Ted Kennedy

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

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.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time allotted for Democratic Members under the agreement regarding the Rice nomination be modified as follows: The time for Senator Lieberman be allocated to Senator Bayh; Senator Dayton be allocated 15 minutes, 5 minutes from Senator Boxer's time and 10 minutes from the time controlled by Senator Durbin.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for the way he conducted the hearings on the nomination for Secretary of State. I think many of us who were not members of the committee but followed the hearings very closely were enormously impressed by the conduct of the hearings, by the flexibility he showed in permitting Senators to follow up on questions so we could reach the real nub of the situation and yet to move the hearings along in a timely way. That is part of the long tradition that is associated with the chairman of the committee, and it is one of the reasons, among others, that he is held in such high regard and respect in the Senate. I intend to oppose Condoleezza Rice's nomination. There is no doubt that Dr. Rice has impressive credentials. Her life story is very moving, and she has extensive experience in foreign policy. In general, I believe the President should be able to choose his Cabinet officials, but this nomination is different because of the war in Iraq. Dr. Rice was a key member of the national security team that developed and justified the rationale for war, and it has been a catastrophic failure, a continuing quagmire. In these circumstances, she should not be promoted to Secretary of State. There is a critical question about accountability. Dr. Rice was a principal architect and advocate of the decision to go to war in Iraq at a time when our mission in Afghanistan was not complete and Osama bin Laden was a continuing threat because of our failure to track him down. In the Armed Services Committee before the war, generals advised against the rush to war, but Dr. Rice and others in the administration pressed forward anyway despite the clear warnings. Dr. Rice was the first in the administration to invoke the terrifying image of a nuclear holocaust to justify the need to go to war in Iraq. On September 9, 2002, as Congress was first considering the resolution to authorize the war, Dr. Rice said: We do not want the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud. In fact, as we now know, there was significant disagreement in the intelligence community that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, but Dr. Rice spoke instead about a consensus in the intelligence community that the infamous aluminum tubes were for the development of nuclear weapons. On the eve of the war many of us argued that inspectors should be given a chance to do their job and that America should share information to facilitate their work. In a March 6, 2000, letter to Senator Levin, Dr. Rice assured the Congress that the United Nations inspectors had been briefed on every high or medium priority weapons of mass destruction missile and UAV- related site the U.S. intelligence community has identified. In fact, we had not done so. Dr. Rice was plain wrong. The Intelligence Committee report on the prewar intelligence at page 418 stated: Public pronouncements by Administration officials that the Central Intelligence Agency had shared information on all high and moderate priority suspect sites with United Nations inspectors were factually incorrect. Had Dr. Rice and others in the administration shared all of the information, it might have changed the course of history. We might have discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The rush to war might have been stopped. We would have stayed focused on the real threat, kept faith with our allies, and would be safer today. America is in deep trouble in Iraq today because of our misguided policy, and the quagmire is very real. Nearly 1,400 of our finest men and women in uniform have been killed and more than 10,000 have been wounded. We now know that Saddam had no nuclear weapons, had no weapons of mass destruction of any kind, and that the war has not made America safer from the threat of al-Qaida. Instead, as the National Intelligence Council recently stated, the war has made Iraq a breeding ground for terrorism that previously did not exist. As a result, the war has made us less secure, not more secure. It has increased support for al-Qaida, made America more hated in the world, and made it much harder to win the real war against terrorism, the war against al-Qaida. Before we can repair our broken policy, the administration needs to admit it is broken. Yet in 2 days of confirmation hearings, Dr. Rice categorically defended the President's decision to invade Iraq, saying the strategic decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was the right one. She defended the President's decision to ignore the advice of GEN Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, who thought that a large number of troops would be necessary if we went to war. She said: I do believe that the plan and forces that we went in with were appropriate to the task. She refused to disavow the shameful acts of torture that have undermined America's credibility in Iraq and the world. When Senator Dodd asked her whether in her personal view, as a matter of basic humanity, the interrogation techniques amounted to torture, she said: I'm not going to speak to any specific interrogation techniques . . . The determination of whether interrogation techniques are consistent with our international obligations and American law are made by the Justice Department. I don't want to comment on any specific interrogation techniques. This is after Senator Dodd asked about water-boarding and other interrogation techniques. She continued: I don't think that would be appropriate, and I think it would not be very good for American security. Yet, as Secretary of State, Dr. Rice will be the chief human rights official for our Government. She will be responsible for monitoring human rights globally, and defending America's human rights record. She cannot abdicate that responsibility or hide behind the Justice Department if Secretary of State. Dr. Rice also minimized the enormous challenge we face in training a competent Iraqi security force. She insisted 120,000 Iraqis now have been trained, when the quality of training for the vast majority of them is obviously very much in doubt. There was no reason to go to war in Iraq when we did, the way we did, and for the false reasons we were given. As a principal architect of our failed policy, Dr. Rice is the wrong choice for Secretary of State. We need, instead, a Secretary who is open to a clearer vision and a better strategy to stabilize Iraq, to work with the international community, to bring our troops home with dignity and honor, and to restore our lost respect in the world. The stakes are very high and the challenge is vast. Dr. Rice's failed record on Iraq makes her unqualified for promotion to Secretary of State and I urge the Senate to oppose her nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to recognize a significant milestone in the life of a truly innovative Massachusetts company. On January 18, Analog Devices, Inc., of Norwood, MA celebrated its 40th anniversary. The firm was founded in 1965 by two M.I.T. graduates, Ray Stata and Matthew Lorber. It is now the world's largest supplier of some of the key data converters and amplifiers used in nearly every form of electronic communications equipment. Its earnings place it in the top 10 among companies in Massachusetts, and it has manufacturing plants and technology design centers in Massachusetts and nine other States, including Arizona, California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington, as well as 11 other countries. Analog Devices has been in the vanguard of the innovation revolution that has transformed the economy of Massachusetts, and that continues to shape the economic future of this country. When I first came to the Senate, our State economy was characterized by a reliance on older industries, many of which migrated South, and then overseas. Fortunately, in the decades since then, innovators like Ray Stata and Matthew Lorber, began to launch the industries of the future in our State, including information technology, electronics, and biomedicine. We still face significant economic challenges, as all States do. But we take great pride in reports that consistently place us among the most economically competitive regions of the country, and we are hopeful about our future. The Analog Devices team has a great deal to celebrate as they conclude their 40th year, including several noteworthy recent accomplishments. Analog Devices was recognized by its industry peers in the Massachusetts Telecommunications Council as State Telecom Company of the Year in 2004. Jerald G. Fishman was named CEO of the Year in 2004 by Electronic Business magazine, a prestigious industry publication with a large circulation among electronic industry executives. In 2001, in recognition of his enormous contributions and commitment to education, the United States Semiconductor Industry Association honored Ray Stata with the prestigious Robert N. Noyce Award. The strong foundation laid by Analog Devices in its first 40 years will bring decades more of creativity, innovation, prosperity, and investment to our State, and I congratulate this outstanding company for it's done so well.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senate Democrats introduced 10 bills that illustrate the priorities and values we intend to fight for in the coming months to meet our commitments to the American people. It is an agenda for a future of security, opportunity, and responsibility. The contrast with the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress could not be greater. They say they are for ownership, but their vision means an America divided. In a society based on ownership, we are divided by winners and losers, rich and poor, a shrinking middle class, owners and those who cannot afford to own. Republicans see the forces of globalization as a chance for greater profits at the expense of job and wage security for American families. Democrats are for opportunity for all. Our vision is for an America united to provide opportunity for all Americans and to fulfill the American dream. We embrace the challenges of globalization not by lowering our wages but raising our skills to equip every American to compete for good jobs in the local economy. I will mention three areas in which Democrats have introduced bills today that reflect our values and priorities. First, health care. It is an honor to join our Democratic leader and so many of our colleagues in introducing the Affordable Health Care Act in meeting our responsibility to the Medicare Beneficiaries Act. This Affordable Health Care Act states our strong commitment as Democrats to end the crisis in health care that affects every family. It is a downpayment on our commitment to quality, affordable health care for every American and we will not rest until that goal is achieved. The worsening crisis in health care is caused by skyrocketing costs, declining insurance coverage, and less security for every family. Businesses, especially small businesses, find it increasingly difficult to provide decent coverage for their employees. Rising health care costs threaten the competitiveness of all American businesses. Even people who have health insurance today cannot count on it being there for them tomorrow. No American family is more than one pink slip or one employer decision away from being uninsured. In the face of this massive crisis in health care, the administration and Congress have been missing in action for too long. The legislation we are offering today will not solve all of these problems, but it is a good start and we are committed to finishing the job. It will guarantee coverage for every child. It will lower prescription drug costs by allowing importation of safe drugs from abroad. It will improve the quality of health systems while reducing costs at the same time by adopting a modern information technology in health care. Affordable health care is a high priority for every family and it should be an equally high priority for this Congress. We face a crisis and it is time to act. Senate Democrats are committed to guaranteeing the basic right to health care for all Americans and when we say ``all,'' we mean all. The legislation we are introducing today cuts the special interest deals out of the Medicare Program, addresses the troubling gaps in the Medicare drug benefit. Medicare is a solid commitment to our senior citizens, not a piggy bank for special interests, and it is time to fulfill that commitment. Second is education. Our Nation's future depends on ensuring equal educational opportunities for all children. We must keep the promise to leave no child behind. For Democrats, this is not just a slogan. For us, it is a moral commitment. This year alone, the Bush administration underfunded No Child Left Behind by $9.8 billion, leaving 4 million children behind. In contrast, we propose fully funding No Child Left Behind and also keeping our promises to disabled children by fully funding the Individuals With Disability Education Act. We also recognize that what we do for children's early education and development does more to ensure their success later in school and later in life than any other investment. Democrats are committed to making this investment by expanding Head Start, early Head Start, and childcare funding. At the same time, we propose improving the quality of these programs by requiring improved standards for teachers and seeing that they are supported, trained, and adequately compensated to do the job. We also must do more to ensure that America is globally competitive by raising our skills. To be globally competitive, we must also inspire a renaissance in math and science education in America so that all Americans are prepared for the jobs of tomorrow. Today, Democrats are taking an essential first step in winning the global and math/science arms race by making college tuition free for any young person willing to work as a math, science, or special education teacher. We must make the United States first in the world rather than 29th in math and science. Finally, when it comes to jobs, the Fair Wage, Competition and Investment Act will help restore the faith of Americans that if they work hard and play by the rules they can live the American dream. The bill raises the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour to improve the quality of life for 7.5 million workers. Despite Democratic efforts to raise it, the minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for 7 long years. And the bill will restore overtime protections for the more than 6 million Americans denied overtime pay and the guarantee of the 40-hour workweek by the Republican overtime rule. It will also expand overtime protections to cover additional workers. The Democratic bill eliminates tax breaks for companies that ship good American jobs overseas. It requires companies that send jobs to other countries to provide advance warning to workers and communities. The bill makes significant investments in American roads and waterways, broadband technology, and research and development to increase our competitiveness, improve the quality of our lives, and create new jobs to help make up for those lost under Republican leadership. These are the kinds of initiatives that Democrats will fight for this year--initiatives that will expand opportunity, provide a secure future for our families, and improve the quality of life for all Americans.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Jay Bybee, William Haynes, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto R. Gonzales--these four persons have three things in common. They were all high officials in President Bush's first administration. They were all key participants in the shameful decision by the administration to authorize the torture of detainees at Guantanamo and in Iraq and they have all been nominated by President Bush for higher office. Jay Bybee, head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, was nominated for a lifetime appellate court judgeship in the spring of 2002, before he wrote the now notorious legal memorandum redefining torture so narrowly that virtually the only victims who could complain would be dead victims. Mr. Bybee even went so far as to state that the President could simply decree that any action taken as the Commander in Chief was immune from challenge. Most people who later read that memo immediately rejected its conclusions. But not the White House. Instead, when the Bybee nomination was not acted on by the Senate in the 107th Congress, President Bush renominated him for the same judgeship in the 108th Congress. Although we asked for Bybee's OLC writings we received nothing, thus the Senate knew nothing about the Bybee memorandum on torture, and his nomination was confirmed. William Haynes was, and still is, General Counsel to the Secretary of Defense. As such, he had a personal role in deciding how far Defense Officials could go in interrogating detainees. But he had a problem. High-level military officers and top State Department lawyers were experienced in these issues and the treaties that governed them, and they were adamantly opposed to the extreme change in policy that he and the Secretary and the White House were seeking. So he formed a ``working group'' of lawyers that excluded these dissenters. That working group's report adopted verbatim some of the most outrageous parts of the Bybee memorandum. In one memo, for example, Mr. Haynes told Secretary Rumsfeld that waterboarding, forced nudity, the use of dogs to create stress, threats to kill the detainee's family, and other extreme tactics not only do not violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but are ``humane.'' After he did that, the White House also nominated him to a lifetime judgeship on a Federal court of appeals. Fortunately, by the time the Judiciary Committee was ready to vote on his nomination in late 2003, we had become aware of some of his other controversial legal views, and the Senate did not confirm him. President Bush has chosen to renominate him, however, so the Senate will have another chance to review his role in support of torture. Condoleezza Rice has been nominated to be Secretary of State, and we will consider her nomination later this week. As national security adviser she was clearly involved in the prisoner abuse issues, but because of the nature of her position, we know less about her role. Two of the members of the Foreign Relations Committee have voted against her nomination, and we will hear their full report in the coming debate. White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, as the President's chief in- house lawyer, was at the heart of the debate, inside the administration, on prisoner detention and interrogation. Although he says he can't remember it very well, he apparently was the person the CIA contacted when they wanted to use extreme interrogation methods on those whom our troops and intelligence agents detained in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere. He was the one who went to Mr. Bybee at the Department of Justice to obtain the notorious Bybee memorandum justifying the use of torture. He keeps saying he doesn't recall, but his office obviously helped Mr. Bybee develop the memorandum. When Mr. Gonzales received the memorandum, he disseminated it far and wide in the military and elsewhere, although he can't remember how. For almost 2 years, Mr. Gonzales allowed this policy guideline to stand throughout the Government as the administration's formal policy on prisoner abuse. For almost 2 years it remained in effect, producing a system of detention and interrogation that the International Committee of the Red Cross, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency itself found abhorrent to the rule of law. When the Bybee memorandum finally became public last summer, Mr. Gonzales attempted to distance himself and the President from it, but he didn't quite withdraw it. Suddenly last month, the night before New Year's Eve, so late that most newspapers could not get the story in the next day's paper, Mr. Gonzales and his Justice Department and White House colleagues decided that the memo was so clearly erroneous and its standards so extreme, that it should be withdrawn altogether and replaced by a gentler version. Members of the Senate have asked repeatedly for the relevant documents on all this. But we have not received a single one of the documents we need. Four Senate committees have now considered some part of this issue. The Foreign Relations Committee had a brief opportunity to question Ms. Rice last week, but apparently not enough information on her involvement was available to assess her responsibility. The Intelligence Committee is still waiting to hear from the CIA on its role in the prisoner abuses, but as far as I know nothing has been forthcoming. Despite the initiatives and hard work of the chairman, the ranking member and many other members of the Armed Services Committee, Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputies have managed to stonewall and slow- walk us right through the election, and have used a series of separate investigations to propagate the original message that it was just a few bad apples on the night shift who committed the abuses. We now are told that there was confusion and lack of clarity in the rules on interrogation without any indication of who was ultimately responsible, and without any accountability by those we know were involved, such as Mr. Haynes and Mr. Gonzales. That leaves the Judiciary Committee, which is now considering Mr. Gonzales's nomination to be Attorney General. What standard should we apply to him? We know that rejection of a cabinet nominee is rare. In all of U.S. history, although hundreds of nominees have been stopped in committee or withdrawn by the President, only 9 of over 700 cabinet nominees have actually been rejected by the Senate. Two of them have been nominees for Attorney General. President Calvin Coolidge's nominee for Attorney General was rejected not once but twice and both times by a Senate of his own party. Mr. Gonzales's case is a rare case in which a nominee may have been directly responsible for policies and resulting practices that have been counter-productive, contrary to international standards and practices, harmful to our troops' safety, legally erroneous, and plainly inconsistent with the rule of law and the basic values which this administration prides itself on defending. President Bush's Inaugural Address resounded with those values last week. ``From the day of our Founding,'' he said: we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. The choice before every ruler and every nation, he said, is: the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom which is eternally right. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, he said. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before--ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever. Those are lofty values, and all of us agree with them wholeheartedly. But they were abandoned by the White House in its decision on the use of torture, and our credibility in the world as a leader on human rights and respect for the rule of law has been severely wounded. The cruelest dictators can now cite America's actions in their own defense. How can we be true to our own oath to defend the Constitution, if we confirm as the highest legal officer in the land a person who may well have encouraged our basic values to be so grossly violated? So far, Mr. Gonzales has not been responsive to our questions in the Judiciary Committee about his role. He still has time to clear the air, and I urge him to do so. The position of Attorney General and the issues involved in this nomination go to the heart of our Nation's commitment to the rule of law. A nominee whose record raises serious doubts about his own commitment to the basic principle should not be confirmed as Attorney General of the United States. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's an honor to join our Democratic Leader and so many of our colleagues in introducing the Affordable Health Care Act. This legislation states our strong commitment as Democrats to end the crisis in health care that affects every family. It's a down payment on our commitment to quality, affordable health care for every American, and we will not rest until that goal is achieved. The worsening crisis in health care is caused by skyrocketing costs, declining insurance coverage, and less security for every family. Businesses--especially small businesses--find it increasingly difficult to provide decent coverage for their employees. Companies struggling with foreign competition are at an every-larger competitive disadvantage because of their constantly rising costs. Last year, the percentage of the Nation's gross domestic product devoted to health was 15.5%, the highest in our history. Since 2000, annual spending on health care has risen from $1.3 trillion to $1.7 trillion, an increase of almost half a trillion dollars in just four years. Even worse, insurance premiums have soared by 59 percent during those four years. The cost of insurance for a family has risen by almost $3,000. Last year, the cost of the premiums for family coverage averaged $10,000, and was much higher for many families. Drug costs are also out of control. According to current data, they rose 47 percent in the first three years of the Bush Administration. Too many patients are cutting the pills their doctors prescribe in half or going without them altogether, because they can't afford the drugs they need to treat or prevent disease. Even Medicare premiums are out of control. The largest premium increase in Medicare's history went into effect just three weeks ago. Since President Bush took office, Medicare premiums have climbed by 72 percent. Senior citizens, with an average income of $15,000, now have to pay almost $1,000 a year for their Part B premiums under Medicare. The recent report of the Medicare trustees included the stunning revelation that Medicare cost sharing and premiums will soon eat up more than 40 percent of the total Social Security benefit of the typical 85 year old. As a proportion of Gross Domestic Product spent on health care, America is first in the world by a large margin. We spend 30 percent more than the Swiss who are number two, a third more than the Germans, fifty percent more than the French and the Canadians, and seventy-eight percent more than the Japanese. These extraordinarily high levels of health spending might be justified if they produced dramatically better health care for the American people. But they don't. Among the world's leading industrialized countries, the United States ranks 22nd in average life expectancy and 25th in infant mortality. We also face a worsening crisis of the uninsured. Since President Bush took office, the number of uninsured Americans has increased by a shameful million a year. Today, 45 million Americans have no coverage. Between 2001 and 2004, five million jobs offering health insurance were lost. Even these figures understate the problem. Over a two-year period, 82 million Americans--one out of every three non-elderly Americans--will be uninsured for a significant period of time. Tragically, eight and a half million children are uninsured and may well be denied the opportunity for a healthy start in life that should be the birthright of every child. Even people who have health insurance today cannot count on it being there for them tomorrow. No American family is more than one pink slip or one employer decision away from being uninsured. The uninsured are vulnerable not only to unaffordable costs, but to substandard or health care or no care at all. In any given year, one- third of the uninsured go without needed medical care. Two hundred seventy thousand children suffering from asthma never see a doctor. Three hundred fifty thousand children with recurrent earaches never see a doctor. Three hundred fifty thousand children with severe sore throats never see a doctor. Twenty-seven thousand uninsured women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. They are twice as likely as insured women not to receive medical treatment until their cancer has spread too far, and they are 50 percent more likely to die of the disease. Thirty-two thousand Americans with heart disease go without life- saving and life-enhancing bypass surgery or angioplasty--because they are uninsured. The bottom line is that whether the disease is AIDS or mental illness or cancer or heart disease or diabetes, the uninsured are left out and left behind. In hospital and out, young or old, black or brown or white, they receive less care, suffer more, and are 25 percent more likely to die prematurely than those who have insurance. Even for those with insurance, the quality of health care is often needlessly compromised. Recent events cast serious doubt on the FDA's ability to respond promptly when drugs it has approved turn out to have dangerous side effects. By some estimates, tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths have resulted. The lack of coordination in our system results in duplicative, costly, and often counterproductive tests and procedures. The Midwest Business Group on Health estimates that the cost of poor quality care to employers providing health insurance coverage is $2,000 per worker, and it's paid in the form of higher insurance premiums. A recent study found that for many serious illnesses, patients are as likely to receive substandard care as they are to receive care meeting accepted professional standards. In the face of this massive crisis in health care, the Administration and Congress have been missing in action for too long. The Bush Administration and the Republican leadership in Congress defend the special interests that profit from the status quo and ignore the suffering of the millions of families victimized by their neglect. Reports suggest in fact that the Administration's new budget will propose to cut Medicaid, which provides health care for more than 50 million of the poorest of the poor. The deficit must be addressed--but it was created by the Administration's tax breaks for the wealthy, and the poor and the sick should not have to bear the burden of reducing it. That's the wrong priority and the wrong values. The legislation we are offering today will not solve all these problems, but it is a good start, and we are committed to finishing the job. The Affordable Health Care Act guarantees that every child in America will have quality health care coverage. It reduces health costs substantially, by making FDA-approved drugs available at the same fair prices available to Canadians and Europeans, rather than the inflated prices charged to U.S. patients. It takes a giant step toward adoption of modern information technology in health care, which has the potential to dramatically improve the quality of care and dramatically reduce its cost--by as much as $140 billion a year. It also improves quality by giving the FDA additional authority to monitor the safety of approved drugs. It addresses the special burden faced by small businesses by offering tax credits to reduce the premiums they pay to cover their employees. It also establishes a demonstration program in 25 cities to see if a successful program in Michigan to expand insurance coverage for small businesses can be replicated elsewhere. Finally, our bill includes a sense of the Senate resolution to put Congress firmly on record against destructive cuts in Medicaid. Affordable health care is a high priority for every family, and it should be an equally high priority for this Congress. We face a crisis, and it is time to act. Senate Democrats are committed to guaranteeing the basic right to health care for all Americans, and when we say ``all'', we mean ``all''. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress are no friend of America's seniors. In 2003, they enacted legislation to dismantle Medicare, even though Medicare has helped a generation of seniors live their golden years with health and dignity. Now their target is Social Security. They want to privatize this trusted program for the benefit of Wall Street bankers. They even want to cut benefits for women because--in the Republican view--they live too long. It's time to end these shameful attacks on our senior citizens, restore Medicare and protect Social Security. I commend the leadership of my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton, and our Democratic Leader, Senator Reid, in introducing this urgently needed legislation today to enable Medicare to keep its promise to the elderly. Forty years ago, Congress enacted the landmark legislation that established Medicare. We would do well today to remember President Lyndon Johnson's words on signing that historic bill in 1965: ``No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years.'' The ruinous Medicare legislation that the Republican Congress enacted in 2003 breaks that solemn promise. Before Medicare was created, millions of seniors could obtain health care coverage only at the whim of the insurance industry. If they were too sick or too poor to be profitable to an insurance company, they would be denied health care coverage. Their savings--and their children's savings--were in jeopardy when illness struck. Before Medicare, senior citizens were among the poorest Americans, with almost three in ten living in poverty. Bankruptcies from overwhelming medical bills were common. Medicare changed all that, and 40 years later, President Bush and the Republican Congress are wrong to try to turn back the clock. Some of my colleagues attempt to portray Medicare as a failure. But the facts show that it is one of the most successful endeavors the Nation has ever undertaken. In 1963, before Medicare was enacted, almost half of America's seniors were uninsured. Today that number is one in a hundred. Before Medicare was enacted, Americans turning 65 could expect to live another 14 years. Today, they can expect almost 18 more years. Seniors understand that Medicare works. They don't want to return to the days when they had to gamble their health, their savings and their lives on risky private insurance. The 2003 Republican bill was sold to the American people as a way to help seniors with the high cost of prescription drugs, so you might think it does something about the high cost of drugs. But it doesn't. It not only fails to help Medicare lower the cost of drugs--it actually makes it illegal for Medicare to try. Republicans were so worried about protecting drug company profits that they made it illegal for Medicare to do what the Veterans Administration does for veterans--negotiate discounts on drug prices. The Bush Administration and the GOP Congress wouldn't dare to prohibit the VA from doing that for the veterans, and they shouldn't do it for senior citizens either. The discounts on drug prices for veterans are substantial. On average, the price paid by the VA is 45 percent of the retail price, but often, the savings are even more dramatic. The retail price for Mevacor is $4 a pill, but the VA pays only 23 cents. The undiscounted price of Zantac is $1.83, but the VA pays two cents. Senator Dayton's legislation abolishes the unconscionable provision that bars Medicare from negotiating discounts on drug prices for America's seniors. That's not price control--it's common sense. Republicans also claim that their new drug benefit is ``voluntary.'' Not exactly. If seniors don't sign up the first year, they have to pay more and more to join in subsequent years. When they need the coverage, they may not be able to afford it. Senator Dayton's legislation reverses this flagrant system of fines and makes the Medicare drug program truly voluntary. When Congress enacts it, seniors will be able to sign up for the drug program without facing ruinous fines. Good prescription drug coverage for senior citizens is a priority for Democrats. For the Administration and the Republicans in Congress, however, tax cuts for billionaires are more important than health care for senior citizens. In addition, the 2003 Medicare law leaves too many elderly citizens with unaffordable costs. Seniors with moderate incomes and high drug expenses still face high drug costs. The benefits under the GOP law-- with its $250 deductible, 25 percent cost-sharing, an out-of-pocket limit of $3,600 on costs, but continued co-payment obligations even after the limit is reached--are far less generous than those enjoyed by most younger Americans, even though the elderly's need for prescription drugs is much greater. Senior citizens with an income of $15,000 and drug expenses of $4,000 would have to pay more than $2,900, including premiums, out of their own pocket. That's too heavy a burden. If they fall into the so-called doughnut hole, their situation is much worse. Under the 2003 law, the government makes no contribution to any drug costs between $2,250 in expenditures and $5,100 in expenditures. Patients who need $5,200 worth of prescriptions could be forced to pay $2,850 in drug expenses without any help at all from Medicare. That's too much for an elderly person to pay and still meet other essential medical needs, pay the rent or mortgage, and buy food and other necessities of life. Senator Dayton's proposal begins to fill in that doughnut hole by not allowing the cap on total out of pocket expenditures to rise year after year, as it does under the GOP act. Under Senator Dayton's proposal, seniors will have the certainty of knowing where that limit is from one year to the next. As drug expenses rise, more seniors will gain the benefit of the assistance from Medicare at these high spending levels, and ultimately, the doughnut hole will close. The Republican Medicare law is a raw deal for seniors, but it's a bonanza for the drug industry and the insurance industry. It gives massive subsidies to HMOs. Most Americans probably think it's the job of insurance companies to guarantee the health of their beneficiaries, but according to the Republican view that's wrong. They make America's seniors guarantee the health and wealth of HMOs. The government already pays private insurance plans 104 percent of what it costs Medicare to provide seniors with the same health care. Republicans claim to be in favor of competition, but the playing field is tilted toward HMOs, and their 2003 Act tilted it further. You might think HMOs need that overpayment because they serve sicker or needier beneficiaries. Not true. Enrollees in private plans are actually healthier than those in Medicare, resulting in a further bonus of 8.7 percent to the private plans. Senator Dayton's legislation requires realistic risk adjustment for private plans that provide services to seniors under Medicare. It removes the artificial calculations that inflate payments to HMOs and other private insurance carriers. Another problem with the 2003 Act is that if the subsidies don't provide enough profits, the Republican bill provides cash handouts for the insurance industry. If an HMO doesn't think it can make enough money in some area of the country, the Bush Administration can simply ladle out the cash--up to $12 billion a year--until the bribe is high enough to get the company to participate. Senator Dayton's legislation reverses this outrageous giveaway and ensures that the dollars devoted to this slush fund are used instead to provide better health care for seniors. The Republican law stacks the deck against seniors in other ways. It allows a region to be served by only one prescription drug plan, along with a PPO. That gives the drug plan a monopoly in that region for seniors who want to remain in Medicare. If the only available drug plan is tailored to the healthiest and youngest seniors, it might be acceptable for a senior whose prescription needs are limited. But it gives no help to seniors who take medications for multiple chronic conditions every day. Seniors have no real recourse if they can't afford the monopoly drug plan. The only way they can get prescription drug coverage is to enroll in the PPO. Senator Dayton's legislation provides an effective guarantee that seniors who wish to remain in traditional Medicare will have a genuine choice of prescription-only plans. If a choice between at least two private drug-only plans is not available in any region, the Federal Government will provide a plan. This proposal ensures that any senior who wishes to remain in Medicare will have access to high-quality affordable prescription drug coverage. The Republican Medicare law also dealt a harsh blow to the employer plans that millions of retirees depend on. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that almost three million retirees will lose their current drug coverage, because employers will drop the coverage when retirees become eligible for the new federal benefit, which is not as comprehensive. Democrats fought to include provisions in that flawed legislation to help employers maintain the good coverage that so many Americans depend on to meet their needs in retirement. Sadly, some employers could abuse these subsidies by failing to use them to assist their employees--and the Bush Administration is letting them get away with it. Toothless enforcement and weak regulation allow some unscrupulous employers to pocket the subsidy and weaken the coverage. Senator Dayton's legislation will put an end to this scandalous practice by requiring employers to account for the funds they receive in subsidies. No longer will employers be able to hide that they are accepting subsidies to maintain retiree health coverage and still cut back the coverage. The Dayton bill also requires new research on ways to help employers maintain retiree coverage. One of the most troubling aspects of the 2003 Act is that it victimizes six million senior citizens and disabled people on Medicaid--the poorest of the poor. Their out-of-pocket payments for drugs will be raised, even though they do not even have coverage for the drugs they need the most. Today, under Federal law, people with drug coverage under Medicaid may be charged only nominal amounts for the drugs they need. The vast majority of states charge nothing. For every other Medicare benefit, Medicaid wraps around Medicare coverage and picks up the out-of-pocket costs that Medicare does not pay. Not under this legislation. States are prohibited from wrapping around the Medicare benefits with their Medicaid program. Instead, a uniform Federal co-payment is imposed. It is indexed, so that it increases every year. If low income seniors need a drug that is not in the insurance company formulary, they have to go through a burdensome appeals process. Most will simply go without the drug they need. The people we are talking about are truly the poorest of the poor. In most cases, their incomes are well below poverty. And the impact of even small co-payments is devastating. Study after study finds that when the poor have to pay more for drugs, they end up hospitalized, in nursing homes, or dead. Senator Dayton's legislation reverses this cruel provision and allows States to delay implementing the requirement that the new Medicare provisions must immediately supplant State Medicaid programs for the poorest of the poor. Congress should be helping seniors with the burden of high drug costs, not allowing a right wing agenda to destroy the guarantee of affordable health care that America's seniors deserve and expect. That's why Senator Dayton and Senator Reid have introduced this needed legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I'm honored to join my friend and colleague, Senator Kerry, in introducing this legislation to guarantee affordable health insurance for every child. We made a good start toward this goal in the 1990s, by enacting the Children's Health Insurance Program to cover more low-income children. Now it is time to finish the job. Twelve million Americans who are twenty-one years old or younger have no health insurance today. Seven million are already eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, but five million are not eligible for these current programs. Every uninsured child represents a national failure. Every uninsured child is at risk for losing the healthy start in life that should be birthright of every American. Every uninsured child is a potential source of heartbreak for parents and other loved ones. Every uninsured child is an American tragedy waiting to happen. This year, three hundred eighty thousand children suffering from asthma will never see a doctor. Five hundred thousand children with recurrent earaches will never see a doctor. Five hundred thousand children with severe sore throats will never see a doctor. Uninsured children pay for their lack of coverage in human suffering, unnecessary disability, and even death, and our society pays too. Sick children cannot learn. Every child whose education is limited or whose future potential is lost because of avoidable illness is a loss to America, because America's children are America's future. The legislation we are introducing today will guarantee coverage for every child twenty-one years of age or younger. It makes health insurance affordable for every family, but it also asks families to share the responsibility of covering their children, when they are able to do so. The bill expands Medicaid and CHIP up to 300 percent of poverty. Families of moderate means will be able to obtain subsidized coverage for their children. Families with incomes above 300 percent of poverty will be able to buy into Medicaid or CHIP for their children, and they will be guaranteed that the cost will not exceed 5 percent of their family income. The bill also lifts the cap on CHIP funding that has caused some States to limit enrollment. It assists States financially by shifting current State spending for children under 100 percent of poverty to the Federal government. It requires all States to adopt the proven methods that encourage families to enroll and stay enrolled--methods such as presumptive eligibility, the ability to apply on-line or by telephone for the coverage, and coverage for at least twelve months without eligibility redeterminations. This legislation is vitally important to all children. It is a pledge that they will have access to good health care without regard to their family's wealth. It is a commitment to a healthy start in life for every child. As important as those objectives are, the significance of this legislation goes beyond coverage of all children. It is a major step toward the day when the basic right to health care will be a reality for every American, whatever their age or income. We will not rest until that goal is achieved, and I commend Senator Kerry for leading this essential effort.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I was wondering if my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, has any time within that time?

Mr. KENNEDY. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate my friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, on his appointment as the chairman of our committee. He is my favorite chairman to the year 2007. I thank him very much. I am glad to withhold if the Senator desires. As always, he is very gracious, but I am glad to wait until he has completed his remarks. Then I intend to talk about education.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I sincerely look forward to working with my friend from Wyoming. We had a great tribute the other evening from various education groups. Senator Enzi met with more than 95 different groups, and in his typical fashion said he was willing to sit down and listen to each and every group. It was a bold action on his part. It is a clear indication he is going to be an active leader in the field of education as he has been in so many other areas of our committee. I join with him in the strong support of Margaret Spellings to serve as the Secretary of Education. There is no more important position in a President's cabinet. And I believe that Margaret Spellings has the knowledge, commitment, and leadership to improve the quality of education across our land. The strength of America depends on the strength of our public schools. Education is the key to opportunity and a strong economy. Our schools and teachers prepare young Americans to compete and succeed in a an ever-changing economy. Education is key to our national security. We cannot protect America and maintain our progress in the world without skilled and well-trained citizens. Edcuation is the key to good citizenship. Good schools can shape the character of our citizens and train Americans to participate in our democracy, to serve our country and our communities. In short, our schools are key to the American dream. From our earliest days as a Nation, our country's founders understood this. John Adams, in drafting the Massachusetts constitution in 1780, affirmed that education of the people was ``necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties.'' And many other States since have included similar commitments in their founding documents. With every new age and each new challenge, part of the genius of America is that we have adapted. We have risen to the challenge. As Thomas Jefferson reminds us, ``Every generation needs a new revolution.'' I believe that the revolution for this generation at this time is to master our own destiny and guide the currents of globalization for our own purposes. No nation is guaranteed a position of lasting prosperity and security. We have to work for it. We have to fight for it. We have to sacrifice for it. And above all else, we must equip our citizens to use their God-given talents to compete in the global economy, not by lowering their wages but by raising their skills. The price of failure is enormous. Already, millions of Americans have seen their good jobs shipped overseas. Last year, the new jobs created here at home paid 41 percent less than the jobs lost. And American families are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet--harder and harder to live the American dream. To restore that dream in a global economy, we must remove every obstacle to our vision and look beyond the horizons of today. Of course, we must strengthen our economy so that it works for everyone. And we must invest in new growth industries that will create the well- paying jobs of the future. Most of all, we must stand with all Americans to ensure that they have the skills and the opportunities they need for the future. We must encourage the study of math and science, and once again create a culture of innovation and progress in America. That's the mission of the Department of Education in these times. It is why I welcome President Bush's nomination of Margaret Spellings to be the next Secretary of Education. Ms. Spellings has an impressive record on domestic policy. During her 4 years in the White House, she has worked on a range of issues for President Bush, including transportation, housing, health, and labor. Most impressive is her work on education. Ms. Spellings has been a consistent champion for improving and strengthening public education, from her days as an advisor to Texas Governor Bush to her later role as the President's principal advisor on the No Child Left Behind Act. Over the years, she has worn many different hats in public education-- advocate, parent, and policymaker. Her steadfast commitment to children and to the institutions that serve them has never wavered. I look forward to working with her in the years ahead to strengthen our schools and universities, and forge a national commitment in education. More than a basic value or a founding belief, education has been a force to move America forward. It has been the engine of the American dream. During the industrial revolution, we made a national commitment to expand access to high schools and propel America forward. In the 1940's, the GI Bill opened the doors of college to a great generation and launched a renewal of our economy. After Sputnik's launch, we passed the National Education Defense Act to ensure our global competitiveness and national security by providing low-interest college loans for students studying math, science and foreign languages. Again today, we face national and international challenges to achieving the American dream--some new and others familiar. The destructive forces of poverty and inequality continue to prove obstacles to opportunity and progress. International challenges, such as outsourcing of jobs and the rising investment of other nations in mathematics and science, mark a new global standard to drive the world's economy. In the face of these changes, we need a national education strategy to assure that America can advance--not retreat--in the days ahead. As President Bush challenged the nation in his Inaugural Address today, we must ``bring the highest standards to our schools.'' To meet this goal, we must do more to see that No Child Left Behind truly means no child. It's not just a slogan. For us, it's a moral commitment. It's a solemn oath to our children, to parents, and to communities that we will fight for them every single day. It's a promise that they will see qualified teachers, afterschool interventions, and supplemental services. It's a promise that they will see high academic standards, research-based instruction, and targeted help when they need it. It's also a promise that every child counts--Black or White, Hispanic or Asian, rich or poor. Our promise to leave no child behind means that children with disabilities receive access to a highly-qualified teacher and to the individualized support that they need to succeed in school and in life. It means that schools are held accountable for their progress, too. No Child Left Behind is an expression of our basic values that we're willing to make the tough choice and the hard sacrifices to invest in and improve our public schools, because they are the ever widening gateways to opportunity and success for every one of our children. Our commitment cannot stop there. We must do more to help students prepare for college, afford college, enter college, and complete college. I point out briefly what has been happening when we look at the costs of college tuition that are effectively out of control. From 2001 to 2004 or 2005, the increase of public college education for 4 years has increased 35 percent. There has been an effort to recognize everyone has some role in making college affordable. The individual has a role. Some have resources, others do not. If they do not have the resources but have the academic skill, we at the Federal level ought to be able to put together the kind of package so they are able to attend college. We did that in the 1980s. Twenty years ago in Higher Education Aid, we had almost 60 percent of the assistance in grants and 40 percent in loans; now that has reversed. Now we find 58 percent and 41 percent in grants. As a result of this development and phenomena, there are hundreds of thousands of children in this country who do well and are admitted to the finest schools and colleges and universities of this country who will not attend because they do not have the resources. That is wrong. We have to address this. A college education means more today than it ever has. Today's demand for highly skilled workers has moved beyond the 1950s, when only 15 percent of jobs required advanced skills. In 2005, more than 60 percent of all jobs require some post-secondary education. Of the fastest growing jobs, half require a college degree and the other half require strong information technology skills. Despite growing demand, in the future, it is estimated that the number of college degrees earned will slow to one-third of its current rate. Yet, last year, 400,000 college-ready students didn't attend a 4-year college on a full-time basis because they couldn't afford to do so. In America, surely we can agree that cost should never be a barrier to a college education. There is another area I want to mention. I know my colleagues are here and want to speak. I will not take more than my share of the time. One other very important feature I hope we can work with the administration on is early education. I touched briefly on college. I think we have to do a great deal more in the areas of math and science. When you look at what our competition is doing in China, in India, in terms of math and science and engineering and research, we cannot take for granted our own prosperity and our own national security. The best dollar invested in children is in early education. This chart shows results from the High Scope Perry Preschool Study, in Ypsilanti Michigan, which has been peer reviewed, the Beethoven Early Childhood Program Study, and the Chicago Child/Parent Centers Study in Chicago. They all reached the same conclusions: with early education a young person is more likely to complete school, more likely to get a skilled job, less likely to be held back a grade, and less likely to need special education. The results are dramatic. The results are even more dramatic that they are more likely to complete high school on time. The wonderful book Jack Shonkoff wrote, ``From Neurons to Neighborhoods,'' brings together three National Academy of Sciences Studies. All of them reach the same conclusion, that the opportunity to make progress with children in the earliest of months, virtually since the time they are born--even prior to the time they go to Head Start or a preschool program--is immense, and we have the proof. This is an area Mrs. Bush is interested in. I am very hopeful we can find common ground and work on this area. I believe that every child in America, upon reaching eighth grade, should be offered a contract. Let students sign it, along with their parents and Uncle Sam. The contract will state that if you work hard, if you finish high school and are admitted to college, we will guarantee you the cost of earning a degree. Surely, we have reached a stage in America where we can say it and mean it--cost must never again be a bar to college education. We must also inspire a renaissance of math and science in our schools and colleges. Over the last 30 years, America has fallen from 3rd to 15th in producing scientists and engineers. In a major study released last month, we ranked 29th among 40 industrialized nations in math. This revival begins in our elementary and high school classrooms. Last week, President Bush called for increased investments in the training of math and science teachers in our middle schools and high schools. This is an important first step. In addition, the courses that students take--as well as the quality of teaching--matter greatly. We know that the higher the level of math courses that students take in high school, the more likely they are to earn a bachelor's degree. National standards in math and science have existed for more than a decade. We ensure that those standards are competitive with international norms, and align them with the skills that students need to be successful in college and in the workforce. We should offer incentives and supports for schools to develop and implement rigorous standards and courses. High standards and high-quality curriculum are the pillars of reform in our schools. We must strengthen the pipeline of math and science into higher education. In the 1950s, after the launch of Sputnik, the National Defense Education Act resulted in a doubling of the federal expenditure in education, and helped secure the advancement and later dominance of the United States in the arms race and in the global economy. But today, out of 15 million college students, less than 400,000 graduate with a bachelor's degree in math, science, engineering, or technology. Only 75,000 go on to obtain Master's degrees in those fields. We need a new National Defense Education Act. We can double the number of future American scientists by 2010 if we pursue three key strategies. First, we need more and better math and science teachers in grade schools. We should make college free--no loans whatsoever--for any student, regardless of their family income, training to become a math or science grade school teacher. Second, even for those not going into teaching, we should make college and graduate school tuition free for middle class and low- income math and science students. These fields are critical to America's future and we should dedicate resources toward strengthening them in particular. Third, we should expand the capacity of colleges and universities to educate future scientists and engineers by growing the Tech Talent program at the National Science Foundation. Tech Talent enables colleges to hire additional math and science faculty, develop additional math and science courses, make sure that math and science classes are small and accompanied by up to date lab facilities, and supports paid summer internships for math and science college students. Finally, we can't expect to maintain a competitive standing in the global economy without paying attention to education in the early years. Learning begins at birth, and research has proven that what we do for our children's early education and development does more to ensure their success later in school and later in life than any other investment. Today, two-thirds of fourth graders are not proficient readers. Less than a third of American students are proficient in math and science. And one-third of students who begin high school fail to earn a diploma. Early education can change all of that. Students who participate in high-quality, comprehensive early childhood programs are less likely to be held back a grade, and less likely to need special education. Later on, they are more likely to complete high school on time. Later in life, they are more likely to hold a skilled job or a college degree. It's time that we made early childhood education a priority in America. We need to ensure that every child has access to a high quality early education program. We need to coordinate the wide variety of programs and services currently available for children. And we must also ensure that all those caring for children have the skills and qualifications necessary. If we are to expect quality care for our children in these settings, then they need quality teachers, who are supported, trained, and adequately compensated to do the job. America has always dedicated itself to expanding opportunity and embracing the future. These are our highest values, and we must draw upon them to approach the challenges that lie ahead with strength, skill, and confidence. In short, we must stand ready to embrace the American dream by improving the quality of education in America. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues and friends to give overwhelming support for this nominee. Margaret Spellings does not always say no. She is not always going to say yes, but she is not always going to say no. We on this side of the aisle are looking forward to working with our chairman to try to make a real difference in enhancing the quality of education for children all over this country. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. First of all, I commend and thank our friend from California, Senator Boxer, for giving us this opportunity to address the Senate on this issue. On November 3, John Kerry conceded the 2004 Presidential election to George Bush. While we do not question the outcome, many of us remain deeply concerned that for the second time in a row, in a closely contested election, there were so many complaints about the ability of voters to cast their votes and have them counted fairly. The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. Every Member of Congress has a duty to protect and uphold that right. When that right is threatened, Congress must act to protect it. Clearly, the legislation we enacted to do so after the 2000 election was not adequate for the 2004 election. Forty years ago this year, after the Selma-Montgomery march, many of us in the Senate and House worked hard to pass the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, to guarantee that racism and its bitter legacy do not close the polls to any citizen. After the 2000 election, we passed the Help America Vote Act in an effort to correct the serious problems that undermined the right to vote in that election. Unfortunately, last November, we learned that we still have work to do. As in 2000, the votes of many who wanted to vote were not, in fact, counted. The reasons are many and varied. Some voters gave up in the face of endless lines and waits of many hours at polling places unable to handle the large turnout of voters. In other cases, voting was frustrated by broken or ancient voting machinery, by confusion over applicable rules for voting precincts, or because States decided that certain votes did not comply with arbitrary and inflexible State or local procedures. We saw all those problems in Ohio. It is far from clear the extent to which these serious problems were the result of intended manipulation or widespread incompetence, but either way, the voting process did not live up to the standards worthy of our democracy. Today's debate is an opportunity for all of us to admit that the 2004 election was flawed and to pledge action in this new Congress to fix the festering problems once and for all. Citizens must have faith that they will be able to cast their votes efficiently and with complete confidence that their votes will be fairly and accurately counted. We cannot go through another election wondering whether a patchwork of unequal and outdated procedures-- whether by accident or design--have yet again denied so many of our fellow citizens the right to vote. I commend the many thousands of citizens in Massachusetts and other States who insisted that treating today's electoral vote count in Congress as a meaningless ritual would be an insult to our democracy unless we register our own protest against the obviously flawed voting process that took place in so many of our States. We are hopeful that this major issue that goes to the heart of our democracy is now firmly implanted on the agenda for effective action by this Congress. Few things are more important to the Nation and to each of us, both Republican and Democrat, than a genuine guarantee that the people's will is heard through the ballot. No democracy worth the name can allow such a flawed election process to take place again. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have just had an election. Republicans are firmly in power in the White House and also in the Congress. Now, just 18 days after the election, we see in this bill breathtaking arrogance of power. It is an abuse of power because it gives power to Republican leaders, at the expense of your right of privacy, to pry and snoop into your tax returns. They can even leak your taxes to the press and post them on the Internet without penalty. It is an abuse of power because it gives insurance companies the power to deny your right to know all of your health care options. It gives insurance companies the power to order your doctor to tell you only part of what you need to do. It is an abuse of power because this bill gives the power to corporations to prevent you from knowing where your food comes from. It is an abuse of power because it gives companies the power to deny your right to overtime pay. What other abuse of power is in this bill? We should take some time and delay action until we have read it and until we have the opportunity to fix it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. What if the House doesn't act on it? What assurance do we have? Does the majority leader have assurance that the House will act on Wednesday?

Mr. KENNEDY. So it is the understanding of the majority leader that they will act on Wednesday. After that takes place, the ordinary procedure will be followed in terms of the enrollment and sending it to the President?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I expect that before long we will have the opportunity to get into the discussion of the omnibus proposal that has been referred to earlier this evening. I want to just bring some matters in the omnibus bill to the attention of our colleagues in the Senate and also to those in our country who are interested in where we are going to end up in the education provisions of this budget, and to also speak briefly about where we will be on the questions of health care as well. In this omnibus proposal, as we said--it has been mentioned here--it is really a question of priorities and choices. What we are going to see is real cuts in the Head Start Program. It is a program that is a lifeline for millions of our children to help prepare them to enter grades K-12. We have strengthened the quality of Head Start Programs in recent years, but we are going to see a real cut in the Head Start Programs under this budget. It is not even going to keep up to the current services. What we are going to see is a real loss to thousands and thousands of children across this country. The most important programs we have in terms of educational achievement and accomplishment are the afterschool programs that make such a difference to children who may be falling behind, to help assist them to keep up with their classmates, and to also give them the help and assistance that makes a very important difference in terms of their own achievement and accomplishment. This program is vastly oversubscribed. It is one of the most oversubscribed programs that we have in our educational arsenal. The reason it is oversubscribed is because it has had such success in helping and assisting needy children in our country. That program is going to be further cut under this proposal. One of the key aspects of the No Child Left Behind was a recognition that what we needed in our schools across the country were smaller class sizes, well-trained teachers, curriculum reform, parental involvement, and afterschool programs. But one of the things we needed was going to be well-trained teachers. We made a commitment in the No Child Left Behind Program that we were going to enhance the teacher quality for the high schools in our country. That program is going to be cut in terms of teacher quality in upgrading the skills of teachers in our high schools. Our vocational educational programs, which are so important in permitting young people to acquire skills to be able to compete in an increasingly complex economy, those programs for vocational education are going to be cut. As well, some 28 percent of the technology educational funding for programs that are in our schools to help our young people develop the insight into the new kinds of technologies which are so important for them to be able to succeed in their own education and to carry on their education will be cut. Finally, the Pell grant remains at $4,050 for the fourth consecutive year, while we have seen public college tuition has gone up more than 35 percent over the last 4 years. This is going to mean that tens of thousands--hundreds of thousands--of young students, who have the ability to be able to go on to college, will be denied that opportunity because the Pell grant is falling further and further behind. If we are talking about an education budget, this is not the education budget. Health Care Mr. President, I want to make a brief comment, as well, on the health care crisis that we are facing. I think all of us understand the explosion of health care costs, the increasing number of the uninsured that exists in our society. We know we passed a Medicare bill for prescription drugs that was more help and assistance to the pharmaceutical industry and the HMOs than it was to our senior citizens. But it has been against that background, if we look at where we are in terms of the health care budget in this proposal, we have cut a quarter of a billion dollars in real terms from NIH. Mr. President, this is the age of the life sciences. This is the age of the life sciences, with the human genome project, the increasing opportunities we are going to have with stem cell research, other types of research. We know the extraordinary progress we made out at NIH. We have the real possibilities of breakthroughs in so many different areas of health. If we were to solve the problems of Alzheimer's, we would empty two-thirds of the nursing home beds in my own State of Massachusetts. We are seeing a reduction in the NIH. We have seen that the support for bioterrorism readiness in our Nation's hospitals is going to have a significant cut. The recruitment for the National Health Service Corps is cut by a third. That is a program that serves the underserved communities of this country. And the Office of Minority Health is cut by 10 percent. Mr. President, the list goes on. Those who are strongly committed to having opportunities in education and also opportunities in the health care field recognize this budget really does not address the needs and the opportunities we have in these areas. I will have an opportunity to get into greater detail at another time about these underfunded programs on this particular proposal. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, unfortunately, in the Omnibus bill, the Republican leadership blocked Senator Harkin's amendment to repeal the administration's rule that denies overtime protections to 6 million workers. Bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate strongly supported the Harkin amendment and it was part of our Senate bill. In fact, the Senate has voted four times to block the Bush overtime rule, and the House has voted twice to block it. Yet, the Republican leadership keeps refusing to accept the will of Congress and the will of the American people. Instead, it continues its unfair assault on America's workers and their right to overtime pay. In today's economy, workers are obviously concerned about losing their jobs, their pay, their health benefits, their retirement benefits, and their unemployment checks. Now more than 6 million employees also have to worry about losing their higher pay for working overtime. These men and women are nurses. They are police officers. They are school teachers. They are long-term care workers. They are assistants in mental health facilities. Make no mistake, overtime cuts are pay cuts. When workers lose their overtime pay protection, they still work longer hours, but they get no extra pay for doing so, even though they have had the right to time- and- a-half pay for overtime work ever since the 1930s. 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. Pure and simple, denying overtime is a thinly veiled cut in workers' pay and boost 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 General 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 work. Protecting the 40-hour workweek 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 antiovertime rule to make the balance worse for workers than it already is. 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. Denying the will of Congress and the American people in this Omnibus bill doesn't settle the issue. This battle is far from over. The fight will continue until workers' overtime rights are restored.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, many of us had the opportunity to be in Little Rock, AR, yesterday for the opening of former President Bill Clinton's Presidential Library. It was an extraordinary and very moving ceremony, and all of us who were there will always remember it. That evening, to conclude such an extraordinary day, ABC News broadcast a special edition of its popular television program, ``Primetime Live,'' an hour-long interview of President Clinton by Peter Jennings about the President's new library, his years in office, and his plans for the future. I believe all my colleagues will be interested in the interview, and I ask unanimous consent that a transcript may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a long awaited--long, long, long awaited--privilege to have this opportunity on the Senate floor this morning to do something that no Member has been able to do for 86 years--congratulate the Boston Red Sox on winning-the World Series. Red Sox nation is still celebrating. What a year for sports in Boston, first the New England Patriots win the Super Bowl in football and now the Boston Red Sox are the World Champions in baseball. This feat of the same city winning both the Super Bowl and the World Series in the same year is also rare. It last happened in 1979, when the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl and the Pittsburgh Pirates won the World Series. Boston truly is the city of champions. My only regret is that we didn't also manage to win the National Championship this year in the other famed contact sport-- American politics. But my purpose now is to urge my colleagues to support this resolution praising the victory of the Red Sox. That victory was celebrated not only in Boston but in the entire Nation, since Red Sox nation has fans in all 50 States. Fans across the Nation traveled to Boston on October 30 to be part of the 3 million fans who persevered through cold and wet weather to honor the team that they grew up watching and be part of the dramatic victory parade. The Curse of the Bambino, as it was called, was finally lifted after 86 long years, and we had a World Series victory to celebrate at long last. It was far from an easy victory, but the Sox met the challenges with their never-give-up attitude. They came back from a three games to none deficit and won four straight games to defeat the Yankees and won the American League Pennant, 4 games to 3. The magical ride continued through the World Series that followed, and the Red Sox won another four straight games to defeat the St. Louis Cardinals and won the victory that has escaped us since 1918. And in doing so, winning eight straight playoff games, the Red Sox set a separate major league baseball record as well. So I welcome this opportunity to salute each of these gifted and dedicated athletes as the modern Red Sox heroes, they are--Mark Bellhorn, Orlando Cabrera, Johnny Damon, Alan Embree, Keith Foulke, Derek Lowe, Pedro Martinez, Kevin Millar, Bill Mueller, Trot Nixon, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Dave Roberts, Curt Schilling, Jason Varitek, and Tim Wakefield. Red Sox Manager Terry Francona deserves immense credit for guiding the team to this new height, and inspiring all the players to rise to the challenges when the going seemed bleakest against the Yankees in the playoffs last month. They remind me of one of the famous slogans of the Army Air Corps in World War II--``The difficult we do immediately--the impossible takes a little longer.'' I also congratulate, the president and CEO of the Red Sox, Larry Lucchino, and the team's general manager, Theo Epstein, who were indispensable in building this team of champions. The owners of the Red Sox, John Henry and Tom Werner, never wavered from their goal of ending the curse and winning the World Series. My grandfather, John Fitzgerald was Ma or of Boston when Fenway Park first opened in April, 1914, and it was easy to see how much he loved the team in all the years when I was growing up. I am sure he is smiling down now on this year's team as well, and I am delighted that my own grandchildren could savor this year's victory. For the amazing feat the Boston Red Sox accomplished this year, we are eternally grateful. And this resolution is a way of expressing the gratitude of fans in Boston and across the country for this extraordinary achievement.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I would like to see if I can ask if I can be recognized after the Senator completes his remarks?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a little later today, the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, will come together for a monumental achievement to strengthen special education for millions of children with disabilities. The agreement we have reached demonstrates what Americans have to come to realize--that students with disabilities are a far too important priority to be used as a political tool or cast aside because of an election schedule. Their education is not a partisan issue. It is an issue that touches families in every State and in every community. This has been a long and arduous march for our country as we fought to recognize the civil rights of children with disabilities. When Congress first passed IDEA, disabled children were shuttered away. They had no place in our society. We have all heard the horror stories. There is no need to revisit those dark days, but we should never, ever forget from where we have come. Then they were sent to separate schools. We know from another battle for integration that separate and equal are not synonymous. All of our children must be educated under the same schoolhouse roof. Gradually, they were allowed to attend regular public schools, but had to remain in separate wings in those schools. Still, separate and unequal. At long last, America is coming to know what parents of disabled children have known all along--that their children have hopes and dreams, just like every other child--that they have parents who love them and want the best for their children, just like any other parent. America is coming to learn that children with disabilities want to be asked what every other child is asked: ``What do you want to be when you grow up?'' America is coming to understand that disabled does not mean unable-- that we shortchange our communities when we deny them the gifts and contributions of those with disabilities. So today, all children in America--including those with disabilities have--the right to a free and appropriate education. No one can take that away. And now, 6.5 million children with disabilities attend public schools, and two-thirds of them spend most of the day in a regular education classroom. The IDEA is about making a better life for children like Zachary Morris of Newton, MA, who has Down's syndrome. Zachary enjoys reading, and loves to play the characters in Dr. Seuss books in class. It is about Valerie Sims of Attleboro, MA. When her mother Katie noticed her daughter was having difficulty reading at home, she asked her school for an evaluation. The school discovered that Valeria has a learning disability. She spends a couple hours a day in a special classroom and now is able to read at grade level. The bill before the Senate is a milestone. With this legislation, the debate is no longer whether children with disabilities should learn alongside all other children, but how best to do it. That is why this bill strengthens services to disabled children, works with their parents, improves teaching, and provides practical help to their schools. This bill also involves changes in the IDEA law, changes which I know cause uncertainty and anxiety for many parents here today, especially when it comes to the proposed new discipline procedures. With the help of Senator Sessions, I believe we have reached a workable compromise. It makes sure no child is ever punished for behavior that is caused by their disability or has to go without the educational services they need to meet their goals. And for students whose behavior is caused by their disability, they will get new help under this compromise. I know that around other issues related to discipline, many parents are worried that the changes in this bill will take away their rights to fight for their child. I want to address several of these issues to clarify what the intent of the conference committee was in making these changes and to reassure parents that we are not, in any way, taking away their rights. Parents must be trained to be knowledgeable about the changes that were made in this bill and to be skilled advocates for their children. We must assure that misinformation is corrected so that parents do not believe that this bill stripped them of rights to advocate for their children and if necessary have representation by lawyers. For example, this bill incorporate for the first time, well established civil rights guidelines setting forth the rare circumstances when school districts can recover fees from parents or their attorney's. These standards were developed in Christiansburg Garmet Co., v EEOC, 1978. Defendants can only get fees against a parent's attorney if the case is wholly without legal merit and against parents only in the most egregious case where the parent acts in bad faith, knowingly filing a complaint for the sole purpose of embarrassing or harassing the school district. Since we know that parents of children with disabilities are far too busy to file complaints on these grounds, we do not expect this provision to be used by Local Educational Agencies and State Educational Agencies. No parent should be in any way deterred from filing their legitimate complaint on behalf of their child. Another example is that this bill for the first time provides a timeline for when a parent must file a due process complaint. Although the complaint must be filed within 2 years of the alleged violation, the remedy for lost services is not limited to 2 years. For example, a parent might first realize that their child may have a learning disability in sixth grade. If the school should have assessed the child in first grade and provided services, compensatory education would need to cover the entire period. The child with a disability should never be deprived educational opportunity because the schools are not holding up their end of the bargain. This is also true for disciplinary matters. If the school has not developed an appropriate IEP or has failed to implement the IEP, the child should not be disciplined for conduct arising from the school's failure. It goes without saying that a child should never be punished for conduct that arises from the disability itself. Since the ``manifestation determination'' is so critical, it is imperative that parents be trained how to be skillful advocates in the manifestation determination process. A child with a disability may engage in the same conduct as a child without a disability, but not have the same ability to understand or control the conduct. In these situations it is inequitable to treat the children the same for disciplinary purposes. This bill aims at remediation, not punishment. By adding strong requirements for functional behavioral assessments and positive and skillful behavioral interventions, we hope to address the conduct before it becomes misconduct. Suspensions and expulsions are the easy way out and I encourage school districts across the country to institute positive behavioral supports for all children. For the schools that have, the results have been remarkable. I strongly urge school districts to apply educational approaches and to use disciplinary approaches as a last resort. Regarding the important issue of attorney's fees a sentence in the Statement of Managers' language of the conference report that provided the explanation for the attorney's fees language was inadvertently left out. By adding at Note 231 sections detailing the limited circumstances in which Local Educational Agencies and State Educational Agencies can recover attorney's fees, specifically Sections 615(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) and (III), the conferees intend to codify the standards set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978). According to Christiansburg, attorney's fees may only be awarded to defendants in civil rights cases where the plaintiff's claims are frivolous, without foundation or brought in bad faith. The primary contribution of this legislation is that it strengthens the broader community of those involved in the education of our children, and gives them a greater stake in the success of our children. For our children, this bill provides at least 30,000 additional fully certified special education teachers in our schools. It will expand access to technologies that will help disabled children learn and become independent. And for the first time, we will ensure that students with disabilities are provided with job training and other services that enable them to support themselves after they graduate. Five years after they complete their special education programs, more than half of those with disabilities still are not working or are not involved in continuing education. We spend more than $12 billion for their education, only to abandon them once they finish school. Surely, we owe it to them, to their parents, and to our communities to provide the training and support they need to lead independent lives. Our agreement will simplify the rules for services that help disabled students make the transition from the classroom to the rest of their lives. It requires early planning, and that transition services begin at age 16. It requires the evaluation of all students with disabilities to assist them in meeting post-secondary goals, and to help them apply for jobs, after graduation. While the major transition provisions included in the Senate bill are not in this bill, Chairman Boehner assures me that they will be included in job training legislation next year. Students with disabilities, more so than their peers, need an education plan that takes into account their academic needs, but also their life goals. Because for children with disabilities, success means more than learning the three R's, it means being able to live independently after they leave school and to contribute and be a part of their community. For this reason, this bill makes sure that a child's education plan lays out a clear roadmap to success in school and in life. Related services, such as speech and language therapy, physical and occupational therapy, and psychological services are of extraordinary importance for disabled students and the IDEA law has always included them. This bill adds new services, such as interpreters and school nurses. For parents, this bill assures that they have a strong voice in their children's education. It makes sure that students are evaluated quickly for IDEA services when a parent calls for them, and it works with parents to improve the coordination of educational services for students who change schools during a school year. Parents need to be kept informed of their children's progress. It requires all schools to give parents quarterly reports about their child's progress. It provides new resources to parent training centers to help resolve disputes between parents and schools, and it gives parents more flexible options to participate in their child's education. And above all, it holds schools accountable for results, and imposes sanctions on States that ignore the law, so that parents don't always have to fight failing schools alone. For too long, the Department of Education has been a toothless tiger, with little interest in monitoring State compliance with the law and with too few tools to take action where there's need for improvement. We know that as a result, States are woefully out of compliance with the law. Every reliable source shows it, and it's the children who pay the price of this negligence. According to the National Council on Disability, every State in the country is out of compliance with this law in some way. A recent General Accounting Office report identified compliance failures in 30 of the 31 States visited. Over half of the failures were directly related to providing student services, the lifeblood of the IDEA, services such as counseling, speech therapy and assistive technology, which make the impossible possible. The monitoring and enforcement provisions in this bill will hold the Department of Education to a higher standard. And it will improve their capacity to hold States accountable for fixing problems. For teachers, the bill provides new training opportunities. And it recognizes that special education teachers face 2\1/2\ times the paperwork burden as other teachers by allowing 15 States to test new ways of giving teachers more time with students and less with needless paperwork. It streamlines State and local requirements to ensure that paperwork focuses only on improving educational results for children with disabilities and it requires the Secretary of Education to develop simple model forms for individual education plans and other key requirements. Teachers, principals and other school personnel are also given improved training options and special grants dedicated for this purpose. And a new grant program is created to help institutes of higher education to train our teachers. States and local schools are allowed to use funds to provide professional development for teachers. The new law also expands training options for general education teachers, principals and other administrators in how to make the IDEA work for their whole school community. Most importantly, the bill sets a high standard of competency for special education teachers to meet so disabled students get the best education possible from the best trained professionals. Special education teachers are modern-day heroes. They are teachers because they care and they do a remarkable job. But we are facing a shortage crisis now, and in the coming years. One of the reasons so many teachers leave special education is they are not adequately prepared for the job. Better trained teachers remain in the field for longer and improve the results for students. In No Child Left Behind we made a commitment to have a highly qualified teacher in every regular education classroom, and with this bill we do the same thing with students with disabilities. The new law requires that all special education teachers obtain a bachelor's degree, hold a license in their State to teach special education, and demonstrate subject knowledge. It is the right thing to do for students and it will help schools meet the goals under No Child Left Behind. These teachers need our support, and they will receive it as they work to meet these new, high standards. For communities--for students and parents and teachers and schools-- this bill encourages everyone to work together to solve problems and meet challenges. It says that if children must be removed from school for disciplinary reasons, the community must continue to see to the educational and other needs of those children. Far too often, issues between parents and schools quickly wind up in court. This bill tries to resolve them first through a complaint process before resorting to litigation. But it also preserves parents' rights when they do go to a formal due process hearing. It encourages parents and schools to share information to facilitate early and more effective resolution of disputes. The law will require all schools to measure the academic performance of students with disabilities on all State and district-wide assessments, including alternate assessments aligned to a State's academic content standards or extended standards. It requires all States to include students with disabilities who take alternate assessments in their No Child Left Behind accountability systems. Communities win with this bill when it comes to financing the education of disabled children, too. They contribute the majority of funds to educate disabled students, and we recognize that by giving them a greater say over how they spend Federal funds. I deeply regret this bill does not require the Federal Government to meet its full funding commitment to local schools to help them cover the costs of special education. The bill at least sets specific funding targets, and we will continue to fight next to see that Congress and the administration meet them. Meeting local needs also includes continuing support for early intervention programs. We know early intervention for our youngest children ages zero to 3 can make an enormous difference in their development, and that dollar for dollar these resources are one of the most effective investments we can make. This law also gives States the incentives and the authority to create a seamless system of early intervention from birth through kindergarten so our youngest children get the best care possible and enter kindergarten ready to learn. As a society, we are judged by how we treat our children, and we are measured especially by how we treat those children with special needs. That is why I believe so strongly in the right of every child to a free and appropriate education, and I believe this bill advances that cause. I thank the many people who brought us successfully to this day. First and foremost, I commend the thousands of parents who made their views known in shaping this legislation. They have been citizen leaders at their very best. Chairman Boehner, Senator Gregg, the chairman of our committee, and Congressman Miller deserve special thanks for their leadership in producing an agreement with such strong and overwhelming support. I might mention, Mr. President, the vote in the House of Representatives was 397 to 3 on this legislation. The House voted earlier today. It reflects the best judgment of Republicans and Democrats in both bodies on an issue of such fundamental, basic importance to families who have the special-needs children but to all Americans who care about the quality of our society and the value this Nation places in terms of understanding the special gifts special-needs children provide for their families and for communities and for our country. I also commend Senator Sessions for his bipartisan work in dealing with the discipline issue, which has needlessly plagued the debate on IDEA for so long. Senator Harkin is always at the forefront of the movement for equal rights for all persons with disabilities, including children. He has led the effort for positive support for all students with disabilities, and his best ideas are in this bill. Senator Dodd and Senator Jeffords worked effectively on this legislation to improve early childhood programs. They have been two pioneers in the development of the legislation since the very beginning, and they have been absolutely tireless in pursuing positive, constructive, responsive changes in these programs. They are both leaders on children's programs in the Senate. Senator Bingaman fought for strong enforcement of civil rights protections for every disabled student. Senator Mikulski strengthened support for students making the transition from schools to careers. Senator Reed improved the training and recruitment of special education teachers. Senator Murray improved the provisions on enforcement and the monitoring of the law and for caring for homeless and foster care children so they do not fall through the cracks. Senator Clinton deserves credit for her work to ensure that new funds are provided to improve the quality of alternative student placements, to provide more effective behavioral support for students, and to see that all schools are safe schools. Thanks especially to the staff, who worked endless hours over the past few weeks to produce this bill. All of us are grateful to Denzel McGuire, Annie White, Bill Lucia and Courtney Brown on Senator Gregg's staff for their dedication to making this bipartisan process work, and to Michael Yudin with Senator Bingaman for his expert counsel. Also to Sally Lovejoy, David Cleary, Melanie Looney, Krisann Pearce and Brad Thomas with Congressman Boehner; Alex Nock, Alice Cain and Ruth Freidman with Congressman Miller; John Little with Senator Sessions; Mary Giliberti and Eric Fatemi with Senator Harkin; Elyse Wasch and Seth Gerson with Senator Reed; Maryellen McGuire and Jim Fenton with Senator Dodd; Bethany Little, formerly with Senator Murray's staff; Jamie Fasteau with Senator Murray; Justin King and Jean Cook with Senator Jeffords; Catherine Brown, Susie Saavedra and Maryana Zubok with Senator Clinton; Carmel Martin, formerly with Senator Bingaman's staff; Sara Vecchiotti with Senator Bingaman; Rebecca Litt with Senator Mikulski; Erica Buehrens with Senator Edwards; Joan Huffer with Senator Daschle; Bethany Dickerson with the Democratic Policy Committee; and Kristen Bannerman with Senator Alexander. I especially thank Jeremy Buzzell, Michael Dannenberg, Charlotte Burrows, Jim Manley, Jane Oates, Roberto Rodriguez, Kent Mitchell, Cody Keenan, Danica Petroshius and Michael Myers on my staff for their skillful work and dedication, and above all Connie Garner for all she has done for children with disabilities and their families and for never letting us forget what this law is really about. Our thanks also go out to the hundreds of disability and education advocates across the country who worked so hard on this legislation. This bill represents our best bipartisan effort, and I look forward to its immediate and imminent passage and strong support from both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, before concluding--and I am going to include an appropriate number of these letters in the Record--we asked, just several weeks ago, some of those children whose lives will be impacted by this legislation a question. We sent them this question: Take a few minutes to think about being an adult. What will your life look like? How do you think that school can help prepare you to be the best that you can be and make some of your own dreams for your future come true? This is the answer from an eighth grader: I want to be a doctor. I know that if I try hard to read well, I can learn better and then I have a chance to be a doctor. Teachers like Mr. McKenzie and Ms. Ann help me to learn and make me feel good. The question was: Take a few minutes to think about being an adult. What will your life look like? How do you think school can help prepare you to be the best that you can be and make some of your own dreams for your future come true? Again, this was a sixth grader: I want to be an art teacher when I grow up. I want to learn all about and to be able to work with clay, paints, pencils and everything. I want to teach kids like me. Mr. President, we have a book that I will not, obviously, put in the Record, but we have a number of letters like that. The hopes and dreams of these children are the hopes and dreams of children all across the country. This bill will help those hopes and dreams be achieved. I see my chairman on the floor at this time. Again, I thank Senator Gregg for his work. We have worked very closely on this legislation and other legislation, No Child Left Behind. He was tireless in terms of trying to increase funding for the IDEA. We had differences. Some of us felt we ought to move in a more rapid way, but he has certainly been strong and committed to the goals of this legislation over a long period of time. He is giving up the chairmanship of this committee to go on to other service in the Senate. I think all of us who have been a part of this pathway on IDEA are particularly in his debt for his leadership and the work he has done on this very important piece of legislation.