Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have passed tonight a bill to extend for one year the current provisions of the 1986 Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act which provides limited parity for insurance coverage of mental illness. But today is not a day to celebrate. Instead, it is a call to arms--a call to pass the full and meaningful mental health parity bill that Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici have fought for so tirelessly. It is a day to sound the battle cry for finally ensuring that no American is discriminated against because they suffer from a mental illness. Mental illness is a pervasive problem in our society, and too often it is a problem that is swept under the rug with an immense human cost. One out of five Americans will suffer from some form of mental illness this year--but only one-third of them will receive treatment. The fight against discrimination is not new--it is as old as the Republic and as fresh as today's headlines. All Americans deserve equality of opportunity and fundamental fairness. Next year this fight begins anew. All of us are saddened that Paul Wellstone is no longer with us to carry on this fight. But we intend to honor his memory and continue to fight for the cause for which he worked so hard. We will not rest until we enact legislation that ends the cruel discrimination that burdens so many Americans suffering from mental illness.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. It is certainly not the manager's intent to limit the Agricultural, Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. That plant genomics language included in the NSF doubling legislations is only to establish an authorization, it does not state a preference for plant genomics over other agricultural genomics programs that might be provided through later appropriations acts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I am pleased the Senate will consider and pass today, the National Science Foundation Doubling Act. This bill is the product of extensive bipaprtisan, bicameral negotiations among the House of Representatives Committee on Science, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. It is based on S. 2817, which I introduced with Senator Hollings, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Bond. I commend them, together with Senator Gregg, Senator McCain, House Science Committee Chairman Boehlert, Congressman Nick Smith, and Congressman Ralph Hall for their leadership in crafting this important legislation. NSF performs two key functions for the federal governmnet and the broader research community. It supports basic research and development in math, science, engineering, and technology, and it promotes math and science learning at every level, from K-12 through post-graduate education. Few people realize how influential NSF has been to their daily lives. NSF has funded basic research leading to the creation of doppler weather radar, retail bar codes, speech recognition software, magnetic resonance imaging machines, and even World Wide Web browsers, such as Netscape and Microsoft's Internet Explorer. NSF education initiatives of the late 1980s were the forerunners of the standards-based school reform movement embraced throughout the Nation today and most recently in the new No Child Left Behind Act governing nearly all federal elementary and secondary education programs. We can and should build on NSF's record in improving the lives of millions of Americans. The 20th Century was the era of the industrial age, and the 21st Century will be the era of information technology and the life sciences. The bill before us doubles NSF's budget authority over the next five years. It matches the growth of the National Institutes of Health over the last five years. We double budget authority for research and development in the physical sciences and theoretical mathematics, because they support advances in the health sciences and because they are valuable in their own right. I am particularly proud that the legislation before us authorizes a new secondary school systemic initiative at NSF that will develop model school reforms to improve high school student math and science performance and better prepare all students for college-level and technical work. For too long, federal policy has paid scant attention to the needs of secondary school students. Senator Jeffords and I have been working extensively in this area. I commend him for his leadership and look forward to continued work with him on the needs of secondary students. The bill before us supports model math and science partnerships between institutions of higher education and local school districts to improve the knowledge and teaching techniques of current and future math and science teachers. The math and science partnership provisions are based on proposals offered by the Administration, Senator Frist, Senator Roberts, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Bingaman. They track a strong body of educational research that emphasizes the importance of training math and science teachers to improve student performance in those important subject areas. This legislation supports institutions of higher education in increasing the number of students, particularly women and minorities, who study toward and obtain degrees in science, math, engineering, and technology. Senator Lieberman, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Bond are leaders on this issue, and I commend them as well. We have an economic need and a national security imperative to increase the number and quality of students studying science, math, engineering, and technology at the post-secondary level. Finally, the bill before us reforms NSF's program on major research and facilities equipment, to help prioritize projects and guard against cost overruns and approval of proposals that have not received adequate analysis. This is an area of concern for Senator Clinton, Senator Bond, and Senator Mikulski, and I commend them for this initiative. Quality and merit should be the touchstones of our Nation's investment in the sciences. The National Science Foundation Doubling Act is a thoughtful piece of bipartisan legislation that prepares us for the future. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Paul Wellstone was an extraordinary leader with a common touch. His dedication to the well-being of average Americans was unparalleled in Congress. He believed all of our citizens, no matter how humble their beginnings, or difficult their plight, had an equal right to happy, healthy, and full lives. He always made the time to hear the real needs of the people, and he always took the time to speak up for them in the U.S. Senate. For Paul, core beliefs were not something to be compromised. He understood as well as anyone in this body the give-and-take of legislation. But we always knew his values were at the forefront of every battle, and the people of Minnesota could count on him to fight for them with every ounce of his considerable energy and ability. Paul and I were seatmates. His desk is right beside mine on the Senate floor. But we were more than neighbors. Paul was our conscience, our guiding light. He turned overlooked needs and forgotten causes into real hopes for millions of Americans. For them, Paul Wellstone was their champion, their Senator. Earlier this year, Senator Wellstone chaired a hearing in the Labor Committee on an issue of great concern to American workers. A group of low-wage men and women were so excited by the prospect of the hearing that they took a day off from work, boarded buses, and headed for the hearing. When they arrived, they found the room full and the door barred. But Senator Wellstone heard about the workers who were waiting in the hallway, unable to get in. He invited them in and seated them on the dais among the Senators attending the hearing. For Paul, this was the way it was intended to be. For him, there was no distance, no barrier between the people and their elected representatives. Senator Wellstone did his homework. He knew the facts and he also knew the reality of everyday life for the people he cared for so deeply and served so well. When the Senate debated education policy, we knew Paul understood the issues thoroughly. We also knew Paul had spent more time visiting the public schools than any other Senator. He knew the challenges firsthand because he had taken the time to listen to parents, teachers, and schoolchildren so he could be a true voice for them in Washington. He taught us all by his example that Americans face challenges together. He was the embodiment of e pluribus unum, that out of many peoples in America, we are one Nation. He lived every moment of every day fighting to make our Nation even stronger, ever the beacon of opportunity for all of our citizens. Paul, we will miss you. You and Sheila and Marcia leave an extraordinary legacy for millions of Americans to honor, to cherish, and to carry on. Your outstanding contributions to the Senate, to Minnesota, and to the Nation will always be remembered. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Dr. McClellan has an impressive background. He is both economist and a physician. He is a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and he is also a major advisor on health policy to the President today. He was an associate professor of economics and medicine at Stanford University. He also served as deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Treasury. And, best of all, he received his medical degree, his doctorate in economics, and his master's degree in public health at Harvard and MIT. This nomination to a major public health position is long overdue. Dr. McClellan has the training, the experience, and the stature to serve as the head of the country's most important public health regulatory agency--an agency that serves as the gold standard for the rest of the world. FDA's mission is to protect the public health. Its mission affects more than a quarter of every dollar spent in the U.S. economy. The products that it regulates--food, drugs, biologics, devices supplements and cosmetics--affect public health and safety every day. The agency also has a long and distinguished history of serving the public interest. It has a proud tradition of promoting the public interest ahead of special interests. It is an agency of skilled professionals who set high standards and demand excellence from the industries it regulates. In this time of extraordinary medical breakthroughs and as new threats to public health arise, the FDA faces enormous challenges. The American people increasingly depend on the FDA to safeguard public health. Now is not the time for FDA to retreat from these challenges, or surrender its authority over public health. Dr. McClellan has been nominated to a position of great responsibility. I believe he will make a fine commissioner, one who will help lead the agency into the 21st century.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the Senate today for its bipartisan action in approving the Rare Diseases Act of 2002 and the Rare Diseases Orphan Product Development Act of 2002. These two measures will enhance the prospects for developing effective care, treatments and cures for literally thousands of rare diseases and disorders. Congress has a longstanding commitment to provide this support. In 1983, we passed the Orphan Drug Act to improve the development of treatments for rare diseases and disorders. These diseases affect small patient populations, typically smaller than 200,000 individuals in the United States. They include Huntington's disease, myoclonus, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), Tourette syndrome, and muscular dystrophy. The Rare Diseases Act and the Rare Diseases Orphan Product Development Act build upon the enormous success of the original Orphan Drug Act, which encouraged the development of over 220 treatments for rare diseases and disorders. The Rare Diseases Act of 2002 provides a statutory authorization for the existing Office of Rare Diseases at the National Institutes of Health and authorizes regional centers of excellence for research and training with respect to rare diseases. This proposal originated with the NIH, in recommendations of a Special Emphasis Panel convened to examine the state of rare disease research. The Panel itself was convened in response to a request of the Senate Appropriations Committee in 1996, and it is appropriate that we are today introducing legislation which represents the fruition of a long, deliberative process involving both Congress and the NIH. The Rare Diseases Orphan Product Development Act increases funding for the Food and Drug Administration's Orphan Product Research Grant program, which provides vital support for clinical research on new treatments for rare diseases and disorders. This funding will encourage many more commercial sponsors to investigate and develop vital new medicines. Although each rare disease may not affect many patients, 25 million Americans today suffer from the 6,000 known rare diseases and disorders, including more than 600,000 in Massachusetts. Anyone who has a family member or friend who suffers from a rare disease or disorder knows the importance of developing new treatments and helping patients to obtain these potential cures. Today's passage of these two bills will provide the resources necessary to continue to develop new treatments and even cures for millions of Americans. I would also add that these bills are intended to build upon previous congressional efforts to expand research and development for all rare diseases and disorders. Senator Hatch and I introduced the Rare Diseases Act, upon which these bills are based, to expand and enhance existing initiatives underway at the various institutes of NIH with respect to different rare diseases, including but not limited to muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease, and ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). I believe the NIH will act upon these new bills in the appropriate spirit, by building upon current activities and investments on rare diseases and disorders. I commend the National Organization for Rare Diseases for its tireless and continuing leadership on these basic issues. I also commend Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue in the Senate, and I commend Congressmen Waxman, Shimkus, and Foley for their leadership in the House of Representatives. I know that all of us look forward to the implementation of these important measures we are approving today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. When we think of the minimum wage, we too infrequently think of the people who are earning that minimum wage. It has always been interesting to me that we are willing to have those who are earning the minimum wage take care of some of those individuals who are the most precious to us and the most fragile. Many of the minimum-wage workers work in child care settings and are taking care of the children while workers are out there working, trying to provide for their families. Many of them are working in schools with teachers. We know how important education is, and these minimum-wage workers are working to assist teachers. Many of them are working in nursing homes, to try to help take care of parents and grandparents who have made such a difference to this country. They have fought in the wars and brought the country out of the Great Depression. These are men and women of great dignity. Even though these jobs are difficult and they are tough, they are prepared to do them because they take pride in their work. They are trying to provide for their families. All they are looking for is to be treated fairly. I thank the good Senator from California for being such a strong supporter of the increase in the minimum wage. This is an issue I think all Americans can understand. People who work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should not continue to live in poverty for themselves and their children in this country of ours. Americans understand that. Why are we constantly denied the opportunity to bring that measure up here on the floor of the Senate, to permit the Senate of the United States to at least vote on it? We are facing Republican opposition here, we were facing Republican opposition in the House of Representatives, and in the White House. This is something I find extraordinary. For years the increase in the minimum wage, as the good Senator understands, was never a partisan issue. It really only became a partisan issue after the 1980 election. Prior to that time, we had bipartisan support for it. I thank the Senator for including that in the Senator's evaluation of the economic record of this administration. The failure to provide that not only denies us the economic stimulus that would be provided but also is a denial of fairness for a group of men and women who work hard, play by the rules, try to raise their children, and ought to be treated fairly. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator makes an excellent point. I think she would agree with me that, as our President said, ``We are one nation with one history and one destiny. We are all really basically together.'' Yet when we see this callous disregard for working men and women who are trying to provide for themselves and for their children, on the one hand, and complete callous disregard--and the preference and special privileges granted to another group--this really flies in the face of what I think this society and this country is really all about. I am sure the Senator understands that the $1.50 increase in the minimum wage would affect nearly 9 million people in this country. It would represent one-fifth of 1 percent of the nation's payroll. That is what we are talking about. People say it is highly inflationary. Of course, the economic studies show it is not because these are funds that are spent by these minimum- wage workers. It helps the economy. It helps stimulate the economy. These are Americans who will invest in the community. Wouldn't you think we could say we want to make sure people who are working, providing for their families, will not be left out and left behind in the richest nation of the world? We have Americans who are in the service fighting overseas. We have heard the debates of war and peace. We have to ask, why are they the best? The reason they are the best is not only that they have the best training, are the best equipped, and the best led, but because they have values. Those values also include fairness and decency to their fellow human beings and to their fellow workers. Fairness and decency to those workers includes the raise in the minimum wage. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of the membership the bill H.R. 5651, the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002. It has now passed the House of Representatives. We have been working on this legislation for 10 years. It has been a divisive issue, both the issue and as a public policy issue. We finally have virtual support from the Members in the House of Representatives, the committees of jurisdiction, and also the Members here. There may be Members who have questions. We are prepared to answer those. I indicate this is a public health matter of enormous importance and consequence. If Members are going to object, they are going to have to come to the floor of the Senate and express those objections and reasons. We will not tolerate someone holding up this bill in hopes that they can get it carried back to the House. We have worked too long. We have worked too hard. This is an enormously important health issue. We will not tolerate it. I will not tolerate it. Those members of our committee will not tolerate it. I want to make it very clear, if they ever expect any kind of cooperation on any other health matters, they had better understand the importance and significance of this measure--if they ever expect any cooperation on any health matters down the road. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier today my friend and colleague, the Senator from Nevada, our deputy leader, made a unanimous consent request that we consider legislation to provide a three-step process to increase in the minimum wage by $1.50. The reason this request has been made is because over the period of these last 2 years, those of us on this side have made an extraordinary attempt to try and follow the regular order, the regular process, and have this legislation considered in the Senate. Effectively, we have been blocked all the way. In the final hours of this session, it appears we probably will be back for a lame duck session, but we want to make sure those who are affected by this legislation and, importantly, those who are not but those who are strong supporters of fairness and decency when it comes to the minimum wage, understand what is happening in the Senate. The bottom line is, the Republican leadership is blocking an increase in the minimum wage. I want to take a few moments this afternoon to review once again why this request was so urgent, why it was basically an emergency request and what the results would be with the objection that has been made by the leaders of the Republican Party. First of all, if we look over the period of the years going back to 1968, and we look at what the real value of the minimum wage would be, this is the real value. This is comparing oranges and oranges in this case. The real value today would be $8.14. That is what it was in 1968. Today it is $5.15. By the end of this year, using constant figures, it will effectively be $4.70--$8.14 in 1968; $4.70 now in terms of real purchasing power. We have seen how over the period of these years there has been a gradual decline, but it really was not until 1980 that we had an administration that refused to consider what other administrations, Republicans and Democrats alike, considered, and that is a fair increase in the minimum wage. Then we had the battles. We had two different times we had small increases. In order to even get it considered, we had to reduce the increase and cut out a third year for the increase in the minimum wage. The last time we had to add close to $30 billion in tax breaks in order to effectively have an increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage has been increased some 9 times. Eight times it was increased without a tax reduction, but not the last times. That was the condition by which our Republican friends would agree to even consider an extension. Now, without any kind of extension, we are falling back to $4.70. The petition that was presented by Senator Reid would have provided, over a 3-year period, an increase of $1.50. The objection today is unacceptable. Let us look at how the minimum wage is related to the issue of poverty in America. Going back again to the period of 1968 and during the several years during that period, the minimum wage was the poverty wage. What we have seen in recent years is how the minimum wage now has fallen so far below the poverty wage, it would have to be increased by about $3.50 an hour to even get up to the poverty line, which is the basic line that has been defined as the income which is necessary to provide the basics of surviving in the United States of America. Yet, we are expecting men and women to take these jobs, which they do, and pay them these totally inadequate wages.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. The Senator's question anticipates one of the traditional arguments that have been suggested on the other side of the aisle that these are really teenagers who are getting this minimum wage. To the contrary, as the Senator has pointed out, actually 68 percent of those who receive it are adults. For half of those, the minimum wage job is the sole source of income for those families. A good percentage of those, I would say to the Senator, have two or three minimum wage jobs. That is what we have seen. We have heard opposition to this issue. We recognize, as I pointed out on other occasions, what this issue is really all about. We are talking about men and women who clean out the great buildings across our Nation, who work late at night, work hard, do very tough, difficult and dreary work, but nonetheless they maintain their dignity and their spirit. These are individuals who work in child care settings as assistants to child care providers. We are willing to entrust our most sacred individuals, our children, to minimum wage workers who are assistant teachers working in the classroom. Our most sacred trusts are our children, our parents, and grandparents. Those who are working with the teachers in the classroom very often are the minimum wage workers. Those who are working in the child care centers are most likely the minimum wage workers. Those who are working in the nursing homes to help take care of our parents and grandparents who built this country, fought in its wars, lifted the Nation out of the Depression, sacrificed immensely for their children, are minimum wage workers. Those are the ones we are talking about. So often when we talk about the minimum wage, we are talking about the graphs depicting cents per hour and the rest. But these are real individuals who are providing important services in our country and to our people, and they are being shortchanged. As I have said before, it is a women's issue because the great majority of the minimum wage workers are women. It is a civil rights issue because great numbers of people who are working for the minimum wage are men and women of color. It is a children's issue because how their parents are being paid and compensated is going to reflect on how those children are going to grow up. It is a family issue. We hear so much about family issues in the Senate. This is a family issue. When a parent has to work one or two minimum wage jobs, the time they are away from the home, the other parent often working in a similar kind of a situation, trying to make ends meet, the lack of time for them to come together to give these children the kinds of values and upbringing that they should have works to the disadvantage of these children. Beyond all that, it is a fairness issue. People understand in this country that men and women who are willing to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, should be treated fairly. We are talking about people working hard, long, difficult hours who ought to be treated fairly. Americans understand this issue of fairness. But our Republican friends do not. They have opposed increases in the minimum wage every single time, at least during the time I have been here in the last 40 years. I remember one of those debates. In August of 1960, they were opposed to the last measure that came before this body at that time, and they were opposed to the minimum wage at that time, too. This has been over a long period of time. Mr. President, I remind our friends and the viewing public, we have taken the time to raise our own salaries, four different times over the last 6 years, some $16,000. But we are refusing to even let this issue be debated and come to a vote. That is wrong. It is unfair. It is unjust. The Democrats stand for those working families; for fairness and decency. They stand for the children of those minimum wage workers. They stand with the minimum-wage workers, men and women of dignity who are only asking to be treated fairly. We stand with them. We continue to ask why our Republican leaders in the Senate and the House of Representatives and in the White House refuse the opportunity to even debate this issue and refuse the opportunity to consider it and pass it. I regret that. We will continue to express this issue because that is the only way we have ever been able to get this done in the past. We expect that will be the only way to get it done in the future. We will press it across the countryside. We ask our fellow Americans. This issue is one that concerns them. I don't know a single member of our side who would not support an increase in the minimum wage. I hope they will understand that when they go to the polls.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand we are in morning business. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support passage of H.R. 5651, ``The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002.'' Just as passage of a user-fee program was a breakthrough in the regulation of critical prescription drugs, this legislation is a breakthrough in regulation of lifesaving medical devices, devices that can open blocked arteries, keep hearts beating, save the lives of stroke patients, and diagnose deadly cancers in time for effective treatment. Currently, because FDA lacks adequate resources, too many critical devices are unnecessarily slowed in their progress to patients' bedsides by the regulatory process. At the same time, careful FDA oversight is essential to assure that patients not suffer serious injury or even lose their lives because of devices which are unsafe or ineffective. By assessing a modest fee on device manufacturers, raising the level of appropriated funds, and setting ambitious performance targets for the FDA, this bill is just what the doctor ordered to speed life-saving devices to the market while protecting the public health. The goal of establishing a user-fee program for medical devices is one that I have pursued for more than a decade. I am gratified that this legislation finally brings that goal to fruition. It will mean life and hope for thousands of patients each year. The legislation also improves regulation of potentially faulty and harmful reprocessed devices. Patients deserve to know that the devices that are used in their medical treatment are safe and effective, whether they are being used for the first time or whether they are being reused. The legislation provides for a new regime of third party inspections for device manufacturers who manufacture products for both the United States and export. This regime will reduce duplicative inspections, while assuring that FDA remains the final arbiter and safety check on the quality of the manufacturing process for medical devices. For many years, the FDA's Center for devices and Radiological Health, CDRH, has needed additional funding and staff to better assure the safety and effectiveness of new and innovative medical technologies. As the coauthor of the Medical device User Fee Act of 1994, I have long advocated medical device user fees and I am proud that we have finally secured such funding through a fair and efficient system of user fees. This legislation will provide great benefits to patient health and safety. I am confident that these fees will assure greater certainty for consumers and manufacturers that the FDA can meet its statutory responsibilities for the timely and thorough review of medical devices. Under Federal law, medical devices must be reviewed by the FDA prior to marketing. These reviews must be completed in accordance with ambitious statutory timeframes. While the FDA has done an excellent job of reviewing lower risk devices in a timely manner, it has frequently lacked the resources and staff to achieve similar success with the most sophisticated devices, which require premarket approval. Under this legislation, device companies will pay the FDA fees for the application they submit for review. These fees will raise nearly $150 million over the next 5 years. The legislation also calls for tens of millions of dollars in newly appropriated funding for the FDA's device center. These funds will be devoted to reviewing device applications and to assuring the post-market safety of devices. I am pleased that the legislation authorizes an additional $3 million in fiscal year 2003 and $6 million in fiscal year 2004 for the post-market surveillance of medical devices. I want to acknowledge the contributions of Senator Hatch in ensuring that the user fees are fair and equitable to small businesses and startup companies. The user-fee program will sunset after 5 years, allowing Congress to review whether it has expedited the review of devices and whether improvements are needed to better assure public health and safety. In addition to medical device user fees, the legislation strengthens the FDA's regulation of reprocessed devices. I believe that the American people will greatly benefit from the new requirements for substantial equivalence determinations and premarket approvals of such devices. I am particularly pleased that there are robust requirements for the assurance of safety and effectiveness of any reprocessed class III devices, such as angioplasty balloons or heart valves. Finally, the legislation authorizes a 10-year program for third-party inspections of device manufacturing plants. This will enable FDA to better target its enforcement resources--resources that we also increase in the legislation. To ensure that third parties operate appropriately, the bill places important controls over conflicts of interest and places third parties at risk of significant civil monetary, criminal, and debarment penalties, if they act in a manner inconsistent with public health and safety. Moreover, the bill limits inspections to plants which manufacture devices for export, and ensures that FDA conduct every third inspection before additional third-party inspections take place. Let me acknowledge the important work of Congressmen Tauzin, Dingell, Greenwood, Congresswoman Eshoo, and Senator Gregg, the ranking member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, in drafting this legislation. I also want to acknowledge the leadership role played by Senator Wellstone in moving this legislation through the Senate, and by Senator Durbin in enduring strong protections over reprocessed devices. I would like to thank FDA Deputy Commissioner Lester Crawford, Associate Commissioner Peggy Dotzell, Associate Commissioner Amit Sachdev, Center for Devices Director David Feigel, Linda Kahan, and Frank Claunts. I want to recognize the hard work and dedication of Michael Myers, David Nexon, David Dorsey, and Paul Kim on my staff, as well as Vince Ventimiglia with Senator Gregg, Pat Morrisey, and Brent Delmonte with Congressman Tauzin, and John Ford and David Nelson with Congressman Dingell. Let me also recognize the contributions of Patti Unruh and Richard McKeon with Senator Wellstone, Lisa German and Daborah Wolf with Senator Jack Reed, Adam Gluck with Senator Harkin, Deborah Barrett and Stephanie Sikora with Senator Dodd, Christina Ho with Senator Clinton, Rhonda Richards with Senator Mikulski, Anne Grady with Senator Murray, Dean Rosen with Senator Frist, Anne Marie Murphy with Senator Durbin, Bruce Artim and Trisha Knight with Senator Hatch, Karen Nelson and Ann Witt with Congressman Waxman, and Steve Tilton with Congressman Bilirakis. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of H.R. 5651, ``The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of the Senate passage of the Health Care Safety Net Amendment of 2002--a bill that could not have been realized without the strong support received from both sides of the aisle. I want to commend Senator Frist and Senator Gregg for their unfailing dedication to the goals of this legislation. Senator Reed and Senator Harkin contributed to this bill in important ways by expanding access in underserved areas to pharmacists and chiropractic doctors. I also must express my appreciation to Congressmen Bill Tauzin, Mike Bilirakis, Sherrod Brown, and John Dingell for all their hard work in reaching agreement. Most of all, I would like to recognize the unfaltering efforts of Senator Dodd, who as always, was determined to improve the delivery and quality of health care to poor and vulnerable populations. Thirty years ago, Congress created the health centers program in response to an urgent need. At that time, there were growing numbers of Americans who lived in medically underserved areas and lacked access to basic primary care. And for the past three decades, the health centers program fulfilled the crucial role of a safety net for our nation's most vulnerable and underserved populations. I am proud of the hard work and dedication of our community health centers. In 2000, health centers provided more than 9.6 million people with cost-effective, high quality, preventive and primary care at more than 3,000 sites across the country. Of those served, 500,000 people were homeless, 600,000 were migrant and seasonal farm workers and 55,000 were residents of public housing. Clearly, this program has been successful in meeting the goals of its creators. That is why I urge the Senate to approve the Safety Net Amendments of 2002--critical legislation that includes the reauthorization of the community health center program. Today, the need for a robust safety net is more pressing than ever before. The Census Bureau recently reported an increase in the numbers of uninsured to 41.2 million, an astounding 14.6% of the population. This increase resulted from a drop in the number of people covered by employment-based health insurance. With the economy in its weakened state, the Congress cannot sit idly by as more and more Americans see their access to health care slip from their grasp. Once more, Congress must recognize a responsibility to ensure adequate health care to all Americans and strengthen the programs that have been proven effective in delivering care to the uninsured. Passage of the Safety Net Amendments is the first step to closing the dangerous gaps in our health care system. Not only does it strengthen the community health center program, it also reauthorizes and improves the National Health Service Corps, a program that enables health care providers to serve in medically underserved areas. The bill enhances the delivery and integration of rural health care services. It encourages the development of innovative telehealth technologies that can connect remote areas with providers. It addresses the serious shortages in dental care in many communities across the country. Finally, it authorizes the Healthy Communities Access Program (HCAP), an existing initiative that has been successful in integrating and improving care to needy populations. This program brings together public and private providers and encourages them to work collectively to enhance the health care of the uninsured. HCAP has spurred the development of creative and effective solutions to health care delivery problems that are models of innovation and collaboration for us all. In approving, the Safety Net bill, we will not only offer hope to millions of struggling families, but we will provide them with the security that even without health insurance, there is someone they can turn to for help.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The ``Help America Vote Act'' is timely and important bipartisan legislation to strengthen our Nation's election system and I urge the Senate to approve it. The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. As Chief Justice Earl Warren said in 1964: ``The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.'' Over the past century and a half, a number of constitutional amendments and major laws have been acted to expand and help protect this fundamental right, including the 15th Amendment in 1870 prohibiting voting discrimination because of race; the 19th Amendment in 1920 prohibiting voting discrimination because of gender; the Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawing racially discriminatory voting practices; the 26th Amendment in 1971 lowering the voting age to 18; the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 which expanded the protections against racial discrimination in the Voting Rights Act; and, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993--the ``Motor Voter'' law--which simplified voter registration procedures. Now, the passage of the ``Help America Vote Act'' will add another important chapter to our continuing efforts to protect and strengthen the right to vote. The 2000 election taught the entire nation a valuable lesson. We learned that every vote does matter--but that every vote is not always counted. Too often and in too many communities across the nation, individuals who went to the polls on election day were denied the right to vote or did not have their votes counted. The reasons varied--such as confusing ballots, outdated or malfunctioning equipment, inadequately trained poll workers, and the lack of access for the disabled. But the outcome was the same--the voices of well over one million Americans were not heard. The legislation before us today will help to ensure that this unacceptable result does not happen again. The bill includes three core components. It establishes uniform requirements for voting systems, provisional voting, and computerized voter registration lists, which all States must meet in Federal elections. It creates a new four-member, bi-partisan, independent Federal agency--the Election Administration Commission--to provide guidance to the States, conduct studies and issue reports on Federal election issues, and administer a new Federal grant program. Third, it authorizes $3.9 billion in grants over the next three years to assist States and localities in meeting the new requirements, modernizing their voting systems, and making polling places accessible to the disabled. These are all important and needed reforms and I strongly support them. Their effectiveness will depend on the participation of all levels of government, including adequate appropriations by Congress, and vigorous implementation of the reforms at the State and local level. At the same time, however, I have serious concerns that some provisions of this legislation create new Federal requirements that could make it more difficult for certain groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, the poor, the elderly, and people with disabilities to register and to exercise their right to vote. The bill requires first time-voters who register by mail to provide specific forms of identification. It requires the invalidation of a registration when a voter inadvertently forgets to check off a duplicative ``citizenship box.'' It requires that, when registering to vote, voters must either provide their driver's license number, or, if they lack one, the last four digits of their Social Security number. We all have a strong interest in preventing voter fraud, but these requirements may not be an effective way to verify voter identity and, at the same time, they are very likely to create unnecessary barriers for voters. Congress, the new Election Administration Commission created by the bill, and the Department of Justice must be vigilant in ensuring that these provisions do not restrict voting by certain groups and that they are enforced in a ``uniform and nondiscriminatory manner,'' as the legislation requires. We know the potential harsh impact of these provisions on those groups who have historically been denied full participation in elections, and we must do all we can to prevent any such impact. To implement the bill in good faith, Congress and the Bush Administration should see that individuals who respect these basic voting rights concerns are named to the new Commission. With proper support and enforcement, the ``Help America Vote Act'' can significantly increase political participation for every American. We all share the great goal of protecting the most fundamental of all rights in our democracy--the right to vote.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think I have the floor. I propounded a unanimous-consent request for the immediate consideration of the measure.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 619, S. 3009, a bill to provide for a 13-week extension of unemployment compensation; that the bill be read the third time, passed, and motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct, for certain States that qualify. This is similar to what we did in the early 1990s. The Senator is quite correct.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join all of you, the families of loved ones from across our Commonwealth who lost their lives last September 11. We come to this birthplace of liberty to remember, to give honor, and to express our resolve. All around us in this historic place are the images of famous leaders who brought life and nationhood to the ideals that were attacked a year ago, on a day whose dawn had seemed almost uniquely American in its sunny optimism. Etched on the wall around this stage are the names of heroes who gave their lives for our country on September 11, 2001. The list is heartbreaking, and it goes on and on. These heroes were famous in a different way, famous to their friends for their fabled jumpshot in a neighborhood park, or prized in their firms for a brilliance tempered by laughter, or celebrated by their young children as super-heroes, able to launch them into the air with an easy toss, and always there to catch them. They expected to pass the ball again, to make another trade or tell another joke, to come home that night and read a bedtime story. Then they were gone, in the darkness at mid-morning which succeeded that sunny dawn. We mourn them for the years that were too few and the hopes that were unfulfilled. We praise them for the way they lived, and in so many cases for the bravery in the way they died. And we as a country, as a community, as friends and neighbors and family, hold them in our hearts. I spoke with a member of almost every family in Massachusetts who lost a loved one on the planes, or at Ground Zero in New York, or at the Pentagon. To those left behind, I say on this sad day: I know something of what you feel. To lose someone you love, and to lose them so suddenly, so unexpectedly, so terribly, to see them torn out of the fabric of life, is almost more than one can bear. And then, although we know the passage of a year cannot heal that memory, we move on, because we have to, because they would want us to, and because there is still light left in the world, including the love they left us. In a different time of grief, my brother Robert Kennedy quoted the ancient poet Aeschylus: ``In our sleep, pain, which cannot forget, falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.'' May God, this year and every year and every day, grant that grace to you the families. And for all of us, there is something else that comes from last September 11. From the pain that day have come both wisdom and will. We have learned anew the wisdom that as Americans, we are many, but we are also one. On Flight 93, there was a unity of purpose and a fierce pride. Passengers who had never met before became a band of brothers and sisters, sacrificing their lives so that others might live. Many other individual acts of courage saved more lives than we can know or count at Ground Zero and the Pentagon. People all across the country and of all ages asked what they could do, from giving their blood, to clearing rubble at the World Trade Center, to giving their dollars, to lending a shoulder to their neighbor to cry on. In countless ways, we came together, and founded a new American spirit of service to others. The terrorists taught us a lesson different from the one they expected. They acted with hate, but we reached out to comfort and support one another with love. No one asked whether the rescuer leading them down the packed stairwell of the World Trade Center was rich or poor, Anglo or African-American or Hispanic, gay or straight. We gained a new determination as Americans to reject discrimination in all its hateful forms. Out of the pain that day, Americans understood more powerfully than perhaps ever before the pledge of ``liberty and justice for all.'' To help those in need; To give hope; To share what we have; To see suffering and try to heal it-- That is our lesson from this tragedy, and it is wisdom that must guide us over time. The new American spirit of service can and must become a new era of commitment to the ideals of compassion, equality, opportunity, and concern for one another. We as a society seek to save a life when a terrorist strikes, and we as a society must do as much when the terror or a dread disease strikes, or the terror of poverty steals opportunity. May that legacy of 9/11, that legacy of love and compassion and caring, become our enduring tribute to all those who were lost. Out of that day also came a new sense of national resolve and will. We are at war today, with a terrorism that has plagued too many places for too many years, and that has finally struck at the heart of America. This is a conflict we did not seek, but must win, not alone for ourselves, but for the cause of freedom, tolerance and human rights around the world. The ideas and ideals created long ago in this great hall have shaped the dreams of countless millions yearning to be free. Now, as the greatest power on earth, we have a responsibility. Our gifts of strength and wealth and values can decide that the future will belong to the forces of hope and onto of hate. This brighter future depends on victory against terrorism. It demands that we then continue in a long, tireless endeavor to make the world not only safer for us, but better for all. In our determination to defeat those who have attacked our people and our principles, we truly are ``one nation under God, indivisible.'' How true that was, how deeply we felt it, a year ago today. Together that day, we hurt and feared and hoped and prayed. And together now, we will prevail. God bless all who were lost and all who lost them. God give us strength, and the wisdom to use it well. God bless America.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to alert my colleagues to a recently released study that shows great promise for all kindergartners, based on achievement gains in Montgomery County, MD. On October 1st, the Washington Post published key findings from a 2-year study of Montgomery County's intensive all-day kindergarten program. For the past 2 years, Montgomery County has lengthened the school day, decreased class sizes, and implemented a revised curriculum in its 17 highest-poverty schools. The article highlights the rise in reading achievement for all students involved in the program, with low-income students making the most progress. In these 17 schools, 51 percent of the most disadvantaged children met reading benchmarks at the end of first grade while only 45 percent of poor children in the rest of the county did. Students made gains of over 50 percentage points in all ethnic groups, also narrowing the achievement gap by as much as 11 percent on some measures. Superintendent Weast attributes the program's success to additional training for teachers and principals. We must address the needs of our youngest students before our lack of attention compounds the disadvantages that many of them already bring to school. If children do not read fluently by the end of third grade, we know that many of them never will. We should do all we can to support further success. The results in Montgomery County show that we can make a difference to children's lives. I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled ``All-Day Kindergarten Posts Big Gains in Montgomery'' be printed in the Record.