Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stephen Kosack, a fellow in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor during the remainder of morning business.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are going to conference on the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This is the landmark Federal law that sets national standards for special education, and defines the rights of children with disabilities in our public schools. We have ahead of us the key challenge of modernizing this important law to meet today's demands and to ensure that the rights of children with special needs truly are protected. Disabled does not mean unable. We must do everything possible to ensure that children with disabilities have the same opportunities to learn as other children. I want to thank our committee chairman, Senator Gregg, for his leadership in guiding through the Senate a strong bipartisan bill to meet that challenge. I look forward to working closely with him, Chairman John Boehner, Congressman George Miller, and our other colleagues on the committee to produce a final bill that parents can support and that will enjoy bipartisan support.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator DeWine in introducing the Asthmatic School-Children's Treatment and Health Management Act. This legislation will save lives by enabling children to carry their medications with them and quickly treat their asthma attacks or allergic reactions. Asthma continues to be a major, and often preventable cause of needless suffering and death among children in the United States. Over 6 million children under 18 have asthma, and it is significantly more prevalent in minority groups. Tragically, over 200 children die from this disease every year. Asthma affects more than health. It accounts for 14 million missed school days annually, and affects grades and personality. The estimated cost of asthma-related health care in our society is over $14 billion a year. The key to preventing deaths and severe health effects caused by asthma and allergic reactions is prompt treatment. Inhalers work within minutes to end acute asthma attacks in children. Children experiencing severe allergic reactions must receive life-saving injections of epinephrine immediately, in order to avoid serious complications or even death. Children need quick access to these medications when they are at school. Yet, in many States, these medications are locked up. Twenty States do not have legislation allowing students to carry and use their asthma inhalers, and 32 states have not yet passed legislation permitting students to carry and use epinephrine. Some say that school nurses should control access to these lifesaving medications. But in America today, we have only 56,000 school nurses serving 47 million students in public schools. The ratio is only one school nurse for every 840 students. If access to these needed medications is controlled by nurses, the safety of asthma and allergy sufferers may often be compromised, and needless deaths may occur. Students without immediate access to needed medications could be at increased risk of harm while in a classroom far away from a nurse's office or other school facility. Allowing children to take their own medicine during asthma attacks and severe allergic reactions can prevent many life-threatening situations. Our bill will help to see that children with asthma or allergic reactions will get their medications when they need it. Under this Act, States that allow students to carry and self-administer asthma or allergy medications will receive preferences for asthma-related grants. It requires that a health care practitioner must prescribe the medication and instruct students on its proper use. The student must demonstrate to the practitioner that they have the skills to administer the medication correctly. This bill also requires the student's parent or guardian to provide written consent for the student to take their medication according to the treatment plan. When they face a life-threatening asthma attack or allergic reaction, children deserve an effective way to avoid severe health consequences. Schools should give our children the right to carry their medications with them in order to minimize the time lost between the onset of symptoms and the needed treatment. The ``Asthmatic School-Children's Treatment and Health Management Act'' will save children's lives and minimize suffering during these attacks. I commend Senator DeWine for his leadership on this important health issue, and I encourage Congress to act quickly to improve every child's access in school of life-saving medications.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator DeWine in introducing the Asthmatic School-Children's Treatment and Health Management Act. This legislation will save lives by enabling children to carry their medications with them and quickly treat their asthma attacks or allergic reactions. Asthma continues to be a major, and often preventable cause of needless suffering and death among children in the United States. Over 6 million children under 18 have asthma, and it is significantly more prevalent in minority groups. Tragically, over 200 children die from this disease every year. Asthma affects more than health. It accounts for 14 million missed school days annually, and affects grades and personality. The estimated cost of asthma-related health care in our society is over $14 billion a year. The key to preventing deaths and severe health effects caused by asthma and allergic reactions is prompt treatment. Inhalers work within minutes to end acute asthma attacks in children. Children experiencing severe allergic reactions must receive life-saving injections of epinephrine immediately, in order to avoid serious complications or even death. Children need quick access to these medications when they are at school. Yet, in many States, these medications are locked up. Twenty States do not have legislation allowing students to carry and use their asthma inhalers, and 32 states have not yet passed legislation permitting students to carry and use epinephrine. Some say that school nurses should control access to these lifesaving medications. But in America today, we have only 56,000 school nurses serving 47 million students in public schools. The ratio is only one school nurse for every 840 students. If access to these needed medications is controlled by nurses, the safety of asthma and allergy sufferers may often be compromised, and needless deaths may occur. Students without immediate access to needed medications could be at increased risk of harm while in a classroom far away from a nurse's office or other school facility. Allowing children to take their own medicine during asthma attacks and severe allergic reactions can prevent many life-threatening situations. Our bill will help to see that children with asthma or allergic reactions will get their medications when they need it. Under this Act, States that allow students to carry and self-administer asthma or allergy medications will receive preferences for asthma-related grants. It requires that a health care practitioner must prescribe the medication and instruct students on its proper use. The student must demonstrate to the practitioner that they have the skills to administer the medication correctly. This bill also requires the student's parent or guardian to provide written consent for the student to take their medication according to the treatment plan. When they face a life-threatening asthma attack or allergic reaction, children deserve an effective way to avoid severe health consequences. Schools should give our children the right to carry their medications with them in order to minimize the time lost between the onset of symptoms and the needed treatment. The ``Asthmatic School-Children's Treatment and Health Management Act'' will save children's lives and minimize suffering during these attacks. I commend Senator DeWine for his leadership on this important health issue, and I encourage Congress to act quickly to improve every child's access in school of life-saving medications.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is entirely appropriate that the Senate pause today at the celebration of Rosh Hashanah. This, the people's body--the House of Representatives and the Senate--demonstrate their great respect for a very important Jewish holiday that symbolizes so much that is important not only in terms of their faith, but also underlies a very important value and spirit of this country, and that is the spirit of hope and optimism, portrayed by the dipping of apples into honey, symbolizing that one is going to have a better, more hopeful, and sweeter year. It is a message of hope, and it reminds us of a long tradition that hope is deeply rooted in a spiritual setting. It is entirely appropriate for us as a nation as well to share that sense with our Jewish friends, and also draw lessons from that very special occasion. So I pay tribute to all of our friends who are celebrating this spiritual holiday today and thank them again for reminding us as a nation and reminding the world of that extraordinary spirit, which is reflected in that tradition and which is symbolized today in Israel in its continued struggle for existence and for religious liberty. Mr. President, I speak today about this issue of hope, and where it is and where it is not in terms of our own society, and what I think we should be attempting to do about it. I believe we ought to take a look at what is being represented to the American people, particularly on the issues of the economy. Under our constitutional system, we are in a period where we will be making judgments as to the course we are charting for the future. I believe, on the one hand, that we do have a road toward hope, particularly for working families. I think the last 3 years has been a road of burden and a quaky road for hard-working Americans. I review the record for the Senate again and for the American people as we are looking forward to these next 6 or 7 weeks and making judgments and decisions about the direction that we should follow. I don't think it is anywhere clearer than in the state of our economy and what has happened to average working Americans in our Nation. There has been an economic squeeze that has resulted in American families working harder, working longer, and falling further and further behind. It doesn't have to be this way. We have seen at other times when we have had Presidential leadership, where we have had the strong, expanding, and growing economy, with economic growth and price stability, and the reduction of unemployment. We have seen it in most recent times under President Clinton. We saw it in the early 1960s under President Kennedy prior to the time of the Vietnam war buildup in the latter part of the 1960s. Really, the issues of economic growth, price stability, and economic expansion is directly related to Presidential leadership. What is happening to the middle class today is an extraordinary set of pressures on working Americans that is giving them an extraordinary squeeze in terms of their sense of hope and optimism in terms of the future. I have reviewed, in the course of my discussions yesterday, what is happening in terms of the health care crisis--the fact that premiums in the area of Medicare have increased fivefold, five times the increase that seniors are receiving in their Social Security from their COLA benefits. As a result, the pressure is going onto our seniors. But if we look at this chart, which is a reflection of the last year, we will find that health insurance premiums--this is as of July 2004. We have also seen in the last month that this figure is 11.2 percent for employee-provided coverage. But in this year, private health insurance premiums have gone up 8.5 percent; the cost of tuition this year is up 14.6 percent; housing is up 7.7 percent; and what has happened to wages of workers in real terms is that they are down .9 percent. Workers are working longer, families are working harder. Nonetheless, when you take the indicators, they need the health insurance. And more often than not, they have children they are trying to educate, and they are finding college tuition going up and the cost of housing is increasing, but their wages are not. Yet we hear time and again that the economy is getting stronger and the economy is getting better. The President says that time and again. He said it just this last week. If you look at this, he said: The economy of ours is strong and it's getting stronger. He said that on September 13 in Muskegon, MI. Since Bush took office, we have seen 250,000 jobs lost in Michigan, and 80,000 jobs lost in Colorado. This idea about the economy getting stronger has been repeated time and again over the course of this last year. The President said there would be tax cuts for the middle class and then gave the tax cuts to the wealthy. He said those tax cuts were for economic stimulus, but we know if the President had spent the $700 billion on programs such as unemployment insurance, tax cuts for low- wage workers who really need it, instead of giving the $700 billion in tax breaks to the wealthy, 2 million more Americans would be employed today, and economic growth would have been twice as fast. You cannot believe this administration on the economy, and you cannot trust them to do the right thing for the middle class. Middle-class working families are being squeezed in every direction by the Bush economy. And the ability of American families to live the American dream is increasingly out of reach with each passing year as they find it harder and harder to earn a living, pay a mortgage, pay rent, pay their medical bills, their food and energy bills, and still send their sons and daughters to college. Yet we keep hearing only happy talk from the administration. As I mentioned, in Muskegon, MI, the President praised the economy: This economy of ours is strong and getting stronger. But still we have seen the loss of jobs. Michigan is one of 44 States that has higher unemployment today than when the recession began. A week and a half ago at the Republican convention, the President said: We have seen a shaken economy rise to its feet. Our economy is growing again, creating jobs. Nothing will hold us back. But since the President took office, the overall number of jobs in the economy has fallen by 900,000. Since many of the new jobs created are in the public sector, the private sector is down even more, 1.7 million jobs, and manufacturing has been especially hard hit, 2.7 million jobs. President Bush has the worst job record of any administration since the Great Depression. Vice President Cheney has a novel approach to the economy. He said the lackluster economic indicators do not reflect reality because they do not include the hundreds of thousands who make money selling on e- Bay. That is a source that did not even exist 10 years ago. Cheney told an audience in Cincinnati last week that 400,000 people make some money trading on e-Bay. First the Bush administration tried to count hamburger flippers as manufacturing jobs. Now they want to call e-Bay traders an economic indicator. No wonder the Vice President told a crowd of workers in New Hampshire last week: We think we are on the right track and we are headed in the right direction. Tell that to the more than 8 million Americans who are currently unemployed, and tell that to the 1.6 million long-term unemployed who have been out of work more than 6 months, more than double when the President took office. We have to look at these employment figures and what has happened over the recent year. This chart shows the job growth of this President, which is the worst since World War II. These are the total job recoveries. This blue line is before 1991. This green line is an indicator of what happened with job growth from 1991 to 1993, and the red line is the current recovery. This is all from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. These are all solid figures. The fact is, we are growing in employment at a slower rate. Let's just take the total number of jobs in our country in the private sector. In January 2001, there were 111,609,000 jobs. As of August 2004, 1.7 million jobs have been lost from 2001 to 2004, and yet we have this administration saying the economy is strong, the economy has never been better, the economy is getting stronger. What planet is this President living on? Let's look at what has happened in terms of the jobs that have been created. Let's look at what the pay was for the jobs that have been replaced. Mr. President, $51,270 is the average pay for industries that are losing jobs. The new jobs, those in growing industries, pay 41 percent less. So here we have a record that is indefensible in terms of the number of jobs that are out there in the private sector, in particular, and then when we look at what the salaries are for people who are working, we find out they are getting paid less when health care costs are going through the roof, tuition is going through the roof, and rent is going through the roof. What does this mean in real terms? What is happening to American families? What with all of these statements that are being made by this President and the Vice President out on the campaign trail, let's just look at what has been happening in our country over the last 3 years. There are 13 million children hungry or on the verge of hunger, 8 million Americans unemployed, and nearly 3 million have lost unemployment benefits since the Republicans ended the program with $20 billion in surplus in the unemployment compensation fund that these workers paid into. Do you hear me? These workers paid into that fund, and this administration is denying them the ability to draw on it. That is the 3 million who have lost unemployment benefits and, oh, yes, the economy is getting better. We have 7 million low-wage workers who have been waiting 7 years for an increase in the minimum wage--7 years. I noted last night when I was watching the news that the House of Representatives, under the Republican leadership, just voted itself another pay increase, the seventh pay increase since the last time we increased the minimum wage--seven pay increases. We cannot even get an up-or-down vote on minimum wage because of the Republican leadership in the Senate of the United States and because of the Republican President. It has only been in the last few years that this has become a partisan issue. President Nixon voted for an increase in the minimum wage. President Bush 1 voted for an increase in the minimum wage. President Reagan voted for an increase in the minimum wage. But not President Bush 2. No, no, we are not going to permit an increase in the minimum wage. We are going to give tax breaks to wealthy individuals but nothing in terms of an increase in the minimum wage. And 6 million workers have lost overtime protections, and in spite of the fact that a bipartisan coalition in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States rejected that policy, they still have gone forward with it. This chart shows the votes on overtime protection. The Senate voted September 10, 2003, to reject the restrictions on overtime advanced by the administration. The House voted on October 2, 2003, 221 to 203. The Senate voted May 4, 2004, 52 to 47. The Senate voted on May 4, 99 to 0. The House voted on September 9, 2004, 223 to 193. The House of Representatives in a bipartisan vote and the Senate in a bipartisan vote said no, and still they are going ahead. And the President says they are the friends of working families? We heard the administration trying to defend this overtime restriction that it has been long overdue and it will provide greater relief for lower income working families; they will have greater stability in their pay increases, and this is a simplification of the rules. Always look out when you hear that kind of chatter. Always look a little behind the rationale for taking such policy. Look at this: The National Restaurant Association requests that the Department of Labor include chefs under the creative professional category as well as the learned professional category. . . . That was from a National Restaurant Association letter to the Department of Labor. Here we have the National Restaurant Association urging the administration to restrict the coverage of overtime in terms of those who are working in the kitchen. The Department concludes to the extent a chef has primary duty of work requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent, such chef may be considered an exempt creative professional. Here is the association asking the administration to restrict overtime, and guess what. It is just what the administration did. The list goes on. We have other charts that indicate for other industries as well. That is illustrative. We have 4.3 million more Americans living in poverty. There are 800,000 more children living in poverty today than 2001, 4.3 million more Americans in total living in poverty. They are against any increase in the minimum wage, cutting back on the unemployment compensation that could help these families transition, pay their mortgages, pay their bills. No, we are cutting that out. These are hard-working Americans who paid in. No, they are not going to get that. That is what they have done. But, no, the economy is strong and getting stronger. Yet there are 4.3 million more Americans who are living in poverty, 800,000 of them children. I have given the example of what was happening for individual jobs, for contracting industries and expanding industries, the disparity in payment in the new jobs. This also affects the household income because we know now that many more women are working and they are participating in the market, too. So is it not fair to say, let us look at what has happened in household income? Remember the first chart that showed health care going up through the roof, that showed tuition going up through the roof, that showed rent or housing going up through the roof? This is what has happened now. In the year 2000, median household income in the United States was $44,853. The median income in 2004 is $43,318. It is a drop of $1,500 for average working families in America. That is last year, and this year it goes down even further. And everything is fine for working families, for middle-income families? The same administration, again, is against increases in minimum wage, unemployment, and against overtime. This is what results. They are shipping jobs overseas, and they support a Tax Code that the administration knows has loopholes which they refuse to close down. This is what is happening. Let me give a couple of other indicators of what is happening to middle-income families. Look what has happened to gasoline. I do not know how it is in South Carolina, but I know how it is in Massachusetts, and that is that many workers have to drive many miles in order to get employment. That has been fairly consistent. We had great pockets of significant unemployment for years. The interstate system and rail have opened up some hope and some opportunities, and here we find out what has happened with gas. Gas has gone up 23 percent in 2004, and the wages again are down. They pay more in terms of gas. One of the most extraordinary things that absolutely amazes me is what has happened to milk. When I was home in Massachusetts a week ago in a grocery store, milk was $4.11 a gallon. I do not know, maybe it is a little bit less in some other parts of the country, but how in the world, when one is making $5.15 an hour, does a family or a single mom afford a gallon of milk in order to provide for their child? How do they do that with milk prices going up? These are the real economic indicators. That is why the credibility of this administration, when it says everything is rosy, the economy is fine, is no better than it was when it misrepresented the facts in Iraq. They misrepresented, distorted, deceived the American people as to what was happening in Iraq and brought us into the terrible quagmire we are facing today, and the same is true with regards to the economy. It is incompetency, and that is what has been happening. Well, we can say, all right, Senator Kennedy, look, there has certainly been some increase for the workers with jobs. Well, let us look at productivity. Let us look at the American workers. Is it the American workers' fault? This chart is from the Economic Policy Institute, their analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is what is happening from 2001 through 2004 in the areas of productivity and wages. Historically, when we have had an increase in productivity, we have seen wages go up. I can put five more charts up going on back to the postwar period and they would all reflect the fact that with increase in productivity, there are increased wages, but not under the Bush administration. Workers are more productive today than they have ever been, but do my colleagues think that has been reflected in wages? Absolutely not. Why? No overtime, cutting back on the overtime. And because of the minimum wage, failing to get the bump for those who are working at the lower wage. This productivity represents the greatest gap we have had since the Great Depression, and there is a squeeze on the wages of the American economy. But, no, no, this economy is strong and getting stronger. Well, it is for some in America, and this chart indicates who the economy is getting strong and stronger for. All one has to do is look at this chart from 2001 through 2004 and see where the workers' efforts are going. I just showed what was happening in productivity. Well, look what has happened. Corporate profits, their share has gone up 65 percent. They have effectively swallowed up all of the productivity. Do my colleagues think they have shared it with the American workers? Absolutely not. They have sucked all of that productivity up in these corporate profits. What does the administration say? Look, the economy is getting along fine. It is working well. It is strong and it is getting stronger. As a result of this, it is no mystery about what has been happening in America. This shows the pay of the average CEO. We now have the highest paid disparity between CEOs and the average worker. The average worker makes $26,000, and the difference is 300 times, and that is what is happening. I will show what has happened historically when I was talking about the increase in productivity, and then what we have seen is the increase in corporate earnings that has reached the record figures. Look what happened during the average last eight recoveries: Corporate profits went up 14 percent, wages 8.6 percent. That is what has happened really over the period of the last 50 years--the corporate profits went up and wages went up. Look what has happened in the current recovery. Corporate profits are up 39.6 percent, and workers' wages lost five-tenths of 1 percent. Oh, the economy is fine. Does it begin to have a ring, I say to my friends? Take any indicator--wages, productivity, what is happening with minimum wage, unemployment compensation, and overtime--take any indicator in terms of where working families are in this economy and they are falling further and further behind. One of the areas that I feel so strongly about is the issue of the increase in the minimum wage. I have been proud to be a sponsor of the increases since I arrived in the Senate in the early 1960s. We have had some success, in a bipartisan way, trying to get the minimum wage up so people do not have to live in poverty. Without the increase in the minimum wage, it is now at $5.15. Its purchasing power by the year 2005 will put it at one of the lowest levels of purchasing power ever. Who are these workers with a minimum wage? These are proud men and women, men and women of dignity. They clean out the great buildings of American industry every day. They are assistants to teachers in urban and rural areas all across this country. They work at nursing homes, looking after our parents. Our parents are in these nursing homes. These minimum wage workers are men and women of dignity. They have not gotten any increase over the period of the last 7 years, in spite of the fact we in the Congress have voted ourselves pay increases six times, and more recently in the House seven times. Over $20,000 for the individual Members of the House and Senate, but we cannot get a vote on raising the minimum wage in the Senate. The issue of minimum wage is a women's issue, because the great majority of those who receive minimum wage are women. The great majority of the women who receive the minimum wage have children, so it is a women's issue and a children's issue. It is basically a family issue. We hear a lot of rhetoric here about family and family values. The minimum wage is a family issue. Will these women, single women for the most part, be able to see their children? No, they have to get two or three jobs. They are lucky if they see their children at all. It is a family issue. It is a civil rights issue because so many of those who work at the minimum wage are women of color. Women's issue, children's issue, civil rights issue--but most of all, it is a fairness issue. What the American people understand is fairness. What the American people understand is, if people are ready to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, they should not have to live in poverty and their children should not have to live in poverty, either. Oh, no, says President Bush. Oh, no, says President Bush. Oh, no, says the Republican leadership. You can't even have a vote in the Senate. When we offered that minimum wage increase on the State Department reauthorization, what did our Republican friends do? No, no, we are not going to vote; we are scared of that. We pulled the bill. We pulled the bill, so you are denied the opportunity to vote on it. America, do you hear me? That is this Bush administration and that Republican leadership. They are saying: Oh, the economy is fine. Everything is fine. This is a wonderful economy, growing stronger. What about those 7 million men and women at lower level jobs? What about those who have been on unemployment? What about all those who have given up? We thought we were one country with one history and one destiny. Oh, no. I have described some of what I think are the basic failings of the current administration. I want to include in the Record today the answers to many of these failings that my friend and colleague, Senator Kerry, has proposed. He has done so during the course of the campaign. It is on the Web site. He has outlined in great detail today in Cobo Hall in Detroit. The article is in the Wall Street Journal today, ``My Economic Policy.'' He outlines what he will do to create jobs. He understands middle-class taxes and their health care costs. I read into the Record yesterday what President Bush had to say about health care. I am sure he meant it in a flattering way. He said, out in Michigan: And John Kerry has a program that is going to be costly. What can you expect from a Senator from Massachusetts? Ha-ha-ha. And he got some laugher out in the audience on that part. I will tell you what I care about in health care, having battled for it for 30 years, and that is every American have the same kind of health care as President Bush has. That is what I care about. That is what John Kerry cares about. You can distort it, misrepresent it, which President Bush did, and then differ with it, which he did as well. That is an easy debate technique that is used around here frequently. Let's recognize it for what it is. Distortion, misrepresentation--does this have a ring to it? You didn't get the facts when he came to Iraq, why in the world should you believe it when they distort and misrepresent John Kerry's health care program? There is a basic limitation on American people being able to buy into the kind of health care program that every Member of the Senate and House has. I wonder how many of those people, the 3,000 or 4,000 people out there listening to the President, have the same kind of benefit program we have? We pay a 25-percent premium and the taxpayers pay 75 percent. Wouldn't every American like that one? If we are so concerned about the Federal employees' health insurance, let's give it up and go back, like every other American, except those 11 million or 12 million of us who are able to get in the Federal employees' program. How about it? Not a chance. So until you do, let's be easy in characterizing John Kerry's program. Here it is: creation of jobs, cut middle-class health care costs, restore America's competitive edge, cut the deficit, restore economic confidence. I will not read through it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to review again the circumstances we are facing. We have many Americans in working families working longer and working harder. The fact is, Americans work longer and harder than people in most of the industrialized world. We are one of the few--I don't know another one--where we have seen real income for working families drop, as we have seen over the period of the last 3 years. This is an indication of a failed and flawed economic policy. No matter how many times you tell the American people that everything is rosy, that is clearly not speaking about Main Street. They may be talking about Wall Street, but they are not talking about Main Street. When we hear the Vice President saying the lackluster economic indicators don't reflect the reality because they don't include the hundreds of thousands who ``make money selling on eBay, that is a source that didn't even exist 10 years ago,'' and when they try to characterize flipping hamburgers as ``industrial jobs,'' we are not getting the real story. We are not getting the real story on Iraq. We are not getting the real story on health care. We are not getting the real story on education. We are not getting the real story on the economy. I hope the American people will pay careful attention over the next 6 weeks and try to understand the real story. When they do, I believe John Kerry will have their support.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last night, the Republican majority in the Senate voted 49-45 to table an amendment I offered on intelligence reform. The amendment would have required the President to give Congress a copy of the 2001 report by the Scowcroft Commission on intelligence reform. A classified annex could be provided if necessary. In May 2001, before 9/11, President Bush ordered a review of U.S. intelligence, and General Brent Scowcroft was named to lead a commission to provide recommendations. The report of the Scowcroft Commission was submitted to the White House in December 2001, three months after 9/11, but it continues to be classified, despite repeated requests from Congress to release it. The 9/11 Commissioners had full access to the Scowcroft recommendations as background for their work, and the final report from the commission drew significantly from the recommendations. Clearly, before we act on intelligence reform later this month, Congress should also have the benefit of General Scowcroft's recommendations. But the Republican majority blocked it. They rallied behind the President and argued that the report could not be provided because of what they called ``executive privilege.'' Frankly, that's ridiculous. The White House did not invoke executive privilege when they gave the 9/11 Commission full access to the Scowcroft report. They did not invoke executive privilege when they allowed National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify before the 9/11 Commission. In these cases, the administration concluded that the benefit of protecting the Nation's security outweighed other considerations about privileged information. It should have done the same in this case. Secretary Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he could not see any reason why the Scowcroft report should not be declassified. Our colleague Senator Roberts, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and our colleague Senator Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, have requested the report, but it still has not been made available. There is no compelling reason to keep this information classified. What are the White House and the Republicans in the Senate trying to protect? The Nation's security? Hardly. They are trying to protect President Bush. Why? Because President Bush had General Scowcroft's recommendations on intelligence reform for nearly 3 years and failed to act on them. Congress needs the report, and we deserve to have it before we act on intelligence reform. We are talking about our national security, and President Bush is playing politics by stonewalling us. It is already clear that the administration sat on the Scowcroft recommendations for 3 years, and the Nation has obviously suffered because of it. Had the reforms been implemented, we very well may have known that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Congress and the American people deserve to know how much greater progress we could have made in the war on terrorism if President Bush had not buried the Scowcroft recommendations and allowed them to collect dust on a shelf at the White House. vote explanation

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stephen Kosack, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of morning business.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am delighted to.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, I commend our leader, Senator Daschle, for his presentation this morning and for his constancy and leadership in attempting to bring reimportation legislation before the Senate. He has supported the bipartisan legislation. He reminds us about the importance of it. I am a strong supporter of that legislation. I am disappointed, as Senator Dorgan is, that we have not been able to address it. This legislation would have an important impact in terms of grabbing a hold of the problem of the escalation of prescription drug prices. The issues on safety have been addressed. I commend our leader for recognizing this and bringing it to the Senate, and I thank Senator Dorgan for his persistence and leadership. Once again, I commend as well my friend and colleague from Michigan, Debbie Stabenow, who has been a leader in pursuing a legitimate prescription drug program for years--certainly since she has been in the Senate. I thank again Senator Durbin from Illinois for his very eloquent summation about where we are in terms of our health care challenges in this country. I was somewhat surprised, although I should not have been, reading through the President's statement yesterday. I ask the Chair if he would let me know when I have 3 minutes left, please. I was surprised, listening to the President talk about the health care challenges we are facing in this Nation. What troubled me about the presentation is that the President went on to misrepresent what my friend and colleague stands for, and basically what I stand for, in the health care choices that are before this Nation. Then, in a technique which some of us have gotten used to here in the Senate--but certainly I think it is unworthy in the Presidential debate--to misrepresent, distort the position of the opposition, and then to differ with it. That is a debate technique which is used here frequently, but is certainly not, I think, fitting in terms of the office of the Presidency of the United States. In his comments he mentioned that today we are going to hear a lot of talk about a difference of opinion. It starts with: You know what you expect from a Senator from Massachusetts. I imagine he was, in all respect, making a reference to the longstanding position I have held which I think is still absolutely essential for this country; that we have a universal, comprehensive program that is affordable, dependable, and reliable, at a price that working families, middle-income families can afford. That has been my position. I have offered legislation for more than 35 years to try to be able to do it. We have been unable to do it and I think the American people have suffered. When I was reading through the comments of the President, they had a wisp of the kind of comments made 35 years ago when a comprehensive, universal program was proposed. At that time the opponents said, Can you imagine, this bill to have a universal, comprehensive program will cost $100 billion? Let me remind America, this year we are going to spend $1.8 trillion, and $500 billion of that $1.8 trillion has been the increase of the cost of health care for American families since this President assumed office. Hello? Hello, Mr. President? Five hundred billion dollars, half a trillion dollars in increases, and what do you get for it? I will come back to that. The basic point, so all of us know what John Kerry is fighting for, is to let the American people buy the same kind of insurance policy we have. Who are we? We are Members of the Congress of the United States. We are Senators of the United States. We are executive members of the U.S. Government. We have a very good program. John Kerry believes that same program ought to be made available to the American people. But President Bush does not, nor does the Republican leadership. That is the basic difference. We know we have a very good program. There is not a Member of this body, not a single Member of this body who doesn't have the Federal Employees Insurance Program. It is an excellent one. We pay 25 percent of the premium and the taxpayers pay 75 percent. That is true with regard to the President of the United States. I wonder, for all those people who were out in that crowd yesterday listening, what percent are they paying for their premiums? I doubt if 2 percent or 3 percent or 4 percent of the crowd he was talking to have the same quality of health insurance we have in the Senate. It bothers me when we have statements which misrepresent what my friend and colleague is fighting for, which I believe in very deeply. That the American people are entitled to and should have the same kind of health insurance everyone in this body has. That is the issue. This President says no to that. The Republican leadership says no to that. In the meantime, what they do reminds me very much of what they did with regard to the Iraqi policy. They misrepresent, they distort, and they basically deceive the American people with regard to the facts of the opposition. That is what they have done with regard to Senator Kerry's position. We have a campaign on. I was here during the debates on the Medicare program. We had legitimate debates on it. It is true the Republicans overwhelmingly opposed Medicare, as they opposed Social Security. So when you listen to a lot of our colleagues--including this administration--talk about how they are for comprehensive universal health care, we ought to say: Hello? When did that come about? We haven't heard that for the last 4 years. I challenge any Republican to identify the legislation that has been advanced, put before the Senate, that would provide the kind of comprehensive, universal health care coverage at the cost people can afford. It is not there. This administration has not fought for it, doesn't believe in it, and is distorting and misrepresenting the program John Kerry has offered. There has been reference today to ``Medical Costs Eat At Social Security.'' I wonder if the President mentioned that yesterday. When the actual publication of the Medicare actuaries came out, they designated these increases, not by dollars, but by lines. That is because this administration has been hiding the costs of their various programs. It even says here at the bottom of the article which Senator Daschle has had printed, that Foster, who is one of the principal spokespersons for the administration ``is at the center of another dispute over missing data. He said he withheld from Congress higher cost estimates for the Medicare law last year. . . .'' Hello? Here it is, the administration trying to hide the costs of Medicare, and complaining, out in Michigan, about the costs of Senator Kerry's health care program. The article says Foster ``withheld from Congress higher cost estimates last year at the direction of a Bush appointee.'' A Bush appointee? Hello, Mr. President, why haven't you mentioned this in your comments about Senator Kerry? That would be sad enough, if it weren't for the real results of these increases and in particular the failure of this administration to get a handle on health care costs and on prescription drugs. With the passage of what I call the good-for-nothing Medicare bill the President referred to as--well, he talks about: I was sent to Washington to do something, so we modernized Medicare . . . [Listen to this, so we modernized Medicare] with the Medicare bill that was passed just this last year. We will come to that in a moment. But let's look at what is happening to the increased costs on Social Security. I draw your attention to this chart entitled ``The Bush Medicare Program, Health Costs Impoverish Senior Citizens.'' These are not the figures of the Senator from Massachusetts. These are the figures of the Office of the Actuary, Department of Health and Human Services. The chart they used in the article, ``Medical Costs Eat At Social Security,'' is for a 65-year-old. This is for an 85-year-old. These are the members of the ``greatest generation.'' These are the men and women who fought in World War II, the great generation that lifted the Nation out of the Depression, fought in World War II. By 2006, 43 percent of their Social Security benefit is going to be used to pay for the premium and the copayments under Medicare. In 2016 it will be 52 percent. By 2026, it will be 65 percent. That is 43 percent by 2006. How are our seniors going to do it? Well, Senator Kennedy, we have had an increase in the cost of health care, and this has been terrible but this administration has tried to do something about it. Baloney. This administration has done nothing about the health care costs that are out of control. This chart shows that health care costs are out of control. This chart indicates the increase in the premiums that we have seen during the period of 2001 cumulatively to 2004. The blue indicates the CPI during that period of time. What we have seen cumulatively is the CPI has gone up 9.2 percent, and health care costs, 59 percent. Costs are out of control. Where is the administration's answer to the cost of the control? Why aren't we debating that on floor of the Senate after we do homeland security? Why aren't we doing it? We have an opportunity to do something about it with the reimportation. You just heard the majority leader say we were not going to consider it at this time. The President says costs are out of control. We say OK. Let us do something. Let us make a downpayment and try to get a handle on prescription drugs. The majority leader and the President say: No. You can't do that. We are not going to let you do that. We are going to block you here in the U.S. Senate. Here it is with regard to the general costs being out of control in relation to the CPI. Let us look at health care costs. Family coverage costs have increased in 2004. It was $6,348; now it is $9,050. For single coverage in 2000 it was $2,400; now it is $3,600. That is what has been happening over the period of the last 3 years under this administration. What is their answer? No. The one thing we can do about getting a handle on costs and we are not going to let you do it; we are not going to do reimportation. Look at the Bush record with regard to the price of prescription drugs. This chart, based on data from HHS, CPI and the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the cumulative changes in the CPI and the cost of prescription drugs from 2001 to 2003. The CPI grew at 6.8 percent over the period of 2001, 2002, and 2003, and the cost of prescription drugs at 51.5 percent. How are our seniors going to do it? They can't do it. They make the choice between nutrition and prescription drugs, between heating their homes and prescription drugs, between food and prescription drugs, in my part of the country, in walling off part of their houses in the wintertime because they can't afford heating oil and prescription drugs. It is happening every single day. Can't we do something about it? Sure we can, as we have pointed out. The costs of these prescription drugs are a half or even a third of that in other places around the world. We have ways to deal with both the costs as well as the safety. But no, the administration won't do it. We see that the administration has basically abandoned any effort to do something about getting a handle on costs. We have seen the total amount that has been expended in this country increase by $500 billion, from $1.3 trillion to $1.8 trillion. We have seen the President talking about the opposition while John Kerry is trying to get a universal comprehensive program. It ought to be a matter of right in this country. The President says no. And we have denial on the floor of the Senate on the day after the President has spoken of doing something about getting a handle on costs, and this administration wants 4 more years? Talk about irresponsibility. They mislead us in going into Iraq. They mislead us in the use of intelligence. They mislead the people of Iraq, and they have done the same thing on health care. How long are we going to take it? What do the American people need? Here it is with the number of the uninsured--large and rising by 1 million a year in the increase of the uninsured. Look at this. That is the census figure. Look at this. Seventy-three million of our fellow citizens are without health insurance coverage at some point in this year--for at least 1 to 4 months. This is why the Americans who have health insurance know that they are a pink-slip away from losing it. We have seen an explosion of part-time workers. Do you think they get health insurance coverage? Absolutely not; a fraction of them maybe, but a great majority don't. We see the whole movement away from the employer-based system to part-time work. That is what is happening out here across this country. Under the Medicare bill, 3 million American retirees are going to be dropped and low-income seniors will pay under newer financial provisions. Premiums are going to be affected and 15 million seniors are going to be disadvantaged under current Medicare. That is the situation. This is the Medicare bill that was passed. Look at what has happened. Here we have excess payment to HMOs of $46 billion and a $139 billion windfall profit to the drug companies. If you want to know where expenditures are, if you want to know what is costing more for the average taxpayers, we have given $139 billion over the next 8 years as windfall profits to the prescription drug industry, and we have given the HMOs $46 billion. My fellow citizens, if you want to go out and invest in something, go out today and invest in HMOs and prescription drugs because we have guaranteed it. Talk about small business--I wish small business had that kind of guarantees and Government payouts. Talk about competition, it doesn't exist in that Medicare bill. That is what the problem is. The drug industry is doing well and the HMOs are doing well but the average workers are not doing well. Let us level with the American people about what the real debate is about in this Congress. Let us not distort and misrepresent the position of the opposition. I know the Republicans were against Social Security, I know they were against Medicare, and I know they were against a comprehensive prescription drug program that would have made a difference. We had a good one which actually got 76 votes. It was bipartisan. It was not this program. But then the hand of the White House ruled and we have massive giveaways to the drug industry and to HMOs. That is why we see the increase--a failure of leadership on health care in the last 4 years, and the denial on the floor of the Senate to our Democratic leaders and to this party to do something about it. We want to do something about it. We have a bipartisan bill to do something about it. Why, Mr. President, when you make those speeches out there in Michigan, why don't you call up the Republican leadership and do something about it? I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have 2\1/2\ minutes. I yield myself 1 minute 15 seconds. I will yield the remaining time to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham. Mr. President, in May of 2001, President Bush appointed General Scowcroft to review the intelligence system to make recommendations about how it could be more effective for the President of the United States. General Scowcroft has been relied upon by Democratic and Republican Presidents. He is one of the distinguished generals and foreign policy experts and arms control individuals. He issued such a report 3 months after 9/11. It seems to me the most important decision we are going to make in this body by the time we have adjournment is going to be intelligence reform. This particular amendment says we believe the Scowcroft Commission report ought to be made available to all the Members of the Senate. If there has to be a classified annex, so be it. Over the course of the last weeks, we have had Secretary Rumsfeld who commented on it. This is what he said in the Armed Services Committee: I have been briefed on the Scowcroft Commission record. I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a process so it can be declassified. I asked him a question: Was there anything in there that you thought could be declassified? He said: No, I cannot recall anything that could not be declassified. Senator Warner, for the record, said the Scowcroft Commission has not been released by the White House. We are going to seek to see whether we can have greater access to it. Senator Roberts said: I had talked to Scowcroft last Thursday. I begged on my hands and knees to release the report. That is what we are doing, releasing the report.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to our former Senate colleagues, Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Ambassador Howard Baker, for their leadership in organizing a regional conference in Tokyo on ``strategies for combating human trafficking in Asia.'' Together, they led the U.S. Embassy's effort to bring together government officials, nongovernmental organizations and multilateral organizations in a 2-day conference in June on the most effective ways to deal with the global scourge of human trafficking. The conference was cosponsored by the Vital Voices Global Partnership and the International Labor Organization. The conference took place several days after the publication of the State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons Report. Japan and other countries were placed on the ``watch list'' for not fully complying with minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking. Officials from the National Policy Agency of Japan and the Justice Ministry participated in the conference, and several high level officials were among the keynote speakers. Japan announced that it has established an inter-ministerial body to address the challenge through a number of actions, including drafting new legislation to strengthen existing rules and penalties. Representatives from many other countries including India, Cambodia, Thailand, the Philippines, Russia, and Colombia, also participated in the conference, as did U.S. Government officials. Each year, at least 1 million human beings, predominantly women and children, are shipped across national boundaries and sold into what has become modern-day slavery. Traffickers use fraud, coercion and outright kidnapping to obtain their victims. No country is immune from this problem. Both the United States and Japan are destination countries. Such trafficking is a flourishing criminal industry, second only to criminal drug and arms trafficking. Human trafficking is an urgent global challenge and progress against it is possible only through international cooperation. As Ambassador Baker said in opening the meeting: ``I hope the ideas that come out of this conference help victims all over the world.'' I commend our two former Senate colleagues for convening this significant conference to raise international awareness of human trafficking and for bringing countries together to exchange best practices and develop effective strategies to combat it. Their leadership is an excellent example of our Nation's commitment to address this global scourge.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be counted under the agreement toward one of Senator Murray's amendments.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I acknowledge and thank the leadership of the other side for their cooperation in working through this particular situation. This amendment will require the President to give Congress a copy of the December 2001 Scowcroft Commission report on intelligence reform. A classified annex could be provided is necessary, although some of those who have seen the report say that it contains very little that would be harmful to National security. What is harmful to our security is the continuing refusal by the Bush administration to make the report public. As my colleagues know, General Brent Scowcroft had a distinguished military career and served as the National Security Adviser to the first President Bush. Because of his broad experience with intelligence and his widely respected intellect and insights, the current President Bush appointed him as chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. In National Security Presidential Directive 5, in May 2001, President Bush ordered a review of U.S. intelligence to ensure that U.S. intelligence capabilities are well designed to deal with that wide range of critical challenges facing the Nation. General Scowcroft was named to lead a commission to provide recommendations on intelligence reform as a result of that directive. However, the report of the Scowcroft Commission, which was submitted 3 months after 9/11, continues to be classified, despite repeated requests from the Congress to release it. On July 21 this year an article by Shaun Waterman of United Press International, discussing the Scowcroft recommendations was published. As the article stated: Scowcroft's report, which remains classified, proposed giving the existing CIA Director budget, administrative and hire/fire control over the three largest and most expensive agencies, according to former Office of Management and Budget National Security Chief Richard Stubbings. The National Security Agency, which intercepts phone calls, faxes, emails and the like; the National Reconnaissance Office, which designs, builds and maintains spy satellites; and the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency, which analyzes spy satellite photos, would all be taken out of the Pentagon's control and transferred--along with parts of the FBI--to the control of a modified director post. That is the end of that report. Obviously these reformed submitted in December 2001, are very similar to the reforms proposed by the 9/11 Commission in the summer of 2004. In fact, similar proposals on intelligence reform have been made for almost 50 years. In 1955, a commission led by Herbert Hoover recommended splitting off CIA management duties so that the Director of Central Intelligence could focus on coordinating the entire intelligence community. In 1976, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence led by Frank Church recommended giving the Director control over intelligence budgets and relieving him of day-to-day CIA management responsibilities. in 1976, former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford recommended establishing a National intelligence director. In 1985, Admiral Stansfield Turner recommended establishing a National intelligence director to oversee the entire intelligence community, with the CIA Director managing only the CIA. Despite these and other recommendations, needed intelligence reforms were never enacted. The 9/11 Commissioners were given a copy of the Scowcroft recommendations as background for their work, and the final report from the Commission drew significantly from his recommendations. Governor Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, made this point clearly at a Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearing last Tuesday. He said: And a number of the recommendations we've made have synthesized things from people like Scowcroft and a number of others who have made similar recommendations. And those recommendations have not been implemented. Clearly, before we act on intelligence reform later this month, Congress should have benefit of General Scowcroft's recommendations as well. Congress faces a major task in reorganizing the intelligence community, at this time when the threats against our Nation are new and different. We must have the best information, advice and wisdom on this challenge, including a copy of the Scowcroft Commission report. General Scowcroft, I am told, will be talking to Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee this week in closed session about the report. But the meeting is for committee members only, is classified, and is off-the-record. I understand that none of the committee members will be permitted to read the report. Frankly, that is ridiculous. Every Member of Congress has an interest in being well-informed before voting on intelligence reform. Every American has an interest too. The 9/11 Commission's report and its 41 recommendations are not classified, and General Scowcroft's should not be classified either. Congress should not be forced to rely on sketchy press reports for information on an issue with such important consequences for our National security and our ability too fight the al-Qaida terrorists. It is irresponsible for the administration to keep Congress in the dark. We hope to complete action on legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations before we adjourn. Given the enormous stakes for our Nation, it is unconscionable that the President has not already made an unclassified copy of the Scowcroft report available to us. There is bipartisan support for release of the Scowcroft Commission report and recommendations. In July, the Democratic leader asked the President to declassify the report. During an August 16 Senate Armed Services Committees hearing on the 9/11 Commission recommendations, Senator Warner, our distinguished Chairman, indicated that the Congress should have the report. He said: For the record, the Scowcroft Commission report has not been released by the White House. So there has been some public discussion of its major points, so we're going to look into seeing whether or not we can have greater access to it. Senator Roberts, the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, also seeks the Scowcroft Commission report. At the same hearing, he said: I just had a talk with Brent Scowcroft last Thursday, and even at my age, I begged him on hands and knee to release the report to the Intelligence Committee and to the Armed Services Committee. At our August 17 hearing, Senator Roberts said he agreed that ``it would be very helpful'' if the Scowcroft recommendations were released. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has also indicated that he can't see any reason why the Scowcroft Report should not be declassified. When he testified in the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, he said: I've been briefed on the Scowcroft Commission report. I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a process going through and see what portion of it can be declassified. I don't know who classified it in the first place. It wasn't the Department of Defense, to my knowledge. . . . Why does the administration refuse to declassify the report and make it available to Congress? Why would the administration knowingly put the Congress in the position of acting on an intelligence reform proposal with enormous consequences for our National security, without having an unclassified copy of this crucial report? The obvious reason is that the administration is desperate to avoid embarrassment about the President's mishandling of intelligence reform. The Scowcroft report and recommendations are nearly 3 years old. They were submitted to President Bush in December 2001--just 3 months after the devastating attacks on September 11. Now, finally, we are about to enact long-overdue reforms to enable our intelligence community to deal more effectively with terrorist threats and other threats to our security. The President needs to come clean. He should release a declassified copy of the report to the Congress so we can act responsibly on intelligence reform. The American people can decide for themselves whether the President has dragged his feet on intelligence reform for nearly 3 years, despite his current rhetoric about the need for change. I urge the President to declassify the Scowcroft Commission report immediately, and that is what my amendment would do.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to respond?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think the Senator is quite correct in terms of understanding that with an appropriations bill there are rules about whether we have legislation, et cetera, on appropriations, and that is done for good reason. The Senator has outlined some thoughts. The authorization, as the Senator knows, has already been passed and is now in conference. Let me mention this point, because we looked very carefully at this issue. The Scowcroft Commission deals with the amendment. There is the requirement that all amendments be related to the text of homeland security. The Scowcroft Commission report deals with collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence. The Department of Homeland Security plays an important role in these matters, and the Office of the Under Secretary for Information, Analysis and Infrastructure Protection is funded in this bill. On page 74, it says it is responsible for collecting and disseminating terrorist threat information, fusing and integrating data with foreign intelligence to produce a comprehensive picture of threat, and developing and implementing an action plan to mitigate terrorist threats and national vulnerabilities. The Scowcroft report addresses issues that would have a substantial impact on the way this office and all intelligence officials at the Department of Homeland Security conduct their work, and the quality of intelligence to a large extent determines whether the Department of Homeland Security is able to perform its mission and protect the public from future terrorists. On page 29 of the bill, $157 million is provided for intelligence functions in the Office of Director of Information, Analysis and Infrastructure in the Department of Homeland Security. Then section 504 of the bill specifically provides funds made available by this act for intelligence activities are determined to be specifically authorized by the Congress. This is legislative language authorizing the operation of a portion of the intelligence community. I want to say to the Senator that we thought long and hard about the appropriateness of this amendment. Reading through the legislation itself, it appeared these matters were directly in line with a number of at least some portions of the Scowcroft Commission report. Particularly since we have such a sense of urgency in ensuring that we are going to try to get it right with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and the Scowcroft report, given the fact, as I mentioned earlier, that Secretary Rumsfeld, Chairman Warner, Chairman Roberts all indicated they thought it would be of use and value, it seemed to me this could be something we can all get behind and support. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly on another matter. It came to my attention that the President, today, spoke in Muskegon, MI, about health care. The President derided John Kerry's plan for reforming health care as a bureaucratic nightmare and contended it would cost $1.5 trillion. I want to mention for the record, when this President became President we were spending $1.3 trillion on health care. Now we are spending $1.8 trillion on health care. Do you hear me? That is a half a trillion dollars. That is a half-trillion-dollar increase that Americans are now spending on health care. What do we have to show for results? We have to show, as a result, that an average family would have to pay $10,000 for a family policy for comprehensive health care. The results will show we have had the greatest decline in coverage of insurance for American workers during the last 3 years in the history of our health insurance debate. Drug prices are skyrocketing right up through the roof. Ask any senior citizen about the cost increase in prescription drugs. At the same time, you will find some of the greatest profits in the history of the drug companies and the HMOs. I suggest that the tactics of fear and smear no longer be used when it comes to health care debates. Let us get rid of fear and smear. The facts do not add up to the recommendations and the suggestions we heard this afternoon. We know health insurance coverage is a crisis in this country in terms of cost and the increased numbers of uninsured and that prices are going up through the roof. Yet this administration absolutely opposed any opportunity for negotiated prices in terms of prescription drugs in the Medicare legislation last year. Distortion and misrepresentation is a great concern to me. We have seen this administration distort and misrepresent intelligence about getting us into Iraq. We have seen them distort and misrepresent intelligence when they talk about our economy. It has been true with regard to education and leaving 4.5 million children out of the No Child Left Behind Program. As I have said at other times, when this Nation made a commitment that we were going to cover Medicare, we covered all of our seniors. When we said we were going to cover voting rights, we covered all of our Americans who should have been eligible for voting rights. When we said we were going to cover all children in this country--and 4.5 million of them being left out and behind--I compared it to the fact that when President Kennedy said we were going to the Moon, Congress gave us half the money to get us up to $150 million and not do anything else but get our astronauts to the Moon and not bring them home. Those are the facts. That is why these representations and debate in terms of health care, in terms of education, in terms of our economy, and in terms of Iraq-- this is an administration that has failed in terms of its responsibilities. It is misleading the American people on issue after issue. That is what this debate is about. We will have a chance to see its outcome on election day. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join my colleagues to introduce the No Child Left Behind Improvement Act. Our goal is to chart a better course for bringing the reforms under the law to all students across the country. I was proud to stand with President Bush in January 2002 as he signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law. At that time, Republicans and Democrats came together to recognize the need to create a strong education system where every child attends a good school with a good teacher. Together, we recognized the importance of achieving that goal for the future of our democracy, economy, and national defense. In drafting the No Child Left Behind Act in a bipartisan manner, we made great progress from the days when Democrats and Republicans were light years apart on school reform, with some trying to abolish the U.S. Department of Education and privatize our public schools. No Child Left Behind made improving our public schools a national priority. It laid the cornerstone for a solid accountability system in every State. It called for high academic standards in reading, math, and science, and high-quality tests to measure progress toward those standards. For the first time, it placed our low-income children, children with disabilities, minority children, and English language learners at the top of the school reform agenda. No longer would their needs be hidden, overlooked, or ignored. It also provided the building blocks for quality in all schools. A fully-qualified teacher in every classroom and better teacher training to make it happen. More after-school tutoring and supplemental services to help students with the greatest needs. Special programs for English language learners. Expanded support for reading in early grades. School report cards to provide information to parents and motivate them to be part of their children's education. No Child Left Behind promised a great deal to our students and to their families. It's still the right promise. But it hasn't been kept. Since the law passed, the country has seen the promise of funding No Child Left Behind flagrantly broken by the Bush administration, time and time again. President Bush proposed to cut funding for the law by $90 million just 1 month after signing the bill. His next education budget cut funding by far more--$1.2 billion. Today, he's leaving 4.6 million children behind, and he's underfunding the law by $9.4 billion. At the same time, President Bush proposes to give tax breaks for the top 1 percent of Americans that total five times the funds promised but never delivered under the No Child Left Behind Act. Despite these broken promises, our schools are trying to do their part. They've been asked to help all students reach proficiency, and they are responding. Teachers and other school professionals are beginning the hard work of tackling disparities in student achievement, and putting into place the curriculum needed to turn-around thousands of schools that have been identified as needing improvement. School leaders are struggling to respond to the challenges of providing more highly qualified teachers, supplemental services, and after-school programs in school districts. They're laboring hard in their work to implement the No Child Left Behind Act and bring the promise of true reform to more children and their parents. The work of school reform is not easy, and schools are struggling to succeed under No Child Left Behind. But on top of the broken promise to provide schools the resources they need to get the job done right, the administration has undermined the efforts of schools to comply with the law, and crippled reforms through its ineffective implementation effort. Since No Child Left Behind passed, the Department of Education's track record in issuing basic guidance under the law been mired in delay. Final accountability guidelines for children with special needs and limited English proficient children were announced 2 years after the law was enacted, and long after the law's accountability requirements were already in place for schools. The administration has abandoned requirements to measure adequately the progress of English language learners in a valid and reliable way. They've suggested to States that they don't have to bother to develop native language assessments, and they've done nothing to help improve assessments for children with disabilities. They've ignored standards for supplemental service providers, and failed to enforce the civil rights protections that are so essential to providing all children fair access to such services. Families are relying on tutoring and extra support to help their children. But the administration's guidance actually prohibits States from requiring high standards for that supplemental support. A highly qualified teacher in every classroom is good policy. Why shouldn't the same apply for supplemental services? The administration's ham-handed implementation of public school choice has ignored questions of capacity in school districts with overcrowded classrooms. And their weakened regulations undermine protections against high dropout rates--especially for low-income and minority students. Without information and reporting of those rates for each subgroup of children, the public won't have a complete picture of how children are succeeding. It's time for the administration to correct these problems and do their part to improve implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. The bill that I'm introducing today gets these reforms on track. It will help keep the promise of public school choice, promote quality and access in supplemental services, provide for better assessments for children, and ensure better reporting by schools and states of graduation and dropout rates so that children don't fall through the cracks. It's important to acknowledge what this bill does not do. It does not make fundamental changes to the requirements under No Child Left Behind. Those reforms are essential to improving our public schools. Every child deserves a chance to learn in a good school, and that chance depends on whether we succeed in implementing the law. The No Child Left Behind Improvement Act will ensure that school districts consider health and safety codes as they draw up their plans for providing public school choice to students, consistent with the law. In order to ensure that public school choice actually helps children succeed educationally, we must provide an environment that is safe and conducive to their learning--not overcrowded. It will provide better access to quality supplemental services for eligible students, and ensure full enforcement of civil rights protections under those provisions. The administration's policy of relaxed enforcement in this area allows some private providers off-the- hook from serving children that need the most help. That's wrong. All students should have a fair chance to choose a supplemental service provider that meets their needs. Limited English proficient children and children with disabilities are often those students that need the most extra help and assistance in our public schools, and this bill would ensure that each State select some providers with the skills to serve those populations. This bill will also better enable teachers and para-professionals to meet the required standards for teacher quality under the law. A highly qualified teacher is the single most important factor in improving student achievement, and the No Child Left Behind Act requires that every classroom have a qualified teacher by 2006. We must provide for a system that ensures all teachers have the opportunity to meet that goal. The No Child Left Behind Act includes an alternate standard for veteran teachers to demonstrate their competence and be counted as highly qualified in the subject matter that they teach. This bill ensures that every State develop and implement that standard under the law, and that every state provide para-professionals with the opportunities provided under No Child Left Behind to demonstrate their competence. Fifteen States have not yet developed or applied standards for veteran teachers. We must do better especially for the 67 percent of all public school teachers that have been teaching for more than 5 years. And finally, for No Child Left Behind's accountability provisions to be useful, they must be accurate. We need accurate determinations of whether schools are making progress. The Department's delay in issuing adequate accountability rules for counting children with disabilities and limited English proficient children has created unnecessary confusion, caused a potential mislabeling of schools, and misdirected resources from the schools and students who actually need them. The Department should apply those regulations retroactively, so that schools may be judged on the same standards for the past year as they will be in the future, not by different criteria for different years. In June, I introduced a bill-- The No Child Left Behind Fairness Act--to accomplish that goal. The bill that I'm introducing today also includes those requirements. We're at an important crossroads in reforming our public schools. Schools are hurting, crippled by shrinking budgets and a broken promise of funding under the law. The ineffective track record of this administration in implementing No Child Left Behind largely has contributed to their problems and frustrations. We must do better. Turning our back on the reforms in the No Child Left Behind Act is no solution. Neither is turning our back on public education. I urge my colleagues to act to ensure that the promise of the essential reforms under No Child Left Behind are realized. Our students and families deserve no less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join my colleagues to introduce the No Child Left Behind Improvement Act. Our goal is to chart a better course for bringing the reforms under the law to all students across the country. I was proud to stand with President Bush in January 2002 as he signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law. At that time, Republicans and Democrats came together to recognize the need to create a strong education system where every child attends a good school with a good teacher. Together, we recognized the importance of achieving that goal for the future of our democracy, economy, and national defense. In drafting the No Child Left Behind Act in a bipartisan manner, we made great progress from the days when Democrats and Republicans were light years apart on school reform, with some trying to abolish the U.S. Department of Education and privatize our public schools. No Child Left Behind made improving our public schools a national priority. It laid the cornerstone for a solid accountability system in every State. It called for high academic standards in reading, math, and science, and high-quality tests to measure progress toward those standards. For the first time, it placed our low-income children, children with disabilities, minority children, and English language learners at the top of the school reform agenda. No longer would their needs be hidden, overlooked, or ignored. It also provided the building blocks for quality in all schools. A fully-qualified teacher in every classroom and better teacher training to make it happen. More after-school tutoring and supplemental services to help students with the greatest needs. Special programs for English language learners. Expanded support for reading in early grades. School report cards to provide information to parents and motivate them to be part of their children's education. No Child Left Behind promised a great deal to our students and to their families. It's still the right promise. But it hasn't been kept. Since the law passed, the country has seen the promise of funding No Child Left Behind flagrantly broken by the Bush administration, time and time again. President Bush proposed to cut funding for the law by $90 million just 1 month after signing the bill. His next education budget cut funding by far more--$1.2 billion. Today, he's leaving 4.6 million children behind, and he's underfunding the law by $9.4 billion. At the same time, President Bush proposes to give tax breaks for the top 1 percent of Americans that total five times the funds promised but never delivered under the No Child Left Behind Act. Despite these broken promises, our schools are trying to do their part. They've been asked to help all students reach proficiency, and they are responding. Teachers and other school professionals are beginning the hard work of tackling disparities in student achievement, and putting into place the curriculum needed to turn-around thousands of schools that have been identified as needing improvement. School leaders are struggling to respond to the challenges of providing more highly qualified teachers, supplemental services, and after-school programs in school districts. They're laboring hard in their work to implement the No Child Left Behind Act and bring the promise of true reform to more children and their parents. The work of school reform is not easy, and schools are struggling to succeed under No Child Left Behind. But on top of the broken promise to provide schools the resources they need to get the job done right, the administration has undermined the efforts of schools to comply with the law, and crippled reforms through its ineffective implementation effort. Since No Child Left Behind passed, the Department of Education's track record in issuing basic guidance under the law been mired in delay. Final accountability guidelines for children with special needs and limited English proficient children were announced 2 years after the law was enacted, and long after the law's accountability requirements were already in place for schools. The administration has abandoned requirements to measure adequately the progress of English language learners in a valid and reliable way. They've suggested to States that they don't have to bother to develop native language assessments, and they've done nothing to help improve assessments for children with disabilities. They've ignored standards for supplemental service providers, and failed to enforce the civil rights protections that are so essential to providing all children fair access to such services. Families are relying on tutoring and extra support to help their children. But the administration's guidance actually prohibits States from requiring high standards for that supplemental support. A highly qualified teacher in every classroom is good policy. Why shouldn't the same apply for supplemental services? The administration's ham-handed implementation of public school choice has ignored questions of capacity in school districts with overcrowded classrooms. And their weakened regulations undermine protections against high dropout rates--especially for low-income and minority students. Without information and reporting of those rates for each subgroup of children, the public won't have a complete picture of how children are succeeding. It's time for the administration to correct these problems and do their part to improve implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. The bill that I'm introducing today gets these reforms on track. It will help keep the promise of public school choice, promote quality and access in supplemental services, provide for better assessments for children, and ensure better reporting by schools and states of graduation and dropout rates so that children don't fall through the cracks. It's important to acknowledge what this bill does not do. It does not make fundamental changes to the requirements under No Child Left Behind. Those reforms are essential to improving our public schools. Every child deserves a chance to learn in a good school, and that chance depends on whether we succeed in implementing the law. The No Child Left Behind Improvement Act will ensure that school districts consider health and safety codes as they draw up their plans for providing public school choice to students, consistent with the law. In order to ensure that public school choice actually helps children succeed educationally, we must provide an environment that is safe and conducive to their learning--not overcrowded. It will provide better access to quality supplemental services for eligible students, and ensure full enforcement of civil rights protections under those provisions. The administration's policy of relaxed enforcement in this area allows some private providers off-the- hook from serving children that need the most help. That's wrong. All students should have a fair chance to choose a supplemental service provider that meets their needs. Limited English proficient children and children with disabilities are often those students that need the most extra help and assistance in our public schools, and this bill would ensure that each State select some providers with the skills to serve those populations. This bill will also better enable teachers and para-professionals to meet the required standards for teacher quality under the law. A highly qualified teacher is the single most important factor in improving student achievement, and the No Child Left Behind Act requires that every classroom have a qualified teacher by 2006. We must provide for a system that ensures all teachers have the opportunity to meet that goal. The No Child Left Behind Act includes an alternate standard for veteran teachers to demonstrate their competence and be counted as highly qualified in the subject matter that they teach. This bill ensures that every State develop and implement that standard under the law, and that every state provide para-professionals with the opportunities provided under No Child Left Behind to demonstrate their competence. Fifteen States have not yet developed or applied standards for veteran teachers. We must do better especially for the 67 percent of all public school teachers that have been teaching for more than 5 years. And finally, for No Child Left Behind's accountability provisions to be useful, they must be accurate. We need accurate determinations of whether schools are making progress. The Department's delay in issuing adequate accountability rules for counting children with disabilities and limited English proficient children has created unnecessary confusion, caused a potential mislabeling of schools, and misdirected resources from the schools and students who actually need them. The Department should apply those regulations retroactively, so that schools may be judged on the same standards for the past year as they will be in the future, not by different criteria for different years. In June, I introduced a bill-- The No Child Left Behind Fairness Act--to accomplish that goal. The bill that I'm introducing today also includes those requirements. We're at an important crossroads in reforming our public schools. Schools are hurting, crippled by shrinking budgets and a broken promise of funding under the law. The ineffective track record of this administration in implementing No Child Left Behind largely has contributed to their problems and frustrations. We must do better. Turning our back on the reforms in the No Child Left Behind Act is no solution. Neither is turning our back on public education. I urge my colleagues to act to ensure that the promise of the essential reforms under No Child Left Behind are realized. Our students and families deserve no less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to wait. We look forward to hearing the Senator's assessment of the state of our economy today, as one of those who has critical insight and opinions regarding the economy. I know the Senate will benefit from his comments.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend from Florida who has urgent business. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized after he concludes his remarks.