Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment to exclude civil rights and wage and hour cases from the bill's provisions on removal of cases to Federal court. Working Americans and victims of discrimination seeking justice under State laws don't deserve to have the doors of justice slammed on such claims, but that is exactly what this bill will do. All of us know that families across the country are struggling to make ends meet. We cannot ignore that they are too often hurt by the denial of a fair wage, or by unfair discrimination. We cannot tell the victims of these practices that Congress does not care about this enormous problem. This amendment is needed, because the harm suffered by plaintiffs in State civil rights and labor cases is real, devastating, and personal-- not the sort of harm that results in a few dollars of damages or a coupon settlement. We have been told that this bill was designed to correct the problem of class actions in which plaintiffs get only a few dollars for minor claims, while elite attorneys earn million-dollar fees. We have yet to hear one example of that happening in a civil rights case or a labor case. We certainly haven't heard anything to suggest there is a major problem in those areas. Some have said it is too late to raise these concerns about civil rights and workers' rights. We have been told that too much work has gone into this legislation to consider these issues now. But it is always the right time to stand up for principle. In its current form, this bill is just another example of the administration's misguided priorities--putting the interests of big companies ahead of America's working families. Why should Congress protect companies that violate State laws by engaging in discrimination or exploiting low wage workers, while making it harder for victims of those practices to get relief in court? Those are the wrong priorities, and we cannot ignore that problem. We can't turn our backs on victims of discrimination such as Kathleen Rudolph. She and other working women in Florida brought a class action alleging sexual harassment. These women provided health care and other services to inmates in State prisons. They told the court they had suffered almost daily sexual harassment from male inmates, and prison officials failed to stop it. What sense does it make to force a case like that to go to a Federal district court? The same principle applies to wage and hour laws. A fair day's work deserves a fair day's wage. State wage-and-hour laws provide basic protections to workers, particularly now, as companies continue to improve their bottom lines by pressuring workers to work off the clock. A recent New York Times article described the growing phenomenon of low-wage workers in many fields, including hairstylists, supermarket cashiers, and call center workers, being forced to work without recording their full hours. These workers are denied overtime pay, and in many cases, working extra hours means they don't even earn the minimum wage. Many of these workers refuse to underreport their hours, and they are punished for not doing so. One manager interviewed by the New York Times admitted: Working off the clock was a condition of a call service representative's employment. Hourly workers who complained were weeded out and terminated. Professor Eileen Applebaum of Rutgers University emphasized that workers have little choice but to go along. She said, ``One big reason for off-the-clock work is that people are really worried about their jobs.'' Congress should not take away the right of these workers to recover the wages they are owed. Locking the courthouse door against them will hurt people such as Nancy Braun and Debbie Simonson, who worked at a national discount chain in Minnesota. They were constantly forced to work through their meal breaks and work off the clock. They and workers like them would not be able to recover their wages without a class action. We should not put more barriers in the way of their pursuit of justice. The new Federal overtime rule that takes away overtime from so many Federal workers means that State-law overtime protections are more important than ever. This is particularly true in States such as Illinois, which have wage-and-hour laws similar to the Federal law, and have explicitly rejected the new Federal regulations. With 8 million Americans out of work, and so many other families struggling to make ends meet, cutbacks in overtime are an unfair burden that America's workers should not have to bear. Overtime pay accounts for about 25 percent of the income for those who work overtime, and workers denied that protection routinely end up working longer hours for less pay. Employers are all too ready to classify workers as not eligible for overtime. Warren Dubrow and Sam O'Lear discovered that problem when they worked in Orange County, CA, as service mangers at an automotive chain. They often had to work more than 50 hours a week. Yet they were denied overtime pay because their employer called them ``managers.'' Never mind that they spent most of their time on nonsupervisory tasks like greeting customers, filling out order forms, and even changing tires. In State court, they and thousands of their fellow service managers won the right to overtime pay under State laws providing that workers who spend more than half their time on non-managerial tasks are entitled to overtime. Why should a Federal court be required to hear a case like that? This isn't just a matter of moving civil rights cases and labor cases to a different forum. The real effect is much more harmful. Too often, moving these cases to Federal courts will mean they are never heard at all because strict Federal rules for class certification will prevent the plaintiffs from being approved as a class. If a Federal court decides not to certify the class, that is probably the end of the case, because many members of class action lawsuits can't afford to pursue their cases individually. Extended litigation in Federal court is too expensive for low wage workers and victims of discrimination, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck. Defendant companies are eager to throw sand in the gears of the law, and Congress shouldn't be encouraging them. There has been some confusion during this debate about whether the class action bill would really move cases involving local events into Federal courts. Yesterday, the distinguished Senator from Utah questioned whether cases based on truly local events would really be affected by the class action bill. Let there be no doubt, it will happen if the current bill isn't modified. If 100 Alabama workers bring a class action case under Alabama law for job discrimination that took place in Alabama, the employer can still use this bill to drag the case into Federal court if the employer company is incorporated outside the State. The same is true if low-wage workers are denied fair pay in their home State. As long as an employer is incorporated out of State, that employer can move the case into Federal court. Section 4 of the bill allows a case to stay in State court only if a primary defendant is a ``citizen'' of the same State as the plaintiffs who brought the case. Companies are citizens of the State where they are incorporated, regardless of where they do business. As a result, plaintiffs who file a case in State court against a company with offices in their home State could quickly find their case in Federal court if the company is incorporated somewhere else. That will affect a huge number of State law cases. To show the scale of this problem, let's look at the figures. More than 308,000 companies are incorporated in Delaware, including 60 percent of the Fortune 500 firms and 50 percent of the corporations listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Most of these companies also do business in many other States. But plaintiffs in those other States will not be able to file cases against these companies without being dragged into Federal court. That result violates basic fairness and common sense. The Senator from Utah also suggested that this amendment isn't necessary to protect victims of discrimination because Federal courts have traditionally been defenders of civil rights. Federal courts do perform the important job of protecting civil rights under Federal law and the U.S. Constitution. No one is questioning that. This amendment wouldn't change the fact that Federal civil rights claims can be decided by Federal courts. Nor would it exempt Federal civil rights or Federal wage and hour cases from the other requirements of this bill, such as the requirement that appropriate Government officials be notified of class action settlements. This amendment does only one thing. It leaves in place the current rules governing removal of civil rights and labor cases filed under State or local laws. When States are ahead of the Federal Government in giving their citizens greater protection than Federal law--as several States have done in the area of genetic discrimination and discrimination based on marital status--State courts, not Federal courts, should interpret those laws. The Senator from Utah suggested that this amendment isn't necessary because civil rights cases are filed under Federal laws. That is not accurate. There are many Federal class actions, but there are also many emerging areas in which victims of discrimination are seeking relief through State law class actions. Sexual harassment cases are often brought in State courts under State law, like Kathleen Rudolph's case which I mentioned earlier. Many civil rights class actions can only be brought under State law because there is no Federal law on the particular issue involved. That is true for genetic discrimination. It is true for discrimination based on marital status, parental status, and citizenship status. Those types of discrimination are prohibited under many State laws, but not yet under Federal law. If we don't let State courts develop these emerging protections under State laws, we are stacking the deck against workers and victims of discrimination. That is because Federal courts have said, time and time and time again, that they will interpret State laws narrowly. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, faced with opposing interpretations of State law, has ruled that it will ``choose the narrower interpretation that restricts liability.'' The First and Third Circuits have made similar rulings. There is no question that Federal courts are more likely than State courts to rule against plaintiffs in interpreting State law. Federal judges have said so themselves. Moving these cases into Federal courts will put a Federal thumb on the scale in favor of companies that violate the law. We can't let that happen. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and on both sides of the class action debate, to support this amendment. This legislation is supposed to reduce class action abuses, not add new abuses. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself such time. Mr. President, a point has been raised by those who are opposed to this amendment that there have been examples where issues affecting working conditions have been considered in the Federal courts and, therefore, we should not be so concerned. That misses the point. The fact is, we know of a number of cases that have been referred to Federal courts and the Federal courts have been uncertain as to which way to rule. Therefore, they have made a judgment consistently to have the narrowest possible interpretation. Narrowest possible interpretation means workers are going to get shortchanged on wages and working conditions. That is what it means. Why take it away from the local jurisdiction? We know the same argument with regard to civil rights. We all understand and respect the fact that when it comes to constitutional rights or interpreting the laws that have been passed here with Federal guarantees there is going to be Federal jurisdiction. But that ignores the basic fact that in a number of the States there have been enhancements of civil rights. The States have made those judgments. Judges understand that. They understand what has been considered by the legislature. They know what the temperament of the legislation is all about. Why take away those protections? This legislation does so. Quite frankly, those areas of workers' rights and civil rights were never really thought about as being the major reason for this legislation. They represent about 10 percent of the total class action, but they do involve protecting workers and workers' rights and they do involve protecting the basic civil rights which the States have enhanced over the Federal laws. Why are we going to take away from the States the opportunity, the power, the authority, to go ahead and interpret that? That is going to be unfair to those individuals who ought to have the protection. This is going to provide less protection for workers, less protection for their wages and their working conditions, and it is going to put at risk the kinds of protections that States have decided should be there to protect their citizens in the area of civil rights. It makes no sense, and I would certainly hope that our amendment would be accepted. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be granted to Elizabeth Kennedy, a legal intern in my office, for the duration of consideration of this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am going to send an amendment to the desk. Mr. President, it is wrong to include civil rights in wage-and-hour cases in this bill. Families across the country are struggling to make ends meet. They work hard, play by the rules, and expect fair treatment in return, but they often don't get it. Unfair discrimination can lead to the loss of a job or the denial of a job. It can keep them from having health insurance or obtaining decent housing. It can deprive their children of a good education. We can't turn a blind eye to that enormous problem. Those who engage in illegal discrimination must be held accountable. That is why I am offering this amendment--to protect working families and victims of discrimination. Hard-working Americans deserve a fair day in court. Class actions protect us all by preventing systematic discrimination. Attorneys general from 15 States--California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia--oppose the inclusion of civil rights in wage-and-hour cases in the bill. The problems that supporters of the bill say they want to fix don't even rise in civil rights and labor cases. No one has cited any civil rights or labor cases as an example of abuses in class action cases under the current law. During the discussion of this bill in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor last year and during the committee's discussion last week, no one identified any need to fix civil rights or labor class actions. ``If it ain't broke, Congress shouldn't try to fix it.'' There is no good reason to include these cases in this bill, but there is an excellent reason not to include them. This bill will harm victims of civil rights and labor law abuses by delaying their cases and making it much more difficult and much more expensive for them to obtain the justice they deserve. It may even discourage many from seeking any relief at all. That is not what this bill was meant to do. We were told this bill was about cases in which individuals from across the country receive relief in State courts for relatively minor violations--sometimes getting just a coupon or a few dollars in a case they didn't even know about while a few elite attorneys receive more megadollar fees. Civil rights and wage-and-hour class action suits are not about minor violations. They are about serious, sometimes devastating harm to people who have been treated unfairly and are seeking their day in court; people such as Mary Singleton, a long-term employee at a scientific laboratory in California who joined a gender discrimination class action after her employer refused to give her and other female employees equal pay for equal work. Ms. Singleton and her coworkers filed their case in State court because State law provided greater protection against gender discrimination and retaliation and because the Federal court rules would have placed additional limits on discovery. This bill would also harm people such as Georgie Hartwig who spent 6 years working at a national discount retailer in Colville, WA. For years, Ms. Hartwig and her fellow workers were forced to work off the clock, skipping breaks and lunch, but not being paid for their time. Now she is fighting, along with 40,000 coworkers, to get the wages they have earned. This bill was not supposed to make it harder for people such as Ms. Hartwig to get justice. We were also told this bill would not shift cases to Federal courts unless they truly involve national issues, while State cases would remain in State court. The bill's actual effects are quite different. It does not just affect cases where the events affect people in multiple States; under this bill, a corporate defendant with headquarters outside the State can move State class action cases, including civil rights cases and worker right cases, into Federal court, even if all the underlying facts in the case happened in a single State. Think about that. If 100 workers in Alabama sue their employer under Alabama law for job discrimination that occurred in Alabama, this bill says the employer can drag their case into Federal court if the employer happens to be incorporated in Delaware. That makes no sense. The bill would also apply to cases that seek justice for other strictly local events such as environmental damage. That is not what this amendment is about. This problem, which is affecting us now in Massachusetts, illustrates the fact that this bill is not just about truly national cases, as supporters keep insisting. A case now pending in a Massachusetts State court illustrates how the bill deprives local citizens of access to their own State courts when they become innocent victims of widespread pollution occurring in their hometowns. In April 2003 an oil barge ran aground on Buzzard's Bay off the coast of New Bedford, MA, spilling 98,000 gallons of oil into the bay and polluting almost 90 miles of beaches and sensitive tidal marshes in the area. Homeowners filed a class action suit in State court asking for compensation for the damage to their property. One of the defendants, Bouchard Transportation Company, has already been convicted of criminal negligence in causing the spill. The defendant companies are from out of State. Even though the case occurred entirely under Massachusetts laws, if the current bill, the proposed bill, had been in effect when the case was filed, this case could be removed to Federal court even though all the victims are full-time Massachusetts residents and seeking relief in Massachusetts courts under Massachusetts laws. Because this bill is not retroactive, the case will not be affected by this bill, but with the passage of this act, similar future cases, properly brought in the courts of the State where the harm occurs, can be removed to the Federal courts. As a result, the victims will often be confronted by class action certification procedures more onerous than those in their State courts. They will face delays from congested Federal dockets. They will have to travel greater distances from their homes to the courthouse. The procedural changes in this bill seem abstract, but they will have a devastating consequence for real people. First and foremost, it reduces each State's power to protect its own citizens and enforce its own laws. Moving these cases to Federal court will often end them for all practical purposes. Federal courts may decide they do not meet the Federal rules for class certification. Even if the cases are not dismissed, plaintiffs forced into Federal court on State law claims have the decks stacked against them in Federal court because Federal courts take the narrowest possible view in interpreting State laws. The First and Seventh Circuits ruled in interpreting State laws Federal courts must take the view that narrows liability. State judges should be the ones who interpret State laws, not Federal ``big brother.'' Often State laws have greater protections than Federal laws. That is the genius of our Federal system. Many States have stronger minimum wage laws and greater overtime protections than Federal law. Fourteen States and the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the Federal standard. Twenty states have overtime laws that give workers greater protection than the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Over 20 States have child labor laws that are more protective than Federal child labor laws. At a time when the administration is bent on undermining overtime at the Federal level, State law protections are more important than ever. States are also pioneers in protecting civil rights. Many States, such as California, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia, have greater protections for persons with disabilities than the Federal Americans With Disabilities Act. States are also in the forefront of protecting against discrimination based on family status or citizenship. A majority of States prohibits genetic discrimination in the workplace, a new and troubling form of discrimination where the Federal Government has been too slow to respond. Our proposal, to prohibit genetic discrimination under Federal law, passed 95-0 in the Senate, but it stalled in the House. When States act ahead of the Federal Government to provide greater rights for their citizens, State courts should be allowed to interpret their own laws. State courts, not Federal courts, have the expertise in exerting the will of the State legislature and they should have the right to do so. We all know what is going on. We should call this bill the ``Class Action Hypocrisy Act of 2005.'' Our colleagues love to proclaim States rights when Congress tries to expand the rights of law in all 50 States, but they do not hesitate to override States rights to help their business friends. This bill is a windfall for guilty corporate offenders. It even allows repeat offenders to drag State cases into Federal court and allows them to spend months litigating whether the case belongs there. If the Federal court decides that the case does not fit the narrow rules set by the bill and should be sent back to State court, that will cause another delay because the employer can appeal the decision. Delay is a serious problem today in many Federal trial courts across the country. Paul Jones, an employee of Goodyear Tire Company in Ohio, found that out the hard way. He and other workers in their fifties filed an age discrimination case in the State court in Akron. All they wanted was to be judged by their ability, not their age. His attorney said, We file our class action lawsuits in the Ohio State court system because it is our experience these cases move much more rapidly in the State court than they would if filed in the Federal court system. The difference in the amount of time it takes to adjudicate a State court age discrimination case compared to a Federal court case may be as much as 2 years. No wonder the corporate defendants are salivating over this opportunity to escape the liability for their wrongs. Paul Jones had a State law claim in State court, but his employer tried to have it dismissed based on Federal court rulings that certain types of arguments in age discriminations were invalid. The State court rejected that argument. It held that Mr. Jones could proceed with his claim based on the disparate impact analysis, something Ohio's Federal courts did not allow. But a Federal court would have been much more likely to go along with the idea because Federal courts read the State law narrowly. The delay from moving State cases to Federal court would be particularly harmful for low-wage workers who have no resources to fall back on when litigation expenses start to mount. A letter by David Luna, Flora Gonzales, and dozens of coworkers who were housekeepers, cooks, and waiters at two luxury hotels in Los Angeles, makes the point. Their heavy workloads forced them to work through their meals and breaks. They write: [A]s cooks we . . . struggle to meet the hotel's 30 minute room service guarantee, yet we work through our own 30 minute meal breaks on an almost daily basis. These workers are working to recover wages they own, but the corporate defendants have been trying to slow down the case by removing it to Federal court. The harm of such delays is very real to these workers, as they so poignantly described: For some, delays in getting your day in court may be only an inconvenience. But we are modestly paid workers with physically demanding jobs. For us, delays mean that we must continue to work without breaks, our work days are harder than they should be, and we must wait longer to be paid the extra wages we have earned. If this bill passes, big corporations will have free rein to use procedural maneuvers to delay these cases and deny these workers their day in court. Why should we make it harder for those workers to get their claims decided? Abuses by large companies are widespread. Right now, class action cases are proceeding in State courts in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and California for hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers who were required by Wal-Mart to work extra hours ``off the clock'' without being paid for their extra time. It is wrong for Congress to side with the big guy. These men and women deserve to recover their lost wages to pay their rent, pay their medical bills, and put food on the table. The longer they wait for justice, the heavier the burden on these workers and their families. And the Senate is about to tell them to take a hike? It is outrageous. Supporters of the bill talk a lot about fairness. We hear that word again and again. It has even been put into the title of the class action bill. Labeling it ``fair'' does not make it fair. Fair does not mean punishing those who are mistreated on the job. Fairness does not mean making it harder for honest working men and women to obtain justice when they have been cheated out of their wages. It does not mean denying victims of discrimination their day in court under the laws of their State. It is wrong for Congress to side with corporate abusers and tell the victims of discrimination and unfair practices they cannot count on their own State courts to give them the justice they deserve. But that is what this bill is all about. At the very least, we should exclude civil rights and labor cases from its harsh provisions. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment to protect these basic civil rights of hard-working Americans in communities across the country. Mr. President, I received many letters from working Americans and victims of discrimination who support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have some of these letters printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to anticipate some of the arguments that may be made by those who question whether cases based on truly local events would really be affected by the class action bill. Some have claimed that the bill will bring only national multi-State cases into Federal court, where they belong. They say it doesn't affect purely State cases, because it keeps class actions in State court if plaintiffs live in the same State as the defendant. But in reality, the bill will move many State law cases to Federal court even if the people bringing the suit all live in the same State, and were hurt by a company doing business in that State. This is because the bill lets a case stay in State court only if the defendant is a ``citizen'' of the same State as the plaintiffs who brought the case, and companies are citizens of the State where they were incorporated, regardless of where they do business. As a result, plaintiffs who live in one State who file a case against a company with many offices in that State, would not be able to keep their case in State court if the company is incorporated somewhere else. To show the scale of this problem, let's look at the figures. More than 308,000 companies are incorporated in Delaware, including 60 percent of Fortune 500 firms and 50 percent of the corporations listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Most of these companies also do business in many other States. But plaintiffs in those other States will not be able to file State cases against these companies without being dragged into Federal court. That violates the principle of simple fairness. The bill lets corporations stay in State court when it's to their advantage. Businesses will still have their day in State court. But corporate employees whose civil or labor rights have been violated will be denied the same access. Some have suggested that my amendment is not necessary because Federal courts have traditionally been protectors of civil rights. It is true that our Federal courts perform the important job of protecting rights under Federal law and the U.S. Constitution. And my amendment will still allow those claims to be heard in Federal court. But in cases involving State civil rights or wage and hour laws, State courts should make these decisions. When States step ahead of the Federal government to give their citizens greater protection than Federal law--as several States have done in the area of genetic discrimination of discrimination based on marital status--State, not Federal courts, should interpret those laws. That is what my amendment would ensure.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support this resolution, and I join in commending the people of Iraq for the inspiring step they have taken toward self-government and a democratic future. We all share the goal of spreading freedom and democracy and ending tyranny around the globe. There is no disagreement about these goals, and the importance of these ideals. America has been a beacon of democracy and freedom for more than two centuries. When America is at its best, our deeds match our words. But many of us feel we haven't done that in Iraq. We care about our country. Stephen Decatur famously said, ``My country, right or wrong.'' But others through the years have said it better--``our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right. When wrong, to be set right.'' We've paid a high price for the invasion of Iraq. Saddam is gone, but there were no weapons of mass destruction. The cakewalk the administration predicted became a quagmire instead. We shifted our focus away from the real threat to our national security--Osama bin Laden. We shattered our alliances and lost our respect in the world. More than 1,400 American soldiers have given their lives. 150,000 of our soldiers are tied down in Iraq. Our military has been stretched to the breaking point, with other threats ever-present. The families of our military, and our guard and reserves are suffering. The American occupation has fueled the insurgency. We are all moved by the bravery of the Iraqi people who voted in the recent election, and we honor the courageous men and women of our Armed Forces who continue to risk their lives for a better future for the Iraqi people. The election is an opening, if we are wise enough to seize it, to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term designs on their country. I hope the administration's decision to withdraw 15,000 American troops from Iraq is a down-payment on a more enlightened policy, and that the administration will seize this opening. Our men and women in uniform deserve more. We need to redouble our efforts to train the Iraqi security forces before the election of a permanent Iraqi government at the end of the year, so that a stable and free Iraq will be established and our troops can come home with dignity and honor. I congratulate the Iraqi people and the men and women of our Armed Forces who made this election possible, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Frist, Senator Enzi, Senator Gregg, and Senator Bingaman in introducing the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Improvement Act. Our bill makes several improvements in the 1990 law that established the Foundation. Most significant, it assures the Foundation at least $500,000 annually from the NIH to support its administrative and operating expenses. These funds will enable the Foundation to use its own resources for the actual support of projects to strengthen NIH programs, rather than raise money for its own expenses. As the bill makes clear, the NIH Director and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs are ex officio members of the Foundation's board of directors. Congress established the Foundation to raise private funds to support the research of the NIH. For every dollar the Foundation received from the NIH in 2003, it raised $426 in private funds. Since its creation, the Foundation has raised $270 million, or $68 in private support for every dollar from the NIH. The Foundation is currently managing 37 programs supported by $270 million generated from private contributions. For example, the Edmond J. Safra Family Lodge on the NIH campus gives families of patients receiving in-patient treatment at the NIH Clinical Center a place to stay, at no cost to them. In addition, the Foundation has formed partnerships with the NIH to develop new cancer treatments, to identify biochemical signs of osteoarthritis and Alzheimer's Disease, and to build on the promise of genomics. Through a public-private partnership, the Foundation helped accelerate the sequencing of the mouse genome. The Foundation is also collecting private funds to study drugs in children. In 2003, Bill Gates announced a gift to the Foundation of $200 million over the next 10 years to support research on global health priorities. Clearly, the Foundation's partnership with the NIH will grow productively in the coming years. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation, so that the Foundation can continue its effective support of the work and mission of the NIH. 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 Senator Snowe, Senator Prist, Senator Gregg, and Senator Enzi in introducing the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act. Today we take another step in our national journey to a fairer and more just America. I particularly commend our colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, for her dedication to this vital issue. Senator Snowe first proposed legislation on genetic discrimination in 1996. Hopefully, the bipartisan momentum we have built up in recent years will produce a consensus bill we can enact into law this year. Two years ago, we celebrated an accomplishment that once seemed unimaginable--deciphering the entire sequence of the human DNA code. This amazing accomplishment will affect the 21st century as profoundly as the invention of the computer or the splitting of the atom affected the 20th century. But the extraordinary promise of science to improve health and relieve suffering is in jeopardy if our laws fail to provide adequate protections against misuse of genetic information. Our bipartisan legislation prohibits health insurers from using genetic information to deny health coverage or raise premiums. It bars employers from using genetic information to make employment decisions. Few kinds of information are more personal or more information than a person's genetic makeup. This information should not be shared by insurers or employers or be used in decisions about health coverage or a job. It should only be used by patients and their doctors to help them make the best possible decisions on diagnosis and treatment. Breakthroughs in genetic science are bringing remarkable new opportunities for improving health care. But it also carries the danger that genetic information will be used as a basis for discrimination. I hope we can all agree that discrimination on the basis of a person's genetic traits is as unacceptable as discrimination on the basis of race or religion. No American should be denied health insurance or fired from a job because of a genetic test. The vast potential of genetic knowledge to improve health care may go unfulfilled, if patients fear that information about their genetic characteristics will be used against them. Congress has a responsibility to guarantee that genetic information remains private and is not used for improper purposes. Experts in genetics are united in calling for strong protections to prevent this misuse and abuse of science. The HHS advisory panel on genetic testing--with experts in law, science, medicine, and business-- recommended unambiguously that Federal legislation is needed to prohibit discrimination in employment or health insurance based on genetic information. Last fall, witnesses testified about their first hand accounts of genetic discrimination. Heidi Williams' children were denied health insurance because they were carriers for a genetic disorder. Phil Hardt's children feared discrimination so much that they sought genetic tests in secret, paying out of their own pockets and not using their real names. Francis Collins, the leader of the NIH project to sequence the human genome, said, ``Genetic information and genetic technology can be used in ways that are fundamentally unjust. Already, people have lost their jobs, lost their health insurance, and lost their economic well-being because of the misuse of genetic information.'' Genetic tests are becoming even cheaper and more widely available. If we don't ban discrimination now, it may soon be routine for employers to use genetic tests to deny jobs to employees, based on their risk for disease. When Congress enacts clear protections against genetic discrimination in employment health insurance, all Americans will be able to enjoy the benefits of genetic research, free from the fear that their personal genetic information will be used against them. If Congress fails to see that genetic information is used only for legitimate purposes, we will squander the vast potential of genetic research to improve the Nation's health. Effective enforcement will be essential. It makes no sense to enact legislation giving the American people the promise of protection against this form of discrimination and then deny them the reality of that protection. President Bush recognizes the seriousness of this problem, and supports a ban on genetic discrimination. In his words, ``genetic information should be an opportunity to prevent and treat disease, not an excuse for discrimination. Just as our Nation addressed discrimination based on race, we must now prevent discrimination based on genetic information.'' I commend the President for his support, and I look forward to working with the administration to see that a strong bill on genetic discrimination is signed into law this year. It is time for Congress to act, and I urge the Senate to do so without delay.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Frist, Senator Enzi, Senator Gregg, and Senator Bingaman in introducing the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Improvement Act. Our bill makes several improvements in the 1990 law that established the Foundation. Most significant, it assures the Foundation at least $500,000 annually from the NIH to support its administrative and operating expenses. These funds will enable the Foundation to use its own resources for the actual support of projects to strengthen NIH programs, rather than raise money for its own expenses. As the bill makes clear, the NIH Director and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs are ex officio members of the Foundation's board of directors. Congress established the Foundation to raise private funds to support the research of the NIH. For every dollar the Foundation received from the NIH in 2003, it raised $426 in private funds. Since its creation, the Foundation has raised $270 million, or $68 in private support for every dollar from the NIH. The Foundation is currently managing 37 programs supported by $270 million generated from private contributions. For example, the Edmond J. Safra Family Lodge on the NIH campus gives families of patients receiving in-patient treatment at the NIH Clinical Center a place to stay, at no cost to them. In addition, the Foundation has formed partnerships with the NIH to develop new cancer treatments, to identify biochemical signs of osteoarthritis and Alzheimer's Disease, and to build on the promise of genomics. Through a public-private partnership, the Foundation helped accelerate the sequencing of the mouse genome. The Foundation is also collecting private funds to study drugs in children. In 2003, Bill Gates announced a gift to the Foundation of $200 million over the next 10 years to support research on global health priorities. Clearly, the Foundation's partnership with the NIH will grow productively in the coming years. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation, so that the Foundation can continue its effective support of the work and mission of the NIH. 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 Senator Snowe, Senator Prist, Senator Gregg, and Senator Enzi in introducing the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act. Today we take another step in our national journey to a fairer and more just America. I particularly commend our colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, for her dedication to this vital issue. Senator Snowe first proposed legislation on genetic discrimination in 1996. Hopefully, the bipartisan momentum we have built up in recent years will produce a consensus bill we can enact into law this year. Two years ago, we celebrated an accomplishment that once seemed unimaginable--deciphering the entire sequence of the human DNA code. This amazing accomplishment will affect the 21st century as profoundly as the invention of the computer or the splitting of the atom affected the 20th century. But the extraordinary promise of science to improve health and relieve suffering is in jeopardy if our laws fail to provide adequate protections against misuse of genetic information. Our bipartisan legislation prohibits health insurers from using genetic information to deny health coverage or raise premiums. It bars employers from using genetic information to make employment decisions. Few kinds of information are more personal or more information than a person's genetic makeup. This information should not be shared by insurers or employers or be used in decisions about health coverage or a job. It should only be used by patients and their doctors to help them make the best possible decisions on diagnosis and treatment. Breakthroughs in genetic science are bringing remarkable new opportunities for improving health care. But it also carries the danger that genetic information will be used as a basis for discrimination. I hope we can all agree that discrimination on the basis of a person's genetic traits is as unacceptable as discrimination on the basis of race or religion. No American should be denied health insurance or fired from a job because of a genetic test. The vast potential of genetic knowledge to improve health care may go unfulfilled, if patients fear that information about their genetic characteristics will be used against them. Congress has a responsibility to guarantee that genetic information remains private and is not used for improper purposes. Experts in genetics are united in calling for strong protections to prevent this misuse and abuse of science. The HHS advisory panel on genetic testing--with experts in law, science, medicine, and business-- recommended unambiguously that Federal legislation is needed to prohibit discrimination in employment or health insurance based on genetic information. Last fall, witnesses testified about their first hand accounts of genetic discrimination. Heidi Williams' children were denied health insurance because they were carriers for a genetic disorder. Phil Hardt's children feared discrimination so much that they sought genetic tests in secret, paying out of their own pockets and not using their real names. Francis Collins, the leader of the NIH project to sequence the human genome, said, ``Genetic information and genetic technology can be used in ways that are fundamentally unjust. Already, people have lost their jobs, lost their health insurance, and lost their economic well-being because of the misuse of genetic information.'' Genetic tests are becoming even cheaper and more widely available. If we don't ban discrimination now, it may soon be routine for employers to use genetic tests to deny jobs to employees, based on their risk for disease. When Congress enacts clear protections against genetic discrimination in employment health insurance, all Americans will be able to enjoy the benefits of genetic research, free from the fear that their personal genetic information will be used against them. If Congress fails to see that genetic information is used only for legitimate purposes, we will squander the vast potential of genetic research to improve the Nation's health. Effective enforcement will be essential. It makes no sense to enact legislation giving the American people the promise of protection against this form of discrimination and then deny them the reality of that protection. President Bush recognizes the seriousness of this problem, and supports a ban on genetic discrimination. In his words, ``genetic information should be an opportunity to prevent and treat disease, not an excuse for discrimination. Just as our Nation addressed discrimination based on race, we must now prevent discrimination based on genetic information.'' I commend the President for his support, and I look forward to working with the administration to see that a strong bill on genetic discrimination is signed into law this year. It is time for Congress to act, and I urge the Senate to do so without delay.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to congratulate the New England Patriots for winning yesterday's exciting Super Bowl against the Philadelphia Eagles, 24-21. What a year our sports teams in New England have had. The Patriots won the Super Bowl and the Boston Red Sox won the World Series. It doesn't get much better than that. The Patriots deserve great credit for another brilliant season. They have shattered the NFL record by winning 21 straight games. The previous record was held by the Miami Dolphins in 1972, who won 15 straight games. With nine seconds left in the game yesterday, Rodney Harrison intercepted his second pass of the day, clinching the Patriot's second straight Super Bowl and their third Super Bowl championship in 4 years. All three of those Super Bowl victories were by the same narrow margin--three points. In their two previous Super Bowl victories, they won by last-second field goals. This year, the field goal came earlier, but the game was no less a cliff-hanger. Deion Branch, a wide receiver of the Patriots, was a special hero in the game. He tied a Super Bowl record by catching eleven passes, and was named the Super Bowl's Most Valuable Player. Quarterback Tom Brady, as usual, was outstanding. There were many other heroes as well on both offense and defense, and it took all their skill and great teamwork to put points on the scoreboard. In fact, they sacked the quarterback four times and had three interceptions, two by Rodney Harrison. Much of the credit in the victory also goes to Bill Belichick and his two outstanding Assistant Coaches, Romeo Crennel and Charlie Weiss, who made sure that the team was well prepared with the strongest possible game plan every week throughout the season, and especially for the playoffs and the Super Bowl. Finally, I congratulate Patriots owner Bob Kraft for his strong support of the team, and for his very generous tribute to all the Patriots fans as well. He was right when he said this Super Bowl victory would not have been possible without the strong support of millions of Patriots fans throughout New England. The pending resolution commends the Patriots for their dramatic victory. I urge the Senate to approve it, and I hope very much we'll be back here in 2006 to pass a similar resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Is there a time allocation, as a matter of inquiry, Mr. President?

Mr. KENNEDY. I will not take long, but I welcome the opportunity to address this issue in the final moments before the Senate will make an extremely important judgment. We face a fundamental choice in the Senate today. The nominee for Attorney General of the United States is a good person, with an extraordinary life story that reflects, in many ways, the best of the American dream. If we were voting on that story, Mr. Gonzales would be confirmed in an instant. But our vote today is not a vote on whether he is a good person or whether we admire and respect his life story. It is a vote on whether his performance in the highest reaches of our Government has shown that he should be entrusted with the Department of Justice. It is a vote on whether we mean what we say when we express our commitment to America's fundamental ideals, for abhorrence to torture is a fundamental value, and the world is watching us and watching what we do on this nomination. Torture is an issue that cannot be wished away. Our attitude toward torture speaks volumes about our national conscience and our dedication to the rule of law. Mr. Gonzales was at the heart of the Bush administration's notorious decision to authorize our forces to commit flagrant acts of torture in the interrogations of detainees in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib. The war room in the White House became the torture room. Under this policy, our own agents burned detainees with lighted cigarettes. They bound them hand and foot and made them lie down in their own urine and feces. They administered forced enemas. They exploited our own female agents by ordering them to humiliate and degrade their male Muslim prisoners. They terrorized prisoners with unmuzzled dogs. How did this start? Where did it start? Who is responsible? We do not know everything because the administration refuses to come clean. But what we do know gives us some clear answers. And those answers should disqualify Mr. Gonzales from becoming Attorney General. It started when those who wanted to use extreme methods of coercion approached the White House and asked for legal cover. They went to the Office of the White House Counsel, the President's lawyer, Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Gonzales went to Jay Bybee in the Justice Department and asked him for a legal opinion on torture. Mr. Gonzales helped Mr. Bybee write that opinion. And when Mr. Gonzales received it, he thought it was appropriate, and he allowed it to be disseminated throughout the Government. Its words appeared in the Defense Department's guidelines for military interrogation. Its standards were used by the Justice Department to advise the CIA and other agencies on the legality of extreme methods of interrogation. When Mr. Gonzales received the Bybee memorandum he did not ask for it to be rewritten; he did not object to it; he did not ask for a second opinion. He agreed with the conclusions. And so for over 2 years the Bybee-Gonzales memorandum--which shamefully narrowed the definition of torture almost to nothingness-- was a roadmap to torture. In the year since we first heard about prisoner abuses, no one has suggested any other source for our torture policy. If President Bush wants to take responsibility, let him do so. If Secretary Rumsfeld wants to take responsibility, let him do so. If the CIA wants to take responsibility, let it do so. But so far, they have let Mr. Gonzales take full responsibility, and the facts make clear that he was at the epicenter of the government's torture policy. Many Senators, many military lawyers, and lawyers throughout the world knew the minute they saw the Bybee memorandum when it first came to light--2 years after it was written--that it was a political document, not a legal document. It was a document designed to reach a preordained result, not a document to say what the law really is. Dean Harold Koh of Yale Law School, a former official in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, told our committee that it was ``the most clearly legally erroneous opinion'' he has ever read. Yet it remained the administration's policy on torture for over 2 years. In our Senate committee, Senator Graham called the Bybee Gonzales memorandum, ``a lousy job''. On the floor Tuesday, Chairman Specter called it unacceptable and wrong. Yet Mr. Gonzales did not share that view, and for more than 2 years, the memorandum remained in force as the administration's roadmap to torture. The administration rewrote the law, twisted legal interpretations, and turned a blind eye to the predictable consequences. This set in motion events that have stained our Nation by authorizing and encouraging the commission of cruel, inhumane, and degrading acts, including torture. The issue is now beyond dispute. Abu Ghraib tells us some of the truth. The FBI e-mails tell us some of the truth. The many Defense Department reports tell us some of the truth. There are too many reports of torture and abuses committed by too many people to be dismissed as the work of a few bad apples on the night shift, as the administration has tried so hard to do. The Defense Department is now investigating over 300 cases of torture, sexual assault and other abuse of detainees. When the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency reports that DIA personnel were threatened and confined to their base by Special Forces agents because they had seen and tried to report interrogation abuses, we as a nation have lost our way. When senior FBI agents are forced to complain about abuses committed in their presence, we as a nation have lost our way. It happened on Mr. Gonzales's watch, but that is only the beginning. It happened in Mr. Gonzales's office. Mr. Gonzales was an active participant. He was the principal enabler. Yet Mr. Gonzales can't remember much of any of this. He won't search for his torture-related documents. The White House won't give us the documents that exist. Yet, on this incriminating record, his supporters continue to ask us to look the other way, and ignore his central role in this scandal. It is a sad day for the Senate, for our constitutional role in our system of government, and for our responsibility to advise and consent on presidential nominations, if we consent to the nomination for Attorney General of the United States of a person who was at the heart of the policy on torture that has so shamed America in the eyes of the whole world and has so flagrantly violated the values we preach to the world. Surely the administration can find a person who is capable, who is trusted, and who has not had such a central role in undermining our Nation's fundamental dedication to the rule of law. The President had countless candidates to choose from. Yet of all the respected men and women available, he chose Mr. Gonzales. He sent a message to the country and the world that the rule of law came in a distant second to his desire to reward Mr. Gonzales for his unquestioning loyalty. The debate today is what we in the Senate do about it now. We know the country is engaged in a continuing, public debate about values. We have debated ``family values,'' ``religious values,'' ``social values,'' and ``fundamental values.'' All too often, the words are used as code words for a political agenda. All too often, we shy away from having a true discussion about our values as a nation, our character as a society, the legacy we wish to leave our children; and our role in the world community. Too often, stating noble words becomes a cover for committing ignoble acts. Today's debate and today's vote give us the opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to our core values. We need to show that our commitment to ``human dignity'' is a reality, not a slogan. We need to show that respect for law is an obligation, not an option. We are a nation of laws, not hypocrites. This country is strong, and our constitutionl system has endured, because it permits us to do great things and still ensure that we treat people fairly and humanely. To suggest that the two are mutually exclusive is a failure of faith in the American people, and in our proud tradition of justice. We respect international law. If we do not, who will? The provisior1s of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture serve us well, because they protect our own soldiers who go off to war. They proclaim that we are more than just the sum of our fears. Mr. Gonzales's supportes claim it's just politics if we vote against him, but statesmanship if we vote for him. But on this record the only reason to vote for him is politics. Conscience and principle demand that we vote against him. All of our statements about values will have a hollow ring if we ignore this record and promote Mr. Gonzales to the position of Attorney General of the United States. We have a choice--do we stand for the rule of law, or do we stand for torture? This vote will speak volumes about whether our specific actions in the Senate match our lofty rhetoric about fundamental values. That is why we should vote to reject this nomination. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Gabriel R. Patricio, who is concluding a 24-year career of dedication and excellence in the United States Marines. At the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA in recent years, he has had a leading role in modernizing combat clothing and equipment to make troops faster, more efficient, lighter and safer in battle. Colonel Patricio's talents have produced the most significant upgrade in individual clothing and combat equipment for Marines in more than 50 years. Colonel Patricio's ability to think outside-the-box served him well in finding better ways to solve old problems. His innovative ideas have reduced the time it takes to move a product from concept to the field; so that life-saving equipment is being made available to Marines more quickly. As an example, he reached across the services to the Army's Research and Development Center in Natick, MA to take advantage of their cutting-edge technology, which is now saving lives in Iraq. Most recently, Colonel Patricio spearheaded an initiative to develop and field a state-of-the-art, on-the-move water purification and hydration system. Under his leadership, Systems Command and two private companies pooled their resources and expertise to create a pen-sized device that troops are now using to make local water clean and drinkable. Colonel Patricio has successfully managed programs to develop and field other products to enhance the safety and performance of our troops in Iraq and elsewhere, including new, lightweight and more protective body armor; new protection for the face and eyes; lightweight helmets; improved load-bearing backpacks; hot weather, lightweight ``Jungle/Desert'' boots; high performance lightweight and heavyweight Polartec fleece clothing; and specialized mountain and cold-weather clothing, including gloves, boots and jackets. Colonel Patricio has served the Marines, and the Nation well. I congratulate him on his many outstanding contributions, and I wish him a long and happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have to stop right now all the taxpayer-financed propaganda put out by our government to influence the American people. We need to expedite the investigations, begin congressional hearings, and pass specific new legislation to prevent the administration from using persons paid to pose as legitimate journalists to push for the Bush political agenda. Last week, we found out, according to the Washington Post, that another commentator, Maggie Gallagher, was paid $21,500 by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the Bush administration's marriage agenda--a fact she didn't disclose to her readers while writing on the issue. As most of us now know, thanks to USA Today, the outgoing leadership of the Education Department secretly, and still unapologetically, paid $241,000 to commentator Armstrong Williams to influence his broadcasts. Mr. Williams was paid to comment favorably on the President's No Child Left Behind Act education reform plan, to conduct phony ``interviews'' with administration officials, and to encourage his colleagues in the media to do the same. The Gallagher and Williams payments were part of a multimillion dollar, taxpayer-funded public relations scheme to influence and undermine America's free press. Journalists were ranked on the favorability of their news coverage of President Bush on education. Phony video reports and interviews about the President's Medicare prescription drug law were broadcast as independent news on local television. All parties agree that this type of secret government paid journalism is wrong. Yet Ms. Gallagher and Mr. Williams continue to retain their $21,500 and $241,000 bribes. I am pleased to join Senator Lautenberg, who has been our leader on this issue, in introducing legislation to permanently prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for the type of manipulative payments that Ms. Gallagher and Mr. Williams received. Our legislation will prohibit agencies from issuing news releases, video news releases, and internet messages that do not clearly identify the government as financially responsible for the information. It will enforce these prohibitions by creating a mechanism to dock the pay of any Cabinet Secretary or agency head responsible, and by authorizing private citizens to bring a court action to recover taxpayer funds. Propaganda by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the Office of Drug Control and Policy has to stop now, before the infection spreads. We cannot sit still in Congress while the administration corrupts the first amendment and freedom of the press.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have to stop right now all the taxpayer-financed propaganda put out by our government to influence the American people. We need to expedite the investigations, begin congressional hearings, and pass specific new legislation to prevent the administration from using persons paid to pose as legitimate journalists to push for the Bush political agenda. Last week, we found out, according to the Washington Post, that another commentator, Maggie Gallagher, was paid $21,500 by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the Bush administration's marriage agenda--a fact she didn't disclose to her readers while writing on the issue. As most of us now know, thanks to USA Today, the outgoing leadership of the Education Department secretly, and still unapologetically, paid $241,000 to commentator Armstrong Williams to influence his broadcasts. Mr. Williams was paid to comment favorably on the President's No Child Left Behind Act education reform plan, to conduct phony ``interviews'' with administration officials, and to encourage his colleagues in the media to do the same. The Gallagher and Williams payments were part of a multimillion dollar, taxpayer-funded public relations scheme to influence and undermine America's free press. Journalists were ranked on the favorability of their news coverage of President Bush on education. Phony video reports and interviews about the President's Medicare prescription drug law were broadcast as independent news on local television. All parties agree that this type of secret government paid journalism is wrong. Yet Ms. Gallagher and Mr. Williams continue to retain their $21,500 and $241,000 bribes. I am pleased to join Senator Lautenberg, who has been our leader on this issue, in introducing legislation to permanently prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for the type of manipulative payments that Ms. Gallagher and Mr. Williams received. Our legislation will prohibit agencies from issuing news releases, video news releases, and internet messages that do not clearly identify the government as financially responsible for the information. It will enforce these prohibitions by creating a mechanism to dock the pay of any Cabinet Secretary or agency head responsible, and by authorizing private citizens to bring a court action to recover taxpayer funds. Propaganda by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the Office of Drug Control and Policy has to stop now, before the infection spreads. We cannot sit still in Congress while the administration corrupts the first amendment and freedom of the press.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the greatest domestic challenges facing our country today is the soaring cost of health care. It's a serious problem for millions of families. But when the chief income earner in a family suddenly becomes unemployed, the problem can be critical, and we give a helping hand. We give them the opportunity to continue their coverage through their employer for a reasonable period. Families who lost loved ones on September 11 deserve the same opportunity until they can land on their feet again. The Continuing Care for Recovering Families Act I am introducing today in the Senate with Senator Corzine and Senator Lautenberg, and Congressman Markey is introducing today in the House of Representatives, recognizes that many of the September 11 families are still struggling to recover and we have an obligation to assist them. Some of the families have found ways to cover their health costs by purchasing private insurance or obtaining grant assistance on their own. For others, employers have agreed to provide coverage. For still other families, however, the safety net has fallen apart, because their coverage has expired under COBRA--the temporary low-cost continuation of coverage available under current Federal law for those who change their job, lose their job or for families that lose their chief income earner through death. The Continuing Care for Recovering Families Act will give spouses and children of victims of September 11 the ability to purchase or continue to purchase coverage under COBRA indefinitely, as long as they enroll within 120 days after passage of the Act or 120 days after they lose their COBRA coverage. Eligibility for the program would expire only if they become eligible for Medicare. The families of September 11 have shown great courage and extraordinary resilience. But we still have much more to do to help them on their long and arduous road to recovery, and I hope very much that we can pass this legislation this year. It will only affect a small number of families. But for them, it will make a world of a difference.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the greatest domestic challenges facing our country today is the soaring cost of health care. It's a serious problem for millions of families. But when the chief income earner in a family suddenly becomes unemployed, the problem can be critical, and we give a helping hand. We give them the opportunity to continue their coverage through their employer for a reasonable period. Families who lost loved ones on September 11 deserve the same opportunity until they can land on their feet again. The Continuing Care for Recovering Families Act I am introducing today in the Senate with Senator Corzine and Senator Lautenberg, and Congressman Markey is introducing today in the House of Representatives, recognizes that many of the September 11 families are still struggling to recover and we have an obligation to assist them. Some of the families have found ways to cover their health costs by purchasing private insurance or obtaining grant assistance on their own. For others, employers have agreed to provide coverage. For still other families, however, the safety net has fallen apart, because their coverage has expired under COBRA--the temporary low-cost continuation of coverage available under current Federal law for those who change their job, lose their job or for families that lose their chief income earner through death. The Continuing Care for Recovering Families Act will give spouses and children of victims of September 11 the ability to purchase or continue to purchase coverage under COBRA indefinitely, as long as they enroll within 120 days after passage of the Act or 120 days after they lose their COBRA coverage. Eligibility for the program would expire only if they become eligible for Medicare. The families of September 11 have shown great courage and extraordinary resilience. But we still have much more to do to help them on their long and arduous road to recovery, and I hope very much that we can pass this legislation this year. It will only affect a small number of families. But for them, it will make a world of a difference.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Harkin for introducing the Overtime Rights Protection Act to restore overtime protections for the more than 6 million Americans denied overtime pay and denied the guarantee of a 40-hour work week by the Republican anti-overtime regulation adopted in 2004. The bill will also provide overtime protections for additional deserving workers. In the last Congress, the Senate voted four times to block the Administration's overtime rule, and the House voted twice to block it. Yet, the Republican leadership refused to accept the will of Congress and the will of the American people. Instead, it blocked the enactment of this legislation and continued the unfair assault on America's workers and their right to overtime pay. In today's economy, workers are concerned about losing their jobs, their pay, their health benefits, and their retirement benefits. Now more than six million employees also have to worry about losing higher pay they've always earned for working overtime. These men and women are nurses. They are school teachers. They are long-term care workers. They are assistants in mental health facilities. They are countless men and women in many other fields. Make no mistake--overtime cuts are pay cuts. When workers lose their overtime pay, they still work longer hours. But they get no extra pay for doing so, even though they've had the right to time-and-a-half pay for overtime work ever since the 1930's. Clearly, we need a policy to create more jobs, not eliminate jobs. By taking away workers' right to overtime, the Administration's rule undermines job creation, since it allows businesses to require employees to work longer hours for no extra pay, rather than hire new workers to do the extra work. Denying overtime pay is a thinly veiled scheme to reduce workers' pay and raise employers' profits. In this troubled economy, it makes no sense to ask any workers anywhere in America to give up their overtime pay. Instead of making hard-working men and women work longer hours for less pay, businesses should create new jobs by hiring more employees to do the work. We know that employees across America are already struggling hard to balance their family needs and their work responsibilities. Requiring them to work longer hours for less pay will impose an even greater burden in this daily struggle. According to the Families and Work Institute, two of the most important things that children would most like to change about their parents are that they wish their parents were less stressed out by their work, and they wish they could spend more time with their parents. The Government Accountability Office says that employees without overtime protection are twice as likely to work overtime as employees covered by the protection. In other words, businesses don't hesitate to demand longer hours, as long as they don't have to pay higher wages for the extra work. Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to protecting the work- family balance for millions of Americans in communities in all parts of the nation. The last thing Congress should be doing is to allow the new anti-overtime rule to make the balance worse for workers than it already is. Under the overtime law, low-income workers are supposed to be automatically included. But today, millions who should be included are left out, since wages have increased, but the maximum earnings level for automatic coverage has remained the same for 30 years. The Bush Administration raised it to $23,660 in their new rule, but this level is still too low. The Harkin bill will cover more workers by raising the threshold to $30,712, and index it to keep pace with wage growth. This change will bring it to the level it would be if we'd made annual adjustments for wage inflation over the last 30 years. Congress cannot look the other way while more and more Americans lose their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, and their dignity. Denying overtime pay rubs salt in the wounds of this troubled economy. Enacting the Overtime Rights Protection Act will end this injustice, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Harkin for introducing the Overtime Rights Protection Act to restore overtime protections for the more than 6 million Americans denied overtime pay and denied the guarantee of a 40-hour work week by the Republican anti-overtime regulation adopted in 2004. The bill will also provide overtime protections for additional deserving workers. In the last Congress, the Senate voted four times to block the Administration's overtime rule, and the House voted twice to block it. Yet, the Republican leadership refused to accept the will of Congress and the will of the American people. Instead, it blocked the enactment of this legislation and continued the unfair assault on America's workers and their right to overtime pay. In today's economy, workers are concerned about losing their jobs, their pay, their health benefits, and their retirement benefits. Now more than six million employees also have to worry about losing higher pay they've always earned for working overtime. These men and women are nurses. They are school teachers. They are long-term care workers. They are assistants in mental health facilities. They are countless men and women in many other fields. Make no mistake--overtime cuts are pay cuts. When workers lose their overtime pay, they still work longer hours. But they get no extra pay for doing so, even though they've had the right to time-and-a-half pay for overtime work ever since the 1930's. Clearly, we need a policy to create more jobs, not eliminate jobs. By taking away workers' right to overtime, the Administration's rule undermines job creation, since it allows businesses to require employees to work longer hours for no extra pay, rather than hire new workers to do the extra work. Denying overtime pay is a thinly veiled scheme to reduce workers' pay and raise employers' profits. In this troubled economy, it makes no sense to ask any workers anywhere in America to give up their overtime pay. Instead of making hard-working men and women work longer hours for less pay, businesses should create new jobs by hiring more employees to do the work. We know that employees across America are already struggling hard to balance their family needs and their work responsibilities. Requiring them to work longer hours for less pay will impose an even greater burden in this daily struggle. According to the Families and Work Institute, two of the most important things that children would most like to change about their parents are that they wish their parents were less stressed out by their work, and they wish they could spend more time with their parents. The Government Accountability Office says that employees without overtime protection are twice as likely to work overtime as employees covered by the protection. In other words, businesses don't hesitate to demand longer hours, as long as they don't have to pay higher wages for the extra work. Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to protecting the work- family balance for millions of Americans in communities in all parts of the nation. The last thing Congress should be doing is to allow the new anti-overtime rule to make the balance worse for workers than it already is. Under the overtime law, low-income workers are supposed to be automatically included. But today, millions who should be included are left out, since wages have increased, but the maximum earnings level for automatic coverage has remained the same for 30 years. The Bush Administration raised it to $23,660 in their new rule, but this level is still too low. The Harkin bill will cover more workers by raising the threshold to $30,712, and index it to keep pace with wage growth. This change will bring it to the level it would be if we'd made annual adjustments for wage inflation over the last 30 years. Congress cannot look the other way while more and more Americans lose their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, and their dignity. Denying overtime pay rubs salt in the wounds of this troubled economy. Enacting the Overtime Rights Protection Act will end this injustice, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Michael Leavitt to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services. Our Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions has unanimously recommended his confirmation, and I urge the Senate to do so as well. At the committee hearing on his nomination, Governor Leavitt showed the intelligence, honesty and commitment to public service that have been the hallmark of his career. While we differ on some issues raised at the hearing, there are many issues where we agree and can work together to create a bipartisan consensus. I believe that he will lead the Department with integrity, skill and vision. The Department of Health and Human Services has a broad and deep impact on the lives of the American people. Its programs reflect the ideals of our nation and our commitment to provide help to all those who need our help the most. HHS cares for the elderly through Medicare and the Older Americans Act. It nurtures the young through Head Start, CHIP, and maternal and child health programs. It sustains poor families through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Act. It brings health care to all in poverty through Medicaid. It offers help and hope to patients suffering from disease through the National Institutes of Health. It guarantees every American that the medicines they take are safe and effective and the foods they eat are healthful through the Food and Drug Administration. It protects the health of every American against epidemics of disease through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mr. Leavitt brings impressive skills to this critical post. As a former governor he knows how HHS works, and where it needs improvement. At EPA, he confronted health issues similar to many of those dealt with by HHS. Everyone who knows him respects his intelligence, his high energy, and his experience as a manager and problem-solver. His new position will test all those skills, and he'll face an especially heavy challenge this year. Many of the most important programs he oversees get lavish praise but little real support. Last year, the administration was able to push through the Congress a flawed Medicare drug bill that benefited drug companies and insurance companies at the expense of patients. Governor Leavitt will now have to implement that flawed bill. Press reports indicate that the administration intends to block grant Medicaid and cut it deeply, and to cut Medicare deeply as well. More than 50 million of the Nation's poor depend on Medicaid for health care. Forty-two million senior citizens and disabled Americans depend on Medicare. The administration's tax cuts for the wealthy and its misguided war in Iraq have created a catastrophic deficit, but it would be unconscionable to solve the budget crisis by penalizing the poor and the elderly who did nothing to create it, and to ask the wealthy and powerful to make no contribution at all. We will continue our bipartisan work this year on Head Start--the foundation of federal support for the nation's most vulnerable children. Head Start has a 40-year track record of success. The reauthorization this year is an opportunity to build on that success, and do more to open the American dream to many more children who deserve our help. A block grant for Head Start would be a giant step backwards--we can't turn Head Start into Slow Start or No Start. The current extension of welfare reform expires at the end of March, and our ability to move the welfare debate forward will require more flexibility from an administration willing to work in good faith with Congress on this basic issue of what kind of country we are. Governor Leavitt led Utah's innovative welfare program, which guarantees provides support and services tailored to the individual needs of each recipient, including education and training, substance abuse treatment, child care and other key assistance. Other priorities facing the Department include the need to move our health care system into the modern age using information technology, and improve FDA's ability to detect and respond promptly to warning signals on the effects of new drugs. We must also continue the fine work of Secretary Thompson in putting disease prevention and health promotion higher on the national agenda. And I hope that Governor Leavitt will support the bipartisan efforts led by Senator Dorgan and Senator Snowe to import safe FDA-approved drugs at the low prices that Canadians and Europeans are charged. I welcome Governor Leavitt's strong commitment to using information technology to improve the quality of care for America's patients and to reducing the costs of health care. I look forward to working with him closely to see that we take the actions needed to turn our bipartisan vision of an improved health care system into a reality. Michael Leavitt is a distinguished and talented public servant, and an impressive choice for this important responsibility, and I urge the Senate to confirm him as Secretary of HHS.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor once again to join my colleague Senator Grassley in introducing the Family Opportunity Act to remove the health care barriers for children with disabilities that so often prevent families from staying together and staying employed. We know that families of disabled and special needs children continue to struggle to help their children learn to live independently and become fully contributing members of their communities. Eight percent of children in this country have significant mental or physical disabilities, and many of them do not have access to the critical health services they need to improve their lives and prevent deterioration of their health. To obtain needed health services for their children, families are often forced to become poor themselves, stay poor, put their children in out of home placements, or even give up custody of their children so that the children can qualify for the broad health coverage available under Medicaid. In a recent survey of 20 States, families of special needs children report they are turning down jobs, turning down raises, turning down overtime, and are unable to save money for the future of their children and family so that their child can stay eligible for Medicaid through the Social Security Income Program. Today we are reintroducing legislation intended to close the health care gap for the Nation's most vulnerable population, and enable disabled children and their families to be equal partners in the American dream. As President Bush said in his ``New Freedom Initiative'' on February 1, 2001, ``Too many Americans with disabilities remain trapped in bureaucracies of dependence, and are denied the access necessary for success and we need to tear down these barriers''. The Family Opportunity Act will eliminate the unfair barriers that deny needed health care to so many disabled and special needs children. It makes health insurance coverage more widely available for children with significant disabilities, through opportunities to buy-in to Medicaid at an affordable rate. It allows States to develop a demonstration program to provide needed Medicaid services to children with psychiatric illnesses, instead of limiting such coverage to a residential or institutional setting. It establishes Family to Family Information Centers in each State to help families with special needs children. The enactment of the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 demonstrated the commitment of Congress to do all we can to enable people with disabilities to lead independent and productive lives. It is time for Congress to show that same commitment to children with disabilities and their families. I look forward to working with all members of Congress to enact this legislation and give disabled children and their families across the country a genuine opportunity to fulfill their dreams and fully participate in the social and economic mainstream of the Nation.

Mr. KENNEDY. Today I join Senator Corzine and 26 of our colleagues to introduce legislation to prohibit the implementation of the proposed changes in the State and local tax tables on college students receiving need-based aid. When decisions are made by any administration that affect the price that families pay for college, it is important that the Congress understands both the factors that influenced that decision and the impact of those decisions on our constituents. In light of the slumping economy, State budget crises, and rising college costs, the Department's proposed changes come at a very difficult time for students and their families. Raising the cost of tuition by a few hundred dollars may cause a student to have to leave school and it is our responsibility to ensure that these changes are being made for sound reasons. I urge the Department of Education to work with Congress when making these decisions so that members of this body are made aware of policy changes through a collaborative process--and not the media.