Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I can answer without hesitation that there is no attempt to change the basic principles of what was done in 1997. As was recognized at that time, the general rule is that a child with a disability cannot be suspended or placed in an alternative placement for more than 10 days. In order to meet safety concerns of school personnel, Congress added specific exemptions in 1997 to deal with the most dangerous situations. In keeping with that concern, the school may place a child in an alternative setting if he has inflicted serious bodily injury on another person at school. However, even in these circumstances, the child may not be removed for more than 45 days and must receive a free, appropriate, public education and behavioral supports in the alternate setting.

Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely, it is a basic premise of disability civil rights law that someone should not be punished for disability-related conduct. Nowhere is this more true than in the educational setting. That is why we have placed an emphasis on functional behavioral assessments and positive behavioral supports. We want to address behavior educationally, hopefully before it becomes misconduct.

Mr. KENNEDY. I say to my friend from Iowa, the answer is no. While there was an attempt to streamline the language, the information that should be reviewed and the factors that should be considered should be the same. In 1997, the act set forth specific instances when the child's behavior would be a manifestation, when the child's disability impaired the ability to understand or control the behavior, or when the individualized education program or IEP was not being appropriately implemented. These instances would still constitute grounds for finding that the conduct is a manifestation of the disability, as would any other relevant factor or special circumstance which indicated that the conduct in question was caused by, or in the alternative, substantially related to the child's disability. If the student's conduct is a manifestation of their disability, the student may not be moved to an alternative placement for more than 10 school days unless one of the specific dangerousness exceptions apply.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the outstanding contributions made to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Clare Cotton, president of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts. Next month, Clare will retire after 17 years of impressive service and advocacy on behalf of 55 Massachusetts colleges and universities, their students, and faculty. In fact, Clare's contributions to higher education reach far beyond our State. His dedication, knowledge, and passion for education have improved the lives of countless students in communities across America. It is difficult to consider any aspect of policy in higher education without thinking of Clare and calling upon his expertise. All of us who know him will miss him greatly. Clare's leadership in higher education is based on his brilliant intellect, his love of learning, and his sound political instincts. In conversation, he could call up specifics of accounting regulations governing private colleges and universities, refer to undergraduate enrollment trends in science and math, and discuss the impact of both on a pending piece of legislation. His work in 1997 as a member of the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education is still cited by leaders of all sectors in the field. Need-based aid never had a better advocate than Clare, when he served first as a member and then as chairman of the congressionally authorized Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance during 2002 and 2003. Whatever the issue, Clare is adept at assessing its political and economic cost to students and institutions, and he has championed colleges and universities and their students for nearly all of his professional life. His impressive contributions have earned him distinguished status in the national associations of Colleges and Universities, and he has served in leadership positions in two of these organizations. Almost no policy decision could be made without Clare's wise counsel and support. Clare's brilliant career was very much honed at the local level. From 1977 to 1987, he was president of the Boston-Fenway Program, an urban planning group of 12 non-profit educational, cultural and medical institutions. Long before it became fashionable, Clare helped build an educational consortium that was able to maximize scarce financial resources and enhance both the quality and depth of these landmark institutions in Boston. Community policing in Boston was born through Clare's work with the Fenway consortium. Earlier in his career, Clare had also been a writer and a journalist. He was director of European Securities Publications in London during the 1960s, and he also served as a correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. Anyone in our nation who hopes for a better life and sees college education as the means for achieving it owes Clare Cotton a tremendous debt of gratitude. Our colleges and universities and Congress alike have benefited from his wise counsel, gentle humor, tireless dedication, and skillful advocacy. I wish him a long and happy retirement with his wonderful wife Helen, their four remarkable children, and their nine grandchildren, and I salute him for all he has done so well for Massachusetts and our country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Sessions, Senator Durbin and Senator Dodd in introducing the ``National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act.'' Our goal is to assist States in establishing in electronic databases to monitor the administration of prescription drugs and deal more effectively with the growing national problem of prescription drug abuse. Our Health Committee listened carefully to the thoughtful concerns and comments of the expert witnesses who testified at our recent hearing on this issue, and we have sought to meet these concerns in our bill. Over 6 million Americans currently use prescription drugs for non- medical purposes. 31 million adults and adolescents have reported abusing prescription drugs at least once. Since 1992, the number of young adults who abuse prescription pain relievers and other potentially addictive drugs has more than tripled. Prescription drug abuse among youths of age 12 to 17 has increased tenfold. State efforts to monitor the prescribing of potentially addictive medications can help curb this abuse. Currently, 19 States have such monitoring programs in place, including Massachusetts, and they vary widely in the collection and storage of data and the methods used for protecting privacy, while using the information in the databases to encourage the non-medical use of prescription drugs and reduce their diversion for illegal purposes. This bill authorizes the Secretary of HHS to award grants to states to establish prescription drug monitoring programs. For States with existing programs, the Secretary can award grants to upgrade their systems, standardize the data collected, and allow its sharing among States. The legislation includes an important provision allowing States with existing programs to receive funding, even if it is not feasible for the States to meet all the conditions required for new programs. The legislation recognizes that existing programs have been designed with the specific needs of each state in mind, and we should not block funding, even if particular programs do not match exactly the template in the bill. Any such program, however, must include strong safeguards for medical privacy, and must make certain that the database cannot be used to bring improper pressure on physicians to avoid prescribing essential medication for patients in need. The proper treatment of patients in pain, for example, is an enormous medical challenge, and this essential medical mission will be more difficult if patients fear that the privacy of their prescription histories will not be protected, or if physicians begin to look over their shoulders whenever they prescribe needed pain medication. The legislation permits state programs to release data under controlled and limited conditions. It is important to note, however, that States are free to impose even more stringent restrictions on the release of data than those required under our legislation. We all share the goal of reaching the right balance between the interests of patients, physicians, and law enforcement. Our bill requires that in their grant applications, each State must propose security standards for the electronic databases, including appropriate encryption or other information technology. In their applications, States must also set standards for use of the database, including a description of a process to certify that requests for information are legitimate. The bill also requires the Secretary to provide an analysis of the privacy protections within two years after enactment. Prescription drug abuse has been increasing every year. Physicians want to treat pain, and law enforcement officials want to stop the flow of prescription drugs from the pharmacies to the streets. A national prescription drug monitoring program will be a valuable resource to achieve both goals. I commend Senator Sessions for his leadership on this important health issue, and I look forward to early action by Congress to deal with this serious national problem.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Sessions, Senator Durbin and Senator Dodd in introducing the ``National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act.'' Our goal is to assist States in establishing in electronic databases to monitor the administration of prescription drugs and deal more effectively with the growing national problem of prescription drug abuse. Our Health Committee listened carefully to the thoughtful concerns and comments of the expert witnesses who testified at our recent hearing on this issue, and we have sought to meet these concerns in our bill. Over 6 million Americans currently use prescription drugs for non- medical purposes. 31 million adults and adolescents have reported abusing prescription drugs at least once. Since 1992, the number of young adults who abuse prescription pain relievers and other potentially addictive drugs has more than tripled. Prescription drug abuse among youths of age 12 to 17 has increased tenfold. State efforts to monitor the prescribing of potentially addictive medications can help curb this abuse. Currently, 19 States have such monitoring programs in place, including Massachusetts, and they vary widely in the collection and storage of data and the methods used for protecting privacy, while using the information in the databases to encourage the non-medical use of prescription drugs and reduce their diversion for illegal purposes. This bill authorizes the Secretary of HHS to award grants to states to establish prescription drug monitoring programs. For States with existing programs, the Secretary can award grants to upgrade their systems, standardize the data collected, and allow its sharing among States. The legislation includes an important provision allowing States with existing programs to receive funding, even if it is not feasible for the States to meet all the conditions required for new programs. The legislation recognizes that existing programs have been designed with the specific needs of each state in mind, and we should not block funding, even if particular programs do not match exactly the template in the bill. Any such program, however, must include strong safeguards for medical privacy, and must make certain that the database cannot be used to bring improper pressure on physicians to avoid prescribing essential medication for patients in need. The proper treatment of patients in pain, for example, is an enormous medical challenge, and this essential medical mission will be more difficult if patients fear that the privacy of their prescription histories will not be protected, or if physicians begin to look over their shoulders whenever they prescribe needed pain medication. The legislation permits state programs to release data under controlled and limited conditions. It is important to note, however, that States are free to impose even more stringent restrictions on the release of data than those required under our legislation. We all share the goal of reaching the right balance between the interests of patients, physicians, and law enforcement. Our bill requires that in their grant applications, each State must propose security standards for the electronic databases, including appropriate encryption or other information technology. In their applications, States must also set standards for use of the database, including a description of a process to certify that requests for information are legitimate. The bill also requires the Secretary to provide an analysis of the privacy protections within two years after enactment. Prescription drug abuse has been increasing every year. Physicians want to treat pain, and law enforcement officials want to stop the flow of prescription drugs from the pharmacies to the streets. A national prescription drug monitoring program will be a valuable resource to achieve both goals. I commend Senator Sessions for his leadership on this important health issue, and I look forward to early action by Congress to deal with this serious national problem.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to clarify an oversight with Senator Gregg that is important for the record. Senator Gregg, 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 plaintiffs claims are frivolous, without foundation or brought in bad faith. Is that your understanding as well?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, Senator Reed, that is my understanding. Well- prepared special education teachers are critical to our goal of providing a quality education for all children with disabilities. Such teachers need to be prepared with the skills and expertise needed to teach children with disabilities. Those skills may include the teaching of a standards-based reform curriculum to students with disabilities, helping students access technology-based learning tools, or adapting materials and learning environments for students with disabilities. In addition to traditional special education preparation programs at our colleges and universities, some alternative routes to certification offer important and useful options to addressing the special education teacher shortage--especially in rural and urban school systems with hard-to-staff schools. Some of our alternative routes have produced special education teachers with great skill and knowledge.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to commend two college professors in Massachusetts for the national recognition they have won today. Professor of English Howard Tinberg at Bristol Community College in Fall River was named an Outstanding Community College Professor of the Year, and Robert Bell, professor of English at Williams College in Williamstown, was named an Outstanding Baccalaureate College Professor of the Year. The awards were presented by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Four professors were recognized at each level of higher education--community college, baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral/ research--for their outstanding teaching, their commitment to undergraduate students and their contribution to teaching as a profession. Howard Tinberg teaches literature and composition, and is renowned for involving his students in researching the use of literacy in families and communities. He was instrumental in the establishment of the Writing Center at Bristol Community College and the Center for Teaching and Learning on the campus. He also serves as editor of the national journal. Teaching English in the Two-Year Colleges. Robert Bell's approach to teaching is grounded in his personal connections to his students and the exploration of literature through the details of the author's language. In 1994, he founded a mentoring program for new faculty members, the Project for Effective Teaching, which brings teachers together for weekly discussions, symposia and conferences. The Professors of the Year Program was created in 1981 and is the only national program specifically designed to recognize excellence in undergraduate teaching and mentoring. This year's winners were selected from a pool of nearly 300 teachers nominated by their provosts and academic vice presidents and supported by colleagues, former students, and current students. Massachusetts is proud of the national recognition earned by these two distinguished educators who have dedicated their careers to improving the learning and lives of their students and colleagues, and I congratulate them for their impressive leadership.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the fact that we are being asked to raise the debt ceiling to $8.0 trillion is further proof of the nation's bankrupt economic policy. It will be the third increase in the last 2 years, collectively raising the debt limit by more than $2.2 trillion. There is still no credible plan in place to bring the mushrooming deficits under control. President Bush's massive tax cuts for the wealthy have helped to turn the record surpluses he inherited into record deficits. The $5 trillion surplus projected 4 years ago has turned into a $3 trillion projected deficit. If we continue to follow the administration's misguided economic course, the federal debt could rise to more than $14 trillion in the next 10 years, and there will be large annual deficits as far as the eye can see. Over the long term, deficits that large will cripple the ability of the private sector to obtain the capital needed for companies to grow and create new jobs. They will also cripple the federal government's ability to make the needed investments in education, health care, and scientific research which are crucial to the nation's long-term wellbeing. These projected deficits do not even tell the whole story because they do not focus on borrowing from Social Security. The proposed Bush budget would raid the Social Security Trust Fund for nearly $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years. These are dollars which workers pay each year in payroll taxes to finance their retirement. It is wrong to take that money out of Social Security and use it to finance the daily operations of government. In essence, Social Security is being used to fill a piece of the huge revenue gap left by the administration's excessive and unaffordable tax cuts. Mortgaging the future in this irresponsible manner has not even brought American families a temporary prosperity. On the contrary, it has increased the financial burden on them. Their jobs are less secure. In fact, 2.5 million manufacturing workers have already seen their jobs disappear over the last 4 years. The cost of health insurance has soared more than 50 percent; and, as a result, 5 million fewer workers receive health coverage. Tuition at public colleges has risen by 28 percent, pushing higher education beyond the reach of more and more students. Workers wages have grown at the slowest rate in more than 2 decades, and minimum wage workers have not had any increase at all in 7 long years. As a result of the disastrous economic policies of this administration, 4.3 million more Americans are living in poverty, and the household debt of the average family has increased by one-third. What is the Bush administration's response? How does the President propose to remedy these very serious problems? More tax breaks for the same wealthy people who were the primary beneficiaries of his earlier cuts; transferring a larger share of the tax burden from those who live off their accumulated wealth to those who live from paycheck to paycheck. If the tax proposals in the President's budget are enacted into law, they would add more than $2.0 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years. American families cannot afford more of the same. The financial squeeze is getting steadily tighter. Working men and women are the ones paying the price for Washington's economic mistakes. Hopefully, in the new Congress, we will start to seriously address these critical issues with members from both sides of the aisle and the administration working together to get our economic ship of state on a better course before it hits the rocks.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to Jim Marks for his many years of dedicated public service at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as he prepares to take up an eminent new position as senior vice president and director of the Public Health Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Marks is a pediatrician and former Assistant Surgeon General who began his career more than 20 years ago at the CDC. He has worked effectively in the areas of birth defects prevention, reproductive health, nutrition, and health promotion and education, and rose through the ranks at CDC to a position of renown as one of America's leading experts on disease prevention. He was named director of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion in 1995, and this year he became the acting director of the CDC's Coordinating Center for Health Information and Service. Dr. Marks has significantly improved public health through his leadership on critical health issues facing the Nation. He was instrumental in achieving the most impressive recent accomplishment in tobacco control and prevention: The decline in adolescent smoking after nearly a decade of rising rates of smoking in the 1990s. Under Dr. Marks' direction, CDC increased its commitment to reduce and prevent smoking, and transformed a piecemeal State-by-State approach into a true national effort. CDC developed standards for best practices and created the National Tobacco Control Program, which provides funds and technical support to State health departments. Under his leadership, 4 Surgeon General reports were released that highlight the full scope of tobacco-related deaths and disease. As a result of these efforts, cigarette sales dropped and States achieved a reduction in tobacco- related deaths from both lung cancer and heart disease. The CDC also now works closely with the World Health Organization to conduct the Global Youth Tobacco Survey, which is active in more than 160 countries and will be invaluable in developing the first international public health treaty. On cancer, Dr. Marks has helped spearhead efforts to prevent cancer and promote early detection. Under his direction and with the support of Congress, the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control has grown from approximately $123 million to over $313 million. Several specific accomplishments under Dr. Marks' leadership are worth mentioning. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has helped uninsured and underinsured women obtain lifesaving screening and diagnostic testing for early detection. The program has achieved nearly 5 million screenings, and diagnosed 17,000 breast cancers, 61,000 precancerous cervical lesions, and 1,100 cervical cancers. The National Program of Cancer Registries has been expanded to cover 96 percent of the Nation's population. The information gathered by the program is important for tracing cancer patterns and monitoring cancer trends. It guided State planning and State evaluation of cancer control programs and helps States to set priorities. It is also useful in planning clinical research and research on health and on epidemics. The data contributed as well to producing the official Federal report, ``U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2000 Incidence.'' The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program was developed and has been expanded to 61 programs in States, territories and tribes, enabling local health agencies to establish broad-based cancer control coalitions. Last year, under Dr. Marks, the plan called ``A National Action Plan for Cancer Survivorship: Advancing Public Health Strategies'' was developed in collaboration with the Lance Armstrong Foundation and national experts in cancer survivorship and public health. The Action Plan charts a course to enable the public health community to focus more effectively on cancer survivorship and on improving the quality of life for survivors. In addition, Dr. Marks has emphasized science-based nutrition and physical activity as part of a greater effort to deal with the current epidemic of obesity in our Nation. He enthusiastically embraced the idea of a unique CDC partnership with the world of commercial youth marketing, which led to the so-called VERB Campaign, to move American youth off the couch and into healthy activities. The VERB campaign is a ``for kids/by kids'' voice to reach youth between the ages of 9 and 13 with ``cool'' messages to discover the fun of being physically active-- and do it ``anywhere, anytime, and any way.'' As a result, after 1 year, 74 percent of this youth now recognize and like the VERB brand. Dr. Marks has been an outstanding leader on the major public health issues of our time. His pioneering work has improved the health of communities across the Nation and improved the quality of life for countless families and children. His strong commitment and wise counsel have educated all of us in Congress. I wish him well, and I look forward to his continuing leadership with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the statements of both of our leaders, and I think all Members understand the importance of this conference. I particularly appreciate the desire to work in good faith on these provisions. I have noted that in the House bill there are some extraneous provisions, particularly with regard to both immigration and refugees. There are important changes in asylum standards that turn back our tradition in terms of refugees, which has been more of an ideological position, but really it is unrelated to the challenges, to the threats. And there have also been very important provisions in terms of deportation that is to a far extent. We have not had any of those hearings on the Judiciary Committee, and those are very important issues and questions. I thank our leaders for their willingness to say that we want to work on what is the underlying legislation. There are extraneous issues that have been added in the House. If they were to come back and be as negative as they are in the House bill, then it seems to me that it would fail to meet the kind of standards that have been outlined in good faith. So I thank both of our leaders for their excellent statements. I appreciate our leader raising these questions on some very substantive, important issues that are completely unrelated to the whole question of terrorism or intelligence. It would need a good deal of discussion here on the Senate floor before they were done. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Chair--I believe I have 30 minutes--when I have 2 minutes left to notify me.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I take note that the Senate, a little while ago, for the fourth time, passed the overtime protections bill yesterday. This is the same bill the House has already passed twice. So I hope they act as soon as possible on the bill we sent them yesterday. There is no reason we cannot get the discharge petition in the House of Representatives on that and also the provisions that we passed on FDA protections for children. I hope President Bush is listening to the bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate who repeatedly tell him to repeal those parts of his regulation on overtime that take away pay for hard-working, middle- class Americans.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on the FSC legislation that was just passed, I want to say a few words. The American middle class is the heart and soul of our country, but you would never know it from the FSC bill. We should be helping middle-class families, not hurting them, but this bill uses your taxes to ship your jobs overseas. It allows President Bush to cut your overtime pay, and it allows big tobacco companies to market cigarettes to your children. On issue after issue in this legislation, elite corporate interests are the winners at the expense of average Americans. If the middle class is the backbone of America, then this bill is contrary to American values. And if President Bush really cared about the middle class instead of just big corporations, he would veto this bill when it comes to his desk. Education

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on another matter, President Bush may be leaving 5 million children behind in our schools, but he is sparing no expense in a national campaign to cover up the failures of his administration on public school reform. Somehow the Bush administration can never find the money in the budget to hire and train teachers to help failing schools to expand afterschool programs. But when it comes to politics and PR campaigns, he can find thousands and thousands of your tax dollars for White House propaganda. In a line that President Reagan made famous: There you go again. They use taxpayers dollars to produce political ads for their bad Medicare bill, and they are doing it again with their failed education program. I refer to the October 11 AP story by the education writer, Ben Feller. He writes: The Bush administration has promoted its education law with a video that comes across as a news story but fails to make clear the reporter involved was paid with taxpayer money. The Government used a similar approach this year in promoting the new Medicare law and drew a rebuke from the investigative arm of Congress which found that the videos amounted to propaganda in violation of Federal law. That is why we ask Secretary Paige to take this propaganda off the airways now. You just used a similar process on Medicare, and the GAO found it violated Government law. They are following the same procedure. This violates Government law, and it ought to be taken off the air and taken off now. The videos and documents emerged through a Freedom of Information Act request by People for the American Way that contends the Department is spending public money on a political agenda. The group sought details of a $700,000 contract Ketchum received in 2003 from the Education Department. One service the company provided was a video news release geared for television stations. The video includes a news story that features Education Secretary Rod Paige and promotes tutoring now offered under law. It does not identify the Government as the source of the report. It also fails to make clear that the person purporting to be a reporter was someone hired for the promotional video. Those are the same features, including the voice of Karen Ryan, that were prominent on videos the Health and Human Services Department used to promote the Medicare law and were judged covert propaganda by the General Accounting Office in May. It is the same business, a different subject matter, and it is completely unacceptable. Enough is enough. It is time to get serious about improving our schools. It is time for the Bush administration to realize improving education in America is not about slogans. It is not about propaganda. It is time to get about the hard work of training more teachers, smaller class sizes, extra help for the children who need it. Stem Cell Research Now, to get back to my earlier comment about stem cell research--and I see a number of my colleagues on the floor who will address this issue as well--last evening I noted and saw my good friend the majority leader take the Senate floor to defend the indefensible, President Bush's stem cell policy. Here is what the majority leader said: Stem cell research shows great promise. It shows great promise, and the President's policy harnesses that promise and it also strikes a balance with the values of our people. The fact is that the President's position does not strike a balance. It does not harness the promise of stem cell research. In fact, it is an attempt to have it both ways. It is an attempt to satisfy the group of the President's supporters who oppose stem cell research on religious grounds while pretending to the vast majority of Americans who support such research that he is really behind it. No amount of rhetoric can hide the fact that the biggest obstacle to finding cures for paralysis or Parkinson's disease or juvenile diabetes or heart disease through use of embryonic stem cell is President Bush. President Bush is fond of claiming that he is the first President to approve funds for stem cell research. That sounds good, but it is not true. Here is the actual record: For a number of years, the Congressional Appropriations Act had carried a prohibition against using Federal funds for research that destroyed an embryo. Now that we better understand the importance of embryonic stem cell research, a prohibition would never pass today. President Clinton had asked a special committee at NIH to reexamine this policy, and they concluded that the use of embryos for research was ethical and scientifically important. In January of 1999, the HHS General Counsel concluded that despite the appropriations bill language, NIH money could be used to support research on cell lines derived from embryos as long as NIH did not pay for the destruction of embryos. Following this decision, NIH set up a special committee to review grant applications for such research. In April of 2001, the new Bush administration suspended the committee and barred NIH from awarding any funds for embryo research. In August 2001, President Bush announced the policy that has effectively slowed stem cell research to a crawl. Under his policy, only stem cell lines that had been created prior to 8 p.m., August 9, 2001, would be available for funding with Federal money. Virtually every scientist involved in the field said this policy was hopelessly restrictive, but President Bush did not listen. The experience of Professor Douglas Melton at Harvard, a distinguished medical researcher, illustrates the folly of the Bush restrictions. Professor Melton has created 17 stem cell lines that meet all of the ethical guidelines laid down at NIH, but his stem cell lines were created after the date in the President's Executive order. He receives no Federal funding for his work. He has had to create a whole separate lab to conduct his research because his regular lab had received Federal funds. For this dedicated researcher, the barriers created by President Bush's policy in lost time and denied resources and, most of all, in potential missed opportunities for patients have been tragic. The fact is that some of our most distinguished scientists are moving abroad to do their research. The last thing we need is a reverse brain- drain. When President Bush announced his policy, he claimed that more than 60 stem cell lines would be available. At the time, experts said that the President was simply wrong, and he was wrong, but he has not changed his policy. The reality is that only 22 cell lines can actually be used by scientists. The rest have failed to develop into usable lines. Even the few lines that NIH will fund are all contaminated with mouse cells. Because of the danger of using these contaminated lines, FDA rules make it almost impossible to use any of these lines to develop or test cures in human beings. Worse yet, every single one of those lines comes with a restrictive contract known as a materials transfer agreement that actually prohibits doctors from using them in patients. Let me make sure my colleagues understand this. NIH researchers are legally barred from using any of the stem cell lines available to them to help treat patients. Do not just take my word for it; go look it up. All the restrictions are laid out in black and white on the NIH stem cell Web site. Most people would look at the facts that have come out since George Bush laid down his policy and admit they made a mistake and then make a change. No shame in that. But will George Bush admit he made a mistake, admit that it is time for a change? Oh, no, he is never wrong. He has never made a mistake. Sound familiar? The reality is that the American people know the Bush policy is denying help and hope to millions of American patients and their families. The majority of the Senate knows it, too. Fifty-eight Senators sent a letter to President Bush to reverse this disastrous policy before more precious time is lost in the battle against diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal injury, and more. That letter was signed by 14 Republicans, including prominent pro-life conservatives such as Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, Ted Stevens, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Gordon Smith. These pro-life conservatives understand that the embryos that would be used in research are byproducts of in vitro fertilization procedures to be used to help couples who would otherwise not be able to have children. If these embryos are not used in research they will be discarded or frozen in perpetuity. We are not talking about destroying embryos for research; we are talking about using embryos in research that would otherwise be destroyed in any event. In an eloquent editorial published in the Salt Lake Tribune in April 2002, Senator Hatch wrote: Regenerative medicine is pro-life and pro-family. It fully enhances, not diminishes, human life. If encouraged to flourish, it can improve the lives of millions of Americans and could lead to new scientific knowledge that is likely to yield new treatments and cures. Why would anyone oppose that? As everyone knows, Nancy Reagan strongly supports that position. The Nation's scientific community knows that embryonic stem cells have a unique potential to repair injury and treat disease. According to a letter signed in 1999 by 36 Nobel laureates, those who seek to prevent medical advances using stem cells must be held accountable to those, and their families, who suffer from horrible disease, as to why such hope should be withheld. A later letter was sent by 80 Nobel laureates, and it said: Current evidence suggests that adult stem cells have markedly restricted differentiation potential. Therefore, for disorders that prove not to be treatable with adult stem cells, impending human pluripotent stem cell research risk unnecessary delay for millions of patients who may die or endure needless suffering while the effectiveness of adult stem cells is evaluated. Those most affected by the Bush administration's cruel restrictions on this lifesaving research know it is wrong. Over 140 organizations representing patients and health professionals, including Vanderbilt University Medical Center, wrote to President Bush, urging him to end these unwarranted restrictions. The organizations signing that letter represent patients afflicted with cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and many other serious illnesses. Their letter was written on the third sad anniversary of the announcement of the President's failed policy. It notes the grim statistics, that in the 3 years since that announcement, ``more than 4 million Americans have died from diseases that embryonic stem cells have the potential to treat.'' Even the Bush administration has admitted that adult stem cells cannot match the potential of embryonic stem cells. The conclusion of an NIH report in June of 2001 couldn't be clearer: Stem cells in adult tissues do not appear to have the same capacity to differentiate as do embryonic stem cells. The fundamental fact is that the Bush administration's first action on stem-cell research was to block the sensible policy that President Clinton had instituted to allow NIH to fund stem-cell research with strict ethical guidelines. As I noted earlier, President Clinton was the first President to allow NIH to fund embryonic stem-cell research, not President George Bush. His sensible policy was never implemented because the Bush administration blocked it. If George Bush had not reversed President Clinton's sensible and well-reasoned policy, National Institutes of Health funded scientists would today be able to conduct research on stem cells uncontaminated with mouse cells. Because of George Bush's restrictions, they cannot. If George Bush had not reversed the Clinton policy, National Institutes of Health funded scientists today would be able to search for breakthrough new cures by researching stem cells from patients with genetic disorders. Because of George Bush's restrictions, they cannot. If George Bush had not reversed the Clinton policy, National Institutes of Health researchers would be free today to research cell lines that could actually be used in patients. Because of George Bush's restrictions, they cannot. It is time to lift these restrictions. Millions of patients and their families hope that George Bush will lift those restrictions. But everyone in this Chamber knows he will not. To restore hope and renew the promise of medical progress, we need a change in November. We need a President who will not let a blind and stubborn ideology stand in the way of cures for diabetes, hope for cancer, relief for those suffering from many other disorders. America's patients need a change. They need John Kerry. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see a number of my colleagues here. I will be brief. But I want to address the subject matter which was so eloquently addressed by our friend and ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee this past week in the hearings that were held about the state of our economy. I see him on the floor. I want to make some opening comments and hope he will help me to understand this issue better. I have in my hand President Bush's statement that he made in Minnesota 2 days ago. President Bush, in Minnesota 2 days ago, said: Our economy has been growing at rates as fast as any in nearly 20 years. I also have in my hand: I have proposed and delivered four rounds of tax relief. . . . This is from the President's radio talk on Saturday. Two days ago he talked about the economy ``expanding,'' ``growing,'' ``the best in 20 years.'' Then on Saturday in his radio talk: I have proposed and delivered four rounds of tax relief and our economy is creating jobs again. We have added 1.9 million jobs in the past 13 months. What he doesn't point out is the economy is working well for Wall Street but not for Main Street; that we are still short 1.6 million jobs. This will be the first President since Herbert Hoover who has presided over an economy where we have not produced the jobs. In that report we had last week, we found out a great many of those jobs were temporary jobs. Of that number of 96,000 jobs, a third of those were temporary. As was pointed out in the Joint Economic Committee where the Senator from Maryland serves, it reminded us the real unemployment rate is 9.4 percent because so many people have given up looking for work. And the long-term unemployment rate is the highest for the longest in the history of keeping the information by the Department of Labor. But I want to know if the senior Senator saw Monday's Washington Post. This is not a month ago. This isn't 6 months ago. Here it is, a front-page story: Permanent Job Proves an Elusive Dream The story goes on about the rise of temporary workers. The story goes on and talks about Phillip Hicks. He lost his job and could only find temporary work. It continues. I will ask unanimous consent the entire article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. The article does track one slice of the workforce: temporary workers. Since January 2002, the nation has added 369,000 temporary positions, about half of the private-sector jobs created during that stretch. This report says half of all the private sector jobs created under this Administration since January 2002 are temporary positions. These are jobs without benefits. You talk about health insurance or retirement? Those are virtually nonexistent. This is what is happening in this country. It is amazing to me to hear the President talk about how the economy is growing and crow about the increased numbers of jobs that we had--96,000 this last month, which is not even enough to keep up with the growth of the population. And then we find a third of those jobs are Government jobs, a third are temporary jobs, and the other third are not paying very much. I want to also mention that, as difficult as this is, those are figures that point out what happens to real people in their lives. But whatever happens to these individuals I have just mentioned pales in comparison to the kind of pain minorities and women are feeling; women, whose real income has declined, and minorities--Hispanics, African Americans--whose unemployment has increased dramatically. I see the Senator from Maryland on his feet now. I am interested in his reaction to that hearing and to those figures. Before I run out of time, I would also like him to address the subject of the foreign purchase of over half of the U.S. debt. Nearly $2 trillion of the national debt is now owned by foreign holders. Recent figures show China and Japan owning $1.3 trillion in U.S. Treasuries. I am concerned these foreign nations are basically buying up America. We know who has the whip in hand when you control the resources. One morning we will wake up and foreign countries will own America. If they control our economy, then they control our destiny. The American economy and American destiny ought to be in Americans hands.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in this article, besides the administration being against the increase in the minimum wage, they are against unemployment compensation and against overtime. In this report in 1982, there were 417,000 workers classified temporary. Today, there are 2.5 million. This is about equal to the number of manufacturing jobs lost in the past decade. These are the statements that we have about how good the economy is.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I see my time has expired. I thank my friend from Maryland for his excellent observations.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join with others in the Senate to say it is with deep sorrow I note the death of Christopher Reeve. Christopher set a wonderful example of courage and perseverance for men and women all over this country who are afflicted by disabilities, and particularly those who have spinal cord injuries. Christopher never gave up hope that eventually he could be cured. He worked hard to keep his body in the best shape possible to prepare for the day when an effective treatment for his injury would be available, and he fought unceasingly to foster the scientific research that offers hope and help to millions of others afflicted with severe injuries or dreaded disease. He was particularly involved in the battle for stem cell research because he saw it as the best opportunity for curing not only his injury but also a host of other diseases from Parkinson's and diabetes to heart disease. This election is critical in achieving Christopher Reeve's vision because only one candidate for President, John Kerry, is committed not only to stem cell research but to good science generally, science not constrained by ideology or partisanship. I am going to come back to this subject matter in just a moment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about the direction our Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives have taken on the legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The House bill, H.R. 10, departs in significant and problematic ways from the Commission's specifically-tailored recommendations to protect our country against future terrorist attacks. The recommendations call for preventing terrorist travel, establishing an effective screening system to protect our borders, transportation systems, and other vital facilities, expediting full implementation of a biometric entry-exit screening system, establishing global border security standards by working with trusted allies, and standardizing identity documents and birth certificates. Instead of adhering to these carefully considered measures, as the Senate has done, the House Republican leadership has included long- rejected, antiimmigrant proposals that have nothing to do with the Commission's recommendations. The House bill severely limits the rights of immigrants, asylum seekers, and victims of torture and fails to strengthen the security of our nation. Among the worst provisions in the House bill are those which create insurmountable obstacles and burdens for asylum seekers, including many women and children, eliminate judicial review, including the constitutional writ of habeas corpus, for certain immigration orders, and which allow the deportation of individuals to countries where they are likely to be tortured, in violation of our international treaty obligations. Many share my concerns with the House bill. The list of critics, lead by families of the 9/11 victims, is rapidly growing. A recent letter to House members, signed by more than two dozen family members of persons who died in the terrorist attacks, states that the immigration provisions are outside the scope of the Commission's recommendations and urges House members not to enact them. To underscore their concerns, the families state their ``strong collective position that legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations not be used in a politically divisive manner.'' Similarly, the chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, has said that the House immigration provisions ``which are controversial and are not part of our recommendations to make the American people safer perhaps ought to be part of another bill at another time.'' Likewise, the vice-chair, Lee Hamilton, warned that the inclusion of these ``controversial provisions at this late hour can harm our shared purpose of getting a good bill to the President before the 108th Congress adjourns.'' I am submitting for the record the letters of a broad spectrum of religious, immigrant, human rights, and civil liberties groups voicing their strong opposition to the immigration provisions in the House bill. These groups include the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the American Jewish Committee, Amnesty International, the Arab-American Institute Center for Community Change, the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, Freedom House, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, the National Council of La Raza, the National Immigration Forum, the RFK Memorial Center for Human Rights, the Service Employees International Union, the Tahirih Justice Center, the U.S. Catholic Bishop's Committee on Migration, World Relief, and the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children. In these difficult times for our country, we know that the threat of terrorism has not ended. We have to keep doing all we can to see that our borders are protected and our immigration laws are enforced, and that law enforcement officials have the full support they need. But we must do so in ways that respect fundamental rights. Congress should not enact laws that ride rough-shod over basic rights in the name of national security. Immigrants are part of our heritage and history. We jeopardize our own fundamental values when we adopt harsh security tactics that trample the rights and liberties of immigrants. We must learn from the past, so that we do not continue to repeat these mistakes in the future. This legislation is too important for it to be derailed by political pandering to anti-immigrant extremists. We need to pass this reform legislation, but we need to get it right. The American people expect, and deserve, better. I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced letters in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And we should be judged as U.S. Senators in fulfilling that commitment by how well we put the needs of average Americans first. Middle class families are the backbone of America. Our first duty is to them--for a secure nation, for good jobs, for healthy families, for good schools, and safe neighborhoods. This bill betrays that solemn duty. On issue after issue, page after page, it puts the interests of big corporations ahead of the public interest--ahead of the hopes and dreams and everyday needs of the middle class. It puts the profits of big tobacco corporations ahead of the health of our children. The Senate adopted the proposal by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, to prohibit tobacco companies from marketing cigarettes to children. There is absolutely no doubt that tobacco companies are spending $11 billion each year to lure our children into smoking. Every day, 5,000 children smoke for the first time. More than one-third of those will be regular daily smokers by the time they graduate from high school. What future do they have to look forward to? Years of battling cancer? A painful and premature death? Never getting the chance to watch their own children grow up and get married? Never living long enough to bounce their grandchildren on their knees? Is that what parents want for their children? Tobacco use kills more Americans every year than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides, and fires combined. Nearly 1 in 3 cancer deaths, and 1 in 5 deaths from heart disease are tobacco-related. In fact, smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death in America. We had a chance to bring to an end the largest disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world. We had a chance to save our children from this scourage--to save them from the clutches of the tobacco companies. But the tobacco companies carried the day in Congress and the House leadership said no. Is that what ``the people'' want? Is that government ``for the people''? I don't think so. The Senate passed an amendment by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, to stop the Bush administration's misguided efforts to eliminate your overtime pay. That is right. President Bush says to millions of middle class workers that they no longer deserve the right to overtime pay. And the Harkin amendment would have stopped the Bush administration from doing that. This comes from an administration that is already costing us jobs. In fact, we learned on Friday that President Bush will be the first President since Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression over 70 years ago to lose jobs on his watch--a total of 1.6 million private sector jobs. And now, on top of that, the President wants to reward his special interest friends by taking away overtime from more than 6 million hard-working Americans. On five separate occasions, the House and the Senate have voted to preserve overtime protections, but the While House stripped them from this bill. Make no mistake--overtime cuts are pay cuts. Is that what ``the people'' want? Is that government ``for the people''? I don't think so. Finally, this bill outsources jobs. Middle class families across America live in fear every day that their good jobs will be shipped overseas. The people expect us to protect their jobs. But this bill provides a stunning $42 billion in new tax breaks for multinational corporations that will make it easier for them to export your jobs. Imagine that. You are working had every day, playing by the rules, trying to provide for your family, and faithfully paying your taxes. And this bill uses your tax dollars to ship your job overseas. This bill is of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. It is a lobbyist's dream and a middle class nightmare. It is an embarrassment to representative government. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this bill deserves to pass, but it's only a down-payment on the real reform needed to close a flagrant loophole in the student loan program. The bill takes $285 million in excessive subsidies to banks and gives it to college students and new teachers in the form of increased forgiveness for student loans. It is only a downpayment, however, because it does not close all of the notorious 9.5 percent student loan loophole, and because even this reform will expire after one year. The bill is silent on the full interest rate gouging that has taken place over the last 18 months-- funds that the Secretary of Education should have reclaimed on his own, and still should after this bill passes. Obviously, our Republican colleagues hope that this modest action will cool the public outcry that has erupted in the past month as the full extent of this shameful loophole has come to light. For almost 25 years, the taxpayer has been guaranteeing banks a 9.5 percent rate of return on a specific type of student loans. In 1993, Congress acted to end the guarantee, but a loophole emerged that even the Government Accountability Office says the Bush administration has refused to shut down. Today's bill still leaves 40 percent of the loophole wide open. In other words, our Republican colleagues can no longer stand the heat from the loophole, and so they're now sacrificing 60 percent of it, in the hope that their special interest friends in the student loan industry can still retain the other 40 percent. Sadly, under this Republican bill, the abuse will continue. New loans will be made to new students that taxpayers will subsidize at a 9.5 percent interest rate. It's madness. We should be allowing older borrowers to refinance their student loans at today's market rates, instead of subsidizing big banks at the high interest rates of the 1980s. We should be helping students who are eligible for Pell Grants, instead of subsidizing big banks needlessly. Republicans claim that some of this subsidy will go to student benefits. I say, it all should go to student benefits in whatever loan program a student participates. No one should be fooled. Half of the student loan loophole that this bill leaves wide open goes to for- profit corporations like Nelnet and Sallie Mae. The 9.5 percent guarantee is still highway robbery for special interests. Our Republican colleagues reply that at least they're narrowing the highway from five lanes to two lanes. Banks like Nelnet and Sallie Mae can still drive right through, collecting outrageous profits at the expense of students and taxpayers. I had hoped to offer an amendment to this bill that would close the 9.5 percent loan loophole completely and permanently. But the Republican Majority objects to that effort here and now. We will be back though on the first available vehicle to shut down this wasteful corporate subsidy once and for all. It's long past time for President Bush and Republicans find the courage to stand up to their special interest friends, and do what's right for the Nation's students and taxpayers. In most cases, lenders today receive a 3.6 percent rate of return on new student loans. But for the last 11 years, the Government-- taxpayers--have been guaranteeing lenders a 9.5 percent rate of return on a certain group of otherwise non-descript student loans. A 9.5 percent rate of interest might have made sense years ago, but it doesn't today. In 1993, Congress passed legislation intended to phase-out of existence the 9.5 percent bank guarantee. But two key loopholes have kept that subsidy alive and well. The legislation before the Senate closes one. The first loophole--the one that isn't closed by this legislation-- allows for what is called 9.5 percent loan ``recycling.'' A lender makes a loan to a student--``Student A.'' Over the course of the next 10 to 25 years, the lender is repaid by Student A and the lender gets a subsidy payment guaranteeing a 9.5 percent rate of return. Under the 1993 law, after one loan, there should be an end to that 9.5 percent guarantee. But lenders have been recycling Student A payments and the attached Government subsidy into a new loans issued to new students--``Student B''--and claiming a 9.5 percent guarantee on those loans as well. So, 9.5 loans haven't been phased out at all. They've being maintained. And the Department of Education has done nothing about it. Worse, 18 months ago, lenders started growing the number of 9.5 percent loans through a process called ``transferring.'' A lender shifts a loan out of its tax-exempt bond estate into its taxable bond estate. When the loan shifts, the 9.5 percent guarantee shifts with it and the tax-exempt bond estate then has money available to it to issue new 9.5 percent loans. As a result of ``transferring,'' 9.5 percent loan bank subsidy payments have more than doubled in the last 18 months. The Bush administration has refused to stop the process, despite Democrats' and GAO's urging. A year ago, Senate Democrats proposed legislation to shut both loopholes down once and for all. The Senate Republicans did not act on that proposal, did not introduce their own legislation, and did not hold a single hearing. They asked no oversight questions of the Bush administration. In short, they did nothing. Democrats requested a GAO investigation. We alerted non-partisan higher education policy experts. We requested an SEC investigation. Two months ago, we blew the whistle in the media on the new, explosive growth in the 9.5 loan subsidy. Finally, our Republican friends responded to the criticism with the legislation before us today. But again, this bill doesn't get the job done. It leaves the ``recycling'' loophole open, and it lasts only one year. Now, this remains a live issue in the Appropriations Committee. I would hope we would follow the House's 413-13 vote lead in shutting down this loophole in its entirety. It's a change past due.