Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. KENNEDY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the time situation?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Department of Justice is in a state of crisis. Under Attorney General Gonzales, it too often served as a rubberstamp for the White House and as a pawn for political gain, rather than as the Nation's guardian of the rule of law. It ignored the law and authorized torture and warrantless surveillance. It let politics drive decisions about who should be prosecuted. It fired U.S. attorneys who would not go along. It hired and punished career attorneys on the basis of their personal politics, and it abandoned enforcement of our civil rights laws. After such an unacceptable period of tarnished leadership of the Department, we need a clear, decisive, and straightforward Attorney General who is not afraid to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law--especially when that means disagreeing with the President of the United States. I had hoped Judge Mukasey would be that person. He is, clearly, an able lawyer, and his commitment to public service as an assistant U.S. attorney and Federal judge is admirable. As a Federal judge for almost 19 years, he was, by all accounts, fair and conscientious in the courtroom. But after listening to Judge Mukasey's testimony and considering his responses to written questions from the members of the Judiciary Committee, I have concluded he is not the right person to lead the Justice Department at this crucial period of our history. The next Attorney General must restore confidence in the rule of law. He must show the American people and the world America has returned to its fundamental belief in the rule of law as the bedrock protector of our national values. Only an Attorney General who is not afraid to speak truth to power can be such a leader. Regrettably, Michael Mukasey has shown he is not that leader. Similar to many of my colleagues and many American citizens, I am deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey's evasive answers about torture. He has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that waterboarding--the controlled drowning of a prisoner--is torture. Instead, he has said only that torture is unconstitutional without being willing to say whether waterboarding is torture. As the record makes clear, courts and tribunals have consistently found waterboarding to be an unacceptable act of torture. As Malcolm Nance, a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School, said of waterboarding: For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. During the questions for Judge Mukasey in the Judiciary Committee, he was asked these questions: Is the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e, waterboarding) legal? Listen to what the Judge Advocates said: ``No,'' said RADM Bruce McDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General. ``No,'' said BG Kevin Sandkuhler, U.S. Marines, Judge Advocate General. ``No. An interrogation technique that is specifically intended to cause severe mental suffering involving a threat of imminent death by asphyxiation is torture,'' said MG Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General. ``Inducing the misperception of drowning as an interrogation technique is not legal,'' said MG Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General. Waterboarding is an ancient and barbaric technique. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, interrogators of the Spanish inquisition used it. It was used against slaves in this country. In World War II, it was used against our soldiers by Japan. In the 1970s, it was used against political opponents of the Khmer Rouge and the military dictatorships of Chile and Argentina. As I speak, it is being used against prodemocracy activists by the military dictators of Burma. This is the company the Bush administration embraces when it refuses to renounce waterboarding. But Judge Mukasey is unwilling to say waterboarding violates the law. He calls it repugnant, and it obviously is. But he refuses to condemn it as unlawful. Why? The answer seems painfully obvious. Former intelligence officers and supervisors have admitted--and the Vice President has confirmed--that the CIA has waterboarded detainees. Had Judge Mukasey renounced waterboarding as unlawful, he would have had to assert his independence and speak the truth about this administration's lawlessness. He was unwilling to do so. We were told Judge Mukasey had agreed to enforce a new law prohibiting waterboarding if Congress passed it. There are two problems with this statement. First, enforcing laws passed by Congress that are constitutional is the job of the Attorney General. It is a prerequisite to occupying the office, not a concession to be offered to win confirmation. But, second, waterboarding is already illegal. It is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit ``outrages upon personal dignity,'' including cruel, humiliating, and degrading treatment. It is illegal under the Torture Act, which prohibits acts ``specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.'' It is illegal under the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits ``cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment,'' and it violates the Constitution. The Nation's top military lawyers and legal experts across the political spectrum have condemned waterboarding as illegal. After World War II, the United States prosecuted Japanese officers for using waterboarding. What more does this nominee need to enforce existing laws? The Attorney General must have the legal and moral judgment to know when an activity rises to the level of a violation of our Constitution, treaties or statutes. But this nominee wants to pass the buck to Congress. He has failed to demonstrate that he will be the clear, decisive, and straightforward leader the Department of Justice so desperately needs. This administration has recklessly brushed aside the rule of law for 7 years. We need an Attorney General who will stand up to this destructive conduct and say: No more. We cannot afford to take our chances on the judgment of an Attorney General who either does not know torture when he sees it or is willing to look the other way to suit the President. I urge the Senate to vote no on this nomination.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 8, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing. This hearing will focus on issues related to media consolidation, pending proposals to change the Federal Communications Commission's media ownership rules, and government efforts to promote localism and diversity in the media marketplace.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Legislative Hearing on America's Climate Security Act of 2007, S. 2191.''

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 8, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a hearing on Syria.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting the Employment Rights of Those Who Protect the United States'' on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct an Executive Business Meeting on Thursday, November 8, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Agenda I. Bills: S. 352, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007 (Grassley, Schumer, Leahy, Specter, Graham, Feingold, Cornyn, Durbin); S. 2135, Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2007 (Durbin, Coburn, Feingold, Brownback); S. 2248, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007. II. Nominations: Michael J. Sullivan to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice; Joseph N. Laplante to be United States District Judge for the District of New Hampshire; Reed Charles O'Connor to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division; Thomas D. Schroeder to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina; Amul R. Thapar to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Economic Outlook,'' in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, on Thursday, November 8, 2007, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 8, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 86, to designate segments of Fossil Creek, a tributary to the Verde River in the State of Arizona, as wild and scenic rivers; S. 1365, to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with any of the management partners of the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area, and for other purposes; S. 1449, to establish the Rocky Mountain Science Collections Center to assist in preserving the archeological, anthropological, paleontological, zoological, and geological artifacts and archival documentation from the Rocky Mountain region through the construction of an on-site, secure collections facility for the Denver Museum of Nature & Science in Denver, Colorado; S. 1921, to amend the American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for that Act, and for other purposes; S. 1941, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Wolf House located in Norfolk, Arkansas, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 1961, to expand the boundaries of the Little River Canyon National Preserve in the State of Alabama; S. 1991, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of extending the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail to include additional sites associated with the preparation and return phases of the expedition, and for other purposes; S. 2098, to establish the Northern Plains Heritage Area in the State of North Dakota; S. 2220, to amend the Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 to authorize certain appropriations; and H.R. 1191, to authorize the National Park Service to pay for services rendered by subcontractors under a General Services Administration Indefinite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity Contract issued for work to be completed at the Grand Canyon National Park.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last night the House passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act with a strong bipartisan vote. The House bill prohibits employers from discriminating against workers on the job because of their sexual orientation. It protects Americans from being fired, denied a job or promotion, or otherwise intentionally discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. Although the bill is narrower than many of us had hoped, the House action is still a main step in the long journey toward full civil rights for every American. In the Senate, I will work to move the Employment Non-Discrimination Act this Congress. The bill that the House passed is being held at the desk, and I am working with leadership to move this bill forward as quickly as possible. This Nation was founded on the principle of equal justice for all. That noble goal represents the best in America--that everyone should be treated fairly and should have the chance to benefit from the many opportunities of this country. The House action brings us closer to that goal. Forty-three years ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At that time, some in our country were violently opposed to outlawing racial discrimination, and it was very difficult for Congress to reach a consensus. But the best in America, and the best in the Senate, prevailed. My first major speech in this body as a freshman Senator was on that Civil Rights Act. I said then that I ``firmly believe a sense of fairness and goodwill also exists in the minds and hearts'' of Americans, and that laws creating the conditions for equality will help that spirit of fairness win out over prejudice, and I still believe that today. Since the 1964 act was passed, we have seen enormous progress in this beloved Nation of ours. Civil rights laws giving national protection against discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, age, and disability have made our Country a stronger, better, fairer land. African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and Asians have made extraordinary advances in the workplace. People with disabilities have new opportunities to fully participate in our society. The workplace is far more open to women in ways that were barely imagined four decades ago. In countless businesses, large and small, glass ceilings are being shattered. Women and girls have far greater opportunities in the classroom and in the boardroom. But that progress has left some Americans out. Civil rights is still the Nation's unfinished business. Today, it is perfectly legal in most States to fire an employee because of sexual orientation or gender identity. Many hard-working Americans live every day with the knowledge that, no matter what their talents and abilities, they can be denied a job simply because of who they are. Many young students grow up knowing that no matter how hard they study, the doors of opportunity will be locked by prejudice and bigotry when they enter the workplace. Although some States have outlawed job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in most of the country, workers have no recourse at all if they are fired because simply because of who they are. That is unacceptable, and we have a duty to fix it, and to do so on our watch. In the past 40 years, our Country has made great progress in guaranteeing fairness and opportunity. When we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and then the fair housing acts of 1968 and 1988, we took courageous steps, and we were proud that the Senate did the right thing each time. We must also do the right thing--the courageous thing-- today. In the 1960s, these laws were controversial. But today, none of us, Democrat, Republican, or Independent, would question that they were the right steps to take, and we must take the right steps today. Over the years, the Senate has recognized time and again the importance of our goal of equal employment opportunity. Even if we have sometimes disagreed about its proper interpretation, there is no division among us that the principle of equal employment opportunity is a core American value. That is what the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is all about-- equal job opportunities for all Americans. By extending the protection of title VII to those who are victimized because of their sexual orientation, we are moving closer to that fundamental goal. No one should be denied a job simply because of who they are. That ideal is at the heart of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. In 1996, we fell one vote short of passing the bill in the U.S. Senate. In the decade since, public support for outlawing such discrimination has only grown stronger. Now that the House has acted, I hope that we will be able to finally succeed in the Senate in passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act this Congress, and I look forward to the coming debate. America stands for justice for all. Congress must make clear that when we say ``all'' we mean all. America will never be America until we do.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Gilberto DeJesus, a detailee in the office of Senator Cardin, be granted floor privileges during the debate and vote on the pending nomination.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is there controlled time now? I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, I wish to express my strong appreciation to the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for the work they have done on the Labor-HHS conference report. This appropriations bill is of enormous importance. Our national security gets attention, but so much of what makes a difference in the strength of our Nation is our investment in our people. When we talk about investment in our people, we are talking about education, we are talking about health care, we are talking about job safety, job training programs which have been tested and tried, examined and evaluated. The Appropriations Committee has done just a splendid job in allocating resources to these priorities. They have done it in a bipartisan way. Now as we see this whole process on appropriations moving forward, we know this will ultimately be decided this evening with a Senate vote. It will then go over to the House of Representatives and down to the White House to the President where he has indicated he is going to veto this legislation. I wish to take a few minutes to go over this legislation so the American people and our colleagues, as we are looking at a variety of proposals that are coming at us at a furious pace in the Senate, have a very clear understanding and awareness as to exactly what this legislation is about and its importance to American families. This is family legislation, it is children's legislation, it is health care legislation. It is about our ability to compete in the future. We hear much talk about the challenges we are facing globally, and we are facing serious challenges globally. This legislation deals with making sure American workers are going to have the kinds of skills which are necessary so they are able to compete. Global competition is going to be a knowledge-based competition. That is why it is so important we invest in education. That is why it is so important we have a healthy population, and why it is so important we have individuals who have the skills so we can have a knowledge-based economy and be able to compete internationally. This legislation is the heart and soul of that effort in the Congress of the United States. Again, I thank old friends and individuals who, for a long period of time, have been strongly committed to these issues on education, health, and training. When we look over these particular items, it is important to know, since we are talking about priorities, a billion dollars--and a billion dollars is real money, that is true--we are talking about a total budget of over $2.8 trillion. The amounts we are talking about certainly are very modest, indeed, particularly when one looks at the total scope of our budget. And particularly when one looks at what we are spending in Iraq, the amounts we are spending in this bill are basically trivial. That is why it is so discouraging, I find, that the President of the United States believes we have to effectively pay for the war in Iraq by vetoing programs that make a difference in the quality of education, health care, and training of American workers. Let's look at these items in some detail. How can we take this President seriously when he says he will leave no child behind, when he vetoes funding for education? How can we take the President seriously when he says he is for children's health, when he vetoes funding for children's health care? How can we take this President seriously when he announces a new food safety initiative such as he did yesterday and says he will veto funding for food safety? The President may have the wrong priorities, but in Congress, we have worked together, Democrats and Republicans, to pass responsible new investments in our schools, the health care systems, and our jobs. Here is what is at stake if the President vetoes this important legislation, and the American people deserve to know which of their priorities will fall to the cutting room floor when he rejects this bill. First and foremost, this bill before us today provides long overdue funding for education. Over the past few years, the White House and the Republican leadership in the Congress have neglected the urgently needed new investments for better teachers, stronger schools, and college affordability. In fact, under the Republican-controlled Congress, funding for the education of our children has actually gone down. This chart goes back to the last time we had Democratic appropriations bills and we passed No Child Left Behind. One can see the dramatic falloff rather than an increase in commitment to children all over this country. We saw the reductions. This reflects the final results of these battles. We can see the gradual reductions in funding. The red lines are what the administration actually requested. Here is President Bush's request, a reduction of $2.2 billion; and in 2008, a reduction of $1.5 billion. This is the difference between a Democratic resolution and a Democratic conference report, $3.2 billion. We are coming back in terms of increases. It provides $3.2 billion in new funding for education compared to last year. The core Federal education initiative for helping schoolchildren who fall behind is called the title I program. Despite all the hype from the administration about leaving no child behind, title I funding has languished since passage of that legislation. The education funding before us today changes all that. It includes the largest increase in the title I program since the No Child Left Behind Act was passed. Again, these are the annual increases in title I, part A funding, 2003. It was going down. In 2006, it was flat, 250. And now with this proposal, there is a significant increase, $1.85 billion, an indication of the Nation's priority of increased funding for title I. Title I, as we all remember, goes back to 1965 when this country said we as a nation are going to make a priority the poorest children and neediest children in our society. We are going to give attention as a nation to do something about the poorest and neediest children in this country. That is what title I is all about. We will have a chance to get into those in greater detail. We are all familiar with the challenges we are facing with school dropout and increased poverty among the neediest of children. We know money is not the answer to everything, but it is a pretty clear indication of a nation's priorities. And included in this legislation is title I funding. Shamefully, we have seen the Pell grant stagnate as well. In the past 5 years, students and families have struggled as college costs have skyrocketed. What we have also stated as a country--there was a great debate actually going back to 1960, and was passed in 1965 in the Higher Education Act, that we as a nation say that any young person in this country who has the skill and the ability to be admitted to a college, that they will not be denied that opportunity. If they do not have financial assistance, they will have at least some assistance from a Pell grant, named after our former colleague in the Senate, Claiborne Pell. With the explosion of the cost of education, we still saw flat funding for the Pell Grant Program, and now we are seeing a gradual increase. In this particular appropriations bill, we have an increase in the Pell grant that will be effectively eliminated if this bill is vetoed. The President should recognize that this bill finally delivers on many of the promises we made some 6 years ago. He should embrace the progress and sign the bill. Instead, the President has threatened to veto the bill and deny the help our schools so desperately need. The President rejected this bill because it includes an increase of $4.5 billion for education funding over what he included in his budget. He has requested $158 billion for the war in Iraq this year--that is $433 million today--$158 billion for the war in Iraq. All we are talking about is a $4.5 billion increase for education. Mr. President, $4.5 billion for education gets a veto; $158 billion for the war in Iraq gets his signature. Let's look at the choices and compare the choices of American families which are reflected in the legislation before us. This chart reflects trying to help struggling schools turn around. American families want to use these funds to help the 9,000 schools most in need of improvement, to strengthen education for all of the children in these title I schools. This represents 1 day of the war in Iraq, and the President says no. The most important ingredient is the education of our teachers. Having good teachers, well-trained teachers, knowledgeable teachers, committed teachers who will serve in our public school system is one of the highest aspirations that we see reflected on our fellow citizens. We need to have good teachers in many of the underserved communities, and we need to provide help for those teachers. We need to give assistance to those teachers. We have some $3 billion for the high-quality teachers. This would hire 30,000 teachers to help reduce class size and provide high-quality induction for 100,000 new teachers. This induction is assisting and familiarizing teachers in their classroom and in their homerooms. It has been enormously successful in the retention of high-quality teachers, these kinds of programs being included in this legislation. It provides high-quality professional development for 200,000 more teachers. Teachers want and need to have some time for their development, and this provides that help for their professional development. Every other industrialized nation in the world provides this kind of assistance. Teachers need this kind of support. So we are providing important assistance to them. But, oh no, the President says, no, that will be vetoed. We have $7 billion to help provide the high-quality early education through the Head Start Programs, which equals 16 days of failed policy in Iraq. We all know the importance of early intervention. Everyone should read ``From Neurons to Neighborhoods,'' the great book by Jack Shonkoff, who has done such an extraordinary amount of work pulling together these three great studies from the National Institutes of Health, which shows a snapshot of the child's early development, from birth to the very earliest years, and the difference in terms of cognitive skills and also social behavior. The earlier the investment we have in these programs, the better the results are. We are not taking the time to reflect all that, but it is so. We have demonstrated it time and time again. But that $7 billion is going to be subject to the veto. I wish to mention two very important areas. We are going through these areas quickly, but I wish to mention the area of health priorities. We have mentioned early education and education, but we strongly believe in the $4.9 billion in cancer research which would fund over 6,800 grants. We are living in the life science century, with the extraordinary progress that has been made in DNA research and sequencing of the genes. The breakthroughs we have seen are absolutely mind-boggling. Over the recent years, we have effectively doubled the NIH research and the results coming through are extraordinary. At the same time, we are now finding that instead of taking advantage of these breakthroughs, we are beginning to cut back and cut back and cut back in terms of the opportunities in the areas of cancer and cancer research. When you talk to families across this Nation about their priorities, No. 1 in the area of health care will be in the areas of cancer research. We have 550,000 who die every year from cancer. It touches every family in America either directly or indirectly. We know the challenges we are facing now with diabetes and the challenges with obesity. There is an explosion across the country in terms of diabetes. We have $700 million for pandemic flu, to strengthen our health defenses. We know there are a variety of different strains that have been out there, both chemical and biologics, that could be enormously dangerous falling into the hands of the wrong groups and threatening American populations in a very significant and important way. We cannot be seeing a reduction in terms of our commitments to pandemic flu. The Centers for Disease Control. Whenever we have a problem, look at the television news over the period of the last couple of weeks, what did we see when we had the problems over in the Far East and China? It is always the CDC that takes on the responsibility to go over and try to detect and find out what is happening in these areas. This is an enormously important health agency that has enormous capability and skill in terms of its personnel and commitment. We have all these various challenges--the increased amount of asthma that has effectively doubled over the period of the last 15 years, increasing obesity, and childhood immunizations. It is interesting there is a higher percentage of children in Iraq who are getting immunized for diseases like measles than there are in the United States of America. How do we justify that? Now we are seeing a reduction in terms of childhood immunizations. The community health centers, which are the lifeline for some 15 million low-income Americans, we are cutting back on those at a time when we are seeing increasing numbers of Americans losing their health insurance. These are all programs that are tried, tested, evaluated and all extremely effective and programs the American people support. Immunization, the challenges of research in terms of cancer and diabetes and obesity, the challenges we are facing in those areas, the importance of investing in terms of education, all of these are extremely important. Finally, I wish to mention worker safety and health spending, which is a fraction of the Iraq cost. One week in Iraq, $3 billion. These are the total expenditures for protecting the $500 million in terms of OSHA. Since the passage of OSHA, we have reduced deaths in the workplace by more than half. We have increasing complexity for OSHA, because with new techniques and new toxins being used in the workplace, there are new challenges for OSHA. We need to make sure that in the United States of America we are going to have safe workplaces as well as workplaces where individuals can be demonstrating increased productivity. We all know the challenges that mine health safety has faced, whether it has been out in Utah or West Virginia, this past year. We have $340 million to try to ensure safety in the mines. But that is going to be vetoed. To demonstrate this isn't out-of-control spending, we have OSHA last year and OSHA this year, which is a 2.8-percent increase over the President's request and some 12 percent in the area of mine safety. These are basic and reasonable kinds of expressions by the Congress in areas of public concern. Nonetheless, we are hearing this administration is going to veto it. Let me also say we have seen an administration that is, over the past years, increasing the reductions in terms of training programs under the Workforce Investment Act. The Workforce Investment Act was bipartisan legislation. Senator Kassebaum, myself, and others were involved in the development and shaping of that, coordinating a variety of different job training programs. We had strong bipartisan support, and we had support from the workers and from the business community. It has made an important difference. In my State of Massachusetts, at the end of last year, we had over 92,000 jobs that are out there waiting for people to be able to take them. Yet we had more than 178,000 people who are unemployed. You would think it would make some sense to get the skills to those individuals who can work, who want to work, so they can fill those jobs, become taxpayers and productive members of our society. That is what we are talking about in terms of workforce investment. That is what happens when we have good programs such as this. Nonetheless, we are finding out that even though this legislation restores some $500 million to the cuts we have had these last several years, this President is now committed toward vetoing. So these are some of the items that are front and center in terms of this appropriations bill. As I mentioned at the outset, this is an extremely important piece of legislation. It is basically about the sole well-being of our fellow citizens. It is about educating our young, ensuring the health and well-being of our fellow citizens, about ensuring we are going to be able to have the kind of skills necessary so we can have a productive, expanding economy to be able to offer the hope and opportunity that good jobs, with good wages and good benefits, means to working families. That is what this legislation is about. The numbers that have been included represent the best judgment of Democrats and Republicans together. Compared to where we are in terms of the expenditures we have over in Iraq, all Americans, I believe, say: Why aren't we investing in Americans? Why aren't we investing in our children, in our families, in education, in health care, in training? Why aren't we doing the things which are going to make this Nation stronger in the future? Why are we going to face a veto by this President on these important priorities? Make no mistake, it is a major mistake for this President to do so. I hope he will reconsider his position. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the quorum call the time in the quorum be equally divided.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague from New Mexico in introducing the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will authorize continued Federal support for cooperation between the criminal justice and mental health systems on jail diversion, correctional treatment, and community reentry of offenders with a mental illness, and cross-training of criminal justice and mental health personnel. With full funding, this proposal has the potential to achieve significant reforms in the treatment of offenders diagnosed with a mental illness. I commend Senator Domenici for his leadership on this bill and on many other initiatives to improve our Nation's mental health systems. I also welcome the support and leadership of Representatives Scott and Forbes in the House of Representatives. We all agree that this legislation can promote cooperative initiatives that will significantly reduce recidivism and improve treatment outcomes. Based on the most recent studies by the Bureau of Justice, more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem in 2005, including 56 percent of inmates in State prisons, 45 percent of Federal prisoners and 64 percent of jail inmates. The high rate of symptoms of mental illness among jail inmates may reflect the role of local jails in the criminal justice system, which operate as locally- run correctional facilities that receive offenders pending arraignment, trial, conviction or sentencing. Among other functions, local jails also hold mentally ill persons pending their relocation in appropriate mental health facilities. Far too often, individuals encounter the criminal justice system when what is really needed is treatment and support for mental illness. Families often resort to the police in desperation in order to obtain treatment for a loved one suffering from an extreme episode of a mental illness. During such extreme distress, families may face no other alternative, because persons with symptoms such as paranoia, exaggerated actions or impaired judgment may be unable to recognize the need for treatment. It is unconscionable, and may well be unconstitutional, for these vulnerable individuals to be further marginalized once they are incarcerated. Too often, they are denied even minimal treatment because of inadequate resources. Most mentally ill offenders who come into contact with the criminal justice system are charged with low-level, nonviolent crimes. Once behind bars, they may well face an environment that further exacerbates symptoms of mental illness, which might otherwise be manageable with proper treatment. Caught in a revolving door, they may soon be back in prison as a result of insufficient and inadequate transitional services when they are released. This bill reauthorizes critical programs to move away from troubled systems that often result in the escalating incarceration of individuals with mental illness. Through this legislation, State and local correctional facilities will be able to create appropriate, cost- effective solutions. Low-level, nonviolent mentally ill offenders will have greater access to continuity of care. Congress must also address an unfunded mandate that has been imposed on the States for decades. In Estelle v. Gamble in 1967, the Supreme Court held that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of inmates is unconstitutional, ``whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed.'' In Ruiz v. Estelle in 1980, the Supreme Court established minimum standards for mental health services in correctional settings. Yet more than twenty years later, Federal, State, and local facilities still do not have nearly enough resources to come even close to meeting these constitutional requirements. Congress must do its part to assist State and local governments in meeting this burden. We cannot tolerate a system that fails to meet constitutional safeguards, or that fails to dedicate resources effectively so that people will get help instead of jail time. As a result of State budget cuts, more and more communities are looking to the Federal Government for support. This call for change can not be ignored. We have seen too many news stories reflecting the need for action on this issue. A New York Times editorial by Bernard Harcourt on January 15, 2007, highlighted problems facing the mentally ill behind bars, noting two extreme examples in different parts of the country. In August 2006, a prison inmate, described by authorities as ``floridly psychotic,'' died in Michigan shackled to a concrete slab, waiting for a mental health transfer that never happened. Six months later, the head of Florida's social services department resigned in the face of charges for failing to transfer severely mentally ill jail inmates to State hospitals. To date, we have seen only a fraction of the possible potential under this legislation, because only 50 planning and implementation grants have been awarded. Because of limited Federal funding, only 11 percent of applicants were able to receive one of these grants for which there is high demand. In Massachusetts, the Norfolk District Attorney's office received one of the planning grants. Right now, the office is working hard to implement a program to ensure that a trained mental health professional will serve in police departments, so that a qualified person on the scene can assist in a situation involving a mentally ill person. The program will also reduce the likelihood that a mentally ill person charged with a low-level crime will be inappropriately jailed, and will give such persons the treatment they need and provide life skills training, housing placement, vocational training and job placement. Several local mental health centers have already expressed their support for the program and their willingness to cooperate in providing valuable services to this long-neglected population. The expanded funding in this bill could help support ongoing efforts like the Massachusetts Mental Health Diversion & Integration Program, MMHDIP, which is part of the Center for Mental Health Services Research at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The center for Mental Health Services Research has supported a series of research and training programs to assist persons with mental illness who come in contact with the criminal justice system and have worked with police departments in Boston, Worcester, and Attleboro. The center is also working on programs to develop evidence on which future practices may be based. They also disseminate best practices for crisis intervention and risk management to police, courts, probation, prosecutors, defense attorneys, schools, and social service providers. The goal of the program is to reduce reliance on the criminal justice system as an access point for social service provision, thereby freeing police and other portions of the criminal justice system to more effectively fulfill their public safety function. The current programs in Massachusetts reflect the continuing legacy of the nationwide movement that began when Dorothea Dix entered an East Cambridge Jail in 1841. Discovering that the mentally ill inmates were being housed together in terrible conditions without any heat, Dorothea began documenting prison conditions for the mentally ill throughout our Commonwealth. Her advocacy, and her determination to pursue ideas that seemed radical at the time, achieved significant reforms in Massachusetts. She went on to lead the first national legislation to provide for the mentally ill. Today, we are still a long way to achieve the goals set forth by Dorothea so many years ago. In every State, interactions between law enforcement and individuals suffering from mental illness continue to rise and the need for effective solutions is critical. This legislation will continue to ``foster local collaborations'' between law enforcement and mental health providers. What works in one community will not necessarily work or be desired in another--solutions must take into account the existing problem as well as the social and political dynamics within each community. With so many complex issues involved at the intersection of mental illness and the criminal justice system, no magic solution will solve the problems faced in communities across America. This bill encourages funding for specialized programs that will most effectively address the needs of these local communities. With this legislation, Congress will join local communities in their response to this problem. In addition, members of State and local law enforcement need access to training and other alternatives to improve safety and responsiveness. The bill reauthorizes the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment Program and increases the funding to $75 million a year. The legislation also authorizes $10 million for grants to States and local governments to train law enforcement personnel on procedures to identify and respond more appropriately to persons with mental illnesses, and to develop specialized receiving centers to assess individuals in custody. In his last public bill signing in 1963, President Kennedy signed a $3 billion authorization bill to create a national network of community mental health facilities across the country. With the escalation of the Vietnam War, not one penny of the $3 billion was ever appropriated. Now, decades later, we face a crisis in which far too many mentally ill individuals are facing jail time rather than treatment. Last year, more than 1 million persons with serious mental illnesses were arrested. Noting the breadth of this national problem, Judge Leifman of the Criminal Division of the Miami-Dade County Court has stated that, ``Jails and prisons have become the asylums of the new millennium.'' The broad support for this legislation--ranging from the Council of State Governments, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Sheriffs Association, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Council of State Governments, the Campaign for Mental Health Reform and Mental Health America--demonstrates that it will provide much-needed support to help solve this complex problem. The courts, law enforcement, corrections and mental health communities have all come together in support of this legislation, and Congress must respond. Individuals and their loved ones struggle with countless challenges and barriers during a mental health crisis. With this bill, Congress can provide significant support to needed cooperation efforts between law enforcement and mental health experts. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, so that we can achieve its enactment before the end of this current session of Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague from New Mexico in introducing the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will authorize continued Federal support for cooperation between the criminal justice and mental health systems on jail diversion, correctional treatment, and community reentry of offenders with a mental illness, and cross-training of criminal justice and mental health personnel. With full funding, this proposal has the potential to achieve significant reforms in the treatment of offenders diagnosed with a mental illness. I commend Senator Domenici for his leadership on this bill and on many other initiatives to improve our Nation's mental health systems. I also welcome the support and leadership of Representatives Scott and Forbes in the House of Representatives. We all agree that this legislation can promote cooperative initiatives that will significantly reduce recidivism and improve treatment outcomes. Based on the most recent studies by the Bureau of Justice, more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem in 2005, including 56 percent of inmates in State prisons, 45 percent of Federal prisoners and 64 percent of jail inmates. The high rate of symptoms of mental illness among jail inmates may reflect the role of local jails in the criminal justice system, which operate as locally- run correctional facilities that receive offenders pending arraignment, trial, conviction or sentencing. Among other functions, local jails also hold mentally ill persons pending their relocation in appropriate mental health facilities. Far too often, individuals encounter the criminal justice system when what is really needed is treatment and support for mental illness. Families often resort to the police in desperation in order to obtain treatment for a loved one suffering from an extreme episode of a mental illness. During such extreme distress, families may face no other alternative, because persons with symptoms such as paranoia, exaggerated actions or impaired judgment may be unable to recognize the need for treatment. It is unconscionable, and may well be unconstitutional, for these vulnerable individuals to be further marginalized once they are incarcerated. Too often, they are denied even minimal treatment because of inadequate resources. Most mentally ill offenders who come into contact with the criminal justice system are charged with low-level, nonviolent crimes. Once behind bars, they may well face an environment that further exacerbates symptoms of mental illness, which might otherwise be manageable with proper treatment. Caught in a revolving door, they may soon be back in prison as a result of insufficient and inadequate transitional services when they are released. This bill reauthorizes critical programs to move away from troubled systems that often result in the escalating incarceration of individuals with mental illness. Through this legislation, State and local correctional facilities will be able to create appropriate, cost- effective solutions. Low-level, nonviolent mentally ill offenders will have greater access to continuity of care. Congress must also address an unfunded mandate that has been imposed on the States for decades. In Estelle v. Gamble in 1967, the Supreme Court held that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of inmates is unconstitutional, ``whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed.'' In Ruiz v. Estelle in 1980, the Supreme Court established minimum standards for mental health services in correctional settings. Yet more than twenty years later, Federal, State, and local facilities still do not have nearly enough resources to come even close to meeting these constitutional requirements. Congress must do its part to assist State and local governments in meeting this burden. We cannot tolerate a system that fails to meet constitutional safeguards, or that fails to dedicate resources effectively so that people will get help instead of jail time. As a result of State budget cuts, more and more communities are looking to the Federal Government for support. This call for change can not be ignored. We have seen too many news stories reflecting the need for action on this issue. A New York Times editorial by Bernard Harcourt on January 15, 2007, highlighted problems facing the mentally ill behind bars, noting two extreme examples in different parts of the country. In August 2006, a prison inmate, described by authorities as ``floridly psychotic,'' died in Michigan shackled to a concrete slab, waiting for a mental health transfer that never happened. Six months later, the head of Florida's social services department resigned in the face of charges for failing to transfer severely mentally ill jail inmates to State hospitals. To date, we have seen only a fraction of the possible potential under this legislation, because only 50 planning and implementation grants have been awarded. Because of limited Federal funding, only 11 percent of applicants were able to receive one of these grants for which there is high demand. In Massachusetts, the Norfolk District Attorney's office received one of the planning grants. Right now, the office is working hard to implement a program to ensure that a trained mental health professional will serve in police departments, so that a qualified person on the scene can assist in a situation involving a mentally ill person. The program will also reduce the likelihood that a mentally ill person charged with a low-level crime will be inappropriately jailed, and will give such persons the treatment they need and provide life skills training, housing placement, vocational training and job placement. Several local mental health centers have already expressed their support for the program and their willingness to cooperate in providing valuable services to this long-neglected population. The expanded funding in this bill could help support ongoing efforts like the Massachusetts Mental Health Diversion & Integration Program, MMHDIP, which is part of the Center for Mental Health Services Research at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The center for Mental Health Services Research has supported a series of research and training programs to assist persons with mental illness who come in contact with the criminal justice system and have worked with police departments in Boston, Worcester, and Attleboro. The center is also working on programs to develop evidence on which future practices may be based. They also disseminate best practices for crisis intervention and risk management to police, courts, probation, prosecutors, defense attorneys, schools, and social service providers. The goal of the program is to reduce reliance on the criminal justice system as an access point for social service provision, thereby freeing police and other portions of the criminal justice system to more effectively fulfill their public safety function. The current programs in Massachusetts reflect the continuing legacy of the nationwide movement that began when Dorothea Dix entered an East Cambridge Jail in 1841. Discovering that the mentally ill inmates were being housed together in terrible conditions without any heat, Dorothea began documenting prison conditions for the mentally ill throughout our Commonwealth. Her advocacy, and her determination to pursue ideas that seemed radical at the time, achieved significant reforms in Massachusetts. She went on to lead the first national legislation to provide for the mentally ill. Today, we are still a long way to achieve the goals set forth by Dorothea so many years ago. In every State, interactions between law enforcement and individuals suffering from mental illness continue to rise and the need for effective solutions is critical. This legislation will continue to ``foster local collaborations'' between law enforcement and mental health providers. What works in one community will not necessarily work or be desired in another--solutions must take into account the existing problem as well as the social and political dynamics within each community. With so many complex issues involved at the intersection of mental illness and the criminal justice system, no magic solution will solve the problems faced in communities across America. This bill encourages funding for specialized programs that will most effectively address the needs of these local communities. With this legislation, Congress will join local communities in their response to this problem. In addition, members of State and local law enforcement need access to training and other alternatives to improve safety and responsiveness. The bill reauthorizes the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment Program and increases the funding to $75 million a year. The legislation also authorizes $10 million for grants to States and local governments to train law enforcement personnel on procedures to identify and respond more appropriately to persons with mental illnesses, and to develop specialized receiving centers to assess individuals in custody. In his last public bill signing in 1963, President Kennedy signed a $3 billion authorization bill to create a national network of community mental health facilities across the country. With the escalation of the Vietnam War, not one penny of the $3 billion was ever appropriated. Now, decades later, we face a crisis in which far too many mentally ill individuals are facing jail time rather than treatment. Last year, more than 1 million persons with serious mental illnesses were arrested. Noting the breadth of this national problem, Judge Leifman of the Criminal Division of the Miami-Dade County Court has stated that, ``Jails and prisons have become the asylums of the new millennium.'' The broad support for this legislation--ranging from the Council of State Governments, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Sheriffs Association, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Council of State Governments, the Campaign for Mental Health Reform and Mental Health America--demonstrates that it will provide much-needed support to help solve this complex problem. The courts, law enforcement, corrections and mental health communities have all come together in support of this legislation, and Congress must respond. Individuals and their loved ones struggle with countless challenges and barriers during a mental health crisis. With this bill, Congress can provide significant support to needed cooperation efforts between law enforcement and mental health experts. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, so that we can achieve its enactment before the end of this current session of Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, earlier today I joined with several of my colleagues--the good Senator McCaskill and Senator Casey and a distinguished leader on children's health, Dr. Woodie Kessel--to speak out on the children's health legislation we are considering in the Senate. Dr. Kessel is an extraordinary public health official, a pediatrician who has been widely acclaimed and recognized by virtually all the medical societies for his lifetime commitment to children. He worked in Republican and Democratic administrations and feels passionately about the importance of the passage of this CHIP legislation. Dr. Kessel spoke of a recent presentation of the American Academy of Pediatrics on the value of investing in children's health provided by Dr. James Heckman, the Nobel laureate in Economics. I wish to share his words with the Senate today, as they make a persuasive case for the bill that is before us. This is a direct quote from the Nobel laureate. It is a rare public policy initiative that promotes fairness and social justice and at the same time promotes productivity in the economy and in society at large. Investing in disadvantaged young children is such a policy. Early interventions for disadvantaged children promotes schooling, raises the quality of the workforce, enhance the productivity of schools and reduce crime, teenage pregnancy and welfare dependency. A large body of research shows that skill begets skill; that learning begets learning. The earlier the seed is planted and watered, the faster and larger it grows. That is what our bill is all about. Investing in America's future, investing in our children. If we give them the chance for a healthy start to life, we will reap the rewards for decades to come in terms of better education and a more productive workforce. If, instead, we succumb to the politics of fear and division coming from the White House, we consign 10 million American children to a dimmer future. The CHIP program is an education issue because we know children who are sick--unable to see the blackboard, unable to hear the teacher, unable to read the book or understand the homework--are not going to learn. So this is a health issue and it is a children's issue. It is a children's issue because it affects the 10 million children. It is a working families issue because this is targeted to the children of working families, more than 92 percent for those families earning under 200 percent of poverty, about $42,000 for a family of four. So it is a working families issue. It is a fairness issue. Particularly in the Senate, when we cast our votes this afternoon--we are getting paid $160,000. Our health insurance for all the Members of the Senate--with the exception of one individual--for all the Members, is paid for by the American taxpayers, 72 percent: 72 percent of our health insurance; every Member. We have the best. I have believed that since I have been involved in the health issue since arriving in the Senate, and I was reassured of that in the last couple weeks when I needed medical attention. We have the very best. We can go down to the dispensary in the Capitol of the United States and see some of the finest medical personnel in our country. We can go to Walter Reed, we can go to Bethesda Naval Hospital, places where the President and the Vice President and Cabinet and other Members of Congress have gone, and we get our health care paid for, effectively, in full. Yet we are going to vote to deny the working families of this country, people who are making 200 percent of poverty--$40,000, these are working families in this country--the opportunity to have their children covered? That is the issue, that is the fairness issue, that is the values issue, and that is the issue before the Senate this afternoon. We know when these children get the healthy start, as the Nobel laureate pointed out, they are more productive, they are more effective. They are going to be more effective and more productive and healthier for their lives. They are going to be more lively, in terms of the world economy and the knowledge-based competition we are going to be facing in a world economy. They are going to be more effective as leaders, in terms of our national security. They are going to be more gifted and talented, in terms of implementing rights and liberties and having our democratic institutions function and work the way our Founding Fathers wanted them to work. This is an enormously important bill that reaches the heart and soul of what this country is all about. I am hopeful we will have a strong, overwhelming vote in favor of moving ahead and achieving our objective. nomination of michael b. Mukasey Madam President, I intend to oppose the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to be the next Attorney General of the United States. This is a nomination I had hoped to support. There is no doubt the Department of Justice is in desperate need of new leadership. Under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Department was transformed from a genuine force for justice into a rubber stamp for others in the administration who cared little for the rule of law. The Office of Legal Counsel, and the Attorney General himself, repeatedly authorized programs of torturing detainees and wiretapping Americans that were both illegal and immoral. Career attorneys who spoke up were marginalized or transferred to dead-end jobs. U.S. attorneys were fired if they refused to take orders from the White House as to who should be prosecuted. The Civil Rights Division turned its back on its historic mission, and failed to vigorously enforce our civil rights laws. Instead of protecting the rights of all Americans, it spent time approving voter- identification laws that keep the poor, the elderly, and minorities away from the polls, and investigating phantom allegations of ``voter fraud.'' There has never been a time when the Department of Justice was more in need of a new direction, away from partisanship and back to its critical responsibility of protecting our rights and enforcing our laws. We all hoped that Michael Mukasey could provide that needed leadership. He had served with distinction as a Federal judge for almost 19 years. By all accounts, he was smart, fair, and conscientious in the courtroom. In some cases, he showed admirable independence, rejecting some of the administration's most extreme legal arguments. He has the credentials and many of the capabilities to be a strong Attorney General. But talent and experience are not all that is required for the job. The Attorney General of the United States must also be a person with an unbending commitment to justice, fairness, and equality, who will stand up for America's laws and values, even when the White House tries to steer the Department in the other direction. I have had the chance to meet with Judge Mukasey, to listen to his testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and to read through his answers to written questions submitted by committee members. I cannot in good conscience support his nomination. My concerns begin with Judge Mukasey's answers to our questions about waterboarding. Waterboarding is a barbaric practice in which water is poured down the mouth and nose of the detainee to simulate drowning. The Nation's top military lawyers and legal experts from across the political spectrum have condemned this technique as a violation of U.S. law and a crime against humanity. Following World War II, the United States prosecuted a Japanese officer for engaging in this very practice, and that officer was convicted and sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. Waterboarding is torture. Period. Yet Judge Mukasey refuses to say so. His refusal was so extraordinary and unexpected that we asked the Judge a series of further questions to help us understand why an able, experienced lawyer would find it so difficult to agree that a practice used in the Spanish Inquisition was torture. But our questions were met with equivocation and evasion. Judge Mukasey told me that my questions about the legality of waterboarding were the kind of hypothetical questions that judges commonly refuse to address. But he has been nominated to be Attorney General, and an Attorney General, unlike a judge, is often called upon to determine whether an action would be legal before such an action is taken. However, it is not just his remarks on waterboarding that trouble me. Judge Mukasey also evaded a wide range of questions on torture. He refused to commit to sharing with Congress the legal opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel that have authorized coercive interrogation techniques. He suggested that Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions, the basic international standard for humane treatment, may not always apply to the treatment of enemies we capture, even though the Supreme Court has rejected that view. He would not even say whether it would be unlawful for enemy forces to subject Americans to ``painful stress positions, threatening detainees with dogs, forced nudity, waterboarding and mock execution.'' These extreme views are not only immoral and legally flawed, they also increase the risk that our own troops will be subjected to barbaric treatment. Judge Mukasey could not even bring himself to reject the legal reasoning behind the infamous Bybee ``torture memo.'' That memo stated that physical pain amounted to torture only if it was ``equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.'' Anything that fell short of this standard would not be torture, according to the memo. CIA interrogators called this memo their ``golden shield,'' because it allowed them to use virtually any interrogation method they wished. When the memo finally became public, however, the country was appalled and the memo's flaws were quickly exposed. Dean Harold Koh of Yale Law School wrote, ``in my professional opinion as a law professor and a law dean, the Bybee memorandum is perhaps the most clearly legally erroneous opinion I have ever read.'' The Bush administration was so embarrassed that it withdrew the memo. When I said to Judge Mukasey that his testimony left ``the alarming impression that you may agree with [the memo's] legal reasoning,'' he did nothing to remove that impression. He said that the memo was ``a mistake,'' but he could not bring himself to reject its flawed reasoning. There are only two possible explanations for Judge Mukasey's testimony on this issue. The first is that he genuinely believes that waterboarding may not always be torture, that international law does not fully protect American POWs, and that the withdrawn Bybee memorandum was not deeply flawed. If those are his beliefs, he is so far out of the mainstream of legal thought in this country that he should not serve as Attorney General. The second explanation is that Judge Mukasey has already begun defending President Bush's administration, instead of standing up to it when the rule of law requires it. It is quite possible that Judge Mukasey knows that waterboarding is torture, that international law protects American POWs, and that the Bybee memorandum was a moral and legal abomination. But he refuses to say so, because such answers would be deeply inconvenient to the Bush administration. Time and again, Judge Mukasey told us that he would be independent of the White House, that he understands that the Attorney General is not simply the President's lawyer, but is the guardian of the law for all Americans. I would like to believe Judge Mukasey. But if this issue was the first test of his independence, he has failed it. Judge Mukasey's answers to our questions on torture remind me of nothing so much as the responses to the Senate on these issues by Attorney General Gonzales. Mr. Gonzales adopted an absurdly narrow definition of torture in order to permit extreme interrogation practices. He ignored the plain language of the Geneva Conventions prohibiting cruel and humiliating treatment. He withheld his views on how to interpret and enforce our laws against torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading acts. He refused to discuss specific interrogation techniques or to repudiate the Bybee memo. He refused to take any firm positions. Judge Mukasey may have dressed up his responses in more skilled legal rhetoric, but the difference between his answers and those of Mr. Gonzales is disappointingly small. Judge Mukasey's answers make clear that this administration simply cannot be trusted ever to renounce torture. Congress, therefore, must act now to strengthen our ban on torture. I have already introduced a bill to do that: The Torture Prevention and Effective Interrogation Act. It will apply the standards of the Army Field Manual to all U.S. government interrogations, not just Department of Defense interrogations. This basic reform will ensure that our government honors its commitment to the rights enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, which protect the values we cherish as a free society and the lives of our men and women overseas. I intend to move that legislation at the earliest possible time. Congress needs to pass it promptly. While Judge Mukasey's views on torture are reason enough to oppose his nomination, I found little comfort in other areas as well. For instance, Judge Mukasey argued that the President has substantial spheres of exclusive powers over which the other branches of government have no control whatever. He indicated that the President may indefinitely imprison a U.S. citizen, seized on U.S. soil, without charges, solely on the President's determination that the person is an ``enemy combatant.'' He ridiculed critics of the PATRIOT Act. He stated that the President may sometimes violate or disregard the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, despite that law's clear statement to the contrary. Judge Mukasey also argued that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress immediately after the 9/11 attacks, may have authorized the President's warrantless surveillance program that was used to spy on millions of Americans for over 5 years. That is a ridiculous legal argument, which legal experts have debunked time and time again. In these statements and others, Judge Mukasey left the troubling impression that the executive branch can run roughshod over the constitutional role of the other branches and the civil liberties of Americans. When I met with Judge Mukasey, I made clear that the Civil Rights Division is failing in its historic mission. As civil rights legend John Lewis recently testified, the division has ``lost it's way.'' It will take clear, strong leadership to ensure that the division once again vigorously enforces the Nation's civil rights laws. When we met, I suggested specific reforms, and I mentioned published studies that have done the same. Yet when I asked Judge Mukasey about his specific plan for the Civil Rights Division, he gave only vague answers. He never acknowledged that the division is in need of reform, and he never provided any concrete ideas on how he would revitalize the division. There was nothing in his answers to suggest that as Attorney General, he would enforce our civil rights laws with the skill and vigor that are necessary to guarantee equal justice and equal opportunity for all Americans. I therefore intend to oppose this nomination. Judge Mukasey appears to be a careful, conscientious and intelligent lawyer, and he has served our country honorably for many years. But those qualities are not enough for this critical position at this critical time. Over the past 6 years, the Bush administration has run roughshod over the rule of law, and has taken the Department of Justice along for the ride. In light of that history, the Senate must demand an Attorney General who will speak truth to power, and follow the law, no matter what the consequences. Judge Mukasey's equivocations and evasions on critical issues give me no confidence that he will fulfill this vital role. After 6 long years of reckless disregard for the rule of law by this administration, we cannot afford to take our chances on the judgment of someone who either does not know torture when he sees it or is willing to pretend so to suit the President. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate goes into a quorum call, the time be equally divided between the parties.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask if the Chair will let me know when there is 2 minutes remaining. Mr. President, I wish to first of all thank our friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, for again making an excellent statement about the Nation's priorities, the priorities we have before us in terms of making a judgment about the Children's Health Insurance Program. He has spoken frequently, eloquently, and passionately about the issue. He and I are hopeful that across the country Americans are able to take a few minutes and really absorb the arguments that are made in the case that is before the Senate and also understand the judgments many of us have made on this side of the aisle--virtually all of us on this side of the aisle, and some very courageous Republicans-- about what our responsibilities should be to the future of our country. It is a future that expects, that demands, and that requires us to give attention and assistance, when we can, to our children. This is the right thing to do not only from a health point of view, as has been pointed out so many times, but it also is imperative in terms of getting a handle on health care costs in the future by having a healthier generation, and, importantly, it is imperative as we are looking to the education of this generation. We have made the case time and time again, and we are making different points this afternoon, but the fact is if a child can't see the blackboard or hear the teacher or is unable to read the assignment because they are in need of glasses, that child is not going to be able to learn, that child has a better chance of dropping out, and that child has a better chance of living a life that is not constructive, productive, or useful in so many ways. So this case has been made time and again, and it is important. We hope, those of us who are supporting this legislation, that we will be able to garner the votes that are essential to getting this legislation into law. So I thank those who have spoken and spoken so well on this issue. Mr. President, as I and others have mentioned, this is really an issue of priorities. Nothing points out the issue of priorities more clearly than the choice we have between investing in our children-- Americas's children here at home, the sons and daughters of working families--and investing in the war in Iraq. This point is made frequently but can never be made enough: 41 days of conflict in Iraq at $12 billion is 10 million children who could be insured for virtually 1 year. That points to the difference in the choice. On the one hand, we have a President and administration that virtually gives open-endedness to the number of days we are going to continue to be in Iraq. Yet, when it comes to the question of these 10 million children for the year, he says: Absolutely no. There is no way. We will not permit it, we will not accept it, and we will veto any proposal that comes our way that recommends and suggests it. The administration is quick to highlight their achievements on health care for children in Iraq, but they won't show the same commitment to the health of our own children. In Iraq, American money has renovated 52 primary care clinics and re-equipped 600 others, but in America, children are denied essential medical services in the name of fiscal discipline; in Iraq, we have provided 30 million doses of children's vaccines, but in America we are told we cannot afford basic preventive care for 10 million children. The Web site of the U.S. Agency for International Development proudly notes the remarkable accomplishment--and I commend them for it--that they have successfully vaccinated 98 percent of all Iraqi children against measles, mumps, and rubella. If only we could do as much. If only we could do as much for our own children. According to the Centers for Disease Control, only 91 percent of American children have received the same vaccine by the recommended age. The administration should be as concerned that children growing up in Boston or Birmingham get their recommended vaccines as they are about the children in Baghdad and Basra. The same Web site proudly notes that the USAID has improved the health of vulnerable populations in Iraq by increasing access to high- quality, community-based primary health care. That is just what we are trying to do in America with this bill. In Iraq, it is an accomplishment; in America, it is a veto. A bipartisan majority in Congress has made a judgment too. Our judgment is that we must make room for decent health care for America's children. We must stand up to the empty rhetoric and hollow slogans of the White House and give all children in America the healthy start in life they deserve. We need to know who is for working families across America and who will stand in their way to getting quality, affordable health care. We need to know who is for families such as the Vega family in Greenfield, MA. CHIP helps Flora Vega, a working mother, buy an extra inhaler for her 5-year-old daughter so she can have one at school and the other at home. CHIP also helped her afford a nebulizer--the small, portable device that pumps the asthma medicine into her lungs when an inhaler isn't effective. That means her daughter doesn't face sudden dangerous attacks of asthma that require her to go to an emergency room. We need to know who is for families such as the Lewis family in Springfield, MA. I met Dedra Lewis and her daughter, Alexsiana, when they came to talk about the difference CHIP has made in their lives. Alexsiana has a rare eye disease that requires expensive drops every hour of each day. To take care of her daughter, Dedra had to cut back on her hours at work and lost her insurance. Without CHIP, she would be choosing between paying the mortgage for their home and paying for the medicine the child needs to keep her vision. Family after family, from coast to coast, can tell similar stories. That is why families across America are calling on Congress to renew the promise of CHIP. The task has not been easy, but we will not be deterred or deflected. When Medicare was first proposed in the 1960s to allow the Nation's senior citizens to live their retirement years in dignity, its supporters were attacked with much the same harsh rhetoric as we hear about CHIP--it is socialized medicine, it is a Government takeover. But Congress rejected that absurd rhetoric, and hundreds of millions of senior citizens have benefited immensely ever since. America's families face real challenges--higher mortgages, soaring gas prices, the ever-increasing cost of health care, and many other burdens. They deserve real solutions, but the White House offers only hollow slogans. Our opponents failed to stop Medicare, and they won't stop CHIP now. Medicare didn't pass on the first attempt, but its supporters came back again and again with the force of the American people behind them to ask--to demand--that Congress act. And the 1964 election made it all possible. That is just what we will do with CHIP, even if it takes the 2008 election to do it. We will keep at it until the children of America get the health care they need and deserve and that the American people are demanding. As we have pointed out, at the time we saw this legislation developed, when it was initially proposed, it was a compromise between Republicans and Democrats. Those of us who wanted to give attention to the uninsured sons and daughters of working families recognized that we had a unique situation in America: We had resources as a result of the tobacco settlement, which provided hundreds of billions of dollars as a bonus to America, and we could decide how we were going to expend those resources. I saw in my own State of Massachusetts, the determination to use those resources to provide a health insurance program for the sons and daughters of working families. That was a very important model that was replicated here over 10 years ago in the Senate, where we used much of the resources that were allocated to us to be able to develop the Children's Health Insurance Program. There were Republicans on that side who said: Look, we don't want to just extend Medicaid; we want a separate program that will be resolved in the States. There were those of us on this side saying: Medicaid provides very good health assistance for children; the preventive programs are model programs, and they do an enormous amount in providing quality health care for children in a wide variety of areas and functions. No, our Republicans said, we want the States to be able to develop those; we will take guidelines, but we will let the States do it. A compromise was reached between Republicans and Democrats, and that was acceptable. Secondly, it was determined that the States would have the ability to make judgments and decisions about deductibles and copays. We said: No, we want a standard way to make sure all working families are going to be able to acquire it. But, no, we worked out that program, and again it was a compromise. It was a judgment and decision of the sponsors of that legislation that we were going to use the private insurance companies--private insurance companies--to make sure of the delivery system. Many of us thought it would take a long time to get this program up if we went that route, but nonetheless it was a compromise. It was a compromise. Democrats and Republicans came together in this compromise program. Very important compromises were made at that time. It reflected the best judgment of the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and that legislation has been an extraordinary success. The area where it has not been successful is that we have not reached all the children out there who are eligible and should be able to receive it. If we are looking for legislation that really reflects the best of Republicans and Democrats, if we are looking for legislation that basically reflects the best in terms of our priorities, this is that legislation, and now is the time to move ahead. We have a budget of $2.9 trillion. The question is, Can we afford-- can we afford--the few billion dollars to provide the type of health coverage in this legislation? We are not even taking the resources from the existing budget. We are saying: What is going to be the result of that, by increasing the cost per package, the 61 cents? The result of that is going to be more children are going to stop smoking. That is the result. If you take the increase in the cost of a pack of cigarettes, we have the real opportunity to see a very important public health achievement--discouraging children, the 3,000 children who start smoking every single day, the thousand who become effectively addicted from their earliest contacts with it. We discourage them from moving down that pathway. So this is a positive health development both in terms of the resources and in terms of the outcome. Unique. Unique. Just to finalize here, we are enacting new legislation--those of us who believe in it--to address some of the real challenges and make this a fairer and more equitable country. We have the example of the existing program in place now. It works. It works. It is successful. Parents need it, and parents want it. The only issue--the only issue, the only issue--is whether we have the willingness and the will to implement it and to make it achievable for families in this country. We are talking about those working families, those mothers who hear a sick child cry in the night and wonder whether that child is $423 sick, because that is the average cost of going to the emergency room; those families who pray their child, who has an earache or a throat ache, will be better in the morning. How do you put a cost on that? How do you put a cost on that? Well, we recognize that as a real value, and we are not prepared to let parents make that kind of judgment call and feel that kind of pain and that kind of fear and that kind of anguish. This legislation does the job, and it is important that we get a strong, overwhelming vote this afternoon that really reflects the good judgment of the American people, who say children should be first in this Nation. That has been a founding value of our Nation since the Pilgrims settled up in my part of the country, and I believe it is a value that is shared today. We will have an opportunity to vote on this in a short time. Hopefully, it will be accepted overwhelmingly in the Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor.