Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, together, as a nation, we mourn the loss of the seven extraordinary men and women of the Columbia shuttle who gave their lives so unselfishly and courageously for our country. They knew the dangers they faced, but they believed in their mission, and they represent the very best of America. We know the great loss their families and the whole Nation have suffered, and they are very much in our thoughts and prayers. They were daring and brave explorers. Their extraordinary spirit and courage enabled them to reach for the stars and explore the universe and discover its truths. In serving America so well, they also served all humanity. The best way for all of us to honor the memory and sacrifice of these brave young men and women is to carry on the work they were part of. The tragedy reminds us again that those who venture into space place their own lives at risk as they try to benefit us all. We can vindicate their faith by keeping faith with them. Those whom we have just lost would be the first to say to us, ``persevere, go forward,'' because they were pioneers in the truest sense and in the greatest of American tradition. They were willing to take risks, even to risk their lives in order to benefit us all. I know how deeply President Kennedy believed in the space program. He called it, ``the vast ocean of space,'' and he set our Nation firmly on a course to explore it, understand it, and use it in ways that help and protect us all. When America first embarked more than 40 years ago on the great voyage into space, President Kennedy said, ``It will not be one man going to the Moon: it will be an entire Nation.'' He knew that when we reach for the stars, sometimes we fall short. But as he knew so well, the mission must go on. He would have been very proud of these seven astronauts, as all of us are today. Let us honor these seven inspiring heroes by continuing the great enduring mission they were part of, for the benefit of our country, our planet, and all peoples everywhere. As my brother said on November 21, 1963, the day before he left us, ``This Nation has tossed its cap over the wall of space, and we shall have no choice but to follow it.'' In the quintessential spirit of America, the crew of the Columbia have tossed their caps over that wall, too, and we shall never forget them. I extend my deepest and heartfelt sympathy to the families who have so suddenly lost their loved ones. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excerpt from President Kennedy's address to Congress on space in 1961, and the poem ``High Flight'' by John Gillespie Magee, Jr., which President Reagan read after the loss of the Challenger in 1986.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I just stated that--

Mr. KENNEDY. You have the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, as I stated at the hearing, the personal attacks on Paul Bender are really beneath this body. Paul Bender has a long and esteemed history in public and private practice. He clerked for Felix Frankfurter on the Supreme Court. He argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court. He taught constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Arizona. To criticize Paul Bender because you disagree with his statements is also chilling to anyone who wishes to express their personal opinions about a nominee. I really hope we can talk about the issues without resorting to personal attacks. Others as well have echoed the Bender criticism. Among the great debates at the Constitutional Convention two centuries ago was the issue of judicial appointments. Initially, there was broad agreement among the delegates that either the Senate alone or the legislature as a whole should appoint federal judges, and in June of 1787, the delegates tentatively adopted a proposal to give the appointment power to the Senate. But opposition soon arose. The delegates re-opened the issue and considered alternatives such as giving the power of appointment to both the Senate and the House, or to the President with the advice and consent of Congress, or to the President alone. After months of debate, the issue was finally resolved in September. It was decided the President was to nominate, and the Senate would be asked to concur before the appointment could be made. The Framers believed that one person should have the responsibility for nominating judges, but they clearly wanted to avoid vesting too much power on this issue in the President. The Senate would have the power to prevent the President from shaping a judiciary in his own image. As Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist No. 77, ``If by influencing the President meant restraining him, this is precisely what must have been intended.'' By requiring the President and the Senate to share the responsibility of appointing federal judges, the Framers created one of the most important checks and balances in the Constitution and laid a solid foundation for the independence of the judiciary that has served the Nation so well. In keeping with this shared responsibility, the Senate must fulfill its constitutional duty to review the nominations sent to us by President Bush--including the nomination of Miguel Estrada. We must assure ourselves that every nominee has the qualifications, temperament, and commitment to enforcing the constitutional and federal statutory protections that are central to our American democracy. This is not a role we take lightly. At stake are lifetime appointments to courts that have the power to make far-reaching decisions affecting the lives of our people and the life of our Nation. The D.C. Circuit is one of the most important courts in the country-- second only to the Supreme Court. It is particularly important to workers, immigrants, and those seeking to enforce their civil rights. It has a unique and prominent role among the Federal courts of appeals, particularly in the area of administrative law, and has exclusive jurisdiction over many workplace, environmental, civil rights, and consumer protection statutes. If confirmed, Mr. Estrada would make decisions about the rights of workers. He would decide cases involving the right to form a union without intimidation by an employer and cases that affect health and safety rules and regulations--regulations affecting workers exposed to tuberculosis, and dangerous, even toxic, chemicals. These problems aren't going away--they are increasing. The administration continues to issue anti-worker Executive Orders and undermine the labor rights of airline workers. It refuses to put a plan in place to address the serious problem of ergonomic injuries in the workplace. We need judges who will interpret the law fairly--not judges tied to special interests that drive the administration's agenda. In recent years, the D.C. Circuit has become a safe haven for employers eager to defy the orders of the National Labor Relations Board. In 1980, 83 percent of all NLRB decisions were enforced in full by the D.C. Circuit. Deference was given to the Board by the court. In 2000, however, only 57 percent of NLRB decisions were enforced in full. Time after time, the closely-divided D.C. Circuit has refused to defer to the NLRB's expertise. Jose Castro knows that one judge's vote can make a difference. A few years ago, the Hoffman Plastics Company fired workers in retaliation for their attempts to organize a union. In response, the National Labor Relations Board ordered reinstatement and backpay for the workers affected. The board later denied reinstatement and granted only limited backpay to Mr. Castro, an undocumented worker. When Hoffman Plastics challenged the board's decision, the D.C. Circuit--in a 5 to 4 decision--rejected the employer's argument and enforced the board's order. The court determined that the board had appropriately crafted its order to take into account the policies underlying both the National Labor Relations Act and the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Last year, however, the Supreme Court reversed the board and the D.C. Circuit and held--in a 5 to 4 decision--that many immigrant workers are not entitled to backpay remedies under the National Labor Relations Act. The Supreme Court's decision affects as many as 6 million immigrant workers across the United States, and employers have used it to claim that those workers have no labor protections. If confirmed, Mr. Estrada would make decisions about our environmental laws--such as challenges to clean water regulations, Superfund clean-up of toxic sites, and Clean Air Act regulations. He will decide cases such as American Trucking Associations v. EPA, which denied EPA the authority to establish health standards for smog and soot. The issue in that case directly affects the thousands of children who suffer and die from asthma every year. Mr. Estrada will be making these decisions as the Bush administration takes dramatic steps to curtail enforcement of our environmental laws. The administration has proposed rules to remove 20 million acres of wetlands from Federal protection, new regulations to weaken national forest protections enacted by the Reagan administration, approved natural gas drilling in Texas along the Nation's longest stretch of undeveloped beach, and proposed to scale back environmental reviews and judicial oversight over national forests and public lands. Mr. Estrada will also make decisions about the enforcement of our nation's civil rights laws when he reviews race, gender, and disability discrimination cases like Kolstad v. American Dental Association. Carole Kolstad sued her employer for gender discrimination, and a one- vote majority of the D.C. Circuit upheld a very high standard for the collection of punitive damages. The Supreme Court later vacated the D.C. Circuit's decision, but once again it is clear that one vote can make a difference on the D.C. Circuit. The question before the Senate is what role Mr. Estrada will play on this important court and in the lives of the American people. Will he be a fair and impartial advocate for the law and the Constitution, or will he be at the forefront of efforts to deny basic rights and protections for those who need them? Mr. Estrada's record and his testimony before the Judiciary Committee provides little information and even less assurance that he is the right person for this important position. It is difficults--if not impossible--for us to exercise our constitutional duty of advice and consent, and to satisfy ourselves that Mr. Estrada is fit for a lifetime appointment without full information. Yet, Mr. Estrada remains a mystery. He refused to provide candid answers to questions during his hearing or in writing to the committee. And the Justice Department refuses to provide memoranda produced by Mr. Estrada when he served in the Solicitor General's office. These Solicitor General memoranda would be helpful in understanding Mr. Estrada's fitness for a judgeship. They would aid us in determining how he would approach the complex task of judging, and whether he would be able to separate his own personal views from an objective analysis of the law. This administration and previous administrations have provided us with this kind of information in the past, and it is incumbent upon the administration to provide the Senate with the information necessary to evaluate nominees to our Nation's Federal courts. The little we do know of Mr. Estrada's record raises grave concerns. In fact, his direct supervisor in the Office of the Solicitor General has raised questions about whether Mr. Estrada has the temperament and requisite moderation to sit on the D.C. Circuit. The supervisor, Mr. Bender, has expressed his belief that Mr. Estrada would have difficulty separating himself from his personal ideological views. It has been reported, for instance, that some of Mr. Estrada's colleagues have said that he is not openminded and that he ``does not listen to other people.'' After an in-depth meeting with Mr. Estrada, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus stated that Mr. Estrada appeared to have a ``very short fuse'' and that he did not ``have the judicial temperament that is necessary to be a judge.'' According to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, with whom Mr. Estrada met, he was not ``even-tempered"--he became angry during their meetings with him, and he even threatened the group with legal action because they had raised concerns about his record. These reports are very troubling. What we seek in our judges is a quality that makes them more than just talented lawyers or advocates. We want to know that a judge is openminded and fair. I am not persuaded that Mr. Estrada possesses the key qualities of moderation, openness and fairness required of our judges. The cases that Mr. Estrada has made the primary focus of his pro bono activity also raise concerns about whether he will be fair in the wide range of cases that come before him. In two cases, Mr. Estrada tried to limit the first amendment rights of minorities to congregate and associate on public streets. He also sits on the board of the Center for Community Interest, which advocates the kind of police tactics that have often led to harassment and racial profiling in minority communities. Mr. Estrada's single-minded focus on justifying such ordinances is cause for great concern. Even after the clear rebuke from the Supreme Court about the Chicago ordinance, he devoted many hours to defending the City of Annapolis against challenges to the constitutionality of its own antiloitering ordinance. When the NAACP challenged the ordinance, Mr. Estrada ``offered to take the city's case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary, free of charge.'' Mr. Estrada lost that case, too, however, when a Federal district court struck down the law as unconstitutional. We know that decades of important civil rights precedents may well be at stake in coming years. These issues raise very serious concerns about Mr. Estrada's nomination. He is an intelligent and talented lawyer. But that is not enough. To serve as a Federal judge-- particularly on the second most important court in the land requires a commitment to the core constitutional values of our democracy. It requires the special qualities that enable judges to meet their own important responsibilities--fairness, impartiality, and openmindedness. There is nothing anti-Latino about our objections to Mr. Estrada. President Bush has nominated five Latinos to the Federal courts, four of whom were confirmed last year, when the Democrats controlled the Senate. It is the Democrats who have taken the lead in appointing Latinos to the Federal courts. During the Clinton administration, 23 Latino nominees were confirmed to the Federal courts--more than in any previous administration, Republican or Democrat. More Latinos would have been confirmed had it not been for the unfair tactics of Senate Republicans. In fact, five Latino nominees sent to the Senate by President Clinton were not confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Two of them, nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals from Texas, were not even given hearings. One waited more than a year in the Senate before his nomination was returned to the President because of inaction by the Judiciary Committee. The other waited more than a year, and was then renominated by President Clinton in January of 2001, but President Bush withdrew it. All five Latino nominees blocked by Senate Republicans had the full support of the Latino community--but the same cannot be said of Mr. Estrada. The major Latino organizations have raised strong concerns about Mr. Estrada. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has opposed his nomination. The Latino organizations opposing or raising concerns about Mr. Estrada include: the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the National Council of La Raza, the California La Raza Lawyers, the Southwest Voter Registration Project, and the Illinois Puerto Rican Bar Association. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr. Estrada does not meet their criteria for endorsement of a nominee. As the letter they sent to the committee states: The appointment of a Latino to reflect diversity is rendered meaningless unless the nominee can demonstrate an understanding of the historical role courts have played in the lives of minorities in extending equal protections and rights; has some involvement in the Latino community that provides insight into the values and mores of the Latino culture in order to understand the unique legal challenges facing Latinos; and recognizes both the role model responsibilities he or she assumes as well as having an appreciation for protecting and promoting the legal rights of minorities who historically have been the victims of discrimination. Based on the totality of the nominee's available record and our meeting with him, Mr. Estrada fails to meet the CHC's criteria for endorsing a nominee. The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund opposes Mr. Estrada as well. According to their statement: The most difficult situation for any Latino organization is when a President nominates a Latino who does not reflect, resonate or associate with the Latino community, and who comes with a predisposition to view claims of racial discrimination and unfair treatment with suspicion and doubt instead of with an open mind. Unfortunately, the only Latino whom President Bush has nominated in two years to any Federal circuit court in the country is such a person. President Bush nominated Mr. Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. After a thorough examination of his record, his confirmation hearing testimony, and his written answers to the U.S. Senate, we announce today our formal opposition to his nomination. We cannot in good conscience stand on the sideline and be neutral on his nomination or others like his. We oppose his nomination and that of others that will prevent the courts from serving as the check and balance so desperately needed by our community to the actions being taken by the executive and legislative branches. Recently, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund also issued a statement reaffirming its opposition to Mr. Estrada's nomination. Many of us have deep concerns about Mr. Estrada's record and his unwillingness to supplement the record with answers to important questions or production of the memoranda from his days in the Solicitor General's office. I urge the Senate to reject this nomination. A lifetime appointment to a court so important in deciding so many basic issues should not be given to a nominee about whom we know so little. The basic values of our society--whether we will continue to be committed to equality, opportunity, freedom of expression, the right to privacy, and many other fundamental rights--are at stake in all of these nominations. On the role of the Senate in the appointment process, the genius of the Constitution is the clear system of checks and balances that it provides. The Constitution says ``advice and consent''--not ``rubber stamp.'' When this or any other administration nominates judges who would weaken the core values of our country and roll back the basic rights that make our country a genuine democracy, the Senate should reject them. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing a bipartisan bill to extend the availability of the unused funds in the Children's Health Insurance Program, so that hundreds of thousands of children can retain their health coverage, and so that the CHIP program can continue to grow. We recently celebrated the fifth anniversary of the CHIP program. Over its relatively short life, the program has served children across America, providing health coverage for those who would be otherwise uninsured. Last year, over 4.5 million children received health insurance through CHIP or through Medicaid expansions under CHIP, including 105,000 children in Massachusetts. Health insurance provides children with a healthy start in life, and CHIP is important in providing that healthy start for millions of children in moderate- income working families. Unfortunately, because of a technical provision in the law, $1.2 billion in unspent CHIP funds reverted to the Treasury last October. Another $1.5 billion will revert to the Treasury this October if Congress fails to act. We know that 20 States are projected to run out of CHIP funds soon, including 5 States--Alaska, Arizona, Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island--that are projected to run out of money as early as next year. It makes no sense to allow funds to revert to the Treasury when there is so much unmet need. Some States have not been able to use all their CHIP funds within the allotted period in current law. Yet some of these same States will run short of funds in the very near future, forcing them to drop children from their programs. One of our Nation's most fundamental principles should be to give every child the opportunity to succeed in life. But that principle rings hollow if children must fact a lifetime of disability and illness because they did not have needed health care in their early years. That is why this bill we introduce today is so important. It enables States to maintain and expand their CHIP programs. It lets States keep a portion of their unspent funds that would otherwise expire. It reallocates the rest of the funds to States that have already used their original allocation to enroll children in their program and are ready, willing, and able to enroll even more children. This reallocation is vital to enrolling the highest possible number of children in CHIP. The retention and reallocation of these funds will prevent an unacceptable loss of coverage for the Nation's children. Our legislation moves us one step closer to fulfilling the promise that all children should have adequate health insurance coverage. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, so that we can give the Nation's children the healthy start they deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Congress took an important step forward for working families earlier this month by providing unemployment benefits for nearly 3 million jobless Americans. These benefits are a lifeline for the millions of workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but as we all know, there is much more work to be done on this basic issue. One million workers have run out of their State and Federal benefits and remain without jobs. Clearly, these workers deserve our help too. In fact, there is an additional category of workers who have not even received a dime of unemployment benefits. They paid into the unemployment insurance fund, and they lost their jobs due to the failing economy, but they have been left behind by the outdated eligibility rules in our unemployment laws. Today, I am introducing the Economic Security Act of 2003 to cover the 1 million who have exhausted their benefits, as well as the nearly 1 million low-wage and part-time workers currently not eligible for unemployment benefits, and to increase benefit levels to help keep families out of poverty during periods of unemployment. Nationally, only about half of unemployed workers received unemployment benefits last year. This number has dropped precipitously since 1975 when 75 percent of unemployed workers received benefits. This increasingly serious problem is a result of laws implemented in the 1980s to restrict eligibility for the unemployment insurance program. Because of these restrictions, many of the unemployed workers who do not receive benefits today are excluded because they are part- time or low-wage workers. In all but 12 States, low-wage workers are ineligible for benefits because their most recent earnings are not counted. As a result, many former welfare recipients--success stories who have recently entered the workforce, have now lost their jobs because of the economic down- turn, but they are being denied the unemployment benefits they deserve. Many minimum wage workers, who work hard and play by the rules and have not seen a raise in 6 years, are also left behind. Those low-income workers are now left without a safety net. In addition, the majority of States do not provide benefits to part- time workers, despite the fact that part-time workers are an essential part of the labor force. They now comprise nearly 20 percent of the workforce. Part-time workers also represent a large share of the unemployed, one in five unemployed workers today were working part-time before they lost their jobs. Women now represent 70 percent of the part-time workforce, compared with 44 percent of full-time workers, and 17.5 percent of part-time workers earn less than $15,000 a year. Despite their significant labor force role, part-time working adults are half as likely as full-time workers to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Nationally, only 12 percent of unemployed part-time workers receive unemployment benefits. Under the Economic Security Act, the Federal Government will reimburse States for 1 year for the cost of providing unemployment benefits to two categories of workers: 1. Those who would be eligible for regular unemployment compensation if their last completed quarter of earnings is included in their wage record, and 2. those seeking part-time employment. The bill will also provide Federal funds to states to increase the level of unemployment benefits. Sadly, these benefits today are often not sufficient to meet basic needs such as paying the rent or putting food on the table. In 2000, the average unemployment benefit replaced only 33 percent of workers' lost income, a steep drop from the 46 percent of wages replaced by benefits during the recessions of the 1970's and 1980's. During an economic crisis, unemployed workers have few opportunities to rejoin a declining workforce. They depend on unemployment benefits to live. Raising benefits will enable these workers to support their families and invest more in the economy. They immediately spend their unemployment insurance benefits in their communities, and that spending will provide a needed, immediate stimulus to the economy. In fact, every dollar spent on unemployment benefits boosts the economy by $2.15. The Economic Security Act of 2003 will provide Federal reimbursements for states which increase their weekly unemployment checks by the greater of 15 percent or $25 for 1 year. Under this provision, the average recipient will have an extra $135 a month. Unemployed households will use this amount to help pay the rent, buy groceries, keep the family car running, or hire a babysitter during job interview. This boost in unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy and help these laid-off workers support their families while they look for a new job. State unemployment insurance administrators often fall short of the funds they need to administer benefits efficiently and promptly, and to see that all who are eligible receive their benefits. The Act provides $500 million to State Unemployment offices to offset the administrative expenses associated with implementing the new coverage and benefit changes, and to provide better employment services to workers receiving unemployment compensation. Congress cannot continue to ignore the plight of millions of Americans hurt by economic forces beyond their control. As we work together to get the economy moving again, we must also work together to see that no one is left behind. We have a responsibility to give help and hope to these deserving Americans by strengthening unemployment insurance to cover all unemployed workers, and I urge my colleagues to give high priority to this needed reform.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Congress took an important step forward for working families earlier this month by providing unemployment benefits for nearly 3 million jobless Americans. These benefits are a lifeline for the millions of workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but as we all know, there is much more work to be done on this basic issue. One million workers have run out of their State and Federal benefits and remain without jobs. Clearly, these workers deserve our help too. In fact, there is an additional category of workers who have not even received a dime of unemployment benefits. They paid into the unemployment insurance fund, and they lost their jobs due to the failing economy, but they have been left behind by the outdated eligibility rules in our unemployment laws. Today, I am introducing the Economic Security Act of 2003 to cover the 1 million who have exhausted their benefits, as well as the nearly 1 million low-wage and part-time workers currently not eligible for unemployment benefits, and to increase benefit levels to help keep families out of poverty during periods of unemployment. Nationally, only about half of unemployed workers received unemployment benefits last year. This number has dropped precipitously since 1975 when 75 percent of unemployed workers received benefits. This increasingly serious problem is a result of laws implemented in the 1980s to restrict eligibility for the unemployment insurance program. Because of these restrictions, many of the unemployed workers who do not receive benefits today are excluded because they are part- time or low-wage workers. In all but 12 States, low-wage workers are ineligible for benefits because their most recent earnings are not counted. As a result, many former welfare recipients--success stories who have recently entered the workforce, have now lost their jobs because of the economic down- turn, but they are being denied the unemployment benefits they deserve. Many minimum wage workers, who work hard and play by the rules and have not seen a raise in 6 years, are also left behind. Those low-income workers are now left without a safety net. In addition, the majority of States do not provide benefits to part- time workers, despite the fact that part-time workers are an essential part of the labor force. They now comprise nearly 20 percent of the workforce. Part-time workers also represent a large share of the unemployed, one in five unemployed workers today were working part-time before they lost their jobs. Women now represent 70 percent of the part-time workforce, compared with 44 percent of full-time workers, and 17.5 percent of part-time workers earn less than $15,000 a year. Despite their significant labor force role, part-time working adults are half as likely as full-time workers to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Nationally, only 12 percent of unemployed part-time workers receive unemployment benefits. Under the Economic Security Act, the Federal Government will reimburse States for 1 year for the cost of providing unemployment benefits to two categories of workers: 1. Those who would be eligible for regular unemployment compensation if their last completed quarter of earnings is included in their wage record, and 2. those seeking part-time employment. The bill will also provide Federal funds to states to increase the level of unemployment benefits. Sadly, these benefits today are often not sufficient to meet basic needs such as paying the rent or putting food on the table. In 2000, the average unemployment benefit replaced only 33 percent of workers' lost income, a steep drop from the 46 percent of wages replaced by benefits during the recessions of the 1970's and 1980's. During an economic crisis, unemployed workers have few opportunities to rejoin a declining workforce. They depend on unemployment benefits to live. Raising benefits will enable these workers to support their families and invest more in the economy. They immediately spend their unemployment insurance benefits in their communities, and that spending will provide a needed, immediate stimulus to the economy. In fact, every dollar spent on unemployment benefits boosts the economy by $2.15. The Economic Security Act of 2003 will provide Federal reimbursements for states which increase their weekly unemployment checks by the greater of 15 percent or $25 for 1 year. Under this provision, the average recipient will have an extra $135 a month. Unemployed households will use this amount to help pay the rent, buy groceries, keep the family car running, or hire a babysitter during job interview. This boost in unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy and help these laid-off workers support their families while they look for a new job. State unemployment insurance administrators often fall short of the funds they need to administer benefits efficiently and promptly, and to see that all who are eligible receive their benefits. The Act provides $500 million to State Unemployment offices to offset the administrative expenses associated with implementing the new coverage and benefit changes, and to provide better employment services to workers receiving unemployment compensation. Congress cannot continue to ignore the plight of millions of Americans hurt by economic forces beyond their control. As we work together to get the economy moving again, we must also work together to see that no one is left behind. We have a responsibility to give help and hope to these deserving Americans by strengthening unemployment insurance to cover all unemployed workers, and I urge my colleagues to give high priority to this needed reform.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Brownback and myself, we welcome this opportunity to honor the outstanding career and contributions of a truly dedicated and gifted member of our Senate family, the Deputy Legislative Counsel of the Senate, Art Rynearson. Many of us have been very grateful to Mr. Rynearson over the years for his superb assistance in preparing legislation on foreign affairs. His many accomplishments in this area include drafting, editing, and organizing the 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, the Iran-Libya Act, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986; the Senate conditions to the Protocols for the Expansion of NATO, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the START Treaty, and the Panama Canal Treaties. Senator Brownback and I, and all the members of the Immigration Subcommittee, are especially grateful to Mr. Rynearson for his skillful work in legislation on immigration, naturalization, and refugee affairs. Mr. Rynearson's thoughtful insight, and his mastery of these issues have resulted in articulate, well-drafted, and far-reaching laws that have helped countless immigrants and refugees. Art Rynearson's many contributions are well-known and greatly appreciated by all of us who know him and admire him, and millions of men and women and children who may never know his name have benefited from his dedication and commitment. As he retires after 26 years of heart-felt service and high ability, he has the gratitude and respect of all of us in the Senate, and we wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join Senator Frist in introducing the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act. Our goal in this bipartisan legislation is to enable all States to develop more effective trauma care systems. Trauma is the No. 1 killer of Americans under age 44. Traumatic injuries robs, devastate families and cost the Nation an estimated $60 billion every year. In 1995 alone, injuries were responsible for 148,000 deaths, 2.6 million hospitalizations, and over 36 million emergency room visits. Despite this toll, we have done little in recent years to prevent trauma or improve the chance of recovery from traumatic injury. Part of the problem is the widespread view that trauma is an accident, an unfortunate and often unavoidable injury. But this is often not the case. Proven preventive measures could save up to 25,000 lives every year. Better treatment systems can give victims a better chance of recovery, by delivering quality care as quickly as possible. A trauma system is a coordinated effort to provide the full range of care to all injured patients. Treatment begins at the site of injury, and continues from prehospital to hospital to rehabilitative services. Resources, supporting equipment, and personnel are ready and trained to go into action. The skills and knowledge of health care experts are not enough. Optimal care is the result of advance planning, preparation, and coordination to produce smooth transitions and the proper sequence of interventions. Effective trauma systems accomplish all this, saves lives, and reduces costs. Much of the progress in developing trauma systems has occurred as a result of Federal funding and involvement. In 1973, Congress passed the Emergency Medical Services Act, providing $300 million to States and communities over an 8-year period. Without that funding, patients in hundreds of regions in the Nation might not have had prompt access to emergency care. Even today, there are parts of the Nation without 911 access and immediate emergency transportation. In 1990, Congress passed the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act, authorizing Federal grants to States to develop statewide trauma care systems. Funding for this program has been inadequate. From 1995 to 2000, States received no funding at all. Last year, only $3.5 million was appropriated for the entire country. As a result, only half of all States today have fully functional statewide trauma systems. Clearly, we must do better in providing needed trauma care. Our legislation reauthorizes and strengthens the trauma care program to establish effective trauma systems in all States. It asks the Institutes of Medicine to investigate the quality of trauma care and identify areas for improvement. Surprisingly, given the burden of trauma on society, less than 1 percent of resources at the NIH are devoted to trauma research. Our legislation is supported by the Coalition for American Trauma Care, the American College of Surgeons, and the American Trauma Society. Its enactment is important to public safety, and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The debate giving the President authority to use force against Iraq occurred over 3 months ago. Since then, circumstances have changed so significantly that Congress must consider the issue of war and peace again. The administration is also not adequately considering the massive political commitment that will be required to Iraq's long-term reconstruction. If we wage this war without allies, the United States will assume a massive and lonely responsibility to rebuild Iraq, preserve its territorial integrity and prevent chaos. Going to war alone will impose massive new responsibilities that could extend for years, if not decades. The Senate debated giving the President authority to use force against Iraq over three months ago. Since then, circumstances have changed so significantly that Congress must consider the issue of war and peace again. Since our debate last fall, we have finally implemented, with our allies, an active process to verify Iraq's disarmament. That process is working and should be allowed to continue. We must help this process along and give persuasive intelligence information to U.N. weapons inspectors. It is possible that the inspections process will fail or that new evidence will be uncovered about the threat from Saddam Hussein. But under the current conditions, I continue to believe that this is the wrong war at the wrong time. If we rush to pull the trigger against Iraq, we will invite catastrophe and condemnation. America, which has long been a beacon of freedom for people around the world, will turn into a symbol of brute force and aggression. The world may come to see us as a dangerous rogue state, needing to be contained and deterred. This is not the America that Abraham Lincoln called ``the last, best hope of mankind.'' War now would be alien to our values, contrary to our interests, and must not be waged.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last October 16, President Bush signed Public Law 107-243 which authorized the President to use military force, if necessary, to defend our country. I voted against that resolution and war with Iraq because I was not persuaded that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our national security and because of my belief that war with Iraq, especially without broad international support, would undermine our ability to meet the gravest threat to our national security--terrorism against the United States by al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. Circumstances have changed significantly since Congress approved that resolution last October. In the months that have passed, events have only strengthened my belief that this is the wrong war at the wrong time. In those 3 months, al-Qaida has escalated its campaign of terror. North Korea has revived its nuclear weapons program. And United Nations inspectors are now on the ground in Iraq. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. He invaded Kuwait. He oppresses the Iraqi people. He murders his opponents. He has gassed his own people. He has defied the world community. So I commend President Bush for going to the United Nations and for working with our allies to put inspectors on the ground again in Iraq. The inspectors are making progress. Rather than commit American troops to war with Iraq at this time, we should give the inspectors our full support and assistance, including our best intelligence information, to strengthen their disarmament efforts. There are many other questions that must be answered before we go to war: Will war increase the chances of injury and harm to American citizens if Saddam Hussein, with his back pressed against the wall, decides to use chemical or biological weapons? What will a postwar Iraq look like? Who will govern? How long will our troops need to stay? How many will need to stay? What will be the impact on the war against terrorism? Will we be increasing support for al-Qaida? What will be the impact of our allies in the region? Will stability be undermined? How will our Nation be able to manage three foreign policy crises at the same time--the war against terrorism, the crisis with North Korea, and now war with Iraq? When Congress voted on this issue in October, the President had not yet decided to go to war. The President said war was the last resort. He said we would work with the international community to obtain Iraq's disarmament. Clearly, we have not reached that last resort. Inspectors are on the ground in Iraq, and the international community wants the inspections to continue; yet, the President is poised to pull the trigger of war. I am delighted to work with Senator Byrd on this issue, and I am a cosponsor of his resolution. We share the goal of ensuring that war will be the last resort; that if we do have to go to war in Iraq, it will be with the support of Congress, the American people, and the international community. In light of the changed circumstances since the previous votes by Congress, I am submitting another resolution supporting the inspection process and requiring the President to obtain approval from the Congress before committing American troops to war. This decision may well be one of the most important that any of us will make. So much has happened since Congress voted to authorize force last October. On November 8, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved a resolution that demanded unprecedented access to suspected weapons sites in Iraq. The passage of this resolution demonstrated the resolve of the international community to disarm Saddam, and was soon followed by the arrival of several hundred weapons inspectors in Iraq. On January 27, the inspectors submitted a report to the Security Council about Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspections. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix stated that Iraq has so far cooperated ``rather well'' but that additional cooperation is necessary. The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said inspectors ``have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s'' and that inspectors ``should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurances that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program.'' The U.N. report demonstrated that the inspection process is working. The inspectors are building their case, and Saddam Hussein is feeling the pressure of the international community. Nothing in the report suggests that war now is the only option to disarm Saddam. Clearly, the inspections should continue. It is wrong for the administration to beat the drums of war. There is time for thoughtful deliberation about whether war now is the right priority for our Nation and we in Congress have a responsibility to the Constitution and the American people to act again on this all-important issue of war or peace. The administration has totally failed to make the case that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to our security. No evidence, no proof, no ``smoking gun,'' no intelligence has ever been released to suggest we must launch a pre-emptive strike in order to defend America from an unprovoked attack. Instead of making its case, the administration simply says, ``Trust us. We know more than you do.'' Many experts believe that Iraq--especially without provocation--does not represent an imminent threat to our security. In fact, it may well be just the opposite. On October 7, CIA Director George Tenet released an unclassified assessment in a letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggested Iraq would only be a threat if the United States attacked it first. The letter said, ``the probability of [Saddam Hussein] initiating an attack [on the United States] would be low.'' It also said, ``should Saddam Hussein conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve . . . [chemical and biological weapons].'' In spite of U.S. assertions that we have secret evidence of Iraq's WMD program, we have been transferring this information at a painfully slow pace. It is only this month, that we finally began to hand over ``significant intelligence.'' The administration promises the release of new information and all of us hope that it will be more convincing than what has been made available so far. Secretary Powell will go to the Security Council to share intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program on February 5. But if the United States has significant intelligence, we should share it with the U.N. inspectors today. We should not wait a further week. If our goal is disarmament, we should do everything possible to assist the inspectors. The disarmament of Saddam Hussein is essential. But the administration has not made a persuasive case that the threat from Iraq is so immediate that it justifies resort to war now when the inspections process is obviously making progress. Clearly, we have not reached the last resort. Our Nation faces another threat that is much more immediate: the possibility of new al-Qaida terrorist attacks. A unilateral invasion of Iraq would not advance our war against terrorism--it would undermine it. Our highest national priority is to wage the unfinished war against al-Qaida and wage it effectively. In the last 4 months there have been deadly new al-Qaida attacks worldwide, which have slaughtered hundreds. A French tanker was attacked in Yemen, a nightclub bombed in Indonesia, a hotel destroyed in Kenya, missionaries murdered in Yemen. The frequency and ferocity of these attacks is increasing. It is only a matter of time before they strike America again. The administration would like us to believe that Saddam Hussein is public enemy No. 1, ignoring the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at large. Chilling new evidence has arisen suggests that he is planning new attacks. At home, we still remain vulnerable. Last October, a Council of Foreign Relations task force chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman warned that ``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil.'' Another Task Force representative told a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee that ``a war with Iraq . . . elevates the risk in the near term of an attack on the United States . . . [and] will likely consume virtually all the nation's attention and command the bulk of the available resources, leaving little left over to address our many domestic vulnerabilities.'' For some time, the administration engaged in a complicated spin job to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are co-conspirators. According to this view, waging war on Iraq is part of the war against terrorism. Last September, our Secretary of Defense went so far as to claim publicly that he had ``bulletproof confirmation'' of links between Iraq and al-Qaida. But the administration has never presented any of this ``bulletproof'' evidence. Most regional experts believe it is highly unlikely that fundamentalist al-Qaida leaders would ever find much common cause with the secular dictator Saddam Hussein. Last October, CIA Director George Tenet even conceded that the administration's understanding of the al-Qaida Iraq link was ``evolving'' and based on ``sources of varying reliability.'' The administration claimed again this week that they have new evidence of those ties, but so far we have only seen a rehash of old allegations and unreliable anecdotes. As the administration emphasizes the threat from Iraq, it gives less attention to other countries that pose an even more immediate threat to our security. The greatest proliferation threat comes not from Iraq, but North Korea. North Korea is much more likely and capable to develop, use and sell these weapons. But unlike Iraq, North Korea probably already has nuclear weapons. Unlike Iraq, North Korea has no nuclear inspectors on the ground to verify disarmament. North Korea has a long and well-documented history of selling its military technology, especially ballistic missiles, to whoever will pay the highest price. Desperate and strapped for cash, it is the country most likely to sell or transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorists or nations that support terrorism. In its single-minded focus on Iraq, administration officials at first refused to acknowledge that a nuclear crisis even existed. Only very recently has the Administration begun to devote the attention this crisis deserves. Nevertheless, the administration continues to focus on Iraq. They are now suggesting an easy war, with few casualties. But our military leaders, especially those with significant combat experience are skeptical. On December 18, a press report said that the commandant of the Marine Corps is concerned that civilian leaders in the Pentagon are underestimating the risks of war, and that military chiefs have challenged the optimistic view that Saddam Hussein's government will collapse soon after a military campaign begins. In December, we heard dire new forecasts about what war with Iraq would actually be like. U.S. intelligence officials warned that Saddam Hussein may pursue a ``scorched earth'' policy if the war goes badly. They said that Hussein may try to destroy Iraq's oil fields, power plants and food facilities. In the Armed Services Committee, we heard testimony from General Hoar and others about the dangers to our troops of urban guerilla warfare. War will be a disaster not just for the soldiers who suffer and die, but for the vast numbers of innocent civilians who will be affected. In December, the media reprinted a confidential U.N. planning document predicting a humanitarian crisis in the wake of war with Iraq. U.N. officials also predicted a halt to Iraqi oil production, serious degradation of Iraqi transportation, sanitation and power facilities, and the ``outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions.'' The document also predicted a flow of up to 900,000 refugees. War will not be as easy as the administration would like us to believe. It may well turn into the first great humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my friend from West Virginia for his eloquence once again this afternoon. When the history of our time is written, there will be many important chapters on the contributions the Senator from West Virginia has made, certainly for his State, but I also think there will be an important chapter that will be written about his contributions to our Constitution as the principal guardian of the Constitution in the Senate. He has done this on so many occasions. I have admired him so much for that effort and the extraordinary insight he has brought to all of us as a student of history. All of us will remember very clearly the debates which were led by the Senator from West Virginia some 3 months ago on the issues of war and peace, and now once again, as we are coming to the most significant time, and that is the decision-making that will be made at the United Nations about whether we will continue with a course of inspections and whether we will try and galvanize the world community behind a common purpose, or whether we will go it alone. The Senator reminds us of the dangers of going it alone, of the unforeseen challenges we will be facing, and draws attention to the importance that this is a matter that is debated and discussed in the Senate; that the people in West Virginia, like the people in my own State, are eager to have more knowledge, more awareness, more understanding as to exactly where we are going and the circumstances of that commitment. I thank the Senator from West Virginia so much for the thoughtful resolution which I am proud to cosponsor and for the comment he has made, which is that we will be back here again to talk about this issue of war and peace. As he has said on many occasions, there is no vote that is more important than a Senator's vote on war and peace. There is no issue more important that we address in the Senate. The Senator reminds us of that very solemn obligation and responsibility we have on that issue and has, in his resolution, found ways of giving expression to the concerns of many of our fellow citizens. I again thank him for all of the work he has done. I urge him to continue to lead this body to a better understanding of exactly what policy we are undertaking, what the risks are, and the challenges we face with the real prospects of a war which may be initiated by the United States, in which the United States may be effectively going it alone with perhaps one or two of our allies. I thank him so much for his attention and focus on this issue.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may I be reminded when I have 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join Senator Frist in introducing the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act. Our goal in this bipartisan legislation is to enable all States to develop more effective trauma care systems. Trauma is the No. 1 killer of Americans under age 44. Traumatic injuries robs, devastate families and cost the Nation an estimated $60 billion every year. In 1995 alone, injuries were responsible for 148,000 deaths, 2.6 million hospitalizations, and over 36 million emergency room visits. Despite this toll, we have done little in recent years to prevent trauma or improve the chance of recovery from traumatic injury. Part of the problem is the widespread view that trauma is an accident, an unfortunate and often unavoidable injury. But this is often not the case. Proven preventive measures could save up to 25,000 lives every year. Better treatment systems can give victims a better chance of recovery, by delivering quality care as quickly as possible. A trauma system is a coordinated effort to provide the full range of care to all injured patients. Treatment begins at the site of injury, and continues from prehospital to hospital to rehabilitative services. Resources, supporting equipment, and personnel are ready and trained to go into action. The skills and knowledge of health care experts are not enough. Optimal care is the result of advance planning, preparation, and coordination to produce smooth transitions and the proper sequence of interventions. Effective trauma systems accomplish all this, saves lives, and reduces costs. Much of the progress in developing trauma systems has occurred as a result of Federal funding and involvement. In 1973, Congress passed the Emergency Medical Services Act, providing $300 million to States and communities over an 8-year period. Without that funding, patients in hundreds of regions in the Nation might not have had prompt access to emergency care. Even today, there are parts of the Nation without 911 access and immediate emergency transportation. In 1990, Congress passed the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act, authorizing Federal grants to States to develop statewide trauma care systems. Funding for this program has been inadequate. From 1995 to 2000, States received no funding at all. Last year, only $3.5 million was appropriated for the entire country. As a result, only half of all States today have fully functional statewide trauma systems. Clearly, we must do better in providing needed trauma care. Our legislation reauthorizes and strengthens the trauma care program to establish effective trauma systems in all States. It asks the Institutes of Medicine to investigate the quality of trauma care and identify areas for improvement. Surprisingly, given the burden of trauma on society, less than 1 percent of resources at the NIH are devoted to trauma research. Our legislation is supported by the Coalition for American Trauma Care, the American College of Surgeons, and the American Trauma Society. Its enactment is important to public safety, and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, 30 seconds.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct. Madam President, the time up to 18 minutes before the hour I ask be divided between the Senator from New York and the Senator from Vermont. I hope the Senator from New York will comment about the increase in tuition. At the New York state universities, I understand it has increased 41 percent. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, in about 2 minutes the Senator from Florida will be recognized, and after that the Senator from Vermont. There are just two items I want to mention and repeat. One is that in Oregon we have now about 180 days of education. Some districts are thinking of going to 165 days. If all of the school districts in our country were to follow this example, that would put us as 23rd in the world in terms of the amount of time children are studying in school-- where we talk about being No. 1. We talk about being No. 1? We are penalizing our children. But a second point. And the Senator spoke very eloquently about the increase in tuition. Does the Senator not agree with me that today the indebtedness of students who come primarily from working families, who have the ability, the academic desire to succeed and excel, are now indebting themselves three times what they were just 10 years ago because of the escalation in tuitions? And therefore, we are saying to a whole group of sons and daughters of working families, that in effect, the opportunity for education, even though you have the ability and the academic success, you will effectively be denied continuing education?

Mr. KENNEDY. I think we had an agreement that the Senator from Florida was yielded my time so he can make an important statement about the Buccaneers.

Mr. KENNEDY. I see we are joined by another member of the committee, the Senator from New York. Would the Senator not agree with me, and I hope my colleagues would comment, one of the very sad aspects of this is, not only are they having the cuts, but where there are percentage cuts--which have taken place and which were initially proposed in my own State of Massachusetts--in the wealthier communities, they are making up the difference. I have several illustrations which show how communities that have greater affluence are making up the difference of what they are getting shortchanged, but the poorer districts are once again left high and dry. In well-off Manhattan Beach, CA, parents and the district raised $1.4 million in private funding to pay for music and art staff and teacher aides. The average home in this district is worth $900,000. Also, in a wealthy Kansas City suburb, the Belinder Elementary School brought in proceeds from parent donations earlier this year to help pay the salaries of a nurse, counselor, and foreign language teacher. The efforts raised $78,000 in two weeks to pay for positions that would have been cut as the district faced a $6 million shortfall. But in poor communities, parental philanthropy is not an option--and the children in those communities will be left behind. In Boston, Massachusetts, principals were told to brace for a $60 million cut--and there is no hope for making up that money from somewhere else. According to Boston's Chief Operating Officer, Michael Contompasis, this means, ``. . . humongous layoffs. Everything is on the table.'' So, again, those children who come from particularly trying and difficult or disadvantaged circumstances are paying even a higher price.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have several Members who want to speak. Our time runs out at a quarter of the hour. I am told, because of the extraordinary circumstances that took place on Sunday afternoon, we would yield from 18 minutes to 15 minutes of the hour to our friend from Florida to make some comments about the world champion team. But I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time be divided between the Senators from New York, Maryland, and Vermont.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for another point?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I welcome the fact that the leadership has given this time to express our strong views on a very important issue, the whole issue, the quality of education for the children of this country. It was just about a year ago, Members--I see Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Dodd from our committee--remember clearly this Nation came together, Republican and Democrat, to sign the No Child Left Behind Act, the gateway of opportunity, of progress, for academic achievement and accomplishment. We all looked forward to smaller classes, better trained teachers, afterschool programs. We looked forward to this with great hope and great anticipation. We looked forward to parental involvement so parents could understand how their children were learning in local schools, with greater accountability for students, for schools, for teachers and parents, and also for the Congress of the United States. As we come to the time of the President of the United States speaking, if we listen carefully to what is happening all across this country, we will hear we have failed in our understanding and commitment to education and the administration has failed in giving life to our promises in the form of resources to make sure those promises are kept. Listen to what the Governor of Delaware, Ruth Ann Minner, said recently: Delaware has asked local school districts to return $10 million from current year budgets. The impact of those kinds of budget- cutting measures takes a tremendous toll in providing enough teachers to continue progress to reduce class size, which is so important to the quality of education. Federal programs, such as No Child Left Behind or IDEA, implemented without adequate Federal funding--no matter that we share the goal and the vision--represent an empty promise. We have had debates here on whether we have provided the resources or not. Let's listen to what is happening across the country. In a Washington Post article today, it says Oregon today is on the verge of cutting 15 days, potentially 24 days, from its school year. The United States ranks 18th among the industrial nations in school year length. How can we expect American schoolchildren to learn in 180 days as much as Korean children learn in 220? And now Oregon may cut back to 165 days of the school year. The New York Times reported on the impact on the children. Linda Pattison, a fourth grade teacher here uses her fingers to check off the lessons that she usually teaches but will skip. Her pupils will not study the metric system, arithmetic, electricity and science, nor Oregon's history and social studies. ``I can only compare this to my divorce,'' said the teacher. More than 100 school districts in 8 States have moved to 4-day weeks to cut costs. Oklahoma City has cut bus service entirely for 1,000 students. In Barnstable, MA, they are charging an additional $200 for music education, $200 for busing, and $1,800 now for all-day kindergarten. In Centennial, MN, schools have upwards of 30 students per class. Class sizes have grown significantly in the last year. In Colton, OR, academic classes in the junior high have as many as 41 students per teacher. That's not education; that's crowd control. I don't fault these communities. They are in a bind. Local schools cannot meet the high standards on a tin-cup budget. I see my colleagues here. I think they would share with me the hope that tonight the President of the United States will make it clear that help is on its way to those families, to those teachers, to those parents; that we believe the investment in those children will make a real difference, in terms of our economy and in their ability to acquire skills. It will make a difference in terms of young people being able to make a difference for our society and for our democracy and for our leadership. This is something I hope, on the one hand, he will explain, why we have not been able to do it and, second, that he will have a change of mind and he will say--again, what I believe this President understands--what we have failed to follow through with, and that is that we are going to invest in our children and our children's education. I thank our colleagues who are here. I see my friends from Rhode Island and Connecticut. I know they want to say a word on the subject.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I understand we are in morning business; is that correct?