations.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, reserving my rights further, Mr. President, as I understand, there is a new nominee who is on the Executive Calendar, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, who has general broad support. Is he not a nominee we could confirm in a matter of moments here? We could at least take care of that vacancy.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague from North Dakota for the excellent presentation he made. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I remember the well over 60 nominees who were denied the courtesy to be considered and to have a hearing and go to the Senate and have a debate and discussion on the floor of the Senate. I do not think any of us who are strongly opposed to what the Senator has referred to as the nuclear option are interested just to retaliate against these Republican judges, the half a dozen or so who have been mentioned, debated, and discussed today, in return for the way the over 60 nominees were treated under the previous administration. But it does respond to the suggestions that have been made here on the floor that somehow institutionally our friends on the other side have always been for fairness in the consideration of these nominees and considerate of the President in meeting his responsibility of advising the Senate. I think many of us believe very deeply that if there are Members in this body who, as a matter of conscience, feel strongly that those nominees or any nominee fails to be committed to the fundamental core values of the Constitution, that they ought to be able to speak to it, they ought to be able to speak to it and not be muzzled, not be gagged, not be silenced. That is the issue that is before the Senate now and will be addressed in these next few days, and why it is enormously important for the country to pay attention to this debate and this discussion. There is no breakdown in the judicial confirmation process. Democrats in this closely divided Senate have cooperated with the President on almost all his nominations. The Senate has confirmed 208 of President Bush's 218 nominees in the past 4 years, most of whom are not people we would have chosen ourselves. Ninety-five percent have been confirmed. Only a handful did not receive the broad, bipartisan support needed for confirmation. Their records show they would roll back basic rights and protections. Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, Priscilla Owen, and William Myers would erase much of the country's hard-fought progress toward equality and opportunity. Their stated values-- subordinating the needs of families to the will of big business, destroying environmental protections, and turning back the clock on civil rights--are not mainstream values. Democrats have, under the Senate's rules, declined to proceed on those nominees to protect America from their radical views. The President has renominated William Pryor for the 11th Circuit, which includes the States of Florida, Alabama, and Georgia. Mr. Pryor's record makes clear that his views are far outside the legal mainstream. Mr. Pryor is no conservative. Instead, he has pushed a radical agenda contrary to much of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence over the last 40 years. Mr. Pryor has fought aggressively to undermine Congress's power to protect individual rights. He has tried to cut back on the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Clean Water Act. He has criticized the Voting Rights Act. He has been contemptuously dismissive of claims of racial bias in the application of the death penalty. He has relentlessly advocated its use, even for persons with mental retardation. He has even ridiculed the Supreme Court Justices, calling them ``nine octogenarian lawyers who happen to sit on the Supreme Court.'' He can't even get his facts right. Only 2 of the 9 Justices are 80 or older. Mr. Pryor's opposition to basic protections for the rights of the disabled is particularly troubling. In one case, Justice Scalia, for a unanimous Court--a unanimous Court--rejected his position that the Americans With Disabilities Act does not apply to State prisons. In another case, the Supreme Court rejected his view that provisions of the act ensuring that those with disabilities have access to public services are unconstitutional. In that case, a plaintiff who uses a wheelchair challenged the denial of access to a courthouse where he had to crawl up the stairs to reach the courtroom. Mr. Pryor claimed that the Congress could not require States to make public facilities accessible to the disabled. He said that because the disabled have ``no absolute right'' to attend legal proceedings affecting their rights, denying them access to courthouses does not violate the principle of equal protection. The Supreme Court also rejected his radical view that executing retarded persons is not cruel and unusual punishment. And later the Eleventh Circuit court, a court dominated by conservative Republican appointees, unanimously rejected Mr. Pryor's attempt to evade the Supreme Court decision. He had tried to prevent a prisoner with an IQ of 65, who even the prosecution agreed was mentally retarded, from claiming that he should not be executed. On women's rights, Mr. Pryor has criticized constitutional protections against gender discrimination. He dismissed as ``political correctness'' the Supreme Court's decision that a State-run military academy could not deny admission to women because of stereotypes about how women learn. Mr. Pryor has an especially troubling record on voting rights. In a 1997 statement to Congress, he opposed section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, an indispensable tool for assuring that all Americans have the right to vote regardless of race or ethnic background. He called this important law an ``affront to federalism'' and ``an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness.'' In March, we commemorated the 40th anniversary of Bloody Sunday when Martin Luther King, Jr., Congressman John Lewis, and others were brutally attacked on a peaceful march in Mr. Pryor's home State of Alabama in support of voting rights for all, regardless of race. Yet now the administration wants our consent to a nominee who opposes the Voting Rights Act. There is too much at stake to risk confirming a judge who would turn back progress on protecting the right to vote. It is no surprise that civil rights leaders oppose Mr. Pryor's nomination, including Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, a leader in the Alabama movement for voting rights, and many of Rev. C. T. Vivian's and many of Dr. King's other close advisers and associates. There can be no doubt that Mr. Pryor sees the Federal courts as a place to advance his political agenda. When President Bush was elected in 2000, Mr. Pryor gave a speech praising his election as the ``last best hope for federalism.'' He ended his speech with these words: . . . a prayer for the next administration: Please God, no more Souters. In another speech he said he was thankful for the Bush v. Gore decision: I wanted Governor Bush to have a full appreciation of the judiciary and judicial selection so we can have no more appointments like Justice Souter. His call to politicize the Supreme Court shows that he views the courts as places to make laws, not interpret them. The real question is why, when there are so many qualified Republican attorneys in Alabama, the President would choose such a divisive nominee. Why pick one whose record raises so much doubt as to whether he will be fair? Why pick one who can muster only a rating of ``partially unqualified'' from the American Bar Association? The administration has given us no good answers to these questions because there are none. Mr. Pryor is clearly on the far fringe of legal thinking and not someone who should be given a lifetime appointment to the court of appeals. Of course, we oppose the attempt to break the Senate rules to put Mr. Pryor on the court. That is what our Founding Fathers would have wanted us to do, not to act as a rubber stamp for the administration. Priscilla Owen, whose nomination the Senate is debating today, is another candidate on the far fringes of legal thinking. Her record raises equally grave concerns that she would try to remake the law. Four times the Senate has declined to confirm her because of concerns that she won't deal fairly with a wide range of cases that can come before the Fifth Circuit, especially on issues of major concern to workers, consumers, victims of discrimination, and women exercising their constitutional right. Yet the President chose to provoke a fight in the Senate by renominating her, among other plainly unacceptable nominees whom the Senate declined to confirm in the last Congress. Nothing has changed since we last reviewed her record to make Justice Owen worthy of confirmation now. Her supporters argue that she is being opposed solely because of her hostility to women's constitutionally protected right to choose. In fact, her nomination raises a wide range of major concerns because she so obviously fails to approach cases fairly and with an open mind. As the San Antonio Express News has stated, her ``record demonstrates a results-oriented streak that belies supporters' claims that she strictly follows the law.'' It is not just Senate Democrats who question her judicial activism and willingness to ignore the law. Even newspapers that endorsed her for the Texas Supreme Court now oppose her confirmation, after seeing how poorly she served as judge. The Houston Chronicle wrote: Owen's judicial record shows less interest in impartially interpreting the law than in pushing an agenda. And that she, it continues, ``too often contorts rulings to conform to her particular conservative outlook.'' It noted that: It's worth saying something that Owen is a regular dissenter on a Texas Supreme Court made up mostly of other conservative Republicans. The Austin American Statesman, in their editorial, said Priscilla Owen ``is so conservative that she places herself out of the broad mainstream of jurisprudence'' and that she ``seems all too willing to bend the law to fit her views . . . '' The San Antonio Express News said: [W]hen a nominee has demonstrated a propensity to spin the law to fit philosophical beliefs, it is the Senate's right-- and duty--to reject the nominee. These are the San Antonio Express News, the Austin American Statesman, and the Houston Chronicle. Her colleagues on the conservative Texas Supreme Court have repeatedly described her in the same way. They state that Justice Owen puts her own views above the law, even when the law is crystal clear. Her former colleague on the Texas Supreme Court, our Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, has said she was guilty of ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' This is what the current Attorney General of the United States said when he was on the supreme court: Justice Owen's opinion was ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' Justice Gonzales's statement that her position in this case was ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism'' was not a random remark. Not once, not twice, but numerous times Justice Gonzales and his other colleagues on the Texas Supreme Court have noted that Priscilla Owen ignores the law to reach her desired result. In one case, Justice Gonzales held the Texas law clearly required manufacturers to be responsible to retailers who sell their products if those products are defective. He wrote that Justice Owen's dissenting opinion would judicially amend the statute to let manufacturers off the hook. In 2000, Justice Gonzales and a majority of the Texas Supreme Court upheld a jury award holding the Texas Department of Transportation and the local transit authority responsible for a deadly auto accident. He explained that the result was required by the plain meaning of the Texas law. Owen dissented, claiming that Texas should be immune from these suits. Justice Gonzales wrote that she misread the law, which he said was clear and unequivocal. In another case, Justice Gonzales joined the court's majority that criticized Justice Owen for disregarding the procedural limitations in the statute and taking a position even more extreme than had been argued by the defendant. In another case in 2000, landowners claimed a Texas law exempted them from local water quality regulations. The court's majority ruled the law was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to private individuals. Justice Owen dissented and sided with the large landowners, including contributors to her campaign. Justice Gonzales joined a majority opinion criticizing her, stating that most of her opinion was nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric, which merits no response. Justice Gonzales also wrote an opinion holding that an innocent spouse could recover insurance proceeds when her coinsured spouse intentionally set fire to their insured home. Justice Owen joined a dissent that would have denied the coverage of the spouse on the theory that the arsonist might somehow benefit from the court's decision. Justice Gonzales's majority opinion stated that her argument was based on a ``theoretical possibility'' that would never happen in the real world, and that violated the plain language of the insurance policy. In still another case, Justice Owen joined a partial dissent that would have limited the basic right to jury trials. The dissent was criticized by the other judges as a ``judicial sleight of hand'' to bypass the Texas constitution. Priscilla Owen is one of the most frequent dissenters on the conservative Texas Supreme Court in cases involving basic protections for workers, consumers, and victims of discrimination. That court is dominated by Republican appointees, and is known for frequently ruling against plaintiffs. Yet, when the Court rules in favor of plaintiffs, Justice Owen usually dissents, taking the side of the powerful over individual rights. She has limited the rights of minors in medical malpractice cases. She has tried to cut back on people's right to relief when insurance company claims are unreasonably denied, even in cases of bad faith. Her frequent dissents show a pattern of limiting remedies for workers, consumers, and victims of discrimination or personal injury. She dissented in a case interpreting a key Texas civil rights law that protects against discrimination based on age, race, gender, religion, ethnic background, and disability. Justice Owen's opinion would have required employees to prove discrimination was the only reason for the actions taken against them--even though the law clearly states that workers need only prove that discrimination was one of the motivating factors. Justice Owen's view would have changed the plain meaning of the law to make it nearly impossible for victims of discrimination to prevail in civil rights cases. She joined an opinion that would have reversed a jury award to a woman whose insurance company had denied her claim for coverage of heart surgery bills. Many other such cases could be cited. Justice Owen also dissented in a case involving three women who sought relief for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the job because of constant humiliating and abusive behavior by their supervisor. The supervisor harassed and intimidated employees by the daily use of profanity; by screaming and cursing at employees; by charging at employees and physically threatening them; and by humiliating employees, including making an employee stand in front of him in his office for as long as thirty minutes while he stared at her. The employees he harassed suffered from severe emotional distress, tension, nervousness, anxiety, depression, loss of appetite, inability to sleep, crying spells and uncontrollable emotional outbursts as a result of his so-called supervision. They sought medical and psychological help because of their distress. Eight Justices on the Texas court agreed that the actions, viewed as a whole, were extreme and outrageous enough to justify the jury's verdict of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Justice Owen wrote a separate opinion, stating that while she agreed that there was evidence to support the women's case, she thought most of it was ``legally insufficient to support the verdict.'' Justice Owen's record is particularly troubling in light of the important issues that come before the Fifth Circuit, which is also one of the most racially and ethnically diverse Circuits, with a large number of low-income workers, Latinos, and African-Americans. It is particularly vital that judges on the court are fair to workers, victims of discrimination, and those who suffer personal injuries. Some have said that those who raise questions about Justice Owen's record are somehow smearing her personally. That's untrue and unfair. Each of us has a responsibility to review her record and to take seriously the problems we find. That means taking seriously the rights of persons like Ralf Toennies, who was fired at age 55, and found that Justice Owen wanted to impose obstacles to his age discrimination claim that were nowhere in the statute. We must take seriously the rights of the women employees criticized by Justice Owen for their testimony on workplace harassment in the emotional distress case. We can't ignore the rights of the millions of families who live in the Fifth Circuit States of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Finally, Justice Owen's supporters have also suggested that she should be confirmed to the Court of Appeals because Texas voters elected her to their Supreme Court. Obviously, there is a huge difference between State judges who must submit to local elections to keep their positions and Federal judges who are lifetime appointees, and are not meant to respond to popular opinion. If we confirm Justice Owen to the Fifth Circuit, she will serve for life. So our responsibility as Senators is very different. The record of each nominee for a Federal judgeship is carefully considered by Senators from all 50 States. Likewise, the fact that she received a high rating from the American Bar Association or did well on the bar exam does not erase her disturbing record. Priscilla Owen's record raises major questions about her commitment to the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all our citizens. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments now to go over with the Senate some of the rules that are going to have to be broken by the majority in order to try to change the rules of the Senate. I want to review very quickly what we are faced with here. I will give two examples of individuals who I think failed to meet the standard for approval in the Senate, that they have a commitment to the core values of the Constitution. We have just seen examples and statements and comments from both individuals and from newspapers and other sources that I think established convincingly these individuals do not have that kind of core commitment required and should not be given lifetime appointments. Neither the Constitution, nor Senate rules, nor Senate precedents, nor American history provide any justification for the majority leader's attempt to selectively nullify the use of the filibuster to push through these radical nominees. Equally important, neither the Constitution, nor the rules, nor precedent, nor history provide any permissible means for a bare majority of the Senate to take that radical step without breaking or ignoring clear provisions of applicable Senate rules and unquestioned precedents. Here are some of the rules and precedents the executive will have to ask its allies in the Senate to break or ignore in order to turn the Senate into a rubberstamp for the nominations: First, they will have to see that the Vice President himself is presiding over the Senate so that no real Senator needs to endure the embarrassment of publicly violating Senate rules and precedent and overriding the Senate Parliamentarian the way our Presiding Officer will have to do. Next, they will have to break paragraph 1 of rule V, which requires 1 day's specific written notice if a Senator intends to try to suspend or change any rule. Then they will have to break paragraph 2 of rule V, which provides that the Senate rules remain in force from Congress to Congress, unless they are changed in accordance with the existing rules. Then they will have to break paragraph 2 of rule XXII, which requires a motion, signed by 16 Senators, a 2-day wait, and a three-fifths vote to close debate on the nomination itself. They will also have to break rule XXII's requirement of a petition, a wait, and a two-thirds vote to stop debate on a rules change. Then, since they pretend to be proceeding on a constitutional basis, they will have to break the invariable rule of practice that constitutional issues must not be decided by the Presiding Officer, but must be referred by the Presiding Officer to the entire Senate for full debate and decision. Throughout the process, they will have to ignore or intentionally give incorrect answers to proper parliamentary inquiries which, if answered in good faith and in accordance with the expert advice of the Parliamentarian, would make clear that they are breaking the rules. Eventually, when their repeated rule-breaking is called into question, they will blatantly, and in dire violation of the norms and mutuality of the Senate, try to ignore the minority leader and other Senators who are seeking recognition to make lawful motions or pose legitimate inquiries or make proper objections. By this time, all pretense of comity, all sense of mutual respect and fairness, all of the normal courtesies that allow the Senate to proceed expeditiously on any business at all will have been destroyed by the preemptive Republican nuclear strike on the floor. To accomplish their goal by using a bare majority vote to escape the rule requiring 60 votes to cut off debate, those participating in this charade will, even before the vote, already have terminated the normal functioning of the Senate. They will have broken the Senate compact of comity and will have launched a preemptive nuclear war. The battle begins when the perpetrators openly, intentionally, and repeatedly break clear rules and precedents of the Senate, refuse to follow the advice of the Parliamentarian, and commit the unpardonable sin of refusing to recognize the minority leader. Their hollow defenses to all these points demonstrate the weakness of their case. They claim that ``we are only breaking the rules with respect to judicial nominations. We promise not to do so on other nominations or on legislation.'' No one seriously believes that. Having used the nuclear option to salvage a handful of activist judges, they will not hesitate to use it to salvage some bill vital to the credit card industry, oil industry, pharmaceutical industry, Wall Street, or any other special interest. In other words, the Senate majority will always be able to get its way, and the Senate our Founders created will no longer exist. It will be an echo chamber to the House, where the tyranny of the majority is so rampant today. One of the greatest privileges of my life is serving the people of Massachusetts in the Senate. I am reminded every day of my obligation to speak up for them and fight for their concerns, their hopes, and their values in this Chamber. Many brave leaders from Massachusetts have held the seat I hold today in the Senate. This seat was held by John Quincy Adams, who went on to become the sixth President and was a great champion of free speech. He debated three Supreme Court nominees and voted to confirm them all. He refused to be silenced. Charles Sumner was the Senate's leading opponent of slavery. He was beaten to within an inch of his life for speaking up for his convictions. It took him 3 years to recover from the injuries and return to the Senate to speak out against slavery once again. He debated 11 Supreme Court nominees and voted for 10 of them. He refused to be silenced. Daniel Webster was one of our Nation's greatest orators and the architect of the Great Compromise of 1850. He spoke up for a united America with the words ``liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable.'' You can hear his words ringing through these halls even now. He debated 12 Supreme Court nominations; he voted to approve 8 and opposed 4. He refused to be silenced. Henry Cabot Lodge, the Republican, opposed President Wilson's efforts to join the League of Nations. He was the leading Republican voice on foreign policy in his time. He debated 20 Supreme Court nominees, voted for 18, and he opposed 2. He refused to be silenced. John Kennedy not only was a champion for working men and women in Massachusetts, but he also battled intolerance, injustice, and poverty during his time in the Senate. He debated and supported four Supreme Court nominees. He, too, refused to be silenced. These great Senators are remembered and respected in our history because they spoke up for their convictions. They were not intimidated. They did not back down from their beliefs. They were not muzzled. They were not gagged. They would not be silenced. And it will be a sad day for our democracy if the voices of our Nation's elected representatives can no longer be heard. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Montana.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, I want to support our Democratic leader. I believe the record now is we have approved 96 percent of the judicial nominees of this administration. And as we know in terms of reading the Constitutional Convention our Founding Fathers expected this was going to be, we were going to exercise our own independent best judgment on nominees. And if I could ask the majority leader, is this the same Priscilla Owen which our current Attorney General suggested ``unconscionable acts of judicial activism?'' That is, our current Attorney General has accused this nominee of that kind of activity. Is this the same Priscilla Owen who is now being recommended, about which our current Attorney General made that comment not once, not twice, not three times, but 11 times?

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I would not object----

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Chair to remind me when I have 10 minutes remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the month of May is Stroke Awareness Month, and it is a privilege to join Senators Cochran, Warner, Cantwell, Collins, and Dayton in introducing the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act of 2005. The STOP Stroke Act is a vital step in building a national network of effective care to diagnose and quickly treat victims of stroke and improve the quality of care for stroke patients across America. For over 20 years, stroke has been the third leading cause of death in our country, affecting about 700,000 Americans a year and killing approximately 163,000 a year. Every 45 seconds, another American suffers a stroke. Every 3 minutes, another American dies. Few families today are untouched by this cruel, debilitating, and often fatal disease that strikes indiscriminately, and robs us of our loved ones. Even for those who survive, a stroke can have devastating consequences. Over half of all survivors are left with a disability. Prompt treatment with clot-dissolving drugs within three hours of a stroke can dramatically improve these outcomes. Yet, only 2-3 percent of all stroke patients are treated with such a drug within those crucial first three hours. Few Americans recognize the symptoms of stroke, and crucial hours are often lost before a patient receives treatment. Emergency room staffs are often not trained to recognize and manage the symptoms, which further adds to the delay in treatment. Patients at hospitals with primary stroke centers have nearly five times greater chance of receiving clot-dissolving drugs. Modern medicine is generating new scientific advances that increase the chance of survival and at least partial or even full recovery following a stroke. Physicians are learning to manage strokes more effectively, and they are also learning how to prevent them in the first place. But science doesn't save lives and protect health by itself. We need to do more to bring new discoveries to the patient and new awareness to the public. That means educating as many people as possible about the warning signs of stroke, so that they know enough to seek medical attention. It means training doctors and nurses in the best techniques of care. It means finding better ways to treat victims as quickly and as effectively as possible--so that they have the best chance of full recovery. Our bill provides grants to States to implement statewide systems of stroke care that will give health professionals the equipment and training they need to treat this disorder. It also establishes a continuing education program to make sure that medical professionals are well trained and well aware of the newest treatments and prevention strategies. The initial point of contact between a stroke patient and medical care is usually an emergency medical technician. Grants under this bill may be used to train these personnel to provide more effective care to stroke patients in the crucial first few moments after an attack. The bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a national media campaign to inform the public about the symptoms of stroke, so that more patients can recognize the symptoms and receive prompt medical care. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of HHS, acting through CDC, to operate the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry, which will collect data about the care of stroke patients and assist in the development of more effective treatments. The bill also provides new resources for states to improve the standard of care for stroke patients in hospitals, and to increase the quality of care in rural hospitals through improvements in telemedicine. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal published an excellent article on the inadequate treatment that stroke patients often encounter when ambulances bring them to hospitals with staffs not trained in the early treatment of stroke or lacking the needed equipment to intervene early. Over twenty years ago, the survival of trauma victims was very much dependent on whether the ambulance took them to a hospital with a trauma care center, or to a hospital not equipped to treat traumatic injury. Congress passed the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act of 1990 that revolutionized the treatment for accident victims. Now in 2005, it is long past time to see that state of the art care is made available to stroke patients as quickly as possible. Stroke is a national tragedy that leaves no American community unscarred. Fortunately, if the right steps are taken during the brief window of time available, effective treatment can make all the difference between healthy survival and disability or death. We need to do all we can to see that those precious few hours are not wasted. The STOP Stroke Act is a significant step in reaching that goal. May is Stroke Awareness Month, and I urge Congress to act quickly on this legislation, and give stroke victims a far better chance for full recovery. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of a Wall Street Journal article of May 9 on this issue be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the month of May is Stroke Awareness Month, and it is a privilege to join Senators Cochran, Warner, Cantwell, Collins, and Dayton in introducing the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act of 2005. The STOP Stroke Act is a vital step in building a national network of effective care to diagnose and quickly treat victims of stroke and improve the quality of care for stroke patients across America. For over 20 years, stroke has been the third leading cause of death in our country, affecting about 700,000 Americans a year and killing approximately 163,000 a year. Every 45 seconds, another American suffers a stroke. Every 3 minutes, another American dies. Few families today are untouched by this cruel, debilitating, and often fatal disease that strikes indiscriminately, and robs us of our loved ones. Even for those who survive, a stroke can have devastating consequences. Over half of all survivors are left with a disability. Prompt treatment with clot-dissolving drugs within three hours of a stroke can dramatically improve these outcomes. Yet, only 2-3 percent of all stroke patients are treated with such a drug within those crucial first three hours. Few Americans recognize the symptoms of stroke, and crucial hours are often lost before a patient receives treatment. Emergency room staffs are often not trained to recognize and manage the symptoms, which further adds to the delay in treatment. Patients at hospitals with primary stroke centers have nearly five times greater chance of receiving clot-dissolving drugs. Modern medicine is generating new scientific advances that increase the chance of survival and at least partial or even full recovery following a stroke. Physicians are learning to manage strokes more effectively, and they are also learning how to prevent them in the first place. But science doesn't save lives and protect health by itself. We need to do more to bring new discoveries to the patient and new awareness to the public. That means educating as many people as possible about the warning signs of stroke, so that they know enough to seek medical attention. It means training doctors and nurses in the best techniques of care. It means finding better ways to treat victims as quickly and as effectively as possible--so that they have the best chance of full recovery. Our bill provides grants to States to implement statewide systems of stroke care that will give health professionals the equipment and training they need to treat this disorder. It also establishes a continuing education program to make sure that medical professionals are well trained and well aware of the newest treatments and prevention strategies. The initial point of contact between a stroke patient and medical care is usually an emergency medical technician. Grants under this bill may be used to train these personnel to provide more effective care to stroke patients in the crucial first few moments after an attack. The bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a national media campaign to inform the public about the symptoms of stroke, so that more patients can recognize the symptoms and receive prompt medical care. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of HHS, acting through CDC, to operate the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry, which will collect data about the care of stroke patients and assist in the development of more effective treatments. The bill also provides new resources for states to improve the standard of care for stroke patients in hospitals, and to increase the quality of care in rural hospitals through improvements in telemedicine. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal published an excellent article on the inadequate treatment that stroke patients often encounter when ambulances bring them to hospitals with staffs not trained in the early treatment of stroke or lacking the needed equipment to intervene early. Over twenty years ago, the survival of trauma victims was very much dependent on whether the ambulance took them to a hospital with a trauma care center, or to a hospital not equipped to treat traumatic injury. Congress passed the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act of 1990 that revolutionized the treatment for accident victims. Now in 2005, it is long past time to see that state of the art care is made available to stroke patients as quickly as possible. Stroke is a national tragedy that leaves no American community unscarred. Fortunately, if the right steps are taken during the brief window of time available, effective treatment can make all the difference between healthy survival and disability or death. We need to do all we can to see that those precious few hours are not wasted. The STOP Stroke Act is a significant step in reaching that goal. May is Stroke Awareness Month, and I urge Congress to act quickly on this legislation, and give stroke victims a far better chance for full recovery. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of a Wall Street Journal article of May 9 on this issue be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has now been 8 long years since the Nation's hardworking men and women had an increase in the minimum wage. The essence of the American dream is that if people work hard and play by the rules they can succeed in life and support their families. But for millions of hardworking Americans earning the minimum wage, that dream has become a cruel hoax. An American who works full time, year- round at the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour earns $10,700 a year--$5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. The minimum wage is too low. Today Congressman George Miller and I are introducing the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005 to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in three steps over the next 2 years. This increase will directly raise the pay of seven and a half million workers, and indirectly benefit eight million more. Sixty-one percent of the beneficiaries are women, and one-third of those women are mothers. More than a third are people of color. Two new reports emphasize the urgency of this increase for millions of low-wage Americans and their families. The Children's Defense Fund reports that a single parent working full time at the current minimum wage earns enough to cover only 40 percent of the cost of raising two children. Nearly 10 million children live in households that would benefit from the increase we are proposing. A report from the Center for Economic Policy Research shows that minimum wage jobs are not just entry-level jobs for teenagers, contrary to what we often hear from opponents of the minimum wage. A third of minimum wage earners from ages 25 to 54 will still be earning the minimum wage 3 years later. Only 40 percent of them will have moved out of the low-wage workforce 3 years later. No matter how hard they work, minimum wage workers are forced each day to make impossible choices--between paying the rent and buying groceries, or between paying the heating bill and buying clothes. These hardworking Americans have earned a raise and they deserve a raise. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduced today, an Act to improve elementary and secondary education that may be cited as the ``No Child Left Behind Improvement Act of 2005,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduced today, an Act to improve elementary and secondary education that may be cited as the ``No Child Left Behind Improvement Act of 2005,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, I commend my friend and colleague from New York, Senator Schumer. I was listening to him when he mentioned some of our former colleagues, all with whom I have served. He mentioned Senator Armstrong, and he also mentioned Senator McClure, and Senator Simpson, who was a good friend. I served with him on the Judiciary Committee. He mentioned Senator Durenberger. An excellent article was written by Senator Mathias last week. He mentioned Senator Wallop, and the list goes on. They are seven or eight members of the Senate who served in recent times and have a very good sense of the institution's importance, the importance of the powers of this institution and the relationship to the executive. They have a very keen awareness of the advice and consent role and understand this is a balance that both have responsibilities to fulfill. I think very deeply that Members of the Senate who have strong views on these nominees should not be muzzled, silenced, and they should not be gagged. The point I might have missed from my friend from New York is the restatement that 96 percent of this President's nominees have been approved. That is always something that causes constant amazement, I find, from people who call my office in Massachusetts inquiring about my position. They find out that 96 percent of the President's nominees have been approved and they wonder what this battle is all about. Then when you tell them this was not a battle the Members of the Senate were interested in, that it was as a result of the President sending back to the Senate those who have previously been rejected and indicated that they were going to add other individuals as well, such as the current general counsel of the Defense Department, Mr. Haynes, who was the architect of the whole torture and emasculation of the Geneva Conventions--these are individuals who are far outside of the mainstream of judicial thinking. I have had the chance to address many of these issues in the markups of the Judiciary Committee in recent times, particularly with regard to Mr. Pryor, who is from the State of Alabama. I took great pride in working with my colleague and friend from Iowa on the Americans with Disabilities Act. We spent a good deal of time negotiating that legislation. We had strong, bipartisan support at the very end. And then to read Bill Pryor's assessment of what that act said and his interpretation of it is completely antithetical to what the legislation was about, the language that was clear and explicit, and what the sense of the intent and the supporters of that legislation were about. The list goes on. So we welcome this debate. I agree with the Senator from New York that this is a monumental decision. We are talking about changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game. Americans may not understand completely all of the parliamentary maneuvers here that are available in the Senate, but they understand when you have an agreed set of rules, you don't change them in the middle of the game, and I think they also understand that when Members have strong views and believe nominees who are going to have lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court--not 3\1/2\ years, such as this President has in the remainder of his term, but a lifetime commitment--those who have strong views ought to be able to speak to those views and have a right to be heard. Amendment No. 674

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on another matter, I rise in strong support of Senator Schumer's amendment to raise the amount employers can give workers tax free for mass transit commuter costs from the current $105 a month to $200 a month. In the face of high fuel costs and constant urban congestion, more commuters using mass transit makes increasingly good sense, and the tax benefit is an effective way to encourage it. The current benefit of $105 a month is too low to cover most mass transit costs in major metropolitan areas, and it is counter-productive that current law provides a benefit almost twice that size for parking--$200 a month. I have here a diagram that indicates the commuter fees for the different parts coming into Boston. Even from this distance, you can look at them. For Fitchburg, $198; $181 for Lowell; $191 for Gloucester; and the list goes on. From the South Shore, $198; from Stoughton, $149; and $198 from Worcester. This amendment is good transportation policy and good environmental policy too. It is an energy policy that makes sense as workers see more and more of their paychecks go up in smoke at the gas pump. It is an energy policy that I hope we can all support. In Massachusetts, the change will help nearly 200,000 commuters who purchase monthly T-passes to commute by bus, subway or commuter rail to work. By increasing the commuter tax break to parity with the parking benefit--$200 a month--the amendment will cover the cost of every monthly T-pass sold in Massachusetts. The highest monthly T-pass cost from Worcester, Middleborough/ Lakeville or Fitchburg is $198, and would be covered in full, as would fares from Gloucester and Haverhill. Commuters could have the full $181 cost of commuting from Lawrence or Lowell covered or the $149 cost from Brockton. By raising the cap to $200, the amendment will also encourage more new employers to participate in the program. They will be able to give an affordable benefit of much greater value to their employees. And as more employers come into the program, we can cut down on gridlock in Boston and other urban areas across the country. In Boston, gridlock cost the average commuter 51 extra hours a year. Congestion nationwide costs $63 billion a year in wasted productivity and energy. The amendment means more moms and dads will have more time to spend with their children, instead of being stuck in traffic. And more employees will get to work on time, meaning higher productivity. We cannot afford to waste fuel like this anymore. Our dependence on foreign oil is a national crisis. The amendment will help save some of the 2.3 billion gallons of gas a year now being lost to unnecessary congestion. This amendment will mean clearer air in our cities and less wear and tear on our roads. In so many ways, this is a smart amendment and a fair amendment, and I urge our colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, more than ever before in history, employees around the world are competing against each other for work. Too often, this competition has become a race to the bottom--whoever is willing to work for the lowest wages gets the work. The most flagrant example of this is the unacceptable practice of forced labor. These modern slaves are compelled to work against their will, often as victims of human trafficking or ruthless governments. A new report by the International Labor Office shows how massive the problem of forced labor is. According to the report, over 12 million people are its victims in today's world, and they produce $44 billion in profits for their overseers. To combat the problem, the report urges countries to work together to reach a global solution. Countries need stronger laws to protect victims and punish perpetrators. They also need stronger law enforcement and more effective cooperation between labor ministries and law enforcement. Fair labor standards and acting to reduce poverty are essential as well. This report is the most comprehensive analysis ever made on forced labor. I commend it to my colleagues, and I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary be printed in the Record. The full report is available from www.ilo.org.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is time for a new effort in Congress to enact the Patients' Bill of Rights. The Senate has approved major bipartisan legislation to end the abuses of managed care and HMOs before, but final enactment of this important measure was blocked by the HMOs and the vested interests of the corporate world that deny working Americans their basic rights and a needed voice in challenging decisions that deny them basic medical care. It was blocked too by an administration that professes to support patients' rights, but does all it can to block legislation to guarantee those rights. Despite our outstanding researchers and professionals, families across the country are overwhelmingly and justifiably concerned that medical decisions are too often made by insurance industry accountants, and not their doctors. HMO profits too often take priority over patient needs. It is time for Congress to end the abuses of patients and physicians by HMOs and the insurance industry. Too often, managed care is mismanaged care. No amount of distortions or smokescreens by insurance companies can change the facts. The Patients' Bill of Rights can stop these abuses. For millions of Americans who rely on health insurance to protect them when serious illness strikes, the Patients' Bill of Rights is literally a matter of life and death. It's important to remember what this debate is really about. It's not about lawyers. It's not about insurance companies. It's about patients--mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, sisters and brothers. It's about families around the country who will someday face the challenge of serious illness and deserve the best in health care-- the same care that all members of the Senate want for ourselves and our loved ones. But too many families are denied the care they need and deserve because of abuses by HMOs and other insurance companies. The legislation we are introducing today will end those abuses. Several of its provisions are especially important--specialty care, clinical trials, and prescription drugs. In each of these areas, care is too often delayed or denied by insurance companies more interested in profits than patients. Access to specialty care for serious and complex illnesses is a critical element of good health care. Yet denial of needed specialists is one of the most common abuses in the current system. Patients with cancer and other serious illnesses need specialty care. Often, their best hope for a cure or for precious extra years of life is participation in a clinical trial. But too often, both are lacking. Patients with cancer or other serious illnesses and their physicians must fight HMOs to take advantage of this opportunity. Traditionally, insurance companies have paid for the routine costs of doctors and hospitals in clinical trials. But HMOs frequently refuse to do so, with devastating effects on patients and research alike. Our legislation will end this abuse. Another abuse that will be ended by our plan is the denial of medically necessary drugs not on an HMO plan's list. One group that suffers from this denial is the mentally ill. Some of the most dramatic advances in medicine in recent years have been the development of effective drugs to treat persons with serious mental illness. Too often, however, they're told to settle for older, cheaper, less effective drugs with harmful side effects, because an HMO refuses to pay for the best standard of care. Our legislation guarantees that patients can get medically necessary drugs, even if they are not on the HMO's list. Equally important, our bill guarantees that these drugs will be provided at a cost no greater than the normal cost-sharing for other medications. Access to needed drugs is a concern for every family, particularly when new cures are increasingly based on new drugs today. The list of abuses goes on and on. People across the country know these abuses are wrong. Managed care practices that cause these tragedies cost lives, and ending these abuses is a matter of simple justice and common decency. The Patients' Bill of Rights will protect families from insurance company bureaucracies that rob them of their peace of mind, their health, or even their lives. The bill is a guarantee that medical decisions will be made by doctors and patients, not managed care accountants. It is actively supported by doctors, nurses, patients, small businesses, religious organizations, and working families. The support is impressive in its breadth, its depth and its diversity. It is time to guarantee these basic rights for patients. It is time for Congress to pass this bill. Every doctor knows it. Every nurse knows it. Every patient knows it. And every Senator knows it too. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, It is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act and increase the opportunities for workers to obtain the services and training they need to hold good jobs in the years ahead. This bill strengthens the current One-Stop system we established in 1998, so that many more people can be served. The bill creates stronger partnerships with businesses to recruit new workers, collaborate in training current workers, improve career ladder opportunities, and work with local leaders to meet the changing needs of their community. The One-Stop system is needed more than ever now, to serve hard- working Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own as we struggle to rebuild our economy and adjust to the new century and the globalization forces that are transforming our society and our workforce. Current employees, especially the growing number of manufacturing workers, need effective training to be eligible for the available jobs in their area. We have also worked to remove the sequencing of services for persons entering the workforce who face barriers to employment. Providers can move adults directly to skills training, or create training programs that include literacy and language skills as well, so that job training is not delayed. The bill also encourages local providers to continue the training programs until employees can be self-sufficient. For those who start on the minimum wage, the support system should be there to help them qualify for the better-paying jobs that will enable them to support their families. Some men and women may obtain their first job through the system, and continue to participate as they move up their career ladders. The bill will also help young people. Last summer, the youth unemployment rate rose to 17 percent and we were all acutely aware of the special challenges that young workers face in this economy. The youth program will continue to work with both in-school and out-of- school young men and women to help them obtain the education and the real job experience they need to be competitive. The bill pays particular attention to the needs of people with disabilities. Their access to the program is essential if the system is to be truly universal. It's unacceptable today that hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities are unable to find employment. Workforce training programs must coordinate with vocational rehabilitation programs to provide many more opportunities for those with physical and mental challenges. For over thirty years, since the Vocational Rehabilitation Act was first enacted in 1973, state vocational rehabilitation programs have brought new hope to individuals with disabilities throughout the country, so that they can reach their full potential and actively participate in their communities. Through vocational rehabilitation, individuals with disabilities can obtain the training, counseling, support and job opportunities they need in order to have independent, productive, and fulfilling lives. For millions of these Americans, vocational rehabilitation is the difference between dependence and independence, between lost potential and a productive career. In 1998, vocational rehabilitation became part of the state-wide workforce system in each state. This reauthorization will strengthen that partnership, so that many more working-age individuals with disabilities, even those with the most significant challenges, have realistic opportunities to obtain the services and support they need to reach their employment goals. The legislation also strengthens other aspects of independent living, so that students and adults with disabilities can receive the services and support they need for community-based living. Our goal in this reauthorization is to see that the talents and strengths of all individuals with disabilities are recognized, enhanced, and fairly rewarded in communities and workplaces across the nation. The bill also contains the Adult Literacy Act, which funds critical programs for states to assist adults in obtaining the basic reading, writing, numeracy and English language skills that they need to be full participants in the workplace and in society. We all know that education is the great equalizer. Improving basic literacy is a key component of job training. Large numbers of persons are on waiting lists across the country to be served under this program--25,000 people in Massachusetts alone--and we need to do more to serve adults who recognize their need to improve these skills in order to improve their lives. I commend my colleagues and the many organizations representing governors, mayors, county officials, youth, women, and low-income persons who were so actively involved in preparing this legislation. We have tried to listen carefully to the many leaders who have practical experience in implementing these laws. I look forward to continuing this bipartisan effort and to the early enactment of this needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's an honor to join Senator McCain and Congressmen Gutierrez, Kolbe, and Flake in introducing our bipartisan legislation to reform the Nation's immigration laws. The status quo is unacceptable, and legislation is urgently needed to deal with all the inadequacies in our current law, to end the suffering of long-separated families imposed by the broken system, and to do so in a way that reflects current realities. We must modernize our broken immigration system to meet the challenges of the 21st century. And we need policies that continue to reflect our best values as a nation--fairness, equal opportunity, and respect for the rule of law. One of the mistakes of the past is to assume that we can control illegal immigration on our own. A realistic immigration policy must be a two-way street. Under our plan, America will do its part, but we expect Mexico and other nations to do their part, too, to replace an illegal immigration flow with regulated, legal immigration. Our bill will make our immigration policies more realistic and enforceable, restore legality as the prevailing norm, and make it easier for immigrants to cooperate with local authorities. It will protect the labor rights of all workers, and create an even playing field for employers. It will strengthen our economy, restore control of our borders, and improve national security. Much of the Nation's economy today depends on the hard work and the many contributions of immigrants. Many industries depend heavily on immigrant labor. These men and women enrich our Nation and improve the quality of our lives. Yet, millions of today's immigrant workers are not here legally. They and their families live shadow lives in constant fear of deportation, and easy targets for abuse and exploitation by unscrupulous employers and criminals as well. Many risk great danger, and even death, to cross our borders. Our bill offers practical solutions to deal with these basic problems. It contains an earned legalization program for immigrants who have been working in the United States for at least 6 years, a way to reduce the enormous backlog of petitions to unify immigrant families, and a revised temporary worker program. The bill also contains strict border security and enforcement provisions, and measures to ensure that other countries do their part by requiring them to help control the flow of their citizens to jobs in the United States. We feel the bill is a realistic and practical solution to the complex immigration challenges facing the Nation for so long, and we've worked closely with as many interested groups as possible to make it fair to all. Despite our compromises and bipartisan solutions, there are some who oppose these reforms. They misleadingly categorize our efforts as ``immigrant amnesty.'' They refuse to accept that these reforms simply create a legalization program for U.S. workers who have already been residing and working in the U.S. It is not a guarantee of citizenship, but an opportunity to continue working hard, start playing by the rules, and earn permanent residency. And by bringing immigrants out of the shadows so they can earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, we are protecting American workers' rights and wages, too. The legal status must be earned by proving past work contributions, making a substantial future work commitment, and paying of $2,000 in penalties. First, workers will receive temporary resident status, based on their past work contributions. To earn permanent residence, they must work 6 more years. Otherwise, they will be dropped from the program and required to leave the country. It's not an amnesty for them, because they have to earn it. We offer a fair deal: if they are willing to work hard for us openly, then we're willing to do something fair for them. It is the only realistic solution. If there's any amnesty involved, it's what they have today--an acquiescence in their presence, because countless businesses could not function without them since no American workers can be found to fill their jobs. To be eligible for legal status, applicants must have no criminal or national security problems. All will be required to undergo rigorous security clearances. Their names will be checked against the government's criminal and terrorist databases, and the applicant's fingerprints will be sent to the FBI for a thorough background check. It's long past time to put the underground economy above ground, and recognize the reality of immigrants in our workforce. It's the only way to achieve effective enforcement rules to protect and strengthen our labor system, and to stabilize our workforce for employers. Our bill allows long-term, tax-paying immigrant workers to apply for earned adjustment of status. Studies show that there are now millions of illegal immigrants working in the U.S., and it would be irresponsible to continue to ignore this hidden past of our economic landscape. Our bill is also about fairness. It ensures that the rights of all workers are protected--that the rights to organize, to change jobs between employers, and to have fair wages, fair hours, and fair working conditions--cannot be denied. Through this legislation, America can be proud again that our Nation protects the safety and rights of all our workers. Our legislation is also about protecting families. Family unity has always been a fundamental cornerstone of America's immigration policy. Yet, millions of individuals today are waiting for immigrant visas to join with their families. Our bill will allow these families to be reunited more quickly and humanely. It also removes and amends unnecessary obstacles in current law that separate families, such as the affidavit-of-support requirements and the rigid bars to admissibility. Our bill contains provisions that will expedite visas to reunite spouses and children of legal immigrants with their loved ones. It also provides measures to clear up the backlog of employment-based visas. In addition, this bill recognizes the need for strong border protection and enforcement as part of immigration reform. It directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and implement a National Strategy for Border Security to coordinate the efforts of Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities on border management and security. The Strategy will identify the areas most in need of enforcement and propose cost-effective ways to defend the border, including better ways of technology, improved intelligence-sharing and coordination. It also includes plans to combat human smuggling. To further improve border enforcement, the bill improves the security of Mexico's southern border and assesses the needs of Central American governments in securing their borders. It provides a framework for better management, communication, coordination, and immigration control for all our governments, and encourages other governments to control alien smuggling and trafficking, prevent the use and manufacture of fraudulent travel documents, and share relevant information. The bill also encourages so-called circular migration patterns. It provides for unprecedented cooperation with the governments of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and other Central American countries on issues of migration. It asks foreign countries to enter into agreements with the U.S. to help control the flow of their citizens to jobs in the U.S., with emphasis on encouraging the re-integration of citizens returning home. It also encourages the U.S. government to partner with Mexico to promote economic opportunity back home and reduce the pressure for its citizens to immigrate to the U.S. It encourages partnership between the U.S. and Mexico on health care, so that we are not unfairly burdened by the cost of administering health care to Mexican nationals. Further, the bill mandates that immigration-related documents issued by DHS be biometric, machine-readable, and tamper-resistant. It creates an Employment Eligibility Confirmation System, so that employers can verify an employee's identity and employment authorization, and an improved system to collect entry and exit data to determine the status of aliens after their arrival to and departure from the U.S. It protects against immigration fraud by improving regulations on who may appear in immigration matters. Another important component of our bill is its State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, to reimburse states for the direct and indirect costs of incarcerating illegal aliens. We know that these reforms are long overdue. The illegal workers here today are not leaving, and new ones continue to come in. A significant part of the workforce in many sectors of the economy, especially agriculture, is undocumented. Massive deportations are unrealistic as policy, impractical to carry out, and unacceptable to businesses that rely heavily on their labor. Americans want and deserve realistic solutions to the very real immigration problems we face. They don't want open borders, and they don't want closed borders. They want smart borders, which mean fair and realistic immigration laws that can actually be enforced, immigration laws that protect our security, respect our ideals, and honor our heritage as a Nation of immigrants. America has been the Promised Land for generations of immigrants who have found haven, hope, opportunity and freedom here. Immigrants have always been an indispensable part of our Nation. They have contributed immensely to our communities, created new jobs and whole new industries, served in our armed forces, paid their taxes, and help make America the continuing land of promise it is today. It's obvious why the Nation's founders chose ``E Pluribus Unum''-- ``out of many, one'' as America's motto two centuries ago. These words, chosen by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, referred to their ideal that tiny quarreling colonies could be transformed into one Nation, with one destiny. That basic ideal applies to individuals as well. Our diversity is our greatest strength. We are a Nation of immigrants, and we always will be, and our laws must be true to that proud heritage. Our bipartisan bill attempts to do that, and I look forward to working with the Administration and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact it into law.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is time for a new effort in Congress to enact the Patients' Bill of Rights. The Senate has approved major bipartisan legislation to end the abuses of managed care and HMOs before, but final enactment of this important measure was blocked by the HMOs and the vested interests of the corporate world that deny working Americans their basic rights and a needed voice in challenging decisions that deny them basic medical care. It was blocked too by an administration that professes to support patients' rights, but does all it can to block legislation to guarantee those rights. Despite our outstanding researchers and professionals, families across the country are overwhelmingly and justifiably concerned that medical decisions are too often made by insurance industry accountants, and not their doctors. HMO profits too often take priority over patient needs. It is time for Congress to end the abuses of patients and physicians by HMOs and the insurance industry. Too often, managed care is mismanaged care. No amount of distortions or smokescreens by insurance companies can change the facts. The Patients' Bill of Rights can stop these abuses. For millions of Americans who rely on health insurance to protect them when serious illness strikes, the Patients' Bill of Rights is literally a matter of life and death. It's important to remember what this debate is really about. It's not about lawyers. It's not about insurance companies. It's about patients--mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, sisters and brothers. It's about families around the country who will someday face the challenge of serious illness and deserve the best in health care-- the same care that all members of the Senate want for ourselves and our loved ones. But too many families are denied the care they need and deserve because of abuses by HMOs and other insurance companies. The legislation we are introducing today will end those abuses. Several of its provisions are especially important--specialty care, clinical trials, and prescription drugs. In each of these areas, care is too often delayed or denied by insurance companies more interested in profits than patients. Access to specialty care for serious and complex illnesses is a critical element of good health care. Yet denial of needed specialists is one of the most common abuses in the current system. Patients with cancer and other serious illnesses need specialty care. Often, their best hope for a cure or for precious extra years of life is participation in a clinical trial. But too often, both are lacking. Patients with cancer or other serious illnesses and their physicians must fight HMOs to take advantage of this opportunity. Traditionally, insurance companies have paid for the routine costs of doctors and hospitals in clinical trials. But HMOs frequently refuse to do so, with devastating effects on patients and research alike. Our legislation will end this abuse. Another abuse that will be ended by our plan is the denial of medically necessary drugs not on an HMO plan's list. One group that suffers from this denial is the mentally ill. Some of the most dramatic advances in medicine in recent years have been the development of effective drugs to treat persons with serious mental illness. Too often, however, they're told to settle for older, cheaper, less effective drugs with harmful side effects, because an HMO refuses to pay for the best standard of care. Our legislation guarantees that patients can get medically necessary drugs, even if they are not on the HMO's list. Equally important, our bill guarantees that these drugs will be provided at a cost no greater than the normal cost-sharing for other medications. Access to needed drugs is a concern for every family, particularly when new cures are increasingly based on new drugs today. The list of abuses goes on and on. People across the country know these abuses are wrong. Managed care practices that cause these tragedies cost lives, and ending these abuses is a matter of simple justice and common decency. The Patients' Bill of Rights will protect families from insurance company bureaucracies that rob them of their peace of mind, their health, or even their lives. The bill is a guarantee that medical decisions will be made by doctors and patients, not managed care accountants. It is actively supported by doctors, nurses, patients, small businesses, religious organizations, and working families. The support is impressive in its breadth, its depth and its diversity. It is time to guarantee these basic rights for patients. It is time for Congress to pass this bill. Every doctor knows it. Every nurse knows it. Every patient knows it. And every Senator knows it too. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, It is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act and increase the opportunities for workers to obtain the services and training they need to hold good jobs in the years ahead. This bill strengthens the current One-Stop system we established in 1998, so that many more people can be served. The bill creates stronger partnerships with businesses to recruit new workers, collaborate in training current workers, improve career ladder opportunities, and work with local leaders to meet the changing needs of their community. The One-Stop system is needed more than ever now, to serve hard- working Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own as we struggle to rebuild our economy and adjust to the new century and the globalization forces that are transforming our society and our workforce. Current employees, especially the growing number of manufacturing workers, need effective training to be eligible for the available jobs in their area. We have also worked to remove the sequencing of services for persons entering the workforce who face barriers to employment. Providers can move adults directly to skills training, or create training programs that include literacy and language skills as well, so that job training is not delayed. The bill also encourages local providers to continue the training programs until employees can be self-sufficient. For those who start on the minimum wage, the support system should be there to help them qualify for the better-paying jobs that will enable them to support their families. Some men and women may obtain their first job through the system, and continue to participate as they move up their career ladders. The bill will also help young people. Last summer, the youth unemployment rate rose to 17 percent and we were all acutely aware of the special challenges that young workers face in this economy. The youth program will continue to work with both in-school and out-of- school young men and women to help them obtain the education and the real job experience they need to be competitive. The bill pays particular attention to the needs of people with disabilities. Their access to the program is essential if the system is to be truly universal. It's unacceptable today that hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities are unable to find employment. Workforce training programs must coordinate with vocational rehabilitation programs to provide many more opportunities for those with physical and mental challenges. For over thirty years, since the Vocational Rehabilitation Act was first enacted in 1973, state vocational rehabilitation programs have brought new hope to individuals with disabilities throughout the country, so that they can reach their full potential and actively participate in their communities. Through vocational rehabilitation, individuals with disabilities can obtain the training, counseling, support and job opportunities they need in order to have independent, productive, and fulfilling lives. For millions of these Americans, vocational rehabilitation is the difference between dependence and independence, between lost potential and a productive career. In 1998, vocational rehabilitation became part of the state-wide workforce system in each state. This reauthorization will strengthen that partnership, so that many more working-age individuals with disabilities, even those with the most significant challenges, have realistic opportunities to obtain the services and support they need to reach their employment goals. The legislation also strengthens other aspects of independent living, so that students and adults with disabilities can receive the services and support they need for community-based living. Our goal in this reauthorization is to see that the talents and strengths of all individuals with disabilities are recognized, enhanced, and fairly rewarded in communities and workplaces across the nation. The bill also contains the Adult Literacy Act, which funds critical programs for states to assist adults in obtaining the basic reading, writing, numeracy and English language skills that they need to be full participants in the workplace and in society. We all know that education is the great equalizer. Improving basic literacy is a key component of job training. Large numbers of persons are on waiting lists across the country to be served under this program--25,000 people in Massachusetts alone--and we need to do more to serve adults who recognize their need to improve these skills in order to improve their lives. I commend my colleagues and the many organizations representing governors, mayors, county officials, youth, women, and low-income persons who were so actively involved in preparing this legislation. We have tried to listen carefully to the many leaders who have practical experience in implementing these laws. I look forward to continuing this bipartisan effort and to the early enactment of this needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's an honor to join Senator McCain and Congressmen Gutierrez, Kolbe, and Flake in introducing our bipartisan legislation to reform the Nation's immigration laws. The status quo is unacceptable, and legislation is urgently needed to deal with all the inadequacies in our current law, to end the suffering of long-separated families imposed by the broken system, and to do so in a way that reflects current realities. We must modernize our broken immigration system to meet the challenges of the 21st century. And we need policies that continue to reflect our best values as a nation--fairness, equal opportunity, and respect for the rule of law. One of the mistakes of the past is to assume that we can control illegal immigration on our own. A realistic immigration policy must be a two-way street. Under our plan, America will do its part, but we expect Mexico and other nations to do their part, too, to replace an illegal immigration flow with regulated, legal immigration. Our bill will make our immigration policies more realistic and enforceable, restore legality as the prevailing norm, and make it easier for immigrants to cooperate with local authorities. It will protect the labor rights of all workers, and create an even playing field for employers. It will strengthen our economy, restore control of our borders, and improve national security. Much of the Nation's economy today depends on the hard work and the many contributions of immigrants. Many industries depend heavily on immigrant labor. These men and women enrich our Nation and improve the quality of our lives. Yet, millions of today's immigrant workers are not here legally. They and their families live shadow lives in constant fear of deportation, and easy targets for abuse and exploitation by unscrupulous employers and criminals as well. Many risk great danger, and even death, to cross our borders. Our bill offers practical solutions to deal with these basic problems. It contains an earned legalization program for immigrants who have been working in the United States for at least 6 years, a way to reduce the enormous backlog of petitions to unify immigrant families, and a revised temporary worker program. The bill also contains strict border security and enforcement provisions, and measures to ensure that other countries do their part by requiring them to help control the flow of their citizens to jobs in the United States. We feel the bill is a realistic and practical solution to the complex immigration challenges facing the Nation for so long, and we've worked closely with as many interested groups as possible to make it fair to all. Despite our compromises and bipartisan solutions, there are some who oppose these reforms. They misleadingly categorize our efforts as ``immigrant amnesty.'' They refuse to accept that these reforms simply create a legalization program for U.S. workers who have already been residing and working in the U.S. It is not a guarantee of citizenship, but an opportunity to continue working hard, start playing by the rules, and earn permanent residency. And by bringing immigrants out of the shadows so they can earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, we are protecting American workers' rights and wages, too. The legal status must be earned by proving past work contributions, making a substantial future work commitment, and paying of $2,000 in penalties. First, workers will receive temporary resident status, based on their past work contributions. To earn permanent residence, they must work 6 more years. Otherwise, they will be dropped from the program and required to leave the country. It's not an amnesty for them, because they have to earn it. We offer a fair deal: if they are willing to work hard for us openly, then we're willing to do something fair for them. It is the only realistic solution. If there's any amnesty involved, it's what they have today--an acquiescence in their presence, because countless businesses could not function without them since no American workers can be found to fill their jobs. To be eligible for legal status, applicants must have no criminal or national security problems. All will be required to undergo rigorous security clearances. Their names will be checked against the government's criminal and terrorist databases, and the applicant's fingerprints will be sent to the FBI for a thorough background check. It's long past time to put the underground economy above ground, and recognize the reality of immigrants in our workforce. It's the only way to achieve effective enforcement rules to protect and strengthen our labor system, and to stabilize our workforce for employers. Our bill allows long-term, tax-paying immigrant workers to apply for earned adjustment of status. Studies show that there are now millions of illegal immigrants working in the U.S., and it would be irresponsible to continue to ignore this hidden past of our economic landscape. Our bill is also about fairness. It ensures that the rights of all workers are protected--that the rights to organize, to change jobs between employers, and to have fair wages, fair hours, and fair working conditions--cannot be denied. Through this legislation, America can be proud again that our Nation protects the safety and rights of all our workers. Our legislation is also about protecting families. Family unity has always been a fundamental cornerstone of America's immigration policy. Yet, millions of individuals today are waiting for immigrant visas to join with their families. Our bill will allow these families to be reunited more quickly and humanely. It also removes and amends unnecessary obstacles in current law that separate families, such as the affidavit-of-support requirements and the rigid bars to admissibility. Our bill contains provisions that will expedite visas to reunite spouses and children of legal immigrants with their loved ones. It also provides measures to clear up the backlog of employment-based visas. In addition, this bill recognizes the need for strong border protection and enforcement as part of immigration reform. It directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and implement a National Strategy for Border Security to coordinate the efforts of Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities on border management and security. The Strategy will identify the areas most in need of enforcement and propose cost-effective ways to defend the border, including better ways of technology, improved intelligence-sharing and coordination. It also includes plans to combat human smuggling. To further improve border enforcement, the bill improves the security of Mexico's southern border and assesses the needs of Central American governments in securing their borders. It provides a framework for better management, communication, coordination, and immigration control for all our governments, and encourages other governments to control alien smuggling and trafficking, prevent the use and manufacture of fraudulent travel documents, and share relevant information. The bill also encourages so-called circular migration patterns. It provides for unprecedented cooperation with the governments of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and other Central American countries on issues of migration. It asks foreign countries to enter into agreements with the U.S. to help control the flow of their citizens to jobs in the U.S., with emphasis on encouraging the re-integration of citizens returning home. It also encourages the U.S. government to partner with Mexico to promote economic opportunity back home and reduce the pressure for its citizens to immigrate to the U.S. It encourages partnership between the U.S. and Mexico on health care, so that we are not unfairly burdened by the cost of administering health care to Mexican nationals. Further, the bill mandates that immigration-related documents issued by DHS be biometric, machine-readable, and tamper-resistant. It creates an Employment Eligibility Confirmation System, so that employers can verify an employee's identity and employment authorization, and an improved system to collect entry and exit data to determine the status of aliens after their arrival to and departure from the U.S. It protects against immigration fraud by improving regulations on who may appear in immigration matters. Another important component of our bill is its State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, to reimburse states for the direct and indirect costs of incarcerating illegal aliens. We know that these reforms are long overdue. The illegal workers here today are not leaving, and new ones continue to come in. A significant part of the workforce in many sectors of the economy, especially agriculture, is undocumented. Massive deportations are unrealistic as policy, impractical to carry out, and unacceptable to businesses that rely heavily on their labor. Americans want and deserve realistic solutions to the very real immigration problems we face. They don't want open borders, and they don't want closed borders. They want smart borders, which mean fair and realistic immigration laws that can actually be enforced, immigration laws that protect our security, respect our ideals, and honor our heritage as a Nation of immigrants. America has been the Promised Land for generations of immigrants who have found haven, hope, opportunity and freedom here. Immigrants have always been an indispensable part of our Nation. They have contributed immensely to our communities, created new jobs and whole new industries, served in our armed forces, paid their taxes, and help make America the continuing land of promise it is today. It's obvious why the Nation's founders chose ``E Pluribus Unum''-- ``out of many, one'' as America's motto two centuries ago. These words, chosen by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, referred to their ideal that tiny quarreling colonies could be transformed into one Nation, with one destiny. That basic ideal applies to individuals as well. Our diversity is our greatest strength. We are a Nation of immigrants, and we always will be, and our laws must be true to that proud heritage. Our bipartisan bill attempts to do that, and I look forward to working with the Administration and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact it into law.