Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, under the previous agreement, I believe I am allotted 15 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 12 minutes. Mr. President, we know there are many urgent challenges our country faces. The war in Iraq has brought sudden new dangers, imposed massive new costs, and is taking more and more American lives each week. At home, unemployment is still a crisis for millions of our citizens. Retirement savings are disappearing, school budgets are in crisis, college tuition is rising, prescription drug costs and other health care expenses are soaring, millions of Americans are uninsured, Federal budget deficits extend as far as the eye can see, we cannot even pass a budget bill, and our good friends, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, spoke to the Senate about the importance of continuing the ban on assault weapons that has made such an extraordinary difference in helping to protect American lives and which is about to expire in the next several days. That is a matter we ought to be considering if we are interested in security and protecting the lives of American citizens, as well as if we are going to protect family values. But, no, that is not the opportunity we have under our Republican leadership. We just celebrated the 40th anniversary of the great Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet now, instead of dealing with the real priorities facing the Nation, the Republican leadership, President Bush, wants us to persuade Congress to write bigotry back into the Constitution by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry and receive the same benefits and protections married couples now have. It could not be clearer that the Republican leadership has brought up this proposal for pure politics, not for its underlying merits. They are hoping to use the issue to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country solely for partisan advantage. The Republican leadership does not want a vote on the merits. Do you hear me? The Republican leadership does not want a vote on the merits. Last Friday, Senator Reid informed the Senate that the Democrats were willing to accept a time agreement with a straight up-or-down vote on the Federal marriage amendment on Wednesday. We have cleared it on our side to do that, he said; we are ready to move forward on it; we are ready to rock and roll. Those were the words of the Senator from Nevada. And the Republican leadership refused our offer. Can you imagine that? We have listened to all these statements, all these speeches about let the Senate exercise its will, let's take action, this is urgent, important, and we agreed to do it and they said no. No, no, the Republican leadership refused our offer, and we question their sincerity about this amendment when we offer and agree to vote at a certain time and they say, no, no, we are not going to do that; we feel passionately about this amendment; we believe in the importance of our amendment, but we do not want to permit you to vote on this amendment. In all my years in the Senate, I do not recall a single instance in which the party that supported a measure refused an up-or-down vote on its merits and instead manipulated the process to produce a cloture vote on a motion to proceed. That is what we are faced with. You ask us why we doubt their sincerity, why we question the timing of bringing this up, and the process and the procedure when we on this side say, OK, we'll vote on it, and you say no. Oh, yes, we are sincere about our motives, we care deeply about children, we care about the Constitution, we care about all of these issues, but we don't want a vote. That just doesn't add up. Obviously, they fear that too many Republican Senators would vote against the constitutional amendment on its merits. In fact, it is possible that it would not even get a majority of Senators to support it. When it became clear that a majority of the members in the Judiciary Committee did not support this proposal, they simply bypassed the committee process altogether. This is not a serious debate about our constitutional tradition and values. If it were, we would have a vote on this tomorrow, up or down, as the Democratic leadership has proposed. Instead, it is a procedural way in order to put people on the record. It is a sham. It is a desperate ploy to divide the Nation for political advantage. The rabid reactionary religious right has rarely looked more ridiculous. They know they don't have the votes to come even close to passing this amendment, but they have a sufficient stranglehold on the White House and the Republican leadership in Congress to force the issue to a vote anyway, in a desperate effort to arouse their narrowminded constituency and somehow gain an advantage in the elections this year. My guess is their strategy will boomerang and that vastly more Americans will be turned off than are turned on by this appeal to stain the Constitution with their language of bigotry. There is absolutely no need to amend the Constitution on this issue. As news reports from across the country make clear, Massachusetts and other States are already dealing with the issue, and doing it effectively, and doing it according to the wishes of the citizens of their States. Contrary to the claims of the supporters of the amendment, no State has been bound--listen to this--no State has been bound or will be bound by the rulings or laws on same-sex marriage in any other State. That is the constitutional law. You can hear it described in other forms out here, and surely it has been, but I have just stated the constitutional law. Longstanding constitutional precedents make clear that the States have broad discretion in deciding to what extent they will honor other States' laws on sensitive questions about marriage and raising families. The Federal statute enacted in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act, makes the possibility of nationwide enforceability even more remote. So if it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not to amend it. In more than 200 years of our history, we have amended the Constitution only 17 times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Many of those amendments have been adopted to expand and protect people's rights. Having endorsed this shameful proposed amendment in an effort to divide Americans and assist the faltering election campaign, President Bush will go down in history as the first President to try to write bigotry back into the Constitution. No one can now claim with a straight face that he has lived up to the campaign promise to be a uniter and not a divider. The manner in which this amendment has been brought up to the Senate floor is disgraceful. The Republican leadership has decided to bypass the usual process of debating and marking up proposed constitutional amendments in the Judiciary Committee. They know they do not have the votes to pass it out of the committee. They also know they do not have the two-thirds majority they need to pass the amendment in the full Senate, but they have chosen to rush it to the floor of the Senate anyway, in an effort to embarrass Democrats before our convention at the end of the month. It is Republicans who should be embarrassed. As Chairman Hatch once said: It denigrates the committee process to bypass the Judiciary Committee, especially when an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the most important document in the history of the Nation, is involved. In the past 25 years, only 2 amendments out of 19 have been considered on the Senate floor without having been referred to the committee first. In both these cases, the amendment was brought before the full Senate by unanimous consent. Trying to write discrimination in the Constitution is bad enough, but throwing the Senate rules out the window and proceeding with a discriminatory amendment that the majority of Americans do not want and a majority of the Senators don't support solely for the purpose of scoring points in a Presidential election campaign demeans this institution and all who have served in it. This debate is about politics--an attempt to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country solely for partisan advantage. We have rejected that tactic before, and we should reject it again. In the Goodridge case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was interpreting the Massachusetts Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. As a rule, the Federal Government has no authority to tell States how to interpret their own laws and constitutions. The Federal marriage constitutional amendment would change this fundamental principle of State sovereignty by imposing a rule of interpretation on State courts. I am certainly glad it was not done at other times of American history. The Massachusetts Constitution was written by John Adams in 1780. He wrote it virtually himself, much of it copied by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. In 1783, the issue of slavery came before the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and Massachusetts has the only constitution of all 50 States that has been interpreted as barring slavery. We were the first State of all the States to ban slavery, the only State that banned it in the constitution itself, Massachusetts, under John Adams, the only State, in 1783. And we had slaves in my State for 150 years before it. So it is nice to hear our colleagues talk about Massachusetts and about our court and our judges there. I remind our colleagues, of the seven Massachusetts judges who voted, six were and are Republicans. Only one is a Democrat. Six are Republicans. I happen to be someone who supports the court decision in Massachusetts. I am proud of them. But make no mistake, a vote for the Federal marriage constitutional amendment is a vote against civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other efforts by States to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law. It is a vote against allowing States to decide these issues for themselves. It is a vote for imposing discrimination, plain and simple, on all 50 States. Supporters of the proposed amendment claim that religious freedom is somehow under attack by States that grant the same rights and the same benefits to same-sex couples that married couples now have. But as the first amendment makes clear, no court, no State, no Congress can tell any church, any religious group, how to conduct its own affairs. No court, no State, no Congress can require any church, any synagogue, any mosque to perform a same-sex marriage. Not a single church in Massachusetts or any other State has been required to do anything it doesn't want to do, and that will continue to be the case so long as the Federal marriage constitutional amendment does not take place. The true threat to religious freedom is posed by the Federal marriage amendment itself, which would tell churches they cannot consecrate a same-sex marriage, even though some churches are now doing so. The amendment would flagrantly interfere with the decisions of religious communities and undermine the longstanding separation of church and state in our society. As Rabbi Michael Namath, a member of the Union for Reform Judaism and the Central Conference of American Rabbis, explained in a recent forum: Some religious traditions, including Reform Judaism, recognize the legitimacy of same-sex unions. Many Reform rabbis around the country routinely perform same-sex weddings. Yet some warn that if the FMA were adopted, performing a religious wedding ceremony for a same-sex couple might be unconstitutional, illegal. . . . The FMA would give the federal government express authority to bar religious groups from sanctioning same-sex marriage--and the authority to punish those that do. . . . Court challenges on ``free exercise'' grounds may not succeed because the Federal Marriage Amendment, being the more recent addition to the Constitution, might supersede the ``free exercise'' clause. If so, this would undermine the foundations of our country.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, those who oppose gay marriage and disagree with the recent decision by the supreme judicial court have a first amendment right to express their views. There is no justification for attempting to undermine the separation of church and state in our society or to write discriminations against gays and lesbians in the U.S. Constitution. Too often the debate over the definition of marriage and its legal incidence have ignored the very personal and loving family relationships that would be prohibited by a constitutional amendment. More and more children across the country today have same-sex parents. What does it do to these children and their well-being when the President of the United States and the Senate Republican leadership say their parents are second-class citizens? The decision by the Massachusetts court addressed the many rights available to married couples under the State law, including the right to be treated fairly by the State's tax laws, to share insurance coverage, to visit loved ones in the hospitals, to receive health benefits, family leave benefits, and survivor benefits. In fact, there are now more than a thousand Federal rights and benefits based on marriage. Gay couples and their children deserve to share in all of these rights and benefits, too. Supporters of the amendment have tried to shift the debate away from equal rights by claiming their only concern is the definition of marriage, but many supporters of the amendment are against civil union laws as well and against any other rights for gays or lesbians. Just last month we saw a new dawn for civil rights in the Senate. On an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, we passed our bipartisan hate crimes legislation by an overwhelming majority, 65 to 33. Thanks in large part to the courageous and effective leadership of Senator Gordon Smith, 18 Republican Senators joined all Democratic Senators in approving this needed protection against hate-motivated violence. Last month's vote on hate crimes showed the Senate at its best. The decision to bring up this divisive, discriminatory, and unnecessary amendment does just the opposite. We have far better things to do in the Senate than write bigotry and prejudice into the Constitution. We should deal with the real issues of war and peace, jobs and the economy, and many other priorities demand our attention so urgently in these troubled times. I urge my colleagues to reject this discriminatory proposal.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Ten minutes at this time. And I see my colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, in the Chamber.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, first of all, I commend our distinguished Democratic leader, the Senator from South Dakota, for the way he has addressed the Senate earlier today on the proposals by the majority leader to limit the debate on this very important subject matter. As the Senator from South Dakota pointed out, this legislation is broad, wide sweeping. It affects not only the business community, but it affects, in a very important way, workers, workers' rights, environmental rights. It affects the issues on civil rights. It affects the rights and the needs of many of our fellow citizens. It is an extremely serious piece of legislation that deserves debate. We have a set of rules in the Senate, and if the majority leader and his colleague from Kentucky want to alter or change those rules, let's have a debate on altering or changing the rules. But, effectively, what the request and the action of the majority leader today is, is to basically circumvent the rules of the Senate. Those are rules that have been accepted. They are rules that have been altered to some extent-- most significantly, the rule on cloture, since I have been here for 42 years--but they have worked pretty well for this institution historically. They work pretty well. Part of the rules of the Senate are if a bill is authorizing legislation, we have an opportunity to bring amendments on that authorization bill. If those who are opposed to it are able to vote against it, that is the way the process works. The majority has both the right and the privilege to raise the priorities they believe are the most important. A number of us have serious differences with the priorities our Republican colleagues have raised. They have raised the issue of class action. I support the efforts of the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, who is trying to focus on a particular problem that may not make a great deal of difference in many parts of the Nation, but makes an extraordinary difference to this country because it deals with an agricultural issue that has been a painful one for this Nation for the 40-odd years I have been in the Senate. When I first came to the Senate we had what was called the bracero issue, where many temporary workers came to the United States, and they were exploited in the most dehumanizing way that we could possibly imagine. Articles were written about it. In a bipartisan way, we freed this Nation from that particular issue. But there has been, obviously, tension between those individuals who perform the hardest work in America and those who are working in the field of agriculture and are paid the least, which happen to be these workers. A great percentage of them are undocumented workers who put the food on the table which benefits American families. It is a national tragedy that is taking place. Seventy percent of the over 1 million workers are undocumented. The Senator from Idaho, myself, and 63 Members of the Senate in a bipartisan way are reflecting an expression of the workers and agribusiness, which is the first time that those groups have come together to help solve a very important issue that affects hundreds of thousands of individuals and their families and to do it in a very brief time period. There is strong support for this over in the House of Representatives as well. We could do it in a bipartisan way and get something done for justice and fairness that has been a thorn in the side of this country for some time. The Senator from South Dakota talked about maybe even having five amendments. There are many of us who, with all due respect to the majority leader and the Republican leadership, feel if we could get that done in a short period of time, that would be a major step for progress. That would be a major step for progress and justice and fairness for so many of these families who have been exploited over time. There are probably several other issues. I know Members on their side have their choice issues. But the idea that we don't have mental health parity here in the United States is a greater priority at least for me and I would say for millions of families in this country--I know it is for the Senator from New Mexico--than having the class action legislation that is before us. We have seen an expression where we have had in excess of 60 votes. I believe it was close to 70, 72 votes in the Senate. Why not have a short time period on something that has strong bipartisan support and can make a difference to families and try to work out a time limit? That certainly seems to me to be a matter of importance. It seems to me to be a matter of consequence, something we could do in a bipartisan way in the Senate. They have mentioned the minimum wage. For 7 years we haven't given an increase in the minimum wage to the hardest working Americans at the lowest rung of the economic ladder. They say: We will permit you to vote on it. That is all well and fine. After 7 years and after the fact that we have seen the Senate increase its own salary five different times, it won't increase the minimum wage for hard-working Americans, the majority of whom are women, a great percentage of them are Americans who are working hard, trying to provide for their families and falling farther and farther behind on the economic ladder. Now we are saying, as sort of a gratuity, we will let you have a debate. Don't get all so excited about that. We will grant you that. That is not the U.S. Senate I know. That is not the U.S. Senate our Founding Fathers fought for. Those are just three. We could go on. We could go on to try to deal with the issue of prescription drugs. There is not a family in this country who doesn't have a senior member, a parent or grandparent, who is not today thinking about the cost of the increase in prescription drugs, 50 percent in the last 4 years. And they are wondering today whether they can afford the next batch of prescription drugs. It seems to me that could be on a list of four. We have bipartisan support on the issue on reimportation. That seems to this Senator to be more important. It could make a difference in the lives of people if we passed it today, if we were able to get the House of Representatives to go along with that. That seems to be a higher priority. We are not even asking that we make it a higher priority. All we are asking is for our day in court and an accounting on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the people's agenda. We have been closed out by the majority from getting action on those matters until now. If you want to make a unanimous consent request, we can make it and let you object to it about getting a time definite to vote on each and every one of those. We know what the answer would be because we have made the requests. The majority leader is not here, and I would not do so now without notifying him, but we know what the answer is. We want to be able to express the people's view in a short time limit on a series of issues that have strong bipartisan support, and we are being told no. We are also being told that we should pass this legislation. The Chief Justice of the United States has told us not to pass this bill. The National Association of State Chief Justices has told us not to pass the bill. And we are being denied to even debate these kinds of expressions by the Chief Justice, who is not known to be a Democrat, a liberal, or any of the other names. He is cautioning us. But no, we can't. No, no, we know better. The other side says: We know better. We are not going to let you debate it or offer any amendments to it. We may let you, if we want, if we make up our mind, let you have a particular amendment if we decide that it is OK. That is not the Senate I was elected to. That is the expression that was said so well by our Democratic leader. That is my concern with the legislation. I would certainly follow those who feel that with a fair opportunity to have an expression on the kinds of proposals that our Democratic leader had proposed, which was the 5 nongermane, the 10 other kinds of amendments, and then go to final passage. Even though I have reservations about it, I would support that proposal and move ahead. That was not an unreasonable request. We should not diminish the role of any Member of the U.S. Senate by agreeing to anything less. I will address the underlying issue in terms of class action, particularly as it affects issues on civil rights, particularly as it affects workers' rights. There has been no case that has been made in the Judiciary Committee that there needs to be this action to deal with the abuses in terms of the workplace, in terms of workers' wages; yet they are included. There has been no case that has been made that we ought to try and change the whole approach in protections for civil rights, although it has been included. That case has not been made. And you will deny under this legislation the opportunity for States such as my own that have passed genetic antidiscrimination legislation so that you cannot discriminate in the workplace based upon your genetics--the great protection of that is for women because under the DNA now there are so many kinds of tests that would indicate the possibilities of women developing breast cancer. We have prohibited that in Massachusetts, and effectively you are wiping that kind of protection out. Maybe it will be heard in some distant Federal court, but why should our citizens in Massachusetts who have taken a position on this have to rely on that? We have issues of substance on this, and we will have a chance, hopefully an opportunity to debate these matters and to come to some conclusion on it. I thank our Democratic leader for his courageous action. It is one I support completely. I think if our majority leader followed his admonition, we would make progress in advancing the interests of this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Chuck Vest will soon end his distinguished 14-year tenure as President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has been an excellent leader for this outstanding institution in our State. He has attracted and retained a world class faculty, including Nobel Prize winners. He has maintained an impressive balance between consistency and change to meet the changing needs of the university in the modern high-tech world. And has developed the research capacity of the institution far beyond its abilities when he took the helm. His commitment to diversity has also been impressive. In 1990, the undergraduate student body was 34 percent women and 14 percent underrepresented minorities; today the student body is 42 percent women and 20 percent underrepresented minorities--the result of a conscientious effort by President Vest and the community he cared so much about. His leadership was marked by many innovative reforms. He decided to publish all course material online, so that it is freely available to anyone in the world. He brought the unequal treatment of senior female faculty to the attention of the community and held an open dialogue on how to correct the situation. He offered health benefits to same-sex partners. His leadership on financial aid methodologies laid the groundwork for the provisions that are now part of the Higher Education Act. Chuck has worked skillfully as well to obtain increased support for scientific research--especially in the physical sciences--and he was a familiar figure in corporate boardrooms and to many of us in Congress. His cooperative work with Lincoln Labs, with Harvard and with the Broad Foundation and his commitment to the Cambridge and Boston Public Schools are important parts of all he has brought to MIT. When he was named in February to the President's Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, he said, ``I will concentrate on two priorities, MIT and the Commission.'' There is so much to be said about Chuck Vest--his intelligence, his appealing personality, his modesty about his own high accomplishments, and his tireless pursuit of excellence in everything he does. All of us who know him wish him well in the years ahead, confident that we will continue to think and act boldly about the role of science and scientific education in our changing world and its fundamental importance to the future of our Nation and its best ideals.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act enacted two years ago contains the right set of education reforms for America's public schools. It raises academic standards and calls for better teachers and smaller classes. It supports periodic testing for all children, so that teachers can assess learning needs early, before major problems develop. It also calls for supplemental services and after-school programs for children who are lagging behind academically. It focuses schools on the hardest-to-teach children, and holds schools accountable for the performance of all children, whatever their race or background. These basic principles in the No Child Left Behind Act have broad bipartisan support. But as we all know, reforms without the resources needed to implement them cannot succeed. Since the law was enacted in 2002, the Bush administration has consistently withheld the resources needed to fulfill the basic promises of the Act. The Administration's budget for the coming fiscal year leaves 4.6 million children behind. It underfunds the President's school reform law by over $9.4 billion. Even worse, because of the administration's low priority for education, over 7,500 school districts received notice last week that their Federal funds under the No Child Left Behind Act will be cut back this fall. As a result, thousands of school districts across the nation won't even be able to maintain their current quality of education, let alone improve it. Schools that serve the neediest children will be hurt the most. Every school district in Massachusetts faces a cut in Federal education funding this fall. The city of Lawrence has a 27 percent poverty rate, and it faces a $1.2 million cut in school aid. It can't afford the loss of 20 teachers. The city of Springfield has a 28 percent poverty rate. It faces a cut of $1.4 million, which means that over 1,000 needy children won't get the supplemental services they're counting on. We cannot in good conscience allow these cuts to go forward. Today, Congressman George Miller in the House of Representatives and I are introducing ``The No Child Left Behind Appropriations Support Act of 2004'' to provide $237 million in emergency resources needed this fall to stop the cuts called for by the Administration in funds for school reform. Over 70 Members of Congress have now joined our letter to the Appropriations Committees requesting that emergency funds be provided. With deep and widespread cuts in local education funds, it will be much more difficult to achieve the school reforms that are so urgently needed in communities across the country. Clearly, Congress needs to act. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in seeing that these critically needed resources are made available to our schools. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act enacted two years ago contains the right set of education reforms for America's public schools. It raises academic standards and calls for better teachers and smaller classes. It supports periodic testing for all children, so that teachers can assess learning needs early, before major problems develop. It also calls for supplemental services and after-school programs for children who are lagging behind academically. It focuses schools on the hardest-to-teach children, and holds schools accountable for the performance of all children, whatever their race or background. These basic principles in the No Child Left Behind Act have broad bipartisan support. But as we all know, reforms without the resources needed to implement them cannot succeed. Since the law was enacted in 2002, the Bush administration has consistently withheld the resources needed to fulfill the basic promises of the Act. The Administration's budget for the coming fiscal year leaves 4.6 million children behind. It underfunds the President's school reform law by over $9.4 billion. Even worse, because of the administration's low priority for education, over 7,500 school districts received notice last week that their Federal funds under the No Child Left Behind Act will be cut back this fall. As a result, thousands of school districts across the nation won't even be able to maintain their current quality of education, let alone improve it. Schools that serve the neediest children will be hurt the most. Every school district in Massachusetts faces a cut in Federal education funding this fall. The city of Lawrence has a 27 percent poverty rate, and it faces a $1.2 million cut in school aid. It can't afford the loss of 20 teachers. The city of Springfield has a 28 percent poverty rate. It faces a cut of $1.4 million, which means that over 1,000 needy children won't get the supplemental services they're counting on. We cannot in good conscience allow these cuts to go forward. Today, Congressman George Miller in the House of Representatives and I are introducing ``The No Child Left Behind Appropriations Support Act of 2004'' to provide $237 million in emergency resources needed this fall to stop the cuts called for by the Administration in funds for school reform. Over 70 Members of Congress have now joined our letter to the Appropriations Committees requesting that emergency funds be provided. With deep and widespread cuts in local education funds, it will be much more difficult to achieve the school reforms that are so urgently needed in communities across the country. Clearly, Congress needs to act. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in seeing that these critically needed resources are made available to our schools. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that we are under time control. I yield myself such time as I may use.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the nomination of Leon Holmes to a lifetime appointment to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. His record gives us no confidence that he will be fair in the wide range of cases that come before him, particularly in cases involving the rights of women, gay rights, and the right to choose. His record contains example after example of extreme views of the law that suggest he will not follow established precedent. Every nominee who comes before us promises to follow the law, including laws in cases with which they disagree. Mr. Holmes is no exception. But the Senate's constitutional role of advise and consent gives each of us the duty to evaluate these claims carefully. It is clear from his record that Mr. Holmes has not shown the dedication to upholding constitutional principles and the judgment necessary for a Federal judge. Mr. Holmes has expressed extraordinary hostility to equal rights for women. In 1997 he wrote that it is a woman's obligation to ``subordinate herself to her husband.'' He also wrote that a woman must ``place herself under the authority of the man.'' It doesn't get much more extreme than that. In fact, Mr. Holmes has blamed feminism for the erosion of morality. He has written that ``to the extent that we adopt the feminist principle that the distinction between the sexes is of no consequence . . . we are contributing to the culture of death.'' Are we really expected to believe that someone with such medieval views will dispense 21st century justice? This nomination is an insult to working women. It is an insult to all Americans who believe in fairness and equality. Just last week we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which gave women equal opportunity in the workplace. Democrats and Republicans alike joined in celebrating that important law. If that celebration is to be more than lip service, we cannot approve this nomination. Judges appointed to lifetime positions on the Federal court must have a clear commitment to the principles of equality in our basic civil rights laws. Mr. Holmes' view that a woman must ``place herself under the authority of the man'' does not demonstrate such a commitment. I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record Mr. Holmes' article containing these statements.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Mr. Holmes has expressed opinions that cast doubt on his fairness on other civil rights issues as well. He has criticized remedies to enforce the requirements of school desegregation under Brown v. Board of Education. He has written that Federal court orders requiring assignment of students to desegregate public schools are part of ``a cultural and constitutional revolution in the past 20 years . . . for which the Nation has never voted.'' He has called such remedies authoritarian and argued that it is an ``injustice,'' that overturning them would require a change in the Constitution. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Holmes' letters on this subject also been printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, he opposed the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, an act approved by a broad, bipartisan majority to restore the original meaning of title VI and title IX of the Civil Rights Act which prohibit discrimination in federally funded activities. Mr. Holmes has also expressed views hostile to gay rights. At one point he even said he opposed the feminist movement because he feared it would bring ``recognition of homosexual liaisons.'' Mr. Holmes' record also indicates that he is intensely opposed to a woman's constitutional right to choose. In his answers to questions, however, he said that he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but he would not try to undermine Roe if he became a Federal judge. But merely repeating the mantra that he will ``follow the law'' does not make it credible that he will do so. Regardless of the assurances he made after he was nominated for a Federal judgeship, no one looking at his record can avoid the conclusion Mr. Holmes has dedicated much of his career to opposing Roe v. Wade. It defies reason to believe he will abandon that position if he becomes a Federal judge. In fact, he has demonstrated a clear commitment to using a variety of political and legal means to take away a woman's right to choose. His statements opposing it are among the most extreme we have seen. He has said the concern expressed by supporters of choice for ``rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with the same frequency as snow in Miami.'' According to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, at least 25,000 pregnancies resulted from rape in 1998 alone. Mr. Holmes has likened abortion to slavery and the Holocaust. In the mid-1980s, Mr. Holmes helped write an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution to ban the use of any public funds for abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, and even if abortion was necessary to safeguard a woman's health. In 1995, he stated the ``only cause that I have actively campaigned for and really been considered an activist is the right to life issue.'' In 2000, he wrote an article expressing his approval of ``natural law,'' the idea that people have inalienable rights that precede the Constitution. That great phrase is part of the Declaration of Independence. But then Mr. Holmes went on to state any recognition of a right to privacy in cases such as Roe v. Wade is illegitimate and inconsistent with natural law. Supporters of Mr. Holmes' nomination say his statements do not show he will fail to enforce the law if he becomes a Federal judge. It is true that after he was pressed by several Senators, Mr. Holmes admitted his statement that pregnancies from rape occur as frequently as snow in Miami was too inflammatory. But this was more than an isolated statement--it came in the context of an extensive pattern of strident, anti-choice statements, writings, and actions over the past two decades. His cavalier dismissal of the problems facing rape and incest victims is consistent with his repeated attempts to repeal or severely limit the right to choose, even in cases of rape or incest. Supporters of the nomination suggest many intemperate statements he has made say nothing about how he will interpret the law. But that defies common sense. Mr. Holmes is a self-proclaimed activist against a fundamental constitutional right. Why should we approve a nominee who has made such strong and intemperate statements against rights established in the Constitution? Why should we confirm a nominee who has stated women must be subservient to men? Even if we assume those strong opinions will somehow not affect how he interprets the law, they clearly do not reflect the judgment and temperament we expect from a Federal judge. I respect the views of my colleagues from Arkansas who support Mr. Holmes' nomination. But too much is at stake. Once nominees are confirmed for the Federal courts, they serve for life, and will influence the law for years to come. We all know the values Americans respect the most: the commitment to fairness, equality, opportunity for all, and adherence to the rule of law. The American people expect us to honor these values in evaluating nominees to the Federal courts, and our consciences demand it. Mr. Holmes has every right to advocate his deeply held beliefs, but his record and his many extreme statements--especially about women's role in our modern society--raise too many grave doubts to justify his confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose his nomination. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this month marks the end of a distinguished 14-year tenure for Chuck Vest as president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has been an excellent leader for this outstanding institution in our State. He has attracted and retained a world class faculty, including Nobel Prize winners. He's maintained an impressive balance between consistency and change to meet the changing needs of the university in the modern high-tech world. and he has developed the research capacity of the institution far beyond its abilities when he took the helm. His commitment to diversity has also been impressive. In 1990, the undergraduate student body was 34 percent women and 14 percent underrepresented minorities; today the student body is 42 percent women and 20 percent underrepresented minorities--the result of a conscientious effort by President Vest and the community he cared about so much. His leadership was marked by many innovative reforms. He decided to publish all course material online so that it is freely available to anyone in the world. He brought the unequal treatment of senior female faculty to the attention of the community, and held an open dialogue on how to correct the situation. He offered health benefits to same-sex partners. His leadership on financial aid methodologies laid the groundwork for the provisions that are now part of the Higher Education Act. Chuck has worked skillfully as well to obtain increased support for scientific research--especially in the physical sciences, and he was a familiar figure in corporate boardrooms and to many of us in Congress. His cooperative work with Lincoln Labs, with Harvard and with the Broad Foundation and his commitment to the Cambridge and Boston Public Schools are important parts of all he has brought to MIT. When he was named in February to the President's Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, he said, ``I will concentrate on two priorities, MIT and the Commission. There is so much to be said about Chuck Vest--his intelligence, his appealing personality, his modesty about his own high accomplishments, and his tireless pursuit of excellence in everything he does. All of us who know him wish him well in the years ahead, confident that we will continue to think and act boldly about the role of science and scientific education in our changing world and its fundamental importance to the future of our Nation and its best ideals.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Gregg and Harkin in the introduction of the Assistive Technology Act of 2004, which will continue and expand our Nation's promise to improve access to assistive technology for individuals in every State and territory. In the Senate we are dedicated to breaking down barriers to equal education, to employment opportunities and to quality and affordable health care. Assistive technology enables people with disabilities to break down the physical and other barriers which prevent them from reaching their full potential. For an individual with difficulty communicating, a hand-writing aid or a communication board can open up a whole new world of relationships. A wheelchair or scooter can give them the freedom to engage in activities otherwise impossible. And switches and other devices can transform their home into an accessible environment and allow them to perform daily household tasks essential to independent living. Since 1988, the Assistive Technology Act has funded projects in every State and territory to raise awareness about the enormous potential of assistive technology, give individuals an opportunity to test products, and connect them with low-cost options for purchasing technology. Each project has a different focus, but all are providing these core services, and providing them well. In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Assistive Technology Project trains individuals with disabilities to be self-advocates. They monitor implementation of State and Federal laws. And they operate an Equipment Exchange Trading Post for individuals to exchange or sell assistive technology products. This is just a small sample of what they are doing. They deserve great credit, and so do the other projects across the nation. The Assistive Technology Act of 2004 makes a commitment to continue these projects. It asks them to perform device demonstrations, equipment loans, device refurbishment, and provide financing systems such as low-cost loan programs. It mandates a new focus on training local personnel who work every day with people with disabilities in adult service provider settings, in schools, and in employment settings. It gives States the flexibility to which populations to focus on, but asks that they work to make the promise of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Workforce Investment Act, and the Olmstead decision a reality. I know they are up to the challenge, and I will work to ensure they have the resources to make it happen. To that end, the act authorizes additional resources and sets a higher minimum appropriation of $500,000 for each State project. It is vital that any final legislation include this recognition that these life-changing services need real resources. I commend Senators Gregg, Harkin, and Reed for their hard work on this legislation. I also commend all of the disability advocates, organizations and project directors who informed this legislation. I look forward to working with them and my colleagues in the House of Representatives to get a bill signed into law this year.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Gregg and Harkin in the introduction of the Assistive Technology Act of 2004, which will continue and expand our Nation's promise to improve access to assistive technology for individuals in every State and territory. In the Senate we are dedicated to breaking down barriers to equal education, to employment opportunities and to quality and affordable health care. Assistive technology enables people with disabilities to break down the physical and other barriers which prevent them from reaching their full potential. For an individual with difficulty communicating, a hand-writing aid or a communication board can open up a whole new world of relationships. A wheelchair or scooter can give them the freedom to engage in activities otherwise impossible. And switches and other devices can transform their home into an accessible environment and allow them to perform daily household tasks essential to independent living. Since 1988, the Assistive Technology Act has funded projects in every State and territory to raise awareness about the enormous potential of assistive technology, give individuals an opportunity to test products, and connect them with low-cost options for purchasing technology. Each project has a different focus, but all are providing these core services, and providing them well. In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Assistive Technology Project trains individuals with disabilities to be self-advocates. They monitor implementation of State and Federal laws. And they operate an Equipment Exchange Trading Post for individuals to exchange or sell assistive technology products. This is just a small sample of what they are doing. They deserve great credit, and so do the other projects across the nation. The Assistive Technology Act of 2004 makes a commitment to continue these projects. It asks them to perform device demonstrations, equipment loans, device refurbishment, and provide financing systems such as low-cost loan programs. It mandates a new focus on training local personnel who work every day with people with disabilities in adult service provider settings, in schools, and in employment settings. It gives States the flexibility to which populations to focus on, but asks that they work to make the promise of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Workforce Investment Act, and the Olmstead decision a reality. I know they are up to the challenge, and I will work to ensure they have the resources to make it happen. To that end, the act authorizes additional resources and sets a higher minimum appropriation of $500,000 for each State project. It is vital that any final legislation include this recognition that these life-changing services need real resources. I commend Senators Gregg, Harkin, and Reed for their hard work on this legislation. I also commend all of the disability advocates, organizations and project directors who informed this legislation. I look forward to working with them and my colleagues in the House of Representatives to get a bill signed into law this year.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand the floor managers, we have a half hour, and that time is divided between the Senator from Kentucky and myself. We have two different amendments. At some time at the leadership's discretion we will have an opportunity to vote on those. The asking for the yeas and nays still is yet to be done, but it is certainly my intention to do so. Mr. President, I yield myself now 5 minutes. I want to address an issue that came up yesterday just prior to making the comments on my amendment because I do think it is of importance, as we are reaching the final hours in the deliberation of the Defense authorization bill, to make a comment on a particular amendment. This is effectively the Leahy amendment which is supported by a number of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I understand there is a reluctance on the other side of the aisle among Republican leadership--not necessarily the chairman of our Armed Services Committee but of the Republican leadership--voting on it. I want to mention very briefly as we are coming into the final hours of the consideration of the legislation, the importance of the consideration of that particular proposal. I am very concerned that our Senate Republican friends are effectively stonewalling the release of the Justice Department memorandum on the torture of prisoners, and specifically the majority leader has filed cloture on the Defense bill in hopes of preventing a vote on an amendment that would require the release of the Justice Department documents. The administration released a handful of documents yesterday, but the materials are far from complete. This is not a partisan issue; it is a constitutional issue. It is required by our oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. The administration has shown a stunning disregard for the law and the usual rights of oversight, resorting time and time again to saying that we are at war. We are not under martial law in this country. The laws and the Constitution are not suspended because we are at war. The actions of the administration and questionable advice by the Justice Department contradict the founding principles of this country. Our country is not above the law. The President is not above the law. The Attorney General is not above the law. The Justice Department is not above the law. The Bush administration cannot continue to refuse to reveal memoranda because we are at war and because he does not want to. This is a precedent that could dangerously undermine our system of laws and government as we know them. I believe the Senate itself is on trial. We have a constitutional and an oath of office responsibility to prevent this stonewalling of required accountability. If we look the other way and refuse to take action, then we are complicit in the gross violation and abuse of all that makes this country great. America's Constitution is not a document of convenience to be followed only when we feel like it. It represents our best ideals as a democracy and protects our freedoms. I hope the Senate will uphold the Constitution and demand accountability for the prison abuses that are so contrary to all we stand for as a nation. I will have more to say on that later in the day. The amendment which I offer on behalf of myself, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Feingold, is a very simple amendment. Effectively, we understand that the President now is going to the EU and then to NATO. During that period of time, he will be asking our international allies and friends to participate and help offload some of the very heavy burden that Americans are bearing in Iraq, the most notable being the loss of life which exceeds 95 percent of the lives that are lost, and over 96 percent in terms of the casualties and the extraordinary expenditure of American taxpayers' funds, what I think will come out well in excess of $4 billion a month. We also ought to know the scheduling in some detail for the development of internal security--primarily police--and what is being done inside the country and outside the country, and what is being done in terms of other countries around the world in helping, assisting, and offloading the burden on American service men and women who are caught in the bull's eye over in Iraq. Many, including myself, find it is going to be extremely difficult to remove the concept of occupation as long as we are the only ones who are involved in the security issues in Iraq. This amendment is the result of efforts by the President. We are asking for a list of countries that are committed to deploying military and police forces. With respect to each country and the level of such deployment, we are asking for the scheduling of providing such assistance--that would be economic aid--and effectively when that assistance will come. As a result of the President's efforts, we want to know the number of police and military forces in Iraq that have been recruited for policing and for the military--the numbers of members of the police and military forces that have been trained. We want a description of the anticipated U.S. military force posture in the region during the next year, including the estimate--I underline the word ``estimate''--of the numbers of members of the Armed Forces that will be required to serve in Iraq during the next year. That is what we are asking for, effectively. We are talking about planning, which the military does. Every year they have to submit a 5-year plan in terms of troops for the military. They have the Quadrennial Defense Review where they talk about the planning in terms of the troops and the needs in terms of the troops. What we are trying to find out is what is the best estimate. We are asking for the estimate, and we are asking for that estimate 30 days after the bill becomes law. We hope this bill is going to come to a conclusion in the next 2 days. It then will go to conference. All of us are very hopeful and expect it will be concluded prior to the time of the summer recess. Then the administration will have 30 more days in order to make this kind of estimate and report. We will certainly know, since the President will return in the next several days, we will be able to make that kind of estimate. Then we are asking: All right. Give us that information in 30 days, and level with the American people. Let the American people know. People ask: Why should we do this? It is because we have 140,000 American reasons to do it. That represents the American troops over there. That is the reason to do it. The American people are entitled to an estimate within 30 days, and then the follow-on and update of that in 6 months. Americans who have members of their families serving over there are entitled to this information. The American people are entitled to this information. There is ample precedents where we have required similar information in the Defense authorization--before going into the Balkans. This is a matter of estimates. It is a matter of information. It is a matter of giving the American people the best information we have. We have heard all kinds of estimates over all periods of time. We heard estimates yesterday by Mr. Wolfowitz talking about the American forces may be in there for years. The American people are entitled to know what exactly this administration and this Defense Department, to the best of their information, can provide and should provide for the American people. It is a simple amendment. It helps establish some benchmark for which we can measure the kind of progress we are making in terms of help and assistance from other countries around the world--not only in terms of getting support for troops and financial support but also help in assisting and getting information to the American people with regard to the development of police forces and the training of those forces. Those are essential elements in terms of Iraqi policy. The American people are entitled to this. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are all grateful for the participation of other countries around the world in Iraq. But the facts remain, when all is said and done, the estimate by the Defense Department is that 96.9 percent of the casualties are U.S. forces and 97 percent of nonhostile casualties are U.S. forces. We are grateful for the other countries, but the burden is on the U.S. forces. I will mention what the difference is between the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky and my amendment, our amendment. There are only two basic differences. One is the number of reports. We have three reports. He has one report. And the timing of that report. The other difference, the major difference, is we are asking for estimates of the number of American troops that are going to be there. The American families are entitled to that information. The families who have service men and women over there, whether they are in the Regular Army, Reserves, or Guard, are entitled to an estimate. They ought to be able to get an estimate. It is amazing that the Senator from Kentucky will not even include an estimate about the number of American troops that are going to be there. Not even an estimate. Mr. Wolfowitz stated yesterday, when he testified in the House, in response to Mr. Skelton, that, No, we are not stuck. The U.S. strategy in Iraq is clearly to develop Iraqi forces. The Senator from Kentucky and I agree, we are asking for progress and estimating the progress in developing the security force and the police force. We agree with that. But he said the U.S. strategy in Iraq clearly is to develop an Iraq that can take over security from U.S. and allied troops. That is the policy. What is wrong with asking the estimated time? What in the world is wrong with asking how long will it take, and get us a report 30 days after this bill? If that will not be accurate, give it to us 6 months after that. If that does not help, give us 6 months after that. Why in the world is there a reluctance to level with the American people about the amount of forces we are going to have over there? The Senator from Kentucky includes reporting on the amounts of resources that will come from other countries. He includes in his amendment the training of the personnel, the security personnel, the police force. He gets a report on that. Why in the world do we prohibit the families who are serving over there, and the American people, from having an estimate about the amount of troops going over there? Now we had that. We did that before. This is not something that is enormously new. In the 1995 Defense authorization bill, Congress required a report that had to include 11 elements, including: estimates of the total number of forces required to carry out the operation, estimates on the expected duration of the operation, an estimate of the cost of the operation, and an assessment of how many Reserve units would be necessary for the operation. That was passed here. I do not know whether the Senator from Kentucky voted against that. I do not hear him saying: We had that in 1995, and I voted ``no'' because we can't do that sort of thing here. We have done that before in Bosnia. Is Iraq less important than Bosnia? We were prepared to do that in Bosnia, and it got the virtual unanimous support of the Members of this body at that time. And we are not prepared to do it in Iraq? I am confused. I do not understand. What possibly is the justification for not leveling with the American people on the best estimate this administration has on the number of troops we are going to have over there? We are not saying: Give us a number, and then withdraw our troops; give us a number and then come back to Congress and tell us if you are going to need more troops. We are not asking that. Estimates, estimates, estimates. We have the President who is going over to meet with NATO, with allies abroad. He is going to obviously, hopefully, ask others to participate because they clearly have an interest. They clearly have some responsibility. They have not recognized it. I wish they would. But clearly they have to understand they have an interest in the security of that part of the world, and they ought to be participating. We know the French were all too interested in finding out and participating in the oil issues, and it was obviously indicated to American representatives at the U.N. that they did not think we were transferring sovereignty unless we were going to transfer over to the Iraqi ministers the ability to have independent European oil participation in the development of the oil resources over there. We want them to be in there with regard to offloading the burden on American troops and helping and assisting in terms of developing the security and the police. We ought to know, and the American people ought to know, whether they are willing to do that. The President is headed over there. All we are asking for is estimates. It is amazing to me, given the past precedents, that we are unwilling to share that kind of information with the American people. I think the American people are entitled to it. That is what our amendment does. It is the principal difference with the McConnell amendment. When you come right down to it, that is the principal reason we have an alternative out here, because the opposition refuses to share with the American people estimates, estimates, estimates on the number of troops. I think the American people are entitled to it. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself the minute and a half. I would mention, in his May 24 speech on Iraq, President Bush said: [W]e'll maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary. On May 4, General Swartz, of J-3 Operations, said: ``the current plan'' and ``what we're working toward'' is to keep the current level of deployments ``through '05.'' General Abizaid, on May 19, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: [T]he force levels will stay about what they are, I think, until after the elections in Iraq. Those elections are scheduled in Iraq for December or January. We have had estimates by individuals. Why not share and give official estimates to the American people? That is the principal difference. I am still stunned by the unwillingness to share that kind of information with the American people. I reserve any time I have.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry: I understand under the previous agreement we are going to have two votes. The first vote will be on the McConnell amendment and the second vote on the Kennedy amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is for 1 year. June 30th, sovereignty is transferred to the Iraqis. American families are entitled to know how long their sons and daughters are going to serve in Iraq. This is asking for an estimate of how long their sons and daughters are going to be there. They will make that judgment 30 days after this bill is passed into law, then 6 months, and then a year. American families who have sons and daughters serving in Iraq need to have some estimate about how long they are going to be there. The American people are entitled to that, too. Finally, we have followed this similar kind of reporting with regard to Bosnia in the past. This is an appropriate request. American families and the American people are entitled to it and the Iraqi people are entitled to it, as well.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if you liked the McConnell amendment, you have to love the Kennedy amendment because the McConnell amendment took our initial amendment and eliminated estimating the numbers of American troops that are going to be necessary after Iraq reaches sovereignty. That is the principal difference. It does seem to me that after Iraq gets sovereignty on June 30, every American family, whether it is those who have sons or daughters serving in Iraq, is entitled to the best judgment--and this is an estimate--the best judgment on the number of troops we are going to have serve in Iraq. That is clear and simple. It is an estimate. There are clear examples where we have done that in the past. We are talking about estimating the number of American troops that will serve in Iraq. We have done that time in and time out. That is what the Kennedy amendment would do, embracing the best parts of the McConnell amendment. You can have it all this afternoon in the U.S. Senate.