Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I would like to take a moment to recognize the dedication and professionalism of Daniel P. Burnham, chairman and chief executive officer of Raytheon Co. in Lexington, MA. On July 1, 2003, Dan will step down from his position after 5 years at the helm at the company. Dan worked tirelessly to make Raytheon the hallmark company it is today. He came to the company from Allied Signal, bringing his long history in the defense industry. He introduced a management tool known as Six Sigma to improve Raytheon's efficiency. Sigma Six is a testament to Dan's ingenuity, allowing the company to decrease waste, and at the same time, increase productivity. Dan's unwavering commitment to excellence is clearly demonstrated in his ability to streamline the company while preserving its quality. Dan improved customer relations while presiding over a transformation and realignment of Raytheon. Under Dan's leadership, the company made valuable acquisitions that increased its capabilities. He concentrated on customer-focused initiatives and disciplines to ensure that Raytheon provided our men and women in uniform some of the most important defense systems ever developed--many of which were demonstrated recently in Operation Iraqi Freedom. One example of this is the PATRIOT Missile, manufactured by the Raytheon Co. The PATRIOT Missile protected our troops and allies in the Middle East from the threat of Iraqi missiles that our military believed had the potential to carry deadly chemical or biological weapons. The PATRIOT Missile is a valuable tool in our arsenal to assure swift victory in Iraq and save countless lives. Under Dan's leadership, Raytheon won a U.S. Navy contract to develop and produce the next generation of naval vessels. The DD(X) destroyer, with its cutting edge technology will ensure that the United States maintains its tactical and technological superiority on the high seas. Admiral Vern Clark, the Chief of Naval Operations, described the DD(X) destroyer as ``the future of the surface force in the United States Navy.'' The DD(X) will truly be the ship of the 21st century. The Raytheon Co., in no small part, is responsible for providing the United States Navy with this unparalleled vessel. The Tomahawk Cruise Missile, produced by Raytheon and first used in Operation Desert Storm in 1991 has become the premier weapon in the U.S. military's conventional arsenal. Launched from the air, or from the sea, Tomahawk has evolved with the Navy's needs and proved invaluable in Operation Desert Fox, 1998, and was once again the weapon of choice for ``shock and awe'' in Operation Iraqi Freedom this year. Under Dan Burnham, Raytheon has provided the U.S. Navy with an unequaled precision strike capability offering long-range strike capability against heavily defended targets. Although Dan will continue to hold the position of nonexecutive chairman for some time, his leadership at the helm of a company he made strong will be dearly missed. I believe the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and especially, brave men and women of our Armed Services have benefited from Dan Burnham's keen sense of right and relentless pursuit of excellence. We wish him, his wife, Meg, and his family every success in this new and exciting chapter of his life. We bid him ``Fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the bipartisan legislation before the Senate today will continue our Federal commitment to see that the Nation's most vulnerable children are protected and safe. Child abuse and child neglect continue to be serious problems. Each year, thousands of children suffer. On any given day, 2,400 children are discovered to be victims of child abuse or neglect. Tragically, 3 of those children die each day as a result. Abuse and neglect harm children from all backgrounds and all walks of life. Too many children are in situations in which their basic needs are not provided for. Too many children are subject to physical harm or emotional trauma. Too many children are victims of sexual abuse. We can do better and we must do better. For nearly 30 years, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act has supported States in their efforts to respond to the immediate needs of children subjected to abuse and neglect, and helped them and their families take the road to recovery. We all know it's a huge challenge. Each week, child protective service agencies in local communities respond to more than 50,000 suspected cases of child abuse and neglect. Despite their hard work, nearly half of all children in substantiated cases of abuse receive no follow-up services or support. This legislation is an important step toward responding to the needs of every neglected and abused child in every community in our country. It is an important step toward seeing that children in desperate circumstances have the support they need to stop the abuse and deal with the harmful effects. This legislation will renew our federal commitment to help states improve their own response to child abuse and neglect. More will be done to promote better planning at the Federal, State, and local levels, facilitate more effective referrals to the available services, and broaden the scope of the response. More will be done to see that those responsible for investigating or working with abused children and their families have the necessary training and skills to do their jobs effectively and efficiently. States will be encouraged to provide new safety training to child abuse caseworkers. New cross-training will help caseworkers identify signs of domestic violence and substance abuse that often signal child abuse. More will be done to strengthen community efforts. Our bill will ensure that local citizens oversee, review, and improve the practices of child protective services. It will promote partnerships between public agencies and community-based organizations to share the responsibility of reducing child abuse and neglect in their communities. More will be done to end geographic barriers to adoption and provide permanent homes for abused children. More will be done to combat the destructive effects of family violence and provide immediate help to its victims. A new electronic network will link victims to organizations available to help them, 24- hours-a-day, 365 days-a-year. More will also be done to reduce the social and emotional impact of domestic violence on children. A new demonstration program will support direct services, referrals, and appropriate interventions for the 10 million children who witness domestic violence each year. Our colleague, Senator Wellstone, was one of the greatest champions for abused children. I commend the conferees for their work to include this important program that he cared about so deeply. As our communities across the nation continue their efforts to respond more effectively to every incident of child abuse and neglect, they must do so with resources already stretched thin. This bipartisan legislation increases the authorization for the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to $200 million in order to deliver the support that local communities need to do this important work. I commend Senator Gregg and all of the conferees for their work and their leadership on this legislation. It's a major step toward guaranteeing help for children and families to overcome the devastating effects of abuse, neglect, and violence in their lives.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Chair will remind me when I have used 8 minutes. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate Senator Schumer and Senator McCain for the development of this legislation from over 2 years ago. I thank them for their work and help with our Labor and Human Resources Committee. When I was fortunate enough to be chairman of that committee, we considered the legislation, and we reported that legislation out. But it was a very contentious meeting of our committee, and we had a very contentious debate here on the floor of the Senate. But what we have been able to do over the period of the recent months, under the leadership of Senator Gregg and others, is we have come up with a recommendation which reflects virtually a unanimous committee. I think this legislation is going to achieve the objectives Senator McCain and Senator Schumer had intended. So at the outset, I want to say that I am very hopeful we will get this legislation passed. I quite frankly think this is the appropriate amendment on the appropriate vehicle because we are talking about prescription drugs and we are talking about Medicare, and we are now talking about the costs of the prescription drugs. These matters are interrelated. If you ask people and seniors about their issues with prescription drugs, they will say, first, accessibility and availability, but, secondly, they will talk about cost. This legislation isn't going to be the final answer on cost, but make no mistake about it, as Senator Schumer has pointed out, the savings will be in the tens of billions of dollars to consumers over the period of the next few years. That is incredibly important. The Hatch-Waxman legislation, as we know, was to try to provide encouragement to our drug companies to innovate and to create and to bring new possibilities into the market. It has been very successful. But it has also interfered with the chances for generics to enter the market after these patents were up. As has been pointed out by those earlier, we found out there were abuses. Senator McCain and Senator Schumer noted this and made a series of recommendations in order that we address it. Their position was justified, again just over a year ago, by the Federal Trade Commission, which virtually identified very similar kinds of problems. There were previously many questions by the Members of this body--I remember the debate and I can still hear the voices in opposition. But, I think, this legislation is reaffirming the efforts which they have developed and which will, hopefully, pass here and will be accepted in the conference that is going to take place. Just finally, Mr. President, I want to review once again, as the Senators have pointed out, the cost difference of the various drugs over recent times. First of all, this chart I have in the Chamber shows you that the brand and generic price gap continues to widen. This chart goes back to 1990. And here you will see, the average prescription was going for $27.16, but only $10.20 for the generic. On the chart, the red represents the continuing increase in the cost of the average prescription drug that is requested by the pharmacy. It has gone up to $65.29 over the period of 10 years. For the generic, it has gone from $10.29 up to $19. So we have seen this dramatic increase in terms of the brand name, and really a very level increase effectively in terms of the generic. If we are talking about cost and talking about prices, the more we do to help give consumers a greater opportunity to get generics, we will have had some important impact in terms of creating a downward trend in prices. That is enormously important. Let's just look over, as others have pointed out, the difference between the average cost per brand name on these various items. If we look at Prozac for depression, $110.77 for the brand name versus $44.31 for the generic. Claritin for allergies, $63.65 versus $25.46. And going to heart disease, Norvasc, $55.69 to $22.27. Zocor for high cholesterol, $124.71 to $49.88. These are various drugs dealing with ulcers, depression, allergies, heart disease, and high cholesterol, which are many of the challenges our seniors are facing. This is a pretty good indicator of what we are talking about in terms of making generics more available and improving the opportunity for them to get on the market and be able to have a positive impact for our consumers. All of us understand that we have doubled the NIH budget. That is because we recognized in a very important way, Republicans and Democrats, that this really is the life sciences century. The opportunities we are facing now with the mapping of the human genome, the analysis of DNA, the proclivities that individuals have in terms of cancer and other diseases, are enabling us to anticipate and begin to develop medical technologies that will help prevent individuals from getting these diseases. The opportunities are unlimited. We have made that commitment and we are finding these breakthroughs that are taking place every single day. Many of these initiatives are up in my home State of Massachusetts, they are in New England, associated with many of our great universities and our teaching hospitals. We want to make sure those kinds of breakthroughs are actually going to get out and benefit our fellow citizens. We want to maintain on the one hand the incentives for the industry, the pharmaceutical industry to move ahead with breakthrough kinds of technologies. On the other hand, we want to make sure that available drugs in the form of generics will be accessible. This legislation is going to have an important impact in terms of the cost. I commend the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, and Senator McCain for moving this along. I thank very much the chairman of the committee, Senator Gregg, for giving it time and attention and for his very constructive and positive help. This is an important piece of legislation. It makes a very significant difference for our seniors. I am hopeful this will pass by an overwhelming majority. I yield back to the Senator from New York any remaining time I have.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho as well. As I indicated, I was willing to share the time we had up to 11. As soon as a Member is prepared to offer an amendment, I will yield the floor because I do think we have had a good opportunity to make general comments and opening statements over the period of these last 2 days, and I think the business of the Senate should require that we begin to address some of the areas which need addressing. I understood my friend and colleague from Michigan will be in the Chamber shortly, and as soon as she is and it is agreeable with the managers, I will yield the floor. To review very quickly, this is a momentous time. We give credit to the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee in moving this process forward in a way which I think can be a building foundation for addressing the critical issue which is on the minds of so many of our seniors, and that is a good, effective, reliable, affordable prescription drug program. As has been mentioned previously, when we passed the Medicare Program in 1965, it provided for the hospitalization and physician fees, but it did not provide for prescription drugs. Only about 3 percent of all of the private sector insurance programs had a prescription drug program. What we have seen since that time is the extraordinary explosion of prescription drugs which are so necessary to enhance and improve the quality of life for so many of our seniors. They are as indispensable to our seniors as hospitalization and physician fees. In 1965, we made a commitment and a pledge to our seniors that is really the basis of a program that was developed in the late 1950s. It was an issue that divided the two political parties in the 1960 campaign. President Kennedy felt strongly about developing a Medicare system for our seniors. We had failed to provide national health insurance for all Americans, a goal I am still committed to. It was Harry Truman's goal. We are always reminded that we in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, effectively have national health insurance. There is not a single Member of this body who does not take the Federal employees program, rejects that, and takes their own homegrown program. They all take the Federal employees program, which is heavily underwritten by the Federal Government. I do not know of a single program that exists in this country that has the taxpayer underwriting what we in the Congress and the Senate have, including a prescription drug program. So I am always interested in those who complain about our efforts to try and pass a good, effective prescription drug program when we have it ourselves. We have looked out after ourselves and we have been so slow in looking out after the needs of our fellow elderly citizens. I arrived to the Chamber too late to hear my good friend--and he is my good friend--from New Hampshire talk about the indebtedness this bill will provide in terms of the children of this country. This is a $400 billion bill and it is going to mean several thousand dollars of indebtedness to the children who are being born today. Well, that pales in significance when we think that under the Republican administration of the last 2 \1/2\ years we have passed a $2.3 billion tax reduction that is going to mean billions and hundreds of billions of dollars of indebtedness for our children. This program at least is going to make a difference in terms of the quality of life for seniors who have built this country and sacrificed for their children and fought in the wars and fought to make sure we were going to have economic recovery. It is an investment in them rather than just to the wealthiest individuals. I welcome the opportunity to debate, if we are going to have the chance to do it, which is of greater value to the Nation, which is of greater value to our fellow human beings, these extraordinary tax cuts or the downpayment on the prescription drug program. The principal reason we have been unable to bring this matter up and develop a bipartisan approach is because of ideology, which has been a part of the Republican commitment over the years, and that is to privatize Social Security and privatize Medicare. They have been opposed to Medicare, opposed to Social Security, from the time immemorial when these programs were passed. We heard the word ``socialism'' talked about all during the debates on the Medicare Program. Every other word was ``socialized medicine.'' We do not hear any of those words anymore. We hear words, as we heard from Newt Gingrich, ``we want to see Medicare wither on the vine.'' But they are opposed to it. So this issue has been divisive because those of us who have been strongly committed to Medicare refuse to see that it is effectively dismantled by offering a prescription program that would be used to either bribe or coerce seniors out of the Medicare system into a private sector system and then to let the Medicare system wither on the vine. Our elderly people, our seniors, those who have contributed to this country, know their doctor, they know their neighborhood, they know their hospital, and they do not want to be forced out of Medicare into an uncertain system. Many of us in this body are going to resist that and fight that with every fiber in our body. We have seen an alteration and change, and that is what has been developed in the Senate Finance Committee legislation, which will permit those who are under Medicare to be assured that no matter what part of the country they live in they are going to be able to have access to the prescription drug program that is outlined in this legislation. For those who want to go into the HMOs, there will be at least the opportunity for those in the private sector who want to risk providing the benefit package that is in here, and want to take the chance, to be able to compete. That is the compromise that has certainly not satisfied everyone--I certainly would not have drafted the bill as it is drafted today--but nonetheless it is the compromise that came out of that committee and which I think Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus deserve credit for. They have established a foundation in which this prescription drug program can be enhanced, strengthened, and built upon, both during the debate over the next 6 days but also in the future years. As long as I am in the Senate and honored to represent the people of Massachusetts, I make the commitment and pledge that I am going to do everything I possibly can to make sure this is the kind of program which is worthy of our senior citizens in the future, but we will have a downpayment in this program with this legislation. In the past, we reviewed very briefly the need for this program and the costs for this program. I think at the time that we are actually into the amendments, we do not have to go back and speak about the enormous costs our elderly are paying, how their CPI, their adjustment, is not enough to make up for these escalating costs; the fact that these prescription drugs are absolutely indispensable to the lives and well-being of millions of our citizens. We know that is the truth. We know we have an uncertain condition out there in terms of the seniors having access to the drugs. Many of them do not have it. Others are in retirement programs. An increasing number of the retirement programs are dropping individuals. Millions of others have them in Medicaid and that is being cut back in a number of our States, and they are being left out and left behind. Millions are in HMOs, and almost half of those numbers have been dropped by the HMOs and other conditions have been put on in terms of restricting the amounts that will be expended by the HMOs in the prescription drug program which is disadvantaging these individuals to an enormous degree. Medigap is not picking up the process. The fact remains, our seniors are enormously vulnerable today. Never have they been more vulnerable. This is against another background that I will just mention very briefly. We have seen in the Congress, in the Senate, over the period of this last 5 years the doubling of the NIH budget. Why was that done? The reason it was done is the recognition that we have had, Republicans and Democrats alike, of the enormous opportunities for breakthroughs, in prescription drugs primarily, and in new technologies to deal with the challenges in health care, mixing technologies and mixing prescription drugs to make further advances--which is certainly the goal of Dr. Sahni at the NIH. These are very bold and challenging new initiatives in which they are involved. We have seen the mapping of the human genome, with all that means, in the predictability of how genes are going to function and so averting dangers that presents to patients in the future, anticipating that and developing medical technologies that can address that so we can prevent individuals from developing, in this instance I am talking about, several different types of cancers. The list goes on. We have the most extraordinary opportunity now for breakthroughs in prescription drugs. Now that we have doubled the NIH budget, we have to ask ourselves what is the sense of making these breakthroughs and spending billions and billions of dollars if we are not going to get them out of the laboratory and into the homes of those who need them? This bill is that downpayment that ensures the drugs get out of the laboratory and to those who need them. That is why it is so important we take action. We are seeing such progress. I see in my own State of Massachusetts--we have more biotech companies in our State than all of Western Europe. I am always amazed at the continued dreams in these research labs in terms of potential breakthroughs and the progress that is being made. It is beyond the possible imagination of so many of us, to think someday we might really conquer cancer, we might really conquer Alzheimer's, we might really conquer diabetes or other diseases. There are dreamers who believe it will be done, and in the none-too-distant future. We want to put in place a process, a procedure, a delivery system which is affordable, dependable, reliable, so those breakthroughs can get out and get to them. That is what this bill does. I will just review this because these issues were raised. One of the features, which is not a major feature but which I find has not been mentioned in most of the news reports, is that in January of next year 5 million seniors will receive a card--some might have to pay $25 for it but no more than $25--that will guarantee them $600 worth of prescription drugs. If they do not use all $600, if they use just $400, they can carry that over to next year. That is a real downpayment of this legislation. Five million people are going to receive that. Although the Medicare program will take 3 years to get implemented, this prescription drug card will soon provide needed relief to millions of seniors. That is an indicator to at least 5 million of our seniors, that help is coming, help is on its way. Let me give three quick examples of an average senior citizen with an income of $15,000. That is the average senior citizen, if they have drug costs at the national average of $2,300. This is the group this legislation perhaps helps the least. We take great care of the 40 percent of the senior citizens with lowest incomes and we take care of those with catastrophic expenses. This is the group we hope to provide additional assistance. This individual would pay a $420 premium, and they would pay $1,298 for cost sharing, and they would receive $604. That may not sound like much, but that is $604 they do not get today. Let's take the instance of an individual who has the same income, average income, and has a great deal of medical expenses; $15,000 income and they have $10,000 in expenses. They will end up paying the $4,500 but they get $5,400 in savings under this legislation. That is still a good deal--I'd like it to be better, but at least they will gain significantly from this legislation if they have those kinds of bills. Let's take the same individual. By and large this is 40 percent of all the senior citizens--not half but not far from it. Let's look at a person just above the poverty line with $9,000 in income and the same $2,300 in drug expenses each year. That works out to about $190 per month. Under this legislation, at $9,000 income, you would pay $5. That would mean a monthly savings of $185. If your income is $12,000 and you pay out the $190 per month in expenses today, under this legislation you would pay $10 and would save $180 per month. If your income is $13,500 and you have $190 in monthly costs, under this legislation you would pay $23 and save $168. That is a major relief for those families who are facing these extraordinary challenges across this country. I see the ranking members of the Finance Committee now on the floor. Let me wind up. Mr. President, listen to this: 83 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are going to receive more out of this legislation than they will pay in. Today, in part B of the Medicare only about 50 percent of seniors get out more than they pay in. Under this legislation it would be 83 percent. For those who go through what they call the doughnut hole, that is the period of time when they are not getting the full assistance I would like to see, it is important to recognize that two-thirds of those who go into the doughnut hole go out the other end into the catastrophic and get extra help. Only about 8 percent actually remain in that doughnut hole. We are going to have the opportunity here to try to make some further adjustments to strengthen and improve this legislation. Finally, let me say in watching what happened over in the House of Representatives, their legislation fails to have the kind of backup this legislation has in the delivery of the Medicare benefit, which is unacceptable. They have what they call a premium support program which effectively would undermine the Medicare system, which is completely unacceptable. The means testing is in there, which would require individuals to submit their tax forms to agencies of the Federal Government and insurance companies. I think that would be very offensive. There are many different aspects of that legislation that are enormously troubling. But that is not this bill. That is not this bill. So, again, I commend Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and our Republican leader, Senator Frist, for all they have done working this through. I look forward to the opportunity to address these amendments. I see the hour of 11 has arrived.

Mr. KENNEDY. We have, therefore, about 20 minutes between now and 11 o'clock. I will be glad to divide that time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I want to accommodate my friend. Do I understand the Senator from Michigan intends to offer an amendment this morning?

Mr. KENNEDY. We have 9 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. We now will be recognized?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, each year fifth graders across the United States compete in a writing contest on immigration sponsored by the American Immigrant Law Foundation and the American Immigration Layers Association. Thousands of students participated in this year's competition, responding to the question, ``Why I'm Glad America is a Nation of Immigrants.'' In 1958, President Kennedy, who was then completing his first term as a Senator, published a book with the title, ``A Nation of Immigrants,'' and I had the privilege of serving as one of the judges for this year's contest. It was impressive to see how the students responded. Their essays illustrate the wealth of diverse cultures that immigrants share with our Nation. The students' writings radiate with pride for our diversity and our immigrant heritage. Many students told personal stories of their families and friends and their immigration to the United States. The winner of this year's contest is Miranda Santucci of Pittsburgh. In her essay, ``An American Patchwork Quilt,'' Miranda explores the value of her friends' cultures and how their diversity has enhanced her life. She compares the United States to a colorful patchwork quilt where ``every fabric piece tells an immigrant's story about overcoming hardship, seeking opportunities, and reaching for dreams,'' and where ``threads of different languages, customs, foods, cultures, religions and skills hold these pieces together.'' Miranda's eloquent essay reaches to the heart of what makes us all uniquely American. Other students honored for their exceptional writing were Rachel Adams of Houston, Melissa Cheng of Atlanta, Jessica Du of Alameda, and Elias Reisman of Indianapolis. I congratulate these students on their outstanding achievement, and I know my brother would be proud of them too. These award-winning essays will be of interest to all of us in the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond on this legislation to head off the cuts in AmeriCorps announced this week that will be so devastating to so many Americorps programs in so many States. Our bill directs the Corporation for National Service to calculate membership by a reasonable formula, and ensure that every person who commits to a year of service to their community in AmeriCorps will receive the education award. The fiscal mismanagement at the Corporation is a serious continuing problem, but State and local programs should not have to pay for those mistakes by slashing their programs. Today, we take the first step in preserving service opportunities for this year and the future. We will continue to do all we can to increase the funds available, so that programs do not suffer because the Corporation over-enrolled 20,000 members last year. That over-enrollment is a clear signal that Americorps is reviving the spirit of volunteerism in our country and we should make these opportunities available for people of all ages to serve their communities. In this struggling economy, too many after- school and summer school programs are being cut back, and health clinics and food kitchens are serving more people than ever. AmeriCorps helps these programs help others. I commend Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond for their impressive bipartisan leadership on this issue, and I urge the Senate to join us in maintaining these successful programs.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand there is a division in the time. How much time do we have on our side?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself such time as I might consume. The history of America is that of a people always fighting for an ever more perfect union, a nation of genuine fairness and opportunity for all, and that meets the basic needs of all Americans. We fought to create public schools, so all children can receive an education to help them succeed, and to equip them to participate fully in our society. We have battled for civil rights, so that no one is denied opportunity because of race, gender, religion, national origin, or disability. We fought for a fair minimum wage, so that those who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should never live in poverty. We created Social Security and Medicare, so that those who work their entire lives, and contribute so much to the nation, will be cared for in their golden years. But ours is always an unfinished republic. With each generation, and in each era, we continue to perfect our democracy and to fight for progress. And today, one of the great challenges of our time is at long last to right an injustice that has harmed millions of our fellow Americans, the fact that Medicare today does not provide a prescription drug benefit. Many of us in the Senate have battled for such a benefit for almost a quarter of a century. In fact, Senator Strom Thurmond and I introduced the first legislation to create a prescription drug benefit in 1977. And in more recent times, Democrats have led the charge. In 1999, Senator Rockefeller and I introduced key legislation to provide prescription drug coverage in Medicare. In 2002, Democrats led the way once again in offering the Graham-Miller-Kennedy Medicare prescription drug bill. For too many years, the prospects of enacting a Medicare prescription drug benefit were jeopardized by the insistence of many Republicans and the Bush administration to destroy Medicare by forcing seniors to leave their family doctors and join HMOs and PPOs. In fact, President Bush proposed to use a prescription drug benefit as bait, telling seniors that if they wanted prescription drug coverage, they had to leave Medicare to get it. While purporting the give seniors choices within Medicare, his plan in fact gave seniors only one option, to leave the Medicare they love to get the prescription drugs they need. The only winner in this misguided policy would be the insurance industry, which stood to gain $2.5 trillion dollars from the privatization of Medicare. Democrats and senior citizens locked arms to fight this proposal. We stood up for Medicare and its promise to provide the health care needs of seniors citizens in retirement. Senior citizens across America said it's wrong to coerce them into leaving their family doctors and joining HMOs and PPOs to get the drug benefits they need and deserve. In recent days, the voices of America's 35 million senior citizens were finally heard. Last week, a bipartisan group of Senators rejected the President's backwards priorities, and President Bush retreated from his insistence on privatizing Medicare. Instead of holding the needs of seniors hostage to an ideological agenda, Republicans' willingness to put aside ideology and work with Democrats to create a prescription drug benefit now paves the way for the largest expansion of Medicare in its 37-year history. After many years of battling for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, we now face the very real prospect that Congress can pass, and the President will sign, a bill that provides the prescription drug benefit within conventional Medicare. In fact, if you think Medicare should be privatized, then you should oppose this bill. This promising moment comes at a time of crisis for millions of our senior citizens. Too many elderly citizens choose between food on the table and the medicine they need. Too many elderly Americans are taking only half the drugs their doctor prescribes, or none at all, because they cannot afford them. Today, the average senior citizen has an income of around $15,000, and prescription drug bills of $2,300. That is the average, and many senior citizens incur drug costs in the thousands of dollars each year. Senior citizens are faced with a deadly double whammy. Prescription drug costs are out of control, and private insurance coverage is drying up. Last year, prescription drug costs soared by a whopping 14 percent. They have shot up at double-digit rates in each of the last 5 years. Whether we are talking about employee retirement plans, Medigap coverage, or Medicare HMOs, prescription drug coverage is skyrocketing in cost, and becoming more and more out of reach for the elderly. This chart reflects the rise in costs as compared to what our seniors are receiving in their Social Security COLA increase, going from 1998 where there was a 10 percent increase in the cost of prescription drugs but seniors were getting only 2.1 percent. In 1999, it was 19.7 percent and the increase in the cost of living was at 1.3 percent. Then we go throughout 2000, 2001, 2002, and today in 2003 it is expected to go up to 13 percent with seniors receiving a very modest 1.4 percent. When we are talking about what is happening to the quality of life of our seniors, we are talking about these absolutely vital, indispensable medications, prescription drugs, which they need and which are costly. The fact is, so many of our seniors are on fixed incomes that with very modest increases in the cost of living they are constantly being squeezed, and this is putting the kind of pressure on them and on their lives and on their families which has caused such extraordinary pain, suffering, and anguish among the seniors; and not only among the seniors but among their families as well. The costs are one of the dramatic aspects of the whole prescription drug issue, and we are going to make a downpayment hopefully with the acceptance of the legislation that came out of our committee. The initial McCain-Schumer legislation which now is supported unanimously from our committee will help to move generic drugs on to the market more quickly and be available to our seniors under this program. It used to be that the only seniors with reliable, adequate, affordable coverage were the very poor on Medicaid, but even that benefit is eroding. Today, because of the State fiscal crisis created by the recession and the let-them-eat-cake attitude of the Republican party, even the poorest of the poor can no longer count on protection. States are now facing the largest budget deficits in half a century, an estimated $26 billion this year, and $70 billion next year. This chart is a pretty good reflection of the situation of our seniors on the issue of affordable, reliable and quality drug coverage. Thirteen million have absolutely no coverage; 10 million have employer-sponsored coverage; 5 million are under Medicare; 2 million are under Medigap; 3 million are under Medicaid and a small amount on other public coverage. It used to be said of this group, it was the one group listed here that had dependable, reliable, certain drug coverage for those under Medicaid, but that is no longer true. We are seeing the numbers covered under Medicaid going down every year. With the States now facing very sizable deficits, they are cutting back on the Medicaid and the coverage. The result is States are cutting back on the prescription drug coverage for those least able to pay. Thirty-nine States expect to cut their Medicaid drug benefit this year. In my home State of Massachusetts, 80,000 senior citizens were about to lose their prescription drug coverage under the same senior Advantage Program on July 1. Emergency action by the State legislature solved the problem but only after making substantial reductions in the coverage. Ten million of the elderly enjoy high-quality, affordable retirement coverage through a former employer, but retiree coverage is plummeting, too. In just 8 years, from 1994 to 2002, the number of firms offering retiree coverage fell by a massive 40 percent. The employer-sponsored column on this chart shows 10 million employer sponsored retirees. We have 13 million with no coverage, 10 million with the employer sponsored, and we saw a gradual reduction for the poorest of our seniors. So let's see what is happening now. The firms offering retiree health benefits have dropped 40 percent from 1994 to 2002. In 1994, 40 percent of the firms offered retiree health benefits. Go back to 1988; it was about 85 percent; in 1994, it was 40 percent; in 2002, it was just over 20 to 22 percent. So we are seeing that availability constantly squeezed. Medicare HMOs are also drastically cutting back. Since 1999, more than 2.5 million Medicare beneficiaries have been dropped by their Medicare HMOs. Of the HMOs that remain in the program, more than 70 percent limit drug coverage to a meager $500 a year or less and half only pay for generic drugs. I have another chart showing groups of seniors. We talked about the employer sponsored seniors and the pressure they are under; we talk of the pressure under the Medicaid. Let's look at those 5 million under the Medicaid HMO and see what has happened to them: 2.4 million have been dropped, and of the remaining, take a look at what has happened. The Medicare HMOs are reducing the level of drug coverage. Sure, some provide it, but 86 percent limited the coverage to less than $1,000 in 2003; 70 percent imposed caps of less than $500. So although they are providing, if the average expenditure of a senior is $2,300 and HMOs are limiting it to less than $3,500, it is an empty promise. We have those with no coverage. We have those in the employer retirement programs who are seeing reductions; we have the HMOs seeing reduced coverage. We have seen in the Medicaid where there has been reduced coverage as well. We also see that Medigap plans that offer drug coverage are priced out of reach for most seniors, and the coverage offered by these plans is severely limited. Thirteen million beneficiaries, as I mentioned, have no prescription drug coverage at all. Only half of all senior citizens have coverage throughout the year. It is time to mend the broken promise of Medicare. It is time to provide every senior citizen in this great country of ours with solid, reliable, comprehensive prescription drug coverage. As we enter this debate, our great challenge is fairness for all senior citizens who need Medicare's help to afford the prescription drugs they need. The resources within this Republican budget are limited. The Republican budget provides only enough funding to cover about a quarter of the needs of America's senior citizens over the next decade. They are going to be spending $1.8 trillion. This is $400 million. They are spending $1.8 trillion, and this is $400 million, 22 percent. There will be large gaps. It is very important to remember this is a downpayment. Those who are supporting this program are strongly committed to building on this program. It is a downpayment. We are going to come back again and again and again to make sure we are going to meet the challenges provided by this bill and out there across this country we recognize what our seniors are facing. We must ensure that the resources are available to be used equitably. As I mentioned, this bill is a downpayment on our commitment as Democrats to provide for the needs of our senior citizens. We will do everything we can to increase the resources available to provide an ample prescription drug benefit. If we do not succeed today, we will battle the Republican budget tomorrow, next month, next year, carry this issue into the next election, if necessary, until we have in place a White House and Congress that support Medicare and give the prescription drug benefit the resources it deserves. However, we must get started. This bill does much that is good. It provides a low-income benefit that assures 40 percent of all seniors that they can get help with drug expenses with minimum premiums and copays. It saves the average senior with average drug costs approximately $600 a year--not as much as we should be providing but a good downpayment toward a contract with the seniors. This next chart is for a senior with an average income of $15,000. They average $2,300 in prescription drugs. This is how the program works. For $420 in premium, they will pay $1,298 in cost sharing, and they get a benefit of $604, not as much as we would like to have, but nonetheless that $604 for an average income senior citizen is an important resource and assistance to them. The next chart shows the same senior citizen with $15,000 of income. Say they have $10,000--we have taken the average income and the average amount of expenditure for prescription drugs, and now we have the average income of $15,000--this senior has $10,000 for prescription drugs. That is a lot of money, but there are certain pills, for example, dealing with treatment of cancer, that are $68 each. These expenditures can be run up relatively easily, and they are run up by many of our seniors. This is $10,000; they would pay in $4,500 and they would receive $5,462 in savings under this bill. This is a not insignificant amount of savings. The next chart shows families with lower incomes. We are going from $9,000 to $12,000, to $13,000. This reflects the current monthly drug costs, so we are talking $2,300 a year at $190 a month for the average. This is the way this bill treats them. The monthly costs for a senior with a $9,000 income would be $5, and they would save $185. If there was a $12,000 income, and they still had to pay the $190, which again is the average, their monthly cost would be $10, and they would save $180. If the income was $13,500 and they spent the $190, their monthly cost would be $23, and they would save $168. So the help, the assistance for the 40 percent of our seniors at the lower end of the income is very substantial, as it should be. We have seen where, even for the average income for the senior, it still provides about $600. For those with an average income for seniors, with higher amounts of prescription drug expenses, it provides a very important and substantial relief for them. In addition to this--this is one of the most appealing aspects of this program--this bill offers immediate relief for seniors. We are talking about next January. Five million low-income seniors will receive a $600 prescription drug credit card on January 1, 2004. The most they will pay for it is $25. But for those of limited income, they will get that free, and they will have the first $600 prior to the time the program goes into effect, which will be in 2006. This will be available to them in January 2004. All seniors can receive savings through the drug discount card. This is enormously important. If a senior doesn't use the whole $600, they can carry that over for another year. Help is on the way, immediately, for 5 million seniors starting in January of next year. That, I believe, is enormously important and positive news for many seniors. While this bill does much that is good, it still has serious gaps and omissions. It will still leave many elderly suffering from severe financial strains as they try to purchase the prescription drugs they need. It doesn't provide the retiree health plans with the fair treatment they deserve to assure they can continue to meet the needs of retired workers. It could be improved by changes to ensure the coverage provided every senior citizen will be as stable and reliable as possible. During the course of this debate, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate will try to address these needs. If we are unsuccessful, we will continue to fight over the years ahead to fill in the gaps in this program. At bottom, the issue of providing adequate prescription coverage for seniors is a question of priorities. For the administration and for too many Republicans in Congress, tax cuts for billionaires are more important than health care for senior citizens. But Senator Grassley, and I see him on the floor here today, and Senator Baucus and the other members of the Finance Committee deserve enormous credit for the excellent job they have done, designing a benefit within a $400 billion straitjacket imposed by the budget resolution. I also pay tribute to the majority leader, Senator Frist, for his strong leadership, assisting the Finance Committee, contributing to the shaping of this program which I think is commendable. It needs work but it is a very important, significant, and positive start. Because this program covers only about a quarter of the elderly's drug expenditures, it still leaves too many elderly--those with incomes below 160 percent of poverty--with unaffordable costs. Forty percent, those with incomes below 160 percent of poverty, will have comprehensive, affordable coverage through this program or through Medicaid. This is a tremendous achievement. But others, particularly the middle class with moderate incomes and high drug expenses, still face high drug costs. The benefits under this bill--a $275 deductible, 50 percent cost-sharing, an out-of-pocket limit of $3,700 with continued copayment obligations after the limit is reached, are far less generous than those enjoyed by most younger Americans, even though the elderly's need for prescription drugs is much greater. We have talked about what they call the doughnut hole, where there is very comprehensive coverage for those at the lower end and very substantial help for those at the higher end, and less help and assistance for those in the middle. That will be one of the issues which we will have a chance to address here on the floor, to try to see if we can't provide some additional help to those who will not be benefitted as extensively as those other two groups. That will be in the form of amendments that will be introduced and hopefully supported. Also, I mentioned the serious issues that work because of the interaction of this program in terms of retiree benefits that can potentially threaten retirees, and is an issue that must and should be addressed. I am hopeful it will be before final passage. A final area where this bill could benefit from improvements is in the rules and regulations established for the private insurance plans that are the vehicle for delivering prescription drug benefits to senior citizens and the disabled, and for the fallback plans that will deliver the benefit when there are not two insurance plans meeting Government standards in each region of the country. The sponsors of this bill have done much to assure that individuals who enroll in private plans will pay a reasonable premium, and that there will always be coverage available in every area of the country. But more can be done and should be done to assure that premiums are reliable and affordable everywhere and that senior citizens do not have to change plans frequently because of instability in the market. Many Democrats were concerned that last year's Republican bill could prove unworkable because private insurance plans might not be willing to provide the drug benefit. The concern was especially strong in rural areas, where HMOs and PPOs have been unwilling or unable to provide services. Under the compromise plan, there will be a government drug plan available in any place where there are not at least two private drug plans meeting Medicare standards available. To increase stability of choices for senior citizens, private drug plans must remain available in any region they choose to enter for at least 2 years. Thus, the bill guarantees that every senior citizen, no matter where they live, will be able to receive the benefits provided in the bill. The Republican bill last year relied solely on competition to keep drug plan premiums reasonable for senor citizens, leaving senior citizens vulnerable to exorbitant charges and profiteering if competition was ineffective. This year's bill establishes tight regulatory criteria to assure that plan premiums are fair. It uses the same rules that govern the Federal Employee Health Benefits program. Specifically, the bill states that a plan cannot be approved to participate in the drug program unless its premiums are ``reasonably and equitably reflect the cost of benefits'' provided under the plan. In the FEHBP program this requirement has been interpreted to allow health plans a maximum markup of one percent over costs. Democrats have been concerned that private drug-only plans might deny beneficiaries access to off-formulary drugs in order to reduce costs and maximize profits. Last year's Republican bill contained no independent appeal rights and did not require that beneficiaries receive off-formulary drugs at the preferred drug rate even if an internal appeal were successful. The compromise program requires the plans to cover at least two drugs in each therapeutic class, establishes a strong independent appeal process, and provides that off- formulary drugs can be obtained at the preferred drug rate if an appeal is successful. This week the Senate has an opportunity to make the bill better. But we must also guard against it becoming worse. This bill provides fair treatment and the opportunity for new choices for senior citizens who want to stay in Medicare as well as for those who might consider a private insurance alternative. The President's plan, by contrast, sought to stack the deck against Medicare--and against senor citizens. Instead of the trustee of the Medicare program, his plan would have made the Government little more than a shill for HMOs and the insurance industry. Seniors would have been poorer, their medical options would have been constrained, their ability to choose their own doctors would have been compromised, and all so that wealthy HMOs and insurance companies can become even wealthier. If all senior citizens can be forced out of Medicare and into HMO and private insurance, the revenues of the insurance industry will increase by more than $2.5 trillion over the next decade. Same on the insurance industry for supporting this plan, and shame on the administration for putting the interests of wealthy and powerful political supporters above the interests of the senior citizens who have built this great country. The bill before the Senate says no to this outrageous scheme. But I anticipate that amendments will be offered during the course of this debate to tilt the scales once again against senior citizens and for private insurers. It is unlikely that any Member of the Senate will publicly demand, as the President did, that senior citizens give up their choice of doctors in order to get prescription drugs. But there are more subtle ways of unraveling Medicare. Amendments may be offered to uncap Federal payments to private insurers, so that they have an open tap to the Federal treasury, even if their services cost more than those same services provided by Medicare. We need help for senior citizens, not corporate welfare for insurance companies that seek to undermine Medicare. There are other ideas that could destroy our bipartisan compromise. The President says that he has embraced the bipartisan Senate compromise. But some are considering implementing a vast experiment on senior citizens all over this country. This experiment--called ``premium support''--is yet another attempt to force senior citizens into HMOs and other private insurance plans. It is more subtle but just as unacceptable as the President's original proposal. It could dramatically raise Medicare premiums and victimize the oldest and sickest of the Medicare population. It is a poison pill that could kill the prospects for reform and destroy all the progress that has been made in the Senate. I am also gravely concerned by other proposals that would establish, for the first time, a means test for Medicare benefits. One of the reasons that Medicare is such a popular and successful program is that all individuals, rich and poor alike, contribute, and all benefit. Senior citizens want Medicare, not welfare. And tying catastrophic benefits to a person's income is the camel's nose under the tent that could lead to the dismantling of Medicare and its replacement with welfare. As this debate progresses, there will be a vast array of facts and figures discussed in this chamber. Many of the issues will be discussed in language that will seem technical and arcane to the average American. All of us must strive to remember why this debate is important and what it is really about. The typical Medicare enrollee is a seventy-five year old widow, living alone. Her total income is just $11,300 a year. She has at least one chronic condition and suffers from arthritis. In her younger years, she and her husband worked hard. They raised a family. They stood by this country through economic hard times, the Second World War, the Korean War, and the Cold War. They sacrificed to protect and build a better country--not just for their children but for all of us. Now it is time for us to fulfill our promise to her. It is time to assure her the affordable health care she deserves. It is time to pass a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally charged to both sides.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing legislation to reauthorize the Corporation for National Service. In 1993 the bipartisan National Service Act created a new program to give citizens of all ages the opportunity to serve their communities. Our goal now is to work with the administration to promote and expand service through the State commissions and the extensive system of national organizations that recruit, train and place volunteers and mentors. The legislation we are introducing, the Call to Service Act, will reauthorize the Corporation for National Service and keep these programs on track to achieve this goal. Over 250,000 Americans have given a year of service in communities across the country, tutoring young people, connecting people to health care, and building stronger communities. Through the AmeriCorps model, we can give more young people the support they need to dedicate a year of their lives to service. These are active citizens, and our country will benefit immensely from the lessons we learn in serving others. Community service knows no age limits. Thousands of older Americans volunteer to tutor young people or support others in living independently, or serve in local agencies. Senior citizens are a valuable resource in every community, and service gives them an effective way to continue to be involved in the communities they helped to build. The Foster Grandparent, Senior Companion, and RSVP programs, enable seniors to contribute every day to their communities. The Learn and Serve programs enable young men and women to learn early in their lives that serving others is important, and that service is a basic responsibility of citizenship. Children learn the value of community service, and build habits of service that last a lifetime. Service learning programs for elementary and secondary students provide hands-on experiences to supplement traditional school curriculums. The evidence is irrefutable. Service learning works. When students help others in their communities, they do better academically in school too. In terms of cost effectiveness, the Federal Learn and Serve America program is an excellent investment. In the 2001-2002 school year more than 800,000 students across the country from grades K through 12 had the opportunity to serve their community, raise their academic achievement, and develop social skills. In Massachusetts, over 86,000 students of all ages currently participate in Learn and Serve programs. Our bill strengthens our commitment to service by increasing the number of volunteers in AmeriCorps, lowering the age for senior service from 60 to 55 and increasing the authorization for Learn and Serve. In addition, our bill creates a new service opportunity for high school students. After completing 300 hours of service to their community, high school students will earn a $1,000 award to use on college. This increases the critical service to communities, builds the habit of serving in young people and sets them on track to continue their education. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Jeffords, Senator Edwards, Senator Reed, Senator Clinton, Senator Murray, Senator Bingaman and Senator Dodd, to introduce legislation to amend the Higher Education Act to require a feasibility and impact study on the recent changes in the state and local tax tables that are the basis for determining need-based aid for college students. The bill will direct GAO to complete a study in consultation with the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance within 90 days, well in advance of the 04-05 academic year when these changes would take effect. The advisory committee is a non-partisan board appointed by the President, which oversees college financial aid. Any future changes in the tables would have to be considered in consultation with the Advisory Committee. When decisions are made that affect the cost of college, it is important for Congress to understand the factors that influenced that decision and the practical impact of those decisions on students. In light of the slumping economy, State budget crises, and rising college costs, the Department's proposed changes come at a very difficult time for students and their families. Raising the cost of tuition by a few hundred dollars may well mean that qualified students can no longer afford college. It is our responsibility to see that any such changes are made for sound reasons. I also urge the Department of Education to work with Congress in the future in making these decisions, so that all of us in the House and Senate will have a reasonable opportunity to consider such changes before they are made. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the United Services Organization for two vivid recent examples of the legendary support and assistance that it provides for the families of members of our Armed Forces when their loved ones are serving away from home. The USO is rightly renowned for the joy, the comfort, and the happiness it has brought to our troops and their families over the years. It is truly an American treasure, as it has shown once again in its extraordinary support for two Massachusetts families during the recent war in Iraq. Under the leadership of executive director Alice Harkins, the USO of New England came to the aid of Sergeant Vanessa Turner who became critically ill in Iraq while serving in Operation Enduring Freedom. Upon the onset of her illness, SGT Turner was flown back to Germany and to the community she left. Sergeant Turner's 15-year-old daughter Brittany was left in Germany while her mother was deployed to Iraq. Brittany remained strong, finishing the school year while visiting her mother in the hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. SGT Turner's family in Roxbury, MA, was desperate to fly to her bedside and to comfort Brittany. The USO of New England came to the rescue, arranging for SGT Turner's mother, sister, and brother to fly to Landstuhl, Germany. According to Alice Harkins, this was ``an easy request. Their children are our responsibility; if the service members know that the community is taking care of their children, then they can relax.'' In the second case, the Armours family in Athol, MA, was devastated to learn that Specialist Jamvis Armours had been critically wounded in Iraq and had been flown to the Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. Problems arose in getting SP Armours' wife and children to the hospital. Again, the USO came to the rescue. They assisted the family financially and emotionally, and Alice Harkins actually drove from Boston toward Athol to see them and to ensure that they had all they needed for the trip. Going the extra mile is what makes the USO so widely admired throughout our country and by all the members of our Armed Forces wherever they serve. I commend the USO of New England in all it does so well, and for demonstrating in these two cases that its helping hand is always there when its help is needed most. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Jeffords, Senator Edwards, Senator Reed, Senator Clinton, Senator Murray, Senator Bingaman and Senator Dodd, to introduce legislation to amend the Higher Education Act to require a feasibility and impact study on the recent changes in the state and local tax tables that are the basis for determining need-based aid for college students. The bill will direct GAO to complete a study in consultation with the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance within 90 days, well in advance of the 04-05 academic year when these changes would take effect. The advisory committee is a non-partisan board appointed by the President, which oversees college financial aid. Any future changes in the tables would have to be considered in consultation with the Advisory Committee. When decisions are made that affect the cost of college, it is important for Congress to understand the factors that influenced that decision and the practical impact of those decisions on students. In light of the slumping economy, State budget crises, and rising college costs, the Department's proposed changes come at a very difficult time for students and their families. Raising the cost of tuition by a few hundred dollars may well mean that qualified students can no longer afford college. It is our responsibility to see that any such changes are made for sound reasons. I also urge the Department of Education to work with Congress in the future in making these decisions, so that all of us in the House and Senate will have a reasonable opportunity to consider such changes before they are made. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing legislation to reauthorize the Corporation for National Service. In 1993 the bipartisan National Service Act created a new program to give citizens of all ages the opportunity to serve their communities. Our goal now is to work with the administration to promote and expand service through the State commissions and the extensive system of national organizations that recruit, train and place volunteers and mentors. The legislation we are introducing, the Call to Service Act, will reauthorize the Corporation for National Service and keep these programs on track to achieve this goal. Over 250,000 Americans have given a year of service in communities across the country, tutoring young people, connecting people to health care, and building stronger communities. Through the AmeriCorps model, we can give more young people the support they need to dedicate a year of their lives to service. These are active citizens, and our country will benefit immensely from the lessons we learn in serving others. Community service knows no age limits. Thousands of older Americans volunteer to tutor young people or support others in living independently, or serve in local agencies. Senior citizens are a valuable resource in every community, and service gives them an effective way to continue to be involved in the communities they helped to build. The Foster Grandparent, Senior Companion, and RSVP programs, enable seniors to contribute every day to their communities. The Learn and Serve programs enable young men and women to learn early in their lives that serving others is important, and that service is a basic responsibility of citizenship. Children learn the value of community service, and build habits of service that last a lifetime. Service learning programs for elementary and secondary students provide hands-on experiences to supplement traditional school curriculums. The evidence is irrefutable. Service learning works. When students help others in their communities, they do better academically in school too. In terms of cost effectiveness, the Federal Learn and Serve America program is an excellent investment. In the 2001-2002 school year more than 800,000 students across the country from grades K through 12 had the opportunity to serve their community, raise their academic achievement, and develop social skills. In Massachusetts, over 86,000 students of all ages currently participate in Learn and Serve programs. Our bill strengthens our commitment to service by increasing the number of volunteers in AmeriCorps, lowering the age for senior service from 60 to 55 and increasing the authorization for Learn and Serve. In addition, our bill creates a new service opportunity for high school students. After completing 300 hours of service to their community, high school students will earn a $1,000 award to use on college. This increases the critical service to communities, builds the habit of serving in young people and sets them on track to continue their education. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted during the consideration of this legislation to Stacey Sachs, Debra Whitman, Jennifer Loukissas, David Dorsey, Prema Arasu, and Eric Sapp.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to at the opening of this debate and discussion recognize the guiding lights of this legislation, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, for bringing this legislation to the floor. This legislation in one form or another has been before the Finance Committee for 5 to 6 years in recent times, actually going back to 1978 when legislation was introduced by myself, Senator Thurmond, and others at other times. But this is a major breakthrough, as was pointed out by the Senator from Kentucky. This legislation is going to lead to conference and eventually it will be signed by the President of the United States. So this is good news for all the seniors of this country. It isn't all that all of us would like to have achieved. But, nonetheless, it is a solid downpayment. I will take a few minutes of the Senate's time to indicate what I find to be the most compelling reasons for the legislation, and also discuss areas which I hope in the time we have to debate that the Senate will give some focus and attention to. But we should not minimize the extraordinary work that has been done by the chairman, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus of Montana, in moving this legislation through the committee; and also other members of the committee. I also add to that the majority leader, Senator Frist. Senator Frist is a member of the Committee on Finance but he is also on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. He brings a very unique background and experience in health care policy matters. Clearly, he has had a very important influence in the shaping of this legislation. All of us welcome his involvement in the health care debate. We have worked together on a number of the bioterrorism pieces of legislation and in other areas. I think we are fortunate to have his expertise in the Senate on health care matters. We are grateful for his involvement in this legislation. I was here in the spring of 1994 when the Medicare legislation was defeated. It was defeated by a significant number--I think 15 or 18 votes--at that particular time. And then I was here again in 1995-- about 10 months later--when again the Senate considered the legislation, and it passed overwhelmingly; and a number of those who voted against it actually voted in favor of it. The principal intervening event between 1964 and 1965 was the 1964 election, where this was front and center in terms of President Johnson's election. It had been in the 1960 election, but in 1964, given the fact that Medicare had been defeated, it was a matter of enormous concern to seniors. As has been appropriately pointed out, it isn't just the seniors who are interested in this legislation, it is generational because so many of those who are not seniors are involved in the quality of life for those who are seniors. They are the children and the grandchildren, and they care very deeply that their parents and grandparents are going to live in peace and security and dignity. When we passed the Medicare proposal, we gave the assurances to our seniors that if they played by the rules, paid into the health care system, paid into the Medicare system, that their health care needs would be attended to. That was true with regard to hospitalization. It was true with regard to physician services. We did not anticipate the third leg of that stool of Medicare was going to be the prescription drugs. Only about 3 percent of the total private insurance company plans at that time had a prescription drug program. It was not included. And now, if you look at the needs of our senior citizens, we ask ourselves, why didn't we have the foresight to see that need? And why haven't we taken action in order to remedy that loophole? It has taken a long time, but we are finding a strong downpayment in meeting that obligation today. I have always believed that every day we fail to pass a prescription drug program we are violating our commitment, our promise, our guarantee to the elderly people in this country in that solemn promise we made when we passed Medicare: Pay into the system, and you will be assured that your health care needs will be attended to. So it has been a long time in coming. There are those who have been strongly opposed to a prescription drug program for ideological reasons. They are strongly opposed to Medicare. You can go back and look and read the history of the debates on Medicare--both in the past and the statements made in recent times, and as recently as in the past few weeks--where we have found Members, primarily our friends on the other side of the aisle, who do not believe in Medicare and who never believed we ought to have a prescription drug program that was rooted in the Medicare system. There are recent times most of us can remember where statements were made. There was the Speaker of the House who talked about the Medicare system, that they wanted to see the Medicare system wither on the vine, and so there was an ideological commitment that said: If we are ever going to pass a prescription drug program, it has to be rooted not in Medicare, but it has to be rooted in the private sector, and we will do everything we can to make sure it is. We will provide all the financial incentives. We will effectively bribe individuals into the private sector or coerce them into the private sector and let the Medicare system wither over here. If that was the program, there would not be anyone on this floor who would take stronger issue with it than I would, as one who has followed the Medicare system, believes in it deeply, and has seen the benefits it has provided to hundreds of thousands of the citizens of my own State of Massachusetts and around this country and knows the great sense of confidence our seniors have in this system and the Social Security system. In fact, these are the men and women who brought us out of the Depression, who fought in the World Wars, who fought in Korea, who faced the challenge of nuclear terror and the dangers of the expansions of communism. They have sacrificed for their children and their grandchildren, and they are entitled, in the richest country in the world, to live in some security and dignity, and the lack of being able to get prescription drugs is denying them that opportunity. They believe in Social Security and the Medicare system. This legislation will give them the assurance that if that is their desire, they will be able to receive prescription drugs under Medicare. That is why I support this legislation. Those who believe it should be just a private system are not going to vote for this bill. They shouldn't vote for it because it isn't going to be a private system. We will have the opportunity to explain that in more detail. I will take a moment to review some of the facts that are known to every senior citizen in this country. I think they are reflected on this chart I have in the Chamber. First of all, let's look at what has happened in terms of the cost of the prescription drugs our seniors need. The yellow on the chart shows the COLA for Medicare, Social Security. The blue shows the increased costs of prescription drugs over the same period of 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, with the increased costs, respectively, being 10 percent, 19 percent, 16 percent, 15 percent, 14 percent, 13 percent. This all comes out of the income of individuals who effectively have fixed incomes, and this with a modest COLA. You can see with these extraordinary escalations of costs what is happening to our seniors. Often on the floor we have seen and heard our good friend from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, who has provided great leadership--as have others--about the hard and harsh choices that are taking place in homes all over this country, where seniors are making choices between the prescription drugs which are vital to their health care and the food they need to eat, or in our part of the country, it is the heating so they can survive in the winter, or in other parts of the country, it is the cooling to make life at least livable in the South. There has been an extraordinary escalation and continuation of costs. We will have an opportunity during the debate and the discussion on this issue to consider legislation that has come out of our Human Resources Committee, out of the Health Committee, that was initiated by Senator McCain and Senator Schumer that we addressed last year on the floor of the Senate and which passed the Senate, which will help and assist generic drugs to come further forward. And, in the meantime, over the period of these past months, with a lot of hard work, there is legislation that now has very broad support, which was virtually unanimous out of our committee, with the support of Senator Gregg, myself, and others who are strongly behind it. I supported it last time. We are hopeful of doing something in the totality, not only in the area of coverage, but also in the areas of cost. We are not going to solve all of the problems in either area, but this kind of debate and discussion is going to include both the issues of coverage and the issues of cost. Let me review very quickly where we are in terms of the coverage for our senior citizens. Of the 38 million seniors, we know 13 million lack any kind of quality drug coverage. They are effectively on their own. They buy at the top price. They do not really get any deduction, and they are virtually without any kind of coverage. Another 10 million have employer-sponsored coverage. Another 5 million have Medicare HMO, 2 million are under the Medigap, and 3 million are under Medicaid. I believe when we used to debate this issue in years past, we would say the only group among these seniors that was really guaranteed affordable, dependable, reliable prescription drugs were the 3 million under Medicaid. That is not true any longer. Let's see what has happened. There is a general kind of profile of where our seniors are with regard to the quality of their drug coverage. Let's take, No. 1, the employer-sponsored programs. This will raise an issue on one of the challenges this current bill is facing. But let's just review very quickly what has happened in terms of employer-sponsored coverage in recent times. If you go back to 1988, it was about 80 percent. In 1994, only 40 percent of all the retirees were included in the program. Look at this, as shown on the chart: Going down from 1994 to 2002, now it is about 22 percent, and falling rapidly. The bottom is falling out in terms of the kinds of guarantees for the millions of Americans who have employer-sponsored plans. So we have one large group of Americans with nothing. We have another group that has employer-sponsored plans, but the total number of programs now providing these is dropping down, and employers who have them in many instances are dropping them. So there is no guarantee for that group of Americans. What about this other group of Americans, those with regard to the Medicare HMO? If you look at what is happening with regard to the Medicare HMO, you will find out the drug benefit is only offered as an option of the HMO. Thirty-four percent offer no drug coverage at all; more than 2 million Medicare beneficiaries lost their HMO coverage since 1999, so they are dropping. But this is the other insidious factor: 86 percent of HMOs limited the coverage to less than $1,000 in 2003; 70 percent limited coverage to $750 or less in 2003. So you can say on the one hand, some are covered with the employer-based system, but you can see that the system is at the point of collapse. Others say HMOs are offering coverage. But, they are dropping them on the first hand, and they are putting the blockage there to protect themselves, and that is, of course, a disaster for many other seniors. We say we have the Medigap coverage that provides for 2 to 3 million. You all are familiar with the absolute explosion of the cost and increasing numbers. Both have dropped it. This is the background. We find millions have no coverage. Even for those who have coverage there is uncertainty, even if they are employer based. If it is HMOs, we are finding increasing restrictions that make it unreliable. We have a whole population that is faced with a serious challenge and a serious need. Now, what does this proposal do? How will our senior citizens under Medicare benefit under this program? What is basically the delivery mechanism that has been a key element in terms of trying to make sure we were going to give the assurances to our seniors that there will be somewhere, in any part of America, the guarantee that Medicare will be there but also permits the private plans, if they are in local areas, to be able to, if that is the desire at least, if they are going to meet the obligations? We will have a chance during the course of debate to review it. I know the ranking member and chairman have gone over in the markup those particular provisions that talk about the guarantees of the program and why the various kinds of conditions to make sure we are not going to have the excess charges and how we are going to have the standards and how we are going to have a good benefit package. On the one hand, there is the traditional Medicare Program. The individual will be able to continue. The Government delivers the doctors, hospital, and other services. Then, in many areas, the individual will have a choice between two different private plans and a guaranteed fallback of the Medicare system, if the private plans are not successful. So there is the guarantee there. And in the cases where there is the Medicare Advantage and the private plans, you will have the PPOs and the local HMOs that will be able to submit the plans. We will have the guarantee on the one hand through the Medicare system, and the opportunity on the other. We will have an opportunity to go through it in greater detail. Let me mention, for those who are watching this broadcast, what this can really mean to individuals. We know the average cost for seniors is $2,300. That is the average cost per year. As we have pointed out, and it has been mentioned earlier, the elderly are going to spend $1.7 trillion, $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years on drugs. This is only $400 billion, 24 or 25 percent. So we know there are large gaps. This will not be everything for everybody, but it is going to provide important coverage to about 35 to 40 percent of our elderly under Medicare, those of the lowest income who are in desperate need, and also be sensitive to those with catastrophic kinds of health needs. And it also provides some important relief for those in the middle, although not all of what we would like because individuals will for a period of time fail to get the coverage, the area that we call the donut, and then pick up coverage later on. But let me use the example of a typical income which would be about $15,000 for a senior. This is the chart that will indicate what the savings would be. The typical one is $15,000. The typical prescription drug cost would be $2,300. The premium would be $420. Their cost sharing would be $1,250. They would save $600 in this program. I wish it was a good deal more, but that is $600 over the cost of the year. Take that same individual, $15,000, they have $10,000 in health care costs. They would spend $400, and they would save $5,462 under the bill. This is a dramatic savings for those on the upper end, and let me tell you what it would be on the lower end. Let's take an individual with $15,000 income who might have expenses at the lower level. I will have a chart for this. I am sorry I don't have it. What we are trying to do with each example is to give individuals who might be watching some idea as to what would happen to them. Say a senior with an income of $9,000 and they currently have monthly drug bills of $500. They would, under this bill, pay a total of $15 and have $484 in savings. Low-income people who have drug bills of $500 would have $484 of savings. If they are $12,000, they would have $468 in savings, if they spend $500. And if they are $13,500, which is the 160 percent of poverty on this thing, and had $500 a month, they would save themselves $416. So we see for the very needy it is a very important benefit. For those who will be facing catastrophic drug costs, it is a great help. For those in the middle, it is some help but not all the help we would like to see, or that they deserve. Beyond this, one of the other features I find enormously appealing is what they call the card, the discount card that seniors will be issued. It is called the prescription card. It will be issued next January. Basically, what that will do, for approximately 5 million low-income seniors, if this bill gets passed and signed into law, basically, again, the 5 million low-income seniors, they will be able to get a card for $25 and be guaranteed up to $600 at their pharmacy. If they don't spend it all the first year, say only $400, the remaining $200 will kick over for the next year. That will begin immediately. This legislation will take time. It will take 2 years before they are able to set up the various kinds of structures which I outlined earlier to achieve it. There are important areas I am hopeful we can address in this area. This is $400 billion. It is a lot of resources. But we have also seen where this Senate has passed tax cuts for $2.3 trillion. This is $400 billion. So it does seem to me we ought to be able to find some way to help middle-income seniors more than we have by providing additional resources to this particular proposal. An effort certainly will be focused on that. There is a second area which is of central concern. That is the retirees. The way this legislation has been constructed, there may be those companies that feel that rather than continue to provide coverage for retirees, this will be a way to drop them off and have them picked up under this program rather than meeting their obligations and their responsibilities under the agreements which they have had and committed themselves to over time. We believe that is an area that needs focus and addressing during the course of the debate. You cannot get away from the fact that this legislation is, as Senator Baucus has pointed out, major legislation in terms of the unfinished business and in terms of Medicare, particularly in the area of prescription drugs. Many of us believe this is the life sciences century, where we have seen breakthroughs that are coming, like the mapping and sequencing of the human genome which has permitted us to be able to screen and inform people who might have a predisposition in terms of breast cancer, for example. We are considering legislation to make sure people will not be discriminated against in terms of employment and getting medical insurance because of these kinds of indications. But we are able to find out through the work on the human genome so much about the types of illnesses that people have proclivities to develop. So we are in the century of the life sciences and breakthroughs. We have doubled our basic commitment in terms of basic research. We are seeing the breakthroughs in these extraordinary kinds of developments of pharmaceutical drugs that can be lifesaving and can relieve the most challenging and difficult illnesses and diseases that we face in the country and around the world. We are going to face a challenge about how we are going to get the best of those prescription drugs into the homes of people who need them. That will be a challenge. That will be a challenge for us here as a matter of national priority, I believe. A defining aspect of our humanity and decency is whether we are prepared as a nation to make it a priority to be able to do that. This is a downpayment on that commitment. That is why this legislation is of essential importance and consequence and why I look forward to the next days in terms of the debate and discussion that we can move this process forward and move to making sure we are meeting the challenges that our seniors are facing in all parts of the country. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join with Senator Gregg to introduce the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Our goal is a quality education for every disabled child. We know that education opens the golden door of opportunity for every child, and it is especially important for children with disabilities. Since it was first enacted, IDEA has opened that door and helped millions of children with disabilities to lead independent and productive lives. For them, IDEA has been the difference between dependence and independence, between lost potential and productive careers. The need for IDEA is greater now than ever. Over 6 million children with disabilities rely on the Act to obtain the same learning opportunities as their non-disabled fellow students. We know that schools need Federal help to make IDEA work. Over the last two years we have listened to students, parents, teachers, and school administrators. We have weighed thousands of comments on the most effective ways to live up to the great promise of this law. They told us they needed stronger enforcement of IDEA. This bill provides it, by giving the Secretary of Education and State education agencies greater power and new ways to measure compliance and impose sanctions when schools fail to live up the standards we've set. They told us they needed stronger accountability. This bill provides it, by requiring schools to meet strict benchmarks for student achievement, by providing better delivery of transition services, and by dealing with the over-representation of minorities in IDEA. They told us they wanted a stronger and more flexible Individualized Education Program. This bill provides it, by requiring that every student's plan contain positive ways to support the child and to increase parental involvement. They told us they wanted to protect students from being expelled from school because of their disability. This bill provides it, by requiring schools to determine whether a child's behavior is the result of the disability, or the lack of other supports that should have been provided. They told us they wanted better teachers in the classroom--as well- trained as other teachers. This bill provides it, by requiring all special education teachers to be highly qualified by 2007, and by designating 100 percent of State improvement grants to support professional development of teachers. They told us they wanted more help for their children in the transition from school to college or to work. This bill provides it, by giving greater access to the vocational rehabilitation system and taking other steps to assist the child in meeting post-secondary goals. The debate over how best to fund these reforms goes on. Schools urgently need the resources to make the IDEA a reality. It is not enough to provide only some of the promised federal aid. We must find a way to fully fund IDEA, because every dollar lost is another child that slips through the cracks. We will have an opportunity to debate this issue and others in our committee and in the Senate in the weeks ahead. I look forward to these debates and to working with Senator Gregg and all our colleagues to make this bill even stronger.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, when Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters were so viciously assaulted last month, Burma's brutal leaders were responsible for yet another major crime against human rights. The violent repression of these democracy activists is a tragic and appalling example of the Burmese Government's shameful and continuing suppression of genuine reform. Only a year ago, Suu Kyi had been released from one of her previous house arrests in Burma, and that arrest had lasted 19 months. This new atrocity has outraged the world once again, and stronger action by the United States and the entire international community is long overdue. The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act calls for stiffer economic sanctions and the immediate release of Suu Kyi and her supporters. She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her inspiring courageous leadership. Again and again, she shows us why she deserves it. She is an inspiration to all who care about justice and human rights.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will vote for the nomination of Michael Chertoff to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Mr. Chertoff has a fine reputation as a prosecutor, special counsel, and defense attorney. Fellow members of the bar in New Jersey and the district of Columbia have described him as intelligent, fair-minded, and hard-working. Furthermore, in his role as the head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, certain aspects of his performance have impressed me. For example, his testimony before our committee in November 2001, expressing confidence in the ability of our Federal courts to deal with terrorist suspects, has been important to the debate over the need for military tribunals. However, other policies and decisions involving criminal justice matters during Mr. Chertoff's tenure as assistant Attorney General have raised serious concerns. At his hearing, I asked Mr. Chertoff extensive questions about the Justice Department's advocacy on behalf of the Freeney amendment to the AMBER Alert bill. This Amendment has nothing to do with protecting children, and everything to do with handcuffing judges and eliminating fairness in our federal sentencing system. Its provisions effectively strip Federal judges of discretion to impose individualized sentences, and transform the longstanding sentencing guidelines system into a mandatory minimum sentencing system. As Chief Justice Rehnquist has said, they ``do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guideline system and . . . seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.'' On April 4, 2003, the Justice Department sent a five-page letter to Senator Hatch expressing its ``strong support for Congressman Feeney's amendment to the House version of S. 151.'' This letter was sent only a few days before the House-Senate conference on the bill and was influential in persuading the conferees to accept the Feeney amendment. At his hearing, Mr. Chertoff declined to say how involved he was in developing the Department's position on the Feeney amendment or whether he supported it. In his subsequent answers to my written questions, Mr. Chertoff stated that he ``personally had no part in drafting'' the Department's April 4 letter and did not ``review it before it was sent.'' While I appreciate the more forthcoming nature of Mr. Chertoff's written answers, I find it remarkable that the head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division Division did not participate in the drafting or review of the Department's letter. The Feeney amendment was very important legislation which substantially altered sentencing policy for the Federal criminal justice system. It was vigorously opposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and many prosecutors, defense attorneys, law professors, civil rights organizations, and business groups. As a Federal appellate judge, Mr. Chertoff will soon be responsible for applying its provisions. He will need to explain to his new colleagues why he did not do more at the Justice Department to stop this ill-advised legislation--or at least support Chief Justice Rehnquist's call for a ``thorough and dispassionate inquiry into the consequences'' of the Feeney amendment before its enactment. I was similarly surprised to learn, as Mr. Chertoff acknowledged in his most recent set of written answers, that neither he nor anyone else in the criminal division was involved in the decision to deny the Federal Bureau of Investigation the authority to investigate the recent gun purchases of suspected terrorists after September 11. This decision was made in spite of the legal opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel on October 11, 2001, stating that there is ``nothing in the NICS regulations that prohibits the F.B.I. from deriving additional benefits from checking audit log records.'' The F.B.I. had previously conducted such investigations for years. Furthermore, the Justice Department was at the time aggressively expanding its investigative and prosecutory powers in response to the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Chertoff could have, and should have, done more to help the F.B.I. agents investigating those vicious attacks. As with the Feeney amendment, this was an example of ideology trumping smart and effective law enforcement at the Department of Justice. Finally, I am concerned about inconsistencies in the responses Mr. Chertoff provided with respect to the debate over the legality of the interrogation of John Walker Lindh. According to reports in Newsweek and the New Yorker, John DePue, an attorney in the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section of the Criminal Division, which Mr. Chertoff heads now and headed then, called the Professional Responsibility Advisory Office in December 2001 and requested its opinion on the propriety of having the F.B.I. interview Lindh. At his hearing, Mr. Chertoff testified: [I have to say, Senator, I think the Professional Responsibility [Advisory] Office was not asked for advice in this matter. I am familiar with the matter. I was involved in it.] In response to my first set of written questions, Mr. Chertoff stated: [T]hose at the Department responsible for the Lindh matter before and during the time of Lindh's interrogation did not to my knowledge seek PRAO's advice.] Then, in response to my second set of written questions, Mr. Chertoff acknowledged that the e-mails published in Newsweek ``indicate that Mr. DePue initiated contact with PRAO about whether the FBI should question Walker Lindh and that Ms. Radack responded to that inquiry''--and that he first learned about theses e-mails in early 2002. I understand that Mr. Chertoff does not believe that Mr. DePue played a major role in the Lindh investigation and prosecution, and does not understand why DePue asked PRAO for its opinion on this matter. Nevertheless, Mr. Chertoff should have fully shared his knowledge regarding this situation from the outset, rather than deny that PRAO was asked for its opinion. According to the New Yorker article published on March 10, 2003, 2 weeks after the Justice Department filed charges against Lindh, Ms. Radack, a highly qualified employee who received a merit bonus the previous year, received a ``blistering'' performance evaluation which severely questioned her legal judgment, and she was advised to get a new job. Mr. Chertoff has told me that has no knowledge of the facts surrounding Ms. Radack's employment, performance, or departure from the Department, and I take him at his word. Nevertheless, I remain very concerned about Ms. Radack's situation. According to press reprots--and the Department has never issued any statement disputing them--Ms. Radack was in effect fired for providing legal advice on a matter involving ethical duties and civil liberties that high-level officials at the Department disagreed with. Furthermore, after Ms. Radack notified Justice Department officials that they had failed to turn over several e-mails requested by the Federal court, Department officials notified the managing partners at Ms. Radack's new law firm that she was the target of a criminal investigation. I submitted questions to Attorney General Ashcroft regarding this matter in March, and I await his response. Notwithstanding my concerns about Mr. Chertoff's performance as head of the criminal division--as well as initial failure, later corrected, to provide serious, consistent, and responsive answers to the questions asked by members of the Judiciary Committee--I am supporting his nomination to the Third Circuit. I am doing so based on his fine reputation as a lawyer, his achievements as a prosecutor and special counsel to the New Jersey legislature, and his assurances that as a judge he will apply the law with independence, integrity, and a commitment to due process and the core constitutional values embedded in the fabric of our democracy. My support for Mr. Chertoff's nomination today, however, should not be interpreted as an endorsement or approval for any other position.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the memory of one of the best medical leaders and researchers of our time. One year ago, Dr. Donald Frederickson passed away at his home in Bethesda. Of his many achievements, he is best known to the Nation as Director of the National Institutes of Health but his contributions to medicine, especially in the field of cardiology, began much earlier. Dr. Frederickson first joined the NIH in 1953, and he held several important research and administrative positions in the National Heart Institute, now known as the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, before becoming Director of NIH. At the National Heart Institute, he led the research team that discovered the connection between cholesterol and heart disease. He founded the National Heart Institute's Section on Molecular Disease, and discovered two new diseases. As Director, one of Dr. Frederickson's most notable achievements was in the field of DNA research. He skillfully mediated the early days of the dispute that still concerns us today--the dispute between those concerned with the social and ethical implications of DNA research and those who could see the potentially great benefits of these discoveries. As a result of mediation, NIH was able to develop guidelines for DNA research that met the needs of both groups. After leaving the NIH in 1981, Dr. Frederickson served on numerous boards and panels, in addition to serving as President of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and Scholar-in- Residence at the National Library of Medicine. Throughout his career, Dr. Frederickson was highly respected in both medicine and government. The current NIH Director, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, called him ``a true statesman of science'' and ``a towering influence in the scientific community.'' Donald Frederickson's brilliant contributions to modern medicine will live forever. He was a giant of medical research with an extraordinary ability to see a better and brighter future, and lay the groundwork to make it happen, and we will never forget him.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Burma's brutal and illegitimate military government committed yet another vicious atrocity last week when Aung San Suu Kyi and many members of her democracy movement were suddenly assaulted by a paramilitary group. Some of her supporters were killed and many others were wounded. She herself was taken into so-called ``protective custody'' by the regime but little more is known of her whereabouts, her health, or the safety of the 20 or so people arrested with her. The violent repression of these democracy activists is another sad and infuriating example of the continuing efforts by the Burmese government to block any genuine political reform in the country. Only a year ago Suu Kyi was released from one of her numerous occasions of house arrest in Burma, this one lasting 19 months. Her release last spring came with the promise to release political prisoners and begin a new discussion with her party. That party, the National League of Democracy, legitimately won power in a 1990 election, but was denied the opportunity to take office in the government crackdown that followed. This cruel attack is another example of a corrupt government that continues to commit flagrant human rights violations against its citizens, uses rape as a weapon of intimidation and torture against women, and forcibly enslaves child soldiers to fight their own people. This new atrocity has outraged the world, and many governments have denounced it. Stronger action by the international community is long overdue, and we must act as well. Under S. 1182, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, we call on the Burmese government to release Suu Kyi and her supporters immediately and with no additional harm. Our legislation will impose a total ban on import from Burma. It will freeze the Burmese government's assets in the United States. It will tighten the visa ban on their government officials. It will oppose any new international loans to its government. I am very encouraged by the swift decision of President Bush and Secretary Powell to express their outrage and concern. Congress must do all it can to support the courageous struggle for democracy led by the heroic Aung San Suu Kyi. We pray that she will be released unharmed. She won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1991 for her courageous leadership, and again and again she continues to show us why.