Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wanted to take a short time this afternoon to talk about some of the concerns that I have on the recently agreed to proposition on the Medicare prescription drug agreement that was reached over the course of the weekend. As we are anticipating this measure which is now being examined in terms of the Congressional Budget Office estimates and the legislative language that is being prepared, I expect that we will be addressing it at the end of this week or sometime in the very near future. I want to at least bring some focus and attention to some of the provisions in the legislation that haven't gotten the focus and attention they deserve, which they should have, and which I hope our Members will give study. There is no truer indication of a nation's priorities than the investment it makes, and the legislation the Senate considers today I believe squanders a historic opportunity with a disregard for the Nation's health, particularly for our seniors. There is a provision in this bill dealing with a $12 billion slush fund to lure HMOs into Medicare. Let's see if I have the reasoning behind this fund right. The supporters of the legislation are so concerned that HMOs can provide health care to seniors more efficiently than Medicare that they give HMOs a $12 billion payoff so they can compete. If they are so efficient, why do they need the handout? I guess the sponsors of the legislation believe a 9 percent reimbursement bonus for HMOs is not enough. In this legislation there is the assurance the HMOs will get a 9 percent increase over Medicare in reimbursement rates. In addition, there is what they call a stabilization fund which is effectively a $12 billion slush fund which will also be available to subsidize the HMOs. That package adds up to a rather extraordinary benefit to the HMOs. The bill calls for competition between Medicare and the HMOs. Yet in this agreement private plans are going to get paid 109 percent of traditional Medicare reimbursements. And, those enrolled in HMOs are 16 percent healthier. That cumulatively is a 25 percent bonus to the private sector to compete with Medicare, without even considering the $12 billion slush fund. Our friends on the other side say we want competition in this system. Yet they are giving them the 25 percent advantage in order to compete with Medicare. The bill that passed the Senate was a prescription drug bill that had bipartisan support, with 76 Members for it. I was proud to stand here and support it. But now we basically have the restructuring of our Medicare system. We do it in a way that provides a fundamental risk to the Medicare system. That is why I am opposed to this agreement and the proposal. I have given one illustration of why this proposal that is strongly supported by our friends in the House is going to weight this agreement so heavily for the HMOs and the PPOs. They talk about a fair playing field between the private sector and the Medicare. That is hogwash. In the Senate bill we passed a prescription bill. It had real competition for all parts of the country with a backup system of Medicare, but not in the proposal that comes out of the conference. I remind our seniors the 25 percent bonus that is going to the HMOs is effectively being paid by our seniors today in the Medicare premiums. They are the ones, on the one hand, who are paying into this fund; on the other hand, it is the conference report that is effectively taking the 25 percent and giving it over to the private sector. And we wonder why seniors might be somewhat concerned about that arrangement. Do Members think the seniors at home will not ask: Why aren't we using all that money to either make sure the benefit package is a stronger benefit package to help me, to help my family, or to help my grandparents? The decision made in the conference was no, we insist on ``competition.'' But they are going to take the 25 percent, which has been paid in dollar by dollar by dollar by hard-working Americans over a lifetime that they thought was going to be put into the Medicare system, and we are going to use that to subsidize the private sector. I hope we will have a chance for explanations. Second, there is a provision included in this conference that was not included in the Senate proposal, premium support. I never heard the President indicate strong support for it, or those who speak for the President. I don't think a great many of our colleagues are able to define what premium support is, but they will learn about it soon enough if they vote for this legislation. Premium support is a proposal that is primarily sponsored by those who are opposed to the Medicare system. Let's make no bones about it. There are a number of other colleagues who are still strongly opposed to Medicare. That is no mystery, no secret. This proposal puts forward one of their strongest beliefs--that we need to change the Medicare system--I say undermine the Medicare system--with premium support. What that means is the averaging of various premium bids to determine the Medicare system reimbursement rate. The difference between what the Medicare system reimburses and what real cost is going to be paid by the individual. The premium support proposal does what the insurance companies do best, and that is cherry pick the healthiest senior citizens for their plans so they are able to make money, and leave those who are sicker and older in the Medicare system where the premiums will rise. I will demonstrate with this chart. This is the Medicare actuarial estimates of the disparity of the premium support, what the premium would be under the proposed legislation. The national average of the current law is $1,200. Several years ago, the estimate under the premium support was $1,771. The new average this year is $1,501. How do we know what the true estimates will be? Premium support is untested, untried, unworkable. We are playing roulette with premium costs for our senior citizens. This is a social experiment that uses our seniors as guinea pigs. That is what premium support is. Look at the difference, say, if you are in Florida. The agreement reached said by the year 2010 the Secretary will be able to designate six metropolitan statistical areas that qualify. Currently, half the States have those areas. With the kind of subsidies we are providing in this legislation, by the year 2010, I doubt whether there is any State that will not have the opportunity to qualify. I hope our colleagues listen carefully to that because this diversity in premiums is going to come to your State and you are going to have to explain why a senior in one county, who pays same taxes, worked just as hard all his life, and who deserves Medicare, has to pay twice as much as his neighbor in the next county over in premiums for medicare. Medicare is a universal system that guarantees everyone will be treated equally, according to their medical needs. This legislation turns that proposition on its head and makes your medicare benefits dependent on where you live and what will help private insurance companies the most. This is the House Budget Committee, the Medicare actuarial data. The difference if we have premium support in Florida, what the premiums would be 1 year in Dade County and another year in Osceola, Fl: Double the premium for the Medicare patients living in Dade; half that for those in Osceola. Now that is in Florida. Take premium support in California. If you live in Los Angeles, $1,700; in Yolo, CA, $775. It is just based on where you live. You have lived there all your life. You have your home. You have paid your taxes. You have brought up your children, and you have retired, and you find you are going to pay $1,700 for your premium; and someone in Yolo County, CA, is going to pay $775. Why? Because of this new concept of premium support. It will happen in every State. For New York City, the Medicare actuaries' estimate that in Queens, seniors would pay $2,000, but only $975 in Erie, NY, because that is the estimate of what the premiums will be with competition in New York. Try to explain that to your seniors who have lived their life, who have served this country, brought the Nation out of the Depression, fought in the wars, are living back home, and find out their premiums have increased 100 percent or 200 percent or 300 percent. This is not just what I am saying about premium support, these are the Medicare actuaries. This information comes to us from testimony given before the Finance Committee. Here we have figures from my home State of Massachusetts: $1,450 in Barnstable, $1,000 in Hampden, MA. So, $400 more if you live down in Barnstable County, in Cape Cod, than the center part of the State. So if you support this proposal, and you support the premium support, then you are going to have to explain to your constituents and to your elderly people that if they live in one community, they may be paying double what their neighbors are paying in another community. What this proposal puts forward has never been tried. It has never been tested. And it is mandated--mandated--in this compromise from the House of Representatives. It is mandated in this bill. You will hear the other side saying: Senator Kennedy has not got it quite right. You will hear them say: We put a restriction in there, they can only go up 5 percent this year. Five percent this year, 10 percent the next year, 50 percent the year after. Let's get real. Look at the direction in which we are going. This proposal has heavy subsidies for the HMOs and a roll of the dice on the premiums for our senior citizens. And that is not even the beginning. Currently, of our 40 million seniors, there are 6 million who have Medicare but also who have what they call Medicaid to those who are very poor, we are talking about 100 percent of poverty or below. Those beneficiaries have to pay copayments for medical care. Most of the States pick up those copayments. That is what is existing today. Do you think that is going to continue under this bill? No. No, no. No, no, that does not continue under this proposal. That is actually prohibited under this legislation. There will be 6 million of our seniors who are getting help and assistance from their States today who will be prohibited from getting it under this proposal. Why? This all saves the money--probably $9 to $12 billion--to use for other purposes. If you come from a State with large numbers of very poor, and where the State is paying that $1, $3, $5, in terms of the prescription drugs, it does not sound like a lot of money. But if seniors need that drug two or three times a week, it piles up every week, it piles up every month, and it piles up every year. Why does the conference bill do that? Why in the world did they do that? It was not in the Senate bill. It was in the House bill, and it was accepted in the conference. Now we come back to those who are the very needy and the very poor, and we see many of our elderly who are excluded from this program with what we call an asset test. The asset test is basically the following: If you own a car that is worth more than $4,500, you have a wedding ring worth $2,300, you have $6,200 in savings, and you have a burial plot that is worth more than $1,500, all that is considered in terms of your assets to exclude you from being eligible for benefits targeted to the poorest of the poor. The Senate bill said that low-income people could get the assistance they needed without going through a cruel and demeaning assets test. Senators from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Domenici offered an amendment, which passed by 67 votes, to reaffirmed the Senate's desire not to penalize people because they managed to save a small amount of money during their working lives. I was proud of the Senate, of Republicans and Democrats alike, for recognizing that if we were going to pass a prescription drug bill, it ought to be targeted on the neediest of the needy. But the bill put forward by this conference went in the opposite direction and restored that cruel and demeaning assets test. We had a good bill. We did not provide these large subsidies to the PPOs and the HMOs. We did not have premium support program that so threatens, undermines and endangers Medicare. No, no, we did not have those. Ours was basically a prescription drug program focused on the neediest seniors built on private sector delivery with a backup in terms of the Medicare system. That was the compromise. But not here. The conference needed more money to pay for what they call health savings account, the medical savings account, which they have put in this particular conference report, at the cost of anywhere from $6 to $7 billion, draining our national deficit even more and adds to the total cost of the legislation. Health savings accounts are designed for the healthiest and wealthiest people in our society leaving the sickest and poorest of the workers in this country in the private sector where their premiums could be increased by 20 to 30 to 40 percent. As the debate unfolds, we will be presenting further estimates on this. It was best estimated, from the Urban Institute, at 60 percent increases. This conference report gives us a whole new kind of a system. We have the heavy subsidizing of private plans with 25 percent more being paid for by seniors. We have the experimental system where you are going to have those enormous swings in premiums all over the country without any predictability, and it is untested and untried. We have the cutting back of 3 million of the neediest people because of the reimposition of the asset test. We have the introduction of the health savings account which is going to skew the health delivery system for millions of workers and the young people in this country. Many people are going to bail out of their traditional system, and leave their coworkers, who may have greater kinds of health threats, to pay a very enhanced premium and also enhance the premium of the companies themselves. What are we talking about with this legislation? Let's add it up. Of the about 10 to 12 million American workers who now have retiree accounts, under this proposal, the best estimate is that 2 to 3 million of those who are covered today will lose that, according to CBO. We heard the estimate--this was a real good one--that up to 30 percent of those who were getting coverage were going to lose it. And then some of our Republican friends said that is too much, that is too many, so let's expand the base, which they did. Let's include all the Federal employees. Let's include other groups in there to lower the percentage. Now they come out and say: I know it was 33 percent before; now it is only 12 or 14 percent. The total numbers are the same. You are going to lose the 3 million. This is what we have: 6 million Medicaid beneficiaries who now have wraparound coverage; they are going to be paying more. You have 2 to 3 million retirees who lose their coverage. They are going to be hurt by this legislation. We have 6 million people in the untested, untried premium support demonstration. Add that up, 15 million of the elderly and disabled are going to be impacted or affected by this program. At the same time we are talking about billions of dollars in the slush fund for the PPOs. We are talking about the health savings accounts, which are billions of dollars, that the taxpayers are going to end up paying. Then we have the asset test which is going to exclude many of our seniors. This legislation has been altered and changed. It was a prescription drug program when it passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support. Now it is a Medicare Program. At the heart of this program are the kinds of instruments that can undermine Medicare and threaten our seniors now and in the years to come. It doesn't deserve to pass. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the tragedy of September 11 has been seared into all our memories. We will never forget the sudden massive loss of lives, and the realization that our country was now extremely vulnerable to terrorist attack. We remember the extraordinary courage of the passengers on the fourth plane who prevented the terrorists from completing their murderous mission. We also remember the extraordinary courage of the firefighters, police officers, and other rescue workers at the sites of the attacks, and millions of our fellow citizens who reached out to help the families of the victims. We remember as well the extraordinary performance of the air traffic controllers, who took on the incredible challenge of protecting the whole aviation network and ensuring the safety of the public on that tragic day and in the days that followed. Their professionalism and patriotism inspired us all. So why in the world is the administration now attempting to undermine those brave citizens? We must defend them instead, because the air traffic controllers are defending us and defending the safety of the American flying public. Over and over again we see the problems in the administration's privatization policy throughout the Federal Government. We have been fighting other battles to correct those policies and make them fair for Federal employees. But we must be especially careful with these policies when they affect homeland security. We all know what a disaster it was when private companies screened bags at our airports. Now, Federal workers are doing the job better, and Americans are feeling safer. Both the House and the Senate specifically voted to protect air traffic controllers and keep these vital safety jobs as part of the Federal workforce. Yet now, because of a shameful veto threat from the White House, the House and Senate Republican leadership have yielded to and agreed to a privatization of these jobs. That change is unacceptable. In fact, the Senate bill contained even stronger protections than the House bill. The Senate voted 56 to 41 to approve Senator Lautenberg's amendment to protect not just air traffic controllers, but also systems specialists and flight service station controllers from privatization. I commend my colleague from New Jersey for his continued leadership in this important battle. The FAA reauthorization bill now before us defies the will of the majority in both the House and the Senate. It undermines the safety of our aviation system, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on cloture.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I withdraw my consent request because it is quite clear there is objection by the Republicans to the consideration of an increase in the minimum wage. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1853 I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to legislative session, the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. KENNEDY. I withdraw my request and let the Record indicate the Republicans have objected to the extension of the minimum wage and have objected to the extension of unemployment compensation for hard-working Americans who have paid into that fund.

Mr. KENNEDY. Do I have the floor?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand under the agreed procedure, the Senator from Hawaii and myself will have a half hour; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have listened with interest over the last 24 hours to those who have taken exception to the action that has not taken place in the Senate with regard to judges. I listened very carefully. Many of our colleagues have been extremely eloquent in their presentations. As we are reaching the 24-hour point, it is important to understand exactly what our responsibility is in the Senate with regard to the appointment power, what our Founding Fathers expect of the Senate, and whether we are measuring up to the test which they established at the Constitutional Convention. I draw the attention of our colleagues once more to the raw statistic, which I think effectively rebuts so many of the allegations and the presentation that has been made, where we have actually confirmed 168 of the nominees, and only 4 have not been affirmatively approved. That is 98 percent. We ought to think about what has been said on the other side about the abuse of those who have expressed opposition to these nominees, whether there has been an abuse of the system itself, when we find out they have gotten 98 percent of their way over this Congress. My good friend from Vermont has gone through the statistics in great detail. I listened a little earlier to one of my colleagues on that side of the aisle say there never has been an instance where a circuit court judge was filibustered by the other side. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I would be glad to sit down with my colleague and go over the 23 well-qualified nominees who never emerged from the Judiciary Committee to be considered on the floor of the Senate. Nonetheless there are those who are listening tonight who may say, ``My goodness, we have these nominees and they are not being considered. Isn't this a one-way street, where now Democrats, perhaps a few Republicans, are not permitting the vote on particular nominees?'' I can remember very well the other side using the same rules to their own advantage with regard to judicial nominees, and history demonstrates that, as has been pointed out by our colleagues. Rather than dwelling on that, I think it is instructive once more to think about what our Founding Fathers expected of this body with regard to the appointment process. When we look at that, we will see that they expected us to exercise our own good, independent judgment. There are those on the other side who say, if the President sends someone up to the Senate, you better find a good reason not to vote for him or otherwise the President is entitled to that individual. That is not the case. That has been repeated time and time again. To the contrary, if you look at the debates in the Constitutional Convention, our Founding Fathers weighed their debates and discussions believing that we in the Senate should have the heavy hand in terms of the final judgment with regard to nominees. I will take a few moments to review that because it is instructive. The Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia from late May until mid-September of 1787. On May 29, 1787, the Convention began its work on the Constitution, and when the Virginia Plan was introduced by Governor Randolph, it provided that a National Judiciary be established to be chosen by the National Legislature. Under this plan, the President had no role--no role--in the selection of Federal judges. When this provision came before the Convention on June 5, several Members were concerned that having the Congress as a whole select judges was too unwieldy. James Wilson of Pennsylvania suggested an alternative: that the President be given the sole power to appoint judges. The idea had no support. John Rutledge of South Carolina said he ``was by no means disposed to grant too great a power to a single person.'' James Madison agreed that the legislature was too large a body, and stated that he was ``rather inclined to give the appointment power to the Senatorial branch.'' This is the debate of our Founding Fathers, a group sufficiently stable and independent, as James Madison pointed out, to provide ``deliberate judgments'' on judges. A week later, Madison offered a formal motion to give the Senate--the U.S. Senate--the sole power to appoint judges, and this motion was adopted without a single objection. On June 19, the Convention formally adopted a working draft of the Constitution, and it gave the Senate the exclusive power to appoint judges. This was the thinking of our Founding Fathers. We learn in that debate on the floor of the Senate, the Founding Fathers intended the Senate of the United States to be a principal partner, obviously, in the consideration of these judges. On July 18, the Convention reaffirmed its decision to grant the Senate the exclusive power. Wilson again proposed ``that judges be appointed by the executive,'' and again his motion was defeated. The issue was considered again on July 21 and in the Convention for the fourth time and again agreed to the exclusive Senate appointment of judges. In a debate on the provision, George Mason of Virginia called the idea of executive appointment of Federal judges a ``dangerous precedent.'' Not until the final days of the Convention was a compromise suggested. On September 4, 2 weeks before the Convention work was completed, the committee proposed that the President should have a role in selecting judges. It stated: ``The President shall nominate and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.'' The debate made clear, Mr. President, however, that while the President had the power to nominate the judges, the Senate still had a central role. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania actually described the provision of giving the Senate the power ``to appoint judges nominated to them by the President.'' It's clear that the Constitutional Convention, which had repeatedly rejected the proposal to let the President alone select the judges, did not intend the Senate to be a rubberstamp for the President. And it is equally clear that, especially when the Senate is controlled by the President's own party, the Founders did not intend the Senate to roll over and play dead whenever the President tells them to. We have approved 168. And only 4 have been rejected. That is a pretty good record for this President. On the contrary, it is clear what the Founders would say to us today. They would say, ``We gave you this power to use it whenever you think the President proposes judges who will not be beneficial to the Nation. We did not tell you what rules to use to exercise that power. We gave you the right to set your own rules.'' And they did. And the Founders did not say, and did not mean that ``the President can appoint whomever he wants to the Federal courts, as long as he gets a bare Senate majority to consent.'' If we did adopt a rule that allowed the President to do so, the Founding Fathers would look down on us and say, ``Shame!'' ``You are the Senate. If we wanted the President alone to be able to pick the judges, we would not have given you the power that we did in the Constitutional Convention. For 214 years, you have used that power wisely, and under the power we gave you, you have the authority to set your own rules.'' That is what the Founding Fathers said. As Senators, we have the obligation to say no to the President when we think he is wrong. We should not abdicate the powers the Founding Fathers gave us. If we are true to our oath of office as Members of the Senate, we cannot abdicate the powers the Founders gave us. We should not erase the rules which give us the ability to be the Senate and protect the independence of the Federal courts. We exercise different judgments on Presidential nominees. The independence of the Senate and the courts is the essence of our Constitutional system of checks and balances that has served us so well throughout our history. The Senate has never hesitated to exercise its advice and consent power. During the first 100 years after ratification of the Constitution, 21 of 81 Supreme Court nominations one out of four were rejected, withdrawn or not acted on. During these confirmation debates, ideology often mattered. John Rutledge, nominated by George Washington, failed to win Senate confirmation as Chief Justice in 1795. Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists strongly opposed him because of his position on the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain. A nominees of President James Polk was rejected because of his anti-immigration position. A nominee of President Herbert Hoover was rejected because of his anti-labor view. When a President makes the request for a member of the Cabinet, it is time limited to the 4 years that President is going to be there. The President has the heavy presumption that he is entitled to his own advisers, and that is why the overwhelming majority of nominees by the Presidents for their Cabinet are approved. We have some for the regulatory agencies that may be a little bit longer, or go past a particular administration, and perhaps we apply a somewhat tighter and more stringent test, but we are talking about lifetime tenure on important courts of this land. The DC Circuit Court has really been called another supreme court because they have the appellate jurisdiction on so many of the regulatory agencies. These appeals that come before that DC Circuit involve the rights of working men and women. They make the decision in terms of whether the workplace is going to be safe for all of those who go in and work in their plants and factories. They are going to interpret whether the various legislation dealing with the environment is adequately enforced, along with a whole range of different issues that affect the health and safety and well-being of the people of this country. Our friends on the other side say, ``If the President nominates someone, why are you not rubberstamping it?'' That is not what our Founding Fathers said or agreed to or instructed us to do. They said we should make our own independent judgment and decision, and the fair judgment and decision, I believe, is whether these individuals who are nominated demonstrate a core commitment to the fundamental teachings of the Constitution of the United States. That is what this Senator looks for with a nominee. When they will not answer the questions--but the administration knows what those answers are--or they have demonstrated over a lifetime by statements and deeds that they will not abide by the fundamental teachings of the Constitution, why in the world should we take a chance, in representing the people we do, to think they deserve a promotion to serve in these high courts? It should not be that way. The Founding Fathers never expected us to be that way, and we will not have it that way. Recently, we had a very distinguished historian who wrote a magnificent book. It is called ``Master of the Senate'' by Robert Caro. In that book, he did an enormous amount of reading and studying of the views of our Founding Fathers and also of the early years of the Senate in order to put his historical figure, President Johnson, then-Majority Leader Johnson, into some perspective. I will just mention these lines which I think are very insightful about the Founding Fathers and what they believed this institution was really all about: ``The writings of the framers of the Constitution make clear that Senators, whether acting alone or in concert with like-minded colleagues, are entitled to use whatever means the Senate rules provide to vigorously contest a President's assertion of authority with which they strongly disagree. One could say, in fact, that under the fundamental concept of the Senate as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, it is not merely the right, but the duty of the Senators to do that, no matter how popular the President or how strongly the public opinion polls of the moment support the President's stand on the issues involved.'' Then he continues: `` . . . in creating the new nation, its Founding Fathers, the Framers of the Constitution, gave its legislature . . . not only its own powers, specified and sweeping . . . but also powers designed to make the Congress independent of the President to restrain and act as a check on his authority, (including) power to approve his appointments, even the appointments made within his own administration . . . '' And the most potent of these restraining powers the Framers gave to the Senate is: `` . . . the power to approve Presidential appointments was given to the Senate alone; a President could nominate and appoint ambassadors, Supreme Court Justices, and other officers of the United States, but only 'with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.''' `` . . . the Founders, in their wisdom, also gave the Senate the power to establish for itself the rules governing exercise of its powers. Unlike the unwieldy House, which had to adopt rules that inhibited debate, the Senate became the true deliberative body that the framers had envisioned by maintaining the ability of its members to debate as long as necessary to reach a just result. For more than a century, the Senate required unanimous agreement to close off debate. The adoption fo Rule XXII in 1917 allowed a two-thirds cloture vote on 'measures,' but nominations were not brought under the rule until 1949.'' In short, two centuries of history rebut any suggestion that either the language or the intent of the Constitution prohibits or counsels against the use of extended debate to resist Presidential authority. To the contrary, the nations's Founders depended on the Senate's Members to stand up to a popular and powerful President. In the case of judicial appointments, the Founders specifically mandated the Senate to play an active role, providing both advice and consent to the President. That shared authority was basic to the balance of powers among the branches. Surrendering such authority is not something which should be done just because of a Senator's point of view on the particular issues of the moment--because much more than the particular issue is involved. Republican Senators are wrong when they say, ``The President is entitled to have his own people on the courts.'' We know that history tells us the opposite. The Senate usually chooses to give the President broad leeway in appointing members of his cabinet and filling other positions in the Executive Branch. Je is politically responsible for these appointees. They generally serve at his pleasure, and their appointments end at the end of his term in office. But appointments to the federal courts are lifetime appointments. Federal judges are able to fulfill their own constitutional responsibility because they are independent of both Congress and the White House. The Founding Fathers wanted the checks and balances, the independent government agencies: The Presidential and the executive, the Congress with the House and the Senate, and an independent judiciary. It does not belong to the President. It does not belong to the Congress. It belongs to the American people, and both the President and the Senate have an important responsibility to make sure it remains independent. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my colleague and friend. He mentioned the increase in the minimum wage. It has been 7 years since we have increased the minimum wage. In that time, we have also increased the pay for Members of the Senate five times, but we are denied the opportunity to increase the minimum wage for working families in this country. I think it would not take us very long. If the Senator would agree with me, it would take us about half an hour before we are prepared to go ahead and vote on a minimum wage, and here we have just used 30 hours or are going to be using 30 hours of discussion that is not related to that or to education, overtime, unemployment compensation, jobs, or education funding. I thank the Senator for an excellent presentation. I believe our time is just about up.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as I understand the allocation of time, we have the remaining time, am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. We have 15\1/2\ minutes. As my friend and colleague from Maryland pointed out, we have been listening to our friends on the other side of the aisle for at least half of the past 24 hours. After we have listened to that, we still come back to the fact that 98 percent of their judges have been approved and 4 have not, and the Constitutional Convention never expected us to be a rubberstamp. We are faced on the other side by the prospect, at least, of changing the rules of the game even though those on the other side have used the system and refused to permit consideration of a number of judges. They did that in the Judiciary Committee of which I have been a member for many years. It is interesting to me as we have gone over that ground so many times, our friends on the other side would be so interested and concerned about four individuals who have lost their jobs when we are facing so many other Americans out there who have lost their jobs and are really suffering. We were talking about numbers. I mentioned the recent figures of the Department of Agriculture that say tonight there are 13 million children who are going hungry. That is Department of Agriculture statistics. Have we heard over the period of the last 24 hours ideas or suggestions or recommendations about how we are going to deal with the problems of hunger in children? That is happening tonight, 13 million. The other side is talking about four judges--four individuals who make more than $100,000 a year. What about the 13 million hungry children? Have we talked about that? How much have we talked about the 9 million Americans who are unemployed? There are 1.4 million who have already lost their unemployment compensation, with all the implications of that. They can't buy health insurance, they can't put food on the table, they can't pay the mortgage, they can't buy a birthday present for their children, they can't celebrate any kind of holiday for any of the members of their family. They are hard-put and hard-pressed. Have we talked about that for those individuals? How about the millions of Americans who do not have health insurance tonight? How about the millions of Americans who do not have health insurance tonight, the hundreds who lost their health insurance today, and all of their concerns for their families? How are they going to be able to deal with medical bills? Have we talked about that? The escalation of the cost of health care--have we talked about that and what that means to families? Have we talked about families who have gone into bankruptcy because they can't pay their medical bills? That affects 2 million Americans every year. We talk about four judges; we don't talk about 2 million Americans who go bankrupt every year because of health care costs. We don't talk about that. We haven't talked a great deal about the 80,000 workers who have contributed to the unemployment compensation fund, and starting the end of next month--and we are in the final moments and hours of this session--80,000 a week are going to lose their unemployment. This is at a time when the unemployment fund has $20 billion in surplus. We are in the final hours, as the Senator from Maryland has pointed out. Have we talked about what is going to happen to them? Don't you think they are concerned about whether the Senate is going to take any action in the final hours? Do we demonstrate any anxiety about what is going to happen to their families? I haven't heard a great deal about it from our friends on the other side. I haven't heard a great deal about it. We haven't heard a word from the other side about doing anything about increasing the minimum wage. It has been 7 years since we have increased the minimum wage; 7 years have gone by, and we can't get a vote on it in the Senate. The other side brings up a bill like the State Department reauthorization and I offer the minimum wage as an amendment and the majority Republicans pull the bill to deny us the opportunity to vote on it. I mean, if we are going to get indignant about the rules of the Senate, come on. Come on. Let's vote on an increase in the minimum wage. All of those on the other side who said, ``Let the majority have a chance, let's have a vote on an issue, let's have a vote on this, let's have a vote on that,'' we say, ``Let's have a vote on the increase in the minimum wage.'' Oh, no, we can't do that. We can't have a vote on the increase in the minimum wage. We couldn't even get a vote now on the question of extending unemployment compensation. Oh, no, we can't do that. No, no, we are not going to be able to do that. We can't get a vote on hate crimes. No, no, we can't. We have to study that some more. I mean, come on. Twenty-four hours and you are going to continue for another 6 hours pontificating about the injustice that is being perpetrated when you have all this taking place across this country? The anxiety and tremendous frustration and the sense of hopelessness that takes place across this country, and you refuse to let us have a vote on the increase in the minimum wage? This is the chart on the minimum wage. This is what is happening to the minimum wage in the United States of America. This blue line indicates the purchasing power. It was almost $8.50 back in 1968. It is now down to, without the increase, $4.95 in purchasing power this year, without any increase. It will be just about the lowest it has ever been. Who are the minimum wage recipients? Here we go. Here is another chart that shows the minimum wage no longer lifts a family out of poverty--from 1972 through 1982, there were 2 years when it was just at the poverty line. We said people who want to work and can work will work 40 hours a week, they will be able to get out of poverty. Look what has happened in the 1980s, 1990s. We were able to get a little blip in early 1992 and again in 1998. It was basically the same legislation. Now, since 1998 to 2003, we are unable to get a vote to increase it $1.50 over 2 years. Can you imagine the amount of money we have seen returned to American taxpayers, $2 trillion over the past 2 years, and we can't get an increase in the minimum wage for working men and women? And the other side is trying to be indignant about the fact four individuals who are making over $100,000 are being put upon and we are going to have to listen to them for 6 more hours? What is the increase in the minimum wage? It is the equivalent of $3,000. It might not seem like a lot to people, but it is 7 months of rent, 11 months of groceries, 14.5 months of utilities, full tuition for a community college degree. That is what that represents. That is real money for working families who are at the bottom end of the economic ladder. Our Republican friends refuse to give us at least the opportunity to vote. Understand, vote. We heard that word used a great deal on the floor of the Senate. Let's get a vote on this issue. Let me review as well about jobs. We talked about four jobs. What we are facing here is 3 million Americans who have lost their jobs. Let's think, besides the statistics, exactly what it means in terms of financial hardships of the unemployed. Look at this. Half the unemployed adults have had to postpone medical treatment--that is 57 percent--or cut back on spending for food. I have just given the figures and the statistics of the Department of Agriculture that have 13 million children hungry tonight. Thirteen million children are hungry tonight. One out of 4, 26 percent, has had to move to other housing. Imagine that. We have 3 million people who have lost their jobs and 1 out of 4 had to move out--move in with friends or relatives. There is a problem that deserves debate, discussion, and ideas and solutions and resolution and determination and accountability here. There are 38 percent who have lost their telephone service, 22 percent are worried about losing their phones, more than a third, 36 percent, have trouble paying the gas or electric bill--things that are absolutely assumed around here. People are really hurting. We are not talking about 4 people, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people, and we have occupied the time of the Senate to talk about 4 judges who are not qualified, I don't believe, to serve on the Supreme Court. We are not expected to be rubberstamps. Our Founding Fathers never intended that. I want to mention one other item that is now in the conference. It would be pretty worthwhile if we had engaged our friends on the other side to tell us what is happening in the conference on the issue of overtime pay. When people work overtime, something that for some 60 years has been in our law, it ensures people who work longer than 40 hours a week are going to be fairly treated. We have the proposal by the administration to deny that to 8 million Americans. It was defeated here on the floor of the Senate, defeated in the House of Representatives, and now it is in a conference. Why don't we hear from the other side what has happened to that conference? Why don't we hear where they are on the issues of overtime? That makes an enormous difference to people. It makes a big difference in their lives. It is not 4 people and their livelihood, it is hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands, millions of people whose lives are going to be affected. Right off the top of the list are firefighters, policemen, nurses. Does that ring a bell to anyone around here? They are the backbone of Homeland security. We are cutting back on their income. We have had a bipartisan determination on that issue here. Do we hear anyone on the other side, when they are talking about 4 jobs, talk about all these numbers of Americans who are losing out? Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. I would have liked to have gone on. Maybe we will have time later. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 224 In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent the Senate return to legislative session, proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 3, S. 224, the bill to increase the minimum wage, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues to support a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act and increase the opportunities for workers to obtain the services and training they need to hold good jobs in the years ahead. This bill strengthens the current one-stop system, so that many more can be served in the system we created in 1998. The bill creates stronger partnerships with businesses to recruit new workers, collaborate in training of current workers, improve career ladder opportunities, and work with local leaders to meet the development needs of their community. The one-stop system is needed more than ever now, to serve hard- working Americans who have lost their job through no fault of their own in the current economic downturn, who need effective training to be eligible for the available jobs in their area. We have worked to remove the sequencing of services for people entering the workforce who face barriers to employment. Providers can move adults directly to skills training or create training programs that include literacy and language training as well, so that skills training is not delayed. The bill also encourages local providers to stay with workers until they earn self-sufficient wages. A minimum wage is a start--and the support system should be there to help them qualify for the better paying jobs that will enable them to support their families. The bill will also help young people. Last summer, as the youth unemployment rate rose to 19 percent, we were all acutely aware of the special challenges that young workers face in this economy. The youth program will continue to work with both in-school and out-of-school youth to help them obtain the education and the real job experience they need to be competitive. The bill also contains the Adult Literacy Act, which funds critical programs in States to assist adults in obtaining the basic reading, writing, numeracy, and English language skills that they need to be full participants in the workplace and in society at large. We all know that education is the great equalizer. Improving basic literacy services is a critical component of job training as well. Finally, this bill also contains the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. For over 30 years, since the Vocational Rehabilitation Act was first enacted in 1973, State vocational rehabilitation systems have brought new hope to individuals with disabilities throughout the country, so that they can reach their full potential and actively participate in their communities. Through vocational rehabilitation, individuals with disabilities can obtain the training, counseling, support, and job opportunities they need in order to have independent, productive, and fulfilling lives. For millions of these Americans, vocational rehabilitation is the difference between dependence and independence, between lost potential and a productive career. In 1998, vocational rehabilitation became part of the State-wide work force system in each State. This reauthorization will strengthen that partnership, so that many more working-age individuals with disabilities, even those with the most significant disabilities, have realistic opportunities to obtain the services and support they need to reach their employment goals. The legislation also strengthens other aspects of independent living, so that students and adults with disabilities receive the services and support they need for community-based living. Our goal in this reauthorization is to see that the talents and strengths of all individuals with disabilities are recognized, enhanced, and fairly rewarded in communities and workplaces across the Nation. I thank my colleagues and the many organizations representing governors, mayors, county officials, youth, women, labor, and low- income persons who were all actively involved in preparing this legislation. We have tried to listen carefully to the many leaders who implement these laws. This bipartisan bill was the result of months of dedicated staff work, and I would like to give special thanks to Jane Oates of my staff, Ilyse Schuman and Scott Fleming of Senator Enzi's staff, Bill Kamela with Senator Murray, Sherry Kaiman with Senator Jeffords, Randy Soderquist with Senator Bingaman, Elyse Wasch and Didem Nisanci with Senator Jack Reed, Catherine Brown with Senator Clinton, Lindsay Lovlien with Senator Ensign, Tom Horgan and Julie Jolly with Senator Bond, Andrea Becker with Senator Frist, Prim Formby with Senator Sessions, Mary Beth Luna with Senator DeWine, and Annie White and Tracy Locklin with Chairman Gregg. I would also like to thank Sigurd Nilsen with the GAO whose staff prepared countless reports to get us the information we needed to make critical decisions; Ann Lordeman and Paul Irwin of CRS for their technical support and Mark Koster, Amy Gaynor, and Liz King of Legislative Counsel who prepared the bill. In addition, I thank the floor staff who are so helpful on every piece of legislation. I look forward to continuing this bipartisan effort as we continue into conference with the House, and I thank my colleagues for their willingness to work so well in the completion of this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Defense authorization bill contains many provisions that provide essential support for our military personnel, especially when we are asking so much from them in Iraq and around the world. We have demonstrated our great appreciation for them by providing an across-the-board military pay raise of 3.7 percent, and a larger raise for mid-career personnel, raising the average increase to 4.1 percent. The separate increases already available for imminent danger pay and the family separation allowance are extended through December 2004. The bill also recognizes the contributions of our Reserve personnel, by authorizing an allowance of up to $1,000 per month for Active and Reserve personnel who experience unusually high deployments. We expand commissary privileges for Guard and Reserve family members and we expand health care coverage both for Guard and Reserve personnel and for their families. The bill increases benefits for families whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice, by doubling the death benefit to $12,000 and by authorizing Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for surviving spouses of Guard and Reserve personnel who die on inactive duty training. The bill recognizes the toll of these deployments on children, by providing $35 million in supplemental impact aid to assist schools with large numbers of children of military families. The legislation also eases the path to citizenship for immigrants who serve in our Armed Forces and provides immigration benefits to surviving family members of those killed in service. 37,000 men and women in the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard have the immigration status of permanent residents serving in our Armed Forces. Another 12,000 permanent residents are in the Reserves and the National Guard. The legislation also improves access to naturalization for lawful permanent residents serving in the military. It provides expedited naturalization for members of the Selected Reserves during military conflicts. It protects spouses, children, and parents of soldiers killed in action, by preserving their ability to file for permanent residence in the United States. Over a dozen immigrant soldiers have been killed in Iraq and these benefits are well deserved. These immigration provisions in the bill are a tribute to the sacrifices that these future Americans are already making for their adopted country. They deserve recognition for their bravery and loyalty to the basic ideals and freedoms of our country. Unfortunately, although the bill provides many needed benefits for our men and women in uniform, it lets down their civilian counterparts. Many of us are extremely disappointed that the bill undermines fundamental protections for the 700,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense. Specifically, the report undermines collective bargaining, premium pay, the pay and classification system, third party review, and the appeals process. Many of the provisions are disguised as improvements, when in fact they undermine years of civil service protections. Nearly 40 percent of Defense Department employees affected are veterans who have served the nation proudly. More than 8,000 are activated reservists serving in Iraq and other parts of the world. They are protecting us and we owe it to these patriotic Americans to protect their rights. They take pride in their work, their love their country, and they have served it with distinction, often for decades. The Bush administration has demonstrated its intention to undermine workers' again and again. They have proposed privatizing up to half the Federal workforce. They have created a Department of Homeland Security that doesn't allow its employees to join a union. Earlier this year, the administration stripped clerical and other workers in the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's offices of their long-held union membership. They have even proposed taking overtime protections away from more than 8 million hard-working men and women. It is an affront to these dedicated Federal workers to deprive them of their rights, even though no restrictions are placed on the rights of employees of government contractors performing similar jobs. Under the administration's proposal, we could well see Federal workers working alongside private workers with the Federal workers denied the same fundamental rights and protections that the private workers continue to have. These workers repair planes, ships, and tanks. They manage the storage and distribution of weapons and supplies. They manage computer networks, provide training, analyze intelligence, investigate crimes, acquire major weapons systems, perform research on cutting-edge technologies, test munitions, care for children, operate hospitals and laboratories, and treat patients. Defense employees deserve civil service and collective bargaining rights, just as other Federal workers do. The administration is wrong to use this must-pass bill as a vehicle to deny these workers their basic rights, and I intend to do all I can to see that Congress repeals this unfair assault on these dedicated civilian workers of the Department of Defense.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, America today has the most powerful, most capable and best-equipped military in the history of the world. But none of this would be possible without the brave men and women who volunteer to serve in the Armed Forces, who accept any challenge and face any danger to protect their country on battlefields around the world. Each of them is a volunteer--no conscription, no draft. They have a genuine desire to serve, and they do so with great sacrifice with great honor, great courage, great commitment, and often with great sacrifice. Time and again, our Nation has called its sons and daughters to put themselves in harm's way, and many bear the scars of battle forever. Despite the rhetoric of praise that we hear again and again, too often when their service ends, these veterans are forgotten, except on Veterans Day. We have consistently underfunded the veterans' health care system. The Veterans' Administration is now preparing plans to close veterans' hospitals in New England and across the Nation. They oppose allowing disabled veterans to receive disability benefits if they also receive military retirement compensation. As troops continue to serve in Iraq, we need to make sure we can take care of them and their families, especially when they return home. We have a solemn responsibility to those who are willing to sacrifice so much. We do them a grave injustice when they return home to be cast aside. Today, tens of thousands of newly discharged veterans are unemployed. National Guard and Reserve soldiers face lower wages and possible job loss while they are deployed. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, USERRA, protects soldiers from employment discrimination, but service members can have difficulty enforcing their rights. We can't have any more situations like the one at Fort Stewart, where Guard and Reserve troops were housed in deplorable accommodations, with unacceptable access to health care and needed services to heal their injuries. Such neglect is no way for a grateful Nation to honor its armed services. We can and we must do better. For generations, we have honored our fallen veterans on November 11 each year. The Armistice Agreement that ended the First World War was signed on this historic day in 1918--the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month that year. Many of those we honor today have fallen in battle in Iraq. Last week, I attended the funeral service of a Massachusetts soldier who gave his life in combat there and was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery. It was a beautiful fall day and the military ceremony was conducted with solemn dignity and utmost reverence. It was a very moving moment to be there with his family and friends and veterans of his unit. His parents have lost a son, and the Nation has lost a hero. As the bugler played taps, and the sounds of the rifle volleys from a final salute faded across the Arlington hills, it was moving to see that the veterans there had also lost a brother, although none of them knew the fallen soldier personally. The brave paratrooper who had tried to carry his dying comrade to safety during the attack was also there. His silent presence spoke volumes about the valor and dedication that our service members give to our Nation every day, and have given us throughout our history ever since that day at Concord Bridge, when the embattled farmers stood and fired the shot heard 'round the world. On Veterans Day 2003, we thank our veterans. We remember those who have given the last full measure of devotion to our country, and we affirm our support for all who now wear the uniforms of our armed forces. We give thanks to all who have served America so well in years gone by, and to all the brave men and women serving now in the ongoing war against terrorism. And we pledge, in words that too often pass and are soon forgotten, to do a better job of meeting our responsibility to them every day, not just on each November 11. May God give us the strength to make each day a Veterans Day.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Snowe in introducing the Family Care Act to expand health coverage to millions of families. The Family Care Act builds on the success of the Child Health Insurance Program, by expanding it to cover the parents of low income children, so that the whole family is eligible for affordable coverage. This expansion is the next logical step toward the day when the basic right to health care will be a reality for every American. Parents across America get up every day, go to work, and play by the rules. But all their hard work does not buy them the health insurance they need to keep themselves and their loved ones healthy or to protect their family when serious illness strikes. They can't afford the coverage on their own, and their employers don't provide it. Family Care is a practical solution for millions of hardworking families, and it deserves to be a national priority. Six years ago, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to cover uninsured children in families whose income is too high for Medicaid but not high enough to afford private coverage. Today, the Children's Health Insurance Program brings quality health care to over 5 million children. But there are still millions of children who are uninsured, even though they are eligible for coverage, and even those who are insured cannot truly enjoy a healthy life when their parents are sick and can't afford the care they need. Our bill is an important step to build on the Children's Health Insurance Program. Over 80 percent of children who are uninsured or enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP have uninsured parents. Expanding CHIP to cover parents as well as children will make a huge difference to millions of working families. The legislation will also help sign up the large number of children who are already eligible for health coverage through CHIP or Medicaid, but who have never enrolled. The numbers are dramatic. Ninety-five percent of low-income uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP. If we can enroll all of these children, we will be taking a giant step toward the day when every child has the opportunity for a healthy start in life. Our legislation makes it easier for families to register and stay covered. We also know that many families lose coverage because complicated applications and burdensome requirements make it hard to stay insured. Under our bill families will have a simple application and they won't have to enroll over and over again. When parents enroll, they will enroll their children, too. These are long-overdue steps to give many more Americans the health coverage they deserve. Family Care is a health care bill of rights for millions of hardworking parents and their children, and I urge its prompt consideration and adoption by the Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Snowe in introducing the Family Care Act to expand health coverage to millions of families. The Family Care Act builds on the success of the Child Health Insurance Program, by expanding it to cover the parents of low income children, so that the whole family is eligible for affordable coverage. This expansion is the next logical step toward the day when the basic right to health care will be a reality for every American. Parents across America get up every day, go to work, and play by the rules. But all their hard work does not buy them the health insurance they need to keep themselves and their loved ones healthy or to protect their family when serious illness strikes. They can't afford the coverage on their own, and their employers don't provide it. Family Care is a practical solution for millions of hardworking families, and it deserves to be a national priority. Six years ago, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to cover uninsured children in families whose income is too high for Medicaid but not high enough to afford private coverage. Today, the Children's Health Insurance Program brings quality health care to over 5 million children. But there are still millions of children who are uninsured, even though they are eligible for coverage, and even those who are insured cannot truly enjoy a healthy life when their parents are sick and can't afford the care they need. Our bill is an important step to build on the Children's Health Insurance Program. Over 80 percent of children who are uninsured or enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP have uninsured parents. Expanding CHIP to cover parents as well as children will make a huge difference to millions of working families. The legislation will also help sign up the large number of children who are already eligible for health coverage through CHIP or Medicaid, but who have never enrolled. The numbers are dramatic. Ninety-five percent of low-income uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP. If we can enroll all of these children, we will be taking a giant step toward the day when every child has the opportunity for a healthy start in life. Our legislation makes it easier for families to register and stay covered. We also know that many families lose coverage because complicated applications and burdensome requirements make it hard to stay insured. Under our bill families will have a simple application and they won't have to enroll over and over again. When parents enroll, they will enroll their children, too. These are long-overdue steps to give many more Americans the health coverage they deserve. Family Care is a health care bill of rights for millions of hardworking parents and their children, and I urge its prompt consideration and adoption by the Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the Animal Drug User Fee Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it. The bill is based on the current user fee programs for prescription drugs and medical devices, which are an effective way to enable the Food and Drug Administration to reduce its backlog and expedite its review of needed new products and make them available more quickly, especially in this time of accelerated discoveries of new drugs and other medical products with great potential to improve all aspects of health care. The same basic principle of user fees should be available to assist FDA's review of applications for approval of animal drugs. In 5 years, the time it takes for FDA to review new animal drugs should be cut in half under this legislation. By increasing the resources available for these reviews, the user fees will speed new treatments to market for pets and farm animals alike. FDA will provide detailed reports on the program and its results in helping the agency to meet it performance goals, so that Congress can evaluate how it has worked and whether improvements are necessary when we reauthorize the program in the future. We will also be able to work closely with the agency in implementing its important new plan for evaluating the increasingly urgent concern that the use or overuse of certain drugs in animals can lead to dangerous drug-resistant strains of organism in humans. I commend Chairman Gregg, Senator Ensign, and Senator Harkin for their leadership on this legislation, and I look forward to working with them on these issues in the months ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 40 years ago, the famous and inspirational civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer rallied the Nation with her statement ``I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.'' Her words still resonate with millions of Americans today. Whether we are talking about African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans or American Indians, the fact is that minorities continue to live sicker and die younger in America. We know that African Americans are one-third more likely than all other Americans to die from cancer. They have the highest rate of hypertension in the world. Latinos have the least insurance, with one in three having no coverage at all. American Indian tribes struggle with what can only be called epidemics of diabetes, with rates near 50 percent in certain tribes. The tremendous gains that we have witnessed in science and medicine have benefited millions of our citizens, but too often they are out of reach for minorities. It is a privilege to join my colleagues to introduce the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act. Our goal is to produce major improvements in all aspects of minority health care. It expands health insurance coverage. It supports better access to services that are culturally and linguistically appropriate. It strengthens the safety- net. It promotes the development of new and better ways to treat diseases that disproportionately affect minorities. It also increases the diversity of the health care workforce. Many studies show that minority health professionals dramatically increase access to care and the delivery of good care to minority patients. Despite their importance, however, the percentage of minority health professionals is shockingly low. African Americans, Latinos and American Indians account for almost 25 percent of the Nation's population--but they account for less than 10 percent of the Nation's doctors, less than 5 percent of dentists, and only 12 percent of nurses. Our bill will increase the number of minority health professionals by expanding existing pipeline programs and developing new ones. It also provides additional scholarship support to enable more minority and low-income students to make their careers in health care. Another critical need addressed by this bill is accountability. It holds health care agencies and institutions, public and private, accountable for the care delivered to their minority populations as well as their health outcomes. It reauthorizes the Office of Minority Health, increases the effectiveness of the Office for Civil Rights and establishes a new Office for Health Disparities within the Office for Civil Rights. It also establishes compliance offices in each of the Federal agencies, to ensure that the policies, programs and practices of each agency are in compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity or national origin. We can't just talk about racial and ethnic health disparities. We have to do more to eliminate them. All Americans deserve fair and equitable treatment in health care. The administration has said time and time again that it is committed to improving minority health. But, the President's own budget eliminated all funds for workforce diversity training programs, and all funds for the Community Access Program, despite the overwhelming evidence that minority health providers and community health centers dramatically improve access to care and quality of care for minority populations. The President's budget also reduced funds for the Office of Minority Health, and it has made the Office for Civil Rights virtually powerless to carry out its mission. Vast numbers of minority Americans are needlessly suffering because of administration's neglect. We cannot turn our back on the needs of nearly one-third of the Nation's population. Whether we are talking about health insurance, language access, disease prevention, or public hospitals and community health centers, the need is great and the time is now. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, so that we do what is so clearly needed to improve the health and health care for millions of minority Americans.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the nomination of William Pryor. Since President Bush came into office, the Senate has confirmed 168 of his nominees and has decided so far not to proceed with only 4. That is a 97.7 percent success rate for the President. It is preposterous to say that Senate Democrats are obstructing the nomination process. The few nominees who have not received our support are too extreme for lifetime judicial appointments, and Mr. Pryor's nomination illustrates the problem. His views are at the extreme of legal thinking, and he does not deserve appointment to an appellate Federal court that decides so many cases involving basic legal rights and constitutional protections. The people of the Eleventh Circuit deserve a nominee who will follow the rule of law and not use the Federal bench to advance his own extreme ideology. The issue is not that Mr. Pryor is conservative. We expect a conservative President from a conservative party to select conservative nominees. But Mr. Pryor has spent his career using the law to further an ideological agenda that is clearly at odds with much of the Supreme Court's most important rulings over the last four decades, especially in cases that have made our country a fairer and more inclusive nation for all Americans. Mr. Pryor's agenda is clear. He is an aggressive supporter of rolling back the power of Congress to remedy violations of civil rights and individual rights. He has urged the repeal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which helps to ensure that no one is denied the right to vote because of their race. He vigorously opposes the constitutional right to privacy and a woman's right to choose. He is an aggressive advocate for the death penalty, even for persons with mental retardation. He dismisses--with contempt--claims of racial bias in the application of the death penalty. He is a strong opponent of gay rights. Somehow, despite the intensity with which Mr. Pryor holds thee views and the many years he has devoted to dismantling these legal rights, we are expected to believe that he will suddenly change course and ``follow the law'' of he is confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit. Repeating that mantra again and again in the face of his extreme record does not make it credible. Actions speak louder than words, and I will cast my vote based on what Mr. Pryor does, not just on what he says. Mr. Pryor's supporters say that his views have gained acceptance by the courts, and that his views are well within the legal mainstream. But actions paint a different picture. He has consistently tried to narrow individual rights, far beyond what any court in this land has been willing to hold. Just this past term, the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Pryor's argument that it was constitutional for Alabama prison guards to handcuff prisoners to ``hitching posts'' for hours in the summer heat. The court also rejected his argument that States could not be sued for money damages when they violate the Family and Medical Leave Act. Mr. Pryor's position would have left workers who are fired in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act without a remedy. The court rejected his argument that states should be able to criminalize private sexual conduct between consenting adults. The court rejected his far-reaching argument that counties should have the same immunity from lawsuits that States have. The court rejected his argument that the right to counsel does not apply to defendants with suspended sentences of imprisonment. The court rejected Mr. Pryor's view on what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in the context of the death penalty. The court held, contrary to Mr. Pryor's argument, that subjecting mentally retarded persons to the death penalty violated the Constitution. Just this spring, even the Eleventh Circuit, a court already dominated by conservative Republican appointees, rejected Mr. Pryor's attempt to evade the Supreme Court's decision. Mr. Pryor tried to prevent a prisoner with an IQ of 65 from raising a claim that he should not be executed, when even the prosecution agreed he was mentally retarded. This is not a nominee even close to the legal mainstream. His actions in seeking to evade the Supreme Court's decision speak volumes about whether he will obey its decisions if confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit. Mr. Pryor and his supporters keep saying that he is ``following the law,'' but repeatedly he attempts to make the law, using the Attorney General's office in his state to advance his own personal ideological platform. If, as his supporters urge, we look to Mr. Pryor's words in considering his nomination, we must review more than just his words before the committee at his confirmation hearing. We have a duty to consider what Mr. Pryor has said about the Supreme Court and the rule of law in other context as well. Mr. Pryor ridiculed the Supreme Court of the United States for granting a temporary stay of execution in a capital punishment case. Alabama is one of only two States in the Nation that uses the electric chair as its only method of execution. The Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case to decide whether use of the electric chair was cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Pryor, however, said the court should have refused to consider this constitutional issue. He said the issue ``should not be decided by nine octogenarian lawyers who happen to sit on the Supreme Court.'' Those are his words, and they don't reflect the thoughtfulness that we want and expect in our judges. If Mr. Pryor does not have respect for the Supreme Court, how can we possibly have any confidence that he will respect that court's precedents if he is confirmed to the Court of Appeals? Finally, Mr. Pryor's nomination does not even belong on the Senate floor at this time. His nomination was rushed through the Judiciary Committee in clear violation of our committee rules on ending debate. An investigation into Mr. Pryor's controversial role in connection with the Republican Attorney Generals Association was interfered with and cut short by the committee majority and has never been completed. Most of our committee members agreed that the investigation raised serious questions which deserved answers in the committee, and they deserve answers now, before the Senate votes. The Senate is entitled to wonder what the nominee's supporters have to fear from the answers to these questions. The fundamental question is why--when there are so many qualified attorneys in Alabama--the President chose such a divisive nominee? Why choose a person whose record casts so much doubt as to whether he will follow the rule of law? Why choose a person who can muster only a rating of partially unqualified from the American Bar Association? Why support a nominee who is unwilling to subject key facts in his record to the light of day? We count on Federal judges to be open-minded and fair and to have the highest integrity. We count on them to follow the law. Mr. Pryor has a first amendment right to pursue his agenda as a lawyer or an advocate, but he does not have the open-mindedness and fairness essential to be a Federal judge. I urge my colleagues to vote against ending debate on this nomination. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are talking about the Wellstone Mental Health Act. Senator Domenici and Paul Wellstone worked in this area and were leaders in mental health parity. There are now 67 cosponsors of this legislation. For a number of reasons, we have not been able to get this matter either scheduled or considered. As I understand what Senator Domenici is now saying, from his conversations with the Republican leader, we will have some assurance that we will have this matter before the Senate. I just talked with the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Gregg, who said he would make this a first order, a priority in the next session. I think what the community is looking for is assurance there would be Senate action. I understand from Senator Domenici he is fully committed to work and make sure the Senate is going to have an opportunity to address this issue in the early weeks of this next session. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with the assurances of the Senator from New Mexico as a senior member of this body and one all of us know, I have great confidence in him and know of his strong passion in this area. I think it is enormously important for our communities across this country, and I certainly welcome those assurances.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 40 years ago, the famous and inspirational civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer rallied the Nation with her statement ``I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.'' Her words still resonate with millions of Americans today. Whether we are talking about African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans or American Indians, the fact is that minorities continue to live sicker and die younger in America. We know that African Americans are one-third more likely than all other Americans to die from cancer. They have the highest rate of hypertension in the world. Latinos have the least insurance, with one in three having no coverage at all. American Indian tribes struggle with what can only be called epidemics of diabetes, with rates near 50 percent in certain tribes. The tremendous gains that we have witnessed in science and medicine have benefited millions of our citizens, but too often they are out of reach for minorities. It is a privilege to join my colleagues to introduce the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act. Our goal is to produce major improvements in all aspects of minority health care. It expands health insurance coverage. It supports better access to services that are culturally and linguistically appropriate. It strengthens the safety- net. It promotes the development of new and better ways to treat diseases that disproportionately affect minorities. It also increases the diversity of the health care workforce. Many studies show that minority health professionals dramatically increase access to care and the delivery of good care to minority patients. Despite their importance, however, the percentage of minority health professionals is shockingly low. African Americans, Latinos and American Indians account for almost 25 percent of the Nation's population--but they account for less than 10 percent of the Nation's doctors, less than 5 percent of dentists, and only 12 percent of nurses. Our bill will increase the number of minority health professionals by expanding existing pipeline programs and developing new ones. It also provides additional scholarship support to enable more minority and low-income students to make their careers in health care. Another critical need addressed by this bill is accountability. It holds health care agencies and institutions, public and private, accountable for the care delivered to their minority populations as well as their health outcomes. It reauthorizes the Office of Minority Health, increases the effectiveness of the Office for Civil Rights and establishes a new Office for Health Disparities within the Office for Civil Rights. It also establishes compliance offices in each of the Federal agencies, to ensure that the policies, programs and practices of each agency are in compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity or national origin. We can't just talk about racial and ethnic health disparities. We have to do more to eliminate them. All Americans deserve fair and equitable treatment in health care. The administration has said time and time again that it is committed to improving minority health. But, the President's own budget eliminated all funds for workforce diversity training programs, and all funds for the Community Access Program, despite the overwhelming evidence that minority health providers and community health centers dramatically improve access to care and quality of care for minority populations. The President's budget also reduced funds for the Office of Minority Health, and it has made the Office for Civil Rights virtually powerless to carry out its mission. Vast numbers of minority Americans are needlessly suffering because of administration's neglect. We cannot turn our back on the needs of nearly one-third of the Nation's population. Whether we are talking about health insurance, language access, disease prevention, or public hospitals and community health centers, the need is great and the time is now. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, so that we do what is so clearly needed to improve the health and health care for millions of minority Americans.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Bennett and Senator Kohl for their help in obtaining funds for cranberry research in the Agriculture appropriations bill. Cranberry production is an issue of great importance to Massachusetts, and I hope that the Manager's will continue to work with Senator Kerry and me to obtain $280,000 for the University of Massachusetts Cranberry Station in Wareham for a complete renovation of the State Cranberry Bog. The State Cranberry Bog provides income for Cranberry Station operations. More importantly, it is a research site for the Cranberry Station faculty and students. The bog is especially useful for conducting research not appropriate for cranberry farms in production. The faculty and students are able to use the facility to conduct research on new pesticide alternatives, or research that involves changes in practices not yet adopted by farmers. Unfortunately, over time, the average yield of the state facility has declined because of its research activities, and the bog itself, built on peat, has begun to sink. The funds that Senator Kerry and I have requested will be used for a complete renovation of the bog, so that the Cranberry Station will again be able to conduct cutting-edge research plant physiology, pest and nutrient management, and irrigation management. The renovation will also enhance the Station's ability to demonstrate new technologies and practices as part of its educational mission. All of these activities contribute to both the economic health of the local economy and the overall vitality of the nation's cranberry industry.