Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I, for one, am not prepared to sign up for the change in foreign policy where we have one person making a decision to go to war. Today, it is Iraq because we have Saddam Hussein. Khomeini was in Iran. We were going to that country as well. What about Qadhafi? I heard from families in my State of Massachusetts who lost members of their family. Sixty-seven members of the Armed Forces lost their lives in the war against Qadhafi. Why aren't we going after Qadhafi? What about North Korea? They may have murdered millions of their own people. They may have nuclear weapons. Where are we stopping on this? The idea that you had a great deal more time--in the Cuban missile crisis, had the weapons come from Cuba, we had about 11 minutes. You are saying there is no more of a dangerous time now than we had with 11 minutes? I am not prepared to say we are going to turn over to a single individual in our democracy the authority to go to war at any time when a President believes there is a ``continuing threat'' from--you fill in the name of the country. You fill in the name of the country. A ``continuing threat'' from where?--fill in the name of the country-- authorizing the President to go to war. That is not, I think, what our Founding Fathers intended.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to achieve reforms in our system of oversight for protecting the safety of human subjects in research. As the Institute of Medicine report released today again demonstrates, reforms are long overdue. The moment has come to take action to restore the trust and confidence of those who serve as subjects in clinical trials and other forms of research. We passed the National Research Act over twenty years ago as an important step toward protecting against inhuman research experiments and conditions. We have developed guidelines to ensure that people participating in medical research have clearly agreed to be a part of the study and will be treated humanely during the study. These protections benefit the people participating as subjects in medical research, but they also help those conducting the research. If patients fear that they will not be protected or that the researchers do not have their best interests in mind, patients will not volunteer to take part in these needed tests. As we all know, a revolution is taking place in medicine today. Scientists have mapped the human genome. They have made incredible breakthroughs in treatments for cancer and AIDS. It is not unreasonable to expect that we will see cancer cured, a quadriplegic stand up and walk, new drugs that prevent Alzheimer's and AIDS, and other advances we cannot even begin to imagine. But for all these advances to take place, new treatments will first have to be tested on human subjects. For these studies to succeed, patients must have confidence in our system and must be willing to participate in medical research. We must protect patients when they volunteer for these tests. To do otherwise would jeopardize this very hopeful future. Many of those who participate in these studies are the most vulnerable members of our society and are the most in need of our protection. We are now benefiting from drugs that have been developed and tested outside the United States. Our country is based on the premise that all people are created equal. Basic protections that are good enough for research subjects in the United States should be good enough for research subjects in other nations who volunteer for tests that will benefit all of us. We also must face the fact that medical research is constantly changing. Protections that were put in place 20 years ago no longer cover all human research projects. New studies in areas such as gene therapy have raised safety and ethical concerns requiring special scrutiny. Institutional Review Boards, which review the safety and ethical acceptability of research involving human subjects, are overworked and underfunded. Loopholes in the system allow researchers who have had proposals rejected by one Board to reapply to a second Board in the hope of obtaining a more lenient review--all without notifying the second Board of the decision of the first. We do little to train researchers about methods for protecting human subjects. Many researchers with the best intentions are not knowledgeable of the latest changes to regulations. These shortcomings cry out for a response, especially at this moment in history that holds so much promise for future medical research. The legislation I am introducing addresses these issues by expanding research subject protections and strengthening the review and oversight mechanisms to ensure that all human subjects are properly protected. The legislation will, for the first time, ensure that all participants in such research are protected by a comprehensive and strong set of safeguards. The legislation provides clear statutory authorization for these protections and establishes a central office to review and amend current rules for the protections. The legislation will improve Institutional Review Boards by strengthening firewalls against conflicts of interest and enhancing training for Board members. The bill will provide the Boards with the funding they need to be effective, by allowing human subject protection costs to be charged as direct costs on federal grants. The bill will end ``IRB shopping'', the practice in which a proposal rejected by one Board for ethical reasons is submitted to a second Board in the hope of obtaining a more lenient review. The legislation will require that every Board receives accreditation to assure that it is carrying out its duties effectively and rigorously. The legislation will assist researchers in learning more about the best practices for protecting human subjects, by creating programs to improve training for researchers in good research practices. The bill strengthens the firewalls against financial conflicts of interest for researchers, and will require the establishment of regulations to govern payment of research subjects. The legislation will also enhance the ethical review of clinical trials conducted overseas with federal funding or submitted to FDA for review, by requiring that research conducted overseas that falls within U.S. regulatory jurisdiction must be reviewed and approved by a U.S. Institutional Review Board. The bill enhances the review of areas of research that raise special safety concerns, such as gene therapy and xenotransplantation. We must act now to improve our protections for human research subjects, so that patients will feel confident enough to volunteer for the many vital research projects that will be developed in coming years. These reforms will have a significant role in improving medical care. But even more important, these safeguards will protect our fellow human beings. The people this bill protects are not numbers of statistics. They are someone's mother, daughter, or spouse. Mistakes and abuses that hurt them affect their families, friends, and communities. We are a great people and a great nation. We are a moral people and an ethical nation. We must do all we can to see that our great medical advances of the future do not come at an unnecessary cost of death and suffering by patients who first volunteered to test these new medical treatments. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact these needed reforms as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to achieve reforms in our system of oversight for protecting the safety of human subjects in research. As the Institute of Medicine report released today again demonstrates, reforms are long overdue. The moment has come to take action to restore the trust and confidence of those who serve as subjects in clinical trials and other forms of research. We passed the National Research Act over twenty years ago as an important step toward protecting against inhuman research experiments and conditions. We have developed guidelines to ensure that people participating in medical research have clearly agreed to be a part of the study and will be treated humanely during the study. These protections benefit the people participating as subjects in medical research, but they also help those conducting the research. If patients fear that they will not be protected or that the researchers do not have their best interests in mind, patients will not volunteer to take part in these needed tests. As we all know, a revolution is taking place in medicine today. Scientists have mapped the human genome. They have made incredible breakthroughs in treatments for cancer and AIDS. It is not unreasonable to expect that we will see cancer cured, a quadriplegic stand up and walk, new drugs that prevent Alzheimer's and AIDS, and other advances we cannot even begin to imagine. But for all these advances to take place, new treatments will first have to be tested on human subjects. For these studies to succeed, patients must have confidence in our system and must be willing to participate in medical research. We must protect patients when they volunteer for these tests. To do otherwise would jeopardize this very hopeful future. Many of those who participate in these studies are the most vulnerable members of our society and are the most in need of our protection. We are now benefiting from drugs that have been developed and tested outside the United States. Our country is based on the premise that all people are created equal. Basic protections that are good enough for research subjects in the United States should be good enough for research subjects in other nations who volunteer for tests that will benefit all of us. We also must face the fact that medical research is constantly changing. Protections that were put in place 20 years ago no longer cover all human research projects. New studies in areas such as gene therapy have raised safety and ethical concerns requiring special scrutiny. Institutional Review Boards, which review the safety and ethical acceptability of research involving human subjects, are overworked and underfunded. Loopholes in the system allow researchers who have had proposals rejected by one Board to reapply to a second Board in the hope of obtaining a more lenient review--all without notifying the second Board of the decision of the first. We do little to train researchers about methods for protecting human subjects. Many researchers with the best intentions are not knowledgeable of the latest changes to regulations. These shortcomings cry out for a response, especially at this moment in history that holds so much promise for future medical research. The legislation I am introducing addresses these issues by expanding research subject protections and strengthening the review and oversight mechanisms to ensure that all human subjects are properly protected. The legislation will, for the first time, ensure that all participants in such research are protected by a comprehensive and strong set of safeguards. The legislation provides clear statutory authorization for these protections and establishes a central office to review and amend current rules for the protections. The legislation will improve Institutional Review Boards by strengthening firewalls against conflicts of interest and enhancing training for Board members. The bill will provide the Boards with the funding they need to be effective, by allowing human subject protection costs to be charged as direct costs on federal grants. The bill will end ``IRB shopping'', the practice in which a proposal rejected by one Board for ethical reasons is submitted to a second Board in the hope of obtaining a more lenient review. The legislation will require that every Board receives accreditation to assure that it is carrying out its duties effectively and rigorously. The legislation will assist researchers in learning more about the best practices for protecting human subjects, by creating programs to improve training for researchers in good research practices. The bill strengthens the firewalls against financial conflicts of interest for researchers, and will require the establishment of regulations to govern payment of research subjects. The legislation will also enhance the ethical review of clinical trials conducted overseas with federal funding or submitted to FDA for review, by requiring that research conducted overseas that falls within U.S. regulatory jurisdiction must be reviewed and approved by a U.S. Institutional Review Board. The bill enhances the review of areas of research that raise special safety concerns, such as gene therapy and xenotransplantation. We must act now to improve our protections for human research subjects, so that patients will feel confident enough to volunteer for the many vital research projects that will be developed in coming years. These reforms will have a significant role in improving medical care. But even more important, these safeguards will protect our fellow human beings. The people this bill protects are not numbers of statistics. They are someone's mother, daughter, or spouse. Mistakes and abuses that hurt them affect their families, friends, and communities. We are a great people and a great nation. We are a moral people and an ethical nation. We must do all we can to see that our great medical advances of the future do not come at an unnecessary cost of death and suffering by patients who first volunteered to test these new medical treatments. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact these needed reforms as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to join Senator Frist, Senator Johnson, and Senator Murray in introducing the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act. Our goal in this bipartisan legislation is to enable all States to develop effective trauma care systems. Trauma is the number one killer of Americans under the age of 44. Traumatic injury robs our Nation's youth, devastates families, and costs the Nation more than $260 billion every year. In 1995 alone, injuries were responsible for 148,000 deaths, 2.6 million hospitalizations, and over 26 million emergency room visits. Despite trauma's toll, we have done little in recent years to prevent trauma or improve the chance of recovery following traumatic injury. Part of the problem is the misunderstanding that trauma is an accident, an unfortunate, but sometimes unavoidable chance event. But the facts reveal that this is not the case. Trauma is very similar to a disease. It has definable causes with established methods of treatment and prevention. Frequent forms of trauma include motor vehicle accidents, firearm accidents, and natural or man-made disasters. Proven preventative measures could save up to 25,000 lives every year. Putting effective trauma care systems in place would provide victims with the best chance of recovery, by delivering quality care as quickly as possible. A trauma system is an organized, coordinated effort to provide the full range of care to all injured patients. Intervention begins in the field, at the site of injury, and proceeds along the continuum of care from prehospital to hospital to rehabilitative services. An effective system ensures that resources, supporting equipment, and personnel are ready and trained to go into action. The skills and knowledge of health care experts alone are not enough. Optimal care is the result of advance planning, preparation, and coordination to produce smooth transitions and the proper sequence of interventions. A comprehensive trauma system accomplishes all this and has been proven to save lives and decrease 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 eight year period. Without that funding, patients in 304 emergency medical service regions in the United States might not have had ready access to emergency care. Even today, there are areas of the United States without 9-1-1 access and prompt emergency transportation. In 1990, Congress passed the original Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act, authorizing Federal grants to States to develop integrated statewide trauma care systems. Funding for this program has been inadequate. From 1995 to 2000, States received no funding under the Act. Last year, only $3.5 million was appropriated for the entire country. As a result, only half of all States have fully functional statewide trauma systems. Clearly, we must do better in providing needed trauma care. This legislation reauthorizes and enhances the trauma care program to establish comprehensive trauma systems in all States. The bill also addresses the urgent need for improved trauma data and research. Surprisingly, given the burden of trauma on society, only 1 percent of resources at the NIH are devoted to trauma research. The legislation asks the Institute of Medicine to investigate the quality of trauma care and identify areas for improvement. This legislation is supported by the Coalition for American Trauma Care, the American College of Surgeons, and the American Trauma Society. Its enactment is vitally important to public safety, and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, birth defects are the leading cause of infant mortality in the United States. They account for more than 20 percent of all infant deaths. Of the nearly 120,000 babies born in the United States each year with a birth defect, 8,000 will die during their first year of life. This tragic loss of life is unconscionable and unacceptable when so many birth defects are preventable. This legislation will provide new hope for families across the country by developing better ways to identify the causes of birth defects, better ways to prevent them, and better ways to apply what we already know. The legislation gives strong new support to the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities in the ongoing effort to improve the health of the nation's children. The Center's leadership in reducing birth defects by educating pregnant women about the benefits of folic acid and the dangers of alcohol and drugs, can save thousands of children from suffering the lifelong effects of preventable birth defects. I urge the Senate to approve this bipartisan legislation, and I commend Senator Bond and Senator Dodd for their leadership and their continuing commitment to improving the health of children.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today ``The Patient Safety Improvement and Medical Injury Reduction Act.'' This legislation will protect patients and save lives. It will do more for public health than a breakthrough new drug or a new therapy for deadly disease. The bill does this by providing a comprehensive plan to greatly reduce medical errors, promote a culture of greater patient safety and provider accountability, and improve the quality of medical care in the United States. As the Institute of Medicine, IOM, concluded in its landmark 1999 study, medical errors kill up to 98,000 people in U.S. hospitals every year. That means that more Americans die from medical mistakes each year than from AIDS, breast cancer or highway accidents. In fact, each day, more than 250 people die because of medical mistakes, the equivalent of a major airplane crash every day. Other studies support the IOM's shocking conclusions. A Commonwealth Fund survey this year found that 22 percent of respondents reported that they or a family member had experienced a medical error of some kind. About 10 percent reported that they or a family member grew sicker as a result of a mistake made at a doctor's office or in a hospital, and 16 percent were given the wrong medication or wrong dose when filling a prescription at a pharmacy or while hospitalized. A study published September 9 by the Archives of Internal Medicine also concluded that medication errors occur in one of every five does administered to hospital patients. The magnitude of these costly and life-threatening mistakes is astonishing, and calls for immediate improvement. We can and should do better for our citizens. Americans deserve the highest quality health care, yet these errors put everyone at risk of unnecessary harm. This legislation raises patient safety to the national priority it deserves, and assures America's patients that they can expect high quality health care when they are sick or injured. To accomplish this goal, or legislation requires comprehensive action. The IOM concluded that improvements will require sweeping, systemic changes in our health care system. IOM made numerous, sensible recommendations, which are fully addressed by the Patient Safety Improvement and Medical Injury Reduction Act. The overwhelming majority of errors are caused by flaws in the health care system, not the outright negligence of individual doctors and nurses. Our hospitals, doctors, nurses, and other health care providers want to do the right thing. The bill gives the health care community the tools to identify the causes of medical errors, the resources to develop strategies to prevent them, and the encouragement to implement those solutions. A key concern addressed by this legislation is to allow doctors and other health professionals to share information regarding best practices and lessons learned from their mistakes without fear of winding up in court. At the same time, medical professionals and hospitals that injure patients through their negligence should still be held accountable in court, just as they are today. To balance these competing concerns, our legislation allows reports and analyses created under a new system of information-sharing between providers, patient safety organizations and a newly established National Patient Safety Database, to be immune from legal discovery. Health care professionals who submit reports to the programs would also be protected against discrimination in the workplace for participating in the reporting systems. By the same token, however, this new system will not become a shield to hide medical negligence. As a result, this legislation continues current law when it comes to those elements of patients' medical records that have nothing to do with the patient safety improvements contemplated by the Act. Nor would the privilege apply to such information merely because it is reported to a patient safety organization or the National Patient Safety Database. Just as importantly, the new privilege would not affect compliance with State accountability systems. Consistent with the IOM recommendations, the Act also creates a new Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to promote patient safety. The Center would conduct and support research on medical errors, certify learning- based patient safety organizations around the country, administer the voluntary National Patient Safety Database, and disseminate evidence- based practices and other error reduction and prevention strategies to health care providers, purchasers and the public. Reports submitted would be analyzed to identify systemic faults that led to the errors and solutions to prevent future similar errors. The Act would also create a ``learning laboratory'' under the Center for focused study of errors and their correction in select health care facilities. The IOM also highlighted medication errors as a ``high priority area for all health care organizations'' and recommended the use of computerized physician order entry systems and advanced prescribing software to screen for inappropriate doses, allergies, and drug interactions. The Act would provide funding and uniform standards for the implementation of such systems, as well as grants for community partnerships for health care improvement. As widespread and serious as the problem of medical errors is, it can be solved by a national commitment of resolve and resources. Improvements are clearly possible. The field of anesthesia undertook such an effort almost twenty years ago. Today, the number of fatalities from errors in administering anesthesia has dropped 98 percent. Our goal should be to achieve equal or even greater success in reducing other types of medical mistakes. This legislation lays the foundation to achieve this goal. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with interested Members of the House of Representatives in enacting the Patient Safety Improvement and Medical Injury Reduction Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today ``The Patient Safety Improvement and Medical Injury Reduction Act.'' This legislation will protect patients and save lives. It will do more for public health than a breakthrough new drug or a new therapy for deadly disease. The bill does this by providing a comprehensive plan to greatly reduce medical errors, promote a culture of greater patient safety and provider accountability, and improve the quality of medical care in the United States. As the Institute of Medicine, IOM, concluded in its landmark 1999 study, medical errors kill up to 98,000 people in U.S. hospitals every year. That means that more Americans die from medical mistakes each year than from AIDS, breast cancer or highway accidents. In fact, each day, more than 250 people die because of medical mistakes, the equivalent of a major airplane crash every day. Other studies support the IOM's shocking conclusions. A Commonwealth Fund survey this year found that 22 percent of respondents reported that they or a family member had experienced a medical error of some kind. About 10 percent reported that they or a family member grew sicker as a result of a mistake made at a doctor's office or in a hospital, and 16 percent were given the wrong medication or wrong dose when filling a prescription at a pharmacy or while hospitalized. A study published September 9 by the Archives of Internal Medicine also concluded that medication errors occur in one of every five does administered to hospital patients. The magnitude of these costly and life-threatening mistakes is astonishing, and calls for immediate improvement. We can and should do better for our citizens. Americans deserve the highest quality health care, yet these errors put everyone at risk of unnecessary harm. This legislation raises patient safety to the national priority it deserves, and assures America's patients that they can expect high quality health care when they are sick or injured. To accomplish this goal, or legislation requires comprehensive action. The IOM concluded that improvements will require sweeping, systemic changes in our health care system. IOM made numerous, sensible recommendations, which are fully addressed by the Patient Safety Improvement and Medical Injury Reduction Act. The overwhelming majority of errors are caused by flaws in the health care system, not the outright negligence of individual doctors and nurses. Our hospitals, doctors, nurses, and other health care providers want to do the right thing. The bill gives the health care community the tools to identify the causes of medical errors, the resources to develop strategies to prevent them, and the encouragement to implement those solutions. A key concern addressed by this legislation is to allow doctors and other health professionals to share information regarding best practices and lessons learned from their mistakes without fear of winding up in court. At the same time, medical professionals and hospitals that injure patients through their negligence should still be held accountable in court, just as they are today. To balance these competing concerns, our legislation allows reports and analyses created under a new system of information-sharing between providers, patient safety organizations and a newly established National Patient Safety Database, to be immune from legal discovery. Health care professionals who submit reports to the programs would also be protected against discrimination in the workplace for participating in the reporting systems. By the same token, however, this new system will not become a shield to hide medical negligence. As a result, this legislation continues current law when it comes to those elements of patients' medical records that have nothing to do with the patient safety improvements contemplated by the Act. Nor would the privilege apply to such information merely because it is reported to a patient safety organization or the National Patient Safety Database. Just as importantly, the new privilege would not affect compliance with State accountability systems. Consistent with the IOM recommendations, the Act also creates a new Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to promote patient safety. The Center would conduct and support research on medical errors, certify learning- based patient safety organizations around the country, administer the voluntary National Patient Safety Database, and disseminate evidence- based practices and other error reduction and prevention strategies to health care providers, purchasers and the public. Reports submitted would be analyzed to identify systemic faults that led to the errors and solutions to prevent future similar errors. The Act would also create a ``learning laboratory'' under the Center for focused study of errors and their correction in select health care facilities. The IOM also highlighted medication errors as a ``high priority area for all health care organizations'' and recommended the use of computerized physician order entry systems and advanced prescribing software to screen for inappropriate doses, allergies, and drug interactions. The Act would provide funding and uniform standards for the implementation of such systems, as well as grants for community partnerships for health care improvement. As widespread and serious as the problem of medical errors is, it can be solved by a national commitment of resolve and resources. Improvements are clearly possible. The field of anesthesia undertook such an effort almost twenty years ago. Today, the number of fatalities from errors in administering anesthesia has dropped 98 percent. Our goal should be to achieve equal or even greater success in reducing other types of medical mistakes. This legislation lays the foundation to achieve this goal. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with interested Members of the House of Representatives in enacting the Patient Safety Improvement and Medical Injury Reduction Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this bipartisan legislation. The fact that it is now before the Senate for a final vote is primarily due to the skill, patience, and determination of our colleagues on the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, especially Chairman Leahy, Senator Hatch, Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Congressman Conyers, and I commend them for their leadership. They have guided our Senate-House conference with a steady hand and have kept the process moving, even when the prospect of the bill's passage appeared in doubt. As a result, we are about to complete action on a genuinely comprehensive authorization bill for the Department of Justice-- something Congress has not managed to enact since 1979. The need for this legislation is urgent. The terrorist attacks of September 11 made clear that we must strengthen the ability of our justice system to deal with the threat of terrorism. Since September 11, Congress has enacted laws giving law enforcement and intelligence officials enhanced powers to investigate and prosecute terrorism, improving the security of our borders, and strengthening our defenses against bioterrorism. On May 14, President Bush signed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. The Department of Justice Authorization Act builds on that bipartisan legislation by authorizing over $4 billion for the administration and enforcement of our immigration laws--$3.2 billion of which will be allotted to the Border Patrol. The act authorizes funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration to conduct police training in South and Central Asia, and improves our implementation of the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing Terrorism. These will be important tools in our effort to win the war on terrorism and protect the country for the future. Here at home, the Department of Justice Authorization Act achieves many important goals: It implements needed reforms of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including a long-overdue plan to improve the Bureau's outdated computer system. It also provides special danger pay to F.B.I. agents who perform hazardous duties outside the United States. The bill closes a number of loopholes in our criminal code, and increases the protection of witnesses who report criminal activity. It increases sentences for defendants who use body armor during the commission of violent crimes. It reauthorizes the State assistance program to help States deal more effectively with the problem of criminal aliens. It authorizes funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, including the creation of 1,200 new clubs across the Nation to improve the lives of at-risk youth. It reauthorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, while preserving the core protections to see that juvenile delinquents are treated fairly and humanely. It authorizes a number of important drug treatment and prevention programs, including programs to reduce drug dependency among prisoners and to support State and local drug courts. These cost-effective programs will reduce the demand for drugs in America, which President Bush has called ``the most effective way to reduce the supply of drugs in America.'' I am also pleased that this legislation contains a provision to extend H-1B visa status for persons with pending labor certification applications. Unfortunately, this application process now takes years to complete, and is undermining the ability of American companies to keep qualified workers. The Department of Justice Authorization Act also reauthorizes the Police Corps, a program that I have strongly supported since its creation in 1994, to improve the quality of police training, develop strong community-police partnerships, and produce officers who will take future positions of leadership and responsibility in law enforcement. The Department of Justice Authorization Act is an impressive bipartisan achievement that will strengthen our justice system and our defenses against terrorism. I commend all the conferees for their effective work. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly adopted this legislation last week by a vote of 400 to 4, and I urge the Senate to support it now.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of the Senate a major challenge facing many of the families in my State of Massachusetts, and that is the continued escalation of those on the unemployment list. We have seen that grow to a figure of 175,000. In Massachusetts, we have the highest number of unemployed workers of any of the New England States. Two years ago we had the lowest unemployment of any of the States. Now we have the highest, with very little hope in the future for getting these workers back to work. There has been a reduction in the total number of jobs. We have more workers searching for fewer jobs than at any time in recent history. These are not just figures developed by the Democratic Party. They are figures developed by the Department of Labor: 8.1 million unemployed, trying to fill 3.2 million positions. The disparity between the high number of unemployed and the available jobs is one of the highest percentages of any recent time, and that is true all over this country. The people of my State are wondering how they are going to make ends meet, whether they are going to see the expiration of their unemployment compensation. I was here in the early 1990s, when on four to five different occasions we had bipartisan support for extension of unemployment compensation. The purpose of unemployment compensation is to reach out a helping hand to workers who work hard, play by the rules, are trying to pay a mortgage, trying to pay for children's school clothes, and to live a somewhat normal life, but because of the economic exigencies they are out of a job. The unemployment fund is now at a surplus of some $25 billion. It was developed for just the kinds of reasons we are facing today. We, on this side, believe we ought to have an opportunity to extend unemployment compensation to the families of this country thrown out of work through no fault of their own. They ought to be able to at least have this lifeline that will help support them during this difficult time before they are able to get back on their feet. That is the issue. It is one of decency, fairness, and humanity. At other times in our history, Republicans and Democrats in this body came together in order to provide that. Now we are finding the Republican leadership opposing this proposal, effectively saying thumbs down to workers in my State, thumb downs to workers all across New England and all across the country. It is the wrong policy at the wrong time. I join with my colleagues, with Senator Wellstone, who has been the leader in this battle for extended unemployment compensation, and my friend and colleague, Senator Clinton, Senator Carnahan, Senator Cantwell and others, urging the Senate to take action. We can do it. It has been done in a bipartisan way. It should not be partisan. This is about hard-working Americans. Are we going to reach out with a helping hand to make sure their interests are going to be protected? We ask the Senate for consent to provide additional unemployment benefits for millions of out-of-work Americans. I urge my colleagues to give that consent. Over 2 million Americans who have lost their jobs are about to also lose their unemployment benefits. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 will extend their benefits just as we have every recession over the past three decades. Families are struggling, and we must act. In fact, since President Bush assumed office in January 2001, the economic well-being of America's families has dramatically deteriorated. This is not just an economic coincidence, it is the result of the economic policies of this administration--policies which neglect the basic needs of working men and women, lavish extravagant tax breaks on the wealthiest taxpayers, and allow corporate abuse and excess to go unchecked. President Bush says he has already taken care of the troubled economy by cutting taxes and, instead of supporting our bill, called on Congress to make the tax cuts permanent. There are now 8.1 million unemployed Americans, 2.2 million more than when President Bush took office. And no amount of tax cuts for the wealthy can restore their jobs and pay their bills. But this is deja vu all over again. The first President Bush twice blocked legislation to provide much-needed unemployment benefits before finally signing into law three benefit extensions. In this recession, 800,000 more workers are expected to run out of unemployment benefits than in the last recession during the early 1990s. It will only get worse if we don't act. Last March, Congress extended benefits for the first and only time during this recession. That is not enough. Already, more than 1 million workers have exhausted these benefits without finding a new job, and another 2 million will join their ranks by the end of the year. Most of them have families to support. They are scrimping on school supplies; maxing out credit cards; and juggling electric bills with mortgage payments. These are our fellow citizens, and they need help now. We are supporting legislation that mirrors the benefits signed into law by the first President Bush in the early 1990s. The bill will extend benefits for workers in all States, and provide additional benefits for those in high-unemployment States. This bill will ensure that workers can keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables while they search for jobs in this tight economy. This Bush administration has fought efforts to provide adequate unemployment assistance to workers. But the administration can no longer afford to ignore the pain and the needs of struggling families. We must act--and act now--to live up to our obligations to help our fellow citizens in their time of need. Alan Gonsenhauser of Northborough, MA, is one of those workers who has exhausted his benefits. Formerly the vice president of a consulting firm whose largest client was Enron, he was laid off last December. Nine months later, he is still looking for a job. He, his wife, and their two children have relied on unemployment benefits and personal savings to cover family expenses, but his benefits expired last month. Many hard-working Americans and their families have suffered as a result of the recent spate of corporate scandals and the failure of the administration to take decisive action. At WorldCom, more than 20,000 workers were laid off. At Arthur Andersen, 7,000 workers were laid off. At Global Crossing, over 9,000 workers were laid off. Enron laid off about 4,000 workers. Americans who are out of work are watching their savings shrink while the cost of living just grows and grows. The cost of health insurance for families has risen 16 percent in the last year and a half, and 27 percent for single individuals. Even more workers are being forced to go without health insurance. The cost of prescription drugs is going up at three times the rate of inflation. Yet this administration repeatedly sides with the health care industry and against working families. Families are struggling to pay for college for their children. Tuition alone at a public 4-year college costs nearly 8 percent more this year than last year--an increase of more than triple the rate of inflation. The importance of higher education is increasing but the ability of middle-class families to pay for it is decreasing. Out-of-work Americans are not only losing their health benefits, they are also losing their homes. According to new data from the Mortgage Bankers Association of America, home foreclosures are at all-time highs. Families who spent years saving to purchase their dream homes are now unable to afford to keep them. These are the economic fears which are keeping American workers up at night--losing their job, losing their homes, losing their retirement savings, losing their health care, and paying for college. Millions more of them are kept awake by these fears today than were 18 months ago. The Bush economy has turned the American dream into a nightmare for them. It's time to restore economic security for workers and the Nation. Democrats support extending unemployment benefits, guaranteeing retirement security through pension reform, raising the minimum wage, insuring health care for the uninsured, and making prescription drugs and college more affordable for millions of Americans. America's working families deserve nothing less.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we know that our Nation faces a very serious threat of terrorism. To protect our national security in today's world, we need an immigration system that can carefully screen foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States and that can protect our Nation's borders. We need a system that can make effective use of intelligence information and identify those who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, our current Immigration and Naturalization Service is not up to these challenges. For years, INS has been plagued with problems, from mission, overload to mismanagement to inadequate resources. As a result, INS has been unable to meet its dual responsibility to enforce our immigration laws and to provide services to immigrants, refugees, and aspiring citizens. The immigration reforms in the Lieberman substitute amendment are carefully designed to correct these problems and bring our immigration system into the 21st century. The amendment untangles the overlapping and often confusing structure of the INS and replaces it with two clear lines of command, one for enforcement and the other for services. It also includes a strong chief executive officer, the Under Secretary for Immigration Affairs, who, under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Defense, will act as a central authority to ensure a uniform immigration policy and provide effective coordination between the service and the enforcement functions. Developed on a bipartisan basis, in consultation with respected experts, the immigration reforms in the Lieberman substitute emphasize clear direction, close coordination, and genuine accountability to the American people. On these key issues, the Gramm-Miller substitute moves in exactly the wrong direction. Rather than establishing a single, accountable director for immigration policy, Gramm-Miller establishes three: the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, the Under Secretary for Immigration Affairs, and the Chief of Immigration Policy within the Deputy Secretary's office. Little coordination is provided among these three positions. These officials will have authority to issue conflicting policies and conflicting interpretations of law. The result for the Nation's immigration system is likely to be a new period of disarray, not real reform. Given the vast responsibilities of our immigration agency, the large number of people who cross our borders, and the major national-security concerns that have arisen since September 11, we will do the country a great disservice if we enact a so-called ``reform'' that makes the chronic problems of the INS even worse. We deserve a well-thought-out, effective reform, like that included in the Lieberman substitute, not the proposal offered by Gramm-Miller. We need a separate and comprehensive directorate within which we can balance border security, provision of services, and efficient and fair enforcement of the immigration laws. Within this separate directorate, it is essential to include both the service and the enforcement components of immigration policy. Nearly every immigration-related action involves both enforcement and service components. Coordination between the two is critical to ensure that the laws are interpreted and implemented consistently. Coordination cannot be achieved merely by sharing a database or having a common management structure far up the ladder. Coordination will not be achieved if enforcement and services are housed in different departments. That, however, is exactly what the Gramm-Miller proposal does. The two most critical enforcement functions, border patrol and inspections, will be taken from other immigration functions and placed in the Border and Transportation Protection Directorate. The formulation of immigration policy, our only chance to achieve coordination between these dispersed functions, will be subject to the conflicting views of various officials spread out in the new Department. With its dispersed immigration functions and failure to provide centralized coordination, Gramm-Miller is a recipe for failure. Consider this example. An executive for a large international corporation arrives in the United States with a business visa that expires in 30 days. The inspector is reluctant to admit the executive, since his visa will soon expire. The executive states that his attorney has filed for a renewal of the visa. Under Gramm-Miller, with its failure to provide coordination between the service and enforcement functions, the inspector will not be able to verify that a renewal application has been filed, and the executive will be denied admission. Such a mistake, repeated many times each year, will be disruptive to our economy. Or consider an asylum seeker picked up by a border patrol agent. He claims that he will face persecution if returned to his home country. His brother enters the U.S. with a visa and is granted asylum, a service bureau function. Without effective coordination between services and enforcement, the brother processed by the service bureau will be allowed to stay and become a permanent resident, while the brother picked up by the border patrol may be returned to face persecution or even death. These are mistakes that we cannot tolerate. We need a reform that ensures uniform policies and consistent interpretations of the law. We know from painful experience that inconsistencies in interpretation and enforcement, with no one in charge to resolve differences, can lead to unacceptable results. We need an immigration system that works. The Lieberman substitute will give us that system. The Gramm-Miller substitute will repeat--and increase--the mistakes of our past. The Lieberman substitute also deals with another serious flaw in our current immigration system--the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children. Senator Feinstein has been working on this issue for many years, and her bipartisan legislation is included in our reforms. It addresses the needs of children arriving alone in the United States. Often, these children have fled from armed conflict and abuses of human rights. They are traumatized and desperately need protection. As children, they deserve special care and protection. Jurisdiction over their care and custody does not belong in a department dedicated to preventing security threats. Our plan transfers responsibility for these children to the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Department of Health and Human Services, an office that has decades of experience working with foreign-born children and is well- equipped to place these children in appropriate facilities where they will receive the care and attention they deserve. We also provide safeguards to ensure that children have the assistance of counsel and guardians in the course of their proceedings. Currently, over half of the children in immigration proceedings are unrepresented by counsel. Children as young as 18-months-old have appeared in immigration court without a lawyer. These children simply cannot be expected to effectively represent themselves when faced with the complexities of U.S. immigration law. The Gramm-Miller substitute provides plainly inadequate protections for these vulnerable children. Although care and custody is transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, this substitute leaves out the counsel and guardian provisions. The fear that providing government-funded counsel for children will set a precedent for the provision of counsel for other populations in immigration proceedings is unfounded. Our plan contains a very narrow exception for vulnerable children, and only Congress can extend that exception to other groups. Guardians are crucial in order to ensure that the best interests of children are addressed throughout their immigration proceedings. Guardians would ensure that the child understands the nature of the proceedings. Immigration proceedings are the only legal proceedings in the United States in which children are not provided the assistance of a guardian or court-appointed special advocate. Finally, the Lieberman substitute remedies decades-old problems with our immigration court system. That system--called the Executive Office for Immigration Review--is part of the Department of Justice. Every day, immigration courts make life-altering decisions. The interests at stake are significant, especially for persons facing persecution and for long-time permanent residents, who face permanent separation from family members. Despite these major responsibilities, the immigration court system exists by regulation only. As such, it can be moved, dissolved, or reconfigured at any time, without Congressional involvement. For years, immigration judges have been criticized because they are too closely aligned with immigration enforcers. Their impartiality is jeopardized when both judge and prosecutor are too closely linked. These criticisms will only intensify if the immigration courts are relocated to the new security agency. We need an immigration court system that provides individuals with a fair hearing before an impartial and independent tribunal, and meaningful appellate review. The Lieberman substitute maintains the immigration court system at the Justice Department, so that immigration judges and immigration enforcers are effectively separated. It also codifies the existing court structure and its components, making it a permanent part of our immigration system. The Gramm-Miller substitute would seriously undermine the role of immigration judges. It vests the Attorney General with all-encompassing authority, depriving immigration judges of their ability to exercise independent judgement. Even more disturbing, the Gramm-Miller proposal could curtail the right to appeal adverse decisions, since the Attorney General will have the authority to change or even eliminate appellate review. This result is a recipe for mistakes and abuse. An independent judicial system is essential to our system of checks and balances. Immigrants who face the severest of consequences deserve their day in court. In reforming our immigration system, we must isolate terrorists without isolating America. We must protect our Nation, and we must also protect immigrants. In strengthening our defenses against terrorism, we must settle for nothing less. Americans are united in our commitment to win the war on terrorism and protect the country from future attack. An essential part of meeting this challenge is protecting the ideals that America stands for here at home and around the world. The Lieberman substitute acts on this principle by providing basic civil rights and privacy safeguards in the new Department of Homeland Security. A civil rights officer will oversee civil rights issues and advise the Secretary on policy matters. A privacy officer will perform similar functions on privacy issues. An official in the Inspector General's office will investigate civil rights abuses. We have heard no complaint from either the administration or our Republican colleagues about these civil rights provisions. The administration's detailed Statement of Policy on September 3rd did not contain a single objection to them. Nevertheless, all of these provisions have been removed from the Gramm-Miller substitute. Today, many Americans are concerned about the preservation of basic liberties protected by the Constitution. There continues to be a debate over the constitutionality and wisdom of some of the administration's polices and actions since September 11. Clearly, as we work together to bring terrorists to justice and enhance our security, we must also act to preserve and protect our Constitution. The civil rights provisions in the Lieberman substitute are limited in scope, but will be essential to the proper role of the new Department of Homeland Security. They should be included in whatever bill the Senate ultimately passes, and I urge the Senate to accept them. Earlier this week, our committee held a hearing on the grave public health challenge of West Nile fever. We heard how vital it is for CDC, NIH and FDA to work together closely to respond to this deadly epidemic. The same health agencies that are responding to West Nile today may need to respond to a biological attack tomorrow. The last thing we should do is disrupt the close coordination among our health agencies that will be needed for an effective response to such an attack. Yet this is exactly what the Gramm-Miller amendment would do by transferring responsibilities for bioterrorism research and response to the new Department of Homeland Security. While claiming to enhance our preparedness for bioterrorism, the amendment would actually diminish it by needlessly splitting responsibilities for bioterrorism between HHS and the new Department. We heard from Dr. Tony Fauci, the Nation's leading expert on infectious disease, that NIH is working swiftly to develop a new vaccine against the West Nile virus. Dr. Fauci and the other medical leaders at NIH should retain the responsibility for developing new vaccines for anthrax, Ebola and other biological weapons. These responsibilities should not be transferred to a new department with unproven scientific expertise. Certainly, the new Department should set broad priorities for our homeland security research program, but the funding and the scientific responsibility for carrying out that research should remain with NIH. Sadly, the Gramm-Miller amendment also includes fails to include protections for the ethical treatment of human subjects in research. America has a tragic history of ethical abuses in national security research. In our Senate inquiries during the 1970s, we learned how the CIA had given LSD and other dangerous drugs to experimental subjects without their knowledge or their consent. These shameful experiments led to the death by suicide of an agent in New York. We must not let history repeat itself in the research carried out by this new Department. Basic protections for human subjects cover research conducted by all other Federal agencies. They should also apply to the new Department. These protections should not be discretionary. They should be a required element of every research project that the new Department conducts. I also want to speak today about America's workers. We live in a nation forever changed by the tragic events of September 11. The dreadful images seared into our memories on that fateful day were grim proof to every American that we are vulnerable to grave new threats. We must take the necessary steps to protect America from these new dangers. We must act wisely as we create a new Department of Homeland Security. We must ensure that our actions truly enhance, rather than diminish, our Nation's security. And we must meet our security needs in ways that reflect the values that make America the envy of the world. As we debate the formation of this new agency, we should remember the events of September 11 and the heroism of our Nation's union workers in the cause of homeland security. Union members risked and lost their lives and saved countless others through their actions on September 11. We will never forget the example that firefighters, construction workers and many government workers set that day. Union workers have also shown great bravery and extraordinary sacrifice in the service of homeland security since September 11. The postal workers and the hospital worker killed as a result of bioterrorism were all union members. The brave flight attendant, whom the President recognized in the State of the Union Address for preventing terrorism, is a member of a union. The dedication and resolve of these union members truly represents the best of America. Over 43,000 of the Federal workers affected by the proposed Government reorganization are currently union members. These are the workers who risk their lives each day to protect our Nation's borders. They are the workers from the Federal Emergency Management Authority who coordinated the Federal emergency response on September 11. These workers are out every day on the high seas to rescue those in need and to prevent dangerous cargo from reaching our shores. They are also the workers dedicated to making our Nation safer from the threat of bioterrorism. Among the ranks of unionized Federal workers are true heroes who have served their Nation with distinction in battle and are now contributing to our Nation as civilian employees and as active members of their community. I am talking about Federal workers like Robert J. Patterson, who was awarded the Purple Heart medal and the Bronze Star and many other honors for his service in Vietnam. He was ambushed and shot in the legs, the stomach and the shoulder while on patrol in Vietnam, but he still managed to call for backup and save the lives of many other members of his squad. For nearly 20 years now, Mr. Patterson has worked as a civilian employee for the Federal Government, and he now serves as Vice Commander of his local VFW post and is active with the Boy Scouts and as a mentor for troubled youth. Dedicated Federal workers like Mr. Patterson take pride in their work, love their country, and have served it with distinction for decades. Nearly half a million Federal workers are veterans of our Nation's armed services. Veterans are represented at twice the rate in the Federal workforce as in the private sector. Disabled veterans, those who have paid a great price for serving this Nation, are five times more likely to work in the Federal Government as the private sector. On September 11, unionized Federal workers were on the scene and played critical roles at both the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as they worked round-the-clock to make our homeland secure. Denise Dukes, of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, worked a 24-hour shift in Washington on September 11 to ensure that food and water was reaching the rescue personnel at Ground Zero. Afterwards, she left her two children to go to New York and coordinate the response and recovery effort on the ground. As Ms. Dukes explains of her fellow Federal workers: ``We were proud and eager to serve our fellow Americans, and we would never allow anything to stand in the way of that mission.'' Michael Brescio, who works for the Environmental Protection Agency's Response Team, got tens of thousands of urgently needed respirators to the rescue workers at Ground Zero immediately after the attack. Far away in Kodiak, AK, Mark Andrew Jamison went on high security alert in order to protect our Nation's coastline. Mr. Jamison, a veteran of our Nation's armed services who was entrusted with a top secret security clearance, loves his job because, as he put it: ``Above all . . . I'm a patriot like the hundreds of thousands of other Federal employees who keep our country secure and safe day-in and day-out.'' We must protect the rights of these dedicated Federal workers to remain union members and we must allow other workers in the new department to exercise their fundamental right to form a union. Unions are critical to protecting our Nation's homeland security. Many Federal workers would not speak out about security lapses without the protection of a union because of the legitimate fear of retaliation by their supervisors. After September 11, an 18-year veteran of the U.S. Border Patrol named Mark Hall bravely spoke out about the vulnerability of our Northern border after INS management ignored this concern. Mr. Hall was threatened with being fired by the INS and faced a 90-day suspension without pay for speaking out to protect the American public. The actions of Mr. Hall helped to make our borders safer. Congress subsequently acted to triple the border patrol personnel on the Northern border. Union membership was critical to Mr. Hall's ability to speak out in the first place. As he explains, he ``would never have spoken out if I hadn't had my union behind me because whistleblower protections alone would not have been enough.'' Federal workers who are denied union rights will be far less likely to speak out and protect the public in the future for fear of unjust retaliation. Denying Federal workers fundamental rights will undermine our Nation's homeland security at a time when we can ill afford it. The President now has the executive authority to exclude workers engaged in intelligence work or particularly sensitive investigative work from basic collective bargaining. Past presidents have used this authority sparingly, out of respect for government workers--even in times of war. They have barred collective bargaining only in highly specialized and sensitive positions, such as U.S. Army Intelligence, Naval Intelligence, Naval Special Warfare Development Group and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. This administration has already demonstrated its intention to go far beyond every past administration in its use of this authority. Earlier this year, this Administration stripped clerical and other workers in the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's office of their long- held union membership. After decades of dedicated service to this Nation as union members, secretaries in the civil division of the U.S. Attorney's office were excluded from collective bargaining. These secretaries were not involved in national security; they were processing claims by people injured on government property and others suing over their denial of benefits. Nonetheless, this administration chose to deny these dedicated workers their fundamental rights. We all know that this administration is not a champion of worker rights. They do not support a much-needed extension of unemployment insurance benefits. They oppose an increase in the minimum wage for the millions of Americans who work hard but still don't make enough to stay above the poverty line. This administration opposes ergonomic protections that would keep millions of workers from suffering debilitating injuries while at work. Immediately after taking office, this administration overturned rules requiring Federal contractors to obey our Nation's labor laws and undermined protections for Federal workers. But how far is this anti-worker agenda going to go? We have witnessed the bravery of these workers, their dedication to their country, their military service, their contributions to their communities. Yet, this administration displays a contempt for workers and particularly for the Federal workers who serve with dedication every day to keep our Nation safe. These unionized contract workers maintain the highest security clearances and do extensive work for the Department of Defense. Under the administration's proposal, we could well see Federal workers working alongside contractors with the federal workers being denied the same fundamental rights and protections that the contractors continue to hold. These are the very rights held by the brave firefighters and police in New York City who paid the ultimate price to protect others. They are the rights that allowed those courageous border patrol officers to speak out and improve homeland security. It is essential that any reorganization respect and protect the rights of these, and thousands of other hardworking Federal employees, whose work is so vital to the new Department's success and the Nation's security. Denying basic rights to those who strive and sacrifice to make us safer will not protect homeland security. Some on the other side of the aisle claim that union membership is inconsistent with service to our country. For example, Senator Gramm claims that union workers kept Logan Airport's luggage inspection area from being renovated by the Customs Service. He claims that the renovation had to be negotiated with the union as part of a collective bargaining agreement. This is just one example of the many distortions being offered on the other side by those who want to deny dedicated Federal workers their fundamental rights. In fact, the collective bargaining agreement of those dedicated Customs workers did not prevent the Customs Service from renovating the terminal. The union did not have the right to bargain over whether any renovation could take place. The agreement between these workers and the Customs service simply provided that the workers should be notified of the change and be able to discuss the impact of the particular implementation of the change. Since the workers were not notified, the new construction was poorly done. It left the Customs inspectors with an obstructed view, making it much harder for them to do their job well. The result was that the rate of Customs seizures subsequently went down at the airport. This case is a perfect example of how ignoring the front-line workers who protect America day in and day out will not make us safer. These workers want to do the best job possible each and every day. For that reason, they challenged the Customs service for failing to properly notify and consult the workers and won the case before the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The real test of our core values come not during easy times but during times of crisis. We must stand up for the right of free association and the basic protections for these dedicated Federal workers. This is the real test of who we are as a nation. By being true to the values that make America great, we honor the sacrifices of America's veterans even as we protect the security of our homeland.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the impressive achievements of those who have graduated this year as part of the Boston Digital Bridge Foundation's Technology Goes Home and TechBoston programs. This evening at Franklin Park in Dorchester, MA, the City and the Boston Digital Bridge Foundation are hosting ``Evening on the Bridge 2.0,'' a celebration honoring the graduates of these two programs. Working with businesses, universities, schools, government, families and community-based organizations, the Boston Digital Bridge Foundation organizes and facilitates partnerships to link Boston public school students and their parents to the Internet. These programs have helped over 5,000 Boston Public School students and their families. Technology Goes Home is a ten-week technology training program for low-income families. It has a rigorous selection process and a community service requirement at the completion of the program. Upon graduating from the program, each family receives a new computer, printer and Internet access. TechBoston provides advanced technology courses for Boston Public School students at the middle and high-school level. They teach high- tech skills essential for success in careers and post-secondary education. Currently, over 2,500 Public School Students are enrolled in these classes. Technology skills are no longer a luxury for students, they are a necessity. Without knowledge of computers and the Internet, today's students will have great difficulty competing in tomorrow's economy. When used effectively in the classroom and at home, modern technology can help level the playing field and open extraordinary new horizons and opportunities for all students and their parents. That's why we are so strongly committed to the Boston Digital Bridge Foundation. The City is at the cutting edge of education technology and has become a national model, thanks to the leadership of Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the skillful work of the community partners involved in these two innovative programs. Over 4,000 participants in six Boston neighborhoods, every high school, and ten middle schools are enrolled in the programs. We are all proud of the remarkable progress that Boston has made in helping to close the digital divide. A coalition of leaders in business, labor, education and government has worked successfully together to connect all of Boston public schools to the Internet, and is in the process of bringing this technology home to all Boston Public School families. Dozens of large and small organizations have made donations to these programs. America Online, AT&T Broadband, the Barr Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Boston Redevelopment Authority, FleetBoston Financial, Hewlett-Packard, HiQ Computers, Intel, Keane Inc., Lexmark, Microsoft, PARTNERS+simons, Sallie Mae Foundation, 3Com, Verizon and Xintra and others have done more than their share, donating products and services to schools, including wiring, network equipment, computers and other supplies. All the equipment donated by these firms is new, and Verizon and America Online have donated free Internet access. This kind of participation has become a model for the nation. Thanks to the Boston Digital Bridge Foundation and its supporters, we can now guarantee that Boston Public School students and their families have access to the Internet and the opportunities that it creates. We are doing all we can to see that every student in every Boston neighborhood will soon have the same opportunity. I commend these Boston families and students for their efforts and accomplishments in expanding employment opportunities, improving school grades, and strengthening their community. To all involved, it is a job well done. I ask to have printed in the Record the names of this year's graduates of these programs of the Boston Digital Bridge Foundation. The material is as follows: 2002 Boston Digital Bridge Foundation Graduates Allston Brighton Neighborhood Technology Collaborative Mayram Antillon and Layla Antillon; Gabriella Campozano and Nicholas Campozano-Hill; Marta Gonzalez and Jonathan Ramos; Jie Lin and Pei Lin; Zaheruddin Mohammadi and Zaba Mohammadi; Berta Morales and Adriana Rodriguez; Sofia Nikollara and Teodor Nikollara; Tahera Amin and Shakir Amin; Diana Chaves and Julian Chaves; Kesi Garabilez and Jeanykay Simon; Magnolia Giraldo and David Mejia; Li Zhen Huang and Shirley Li; Wanda Jusino and Raul Jusino; Donna O'Brien and Derek O'Brien; Patricia Ready and Tyler Maddock; Selso Regalis and Glorisel Regalis; Rosetta Robinson and Quanasia Robinson; Clara Baez and Naiyelly Montero; Maria Berardi and Maria Santa; Foujia Chowdhury and Isteaque Chowdhury; Ana Gonzalez and Gisselle Gonzalez; Natasha Iftica and Kostian Iftica; Princess Johnson and Bianca Tsolias; Monica Montes De Oca and Savannah Cosby; Yaneth Pacheco and Melvin Alfredo Alas; Sandra Palomo and Charlie Palomo; Sherma Stewart and Desiree Joseph. Codman Square Neighborhood Technology Collaborative Carmen Bakhit and Lyla Bakhit; Rosalind Bogues and Robin Bogues; Kimberly Bordley and Geoffery Woodbery; Ernest Brown and Seth Brown; Amando Cruz and Tyra Robinson; Amelia Destouche and Donna-Lee Destouche; Darriel Dorsey and Darriel Dorsey III; Joy Gonzalez and Anntoinette Francis; Catherine Heraldo and Terqueena Heraldo; Sabrina Lawrence and Nekeya Mayhew; Suze Louis and Ornella Louis; Eduardo Martinez and Eduardo Jr. Martinez; Keesha Moody and Tashawn Moody-Whitley; Carolyn Muldrew and Shontia Taylor; Altonato Richelien and Daly Hamilton; The Strothers family; Judith Sylvestre-Piqu and Myriam Piquant; Euronna Taylor and Chace Taylor; Isaura Vega Samitt and Moises Geronimo; Mary White and Jonathan White; Venita Williams and Nadine Samuel; Virginia Bennett and Tiffany Bennett; Barbara Buryiak and Gregory Buryiak; Sandra Campbell and Laticie Allen; Cleta Capitolin and Jeanel Capitolin; Bridgette Curry and Deneena Curry; Marie Dimanche and Rachel Dimanche; Will Dunn and Chris Scott; Mabel DuVal and April Du Val; Althea Forde and Jason Forde; Danielle Francillon and Rodely Destine; Maurella Francois and Steve Philippe Blaise; Jessie Freeman and Christopher Freeman; Abigail Harding and Kern Timothy; Roger Houston and Jeffrey M. Houston; Sandra Johnson and Deanna Marie Johnson; Althea Jones and Dewanda Jones; Edmond Lewis and David Moloney; Evelyn Louis-Jean and Andy Louis-Jean; Marita Mcphail and Shameika Sandiford; Donnette Redmond and Dena Cattledge; Lorraine Riley and Bryan Trench; Charlene Townsend and DeAnde Townsend; Nam Truong and Minh Truong; Tira Brown and Damonte Brown; Annette Calloway and Zeyanna Defortunato; Anastasie Destouche and Vandel Fontaine; Soraida Flores and Angelina; Mary Hobson and Thanee Hobson; Judy Juba and Marlon Juba; Marguerite McClinton and Shayla McClinton; Latasha Ponlls and Toney Ponlls; Vonetta Smith and Natasha Smith; Denise Stevens and Jerry Stevens; Marva Stowe and Akim Callender. Grove Hall Neighborhood Technology Collaborative Ida Allen and Jessica Allen; Joyce Bowden and Rashad Bowden; Joseph Higginbottom and Dionne Higginbottom; Phyllis Langione and Malika Gordon; Debra Owens and Amanda Owens; Jennifer Queen and Durrell Queen; Bonnie Reynolds and Brandon Reynolds; Beverly Barclay and Cynthia Burrell; Sonia Galvez and Cecily Galvez; Kimberly Harrison and Ira Harrison; Sherri Marshall-White and Jasmine Miller; Diahanne Miller and Thuron Green; Helen Miskel and Dwayne Riley; Leontine Robinson and Nefitai Robinson; Shirley Straughter and Jasmine Harris; Dawn Thomas and Malcolm; Diane Valentine and Brandon Valentine; Wanda Aviles and Johnny D. Guante; Moni Bryant and Princess Bryant; Phyllis Clemons and Charles Clemons III; Muriel Cummins and Juelle Cummins; Crystal Edwards and Kennette Pannell; Mildred Freeman and Rasool Adkins; Tracey Green and Tiandra Wells; Annette Lavia and Shaniquewka Lavia; Deborha McRae and Shalaan Williams; Carlo Milfort and Christina Milfort; Angel Smiley and Angelica Smiley; Vivian Smith and Jaheem Smith-Garcia; Sharon Stephens and Sharon White; Brenda Trimble and Trevor Cargill; Regina Walker and Samara Walker; Tashema Woods and Mickiel James; Christine Brown and Phito Gondre; Cynthia Cornelius and Kennette Cornelius; Bettie Cutler and Tanzenia Smith; Tanya Gayle and Shakira Sanders; Sandra Good and Terrance Good; Larry Gray Sr. and Larry A. Gray Jr.; Ortiz Milvia and Dianilet Bautista; Brion Rock and Beverly A. Rock; Bridgette Sanders and Jamil Sanders; Maxine Underwood and Shelton T. Veale; Frances Valentine and Courtney Valentine; Keila Price and Keila Cooper. Lower Roxbury Neighborhood Technology Collaborative Miosotty Baez and Ramon Baez; Lyda Cartwright and Cortland Cartwright; Sheryl DeBarros and Cortney Carter; Latonya Perry and Shakena Perry; Michelle Santos-Thomas and Tatiana Dancy; Stephanie Swan and Tanesha Swan; Scotland Williams and Scotland Williams, Jr.; Iris Yates and Nakia Weaver; Evander Young and Ebony Jones; Jewel Cash and Jewel Cash Van Stokes; Maryse L. Cazeau and Nastajha Cazeau; Deborah Coleman and Kyron Coleman; Ann Haynes and Latrecia Brown-Haynes; Troy Huff and Jovan Huff; Grace Johnson and Edwin Johnson; Michelle Jones and Deshon Jones; Gwendolyn McLean and Harold Kirkl; Francine Patterson and Brittany Patterson; Rochelle Reid and Kristien Reid; Velda Singleton and Travis Singleton; Alisha Beasley and Isah Beasley; Venitte Burke and Rushanna Gordan; Joynett Gray and Shereena Lee; Gloria Heckstall and Joshua Heckstall; Diane Joseph and Michael Cummings; Melvin Maldonado and Benjamin Cruz; Lorraine Maryland and Christina Maryl; Vashti Massaquoi and Shavaysha Massaquoi; Brenda Peeples and Deanna Peeples; Antoinette Ross and Isaiah Thomas; Cheryl Young and Terrance Hill; Julissa Diaz and Katrine Diaz; Helen Lopez and Nasha Padron; Mayra Munoz and Gabriella Ventura; Guadalupe Rodriguez and Nicolas Rodriguez; Joselin Ruiz and Perla Ruiz; Ibelisse Ruiz and Pamela Moquete; Ideana Tejeda and Jennifer Rodriguez; Jaqueline Zayas and Jacelyn Zayas; Eneida Figueroa-Lopez and Jeneida Felix; Vijay Bangari and Pamela Bangari; Kathy Byner and Shanquita Byner; Judy James and Charles Branden James; Evangelene Lacombe and Rashid Lacombe; Norma Yolanda Medina and Janick Rene Medina; Patricia Rogers and Dominique Rogers; Gloria Taylor and Brandon Taylor; June Wallace and Robert Leaster. Mission Hill/Fenway Neighborhood Technology Collaborative Sentayehu Bezualam and Noah Tewelde; Carmen Cordero and Carmen Lopez; Thelma Cunningham and Charlie Haymon; Clara Ejogo and Nneka Lamarre; Abadit Ghidey and Bethlehem Ghidey; Charlene Hunt and Isiah Hunt; Diane Jackson and Dana Jackson; Latonia Miles and Zaira Miles; Leyda Rodriguez and Jose Lara; Andrea Turner and DeCosta Turner; Enid Williams and Shauntia Williams; Carmen Andino and Shey Carrasquillo; Edith Cotto and Nicholas Cotto; Albertha Davis and Charles Steed; Becsaida Flores and Andres Brea; Edith Jones and Keyarra Jones; Sobeida Martinez-Alston and Alea A. Martinez; Charline Perry and Amyna Perry; Carolyn Robles and Anthony Perry; Carmen Villinueva and Franchesca Castro; Rosemary Warren and Chimika Warren; Elsa Carrasquillo and Ashley Osorio; Diane Everett and Ivanna Everett; Anet Garcia and Jose Cosme; Michael Holley and Nora Holley & Nathalia Freeman; Abdulaziz Mohamed and Idil Osman; Ceila Perez and Athena Ellis; Sharon Pough and Ernest Pough II; Elaine Rodriguez and Johnathan Rodriguez; Nilsa Santiago and Lisette Santiago; Sobeida Soto and Omar Gonzalez; Delmy Suarez and Victoria Suarez. Uphams Corner Neighborhood Technology Collaborative Yubettys Baez and Paola Baez; Maria Barros and Jassira Barros; Lydia Becerril and Alheli Ortiz; Rosa DePina and Yara Goncalves; Maria Lobo and Dirma Lobo; Natia Mitchell and Debra McLean; Kathy Nollie and Ayesha McCray; Christine Porter and Jasyre Porter; Carmen Rodriguez and Janira Negron; Karen Sheers and Tinisha Wynn; Sonia Villaroel and Dashawn Triplett; Towanna Bowden and Dennis Privott; Tatasha Coles and Tashea Coles; Sandra Correa and Raymond Sanabia; Latoya Cromartie and Danielle Cromartie; Erica Daniels and Brittnay Walker; Vivian Izuchi and Lotachi Izuchi; Michael Latson and Jalonnie Heath; Ketley Mondesir and Kenny Mondesir; Sara Phillips and Paulette Phillips; Arlindo Pires and Arnaldo Pires; Maria Barbosa and Dulce Mendes; Annette Bonds and Jason Bloom; Delores Dell and Deshawn Dell; Sophia Rice and Dathan Rice; Seraphina Taylor and Gregory Taylor; Barbara Williams and Randy Williams; Jacqueline Rodriguez and Marione Silva; Dorothy Anderson and Lareek Anderson.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleagues Senator Gregg, Senator Clinton, Senator Roberts, Senator Dodd, Senator Frist and others in introducing legislation to improve the labeling of allergens in food. American families deserve to feel confident that the food they eat is safe. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act will allow the seven million Americans with food allergies to identify more easily a product's ingredients, avoid foods that may harm them, and stay healthy. One hundred fifty Americans die each year from ingesting allergenic foods, and this legislation will greatly reduce that number. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act will require that food ingredient statements on food packages identify in common language when an ingredient, including a flavoring, coloring, or other additive, is itself, or is derived from, one of the eight main food allergens. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act will require the Food and Drug Administration to provide for ``gluten-free'' labeling on foods, to help people with celiac disease avoid the glutens that cause their disease. It will require FDA to report to Congress about how manufacturers can minimize cross-contact with food allergens between foods produced in the same facility or on the same production line, and about when manufacturers should use ``may contain'' or other advisory language in food labeling. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act will also require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to track deaths related to food allergies, and it will direct the National Institutes of Health to develop a plan for research activities concerning food allergies. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation that will do so much to improve the lives of those with food allergies and celiac disease. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleagues Senator Gregg, Senator Clinton, Senator Roberts, Senator Dodd, Senator Frist and others in introducing legislation to improve the labeling of allergens in food. American families deserve to feel confident that the food they eat is safe. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act will allow the seven million Americans with food allergies to identify more easily a product's ingredients, avoid foods that may harm them, and stay healthy. One hundred fifty Americans die each year from ingesting allergenic foods, and this legislation will greatly reduce that number. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act will require that food ingredient statements on food packages identify in common language when an ingredient, including a flavoring, coloring, or other additive, is itself, or is derived from, one of the eight main food allergens. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act will require the Food and Drug Administration to provide for ``gluten-free'' labeling on foods, to help people with celiac disease avoid the glutens that cause their disease. It will require FDA to report to Congress about how manufacturers can minimize cross-contact with food allergens between foods produced in the same facility or on the same production line, and about when manufacturers should use ``may contain'' or other advisory language in food labeling. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act will also require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to track deaths related to food allergies, and it will direct the National Institutes of Health to develop a plan for research activities concerning food allergies. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation that will do so much to improve the lives of those with food allergies and celiac disease. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues in this tribute to Senator Thurmond and his extraordinary record of service to the people of South Carolina and the Nation. As the longest serving member of the United States Senate in history, the Senator from South Carolina cast his first vote in January 1955-- when seven of his current colleagues were not even born. His election in 1954 was an American first. Senator Thurmond was the first person ever elected to a major office as a write-in candidate. Senator Thurmond came to this body half a century ago as a man of humble origins with a teacher's background and a legal education given to him by his father, and he has never stopped teaching and learning. In the years since he first came to the Senate, he has cast over 15,000 votes, and he has always stood up for his beliefs with a passionate conviction. Over the years, many of us have often disagreed with him on specific issues, but we have always had great respect for his ability and dedication. Senator Thurmond has served our country with great dedication in the armed forces as well, from his early days as a Second Lieutenant in the Army Reserve in 1924 to his outstanding service in the 82nd Airborne during World War II. He volunteered for service immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and piloted a glider onto the beaches at Normandy in 1944, earning five battle stars and numerous over medals for his courage in combat. I have had the honor to serve for many years with Senator Thurmond on both the Armed Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and we often worked together to meet the important challenges facing our Nation. Two decades ago, as members of the Judiciary Committee, we worked together for a period of several years to reform and improve the federal sentencing system. Our proposal was eventually enacted as the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Prior to the 1984 Act, federal sentencing was famously characterized by Judge Marvin Frankel as a system of ``law without order.'' Judges had unreviewable discretion to sentence defendants to lengthy periods of incarcertaion--or no incarceration at all. Gross disparities in sentencing were common, even within the same federal courthouse. Too often, those disparities were related to the race or the economic resources of the defendant. Some thought the answer to that problem was mandatory sentencing laws. But Senator Thurmond and I developed the fairer and more effective approach of sentencing guidelines that is used today. Senator Thurmond and I came to the issue from different perspectives, but we agreed on the goal of fair sentencing laws. It took several years of debates, but Senator Thurmond and I stood together. Our ideas prevailed, and I am proud to have worked with him on this important reform of the Nation's criminal justice system. We have worked together on the Armed Services Committee as well. Senator Thurmond has never forgotten the responsibility of the 82nd Airborne to be America's Guard, and to go ``All the Way'' in protecting the rights of our men and women in uniform and our Nation's veterans. From the Strom Thurmond Institute at his alma mater, Clemson University to Strom Thurmond High School to Interstate Highway 20, also known as Strom Thurmond Highway, the Senator from South Carolina has been honored by communities in his state and by the American people as well. I know that all of us in the Senate commend him, as he retires this year, for his long and distinguished service to the Senate and the Nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to join my colleagues in introducing the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2002. This bipartisan bill authorizes funding and programs that support more than 870,000 children in this country who are victims of child abuse and neglect each year. It is essential to do all we can to see that these very vulnerable children are protected and feel safe, in spite of the abuse and neglect they have suffered. Every year in America, local child protective service agencies respond to approximately 3 million reports of child abuse or neglect. According to Prevent Child Abuse America, this problem costs the U.S. over $9 billion a year in direct and indirect costs. We owe it to the Nation's children to provide more effective prevention and treatment services. Often these children are caught up in a system that fails to protect them today. Nearly half of the children in substantiated cases of abuse receive no followup services. We can and must do better. Our bill will provide funding for grants to community-based and prevention-focused programs and activities to prevent child abuse and neglect. In 2000, approximately 1,100 children died of abuse and neglect. Eight-five percent of these children were younger than 6. We know that early identification of risk and timely intervention can reduce abuse. One major prevention strategy shown to work is good parent education. Effective action also means preparing those who investigate allegations of child abuse to assess the risk and ensure appropriate followup, so that children receive the medical and emotional treatment they need. Included in this bill is Senator Wellstone's Children Who Witness Violence Act. This legislation is long overdue and very important in confronting the impact of domestic violence on children. It addresses the issue form multiple perspectives by supporting the development of intervention program for children who witness domestic violence. It takes advantage of local resources such as counselors, courts, schools, health care providers and battered women's programs to address the needs of children in violent homes. Witnessing domestic violence directly affects school achievement. These children have higher levels of impaired concentration and poor school attendance. They are often labeled as underachievers and have difficulties in cognitive and academic functioning. Research demonstrates that the effects of abuse can continue long after the bruises fade. We need to do much more to prevent abuse and help abused children find a way out of violence. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to submit, on behalf of myself, Senator Clinton and Senator Hutchison, a concurrent resolution to recognize the achievements of Mary Baker Eddy and the opening of the Mary Baker Eddy Library for the Betterment of Humanity. The Library, which officially opens to the public on September 29, will provide public access to the Mary Baker Eddy papers, one of the largest collections of primary source material by and about an American woman. The Library will provide invaluable insight to Mary Baker Eddy's remarkable life and serve as an important resource for scholars, researchers and the public. Its mission will sustain her powerful legacy that ideas can inspire individuals, empower them and transform their lives. The Mary Baker Eddy Library, a facility encompassing over 80,000 square feet, will be a dynamic meeting place for people to explore ideas through its on-sight and on-line educational experiences, programs and exhibits. So, too, its unique Mapparium will once again available to visitors to the Library. The collections consist of over 100,000 documents, artifacts, photographs and other media that chronicle the development of Mary baker Eddy's ideas and offer an unparalleled resource for scholars in women's history, spirituality and journalism. The Library's effort to release previously unpublished materials in the Mary Baker Eddy Collections to the public will enrich our understanding of her extraordinary achievements. In conjunction with this facility in Boston, the Library will also establish an Institute for the Rediscovery and Preservation of the History of Women in Seneca Falls, New York, the birthplace of the first Women's Rights Convention, in order to showcase research on the forgotten histories of women and offer a wide range of educational programs for students. I am pleased to submit this resolution to recognize this outstanding woman and the richness of her accomplishments. I would also like to congratulate Virginia Harris for her efforts to ensure that the Mary Baker Eddy Library became a reality and for her tireless energy and visionary leadership as Chairman of the Board of the Christian Science Church.

Mr. KENNEDY. (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, and Mrs. Hutchison) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Con. Res. 145 Whereas the Mary Baker Eddy Library for the Betterment of Humanity will officially open on September 29, 2002, in Boston, Massachusetts, thereby making available to the public the Mary Baker Eddy Collections, one of the largest collections of primary source material by and about an American woman; Whereas the namesake of the Library, Mary Baker Eddy, achieved international prominence during her lifetime (1821-1910) as the founder of Christian Science and was the first woman in the United States to found and lead a religion that became an international movement with members in 139 countries; Whereas historians compare Mary Baker Eddy to 19th century women reformers like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who took leadership roles at a time when women infrequently did so; Whereas Mary Baker Eddy founded and served as the pastor of her own church, the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, and established a publishing organization that produces numerous publications, including ``The Christian Science Monitor'', an international daily newspaper that has won 7 Pulitzer Prizes; Whereas in recognition of the numerous achievements of Mary Baker Eddy, the Women's National Hall of Fame inducted her into its membership in 1995 for having made ``an indelible mark on society, religion, and journalism''; Whereas the Mary Baker Eddy Library, a facility of 81,000 square feet, provides a place for people to come together to explore ideas and offers on-site and online educational experiences, programs, and exhibits; Whereas the Mary Baker Eddy Collections consist of more than 100,000 documents, artifacts, photographs, and other media that chronicle the development of Mary Baker Eddy's ideas and offer an unequalled resource to scholars in women's history and mind-body medicine; Whereas the Library's initiative to make the previously unpublished materials in the Mary Baker Eddy Collections available to the public is exemplary of, and in full accord with, the intent of the provisions of title 17, United States Code, relating to the publication of previously unpublished materials; and Whereas the Mary Baker Eddy Library will establish an Institute for the Rediscovery and Preservation of the History of Women in Seneca Falls, New York, the birthplace of the first Women's Rights Convention, in order to showcase new research on the forgotten histories of women and offer educational programs for students: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress recognizes and commends-- (1) Mary Baker Eddy for her outstanding achievements and contributions, particularly her contributions to the advancement of women's rights as a public figure and role model in the early stages of the women's rights movement; and (2) the Mary Baker Eddy Library for the Betterment of Humanity, which will open to the public on September 29, 2002.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following tribute by my nephew, Joseph P. Kennedy II, be printed in the Record in honor of Odile Grogan, a dear friend of all of the Kennedy family. The tribute follows: Tribute to Odile Grogan (By Joseph P. Kennedy II) More than 20 years ago, my good friend Rick Grogan has the great fortune of meeting a savvy and stylish Parisian, Odile Claude Emelie Basch, who was working in New York City, running programs in support of the arts. The timing was perfect. Rick, turning his sights to a career in international business, found a companion conversant in languages, accustomed to travel, and filled with the same spirit of adventure that has always animated his life. Before meeting Rick, Odile's consuming passion was the arts. The Gallic phase of her arts education took place in the Left Bank of Paris, renowned as a world center of culture. She attended the Ecole Alsacienne, located near the Montparnasse cafes frequented by artists and writers for over a century. Her talents were then nurtured at the Lycee Fenelon in the Quartier Saint Germain-des-Pres, just a few yards from Pablo Picasso's former atelier on Rue des Grandos Augustins. After receiving the Baccalaureate, she took up studies at the arts-intensive Finch College in New York City, whose students have ranged the artistic gamut from Grace Slick to Isabella Rossellini. She went on to receive an M.A. in art history from Queens College and subsequently applied both her management and art history skills directing visual and performing arts partron programs under Phillip Morris's legendary chairman, Joseph F. Cullman III. Her guidance led to innovative partnerships between the company and such institutions as the Whitney Museum, which opened a branch in the company's newly built headquarters. It was during her tenure at Phillip Morris and Odile walked onto the canvas of Rick Grogan's life. In Odile, he found someone at ease in every facet of conversation, with views as varied and forceful as his own. Whether discussing politics, cuisine, painting, or education, Odile proved not just a font of opinions and facts but a master of epithets and one-liners, in two tongues, no less. Just out of Harvard Business School, Rick married Odile in 1981 and they moved to London, where Rick worked as a consultant for Bain Company. Rick thought they might spend a year or two in England before returning to the U.S. Odile thought otherwise. As a tribute to her powers of persuasion, she convinced her deal-maker husband that London was just the right place for the family, conveniently located between France and America. Rick bought the argument if not the logic and so they settled into life in England, their lives soon graced by Alexandra, Nicholas, and Charlotte, wonderfully gifted children who feel at home anywhere from Harvard Square to Picadily Circus to Place de la Concorde. In spite of all her household demands, Odile never neglected to devote time and energy to her beloved arts. A benefactor of the Serpentine Gallery in London's Kensington Gardens, she has encouraged policies to bring a wider public into museums, using the arts to uplift and liberate the human spirit across broader demographics. Her cultivated judgment has also been sought by the Tate Museum, where she serves on the acquisition committee. Several years ago, the enviable rhythms of the Grogans' family life were interrupted by a cycling accident in the French countryside. Rick lay near death in a coma. Odile, at hits side every moment, took full charge of his medical care and recovery. ``He is my husband,'' she declared. ``I can take care of him.'' And so she did, sitting long hours by his hospital bed, watching for this eyes to open and recognition to light up his expression. With her help and the force of her spirit, Rick did awaken and recover. The mishap was an awful physical setback but one that brought forth a remarkable discovery for Rick. He learned that Odile was not just a caring wife and a loving mother, not just a skilled hostess and devoted patroness, not just a talented linguist and art history scholar, but an angel of mercy. All the advantages of education and career mean little without love in our lives. When that love finds it greatest expression in our hour of need, we can indeed count ourselves among the blessed. This past June, Rick brought together a wide circle of their family and friends to celebrate all that Odile has meant to him in their years together. The gathering at Versailles Palace was an extraordinary expression of Rick's love. But the gilt and glitter of that magnificent setting paled in comparison to what shined forth in from the hearts of all there assembled in tribute to Odile. In the many decades I have known Rick, he has enjoyed tremendous success in academics, athletics, and business. However, the triumph that counts the most is the crown of his heart, his incomparable wife Odile, my good friend's own angel of mercy.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Frist, Harkin, Hutchison, Biden, Landrieu, Reid, Bingaman, Dodd, Clinton, Hollings, and Edwards in introducing the ``Quality of Care for Individuals with Cancer Act.'' The goal of this important bipartisan legislation is to help close the gap between what modern medicine can do today to reduce cancer deaths, and the actual medical care that cancer patients receive. In the past two decades, the nation has made extraordinary progress in treating and curing cancer. In fact, we have made so much progress that our greatest challenges in health care today is taking the scientific breakthroughs in the laboratory and bringing them to the bedside of the patient. Too often, we cannot say that American cancer patients are receiving the best possible care. Our goal is to match the nation's excellence in cancer research with state-of-the-art excellence in cancer care. The reward will be seeing a young mother with breast cancer live to be a grandmother, enable a toddler with leukemia grow up to be President, or a father win the Tour de France for a fourth time. Many examples of inadequate care could be cited. For example, only a third of all Americans over age fifty have had proper colorectal cancer screenings in the last two years. Clearly, there are far too many needless and correctable failures in our current system of cancer care. By creating uniform ways to measure the quality of cancer care, and establishing new, improved and better coordinated ways to monitor care, we can do more to see that cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care, no matter where they live. In response to the needs of cancer survivors, and with the help of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, this bipartisan bill will also establish new survivorship programs to facilitate the delivery of services to cancer patients and their families. Just as importantly, we want to make the best cancer care easier for patients to obtain. Our bill will improve the networking of the doctors and other providers to whom patients go for their care. Many of us know family members and friends suffering from cancer. We are all to familiar with the feelings of shock, denial, hope, fear, and vulnerability that comes when a loved one, especially a child, is found to have cancer. Dealing with the challenges is never an easy task for any family. But the continuing breakthoughs in medical research make clear that much more can be done to save and enhance the lives of cancer patients. We need to do all we can to make this care available and affordable to all patients. Make no mistake about it, we have come a long way. But much more must be done to improve the lives of cancer patients.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for families across this country who have school-age children, they have been involved over the period of these recent days and weeks preparing their children to attend, by and large, the public schools of our country. Over 90 percent of the children in this country go to the public schools. A little less than 10 percent go to private schools. Over these last several months, we have had, with President Bush, a bipartisan effort which resulted in what was called the ``No Child Left Behind Act.'' That legislation recognized that what is really needed for the neediest children in this country is school reform. But we also need investment, school reform and increased resources. For a long time, the Title I program was criticized because it provided resources without really providing the kind of accountability that is so important. So there was a bipartisan effort to provide for that kind of accountability. Now as parents are seeing their children going back to school and they are asking whether the Congress and this administration are meeting their responsibility. Because in that legislation, we are holding accountable the children that were going through school. We are holding accountable the schools. We are holding accountable teachers. I was asked over the recent month of August as I went around Massachusetts, is: What is going to be the administration's response to the children being left behind with the budget that the administration recommended to the Congress for funding of No Child Left Behind? Will politicians be accountable? There are 10.3 million children who fall into what we call the Title I category. Over 6 million of those children are going to be left behind under the administration's budget. We do not expect that money in and of itself to be the answer to all of the problems, but it is a pretty good indication of the priorities of a nation and the priorities of an administration. And this chart is a pretty clear indication of the recent history of increased funding for education. We are talking her about the total education budget. In 1997, a 16 percent increase; 12 percent in 1998; 12 percent in 1999; 6 percent in the year 2000; 19 percent in 2001; and 16 percent in 2002. However, it is only 2.8 percent under this administration's budget, the lowest we have seen over the last 7 years. Again, money is not everything, but we did make a commitment to the parents, to the families, to the schools. There is tough criteria for all of those groups. We have seen, in the efforts made by Senator Harkin in the Appropriations Committee, the recommendation that it will be higher than this program. It will be some $4.2 billion, and it will raise this percentage up to about 6 percent. 2.8 percent is the recommendation that is being made by our Republican friends in the House of Representatives. By and large, the best judgment we have is that this will be the figure coming from the House, and we will be somewhat above, and the conference will come out lower, certainly, than what we have seen in recent years. What has resulted from this--from the fact that we have not seen adequate funding of the program? We recognize in the No Child Left Behind Act that one of the most important necessities is a well- qualified teacher in every classroom in the country. There is virtually no increase in funding for teacher training. So the 18,000 teachers that would have been trained if there had been a cost of living increase will not receive the training. Mr. President, 20,000 students will be cut from the college Work- Study Program; 25,000 limited-English-proficient children cut from the Federal bilingual program; 33,000 children cut from afterschool programs; there is virtually no increase in the Pell grants; and there is no increase in student loans. What has the administration requested of the Congress? Why do I take a few moments of the Senate time today? I want to point out what is happening in this debate regarding funding of education because tomorrow in the House of Representatives, they will mark up a recommendation by this administration for $4 billion in new funding for private school vouchers. We understand, this is for private schools, 10 percent of the education, $4 billion. Yet just 2.8 percent increase for the public schools, where 90 percent of the children go. There are a number of reasons we should be concerned. I think most of us believe that we should not be taking scarce funds from the public school children and putting them into private schools. That is in effect what this is doing. If we had the $4 billion, we would be able to increase the total number of poor children to be covered under the Title I program to about two-thirds of those that are being left behind this year. However, the administration said no; we will have $4 billion over a 5-year period to be used for the private schools, for just 10 percent of the children. The reason we raise this issue is in case we have these resources again, we will have an opportunity, hopefully, to debate this, and it ought to be directed toward the public school system. But beyond that, some of the things that concern us is that with the $4 billion, there is virtually no requirement that we have accountability. The administration made a great deal about accountability, to make sure that we know where the money is invested, what the results will be on the standardized systems to be able to tell if children are progressing. In my own State of Massachusetts, we have seen important progress where we have had accountability and support, including the recent announcement of the MCAS results in the past week, in which we have seen continued progress in math and continued progress made in English. Not all the problems are resolved, and there are still painful problems in terms of disparity, but we have seen progress made because of accountability. The administration has talked about accountability. But for their $4 billion, there is no accountability to any schools to ensure that they do what all the public schools do, and that is, to have the examinations. There is no accountability to ensure that private schools accept all the children. In the public school system there has to be acceptance of all of the children, but the private schools do not have to do that. In private schools, there is no accountability to ensure teachers will be highly qualified teachers. We wrote in that legislation that in a 4-year period there will be highly qualified teachers in the classrooms. We fund a variety of programs regarding recruitment, training, and retention, and we give maximum flexibility to local communities to be able to do that. But there is no requirement with that $4 billion that they use those funds for highly qualified teachers in the classrooms. And there is no requirement to give the parents the critical information they need and which we have insured under this legislation. So we are puzzled. We heard both the President and our good friends on the other side saying accountability was the key element. We agree that was enormously important--we are going to have accountability and resources. However, now we have the administration coming back with $4 billion more. Instead of allocating that to the 90 percent of the schools that will train the children of America, the public school systems which returned to school this past week--no, they will use that money, the $4 billion, in the private schools for vouchers. They have basically retreated on each and every one of these principles. It seems a very important mistake and one which we will have the opportunity, hopefully, to debate. With those resources, if the Bush budget took that $4 billion in new funding for private schools over 5 years along with the cut in public schools, had that $4 billion been available for public schools, it would mean the upgrading of the skills of 1 million teachers across this country. It would upgrade the skills of 1 million teachers. You could provide 5.2 million more children with afterschool learning opportunities. I just point out about the after-school programs, because of all of the Federal programs that are out there that go through the process and are considered to be quality programs, when they get in line for the funding, the afterschool programs are No. 1. Do we understand that? There is a greater need, in terms of limited resources for these programs, than for any other Federal program. People understand that if you are going to provide afterschool programs and supplementary services for the children who need them, this is the way to try to do it. We are seeing the results of success academically as well as in terms of the social progress the children have made. This is what you would be able to do. You could provide 5.2 million more children with afterschool learning opportunities. You could provide a Pell Grant to 500,000 more college students--those students who are able, gifted, talented, motivated young people whose parents have limited resources and income. They will not go on to college because they are not eligible for the Pell grants. With these resources, 5,000,000 more children would receive increased college aid. As we continue this debate and discussion about funding education, it is enormously important that the American people understand whose side we are on. We on this side of the aisle believe very strongly that with scarce resources in our budget, these resources ought to be used to provide more highly qualified teachers in every classroom, smaller class sizes, afterschool programs, supplementary services, and information to parents so they know what is happening in those schools--all of those for the children in this country. We believe that is where the needs are. That is what we ought to be doing with scarce resources, not siphoning off $4 billion for the 10 percent of children who are attending private schools. We will have an opportunity, when this comes before the Senate, to debate it further. But we want the parents of children going to public schools, who are facing increasing pressure--as we have seen all across this country as States have cut back in support and help to local communities, increasing the size of their classes, reducing the afterschool programs, cutting out a number of subjects such as music programs, and cutting back on the number of teachers' aides and teachers' assistants--to know that we understand this is not a time to abandon our public schools. This is a time to invest in our future. One final point. We have had a great deal of discussion and debate about national security and national defense. I would like to make the point that ensuring that we are going to have well-qualified children in schools that are going to meet standards is an essential aspect of our national security and national defense. And we should not shortchange that investment any more than we do our Defense Department. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on Tuesday, Boston lost one of its greatest public servants, City Councilor Brian Honan. Brian was raised in a family that held public service in the highest regard. He learned early in life the value of community and the strength of working together on a common goal. In his brief life, Brian touched so many people in countless ways. The true measure of Brian's contribution to Boston and Massachusetts may never be known, but the life he lived and the love he gave will live on in the hearts of his friends, his family and the city of Boston for years to come. In his years of service to his community, in the District Attorney's Office or as a City Councilor from Allston and Brighton, Brian never forgot his principles and ideals, never forgot those he served and the city he loved so well, and never forgot the need to fight for those who are unable to fight for themselves. There is no greater example of willingness to serve his fellow man than the life and legacy of Brian Honan. A bright light in the Boston community was lost to us all on Tuesday but the strength and power of that light lives on in Brian's legacy, and is a powerful reminder to us all about what public service is all about. He will be dearly missed.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Children's Health Improvement and Protection Act today, along with my good friends Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Jay Rockefeller, and Senator Lincoln Chafee. This bill will provide needed funding to keep children enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program and to allow the program to grow. Without this legislation, hundreds of thousands of children will lose their CHIP coverage and rejoin the ranks of the uninsured. Monday is the fifth anniversary of the Children's Health Insurance Program. Senator Hatch and I have worked together on many proposals, but none has had more lasting benefit for millions of American children than our legislation to create CHIP. We first proposed CHIP after we became acutely aware of the health defects facing children and the need to assure that every child got a healthy start in life. Before we passed CHIP, 500,000 children with asthma never saw a doctor. Another 600,000 children with earaches and 600,000 with sore throats never received medical care. A sick child can't learn. A child who can't hear the teacher can't learn. A child who can't see the doctor when they're sick can't learn. That's why uninsured children are more likely to fall behind or drop out of school altogether. We also became aware of the ravages of smoking on health, and that the key to addressing this problem was to discourage children from starting to smoke. In my own state of Massachusetts, there had been a very successful campaign to raise money to expand children's health coverage by raising the cigarette tax. This united anti-tobacco activists and child health advocates. So Senator Hatch and I decided that the winning, fiscally responsible, right health policy approach was to develop a major expansion of children's health insurance and finance it with an increase in the tobacco tax. And what a success CHIP has been. This legislation has touched every community in America. Last year, over 4.5 million children received health insurance through either Children's Health Insurance Program or through Medicaid expansions under the CHIP program. Last year, 105,000 children in Massachusetts were covered through these programs, and many other states have had similar successes. Despite the clear evidence that health insurance provides children with a healthier start, funding cuts to the CHIP program of more than $1 billion this year and each of the next two years puts the gains we have made in insuring children at risk. This ``CHIP dip'' is a result of the budget constraints when CHIP was enacted in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. This funding cut comes at the same time enrollment in the program is rising and will cause 900,000 children to lose the health insurance they have today through CHIP. While states are facing a drop in funding that will cause them to drop insured children, almost $3 billion in unspent CHIP funds will be lost if we do nothing. CHIP funds must be spent within three years of allocation. Because of a mismatch between the time unspent funds were reallocated to the states and when the states needed the funds, some states will not be able to use all of their CHIP funds within the allocation period. It makes no sense to have funds expire and revert to the Treasury when we know states will be facing a funding drop that will cause them to cut children from their programs. One of this nation's most fundamental guarantees should be that every child has the opportunity to succeed in life. But that commitment rings hollow if children are doomed to a lifetime of disability and illness because they lack needed health care in their early years. That is why we are introducing the Children's Health Insurance Program. This bill will allow states to maintain and expand their CHIP programs. It lets states keep a portion of their unspent funds that would otherwise expire. It also establishes a new caseload stabilization pool with funds that would otherwise expire. The pool will direct unspent funds to states that are expected to use up all their CHIP funds. Finally, the bill provides additional CHIP funding for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 so that CHIP enrollment can be maintained and expanded. This legislation will move us one important step closer to fulfilling the promise that no child in America will be left behind because of inadequate health care coverage. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I regret that we continue to be unable to reach an agreement on the Patients' Bill of Rights that would protect the interests of patients instead of the profits of insurance companies. The sponsors of the Senate Patients' Bill of Rights, Senators McCain, Edwards and I, have spent many months talking with the White House. We have repeatedly tried to reach a fair compromise that would address many of the concerns voiced by the opponents of this bill without sacrificing the protection patients need. Unfortunately, we were not able to reach an agreement with them. The Bush administration has simply been unwilling to hold HMOs and insurance companies fully accountable when they make medical decisions. In the end, they were more committed to maintaining special preferences for HMOs and big insurance companies than passing legislation that would protect patients. This is, at heart, an issue of corporate accountability. HMOs and insurance companies have not been held accountable for their medical decisions; and, as a result patients are being injured every day. Just as Congress took the lead on corporate accountability in the Sarbanes legislation when the White House would not take strong action, I believe Congress will now take the lead and enact a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. The political climate is very different today than it was when the House acted last year. The public is focused. I do not believe the Republican leadership will be able to resist the tide of popular opinion. Throughout this process, we have been particularly concerned about those patients who sustain the most serious, life-altering injuries. If the law does not allow them to obtain full and fair compensation for their injuries, we will fail those who are most in need of our help. Yet, the administration has steadfastly refused to agree to liability provisions that would treat the most seriously injured patients justly. Holding HMOs and health insurers fully accountable for their misconduct is essential to improving the quality of health care that millions of Americans receive. Nothing will provide a greater incentive for an HMO to do the right thing than the knowledge that it will be held accountable in court if it does the wrong thing. Placing arbitrary limits on the financial responsibility which HMOs owe to those patients who have been badly harmed by their misconduct would seriously weaken the deterrent effect of the law. Yet, the administration has insisted on a series of provisions which were designed to limit the accountability of HMOs. The Bush administration wanted to weaken the authority of external review panels to help patients obtain the medical care they need. They demanded a rebuttable presumption against the patients in many cases that would effectively deny them a fair hearing in court. They demanded an arbitrary cap on the compensation which even the most seriously injured patients could receive. They wanted to allow HMOs and insurance companies to block injured patients from going to court at all, forcing them instead into a much more restrictive arbitration process. They insisted on preventing juries from awarding punitive damages even if there was clear and convincing evidence of a pattern of intentional wrongdoing by the HMO. At every stage of the accountability process, the administration was unwilling to treat patients fairly. A right without an effective remedy is no right at all, and the administration was unwilling to provide injured patients with any effective remedy. Every day, thousands of patients are victimized by HMO abuses. Too many patients with symptoms of a heart attack or stroke are put at risk because they cannot go to the nearest emergency room. Too many women with breast cancer or cervical cancer suffer and even die because their HMO will not authorize needed care by a specialist. Too many children with life-threatening illnesses are told that they must see the unqualified physician in their plan's network because the HMO won't pay for them to see the specialist just down the road. Too many patients with incurable cancer or heart disease or other fatal conditions are denied the opportunity to participate in the clinical trials that could save their lives. Too many patients with arthritis, or cancer, or mental illnesses are denied the drugs that their doctor prescribes, because the medicine they need is not as cheap as the medicine on the HMO's list. The legislation passed by the Senate would end those abuses, and it would assure that HMOs could be held responsible in court if they failed to provide the care their patients deserved. The Senate bill said that if an HMO crippled or terribly injured a patient, it had a responsibility to provide financial compensation for the victim and the victim's family. It said that if an HMO killed a family breadwinner, it was liable for the support of that patient's family. The Senate passed a strong, effective patients' bill of rights by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. It was not a Democratic victory or a Republican victory. It was a victory for patients. It was a victory for every family that wants medical decisions made by doctors and nurses, not insurance company bureaucrats. It said that treatment should be determined by a patients' vital signs, not an HMO's bottom line. Under our legislation, all the abuses that have marked managed care for so long were prohibited. Patients were guaranteed access to a speedy, impartial, independent appeal when HMOs denied care. And the rights the legislation granted were enforceable. When HMO decisions seriously injured patients, HMOs could be held accountable in court, under state law, under the same standards that apply to doctors and hospitals. The story was different in the House. There, a narrow, partisan majority insisted on retaining special treatment and special privileges for HMOs. That legislation granted HMOs protection available to no other industry in America. Under the guise of granting new rights, it denied effective remedies. It tilted the playing field in favor of HMOs and against patients. The Republican majority in the House said yes to big business and no to American families. Their bill represents the triumph of privilege and power over fairness. Under the House Republican bill, a family trying to hold an HMO accountable when a patient was killed or injured would find the legal process stacked against them at every turn. The standard in their bill for determining whether the HMO was negligent would allow HMOs to overturn the decision of a patients' family doctor without being held to the same standard of good medical practice that applies to the doctor. Think about that. One standard for a doctor trying to provide good care for patients. Another, lower standard for the HMO which arbitrarily overturns that doctor's decision because it wants to protect its bottom line. The House Republican bill puts artificial limits on the liability of HMOs when a patient is killed or injured. The Republicans often complain about one-size-fits all legislation, but their bill is an extreme example of it. No matter how seriously a patient is injured, no matter what remedies are available under state law, no matter how negligent or outrageous the actions of that HMO, no matter what a judge and jury decides is an appropriate remedy, there is the same flat dollar limit on the HMOs' liability. And the limit in the Republican bill is far below what the most seriously injured patients receive when they are badly hurt by a doctor's negligence or by the negligence of any other industry. For a child paralyzed for life by an HMO's penny- pinching--an arbitrary limit on compensation. For a child who loses both hands and feet--an arbitrary limit on compensation. For the families of women needlessly killed by improper treatment for breast cancer an arbitrary limit on compensation. For a father or mother hopelessly brain-damaged--an arbitrary limit on compensation. In addition, the bill essentially provides no punitive damages to deter the most egregious denials of care. Even if the HMO denies medically necessary care over and over and over again, no punitive damages. Even if the HMO engages in fraud or willful misconduct, no punitive damages. Even if the HMO routinely turns down every request for expensive treatment, no punitive damages. If a patient ever gets to court under the Republican plan, they face a form of double jeopardy--the so-called ``rebuttable presumption.'' If a patient loses an appeal to an external review agency, that patient faces an almost impossible legal hurdle in court. But if an HMO loses an external appeal, the patient does not gain a comparable advantage. In effect, the patient has to win twice. The HMO only has to win only once. This one-way presumption is grossly unfair. In area after area of Federal legislation, Congress has set minimum standards guaranteeing basic fairness but allowed states to go farther in protecting their citizens. But the House Republican bill sets a ceiling instead of a floor. States are not permitted to have stronger patients' rights laws. The bill would preempt the external review process in more than 40 states, abolishing state laws that provide greater protection for patients. In a bill that purports to expand patient protections, it is remarkable that the Republican bill actually takes rights away. The Federal RICO antiracketeering statute is a powerful weapon against fraud. Under current law, patients and businesses buying health insurance policies have the right to bring a RICO class action suit against a health insurance company which has engaged in systematic fraud. The House Republican bill would in essence repeal that right, erecting new barriers to class actions against health insurance companies. Not only does the Republican plan fail to protect patients against HMO abuse, it includes unrelated provisions that could actually harm patients. The bill provides new tax breaks for the healthy and wealthy by expanding and extending so-called ``Medical Savings Accounts.'' These accounts are the pet project of certain insurance companies that have made large donations to the Republican party. They not only benefit the healthy and wealthy purchasing high deductible insurance policies, but a number of independent analyses have concluded that they could result in dramatic premium increases for everyone else. Every day, we seem to find new evidence that the Republicans have never found a tax break for the wealthy that they didn't eagerly embrace. And finally, the Republican bill eliminates state regulation of so- called ``association health plans,'' a new name for multiemployer welfare arrangements. While well-run plans of this kind can benefit consumers, too often they have failed financially and left patients holding the bag. Fraud has been their frequent companion. Most authorities believe that they need more regulation, not less. And not only does the Republican plan expose millions of families to financial disaster, it would deny more millions important benefits required by state insurance laws--benefits that help women at risk of cervical cancer, children with birth defects, and the disabled. According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, hundreds of thousands of people, predominantly those in poorer health, could lose their coverage as a result of this proposal. I am disappointed that we were unable to reach an agreement with the Administration that would have made it possible to pass a strong, effective patients' bill of rights--one that would have protected patients without providing sweetheart deals for HMOs. It is unfortunate that this Administration so consistently sides with the wealthy and powerful and against the interests of ordinary people. The positions taken by the White House on these critical health issues do not represent the views of the American people. Just a few days after the President called for severe limitations on a patient's right to seek compensation when he or she is seriously injured by medical malpractice, a strong bi-partisan 57-42 majority of the Senate rejected the President's position and sided with patients. The Senate version of the patients' bill of rights--supported by virtually every group of patients, doctors, nurses, and advocates for workers and families--passed the Senate with a strong, bipartisan majority of 59-36 . In contrast, the key vote in the House of Representatives gutting the provisions of the bill which would hold HMOs accountable for injuring patients passed by a narrow partisan majority of only six votes--and then only after the Administration used every weapon of arm-twisting and patronage in the book to hold their votes in line. In the last two weeks, the Senate debated the critical issues of reducing the high cost of prescription drugs and providing a long- overdue prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Over the strenuous objections of the Republican leadership and the Administration, the Senate voted by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 78-21 to end abuses by wealthy and powerful drug companies that stifled competition and raised prices to patients. A majority of the Senate also voted to provide comprehensive prescription drug coverage under Medicare--but the objections of the Administration and the Republican leadership proved too strong to reach the 60 votes necessary for passage. The misplaced priorities behind the Republican position were made clear by separate comments of the President and the Republican leader. Senator Trent Lott stated that both the comprehensive plan a majority of the Senate supported and even the scaled-back downpayment plan were too expensive for the Republican leadership. But while Republicans rejected prescription drug coverage for the elderly as just too expensive, the President reiterated yesterday his support for extending the trillion dollar plus tax cuts that primarily benefitted the wealthy. While I am disappointed by the failure to reach agreement on the patients' bill of rights and to achieve 60 votes for Medicare prescription drug coverage, I am not discouraged. The American people want action, and in the end, I believe the Congress will listen to their voice. We will never give up the struggle for prescription drug coverage under Medicare until we mend the broken promise of Medicare and guarantee senior citizens the prescription drug coverage they deserve. And we will never give up the fight for a strong, effective patients' bill of rights. Now we will move to a patients' bill of rights conference with the House of Representatives and try once again. We commit today that we will do everything we can to make the conference a success. We will never give up this fight until all patients receive the protection they deserve. We will not rest until medical decisions are made by doctors, nurses, and patients, instead of insurance company bureaucrats. Finally, I want to once again commend my two friends and colleagues who provided such important leadership here on the floor of the Senate. They were valued advisers, counselors, and helpers in trying to work through, in a constructive and positive way, the differences that existed. They took an enormous amount of time, including great diligence, expertise, and understanding of the issues at stake; They were enormously constructive and helpful in trying to move this in a positive way. We were unsuccessful in that phase of this path towards completing our mission of achieving an effective Patients' Bill of Rights, but we are all committed to achieving it ultimately. I thank them for all the good work they have achieved.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the U.S. is in the midst of another ``jobless recovery,'' similar to the early 1990s, with the unemployment rate showing few signs of falling in the coming months. Over the past three months, the jobless rate has hovered around 6 percent and long- term unemployment levels now exceed those reached in any recent recession. Last month, nearly one in five unemployed workers remained out of work for six months or more. Some 150,000 jobs have been lost since the beginning of this year and 8.4 million people are currently unemployed. The recent spate of corporate scandals has only made it worse. Sadly, Enron and WorldCom were not isolated events of corporate greed that hurt America's workers. Tens of thousands have lost their jobs because of the disgrace and mistrust company leaders created, or because of company mismanagement. At Lucent, 77,000 workers were laid off. At Kmart, 22,000 workers were laid off. At Xerox, over 13,000 workers were laid off. At Tyco, almost 10,000 workers were laid off. At Global Crossing, over 9,000 workers were laid off. At Polaroid, over 4,000 workers were laid off. As new corporate scandals lead to additional mass lay-offs and Americans remain unemployed longer, workers are losing their unemployment benefits with no hope for a new job in sight. Too many low-wage and part-time workers remain without unemployment benefits. And benefit levels remain too low to keep families out of poverty in many states. Today, I along with Senators Clinton and Rockefeller, am introducing the Economic Security Act 2002 to protect those unemployed workers and reinvigorate the economy. Last year, Senate Democrats responded to the recession with an immediate plan to stimulate the economy and help laid-off workers get back on their feet. In March, House Republicans finally relented and we extended unemployment benefits for millions of workers. It was a significant step forward, but it did not go far enough. This week, economists confirmed that recovery is slow at best. Economic growth fell from 5.0 percent in the first quarter of 2002 to 1.1 percent in the second quarter. Business investment still has not recovered and continues to decline, while the trade deficit soared to record highs. Job growth, the last area of the economy to recover after a recession, continues to lag. As hundreds of thousands of workers exhaust their extended benefits, it's time to close the gaps in the extended benefit program. The Economic Security Act of 2002 will provide additional extended benefits for millions of workers who remain unemployed. The bill will also help those workers currently left out of the unemployment insurance system, part-time and low-wage workers. Part- time work is a significant part of our modern economy and women and low-wage workers disproportionately comprise the part-time workforce. Yet, the majority of states do not provide benefits to unemployed workers seeking part-time work. The twenty States that already provide benefits to unemployed part-time workers have not found their inclusion overly costly. In addition, according to the GAO, low-wage workers are half as likely to receive unemployment benefits than other unemployed workers, even though low-wage workers as twice as likely to be unemployed. In all but 12 States, most unemployed low-wage workers are not eligible for benefits because their most recent earnings are not counted. Failing to count a worker's most recent earnings not only denies unemployed workers benefits, but also cuts down on the duration and amount of benefits that some unemployed workers receive. These part-time and low-wage workers pay into the unemployment system, but fail to receive benefits. In January, Democratic Senators were joined by ten of our Republican colleagues in a vote to provide temporary benefits to part-time and low-wage workers, as well as increasing benefit levels and extending benefits. The Economic Security Act of 2002 incorporates these important provisions. Too often, those who receive unemployment find that unemployment checks are not sufficient to meet basic needs. In some states, the maximum weekly benefit amount is less than the poverty level for a one- parent, two-child family. Raising benefit levels helps families stay out of poverty and invests more in the economy. After all, unemployed workers immediately spend unemployment insurance benefits in their communities, providing immediate economic stimulus. This bill would give a boost to workers and the economy by raising temporary extended benefit levels by the greater of 15 percent or $25 a week. As Americans exhaust their benefits in greater numbers, we must ensure that all workers can put food on their families' tables and keep a roof over their heads when jobs are scarce. And we must ensure that unemployment insurance serves the purpose for which it was created, to serve as a safety net for all workers during tough economic times and stimulate economic growth. The Economic Security Act of 2002 will be a giant leap forward for America's workers.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the U.S. is in the midst of another ``jobless recovery,'' similar to the early 1990s, with the unemployment rate showing few signs of falling in the coming months. Over the past three months, the jobless rate has hovered around 6 percent and long- term unemployment levels now exceed those reached in any recent recession. Last month, nearly one in five unemployed workers remained out of work for six months or more. Some 150,000 jobs have been lost since the beginning of this year and 8.4 million people are currently unemployed. The recent spate of corporate scandals has only made it worse. Sadly, Enron and WorldCom were not isolated events of corporate greed that hurt America's workers. Tens of thousands have lost their jobs because of the disgrace and mistrust company leaders created, or because of company mismanagement. At Lucent, 77,000 workers were laid off. At Kmart, 22,000 workers were laid off. At Xerox, over 13,000 workers were laid off. At Tyco, almost 10,000 workers were laid off. At Global Crossing, over 9,000 workers were laid off. At Polaroid, over 4,000 workers were laid off. As new corporate scandals lead to additional mass lay-offs and Americans remain unemployed longer, workers are losing their unemployment benefits with no hope for a new job in sight. Too many low-wage and part-time workers remain without unemployment benefits. And benefit levels remain too low to keep families out of poverty in many states. Today, I along with Senators Clinton and Rockefeller, am introducing the Economic Security Act 2002 to protect those unemployed workers and reinvigorate the economy. Last year, Senate Democrats responded to the recession with an immediate plan to stimulate the economy and help laid-off workers get back on their feet. In March, House Republicans finally relented and we extended unemployment benefits for millions of workers. It was a significant step forward, but it did not go far enough. This week, economists confirmed that recovery is slow at best. Economic growth fell from 5.0 percent in the first quarter of 2002 to 1.1 percent in the second quarter. Business investment still has not recovered and continues to decline, while the trade deficit soared to record highs. Job growth, the last area of the economy to recover after a recession, continues to lag. As hundreds of thousands of workers exhaust their extended benefits, it's time to close the gaps in the extended benefit program. The Economic Security Act of 2002 will provide additional extended benefits for millions of workers who remain unemployed. The bill will also help those workers currently left out of the unemployment insurance system, part-time and low-wage workers. Part- time work is a significant part of our modern economy and women and low-wage workers disproportionately comprise the part-time workforce. Yet, the majority of states do not provide benefits to unemployed workers seeking part-time work. The twenty States that already provide benefits to unemployed part-time workers have not found their inclusion overly costly. In addition, according to the GAO, low-wage workers are half as likely to receive unemployment benefits than other unemployed workers, even though low-wage workers as twice as likely to be unemployed. In all but 12 States, most unemployed low-wage workers are not eligible for benefits because their most recent earnings are not counted. Failing to count a worker's most recent earnings not only denies unemployed workers benefits, but also cuts down on the duration and amount of benefits that some unemployed workers receive. These part-time and low-wage workers pay into the unemployment system, but fail to receive benefits. In January, Democratic Senators were joined by ten of our Republican colleagues in a vote to provide temporary benefits to part-time and low-wage workers, as well as increasing benefit levels and extending benefits. The Economic Security Act of 2002 incorporates these important provisions. Too often, those who receive unemployment find that unemployment checks are not sufficient to meet basic needs. In some states, the maximum weekly benefit amount is less than the poverty level for a one- parent, two-child family. Raising benefit levels helps families stay out of poverty and invests more in the economy. After all, unemployed workers immediately spend unemployment insurance benefits in their communities, providing immediate economic stimulus. This bill would give a boost to workers and the economy by raising temporary extended benefit levels by the greater of 15 percent or $25 a week. As Americans exhaust their benefits in greater numbers, we must ensure that all workers can put food on their families' tables and keep a roof over their heads when jobs are scarce. And we must ensure that unemployment insurance serves the purpose for which it was created, to serve as a safety net for all workers during tough economic times and stimulate economic growth. The Economic Security Act of 2002 will be a giant leap forward for America's workers.