Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the only problem I have with National Hunger Awareness Day is that it should be every day. Across the Nation, 33 million of our fellow citizens are living in poverty and they deserve our help. In recent weeks, Congress has been focused on giving hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, yet we leave the cupboard bare for millions of parents and low-income families. This week, as we debate the energy bill, we are listening carefully to the concerns of big corporations like Halliburton, Exxon, and Entergy, but not nearly carefully enough to the concerns of all those who need our help the most. It is a national scandal and disgrace that for so many millions of Americans, hunger is an issue today and every day. Since the year 2000, poverty and unemployment have been on the rise, while wages and income continue to fall. Hardworking parents have been forced to make impossible choices between feeding their children and paying the rent and medical expenses. These are choices no parent should have to make. No child should go hungry. But every night, 13 million children go to sleep not knowing where or when they will get their next meal. As hunger and malnutrition continue, children are more likely to be absent from school to have behavioral problems, and to have trouble learning to read or do math. They are less likely to be friends with other children or learn from their surroundings, and more likely to miss school because of illness. Clearly, we have to move to end child hunger. This year, Congress will reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act. The Act includes important initiatives, such as school breakfasts and school lunches, and food programs for summer school, after school, and childcare. Studies demonstrate that at-risk, school-age children depend on school-based breakfasts and lunches for more than half of their daily meals. In the reauthorization, we must work to see that every child eligible for subsidized programs actually receives these important meals. Schools must be reimbursed for the actual costs of providing nutritionally balanced meals. We also need these programs to provide additional resources, encourage nutrition education, and to pay school employees a living wage. We have a choice. Congress can continue to lavish more and more tax breaks on the wealthiest individuals and companies in the Nation, or we can invest in food for hungry children. The answer should be obvious to us all. We can and must ensure that no child is allowed to go hungry.

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.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 847.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senators Brownback, McCain, Reid, Bingaman, Durbin, Cantwell, Leahy, Cornyn, Inhofe, Clinton, Kerry, and Schumer. First, I wish to express my very sincere appreciation to the floor managers for giving us an opportunity to address this issue which is of enormous importance to a number of our servicemen and servicewomen. We have debated matters of enormous importance in terms of our national security during the consideration of the Defense authorization bill. I appreciate the patience given by the chairmen of the committee, Senator Warner, and Senator Levin, and I appreciate their willingness to give an opportunity for the consideration of this amendment. I am very hopeful that after discussion of it there will be a willingness to accept the amendment. Mr. President, I understand we have a half an hour. I yield myself such time as I might use. Mr. President, the amendment we are offering is a bipartisan effort intended to recognize the enormous contributions by immigrants in the military. It gives immigrant men and women in our Armed Forces more rapid naturalization, and it establishes protections for their families if they are killed in action. In all our wars, immigrants have fought side by side and given their lives to defend America's freedoms and ideals. One out of every five recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest honor our Nation bestows on our war heroes, has been an immigrant. Their bravery is unequivocal proof that immigrants are as dedicated as any other Americans in defending our country. Today, 37,000 men and women in the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard have the status of permanent residents. Another 12,000 permanent residents are in the Reserves and the National Guard. Sadly, 10 immigrant soldiers were killed in Iraq. The President did the right thing by granting those who died posthumous citizenship, but it is clear that we must do more to ease the path to citizenship for all immigrants who serve in our forces. This amendment improves access to naturalization for lawful permanent residents serving in the military. It provides expedited naturalization for members of the Selected Reserves during military conflicts, and it protects spouses, children, and parents of soldiers killed in action by preserving their ability to file for permanent residence in the United States. Specifically, the amendment reduces from 3 to 2 the number of years requires for immigrants serving in the military during times of peace to become naturalized citizens. It exempts them from paying naturalization filing fees, and it enables them to be naturalized while stationed abroad. Affordable and timely naturalization is the least we can do for those who put their lives on the line to defend our Nation. During times of war, recruiting needs are immediate and readiness is essential. Even though the war in Iraq has ended, our commitment to ending global terrorism will continue, and more and more of these brave men and women will be called to active duty. Many of them are members of the Selected Reserves. I point out, for the benefit of my colleagues, we are just looking at the Selected Reserves. There are a number of aspects to the Reserve units. We have the Selected Reserves as a part of the Ready Reserve, but we are just targeting this on the Selected Reserves. It does not apply to the individual Ready Reserves, the inactive National Guard, Standby Reserve, or Retired Reserve. These are individuals who must keep their competency up under regular kinds of training programs and are very much involved and integrated into the military units. Many of the Selected Reserves have already been activated in the Reserve and National Guard units, and many more expect to be called up at a moment's notice to defend our country and assist in military operations. Over the years, many Reserve and Guard units have become full partners with their active duty counterparts. We saw that in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where you had the highest mobilization of our Reserves and Guard in recent years. Their active duty colleagues cannot go to war without them. Being a member of the Selected Reserves is nothing less than a continuing commitment to meet very demanding standards, and they deserve recognition for their bravery and sacrifice. The amendment allows permanent resident members of the Selected Reserves to expedite their naturalization applications during war or military hostilities. Finally, the amendment provides immigration protection to immediate family members of soldiers killed in action. Provisions reached through compromise will give grieving mothers, fathers, spouses and children the opportunity to legalize their immigration status and avoid deportation in the event of the death of their loved one serving in our military. It just permits them to be a permanent resident alien. Then they take their chances in moving along to become citizens. We know the tragic losses endured by these families for their sacrifices, and it is unfair that they lose their immigration status as well. The provisions of the amendment are identical to those in S. 922, the Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act, which also has strong bipartisan support and is also endorsed by numerous veterans organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Non-Commissioned Officers Association, and the Blue Star Mothers of America. The amendment is a tribute to the sacrifices that these future Americans are already making now for their adopted country. They deserve this important recognition. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that these provisions are enacted into law. Th provisions of this amendment, reached through compromise, give immigration protection to the family members of some slain soldiers. They do not, however, offer protection to all family members, particularly the ones who are undocumented. Our duty to soldiers who give their lives does not depend on how their parents or spouses or children entered the United States. Deportation is never fair pay for the death of a family member. As we together enact these provisions, I will continue working to make sure that we uphold our duties to all of our immigrant soldiers. Mr. President, I have had a chance to talk to the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee and to work with their staffs over a period of time to respond to a number of their very important questions that they have had, and I am hopeful that the Senate will accept this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Otherwise, I renew the request.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, having listened to the leader, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of the House unemployment compensation bill, H.R. 2185, which the House passed last night by a vote of 409 to 19, that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and the preceding all occur without intervening action or debate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, the objection is coming from the Republican side to the bill that passed last night in the House of Representatives 409 to 19. We are prepared. We believe it should include exhaustees. But we want to find the earliest time to let those people who are unemployed know that the Senate is going to be responsive. It passed last night. We are asking now that it be passed right now. If there is going to be an objection by the Republican leadership, the Record ought to reflect that. We are prepared. This is our first priority--to say to those who are receiving unemployment compensation that they will continue to receive it. Do I understand there has been an objection by the Republican leadership?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 832.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to, if I can, ask the Senator a question as well. Is the Senator aware that there are 18,000 members of the Armed Forces who have left the military and are now unemployed? These are men and women who were serving in the military in recent times, are now unemployed, are now depending upon unemployment compensation, brave men and women who served this country gallantly and are now dependent upon unemployment compensation. They will be at risk as well.

Mr. KENNEDY. We would like to have 12 minutes on our side.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this is an issue with which this body should be familiar, the whole issue of unemployment compensation. Let me tell you exactly what this proposal does. It has two parts. First of all, it extends the current program of 13 weeks of benefits until December 31, just as the House did last night by a vote of 409 to 19. That is what the House passed last night. That is one of the two provisions. The second provision is it provides 13 weeks of benefits to the long- term unemployed who have exhausted their benefits and still cannot find a job. That is $2.5 billion. The total cost is $9 billion. Madam President, just to review very quickly, we have 8.8 million unemployed. We have 2.8 million job openings. These are the figures from the Department of Labor. So, obviously, it has been very difficult for millions of Americans who have held unemployment compensation to continue to be able to find any jobs, so they have exhausted their benefits. This particular proposal will provide those benefits for about a million of the unemployed. Madam President, I just draw the attention of the Senate to the actions that were taken on a similar issue by Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, both Presidents Bush and Bill Clinton. Every one of those Presidents signed extended unemployment compensation--most included the individuals who had exhausted their unemployment compensation. Every one of those Presidents has done that. That is exactly what we are proposing to do here in a modest program, to reach those who have already exhausted their unemployment. I will not take a great deal of time to talk about the hardship many unemployed are facing. These are the facts: More than half of the unemployed adults have had to postpone medical treatment--57 percent-- or cut back on the spending for food--56 percent; 1 out of 4 have had to move out of their house and move in with friends and relatives; 38 percent lost telephone service or are worried about losing their phone; and more than a third have had trouble paying their gas or electric bills. These are real American families who have worked hard, paid into the fund, and are in hard times. The fund itself is in surplus. It can afford this kind of a commitment. Finally, when you look at what the Senate has done a few hours ago-- given some $350 billion in tax breaks, primarily to the wealthiest individuals--we are asking for fairness for workers in this country who need this helping hand. Other Republican and Democrat Presidents have found reasons to do that. That is simply what this amendment is about. The point has been raised: Senator, you have had your vote on this. You have had your vote once, twice, or three times. That is right. We are going to have a vote on it four times, five times, six times, or seven times until we are able to get this passed.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this conference report reflects the real priorities of the Republican Party. It cuts back tax relief for working families in order to expand tax breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers. The child credit and marriage penalty relief were both reduced so that more money could be spent on dividend and capital gains tax cuts. As a result of this backroom Republican deal, an average family of four will face a tax increase of $850 in 2005, right after the election; while tax breaks for the wealthy continue for additional years. The bill employs so many gimmicks to help the rich that even the Wall Street Journal called it ``the Great Tax Shelter Act'' of 2003. No wonder this legislation was put together behind closed doors and is being rushed through Congress with little time for scrutiny. The Republican leaders who authored it know that this bill could not survive in the light of day. Clearly, their priorities are not the American people's priorities. The Bush administration apparently believes that the biggest problem in today's economy is that the rich are not rich enough. Republicans think that if you give tax breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers, they will invest more and the economy will grow. It is called ``trickle- down'' economics. The problem with this theory is that the wealthy may not use the money in ways that create jobs and expand production. If there is no demand because consumers are not buying, companies will not produce more. They will just wait until the economic climate improves. Democrats believe that tax relief and public resources should go to America's working families. They are the ones who are struggling most in this brutal economy, and they will quickly spend the money. That will create a demand which is needed to get the economy moving again. Two very different approaches to stimulating the economy. Republicans keep making the same mistake. If ``trickle-down'' economics worked, the economy would not be stagnating today. In 2001, at President Bush's insistence, Congress passed one of the largest tax cuts in history, and wealthy taxpayers got the lion's share of the tax benefits. America has lost more than two and a half million jobs since the first Bush tax cut passed. The Republican response is more of the same. This conference report provides more of the same. But the American people want a new approach. Over 400 respected economists--including 10 Nobel laureates--say the Bush plan is the wrong way to go. Unfortunately, the President has repeatedly rejected the pragmatic advice of mainstream economists, and opted instead for an ideologically rigid and ineffective strategy. His single-minded commitment to ever larger tax cuts for the wealthy as the cure for every economic ailment has made a bad situation worse. The administration has ignored remedies that would provide a significant stimulus this year, while implementing policies that will undermine our future economic strength. As a result, the economy continues to stagnate, and the number of families facing hardship continues to grow. Unemployment is still on the rise. It climbed to 6.0 percent in April. There are now 8.8 million men and women unemployed across America. The economy has lost more than half a million jobs in just the past 3 months, and there is no end in sight. In the absence of an effective stimulus from the Federal Government, the economy is not likely to improve quickly. Behind such disturbing statistics are people who need our help. A strong economy allows working men and women to have greater control over their lives, and more opportunity to pursue their personal dreams. A stagnate economy takes much of that control out of their hands, leaving families vulnerable to circumstances they cannot control. Across America, in the last 2 years, workers have lost their job security. As layoffs mount, they live in fear of being the next to be let go. There are 2.7 million fewer private sector jobs in America today than there were in January 2001. Those looking for a job are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain one. The number of long- term unemployed has tripled. The average time it takes an unemployed worker to find a new job is the longest it has taken in 19 years. Yet this bill does nothing to directly help these unemployed men and women and their families. The pain caused by this destructive wave of economic stagnation is not limited to those who have lost their jobs. Health insurance is becoming less and less affordable for workers and their families across the country. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that over the course of a year, 60 million Americans go without health insurance. Nationally, the average cost of health insurance is rising at double digit rates--up by 11 percent in 2001 and another 12.7 percent in 2002--nearly four times the rate of inflation. The health care squeeze on working families is getting tighter and tighter. Senior citizens who desperately need prescription drug coverage are suffering, too. The cost of prescription drugs is escalating at double digit rates--increasing an average of 16 percent each year. Children who are being asked to do more in school are receiving less support. School districts, faced with declining local tax receipts and the failure of the Federal Government to provide promised resources, have been forced to increase class sizes, cut weeks from school calendars, and lay off teachers. The cost of higher education is rising beyond the reach of more families. The gap between the cost of college tuition and the tuition assistance provided by the Federal Government has grown by $1,900 in the last 2 years. Millions of families have seen their retirement savings seriously eroded. The value of savings in 401(k) plans and other defined contribution plans has declined by $473 billion in the last 2 years. These are the realities American families face today. It is imperative that the National Government respond to the growing economic crisis. There is much that Government can do to stimulate economic growth in the near-term without generating huge deficits that will undermine prosperity in the long term. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has consistently refused to follow such a course of action. The Republican plan does not maximize the economic impact in 2003. Only 17 percent of the $350 billion cost of their legislation would reach the economy this year, when it is needed to jumpstart a sluggish economy. We could create many more jobs sooner by better targeting the resources provided in the legislation. The conference report spends $150 billion reducing dividend and capital gains taxes and $35 billion lowering the tax rate on the highest incomes. These cuts, which constitute more than half of the entire cost of the bill, do not provide effective stimulus and they take resources away from proposals that would. It is incredible that Republicans could not find the dollars to extend unemployment benefits and to provide tax relief for low-income workers, but they could find the money to pay for these tax breaks benefitting the wealthiest taxpayers. According to an analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the provisions in the conference report would provide an average tax cut of $93,500 to taxpayers with an annual income over $1 million. In stark contrast, 53 percent of American households would receive a tax cut of $100 or less. The Republican conferees plan is even more tilted to the wealthiest taxpayers than the original Bush plan. The few provisions that benefit middle-class families have been limited to just 2 years, while the dividend and capital gains tax cuts extend much longer. The conferees also eliminated a Senate provision that would have benefitted 11.9 million low-income children and their families, one of every six children in the Nation. The richest 5 percent of taxpayers would receive 75 percent of the tax benefits from the dividend and capital gains tax cuts. All of the tax benefits from reducing the tax rate on the top income bracket will go to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. They are certainly not the ones who are struggling to make ends meet in the faltering economy. They are not the ones who need our help. Nor are they the ones who will quickly spend the money they receive, creating an immediate economic stimulus. The Republican plan is simply not an effective stimulus. The reduction of the income tax on corporate dividends, the centerpiece of their plan, is one of the least effective forms of stimulus, generating less than a dime of stimulus for every dollar of Federal revenue lost. A well-designed stimulus plan could generate far more economic activity at a small fraction of the cost of the Republican conference report. The Senate Democratic plan would inject $125 billion into the economy this year, and is designed to maximize the stimulus effect of each dollar. That is more than twice as much in 2003 as the conference report, and three times as much as the Bush administration's plan. Three widely respected economic models all show that the Democratic plan would generate substantially more growth in 2003 and create a half million more jobs this year than the President's plan. One of the few positive provisions in the conference report is the $20 billion in assistance to States, $10 billion through the Medicaid Program, and $10 billion in general financial aid. The current fiscal crisis in the States is the most severe in decades. It is important to remember that more people need to rely on State and local programs in an economic downturn. The number of people eligible for Medicaid grows substantially in times of recession, and many other costs rise as well. Without jobs and without health care, families have nowhere else to turn. We have an obligation to make certain that the needed resources are available to them. While the $20 billion of financial assistance to the States is a step in the right direction, the level of aid is clearly inadequate. Congress should be providing at least double this amount. A number of States will also lose significant State tax revenue due to the impact of tax cuts contained in the conference report. Thus, the net amount States will receive will be below even the $20 billion. The Republican authors of the dividend and capital gain tax cuts in the conference report intend those tax breaks to be permanent. They have repeatedly said so. If not arbitrarily sunsetted after 2008, the dividend and capital gains provisions alone would exceed the $350 billion which is supposed to be the total cost of the entire bill over the next 10 years. The real cost of the bill before us is far in excess of $350 billion. If all its provisions were extended for the full decade, as our Republican colleagues intend, the real cost would be closer to $1 trillion. The conferees have resorted to this ``sunsetting'' subterfuge in order to evade the requirements of the Budget Act. But, what they cannot evade is the adverse economic impact their one-trillion-dollar raid on the public Treasury would have. It will not stimulate the economy. In fact, it could well prolong the recession by leading to an increase in long-term interest rates, harming the ability of businesses to create new jobs. It will add enormously to the deficit, making it much more difficult for us to effectively address the Nation's urgent needs in job creation, in education, in health care, and in homeland security. Those are the real priorities of the American people. Unfortunately, they are obviously not the priorities of the Bush administration and the Republican majority. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal public opinion survey conducted over the past week shows that a substantial majority of the American people do not believe these tax cuts are the way to create jobs. By a margin of 64 percent to 29 percent, they think there are better ways to improve the economy than to cut taxes. Sixty-eight percent believe the President's economic policy ``relies too heavily on tax cuts and not enough on direct job creation''; and 66 percent believe his plan ``benefits the wealthy more than average people.'' The American people are not being fooled by this bill. They know precisely what it will do--benefit the wealthy; and what it will not do--stimulate the economy. They also understand that extravagant tax breaks for the rich mean that the resources will not be available to address America's real needs. By a margin of 55 percent to 36 percent, they would prefer to use limited public dollars to help pay for health care than to finance a tax cut. The conference report which the Senate is about to pass by the narrowest of margins does not reflect the priorities of the American people. Unfortunately, their voices were unable to penetrate the closed room where the Republican leadership wrote this irresponsible bill. If a majority of Senators would have the courage to vote no, we could defeat it and begin work on a genuine stimulus bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, It's a privilege to join my colleague, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, in introducing this legislation to address the growing problem of Hepatitis C. Senator Hutchison's leadership has been essential in preparing this proposal to help establish nationwide programs for Hepatitis C that have been so effective in Texas. We are also indebted to the leadership of Senator Smith, Senator Campbell, Senator Daschle, and many other colleagues on both sides of the aisle for taking action to reduce the serious toll of Hepatitis C on so many of our fellow citizens. Hepatitis C is a rapidly growing health care crisis. More than 3.9 million Americans are infected with the virus, making it the nation's most common blood-borne viral illness, and the numbers continue to rise. 10,000 Americans die each year of chronic complications related to the virus. Hepatitis C virus infection is a major cause of death in AIDS patients, and nearly 40 percent of all HIV-positive people are also infected with Hepatitis C virus. Hepatitis C leads to life-threatening conditions, including cirrhosis and liver cancer, which cost our country more than $600 million every year. This bill supports liver disease research to encourage the development of an effective vaccine against the virus. Unlike Hepatitis A and B, there is currently no vaccine available to prevent this epidemic. It is critical that infected individuals are identified early, so that they can obtain treatment and take other steps to reduce the likelihood that the disease will lead to permanent liver damage or spread of the virus to others. The bill we are introducing today takes a new approach to fighting this virus by establishing a nationwide plan to provide the most effective ways of prevention, control and medical management of Hepatitis C. The bill also seeks to increase knowledge and awareness of the infection by patients, health care professionals, and the public. This strategy was successfully implemented in Texas. Public health counseling and testing sites were established to reach people at high risk for Hepatitis C, and to make referrals to health and social services. In the first year, more than 13,000 clients received counseling services, one-third of whom tested positive for Hepatitis C. In addition, media campaigns were conducted to alert the public to the dangers of Hepatitis C. The savings for Texas were estimated to be almost $500,000 a year. Using this model, the Department of Health and Human Service will develop a plan to combat the Hepatitis C epidemic, with advice from the public including physicians, researchers, patients, and advocates. Confidential counseling and voluntary testing programs will be offered, as well as immunization against Hepatitis A and B. Individuals at high risk will be referred for further evaluation and management, including treatment with anti-viral therapy. Our bill calls for Hepatitis C coordinators, to be assigned by CDC, at state, local, and tribal levels to carry out education and supervision of local health care workers. The Liver Disease Research Advisory Board will be established to assist and advise CDC on liver disease research. A confidential database will be created to enhance studies the epidemiology of the illness. The fight against Hepatitis C must begin with the underserved populations who are disproportionately affected by the virus, especially minority populations, the uninsured, and veterans. We must also do all we can to protect hemophiliacs, renal dialysis patients, and AIDS patients. Hepatitis C is a devastating disease, and this bill can be a major step in fighting it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill into law.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, It's a privilege to join my colleague, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, in introducing this legislation to address the growing problem of Hepatitis C. Senator Hutchison's leadership has been essential in preparing this proposal to help establish nationwide programs for Hepatitis C that have been so effective in Texas. We are also indebted to the leadership of Senator Smith, Senator Campbell, Senator Daschle, and many other colleagues on both sides of the aisle for taking action to reduce the serious toll of Hepatitis C on so many of our fellow citizens. Hepatitis C is a rapidly growing health care crisis. More than 3.9 million Americans are infected with the virus, making it the nation's most common blood-borne viral illness, and the numbers continue to rise. 10,000 Americans die each year of chronic complications related to the virus. Hepatitis C virus infection is a major cause of death in AIDS patients, and nearly 40 percent of all HIV-positive people are also infected with Hepatitis C virus. Hepatitis C leads to life-threatening conditions, including cirrhosis and liver cancer, which cost our country more than $600 million every year. This bill supports liver disease research to encourage the development of an effective vaccine against the virus. Unlike Hepatitis A and B, there is currently no vaccine available to prevent this epidemic. It is critical that infected individuals are identified early, so that they can obtain treatment and take other steps to reduce the likelihood that the disease will lead to permanent liver damage or spread of the virus to others. The bill we are introducing today takes a new approach to fighting this virus by establishing a nationwide plan to provide the most effective ways of prevention, control and medical management of Hepatitis C. The bill also seeks to increase knowledge and awareness of the infection by patients, health care professionals, and the public. This strategy was successfully implemented in Texas. Public health counseling and testing sites were established to reach people at high risk for Hepatitis C, and to make referrals to health and social services. In the first year, more than 13,000 clients received counseling services, one-third of whom tested positive for Hepatitis C. In addition, media campaigns were conducted to alert the public to the dangers of Hepatitis C. The savings for Texas were estimated to be almost $500,000 a year. Using this model, the Department of Health and Human Service will develop a plan to combat the Hepatitis C epidemic, with advice from the public including physicians, researchers, patients, and advocates. Confidential counseling and voluntary testing programs will be offered, as well as immunization against Hepatitis A and B. Individuals at high risk will be referred for further evaluation and management, including treatment with anti-viral therapy. Our bill calls for Hepatitis C coordinators, to be assigned by CDC, at state, local, and tribal levels to carry out education and supervision of local health care workers. The Liver Disease Research Advisory Board will be established to assist and advise CDC on liver disease research. A confidential database will be created to enhance studies the epidemiology of the illness. The fight against Hepatitis C must begin with the underserved populations who are disproportionately affected by the virus, especially minority populations, the uninsured, and veterans. We must also do all we can to protect hemophiliacs, renal dialysis patients, and AIDS patients. Hepatitis C is a devastating disease, and this bill can be a major step in fighting it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill into law.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the nominations of Ricardo Hinojosa and Michael Horowitz to the United States Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing Commission is responsible for developing guidelines for sentencing in Federal courts; collecting data about crime and sentencing; and serving as a resource to Congress, the White House, the Justice Department, and the judiciary on crime and sentencing policy. It is therefore critical that nominations to this commission continue to be made in a fair, cooperative, and bipartisan manner. When Mr. Hinojosa's and Mr. Horowitz's nominations came up in the Judiciary Committee in March 2003, I voted ``present'' because I was concerned about the process by which the White House had selected them. In particular, I was concerned that instead of the bipartisan selection process by which previous nominees had been named, the White House had selected Mr. Horowitz as an ostensible ``Democratic'' nominee without any consultation with Senate Democrats. Since that vote in committee, I have been informed that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales has assured the ranking member of our committee, Senator Leahy, that the White House is treating both Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Horowitz as Republican nominees to the commission. I further understand that when the next three vacancies arise on the commission in October, the President will either reappoint all three commissioners now holding those seats--Ruben Castillo, William Sessions, and Michael O'Neill--or will consult in the traditional and appropriate manner with the Democratic leadership before announcing a replacement nominee for a current Democratic commissioner. Based on that understanding, I have decided to support these important nominations to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Feinstein in the introduction of the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act, and I commend her long-standing commitment to this issue. In recent years, increasing numbers of foreign-born children have come to the United States, unaccompanied by their parents or their guardians. Last year, more than 5,000 arrived, and the numbers have continued to rise this year. Some are fleeing from armed conflict or other dangerous conditions in their home countries. Others are fleeing from human rights abuses, including forced recruitment as soldiers, slavery, child labor, prostitution, or forced marriage. Still others escape to the United States because they have been abused or abandoned by their parents or care givers. Additional numbers are brought to the United States by a family friend or relative, by paid smugglers, or by traffickers involved in organized crime. Regardless of how they arrive, these children often enter our country after traumatic experiences, speaking little to no English, and unaware of their rights under U.S. law. They may well be good candidates for asylum, but they have no way to apply for it, and they are left to represent themselves in an immigration court against experienced trial lawyers for INS. Their plight is exacerbated by the fact that when they arrive, they are frequently detained. Many of them languish for long periods in shelters designed for short-term use, without access to translators, telephones, or medical care and other vital services. But these are the ``fortunate'' ones, compared to many others detained, with dangerous criminals, put in handcuffs, shackles, strip-searched, and required to wear prison uniforms. Shamefully, this is happening every day in the United States of America. It's no wonder other countries criticize us for hypocrisy on human rights. Last year, in the Homeland Security Act, we took the important first step of transferring responsibility for the care and custody of these children to the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Department of Health and Human Services. This office has decades of experience working with foreign-born children and can easily include the care of these unaccompanied children in its existing functions. That Act, however, left out critical safeguards for these children. The legislation we are introducing corrects these omissions. It addresses many of the problems facing unaccompanied children and will help bring our treatment of them in line with international standards. Essential to these efforts is providing an appointed counsel and a special guardian to assist them. Statistics demonstrate that applications for asylum are four times more likely to be granted when represented by counsel. Yet, less than half of the children in INS custody are represented by an attorney. Children are given appointed counsel in important non-immigration cases, and they should be afforded the same right in immigration cases. In addition, a special guardian can be indispensable in identifying the needs of a child when language and cultural barriers prevent an attorney from communicating effectively with the child. Our bill will require that these vulnerable children receive the representation they need to see that their rights are protected, and the care they deserve to see their needs are properly considered as they go through complicated immigration proceedings. The vast majority of these children are not criminals, and they should not be treated as criminals. We must prevent the use of detention in these cases. Children who are not a danger to others or a flight risk should be released to their families or appropriate care- givers. Our bill requires the release of children whenever possible, and supports the expanded use of shelters and foster care for children who do not have such care givers. Other needed protections in the bill will establish standards for detention, better training for immigration personnel on these issues, and more effective opportunities for permanent protection. We look forward to working with our colleagues to enact these long overdue safeguards. It is time to end the gross abuses in our current immigration system and to ensure that the best interests of these children are fully protected and respected.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Feinstein in the introduction of the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act, and I commend her long-standing commitment to this issue. In recent years, increasing numbers of foreign-born children have come to the United States, unaccompanied by their parents or their guardians. Last year, more than 5,000 arrived, and the numbers have continued to rise this year. Some are fleeing from armed conflict or other dangerous conditions in their home countries. Others are fleeing from human rights abuses, including forced recruitment as soldiers, slavery, child labor, prostitution, or forced marriage. Still others escape to the United States because they have been abused or abandoned by their parents or care givers. Additional numbers are brought to the United States by a family friend or relative, by paid smugglers, or by traffickers involved in organized crime. Regardless of how they arrive, these children often enter our country after traumatic experiences, speaking little to no English, and unaware of their rights under U.S. law. They may well be good candidates for asylum, but they have no way to apply for it, and they are left to represent themselves in an immigration court against experienced trial lawyers for INS. Their plight is exacerbated by the fact that when they arrive, they are frequently detained. Many of them languish for long periods in shelters designed for short-term use, without access to translators, telephones, or medical care and other vital services. But these are the ``fortunate'' ones, compared to many others detained, with dangerous criminals, put in handcuffs, shackles, strip-searched, and required to wear prison uniforms. Shamefully, this is happening every day in the United States of America. It's no wonder other countries criticize us for hypocrisy on human rights. Last year, in the Homeland Security Act, we took the important first step of transferring responsibility for the care and custody of these children to the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Department of Health and Human Services. This office has decades of experience working with foreign-born children and can easily include the care of these unaccompanied children in its existing functions. That Act, however, left out critical safeguards for these children. The legislation we are introducing corrects these omissions. It addresses many of the problems facing unaccompanied children and will help bring our treatment of them in line with international standards. Essential to these efforts is providing an appointed counsel and a special guardian to assist them. Statistics demonstrate that applications for asylum are four times more likely to be granted when represented by counsel. Yet, less than half of the children in INS custody are represented by an attorney. Children are given appointed counsel in important non-immigration cases, and they should be afforded the same right in immigration cases. In addition, a special guardian can be indispensable in identifying the needs of a child when language and cultural barriers prevent an attorney from communicating effectively with the child. Our bill will require that these vulnerable children receive the representation they need to see that their rights are protected, and the care they deserve to see their needs are properly considered as they go through complicated immigration proceedings. The vast majority of these children are not criminals, and they should not be treated as criminals. We must prevent the use of detention in these cases. Children who are not a danger to others or a flight risk should be released to their families or appropriate care- givers. Our bill requires the release of children whenever possible, and supports the expanded use of shelters and foster care for children who do not have such care givers. Other needed protections in the bill will establish standards for detention, better training for immigration personnel on these issues, and more effective opportunities for permanent protection. We look forward to working with our colleagues to enact these long overdue safeguards. It is time to end the gross abuses in our current immigration system and to ensure that the best interests of these children are fully protected and respected.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their comments and add my own. Last November, the Office of Management and Budget proposed the most sweeping changes to the rules on outsourcing of Government work since the last 1950s. Now, the administration wants to use the proposal to privatize at least 225,000 Department of Defense civilian jobs over the next several years. The proposed changes have received strong criticism from the General Accounting Office, GAO, executive branch agencies, and Federal employee organizations. The CIA wrote that they will be unable to meet their own statutory requirements to protect their intelligence sources and methods if they fully implemented the revision. The Department of Transportation raised concern about the adverse impact of the changes on women and minorities employed by the Federal Government. The proposed revisions could undermine public-private competition. Under the plan, if an agency is unable to complete public-private competitions in 1 year, it could automatically privatize the work. After an outcry from agencies and the public, OMB indicated that it would consider changes, but it is far from clear what the changes will be. In addition, the proposal allows so-called ``streamlined'' competitions for activities involving 65 or fewer employees and lasting no more than 90 days. Under current rules, the Federal employee or the contractor must be at least 10 percent or $10 million more efficient to win a bid. Under this ``streamlined'' method, there would be no such requirement. Clearly, the potential savings and efficiency created by competition would be threatened and would be contrary to the recommendation of the Commercial Activities Panel, the panel charged with reviewing outsourcing policies, for which all of the contractor and administration representatives voted. The proposal would also include an automatic bias in favor of contractors. It imposes a 12 percent overhead cost on all Federal employee bids, and then imposes a superfluous charge for indirect labor costs, but it does not impose the same charges on contractor bids, even though both Federal employees and contractors would have similar overhead costs. The DoD inspector general has said that the 12 percent overhead factor is ``unsupportable.'' In addition, the proposal is likely to reduce the standard of living for tens of thousands of Americans. By artificially inflating the costs of in-house personnel, contractors have incentives to reduce costs by providing unfair compensation packages for those who perform Government work. Good jobs with fair wages and opportunities for advancement would be turned into lower wage jobs with no benefits and no security. According to the Economic Policy Institute, more than one in 10 Federal contract workers already earns less than a living wage. The proposed revisions also apply different competition requirements to Federal employees and contractors in other ways that raise serious fairness concerns. Contractors have an incentive to low-ball their proposal, since there is relatively little likelihood of real private sector competition. The inspector general of the Department of Defense has reported that over three-fifths of the contracts he and his staff surveyed suffered from ``inadequate completion.'' Clearly, the proposed revisions will have significant implications for undermining competition and reducing opportunities for Federal employees to compete fairly for their own jobs. Today, there is far too little real competition for contacts to provide goods and services of Federal agencies. We should be getting the most out of every taxpayer dollar. But, less than 1 percent of Department of Defense service contracts are subject to full public- private competition. Government procurement should be based on what is best for taxpayers and our national defense. We face great challenges to the Nation's security in these difficult times. More than ever, we rely on the Department of Defense and its dedicated employees. As the military budget grows rapidly, we must see that taxpayers and our men and women in uniform obtain the benefits too. True competition is more critical today than ever.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is a very clear reason the request of the Senator from New York and the request I will make should be respected on the floor of the Senate. We are facing a crisis with 8 to 9 million Americans unemployed. More than 1.5 million of those have seen their unemployment compensation expire. Starting next week, 80,000 workers are going to lose their unemployment compensation. This is an issue about fairness. On the one hand, we have an opportunity to return to these workers what they have paid over a lifetime of work, in many instances, into a trust fund that is in excess of $20 billion, and the reason it is in surplus is that these workers have paid into it. Now they are entitled to get that money out. We have had objection to the request of the Senator from New York. I am going to give the Senate one more opportunity to see whether they are going to be responsive, whether this body is going to understand the issue of fairness. Tomorrow we are going to pass billions of dollars for the wealthiest individuals in this country. We are trying to look out after hard-working Americans. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate consider S. 1079, extension of the unemployment compensation, considered under the following limitations: General debate of an hour equally divided, with only one amendment in order, the amendment by Senator Kennedy, on which there be an hour of debate equally divided, and no other amendments be in order, and any points of order be considered waived by this agreement; that upon the disposition of the amendment and the use and yielding back of all time, the Senate vote on passage of the bill, without further intervening action or debate, as amended, if amended.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am sorry.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all education programs and activities that receive Federal funding, including sports. When Congress passed this important civil rights law, it intended to give girls and women opportunities equal to those of boys and men in all education programs receiving taxpayer dollars. Today, on opening day of the Women's National Basketball Association's seventh season, we see again the enormous impact of Title IX on women's sports. Since its first season in 1997, the WNBA has doubled its number of teams from 8 to 16. Last year, millions of fans from countries throughout the world tuned to see 176 women play professional basketball in 256 regular- season WNBA games. Over the past 31 years, Title IX has expanded athletic opportunities at all levels for all women. Fewer than 32,000 women participated in college sports before Title IX. Today, the number is 163,000. Opportunities for girls in high school have grown even more incredibly, from 294,000 to almost 2.8 million. Athletic opportunities contribute to better health for women, and they also translate into better outcomes in many other areas as well. Participation in sports builds confidence, improves self-esteem, reduces stress, teaches teamwork, and improves achievement in education. The female athletes of the past 31 years who have reaped the benefits of Title IX are a tribute to its success. Countless women have taken the lessons they learned on the playing field and applied them to the rest of their lives. They serve as role models for us all. And one of the things they have proved so clearly is that when the opportunities are there, women will show up to play. But it's never clear sailing for Title IX. Despite all the progress in athletic opportunities under the current law, women continue to lag behind men in playing time and funding. Women in Division I colleges comprise 53 percent of the student body, but they receive only 41 percent of the opportunities to play in intercollegiate sports, 43 percent of athletic scholarship dollars, 36 percent of athletic budgets, and 32 percent of the dollars spent to recruit new athletes. Even though parity is not yet achieved, a movement is under way to undermine Title IX. The Bush Administration's Commission on Opportunity in Athletics has issued recommendations that would drastically reduce its enforcement and put women and girls at a disadvantage by permitting schools to reduce athletic opportunities and scholarships for women. The Women's Sports Foundation estimates that college women would lose 50,000 slots and $122 million in scholarships under one of the Commission proposals. High school girls would lose 305,000 opportunities. What is needed is even stronger enforcement of Title IX, not weakening or modifying it. The Department of Education should concentrate its efforts on fully and fairly enforcing the existing law through existing mechanisms. Current law on Title IX is fair, and it provides schools with flexibility in meeting its requirements. They can comply in any one of three ways: by showing that the percentages of male and female athletes are substantially proportionate to the percentage of male and female student enrolled full-time; by demonstrating a history and continuing practice of program expansion to meet the needs of the under- represented athletes; or by demonstrating that their interests and abilities have been fully and effectively accommodated. This three-part test has been in place for over two decades, and has been supported by both Republican and Democratic administrations. It has been upheld by all eight Federal Courts of Appeals who have considered it. Some critics claim that the first prongs of the three prong test, called the proportionality text, has become the de facto test of compliance. But in fact, 2 out of 3 schools comply with Title IX through the second and third options, not through proportionality. The major complaint is that Title IX has hurt men's sports. Yet, since the beginning of Title IX implementation, men's participation in intercollegiate sports has actually increased, and so has the total number of teams for men. Nothing in Title IX or its policies requires schools to reduce men's opportunities. 72 percent of colleges and universities that had added women's teams have done so without cutting any teams for men. When schools have discontinued men's or women's teams, a lack of student interest was cited as the most important factor in the decision. Schools also discontinue men's and women's teams because of choices about how to allocate their resources. These decisions are not the product of a Title IX mandate. Unfortunately, the President's Commission was not representative of the whole Title IX community. Two-thirds of the Commissioners represented Division I-A colleges, which have the largest men's basketball and football budgets and therefore the most to gain from weakening Title IX. No Division II or III colleges, no community colleges, and no high schools were represented, even though they tend to have the most successful record of implementation of Title IX. Twice as many opponents of Title IX were asked to testify before the Commission, compared to proponents of the law. Institutions that had been sued for non-compliance and lost their cases were invited to testify, but the women who were discriminated against and who brought these suits and the schools that have complied with the law successfully were not invited. In response to the unfairness of the process and resulting findings, two of the Commissioners issued a minority report summarizing the problems with the Commission and its recommendations. Secretary of Education Paige has refused to consider the concerns raised in the minority report. Needless to say, the Commission was not fair and impartial, and it should not be the basis by which Congress judges Title IX. The Commission's proposals contradict the spirit of athletic equality and the intent to prohibit discrimination against girls and women in education. Today, we submit a bipartisan resolution to maintain Title IX and strengthen its enforcement. Only then will full promise be achieved. We must retreat from the Nation's commitment to equal opportunity for women and girls in education and athletics. Girls and boys, women and men, need education opportunities such as athletics to allow them to build character, self-esteem and motivation. The past 31 years demonstrate the amazing advances that women and girls have made in athletics when they are given the opportunities to play, and it would be shameful for Congress or the Administration to misuse that extraordinary success as an excuse to retreat now.