Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

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. Yes.

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

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Harkin and other colleagues on this legislation to protect the right to overtime pay for millions of working men and women across America. The Bush administration has just announced new regulations that would deny overtime protections to more than 8 million hard-working men and women, including an estimated 200,000 workers in Massachusetts. Firefighters, police officers, military reservists, nurses, retail clerks, medical technicians, tech workers and many others would be harmed by the new rules. In the current failing economy, these workers depend more than ever on overtime pay to make ends meet and to pay their bills for housing, food, and health care. Overtime pay often constitutes as much as a quarter of their total pay, and the administration's proposal will mean an average pay cut of $161 a week for them. Our bill states clearly that no worker currently eligible for overtime protection can be denied overtime pay as a result of the new regulations. We know that overtime protections make an immense difference in preserving the 40-hour work week. For over half a century, the Fair Labor Standards Act has discouraged employers from requiring longer hours of work, by making overtime more expensive. Instead of relying on fewer workers forced to work longer hours, employers are likely to hire additional workers to meet the employer's needs. That result creates more jobs, and reduces the unfair exploitation of workers. The Bush administration is the first administration in 70 years in which the number of private sector jobs has declined. Not since President Hoover have we been hemorrhaging jobs like this. How could any fair administration possibly adopt regulations that will increase overtime working hours, and reduce the need to hire additional workers? According to the Congressional General Accounting Office, employees exempt from overtime pay are twice as likely to work overtime as those covered by the protection. Americans are working longer hours today than ever before--longer than in any other industrial nation. At least one in five employees now has a work week that exceeds 50 hours, let alone 40 hours. Clearly, workers are already struggling to balance their families' needs with their work responsibilities. Requiring them to work more hours for less pay will add an even greater burden to this daily struggle. Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to protecting the work-family balance for millions of Americans in communities in all parts of the nation. Sixty-five years ago, President Roosevelt signed into law the Fair Labor Standards Act to establish a minimum wage and maximum work hours. It was the midst of the Great Depression and President Roosevelt told the country that ``if the hours of labor for the individual could be shortened . . . more people could be employed. If minimum wages could be established, each worker could get a living wage.'' Those words are as true in 2003 as they were in 1938. The economy has lost more private sector jobs during this economic decline than in any recession since the Great Depression. What can the administration be thinking, to come up with this shameful proposal to weaken the overtime protections on which millions of workers rely? Is the administration so desperate to prop up business profits that it's willing to punish workers to do it? As Senator Harkin says, the President's policy is economic malpractice. Democrats will not sit idly by and watch Americans lose their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, and their dignity. We will continue the fight to restore jobs to the economy, provide fair unemployment benefits, and raise the minimum wage. And we will do all we can to preserve the overtime protections on which so many Americans families depend. I urge my colleagues to support this essential legislation to keep the faith with the Nation's working families.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Dodd and other colleagues in introducing the Head Start Coordination and School Readiness Act. Our goal is to reauthorize Head Start and continue this very successful federal program to prepare low-income children for school. For nearly four decades, Head Start has enabled vulnerable, young pre-kindergarten children to enter school ready to learn. It provides a balanced educational curriculum to see that children develop early skills in reading, writing, and math, and positive social skills as well. It provides visits to doctors and dentists, and nutritious meals to see that children are healthy. It provides outreach to parents to encourage them to participate actively in their child's early development. It is clear that Head Start works. A federal evaluation found that Head Start children make gains during the program itself, and the gains continue when the children enter kindergarten. Once Head Start children complete their kindergarten year, they are near the national average of 100 in key areas, with scores of 93 in vocabulary, 96 in early writing, and 92 in early math. In this legislation, we build on Head Start's proven track record and expand it to include thousands of low-income children who are not yet served by the program. We provide for better coordination of Head Start with state programs for low-income children. We strengthen Head Start's focus on school readiness and pre-literacy. We increase the education requirements and compensation for Head Start teachers. We provide greater accountability, including a high quality assessment of each Head Start program. To strengthen Head Start, we have to begin by providing more resources for it. The need for Head Start is greater than ever. Child poverty is on the rise again. Today, only 60 percent of children eligible for Head Start participate in it. Over 312,000 three- and four-year-olds are left out because of the inadequate funding level of the program. Early Head Start serves only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers. It is shameful that 97 percent of the children eligible for Early Head Start have no access to it. It's long past time for Congress to expand access to Head Start to serve as many infants, toddlers, and preschool children as possible. Throughout the 1990's, we tripled our investment, and Head Start expanded by 52 percent. But this year, the President's budget fails to reach out to a single new child. It provides only $148 million in additional funding for the coming year--only a quarter of the increase that Head Start received in recent years, and barely enough to cover inflation. The bill that we introduce today will set a goal of fully funding Head Start over the next 5 years, in order to reach all eligible preschoolers. Each year, an additional 62,000 three- and four-year-olds would be served by the program. Funding will rise from $6.7 billion in the current fiscal year, to $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2004, and $16.3 billion in fiscal year 2008. Early Head Start is an especially important lifeline for needy infants and toddlers. Research clearly shows its benefit to infants and toddlers and their families. Early Head Start children have larger vocabularies, lower levels of aggressive behavior, and higher levels of sustained attention than children not enrolled in the program. Parents are more likely to play with their children and read to them. This bill will double the size of Early Head Start, providing resources to serve an additional 29,000 infants and toddlers each year, at an estimated cost of $1 billion in fiscal year 2004, and $3.2 billion in fiscal year 2008. The current Federal-to-local structure of Head Start enables it to tailor its services to meet local community needs. Performance standards guarantee a high level of quality across all programs. Yet each program is unique and specifically adapted to the local community. Head Start is successful in serving Inuit children in Alaska, migrant- workers' children in Tennessee, and inner-city children in Boston. It is essential to maintain the ability of local Head Start programs to tailor their services to meet local community's needs. To strengthen this coordination with local programs, our bill creates a Head Start Quality Improvement and Collaboration Office in every state to maximize services to Head Start children, align Head Start with kindergarten classrooms, and strengthen its local partnerships with other agencies. These offices will also work to expand training and technical assistance to Head Start grantees to better meet the goal of preparing children for school. States will also have an active role in coordinating their early childhood programs and increasing their quality. Our bill designates an Early Care and Education Council in each State to conduct an inventory of children's needs in the state, develop unified data collection and make recommendations on coordination, technical assistance and training. Over the past four decades, Head Start has built up quality and performance standards to guarantee a full range of services, so that children are educated in the basics about letters and numbers and books, and are also healthy, well-fed, and supported in stable and nurturing relationships. Head Start is a model program, and we can enhance its quality even more. One way to do that is to strengthen Head Start's current literacy initiative. We know the key to later reading success is to get young children excited about letters and books and numbers. Our bill emphasizes language and literacy, by enhancing the literacy training required of Head Start teachers, by continuing to promote parent literacy, and by working to put more books into Head Start classrooms and into children's homes. At the heart of Head Start's success are its teachers and staff. They are caring, committed persons who know the children they serve and are dedicated to improving their lives. They help children learn to identify letters of the alphabet and arrange the pieces of puzzles. They teach them to brush their teeth, wash their hands, make friends and follow rules. Yet their salary is still half the salary of kindergarten teachers, and turnover is high--11 percent a year. Because a teacher's quality is directly related to a child's outcome, our bill sets a goal that every Head Start classroom has a teacher with a bachelor's degree within 8 years. It provides an additional $650 million over the next 5 years to see that teachers have the means to go back to school to earn a bachelor's degree, and it guarantees $3 billion over that period to see that teachers earn adequate wages to keep them in Head Start once they obtain their degree. Finally, accountability is a cornerstone of excellence in education and should start early. Head Start should be accountable for its promise to provide safe and healthy learning environments, to support each child's individual pattern of development and learning, to cement community partnerships in services for children, and to involve parents in their child's growth. Head Start reviews are already among the most extensive in the field. Every 3 years, a Federal and local team spends a week thoroughly examining every aspect of every Head Start program. They check everything from batteries in flashlights to how parents feel about the program. Our bill promotes even stronger monitoring of Head Start programs. It calls for periodic visits to programs, and strengthens annual reviews and plans for improvement. Assessing outcomes for children is vital in promoting accountability and ensuring that the gains promised for Head Start children are actually achieved. But these steps have to be taken the right way. Instead of rushing forward, as the Administration suggests, with a national assessment for every four-year-old in Head Start this fall, our bill calls on the National Academy of Sciences to guide the development and implementation of a high-quality assessment for Head Start children over the next four years. That assessment will be valid and reliable, fair to children from all backgrounds, balanced in what it measures, and assess the development of the whole child. Unfortunately, the Administration and House Republicans have presented plans that would turn Head Start into Slow Start or No Start. It makes no sense to turn Head Start into a block grant to the states. To do so would dismantle the program and undermine Head Start's guarantees that children can see doctors and dentists, eat nutritious meals, and learn early academic and social skills. It would undermine the role of parents, who are better parents today, strong advocates, and enthusiastic volunteers as a result of Head Start. The Head Start Coordination and School Readiness Act we are introducing today will keep Head Start on its successful path. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in continuing and strengthening this program, and give children the head start they need and deserve to prepare for school and for life. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support and statement from the National Head Start Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Dodd and other colleagues in introducing the Head Start Coordination and School Readiness Act. Our goal is to reauthorize Head Start and continue this very successful federal program to prepare low-income children for school. For nearly four decades, Head Start has enabled vulnerable, young pre-kindergarten children to enter school ready to learn. It provides a balanced educational curriculum to see that children develop early skills in reading, writing, and math, and positive social skills as well. It provides visits to doctors and dentists, and nutritious meals to see that children are healthy. It provides outreach to parents to encourage them to participate actively in their child's early development. It is clear that Head Start works. A federal evaluation found that Head Start children make gains during the program itself, and the gains continue when the children enter kindergarten. Once Head Start children complete their kindergarten year, they are near the national average of 100 in key areas, with scores of 93 in vocabulary, 96 in early writing, and 92 in early math. In this legislation, we build on Head Start's proven track record and expand it to include thousands of low-income children who are not yet served by the program. We provide for better coordination of Head Start with state programs for low-income children. We strengthen Head Start's focus on school readiness and pre-literacy. We increase the education requirements and compensation for Head Start teachers. We provide greater accountability, including a high quality assessment of each Head Start program. To strengthen Head Start, we have to begin by providing more resources for it. The need for Head Start is greater than ever. Child poverty is on the rise again. Today, only 60 percent of children eligible for Head Start participate in it. Over 312,000 three- and four-year-olds are left out because of the inadequate funding level of the program. Early Head Start serves only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers. It is shameful that 97 percent of the children eligible for Early Head Start have no access to it. It's long past time for Congress to expand access to Head Start to serve as many infants, toddlers, and preschool children as possible. Throughout the 1990's, we tripled our investment, and Head Start expanded by 52 percent. But this year, the President's budget fails to reach out to a single new child. It provides only $148 million in additional funding for the coming year--only a quarter of the increase that Head Start received in recent years, and barely enough to cover inflation. The bill that we introduce today will set a goal of fully funding Head Start over the next 5 years, in order to reach all eligible preschoolers. Each year, an additional 62,000 three- and four-year-olds would be served by the program. Funding will rise from $6.7 billion in the current fiscal year, to $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2004, and $16.3 billion in fiscal year 2008. Early Head Start is an especially important lifeline for needy infants and toddlers. Research clearly shows its benefit to infants and toddlers and their families. Early Head Start children have larger vocabularies, lower levels of aggressive behavior, and higher levels of sustained attention than children not enrolled in the program. Parents are more likely to play with their children and read to them. This bill will double the size of Early Head Start, providing resources to serve an additional 29,000 infants and toddlers each year, at an estimated cost of $1 billion in fiscal year 2004, and $3.2 billion in fiscal year 2008. The current Federal-to-local structure of Head Start enables it to tailor its services to meet local community needs. Performance standards guarantee a high level of quality across all programs. Yet each program is unique and specifically adapted to the local community. Head Start is successful in serving Inuit children in Alaska, migrant- workers' children in Tennessee, and inner-city children in Boston. It is essential to maintain the ability of local Head Start programs to tailor their services to meet local community's needs. To strengthen this coordination with local programs, our bill creates a Head Start Quality Improvement and Collaboration Office in every state to maximize services to Head Start children, align Head Start with kindergarten classrooms, and strengthen its local partnerships with other agencies. These offices will also work to expand training and technical assistance to Head Start grantees to better meet the goal of preparing children for school. States will also have an active role in coordinating their early childhood programs and increasing their quality. Our bill designates an Early Care and Education Council in each State to conduct an inventory of children's needs in the state, develop unified data collection and make recommendations on coordination, technical assistance and training. Over the past four decades, Head Start has built up quality and performance standards to guarantee a full range of services, so that children are educated in the basics about letters and numbers and books, and are also healthy, well-fed, and supported in stable and nurturing relationships. Head Start is a model program, and we can enhance its quality even more. One way to do that is to strengthen Head Start's current literacy initiative. We know the key to later reading success is to get young children excited about letters and books and numbers. Our bill emphasizes language and literacy, by enhancing the literacy training required of Head Start teachers, by continuing to promote parent literacy, and by working to put more books into Head Start classrooms and into children's homes. At the heart of Head Start's success are its teachers and staff. They are caring, committed persons who know the children they serve and are dedicated to improving their lives. They help children learn to identify letters of the alphabet and arrange the pieces of puzzles. They teach them to brush their teeth, wash their hands, make friends and follow rules. Yet their salary is still half the salary of kindergarten teachers, and turnover is high--11 percent a year. Because a teacher's quality is directly related to a child's outcome, our bill sets a goal that every Head Start classroom has a teacher with a bachelor's degree within 8 years. It provides an additional $650 million over the next 5 years to see that teachers have the means to go back to school to earn a bachelor's degree, and it guarantees $3 billion over that period to see that teachers earn adequate wages to keep them in Head Start once they obtain their degree. Finally, accountability is a cornerstone of excellence in education and should start early. Head Start should be accountable for its promise to provide safe and healthy learning environments, to support each child's individual pattern of development and learning, to cement community partnerships in services for children, and to involve parents in their child's growth. Head Start reviews are already among the most extensive in the field. Every 3 years, a Federal and local team spends a week thoroughly examining every aspect of every Head Start program. They check everything from batteries in flashlights to how parents feel about the program. Our bill promotes even stronger monitoring of Head Start programs. It calls for periodic visits to programs, and strengthens annual reviews and plans for improvement. Assessing outcomes for children is vital in promoting accountability and ensuring that the gains promised for Head Start children are actually achieved. But these steps have to be taken the right way. Instead of rushing forward, as the Administration suggests, with a national assessment for every four-year-old in Head Start this fall, our bill calls on the National Academy of Sciences to guide the development and implementation of a high-quality assessment for Head Start children over the next four years. That assessment will be valid and reliable, fair to children from all backgrounds, balanced in what it measures, and assess the development of the whole child. Unfortunately, the Administration and House Republicans have presented plans that would turn Head Start into Slow Start or No Start. It makes no sense to turn Head Start into a block grant to the states. To do so would dismantle the program and undermine Head Start's guarantees that children can see doctors and dentists, eat nutritious meals, and learn early academic and social skills. It would undermine the role of parents, who are better parents today, strong advocates, and enthusiastic volunteers as a result of Head Start. The Head Start Coordination and School Readiness Act we are introducing today will keep Head Start on its successful path. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in continuing and strengthening this program, and give children the head start they need and deserve to prepare for school and for life. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support and statement from the National Head Start Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Harkin and other colleagues on this legislation to protect the right to overtime pay for millions of working men and women across America. The Bush administration has just announced new regulations that would deny overtime protections to more than 8 million hard-working men and women, including an estimated 200,000 workers in Massachusetts. Firefighters, police officers, military reservists, nurses, retail clerks, medical technicians, tech workers and many others would be harmed by the new rules. In the current failing economy, these workers depend more than ever on overtime pay to make ends meet and to pay their bills for housing, food, and health care. Overtime pay often constitutes as much as a quarter of their total pay, and the administration's proposal will mean an average pay cut of $161 a week for them. Our bill states clearly that no worker currently eligible for overtime protection can be denied overtime pay as a result of the new regulations. We know that overtime protections make an immense difference in preserving the 40-hour work week. For over half a century, the Fair Labor Standards Act has discouraged employers from requiring longer hours of work, by making overtime more expensive. Instead of relying on fewer workers forced to work longer hours, employers are likely to hire additional workers to meet the employer's needs. That result creates more jobs, and reduces the unfair exploitation of workers. The Bush administration is the first administration in 70 years in which the number of private sector jobs has declined. Not since President Hoover have we been hemorrhaging jobs like this. How could any fair administration possibly adopt regulations that will increase overtime working hours, and reduce the need to hire additional workers? According to the Congressional General Accounting Office, employees exempt from overtime pay are twice as likely to work overtime as those covered by the protection. Americans are working longer hours today than ever before--longer than in any other industrial nation. At least one in five employees now has a work week that exceeds 50 hours, let alone 40 hours. Clearly, workers are already struggling to balance their families' needs with their work responsibilities. Requiring them to work more hours for less pay will add an even greater burden to this daily struggle. Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to protecting the work-family balance for millions of Americans in communities in all parts of the nation. Sixty-five years ago, President Roosevelt signed into law the Fair Labor Standards Act to establish a minimum wage and maximum work hours. It was the midst of the Great Depression and President Roosevelt told the country that ``if the hours of labor for the individual could be shortened . . . more people could be employed. If minimum wages could be established, each worker could get a living wage.'' Those words are as true in 2003 as they were in 1938. The economy has lost more private sector jobs during this economic decline than in any recession since the Great Depression. What can the administration be thinking, to come up with this shameful proposal to weaken the overtime protections on which millions of workers rely? Is the administration so desperate to prop up business profits that it's willing to punish workers to do it? As Senator Harkin says, the President's policy is economic malpractice. Democrats will not sit idly by and watch Americans lose their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, and their dignity. We will continue the fight to restore jobs to the economy, provide fair unemployment benefits, and raise the minimum wage. And we will do all we can to preserve the overtime protections on which so many Americans families depend. I urge my colleagues to support this essential legislation to keep the faith with the Nation's working families.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Snowe, Senator Reed, and Senator Bingaman in introducing The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. Our legislation is both important and timely because we face unprecedented challenges to our health and safety from deadly diseases. As we have seen from SARS, new diseases can arise naturally and spread rapidly around the world. As we have seen from the anthrax attack, diseases can also be spread by terrorists. We rely heavily on miracle drugs and vaccines to protect us against both of these threats. In fact, antibiotics are our strongest weapon in combating deadly bacterial diseases. But we have failed for too long to deal with a related and increasingly serous aspect of the problem the indiscriminate use of antibiotics for livestock and poultry which is reducing the effectiveness of these indispensable drugs that have become the crown jewels of modern medicine. Every year, literally tons of antibiotics are routinely added to animal feed to enhance growth, fatten animals, and fatten profits too. Mounting scientific evidence, though, shows that nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in agricultural animals can lead to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These resistant bacteria are easily transferred to people by tainted food, making it very difficult or impossible to treat deadly infections. The use of antibiotics in medicines began in the 1940s, and in the last 60 years, many different antibiotics have been discovered and widely used in treating patients. But the race has accelerated between patients and bacteria. Miracle drugs have saved countless lives but, inevitably, as their use in medicine increased, bacteria have developed resistance as well. Already, some older antibiotics have become useless in medicine. There have also been cases of infections resistant even to some of the newest and most powerful antibiotics. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, thousands of Americans die each year from antibiotic-resistant diseases. The widespread use of antibiotics in agriculture was clearly contributing to this serious problem. In 1997, the World Health Organization recommended that antibiotics should not be used to promote animal growth, although they could still be used to treat sick animals. Last month, McDonald's Corporation took a major step in dealing with this problem. It announced a directive to its meat suppliers to stop or reduce the use of antibiotics for growth promotion of livestock. The legislation we propose will phase out nontherapeutic uses of medically important antibiotics in livestock and poultry production, unless their manufacturers can demonstrate that they are no danger to public health. The bill applies the same strict standard to applications for approval of new animal antibiotics. It does not restrict the use of antibiotics to treat sick animals or to treat pets and other animals not used for food. There may well be certain circumstances in which the use of antibiotics briefly to prevent the spread of a specific disease in a limited area is legitimate. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we move ahead on this legislation to ensure that we properly distinguish the different uses of antibiotics for disease prevention. The bill also recognizes that FDA is conducting needed studies to analyze the risks of using specific antibiotics in raising animals. The agency's current risk analysis focuses on the antibiotic known as virginiamycin. Our legislation allows such studies to be conducted in determining whether antibiotics can be used with a reasonable certainty of no harm, and we welcome FDA's scientific analysis of the use of these products. In addition, the bill authorizes Federal payments to small family farms to defray the cost of compliance, and also authorizes research and demonstration projects to reduce the use of antibiotics in raising food-producing animals. Finally, the bill provides a needed mechanism for collecting data to monitor the use of antibiotics in animals, so that we can stay ahead of the growing public health threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The American Medical Association and 300 other organizations support our legislation. At a time when the nation is relying heavily on antibiotics to protect our security from bioterrorism, we can't afford to squander these essential defenses. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to its enactment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Snowe, Senator Reed, and Senator Bingaman in introducing The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. Our legislation is both important and timely because we face unprecedented challenges to our health and safety from deadly diseases. As we have seen from SARS, new diseases can arise naturally and spread rapidly around the world. As we have seen from the anthrax attack, diseases can also be spread by terrorists. We rely heavily on miracle drugs and vaccines to protect us against both of these threats. In fact, antibiotics are our strongest weapon in combating deadly bacterial diseases. But we have failed for too long to deal with a related and increasingly serous aspect of the problem the indiscriminate use of antibiotics for livestock and poultry which is reducing the effectiveness of these indispensable drugs that have become the crown jewels of modern medicine. Every year, literally tons of antibiotics are routinely added to animal feed to enhance growth, fatten animals, and fatten profits too. Mounting scientific evidence, though, shows that nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in agricultural animals can lead to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These resistant bacteria are easily transferred to people by tainted food, making it very difficult or impossible to treat deadly infections. The use of antibiotics in medicines began in the 1940s, and in the last 60 years, many different antibiotics have been discovered and widely used in treating patients. But the race has accelerated between patients and bacteria. Miracle drugs have saved countless lives but, inevitably, as their use in medicine increased, bacteria have developed resistance as well. Already, some older antibiotics have become useless in medicine. There have also been cases of infections resistant even to some of the newest and most powerful antibiotics. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, thousands of Americans die each year from antibiotic-resistant diseases. The widespread use of antibiotics in agriculture was clearly contributing to this serious problem. In 1997, the World Health Organization recommended that antibiotics should not be used to promote animal growth, although they could still be used to treat sick animals. Last month, McDonald's Corporation took a major step in dealing with this problem. It announced a directive to its meat suppliers to stop or reduce the use of antibiotics for growth promotion of livestock. The legislation we propose will phase out nontherapeutic uses of medically important antibiotics in livestock and poultry production, unless their manufacturers can demonstrate that they are no danger to public health. The bill applies the same strict standard to applications for approval of new animal antibiotics. It does not restrict the use of antibiotics to treat sick animals or to treat pets and other animals not used for food. There may well be certain circumstances in which the use of antibiotics briefly to prevent the spread of a specific disease in a limited area is legitimate. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we move ahead on this legislation to ensure that we properly distinguish the different uses of antibiotics for disease prevention. The bill also recognizes that FDA is conducting needed studies to analyze the risks of using specific antibiotics in raising animals. The agency's current risk analysis focuses on the antibiotic known as virginiamycin. Our legislation allows such studies to be conducted in determining whether antibiotics can be used with a reasonable certainty of no harm, and we welcome FDA's scientific analysis of the use of these products. In addition, the bill authorizes Federal payments to small family farms to defray the cost of compliance, and also authorizes research and demonstration projects to reduce the use of antibiotics in raising food-producing animals. Finally, the bill provides a needed mechanism for collecting data to monitor the use of antibiotics in animals, so that we can stay ahead of the growing public health threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The American Medical Association and 300 other organizations support our legislation. At a time when the nation is relying heavily on antibiotics to protect our security from bioterrorism, we can't afford to squander these essential defenses. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to its enactment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, two weeks ago, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he told us that the current cost of maintaining our troops in Iraq is $3.9 billion a month almost $1 billion a week. The administration is prepared to meet that financial burden, even as the American people are beginning to question the future direction of the President's Iraq policies. Hopefully, the death of Saddam's sons will reduce the intensity of the guerilla war being waged against our troops. Hopefully, the administration will finally seek the support of the United Nations and NATO to ease the burden on our troops. We all agree that when it comes to homeland security, there is no debate. Americans want our cities and our neighborhoods to be safe from terrorists, and the expect their government to do what is needed to accomplish that task. Yet, while we are spending $3.9 billion each month in Iraq, this legislation includes only $3.9 billion for the entire year for first responders here at home--for the police and firefighters and emergency personnel who are the first line of defense against terrorism in our communities. Perhaps the fact that we are spending more in Iraq each month than we are in the United States on our first responders would only be an odd coincidence if we were certain that we were doing all we can here at home. Unfortunately, all the available evidence suggests otherwise. Just last month, the Council on Foreign Relation's Independent Task Force issued a report entitled ``Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' and it points a very stark picture. According to the report, America faces a $98 billion shortfall in first responder funding over the next 5 years and only 10 percent of fire departments across the country have the personnel, training, and equipment to respond to a building collapse. The report also asserts that American cities with between 250,000 and 500,000 residents have experienced a net 16 percent reduction in police personnel over the past 2 years. Since September 11th, mid-size American cities have had to reduce police staffing by 16 percent. These figures are unacceptable, and they are getting worse. And yet, time and time again during this debate, we have stood here and offered amendments to increase federal funding to help municipalities and public agencies with these new homeland security responsibilities. But the White House has put its foot down each time, and demanded that our colleagues on the other side oppose this badly needed funding. Just this week we've offered eight critically important homeland security funding amendments, each of which has been voted down with little consternation about the magnitude of our pressing homeland security needs. Each was rejected on the basis of budgetary concerns, and with the belief that we are doing all we can. But clearly we are not. We have offered amendments like Senator Byrd's to add $1.8 billion this year for a broad array of homeland security needs such as port security, air cargo security, energy security, and transportation security. It was rejected. We have offered amendments like Senator Mikulski's to add $150 million to fully fund the firefighters grant programs. It was rejected. We have offered amendments like Senator Murray's to add $100 million to the National Emergency Management Performance Grants program, which helps states develop and implement comprehensive security and emergency response plans. It was rejected. We have offered amendments like Senator Hollings' to add $300 million to fund essential port security programs. It too was rejected, even though the security of our nation's ports is widely considered the most glaring vulnerability in our Nation's efforts to prevent terrorist attacks. And finally, we have offered amendments like Senator Dodd's that would fund homeland security needs by reducing the recent tax cuts for millionaires. It wasn't even close. Prudence would dictate that we pause and make absolutely sure that we are doing everything possible to provide for homeland security, and not simply continue to vote down these amendments because the administration doesn't want Federal spending to increase. And we still have several more opportunities to do just that. I strongly support the amendment offered by Senator Schumer and Senator Specter, because it is one such opportunity to make sure that our high-threat urban areas receive the assistance they so desperately need. This amendment would add $250 million to protect our largest cities, which face particularly daunting security challenges. My own city of Boston feels this pressure immensely and feels it acutely. Boston is the regional economic engine of New England, and the center of the seventh-largest metropolitan area in the country. Boston is also home to the Nation's oldest subway system, several underground highway tunnels, a bustling cargo port, and the only urban liquified natural gas facility in the country. In short, protecting these pieces of critical infrastructure is a task too herculean for the city to handle on its own, especially in the current budget climate. It is also a Federal responsibility. Additionally, as an international city, Boston is home to over 36 foreign embassies and tens of thousands of international students. It attracts more than 10 million visitors a year from all over the world, who come to learn about this ``cradle of liberty,'' where the American Revolution began. That history, and the numerous public monuments and structures that recall it, make Boston a powerful symbol of the American struggle for freedom, democracy, and liberty. Unfortunately, that symbolism also makes Boston an attractive target. Finally, Boston is home to the Nation's mutual fund industry, the largest concentration of the world's leading hospitals, and more institutions of higher learning than any other city in the United States. An incident involving Boston would most certainly cripple the nation's economy and dismantle the Nation's health care network. I am grateful that Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has recognized Boston's unique needs and designated it as a high-threat urban area, and I also greatly appreciate that he recently visited Boston to see first-hand the challenges confronting Mayor Menino. But while this assistance is welcome, it is simply not enough--in the face of massive municipal and State budget cutbacks--to meet Boston's extraordinary needs, which are only going to become more severe during next year's political convention when some 35,000 delegates, journalists, and visitors come to town. Mr. President, we have voted down a great many important homeland security funding amendments in the past three days, and we are not doing all we can to protect the American people at home. We have a $98 billion shortfall for first responders, at the same time we have approved a trillion in tax cuts for mostly millionaires and at the same time we are sending $3.9 billion each month to Iraq. We need to reassess our priorities, and this amendment provides us with one more chance to do that before this debate concludes. Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission released its report today, the ``Joint Inquiry, Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11.'' It is full, full of the missed opportunities that endangered the security of American lives. It catalogues missed opportunity after missed opportunity that contributed to the suffering of the 177 Massachusetts families that lost loved ones on that horrible day and thousands of other families across the country. The best answer we can have in response to this report that was made available to the American people today is to make sure we are going to provide the kind of support for homeland security that this amendment provides. I hope this Senate will accept the Schumer-Specter amendment because it is an important downpayment for the security of our most vulnerable American cities. If we are really interested in learning the lessons of this report today, we will make sure that the necessary resources are provided. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this important bill guarantees that drugs and biological products used for children are tested and labeled for children. It helps assure that the miracle cures of today can be administered to our children in safe and effective ways. I commend Senators Gregg, Clinton, DeWine, and Dodd for their effective and tireless leadership to see this important legislation through the Senate. And it is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the March of Dimes, and many other organizations dedicated to children's health. Under this legislation, drug companies will be required to prove that their drugs and biological products are safe and effective for their intended use in children. For too long, drug companies have tested their products only in adults. For years, companies only rarely tested their drugs in children, unless the drug's use was for a juvenile disease. For other drugs, the label simply said that the product had not been shown to be safe and effective in children. To use such drugs on our children was a medical gamble. Fortunately, that practice began to change 6 years ago. In 1997, Congress authorized 6 months of ``pediatric exclusivity''--6 months of additional life of a drug patent if the company had studied the drug in children. The extra patent protection was a valuable economic incentive for drug companies to study their drugs on children, and it has been very successful in achieving that goal. In 1998, FDA issued its Pediatric Rule, which allowed the agency to require a drug company to test and label certain drugs for children. The patent exclusivity can be used once to study a drug. But the FDA rule can be used more than once, if needed, such as when the studies requested under exclusivity do not include studies in infants or newborns. In some cases, studies in older children are needed before studies can even be designed for younger children and newborn infants. The rule can be used to require testing for biological products, which are not eligible for the extra patent exclusivity. The rule can also be used when a drug company decides not to seek extra patent exclusivity and does not study a drug in children. Unfortunately, a Federal district court held that FDA does not have the statutory authority to issue the Pediatric Rule. Although the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation are appealing this decision, and we hope for their quick success, the Senate has now passed this legislation to correct the situation. With this legislation, the essential protections of the rule will be codified in law: There will be a presumption that newly approved applications for new active ingredients, new indications, new dosage forms, new dosing regimens, or new routes of administration for drugs and biological products will include assessments of safety and effectiveness for all relevant pediatric subpopulations. These assessments will support dosing and administration using a pediatric formulation for all pediatric subpopulations in which the product is safe and effective. This will be a huge step forward for children, and will put them on an equal footing with adults. In addition, many products already on the market have meaningful therapeutic benefit to children or may be used for a substantial number of children. However, the absence of adequate labeling in these products poses significant risks to pediatric patients. This legislation will allow FDA to require such products to be studied in children for its approved indication. The bill requires that FDA must first provide an opportunity for these studies to be conducted under the provisions of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. However, if a product's manufacturer does not agree promptly to perform such studies voluntarily, and if funds are not sufficient so that the NIH or the Foundation for the NIH does not contract or issue a grant for conduct of the studies within a set period of time, FDA may invoke the authority in this legislation to require the studies. Although FDA never used this authority under its Pediatric Rule, we expect FDA to use it as necessary to ensure that drugs and biological products that are already approved are studied in children when other mechanisms to get them studied fail. This legislation, with the managers' amendment, provides FDA with clear enforcement authority to bring a seizure or injunction action when a company fails to submit a required pediatric assessment. That failure alone will make the drug or biological product misbranded. This legislation, with the managers' amendment, clarifies that assessments required under FDA's Pediatric Rule that have not yet been submitted to FDA, whether deferred until after approval or not, are assessments required under this legislation. The legislation therefore ensures that hundreds of assessments that FDA required under its rule will be completed for the benefit of the Nation's children. Although this legislation is a giant step forward for children, I can't help but express my disappointment that its requirements are tied to the pediatric exclusivity provision that sunsets in 2007. Adults are guaranteed that new drugs will be reviewed for safety and effectiveness for them before they are approved by the FDA. Our Nation's children deserve no less. They should not have to come back in 4 years to plead for the right to safe and effective medicines. Again, I commend my colleagues for reaching bipartisan agreement on this important initiative for children. I urge the House to act promptly to pass this bill so that children may quickly be protected by this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator. Does he agree as well, that, in accordance with the plain language of the legislation, FDA shall grant a waiver of the requirement to submit pediatric assessments only if the applicant certifies and the Secretary finds that the conditions specified in 505B(a)(4) and 505B(b)(2) exist? By using the word ``including'' before listing the circumstances under which FDA shall grant a full or partial waiver in the committee report for S. 650, the committee does not intend that any conditions or circumstances other than those specifically stated in 505B(a)(4) and 505B(b)(2) serve as the basis for FDA granting a full or partial waiver of the requirements of the legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Democratic sponsors of the bill and I concur with this statement.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Although I and the Democratic sponsors of the bill disagree with the chairman's view that the agency lacked the authority to promulgate the Pediatric Rule and his view that the Federal district court ruling invalidating the rule was correct, we do agree with the chairman's statements regarding the need to apply the requirements of this legislation retroactively to ensure that no pediatric studies are lost in the transition from the rule to this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the hour has gotten late and the vote is nearly upon us, but I did not want this opportunity to pass by without commending my colleague from West Virginia on his amendment. When we talk about the need for homeland security and the efforts to safeguard the American people, Senator Byrd has been leading the charge here in the Senate, and here in Washington, every step of the way for the past 22 months. Tonight he again reminds us about putting the Nation's priorities in order. As he rightly argues, an additional $1.8 billion for increased port security, enhanced chemical and electrical security, and additional aid to our first responders struggling out there to protect Americans is no burden, it is an imperative. In the past several days, as I have prepared for this debate, I have had the opportunity to follow up with mayors across Massachusetts to see how they are coming along in their efforts to protect their citizens. They are working hard, and they are doing their best, but they are not getting the help they need. Mayor Ed Lambert in Fall River, MA, has, to date, only gotten $150,000 to protect his city of 95,000. One-hundred and fifty thousand dollars for a city that has had to reduce its police force by more than 30 police officers. He has the responsibility to protect an extremely important reservoir that serves 200,000 citizens of Southeastern Massachusetts and $150,000 doesn't get him very far. The Mayor of Holyoke, MA, Mike Sullivan, didn't even fare that well. His city is home to one of the nerve centers of the Northeast's electricity grid. And yet he has gotten no homeland security assistance to date to help defray the costs of protecting this piece of critical infrastructure which his police force constantly monitors. He has also gotten no instruction from the federal government regarding what he should be doing to keep it safe and secure. So if any of our colleagues wonder what is happening in the homeland or questioning whether first responders in their cities and towns need help, I recommend that they simply pick up the phone and call their mayors. The mayors and local officials will tell them what an extraordinary need there is. They will also tell them of the great pressure and anxiety they feel to try to do more to protect the public's safety at a time when most of them are wrestling with crushing and unprecedented budget shortfalls. This amendment makes an important downpayment, and sends a strong signal to mayors and first responders across the country. It says that the U.S. Senate knows that more needs to be done, that not enough is being done, and that we are prepared to begin helping you meet the awesome challenges you face. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for standing firm on this amendment, and for all he has done to force our government to recognize and address the extraordinary homeland security needs confronting this nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the Senate for the bipartisan cooperation in approving the Prison Rape Elimination Act. I especially commend my lead Republican co-sponsor, Senator Sessions and his dedicated staff, Andrea Sander, William Smith, and Ed Haden. It has been a privilege to work with Senator Sessions and the two lead sponsors of this legislation in the House, Congressmen Frank Wolf and Bobby Scott. I commend as well the extraordinary coalition of churches, civil rights groups, and concerned citizens who made this achievement possible. The coalition includes Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Justice Policy Institute, the NAACP, the National Association of Evangelicals, the National Council for La Raza, Prison Fellowship, Salvation Army, the Sentencing Project, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Youth Law Center. The coalition has been ably led by Michael Horowitz, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. I also commend Mariam Bell from Prison Fellowship and the Wilberforce Forum, Vincent Schiraldi from the Justice Policy Institute, Lara Stemple from Stop Prison Rape, and John Kaneb, the courageous citizen of Massachusetts whose unyielding effort and commitment to human rights has been invaluable to this legislation. It has taken us nearly a century to get here. It was Winston Churchill who said in 1910 that the ``mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country.'' Today, in 2003, we know that hundreds of thousands of inmates in our Nation--hundreds of thousands, not only convicted prisoners but pretrial detainees and immigration detainees as well--are victims of sexual assault each year. Of the 2 million prisoners in the United States, it is conservatively estimated that 1 in every 10 has been raped. According to a 1996 study, 22 percent of prisoners in Nebraska had been pressured or forced to have sex against their will. Human Rights Watch has reported ``shockingly high rates of sexual abuse'' in U.S. prisons. Prison rape has devastating physical and psychological effects on its victims. It also has serious consequences for communities. Six hundred thousand inmates are released from prison or detention each year, and their brutalization clearly increases the likelihood that they will commit new crimes after they are released. Infection rates for HIV, other sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis, and hepatitis are far greater for prisoners than for the population as a whole. Prison rape undermines the public health by contributing to the spread of these diseases, and often giving potential death sentences to its victims because of AIDS. In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that ``being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.'' Federal, State, and local government officials have a duty under the Constitution to prevent prison violence. Too often, however, officials fail to take obvious steps to protect vulnerable inmates. The Prison Rape Elimination Act has been carefully drafted to address the crisis of prison rape, while still respecting the primary role of States and local governments in administering their prisons and jails. The act directs the Department of Justice to conduct an annual statistical analysis of the frequency and effects of prison rape. It establishes a special panel to conduct hearings on prison systems, specific prisons, and specific jails where the incidence of rape is extraordinarily high. It also directs the Attorney General to provide information, assistance, and training for Federal, State, and local authorities on the prevention, investigation, and punishment of prison rape. It authorizes $40 million in grants to strengthen the ability of State and local officials to prevent these abuses. Finally, the act establishes a commission that will conduct hearings in the next 2 years and recommend national correctional standards on issues such as staff training, inmate classification, investigation of rape complaints, trauma care for rape victims, and disease prevention. These standards should apply as soon as possible to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prison accreditation organizations that receive Federal funding will be required to adopt the standards. Each State must certify either that it has adopted and is in full compliance with the national standards, or that the State will use 5 percent of prison- related Federal grants to come into compliance with the standards. States that fail to make a certification will have their grants reduced by 5 percent. The Prison Rape Elimination Act is an important first step. We know that prison education programs reduce recidivism and facilitate the reentry of prisoners into society. Pell grant eligibility should be restored to prisoners who are scheduled for release. Because the high incidence of HIV and hepatitis B and C in prisoners threatens the health of many others, medical testing and treatment for infected prisoners should be expanded and improved. Congress should also repeal the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act that prevent inmates who have been abused from raising their claims in court. I commend our Senate and House colleagues for their strong support of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and I look forward to its enactment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to commend the American Political Science Association on the 50th anniversary of its Congressional Fellowship Program. Since 1953, the association's fellowships have brought talented journalists, scientists, scholars, sociologists, and domestic and foreign policy specialists to spend a few months as staff members in our offices in Congress. I have consistently been impressed with the skill of these fellows in my Senate office over the years, and their expertise has been an important asset. Their detailed knowledge of their professions is outstanding, and contributes significantly to our work on the issues before us. The association's Congressional Fellowship Program has been a valuable addition to the Senate over the past five decades, and their work is more important now than ever. The American Political Science Association deserves great credit for sponsoring these fellowships.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this is an issue which we have considered a number of different times. I know the manager of the bill is familiar with the amendment. I know he is necessarily absent at this time, but he does know the substance of the amendment, and he is involved in the activities of the Appropriations Committee. I will make a presentation and then engage with him when he returns to elaborate and summarize again the reasons and the rationale for this amendment. I also understand it is both the desire of leadership and the floor managers to move the process along. I will be glad to work out with the managers of the bill a time for the Members to consider this amendment in a timely way. Basically, this is the issue. I will go through it in more careful detail in just a few moments. In 1993, we had approximately 1 million Federal employees. It has been the desire and the plan of this administration in the last 2\1/2\ years to see that the number of Federal employees is reduced dramatically and that there be outsourcing. The amendment which we are proposing today follows and embraces the Commercial Activities Panel recommendations on outsourcing so that it will be fair to employees and fair to the taxpayers. This is an excellent report that was made up of contractors and other distinguished panel members. It was recommended in the Defense Authorization Act of 2001. The panel adopted as its mission to improve the current sourcing framework and process so that they reflect the balance among taxpayers' interests, Government needs, employee rights, and contractor concerns. That is what this panel recommended. The administration has been selective in part of the recommendations this panel has taken. This amendment would include the two principal recommendations which the current administration has refused to include. They are included on page 50 of the Commercial Activities Panel. I will describe them in greater detail. But the sum and substance of this amendment is effectively to follow the recommendations that were made in a nonpartisan way which is going to ensure we are going to get the best for the taxpayer dollar and treat the Federal employees fairly. The current administration has carefully eliminated two very important protections the panel recommended. This amendment incorporates those two recommendations in the administration's consideration for the outsourcing which will, if accepted, ensure that as the administration is considering the most efficient way to get the most efficient result as a result of contract competition we will carry forward the mission, in this case, of the Federal employees and the taxpayers. That is what I think we ought to try to do. We ought to do what is fair to the taxpayer and to the employees. The current system does not. This amendment will. Of the Federal employees that we are talking about, 40 percent are veterans. At the current time, 9,000 of these workers have been activated. A great many of them are over in Iraq. This is a wonderful set of circumstances. While on the floor of the Senate, we say we care about our service men and women in Iraq, and we have several thousand of them over in Iraq who happen to be Federal employees. Forty percent of the Federal employees are veterans, and we are about to do them short shrift, if we do not accept the amendment which I offer. I think that is something which would be unworthy of this body at any time and would be unworthy of this body at this particular time. The Office of Management and Budget put in place this year the most sweeping changes in rules on outsourcing of Government work in half a century. These rules contain no requirement for fair competition that would enable the Government employees an opportunity to demonstrate that they can do the work more effectively and for lower cost than private contractors. Now the administration wants to use these new rules to privatize at least 225,000 Department of Defense civilian jobs in the years ahead. That is too much work, too many jobs, and too much of our national security to contract out without fair competition. As I mentioned, nearly 40 percent of the civilian employees in the Department of Defense are veterans who served this Nation proudly. More than 8,000 are activated reservists serving in Iraq and other parts of the world defending our Nation. We owe it to these patriotic Americans not to privatize their jobs without fair competition. At a time when we are spending $4 billion a month in ongoing operations in Iraq, we should ensure the taxpayers are getting the best value for their money. Yet one of the most significant parts of the administration's proposal for the Department allows so-called ``streamlined'' competition for activities involving 65 or fewer employees. The streamlined rules emphasize speed in privatizing Federal jobs at the expense of quality and cost. The process must be finished in 90 days. The rules eliminate important fair competition requirements. Federal employees are at a competitive disadvantage because the rules do not allow them to submit their best bids known as the ``most efficient organization'' plans. That is in contrast to the recommendation. They effectively prohibit Federal employees from being able to submit their best bid. The rules also eliminate the guarantee of cost savings because they fail to require contractors to show appreciable savings by privatizing the work. That is why I offer this amendment today, to ensure that no funds are spent on contracting out Defense Department jobs without fair competition. This amendment is about fair competition. Federal employees must be allowed to offer their best bids. Competition must take into account both the cost savings and the quality. And the health care costs for employees cannot be a deciding factor because Federal employees would obviously be at a disadvantage, and contractors would have an incentive to deny health benefits at all. There are companies that do not provide the health care benefits. If they are in competition with the Federal employers who do provide it, it obviously skews it in favor of the private companies. We do not want to use the competition, in terms of Government contracts, to encourage employers to drop their health insurance for their employees. That certainly would be counterproductive in terms of all of the challenges we are facing in the health care area. Under this amendment they are not disadvantaged, therefore, by providing the health benefits to the Federal employees. This amendment in no way prevents public-private competition. It is a moderate approach to ensure that competition is fair and leads to cost savings. The Commercial Activities Panel, the group charged with reviewing outsourcing policies, has recommended that any replacement for the current competition process should include ``the right of employees to base their proposal on a more efficient organization, rather than the status quo.'' This is their second recommendation under section 4, on page 50: [T]he right of employees to base their proposal on a more efficient organization, rather than the status quo. That particular recommendation is eliminated, which obviously disadvantages the Federal employees in terms of the competition. The panel, comprised largely of contractor and administration representatives, made no exception for functions involving 65 or fewer employees. This is just a figure that was drawn by the administration. The Commercial Activities Panel also recommended that any replacement in the current competition process should include a minimum cost differential, which requires the private contractor to be at least 10 percent or $10 million more efficient than the Federal Government. Without the minimum cost differential, a private contractor could be judged just a few dollars more efficient and take the work away from the Federal employees. Taxpayers would actually lose money on such a contract because of the significant costs of conducting the competition, shifting the work to the private sector, and administering the Government's role in the contract. Unless the private sector can show a significant reduction in the cost, it makes no sense to privatize the work. That has been thoroughly reviewed in this panel, and yet their recommendations on the 10 percent or $10 million requirements are effectively eliminated. This panel reviewed the various minimum standards that ought to be included and made their recommendations, but the administration has effectively eliminated those. This amendment, again, embraces their overall recommendations. On the issue of health care costs, the amendment would reduce the perverse incentive for contractors to provide inferior health care benefits to the employees. The amendment would require the Defense Department to determine the average cost of health insurance for a Federal employee, which remains the same each calendar year for each employee. If the health care costs for Federal employees and private contractors are the same or the contractor's contribution is in excess of the standard established by Congress for the Federal workforce, then the provision will have no effect. But if the contractor's contribution is less than the Federal standard, the contractor cannot receive an unfair advantage in the cost comparison process. This provision addresses a bipartisan concern about inferior or nonexistent health insurance coverage for employees, particularly for those who perform the Federal Government's work. At a time when we are more concerned than ever about homeland defense, these OMB rules give an unfair advantage to private contractors who have little accountability. Yet critical aspects of our national security could be privatized. The repair of planes, ships, and tanks, and the storage and distribution of vital weapons and supplies can be contracted out under these rules. We all know what a disaster it was when the private companies screened bags at our airports. Now Federal workers are doing the job better and Americans are feeling safer. Today, there is far too little real competition for contracts to provide goods and services to Federal agencies. We should be getting the most out of every taxpayer dollar. But less--listen to this--less than 1 percent of Department of Defense service contracts today are subject to full public-private competition. Adoption of this amendment will lead to a better and more efficient procurement policy for the Department of Defense. No jobs would be outsourced without an analysis showing cost savings. Government procurement should be based on what is best for taxpayers and national defense and national security. The amendment will produce real savings for the taxpayers and more reliable equipment for our courageous men and women in uniform. We face great challenges to the Nation's security in these difficult times. More than ever, we rely on the Department of Defense, its dedicated members of our Armed Forces, and its dedicated civilian employees. We owe it to all of them to see that any competition process treats them fairly. Let's not spend money on outsourcing that results from unfair competition and produces inefficient results. Public-private competition should be fair to Federal employees. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that it be temporarily laid aside so that my amendment will be in order.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I send an amendment for myself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Lieberman to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, what is the business before the Senate?