Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Mr. Kerry, I welcome this opportunity to congratulate the Little League baseball team of Saugus, MA for their extraordinary season and their outstanding performance in the recent Little League World Series. Throughout those wonderful weeks in August, these 12 young players-- Ryan Bateman, Tyler Calla, Craig Cole, Anthony DiSciscio, David Ferreira, Tyler Grillo, Joe Kazabuski, Matthew Muldoon, Yano Petruzzelli, Dario Pizzano, Mark Sacco, and Michael Scuzzarella--their Manager Rob Rochenski, and their coaches, Mike Ferreira and Bob Calla, showed us how thrilling the Nation's great pastime can be, and how well it can be played. With great skill and great teamwork, they won the State Championship. They won the New England Championship. They reached the United States Championship game. And in every exciting game they played, the team was hard working and dedicated, and they consistently maintained the highest level of sportsmanship. All of their hard work and talent took the team as far as any Massachusetts team in Little League history. In doing so, they captured the hearts of people across Massachusetts and in many parts of the Nation as well. In the World Series, this remarkable team of young men sent our spirit soaring with four straight one-run victories. And none was more dramatic than their final victory of the tournament--a stunning, come- from-behind success. The team lost a six-run lead in the final regular inning, and then went down by three runs in extra innings. But they never gave up. They demonstrated their courage and determination and achieved an amazing comeback in their last at bat. By the score of 14- 13, they prevailed in one of the greatest games in Little League World Series history. In the end, the Saugus team was defeated in the U.S. Championship final, and finished in fourth place among the more than 7,000 Little League All Star teams that participated in the tournament worldwide--a brilliant accomplishment by any standard. Fifty years after the original Boys of Summer rose to greatness, baseball fans throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts celebrated our own Boys of Summer in their spectacular success last month. With great pride, I extend my and Senator Kerry's heartfelt congratulations to our ``Boys of Summer'' and their parents, families and fans who gave them such strong support. I'm extremely proud of them and their accomplishments. I wish them great success in the years ahead--and I hope the Red Sox scouts were taking notice.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to recognize and honor Robert C. Wood, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and president of the University of Massachusetts, as he celebrates his 80th birthday this month. I first met Robert Wood when he was a member of President Kennedy's Cambridge ``Brain Trust'' in 1960, and I have had the pleasure of consulting with him on many issues since that time. Robert C. Wood is a remarkable man who has made even more remarkable contributions to the people of this Nation through a combination of outstanding scholarship and public service. He has worked tirelessly to improve opportunities for all, be it in obtaining a high quality education, ensuring access to housing for low-income families, or developing policies and programs that guide urban development and local governments across the country. Professor Wood was raised in north Florida during the Great Depression and, along with his two brothers, learned the values of education and hard work from his mother, who was a school teacher, and his father, a shoe salesman. A full scholarship enabled him to attend Princeton University, but his studies were interrupted by service as an infantry sergeant in World War II where he saw action in the Battle of the Bulge. After the war, the G.I. Bill enabled him to earn a doctorate in Government and Political Economy at Harvard University, and he returned to Florida to apply his professional skills to that state's Legislative Reference Bureau. He was soon recruited from Florida to the Federal Bureau of the Budget during the Truman Administration and, after that, took a teaching appointment at Harvard. This was a critical time in the development of new ideas about American cities, and Robert Wood was a major author of these new ideas. His first book, ``Suburbia, its People and Their Politics,'' took the term ``suburbia'' and placed it firmly into the center of political thinking and analysis. His next book, ``1400 Governments: The Political Economy of the New York Region'' is regarded as a classic in analysis of the dynamics of local governments and the factors that inhibit their effectiveness. It was at this time that Professor Wood helped my brother John draft a speech on the American City that he used in a rally in Pittsburgh during his 1960 presidential campaign. It was the first speech on American cities ever delivered by a presidential candidate. We in Washington took note, and Professor Wood was asked to chair the task force that recommended the establishment of a new Cabinet level Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He then went on to be the first Undersecretary of the new Department, serving under the first ever African American Cabinet Secretary, Secretary Robert C. Weaver, and succeeding him as Secretary in 1969. During these years, Robert Wood along with Secretary Weaver supported and implemented key legislative initiatives that dramatically improved and expanded federally assisted housing and urban development programs in the United States, including the Model Cities Act of 1966, the Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. These critical programs in urban development continued long after the Johnson administration, as well as future administrations, Democratic and Republican alike. Professor Wood returned to Boston and continued his work with a focus on education and the expansion of opportunity to all. He became President of the University of Massachusetts where he oversaw the development of a new medical school in Worcester and a new campus in Boston. He particularly fostered a college of Public and Community Service at the Boston Campus. In 1976, he stepped forward to offer a site at the Boston Campus for the Kennedy Presidential Library where it stands today. While focused on higher education, Robert Wood also became a key player in elementary and secondary education. While at the university, he chaired the Citywide Coordinating Council, which was charged with overseeing the court ordered desegregation of the Boston Public School System. Later, the School Committee chose him to be Superintendent of Schools, where he labored intensively to find long-term solutions to the dilemmas of school desegregation and school quality in a city recently torn by racial strife. In 1983, Wesleyan University invited him to become the Henry Luce Professor of Democratic Institutions and the Social Order, and Professor Wood dedicated the next ten years to teaching and inspiring future leaders to take up the work of public service. Today, his former students can be found in town halls and statehouses across the country as well as in the halls of government in Washington, DC. In recognition of this rare career combining groundbreaking scholarship with dedicated public service, the American Political Science Association gave Robert C. Wood its Hubert H. Humphrey Award in 1986. In 1993, Professor Wood returned to Boston and the Boston campus of the University of Massachusetts where he continued as a teacher of students and a mentor of public officials and academic colleagues. His contributions to individuals, institutions and to our Nation have been great, and I thank him and wish him a happy birthday.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Clinton and I are proposing legislation to protect the voices of language minorities in our country. Representative Robert Menendez will be introducing a companion bill in the House after the August recess. Our bill is called the National Minority Media Opportunities Act. Its goal is to see that Americans who are members of any ``language minority'' groups under the Voting Rights Act--defined as American Indian, Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives, and Hispanic Americans--are not injured by excessive media concentration of companies that broadcast primarily in their native languages. Neither the Federal Communications Commission's new broadcast ownership regulations adopted on June 2 nor the previous regulations deal with the effects of growing media concentration on citizens relying on minority-language broadcasts for their news and information. The FCC's new rules are already controversial because they allow excessive concentration, in spite of its effect on competition, the diversity of views, and other major national, State, and local priorities. Unfortunately, the specific and often more harmful effects of such concentration on minority populations have gone largely unnoticed. For instance, surveys show that the majority of the nearly 40 million Hispanic Americans rely significantly on Spanish-language broadcast media for their news and information. Forty percent--nearly 16 million--of them rely predominantly on Spanish-language broadcast media, and 25 percent--nearly 10 million--rely exclusively on it. Additional measures are clearly needed to guarantee that Americans who are members of minority language groups will continue to have access to diverse sources of news, information and cultural programming, and to opportunities for ownership of their media. Our bill addresses these concerns by requiring the FCC to hold public hearings, with notice and opportunity to comment, before approving the transfer of a license for a station serving a minority-language audience. It also requires the FCC to report to Congress on issues involving the concentration of ownership and control of minority- language broadcast media and the effects of excessive concentration on competition and diversity in these minority-language markets. The bill will continue the Nation's strong commitment to competition in broadcast media and the fullest possible participation in the political process for all our citizens, including the growing number of those whose first language is English. We look forward to working with our colleagues in Congress to enact this needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues Senator Hutchison, Senator Inouye, Senator Landrieu, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Murray in introducing the ``Comprehensive Tuberculosis Elimination Act''. With the evolution of modern medicine, especially in recent years, we have the actual opportunity to do that now--eliminate this century-old public health threat in the United States. Tuberculosis was once the leading cause of death in America. In recent decades, developments in science and public health have transformed tuberculosis into a preventable and treatable disease. Yet, every year, thousands of Americans still become infected and die from tuberculosis. Experts agree that we have the ability to eliminate it. What's lacking is a strong national commitment to do it. More than 50 years ago, when the first effective drugs to treat TB were introduced and case rates began to decline, we began making slow but steady progress, and we might have eliminated it. But instead, the declining number of cases led to complacency and neglect. In fact, Federal categorical funding for TB control and prevention was discontinued in 1972, and wasn't restored until 1981. Efforts to control the disease broke down in many parts of the country. In the late 1980s, cases rose by 20 percent increase in TB and drug- resistant strains began nationwide systems for dealing with the infection had been allowed to deteriorate. In New York City alone, more than $1 billion was needed to regain control of TB. After considerable effort, TB control was re-established and rates again began declining. Today, with the low number of infections and the expertise of public health officials, we have the opportunity to eradicate TB from the Nation once and for all. The Institute of Medicine has developed guidelines to do so, and in this bipartisan legislation, my colleagues and I proposed to implement the guidelines by authorizing $235 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to expand and intensify our prevention, control, and elimination efforts. Our bill also expands support for vaccine development at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Experts estimate that $240 million will be needed to develop a safe and effective vaccine. Our legislation authorizes $136 million in 2004 and $162 million in 2005, with the goal of committing the necessary resources to make the vaccine available by 2008 at the latest. We cannot allow tuberculosis to take more American lives when we have the ability to prevent it. It's time for a new and sustained commitment to the fight against tuberculosis. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to its enactment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Clinton and I are proposing legislation to protect the voices of language minorities in our country. Representative Robert Menendez will be introducing a companion bill in the House after the August recess. Our bill is called the National Minority Media Opportunities Act. Its goal is to see that Americans who are members of any ``language minority'' groups under the Voting Rights Act--defined as American Indian, Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives, and Hispanic Americans--are not injured by excessive media concentration of companies that broadcast primarily in their native languages. Neither the Federal Communications Commission's new broadcast ownership regulations adopted on June 2 nor the previous regulations deal with the effects of growing media concentration on citizens relying on minority-language broadcasts for their news and information. The FCC's new rules are already controversial because they allow excessive concentration, in spite of its effect on competition, the diversity of views, and other major national, State, and local priorities. Unfortunately, the specific and often more harmful effects of such concentration on minority populations have gone largely unnoticed. For instance, surveys show that the majority of the nearly 40 million Hispanic Americans rely significantly on Spanish-language broadcast media for their news and information. Forty percent--nearly 16 million--of them rely predominantly on Spanish-language broadcast media, and 25 percent--nearly 10 million--rely exclusively on it. Additional measures are clearly needed to guarantee that Americans who are members of minority language groups will continue to have access to diverse sources of news, information and cultural programming, and to opportunities for ownership of their media. Our bill addresses these concerns by requiring the FCC to hold public hearings, with notice and opportunity to comment, before approving the transfer of a license for a station serving a minority-language audience. It also requires the FCC to report to Congress on issues involving the concentration of ownership and control of minority- language broadcast media and the effects of excessive concentration on competition and diversity in these minority-language markets. The bill will continue the Nation's strong commitment to competition in broadcast media and the fullest possible participation in the political process for all our citizens, including the growing number of those whose first language is English. We look forward to working with our colleagues in Congress to enact this needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Museum and Library Services Act. Federal support of museums and libraries is appropriate and often essential to maintain the cultural and educational centers that provide valued resources for communities across the country. These institutions encourage learning, understanding, and respect for others in our diverse society, and their benefits are found in every neighborhood in America. As technology's role in our society becomes more significant than ever, wider access to the internet and other resources is increasingly important. Greater Federal funding for libraries and museums is especially important when local budgets are so hard-pressed. This bill supports the use of a wide range of media in both museums and libraries, enhancing access to exhibits and programs, and improving learning in a variety of formats. Library and museum advisory boards are consolidated into one body under this bill as a way to improve networks among museums, schools, and other community organizations. This bill is intended to increase the efficiency of library services and provide much-needed financial assistance. It encourages library services for peoples of all backgrounds, especially in under-served urban and rural communities, so that access to technology will be much more widely available to all. Support for museums is equally important. They help to preserve and maintain and explain the nation's history and heritage. They impart knowledge of other cultures as well. They inspire citizens of all ages to learn more about history, art, and science. Few experiences can more vividly excite the imagination of a child about our Nation's history than seeing an actual relic of an event they've read about or been told about. With this legislation, we can do more to enable museums to increase their services, bring more exhibits into more communities, and encourage the use of new technology and variety of media. Also, to ease the burden of insurance, our bill authorizes increased indemnity for art exhibits that might not otherwise take place because of rising costs. The House has passed a similar version of the bill by an overwhelming majority, and I hope the Senate will do the same. I particularly commend the leadership Senator Gregg, the Chairman of our HELP Committee, and the principal sponsor of this bipartisan legislation. I also commend Senator Reed, the principal cosponsor of the bill, who has so effectively carried on the commitment on this issue by his predecessor from Rhode Island, Senator Claiborne Pell. Our committee unanimously approved this bill, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to approve it now.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues Senator Hutchison, Senator Inouye, Senator Landrieu, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Murray in introducing the ``Comprehensive Tuberculosis Elimination Act''. With the evolution of modern medicine, especially in recent years, we have the actual opportunity to do that now--eliminate this century-old public health threat in the United States. Tuberculosis was once the leading cause of death in America. In recent decades, developments in science and public health have transformed tuberculosis into a preventable and treatable disease. Yet, every year, thousands of Americans still become infected and die from tuberculosis. Experts agree that we have the ability to eliminate it. What's lacking is a strong national commitment to do it. More than 50 years ago, when the first effective drugs to treat TB were introduced and case rates began to decline, we began making slow but steady progress, and we might have eliminated it. But instead, the declining number of cases led to complacency and neglect. In fact, Federal categorical funding for TB control and prevention was discontinued in 1972, and wasn't restored until 1981. Efforts to control the disease broke down in many parts of the country. In the late 1980s, cases rose by 20 percent increase in TB and drug- resistant strains began nationwide systems for dealing with the infection had been allowed to deteriorate. In New York City alone, more than $1 billion was needed to regain control of TB. After considerable effort, TB control was re-established and rates again began declining. Today, with the low number of infections and the expertise of public health officials, we have the opportunity to eradicate TB from the Nation once and for all. The Institute of Medicine has developed guidelines to do so, and in this bipartisan legislation, my colleagues and I proposed to implement the guidelines by authorizing $235 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to expand and intensify our prevention, control, and elimination efforts. Our bill also expands support for vaccine development at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Experts estimate that $240 million will be needed to develop a safe and effective vaccine. Our legislation authorizes $136 million in 2004 and $162 million in 2005, with the goal of committing the necessary resources to make the vaccine available by 2008 at the latest. We cannot allow tuberculosis to take more American lives when we have the ability to prevent it. It's time for a new and sustained commitment to the fight against tuberculosis. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to its enactment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday's New York Times carried a very interesting article about a new scholarship program created three years ago to encourage young Americans to pursue graduate study in Ireland and learn more about that country and its long-standing ties of history and heritage to the United States. The program is called the George J. Mitchell Scholarship Program. The name honors our former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, who is especially admired in Ireland and among Irish Americans and even in Great Britain for his leading role in recent years in advancing the peace process in Northern Ireland as Special Advisor to President Clinton on Ireland. The Scholarships were created by the U.S.-Ireland Alliance, a non- partisan, non-profit organization founded in 1998 by my former foreign policy adviser, Trina Vargo, who is well known to many of us in Congress for her outstanding work in Irish issues. As many of our colleagues in the Senate and the House know, the Alliance has worked closely with both Republicans and Democrats to strengthen the ties between the United States and Ireland. The twelve Mitchell Scholars selected each year are outstanding young American students who are gifted academically, and who show promise for future leadership in the public or private sectors in maintaining close ties between the United States and Ireland. I commend Ms. Vargo and the U.S.-Ireland Alliance for the prestige and popularity the scholarships have earned so quickly, and I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article may be printed in the Record. [From the New York Times, July 30, 2003] Mitchell Scholars Delve Into Irish Culture, Too (By Brian Lavery) Dublin, July 29.--When Emily Mark arrived in Dublin to study art history at Trinity College, she postponed worrying about classes until she found a traditional musician to teach her the Irish style of playing five-string claw-hammer banjo. This month, Ms. Mark completed a Mitchell Scholarship, a program that often sounds more like a cultural immersion course than the pursuit of a master's degree. Named in honor of former Senator George J. Mitchell for his role in the Northern Irish peace process, the scholarship's explicit objective is to instill an appreciation for Ireland in a generation of up-and-coming Americans. To that end, Irish-American applicants have no advantage in the competition for the 12 places, said the program's founder, Trina Vargo, and the Mitchells are financed by groups that may stand to benefit from the warm feelings of Americans. In 1998, the Irish government gave more than $4 million for an initial endowment, while sponsors include the British government and some of the largest corporations in Ireland. (Nine major Irish universities provide room and board and waive tuition for Mitchell recipients.) Those donations provide for a $12,000 stipend and trans- Atlantic airfare. Mitchell recipients understand that the foundation behind the program, the U.S.-Ireland Alliance, which is based in Washington, wants them to become good-will ambassadors for Ireland. Rather than balk at the responsibility, they say that emotional and intellectual links are exactly what they expect to gain from their year here. ``I didn't feel pressure that I ultimately need to do some great work for Ireland,'' said Jeannie Huh, a West Point graduate who studied public health at Trinity College. ``But I definitely do feel that over the course of the year I have built a spot in my heart for the country and the people. I think that's just inevitable.'' Most Mitchell scholars try to blend into Irish society by complementing their studies with internships, part-time jobs and community work. In the last few years, three Mitchell recipients withdrew from the running for Rhodes Scholarships, and that multidisciplinary approach is one reason. ``It was more than just an academic program; it has that cultural element,'' said Georgia Miller Mjartan, who was a Rhodes semifinalist from Arkansas when she won a Mitchell Scholarship. She said that she realized at her Mitchell interview that she would accept the scholarship if it was offered. ``I knew that, as far as prestige, it would be good for me to go through with the Rhodes process, even if I didn't take it,'' she said. But Ms. Mjartan, who is 23 and lived in Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland, over the last year, withdrew her application after learning that her place, if she won, would not be awarded to an alternate candidate if she declined the scholarship. ``That wouldn't be right, because I would be taking it away from someone else,'' she said. The application process is intended to be friendly, with one short essay and interviews that focus on identity and personality instead of academic detail, Ms. Vargo said. Those who are accepted are encouraged to wait until they hear from other scholarship programs before deciding which to choose. ``You want them to have a reason to be here, and a really good understanding of why they're here,'' Ms. Vargo said. Ms. Vargo, a former foreign policy adviser to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, knows Irish business and political circles well, and Mitchell scholars often use her network of connections. Last year, she introduced Mark Tosso to the top official in the prime minister's office, who found him a job conducting a review of communications systems for employees throughout the Irish government. ``They had this project which was puttering along, and they needed someone to take charge of it,'' Mr. Tosso said. In the same way, Ms. Mark, the banjo player, met a Dublin lawyer who hired her to help set up a new fund-raising arm for Amnesty International. ``Everyone just bowls themselves over to help you,'' she said. ``As soon as you express an interest in something, the opportunity is there.'' The scholars also improvised when they found Irish culture less familiar with the idea of internships or entrepreneurial volunteer work. With her professor at Trinity College, Ms. Huh approach a charity based in Dublin and ended up in Bangladesh for five weeks, doing research on malnutrition. Mariyam Cementwala, from Bakerfield, Calif., organized a conference on human rights for 120 people at the National University of Ireland at Galway. With an allowance from an Irish travel company, the latest group of Mitchell scholars went on impromptu road trips around the country, visiting one another at their universities almost once a moth, and some traveled together to Scotland. Also through Ms. Vargo, they went on a hiking trip in the Wicklow Mountains guided by a Dublin businessman, and they celebrated Thanksgiving together at a lawyer's Dublin home. To use their own term, they bonded. They share an easy rapport--Ms. Mark called the group ``the world's perfect dinner party''--whether milling about at the program's closing ceremonies with political leaders like Senator Mitchell and Sinn Fein's president, Gerry Adams, or holding up the bar at the Europa Hotel. The program's sponsors seem to feel that even that bar tab is money well spent. Gerry McCrory, 40, heads a venture capital fund in Dublin called Cross Atlantic Capital Partners that gives about $30,000 a year to the Mitchell program. He said he looked forward to when the Mitchell Scholars would positively influence the relationship between the United States and Ireland. ``It's going to be at least another 20 or 30 years until they're in a position to make those decisions,'' he said, ``but I think it's the right thing to do. It's a long-term investment.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Leahy in the introduction of the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, to address the injustice in our immigration law on gay and lesbian couples. The reunification of families is one of the cornerstones of our immigration policy. The American Dream is about opportunity and it is about family life as well. When one member of a family comes to the United States alone, we try to make it possible for their spouse, children, and siblings to join them in the future. Every year, our immigration policy reunites literally hundreds of thousands of families. In 2002, almost 400,000 immigrants came to the United States to join spouses who are citizens or legal permanent residents. Thousands more siblings and children joined mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. Shamefully, though, our current law left thousands of other families permanently divided. Because of their sexual orientation, lesbian and gay couples are kept apart, or forced to stay together illegally, with one partner in constant fear of deportation. They are denied the half of the American Dream that we offer to other citizens and immigrants. Our bill will remedy this injustice. It gives the same-sex permanent partners of citizens and permanent residents the opportunity to join their loved ones in our country. They must meet strict standards of eligibility, like those applied to spouses. To gain entrance, they must prove that they are financially interdependent with their partners in the United States and that they are in a lifelong relationship. Most of our major allies and trading partners already grant immigration benefits to same-sex couples. Now, by bringing family reunification to all of our citizens and residents, our bill recognizes the common humanity of gay and lesbian Americans. It is time for Congress to act on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this important step in making our immigration laws fairer.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Leahy in the introduction of the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, to address the injustice in our immigration law on gay and lesbian couples. The reunification of families is one of the cornerstones of our immigration policy. The American Dream is about opportunity and it is about family life as well. When one member of a family comes to the United States alone, we try to make it possible for their spouse, children, and siblings to join them in the future. Every year, our immigration policy reunites literally hundreds of thousands of families. In 2002, almost 400,000 immigrants came to the United States to join spouses who are citizens or legal permanent residents. Thousands more siblings and children joined mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. Shamefully, though, our current law left thousands of other families permanently divided. Because of their sexual orientation, lesbian and gay couples are kept apart, or forced to stay together illegally, with one partner in constant fear of deportation. They are denied the half of the American Dream that we offer to other citizens and immigrants. Our bill will remedy this injustice. It gives the same-sex permanent partners of citizens and permanent residents the opportunity to join their loved ones in our country. They must meet strict standards of eligibility, like those applied to spouses. To gain entrance, they must prove that they are financially interdependent with their partners in the United States and that they are in a lifelong relationship. Most of our major allies and trading partners already grant immigration benefits to same-sex couples. Now, by bringing family reunification to all of our citizens and residents, our bill recognizes the common humanity of gay and lesbian Americans. It is time for Congress to act on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this important step in making our immigration laws fairer.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Alexander and Dodd, in introducing this Senate resolution to declare October National Work-Family Month. Eighty-five percent of Americans have day-to-day family responsibilities. Many care for children, a spouse or partner, or another family member. As our population ages, an increasing number must care for their own parents. Numerous studies have shown that in addition to increased personal responsibilities, these hard-working men and women are also spending more and more time on the job putting in longer and longer hours. As a result, many employees suffer from burnout, fatigue, or even serious illness. These concerns affect us all. Parents say their biggest daily challenge is balancing their work and their family responsibilities. It is clear that sick children recover more quickly when cared for by a parent. Senior citizens are relying more and more on their working adult children to care for them when they are ill. In fact, a study by the Kaiser Foundation in 2000 found that 34 percent of women and 24 percent of men say they have missed work as a result of caring for an aging parent. The Family and Medical Leave Act has been a significant first step in dealing with this issue but it is far from enough. The resolution to declare October National Work-Family Month will bring new attention to this important issue.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues Senator Hutchison, Senator Harkin and Senator Feinstein in introducing the Cancer Survivorship and Quality of Life Act. It is fitting that we are introducing this important legislation today. Just three days ago, as the world knows, Lance Armstrong, the champion cyclist from Texas, won his 5th consecutive Tour de France. His triumph is an extraordinary achievement in and of itself, and it is even more extraordinary, because just 6 years ago, he was diagnosed with a form of cancer-- testicular cancer--that is often curable when detected early, but that in his case had already spread to his abdomen, his lungs, and brain. Twenty-five years ago, he probably would not have survived. But with the treatment and therapy now available and the same fighting spirit that made him a winner yesterday, he won the battle against cancer and became a worldwide symbol of courage and achievement. His success is also a vivid symbol of the rapid progress being made in the ongoing battle against cancer. Never before have there been such high rates of survival for what used to be an overwhelmingly deadly disease. Cancer research has brought new and more sensitive screening tests and more accurate and less invasive diagnostic procedures. Greater arrays of treatments are available that can cure cancer completely or keep it at bay for many years. As a result of these medical and technological advances, over half of all adults and over three-quarters of all children diagnosed with cancer today will be living five years from now and often far longer. Experts now refer to many forms of cancer as ``chronic diseases'' illnesses that never go away, but can be treated in ways enabling patients to focus on living instead of preparing for death. In the United States today, there are almost 10 million cancer survivors, and 40 percent of them are younger than 65. The financial cost is large. Direct costs for cancer care and the indirect costs to the economy are now estimated at $180 billion dollars per year. But more important than the financial costs are the devastating personal and emotional costs to the patients, their families and loved ones, and their caregivers as well. Almost a quarter of adults with cancer are parents who have a child 18 years old or younger living at home. Nearly 1.3 million people will be diagnosed with cancer this year--3,500 persons each and every day. The National Cancer Institute and other federal agencies now devote the majority of their funds to diagnosing and treating cancer, and we need to continue strong federal support for these purposes. Greater support is clearly needed to deal with the issues affecting survivors. Many cancer survivors say that equally important is the ``non-medical'' care that they have received, and that is the purpose of the bill we are introducing today. The Cancer Survivorship Research and Quality of Life Act creates a Cancer Survivorship Office in the National Institutes of Health and a Cancer Control Center in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop effective ways to improve the quality of life for patients with cancer and their families. Such efforts include education of patients about their cancer, their options for treatment, and how and when to ask for a second opinion. They also include information about support networks and other services in their community. Under our bill, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Cancer Institute will work together to expand their data collection to include information about survivors and improvements in the care of individuals newly diagnosed with cancer, such as successful treatments, rehabilitation, and nutritional and exercise programs. Currently, there is no effective way for new information to be widely shared. Patients who are cancer survivors or who have family members or loved ones with cancer understand the importance of this information. We introduce this bill with the full support of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which has brought the issue of cancer survivorship to our national attention. I urge the Senate to give our legislation the priority it deserves.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues Senator Hutchison, Senator Harkin and Senator Feinstein in introducing the Cancer Survivorship and Quality of Life Act. It is fitting that we are introducing this important legislation today. Just three days ago, as the world knows, Lance Armstrong, the champion cyclist from Texas, won his 5th consecutive Tour de France. His triumph is an extraordinary achievement in and of itself, and it is even more extraordinary, because just 6 years ago, he was diagnosed with a form of cancer-- testicular cancer--that is often curable when detected early, but that in his case had already spread to his abdomen, his lungs, and brain. Twenty-five years ago, he probably would not have survived. But with the treatment and therapy now available and the same fighting spirit that made him a winner yesterday, he won the battle against cancer and became a worldwide symbol of courage and achievement. His success is also a vivid symbol of the rapid progress being made in the ongoing battle against cancer. Never before have there been such high rates of survival for what used to be an overwhelmingly deadly disease. Cancer research has brought new and more sensitive screening tests and more accurate and less invasive diagnostic procedures. Greater arrays of treatments are available that can cure cancer completely or keep it at bay for many years. As a result of these medical and technological advances, over half of all adults and over three-quarters of all children diagnosed with cancer today will be living five years from now and often far longer. Experts now refer to many forms of cancer as ``chronic diseases'' illnesses that never go away, but can be treated in ways enabling patients to focus on living instead of preparing for death. In the United States today, there are almost 10 million cancer survivors, and 40 percent of them are younger than 65. The financial cost is large. Direct costs for cancer care and the indirect costs to the economy are now estimated at $180 billion dollars per year. But more important than the financial costs are the devastating personal and emotional costs to the patients, their families and loved ones, and their caregivers as well. Almost a quarter of adults with cancer are parents who have a child 18 years old or younger living at home. Nearly 1.3 million people will be diagnosed with cancer this year--3,500 persons each and every day. The National Cancer Institute and other federal agencies now devote the majority of their funds to diagnosing and treating cancer, and we need to continue strong federal support for these purposes. Greater support is clearly needed to deal with the issues affecting survivors. Many cancer survivors say that equally important is the ``non-medical'' care that they have received, and that is the purpose of the bill we are introducing today. The Cancer Survivorship Research and Quality of Life Act creates a Cancer Survivorship Office in the National Institutes of Health and a Cancer Control Center in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop effective ways to improve the quality of life for patients with cancer and their families. Such efforts include education of patients about their cancer, their options for treatment, and how and when to ask for a second opinion. They also include information about support networks and other services in their community. Under our bill, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Cancer Institute will work together to expand their data collection to include information about survivors and improvements in the care of individuals newly diagnosed with cancer, such as successful treatments, rehabilitation, and nutritional and exercise programs. Currently, there is no effective way for new information to be widely shared. Patients who are cancer survivors or who have family members or loved ones with cancer understand the importance of this information. We introduce this bill with the full support of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which has brought the issue of cancer survivorship to our national attention. I urge the Senate to give our legislation the priority it deserves.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, next week 54 high school students from the Islamic and Arab world will arrive in the United States for a year of study under a new exchange program to help bridge the cultural divide between America and the Islamic and Arab nations of the world. Secretary Powell will welcome the students at a ceremony at the State Department on Wednesday, August 5. An initial $10 million for the Cultural Bridges Program was approved last year by Congress for the coming academic year. I commend the State Department for moving so quickly to organize the program and bring the first group of high school students to the United States. By the end of the summer as the new academic year begins, 135 high school students will be here for a year of study in high schools in 23 States under the program. The students are coming from many nations throughout the Islamic world--Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, and Yemen, and from the West Bank and the Gaza strip as well. Each student will live with an American host family, attend a local high school, learn first hand about our society and values, and enable our students to learn about them. Officials in the State Department are already preparing their recruitment and outreach efforts for the 2004-2005 academic year, when they hope to double the size of the program. If all goes well, that number will double again in the following year. The terrorist attacks on September 11 and the war in Iraq have brought into sharp focus the many negative images and perceptions of our Nation abroad. Many Muslims believe our country is at war with Islam, not terrorism. With nearly 1.5 billion people living in the Islamic world today, we ignore these pervasive anti-American sentiments at our peril. If the United States is to win a genuine victory in the war against terrorism, we must respond on many levels. We must ensure that our defenses are strong, our intelligence is accurate, and our borders are secure. But we must also do all we can to dispel the disturbing trend of anti-American rhetoric and beliefs. An effective way to do so is to engage Islamic peoples in the realm of values and ideas. In a May 3, 2002 speech to the World Affairs Council in California, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz spoke of the need to strengthen voices of moderation in the Islamic world and to bridge the ``dangerous gap'' between that world and the West. There is ``no time for delay,'' he said. As we have seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Middle East, some individuals and factions and even governments have supported terrorist organizations, while others have condemned terrorism and pledged to help the United States in combating it. By reaching out in friendship to those who oppose terrorism we can reduce the breeding grounds for terrorism and begin to eliminate the sentiments that terrorist recruiters exploit. One of the most effective ways to engage the Islamic world is through educational exchange programs, which promote people-to-people contacts between Americans and other peoples. Exchange programs help to build strong personal relationships and combat the misperceptions about the United States that threaten our security. Unfortunately, exchanges between the Islamic world and the United States are very limited today. Of the more than 500,000 foreign students in the United States, less than 5 percent are from the Arab Middle East. There are many benefits in reaching out to students while they are young and open-minded. Today's high school students are tomorrow's leaders. Working with them now can improve their attitudes about our country and build future relationships based on trust and understanding. As Secretary of State Colin Powell said in his August 2001 statement on International Education Week: ``I can think of no more valuable asset to our country than the friendship of future world leaders who have been educated here.'' What makes the Cultural Bridges Program unique is that it enables high school students from other lands to obtain firsthand knowledge of our country, our way of life, and our people. Our Government sponsors many exchange programs for professionals, educators, journalists and academics, but, until now, there has been no Federal program to bring high school students from the Islamic world to the United States. After September 11, many Muslim countries condemned the terrorist attacks and pledged to help the United States fight terrorism. But in the wake of the war in Iraq, anti-American sentiment is on the rise again. A June 2003 poll by the Pew Charitable Trust found strong public support for Osama bin Laden's views in Arab countries whose governments are friendly to the United States. According to the poll, 55 percent of those in Jordan, 58 percent of those in Indonesia, 45 percent of those in Pakistan, and 49 percent of those in Morocco said they had confidence in Osama bin Laden to ``do the right thing regarding world affairs,'' and so did 71 percent of those in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Our military action in Iraq has led to widespread fears throughout the region that we will launch other aggressive action. Majorities of those interviewed in Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan worried that their country might be attacked by the United States. Even in Kuwait--where the public has a generally favorable view of the United States--53 percent expressed concern that the United States could someday pose a threat. Especially disturbing is the finding of little support in the Islamic world for the war against terrorism--23 percent in Indonesia, 16 percent in Pakistan, 22 percent in Turkey, and 2 percent in Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. In Morocco, only one in 10 back the effort, while in Lebanon, 30 percent support the war. Only in Kuwait and Nigeria do majorities of the population now support the war against terrorism. Clearly, we need to redouble our efforts to win the hearts and minds of peoples in the Arab and Muslim world, and change their negative perceptions about our country and values. There are no better ambassadors for America than Americans themselves, and this new high school exchange program is an important way to begin reaching out more effectively to the next generation of leaders in that world. Jordan's King Abdullah is an excellent example of what can be achieved. He is a friend of the United States, a partner in the war against terrorism, and a voice of tolerance and moderation in the Muslim world. In 1977, as a young Jordanian, he enrolled in a high school in Massachusetts and later came to Washington to study at a university. He is living proof of the value of building bridges of understanding and tolerance with other cultures. We need to create as many opportunities as possible for young people throughout the Islamic world to spend time in the United States and with our citizens, and we should begin to do so now. I have been delighted to work with Senators Lugar, Leahy, Chafee, Dodd, Hagel, Smith, Cochran, Brownback, Jeffords, Durbin, and Feingold on the Cultural Bridges Program, and I am hopeful that it marks a new beginning in our efforts to build forward lasting relationships with the future leaders in the Muslim world.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will proceed then. I just wish to indicate, as someone who also has been a bill manager, I understand completely the frustration the Senator from New Mexico has and his desire to move along. As Senator Reid mentioned, we did not anticipate at the time this nominee was reported out that we would have a vote so early in the consideration. Then last week, the chairman of the committee made a very extensive statement about the nominee and also the procedures of the committee itself, and I want to attempt to correct that record. We are on the eve of a vote on the nominee, and that has been established by not the Senator from New Mexico but by the majority leader. We are just trying to meet our responsibilities as members of that committee who have strong views and want to share those views with the membership and we also feel a responsibility to tell, to the extent the American people are interested, what our reservations are in terms of the merits and the process. I say to the Senator from New Mexico, I plan to be here this evening, and if it is the desire of the floor managers to consider another amendment, I am glad to take my turn, although I do think we ought to have at least an opportunity to speak in the next few hours. I will begin my statement on this nominee. If it so works out and the Senator from New Mexico wants to intercede, I will be glad to try to accommodate him.

Mr. KENNEDY. No. It has been the decision of the leadership to have a vote on Judge Pryor tomorrow. Under the agreement, we will have 1 hour for debate. This is an important nomination. I wish to address the Senate on that matter since we are going to be under very strict time limitations on the morrow. We had that series of votes. I want to accommodate the managers of the bill. If there is an amendment that needs to be disposed of, I will be glad to wait; otherwise, at some point, I wish to address the Senate because this is an extremely important nominee. The nomination was just reported out of committee, and we will be voting in a very short period of time on the nominee. It is an extremely important nomination. If the decision was to not have that vote on the morrow, I am glad to withhold my statement and make my statement at the time the Senate addresses the nomination. I will certainly work with the floor managers to work out a time that is suitable, but I am ready to speak. If there is a pending amendment, and it is the desire of the floor manager to move ahead, I will accommodate him.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is exactly correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, that is correct. It is not the members of the Judiciary Committee who are holding up the consideration of the Energy bill. It is the decision to put before the Senate, under the legitimate procedures of the Senate, a cloture petition to have a vote on this nominee, effectively shutting off all the debate. Quite clearly, my own belief is if we had the time, and also had the time during the August recess, to complete the investigation which needs to be done on this nominee, the Senate would be much better informed, the American people would be much better informed, and the judiciary would be much better served. That is not the decision of the leadership and, therefore, we believed that as the day wore on, after 5, we would at least have an opportunity, since this is an enormously serious nominee for a very serious position and there are very serious charges, to address the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. As the Senator remembers, I think those votes were in the late morning and even interrupted committee work at that time, which many of us were involved in, let alone the consideration of the Energy bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would rather not get caught into a precise time limit at this time but my general sense is about 30 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, contrary to the widespread impression of a partisan breakdown in the judicial nomination process, Democrats in this closely divided Senate have, in fact, tried our best to cooperate with the President on judicial nominations. We have largely succeeded, even though there are a handful of nominees who we believe are too extreme. Since President Bush's inauguration, the Senate has confirmed 140 of his nominees and so far blocked only 2. We have said ``no'' in those cases partly because these few nominees were too extreme for lifetime judicial appointments and partly because the White House and the Senate majority have tried to jam the nominations through the Senate without respect for the Senate's advice and consent role under the Constitution and without respect for the Senate rules and traditions. The nomination of Mr. Pryor illustrates all of these issues. Even his advocates concede that his attitudes and beliefs are the very extreme of legal thinking. I am confident that when the Members of the Senate and the public fully understand and consider his prejudices and attitudes, a majority of the Senate, with the strong support of the public, will agree that he does not merit confirmation to a lifetime seat on an appellate court that often has the last word on vital issues, not only for the 4\1/2\ million people of Alabama but also for the 8 million people of Georgia and the 15 million people of Florida. In fact, this nomination does not belong on the Senate floor at this time. The Pryor nomination was reported out of the committee as a result of a gross violation of the same committee rule of procedure which caused the Cook and Roberts nominations to be held up in the Senate floor earlier this year. The Judiciary Committee has a rule which clearly prevents the termination of debate on a nominee unless a majority of the committee, including at least one member of the minority, is ready to vote on the nominee. This rule, Rule 4, was adopted at the insistence of Senator Hatch, Senator Thurmond, and other Republicans in 1979, when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as a reasonable protection for the minority. After the rule was ignored in the Cook and Roberts case, we thought we had resolved this matter amicably and equitably. Both nominees were later confirmed based on a clear understanding that Democrats would not in the future be deprived of their rule 4 rights. After all, these rules were put in place at the start of this Congress, with the support of the Republican chairman of the committee, and now we have seen a blatant and flagrant disregard, which is not just an issue of procedure but affects the substance of this issue in a very important way. Just as important is the reason why Democrats were unwilling to vote on this nomination in the committee. The reporting of this nomination was totally premature because the committee was forced to move to a vote in the midst of a serious investigation of substantive questions of candor and ethics raised at the hearing by the nominee's own testimony, by his answers and non-answers to the committee's followup questions. On Friday, Chairman Hatch presented a version of the history of this nomination and this investigation which does not comport with the facts. I want to go through that history so the Senate can fully understand that Democrats have proceeded expeditiously and responsibly and that the rush to judgment in the committee last week was an effort to cut off an important investigation. The full Senate deserves to know its result before it considers this nomination. The basic facts on this issue are straightforward. Democrats did not invent the issue. Years before this nomination, lengthy articles in Texas and DC newspapers raised the question of the propriety of the activities of the Republican Attorneys General Association. It was reported that the organization sought campaign contributions to support the election of Republican attorneys general because they would be less aggressive than Democratic attorneys general in challenging business interests for violations of the law. Some descriptions of this effort characterize it as a shakedown scheme. The leaders of the association denied the allegation but refused to disclose its contributors. They were able to maintain secrecy by funneling the contributions through an account at the Republican National Committee that aggregated various kinds of State campaign contributions, thus avoiding separate public reporting of the contributions or the amount of these gifts. The issue received significant press coverage during the 2002 U.S. Senate campaign in Texas especially since several Republican attorneys general have denounced the association as fraught with ethical problems. Since Mr. Pryor had been identified publicly as a leader of the association's efforts and the ethical issues raised by it, these issues are obviously relevant to his qualifications. Senator Feingold asked the nominee about it at the June 11 hearing. Until this point in the hearing, Mr. Pryor was, in Senator Hatch's own words, ``no shrinking violet.'' He had been open and honest about his personal beliefs and ideological views. He did not retreat a single step or hedge his opinions. Nor were there any ``confirmation conversions'' taking new views, contradicting old ones. Mr. Pryor was a model of outspokenness, with clear recollections of the details of briefs, legal opinions, speeches, and other complex legal issues. Only on the issue of the Republicans Attorney General Association were his statements cramped and fudged, his recollections virtually nil. His answers were unresponsive and incomplete. They raise serious questions about his candor and truthfulness. He was asked a broad question reciting the allegations against the association. He was asked whether, if the allegations of soliciting contributions from potential target corporations are true, his own role in the association would present at least an appearance of conflict of interest. His answer was what would have been called a ``nondenial denial'' in the Watergate days. He said the contributions were made to the Republican National Committee, not to the association. He said that ``every one of these contributions, every penny, was disclosed [by the Republican National Committee] every month.'' The association's own materials show that its contributions were being given to the association and that the writing of checks to an aggregated account of the Republican National Committee was merely a way to use a reporting loophole to mask the association's contributions and the amounts of their gifts. Even more startling, Mr. Pryor's assertion that every penny of the contributions was disclosed by the Republican National Committee was a clear misrepresentation. The fact is, the association and its members have explicitly refused to disclose the contributions. Republican National Committee reports did not mention any association funds, let alone every penny. Mr. Pryor's statement raised a giant red flag. Senator Feingold immediately told the nominee there would be followup on this issue in written questions. On June 17, Senator Feingold and I both asked the followup questions. We gave him an opportunity to review the previous answers and make them more responsive. He refused. He said: ``I stand by them.'' We asked about other details of the association's operation and his specific role in it. Once again, his answers were unresponsive and silent on key facts. This careful lawyer could remember the most esoteric details of complex legal cases going back many years but could not remember a single company or person he himself had solicited for the association. He could not recall whether any of the leading tobacco or other companies identified by the President were contributors. He could not remember the name of a single association member or contributor or whether he had ever personally received any of the campaign funds. Typical was this question and answer: I asked, ``To the extent that the RAGA designated system funds were transmitted to or through another entity, did that entity disclose publicly the funds raised by or for RAGA?'' His answer was a non-answer: ``To my knowledge, RAGA complied with all the applicable campaign laws and its operations. He later said, ``I never solicited for RAGA a contribution from any person who has been the subject of an investigation or legal action of my office.'' He refused to say whether someone else on behalf of the association had made such solicitations. He refused to say whether contributions came from companies his office might have investigated, but did not. These issues that were raised about the telephone companies, about the calls, about the meetings, about the breakfast meetings, who was there, have all been left open. There is strong evidence that is in conflict with what the nominee has presented. This is part of the committee's work in terms of the future, to get to the bottom of this, in fairness to the nominee and so that the Senate will be able to make its judgment. Senator Hatch's floor statement made much of the number of times the Pryor nomination appeared on the committee's agenda. In fact, the Pryor nomination was on the agenda for June 19 but the listing was obviously premature since the answers to our questions had not even arrived. The answers were received on June 25. Again, Pryor was placed on the agenda for the next day, but before any of us had a chance to examine his intricate web of answers, partial answers and non-answers. The nomination was obviously not even close to ready for consideration. Even our first look at the answers made clear there would have to be further investigation, more followup questions. Even Senator Hatch realized proceeding the next day would be inappropriate. By this time, Pryor's statements had been widely reported and had come to the attention of many people who knew the facts and some who might cast light on the facts that Mr. Pryor could not recall. On July 2, during the Fourth of July recess, just before the long holiday weekend, extensive new material from one such source arrived at the minority office in the committee. After a brief initial review to assess the authenticity and relevance, the material was turned over to the majority staff when the Senate returned from the recess. At the same time, the chairman's staff was fully briefed about the process by which the materials had reached the committee. Then, contrary to the chairman's floor assertion, a bipartisan group of investigators questioned the source of material in detail. No question was raised about the authenticity of the materials. On the contrary, when the joint staff shortly thereafter interviewed the author of the document, she confirmed the source had full access to them. The material was then distributed by each side to each member. After reviewing the documents, the minority requested that a bipartisan investigation be conducted. That investigation was to begin July 15, with calls to the association's former finance director and executive director. Until then, not a single document had been disseminated outside the committee. However, on that day, the majority gave the documents to the nominee and to the Justice Department. Someone on the Republican side gave them to a strongly pro Pryor columnist on the Mobile Register newspaper. The columnist called the former finance director, a close Pryor ally and former campaign director. That call was made before the investigators could reach her, warning her that she could expect a call from the committee staff. Although the call to her did produce some useful information, it also marked the beginning of a consistent effort by the majority investigators to interfere with the investigation. After the interviewee stated that she might well have the files of the association, the Democratic investigator requested she provide them to the committee. The Republican investigator told her not to comply with the request and not even to comply with the request to at least begin searching for association materials in her possession. The Mobile Register columnist disclosed and discussed the documents on July 16, and others in the press wrote about them on the 17th. The committee had a brief discussion of the documents on the 17th with the expectation that the just started investigation would continue on a bipartisan basis in accordance with an investigative plan provided to the majority. However, at that point, the Republican investigative staff began informing the interviewees that the calls to them were not part of an official committee investigation, implying that they did not have to cooperate. Between July 17 and July 23, many calls were made in accordance with the plan. Many of these calls did not reach the parties called. By the time of the committee's meeting scheduled for July 23rd, the investigators had just begun accumulating significant information in accordance with the investigation plan. The day before the meeting, all nine Democrats, having considered the information available up to that point, wrote to the chairman and informed him that the investigation was producing serious and disturbing information, that it would require substantial addition time, that his investigators were interfering with it, and that after it was complete, we would want to question the nominee under oath. The Republican staff had offered interviews with the nominee before that time, but the Democratic investigators had declined to participate until the basic investigative work had been done, and in any event, the Democratic members wanted to question the nominee in person under oath at the appropriate time. At the meeting on July 23, the chairman rejected the minority's request out of hand. He insisted on a vote on the nomination without completion of the investigation and without further questioning of the nominee under oath. That was the situation when Senator Leahy invoked the committee's Rule IV to prevent a premature vote on the nomination. The chairman refused to follow Rule 4 and insisted on an immediate vote. The nine Democrats on the committee voted against reporting the nomination, and the 10 Republicans voted to report it, with one member of the majority noting that his vote to report did not mean he would necessarily vote for the nominee on the floor. He also noted that he would want to review the results of the investigation with the nominee before any floor vote. Despite the lack of co-operation from the majority staff, the investigation has continued. It has developed new information which expands both the scope and the gravity of the original concerns. It tends to show not only that the nominee was not candid with the committee, but that his statements may have been intended to obscure facts that would raise extremely serious ethical or legal questions about the nominee's activities. I raise these points because the chairman has suggested that these issues are not serious. They are very, very serious. I do not know how it will ultimately come out after the investigation is complete, but as I said in committee, the nomination comes to the floor with a ticking ethical time bomb which might explode at any moment. There is no doubt that this nomination is not ripe for a vote of the full Senate. The committee majority was not willing to finish its job before reporting the nomination to the Senate. But that is no reason for the Senate to allow the nomination to be voted on, before these matters are thoroughly reviewed, and the nominee has responded. On the issue of the merits, Mr. Pryor is simply too ideological to serve as a Federal court judge. The concern is not simply that Mr. Pryor is a conservative. The question is not whether all of us agree with his views. Mr. Pryor's litigation positions, public statements and his writings leave little doubt that he is committed to using the law not simply to advance a ``conservative'' agenda, but a narrow and extreme, ideological agenda. Mr. Pryor's record is clear. He is an aggressive supporter of rolling back the power of Congress to remedy violations of civil rights; he is a vigorous opponent of the constitutional right to privacy and a woman's right to choose; he is an aggressive advocate of the death penalty, even for individuals who are mentally retarded. He is contemptuously dismissive of claims of racial bias in the application of the death penalty. He is an ardent opponent of gay rights. More than just disagreeing with much of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence over the last 50 years on issues such as privacy, the death penalty, criminal justice, and the separation of church and state, Mr. Pryor has dedicated his advocacy and litigation to rolling back widely accepted legal principles and laws. What we know about Mr. Pryor leaves little doubt that he will try to advance that agenda if he's confirmed as a Federal judge. At his hearing and in answers to written questions, Mr. Pryor, for the most part, adhered to his past, extreme, views. He did not renounce his view that the Supreme Court's decisions in Miranda v. Arizona and Roe v. Wade were the worst examples of judicial activism or that the Roe decision was an abomination. What are we expected to believe? That despite the intensity with which he holds these views and the years he has devoted to dismantling these legal rights, he will still ``follow the law'' if 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 that he will do so. We know the cases that Mr. Pryor has won at the Supreme Court to narrow Federal rights, and the effect of these cases on the lives of disabled workers--of breast cancer victims like Patricia Garrett--and of the many older workers who face discrimination by State agencies. Mr. Pryor's agenda is more far-reaching. He has consistently advocated views to narrow individual rights far beyond what any court in this land has been willing to hold. Just this term, his radical views were rejected by the Supreme Court. In its recent term, the Supreme Court rejected his argument that States could not be sued for money damages for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Court rejected his argument that States should be able to criminalize private sexual conduct between consenting adults. The Court also rejected his far-reaching argument that counties should have the same immunity from lawsuits that States have. What is more disturbing, Mr. Pryor has plans for narrowing Federal power far beyond the Supreme Court's current case law. The Supreme Court has held that Congress has broad power under the spending clause, but Mr. Pryor's agenda would restrict Congress's power under that clause. He has praised a district court's decision to limit the ability of individuals to enforce spending clause statutes. That decision would have reversed more than 60 years of Supreme Court precedents, and it was rejected unanimously by the Sixth Circuit. Seventy-five constitutional law scholars had joined a brief opposing the decision. Yet, Mr. Pryor said that the District Court decision was ``sublime'' and ``brilliant.'' He has even argued in a race discrimination case that Alabama should not be subject to a lawsuit under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That argument was unanimously rejected by the Eleventh Circuit, because it would have reversed decades of settled Supreme Court law. It shows how far he would go--trying even to limit Federal power to address race discrimination under the 14th amendment, even though combating race discrimination is the amendment's very purpose. These examples rebut the notion, repeatedly urged by Mr. Pryor's supporters, that Mr. Pryor is simply ``following the law'' or that his views are within the mainstream. Again and again his statements and litigation positions make clear that his agenda to ``make the law'', and again and again his radical views to change decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence are rejected by the Federal courts. Mr. Pryor even seems to resist the application of Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees. In 2002, Mr. Pryor authored a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court arguing that it did not violate the eighth amendment to execute people who are mentally retarded. The Court rejected his argument by a 6 to 3 vote in Atkins v. Virginia. Yet this past May, Mr. Pryor attempted to prevent a prisoner with an IQ of 65--and whom even the prosecution had noted was mentally retarded--from raising a claim under Atkins. The Eleventh Circuit unanimously rejected Mr. Pryor's arguments, and stayed the execution of the Alabama prisoner. Do you call that mainstream? Judicial mainstream? Mr. Pryor does not simply advocate these views in public life. He has used his position as Attorney General to advance his own ideolgical agenda. His State was one of only three States to submit an amicus brief in support of Texas in the Lawrence case on gay rights. His restrictive view of the constitutional right of privacy and his argument that States should be allowed to criminalize homosexual activity were rejected by the Supreme Court in its decision last month. He was the only State attorney general--with 37 on the other side--to submit an amicus brief opposing the remedy in the Violence Against Women Act. He was the only attorney general to argue to the Supreme Court that Congress has no power to make provisions of the Clean Water Act enforceable against the States. Do we understand now? He was the only State attorney general, with 37 on the other side, to submit an amicus brief opposing the remedy in the Violence Against Women Act; the only attorney general to argue to the Supreme Court that Congress has no power to make provisions of the Clean Water Act enforceable against the State. He had ridiculed the Supreme Court of the United States for granting a temporary stay of execution of a prisoner in a capital case who even the prosecution had noted was mentally retarded. The Eleventh Circuit unanimously rejected his arguments and stayed the execution of the Alabama prisoner, and the proponents of this nominee say he is in the mainstream? The mainstream of thinking? Mr. Pryor has vigorously opposed gun control laws. He says the victims of violence who sue gun dealers or manufacturers failing to follow the Federal law are ``leftist bounty hunters.'' He filed an amicus brief for the State of Alabama opposing a law limiting possession of firearms. In this case, a Federal district court judge dismissed an indictment against a man in Texas who had possessed a firearm while under a restraining order for domestic violence, in violation of Federal law. The judge ruled that the law violated the second amendment. Alabama was the only State to file an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit. The brief broadly argued that the Federal Government's interpretation of the statute was so broad that it constituted a ``sweeping and arbitrary infringement on the second amendment right to keep and bear arms.'' Mr. Pryor's argument went far beyond what the Fifth Circuit or any other court has held. The concern is that here again Mr. Pryor was using the attorney general's office in Alabama to advance his own personal ideological agenda in a Texas case, and that he will continue this mission if his nomination is confirmed. What he was trying to intervene on was the fact that you have a law that restricts the ability for someone to bear an arm who is under a restraining order for domestic violence. Do we understand this? State law has said people who are under restraining orders for domestic violence should not bear arms. Attorney General Pryor is saying, ``Wait a minute. That violates the second amendment.'' And we are saying that this is in the mainstream of judicial thinking? A State law says that when you have domestic violence and an individual is under a restraining order, that individual can't bear arms. He is trying to override it and you say that is in the mainstream? Mr. Pryor has 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 sole method of execution. The Court granted review to determine whether the use of the electric chair was cruel and unusual punishment. For Mr. Pryor, however, the Court should not have even paused to consider this eighth amendment question. Listen to this. He stated that the issue ``should not be decided by nine octogenarian lawyers who happen to sit on the Supreme Court.'' He stated that the issue ``should not be decided by nine octogenarian lawyers who happen to sit on the Supreme Court'' of the United States. Talk about respect for the law and respect for the Supreme Court. All of us know that the courts may support our views at times. We may differ with the other courts. We just saw this in recent times when they made a decision on the outcome of an election. Many had concerns about it. It was supported by the American people because of the great respect that we have for the Supreme Court. And he is talking about ``nine octogenarian lawyers who happen to sit on the Supreme Court.'' Mr. Pryor's many inflammatory statements suggest that he lacks the temperament to serve as a judge. He is dismissive of concerns about fairness and racial bias in capital punishment. He has stated: ``make no mistake about it, the death penalty moratorium movement is headed by an activist minority with little concern for what is really going on in our criminal justice system.'' Many of his statements reflect an alarmingly politicized view of the judiciary--hardly appropriate for someone who wants to serve as a Federal judge. In a speech to the Federalist Society, he praised the election of George Bush as the ``last best hope for federalism'' and ended his speech with these words a ``prayer for the next administration: Please God, no more Souters.'' That is obviously a derogatory remark about a very distinguished jurist, Justice Souter. He was thankful for the Bush v. Gore decision because, as he said, ``I wanted Governor Bush to have a full appreciation of the judiciary and judicial selection so we can have no more appointments like Justice Souter.'' I hope that his nomination will be rejected. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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