Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I join my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, in expressing our appreciation to all of our cosponsors for this legislation that we have introduced. And I commend him for the excellent presentation and description of the legislation that he has just given to the Senate this morning. We indicate to our friends and colleagues that this legislation is very similar to the legislation that was included in the larger tobacco legislation the Senate considered several years ago. It was not really subject to any amendments that I remember during that period of time. That overall legislation, I believe, gained 58 votes on the floor of the Senate. So we had broad support for the legislation. In many respects, I think there is even broader support for this particular legislation. So we are very hopeful we will be able to make progress in considering this legislation favorably in the Senate, and in the House, and have it become law. We have every intention of holding hearings and, hopefully a markup in July. I believe we will have very broad support from our colleagues for the reasons Senator DeWine has outlined. This legislation is focused on children and what we can do to discourage children from becoming addicted to tobacco in this country. I will just take a very few moments to review the highlights. Just very quickly, every day, 5,000 children try their first cigarette. More than 2,000 become new daily smokers. A third will die prematurely. If the current trend continues, 6.4 million children, who are under 18 years of age, will die prematurely from smoking related illness. 400,000 people a year die from smoke related illness. We are telling the youth of America their lives are going to be greatly shortened as a result of this kind of addiction. As I mentioned, 400,000 Americans die each year from smoke-caused disease, and tobacco costs $75 billion in annual health care costs. These are costs that are spent by Medicare, Medicaid, veterans hospitals, and expended privately. Again, to give the focus of where the advertising is going, this chart shows the number of teens between 12 and 17 who were reached five or more times by tobacco advertising in the year 1999. A March 2002 study asked teenagers and adults, ``have you seen any advertising for cigarettes or spit tobacco in the last 2 weeks?'' For the teenagers, 64 percent had seen advertising; while for adults, just 27 percent. What we are maintaining is that the industry is targeting children. These are commercial surveys, and they substantiate our point. The money that is being expended for these extraordinary advertising budgets is targeted to teenagers, to effectively hook them and addict them. This chart shows the very substantial increase in promotional expenditures from 1997 to the year 2000. As the chart showed, expenditures totaled $5.660 billion in 1997 and increased to $9.5 billion in the year 2000. Over the last 5 years, it has virtually doubled. Where is it being targeted? The children. Are the children seeing it? Yes. Are they becoming more addicted? Yes. Is this really a national problem? Yes. Can we do something about it? Yes. Will this legislation do something about it? Yes, because it incorporates many of the recommendations made by former heads of the FDA as well as from the many experts we have heard from at a range of hearings we have held. The bottom line: If smoking rates do not decline, over 6 million children who are alive today under the age of 18 will suffer premature death. This is a matter of enormous importance. It is of importance to families, to parents, to children, and to our country. We have targeted, responsible legislation to deal with this issue. We are serious about presenting it to the Senate, which we will do. We are looking for broad support from the American people. We are grateful for all of the public health agencies that support it: cancer, heart, lung, all of the various health-related agencies that support this legislation. They are going to be strong allies. Mr. Myers, who is with Tobacco Free Children, has done such an extraordinary job and has made this a high priority. We are serious about it, and we hope to be able to help the families in this country by doing something about children being addicted to cigarettes. This bill will give the Food and Drug Administration broad authority to regulate tobacco products for the protection of the public health. We cannot in good conscience allow the federal agency most responsible for protecting the public health to remain powerless to deal with the enormous risks of tobacco, the most deadly of all consumer products. The provisions in this bill closely track those in the bipartisan compromise reached during Senate consideration of comprehensive tobacco control legislation in 1998. Fifty-eight Senators supported it at that time. That legislation was never enacted because of disputes over tobacco taxation and litigation, not over FDA authority. This FDA provision is a fair and balanced approach to FDA regulation. It creates a new section in FDA jurisdiction for the regulation of tobacco products, with standards that allow for consideration of the unique issues raised by tobacco use. It is sensitive to the concerns of tobacco farmers, small businesses, and nicotine-dependent smokers. But, it clearly gives FDA the authority it needs in order to prevent youth smoking and to reduce addiction to this highly lethal product. I believe that any attempt to weaken the 1998 language would undermine the FDA's ability to deal effectively with the enormous health risks posed by smoking. This concern is shared by a number of independent public health experts. The bipartisan compromise agreed to in 1998 is still the best opportunity for Senators to come together and grant FDA the regulatory authority it needs to substantially reduce the number of children who start smoking and to help addicted smokers quit. Nothing less will do the job. The stakes are vast. Five thousand children have their first cigarette every day, and two thousand of them become daily smokers. Nearly a thousand of them will die prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in the nation today. Cigarettes kill well over four hundred thousand Americans each year. That is more lives lost than from automobile accidents, alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, AIDS, murder, suicide, and fires combined. Our response to a public health problem of this magnitude must consist of more than half-way measures. We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The tobacco industry currently spends over nine billion dollars a year to promote its products. Much of that money is spent in ways designed to tempt children to start smoking, before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity of the health risk. The industry knows that more than 90 percent of smokers begin as children and are addicted by the time they reach adulthood. Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies' own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children into dependency on their deadly product. Recent studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the substantial role of industry advertising in decisions by young people to use tobacco products. If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, FDA must have the power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children. This legislation will give FDA the ability to stop tobacco advertising which glamorizes smoking from appearing where it will be seen by significant numbers of children. FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. Nearly every state makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 18, but surveys show that those laws are rarely enforced and frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self- service displays and vending machine sales. There must also be serious enforcement efforts with real penalties for those caught selling tobacco products to children. This is the only way to ensure that children under 18 are not able to buy cigarettes. The FDA conducted the longest rulemaking proceeding in its history, studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its proceeding, the Agency promulgated rules on the manner in which cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new multi- year rulemaking process on the same issues. This legislation will give the youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by FDA the immediate force of law, as if they had been issued under the new statute. The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These warnings will be more explicit in their description of the medical problems which can result from tobacco use. The FDA is given the authority to change the text of these warning labels periodically, to keep their impact strong. Nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say that it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco companies have vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products. No one can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under oath before Congress as recently as 1994 that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through the discovery process proves that the companies not only knew of this addictiveness for decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even more addictive. The tobacco industry has a long, dishonorable history of providing misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end. Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the FDA regulate them for the protection of the public health. Over forty million Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. No responsible public health official believes that cigarettes should be banned. A ban would leave forty million people without a way to satisfy their drug dependency. FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers overcome their addiction, and to make the product less toxic for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA must have the authority to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, to the extent that it becomes scientifically feasible. The inherent risk in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded. Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes. This legislation will require manufacturers to submit such ``reduced risk'' products to the FDA for analysis before they can be marketed. No health-related claims will be permitted until they have been verified to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential to prevent deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the public into a false sense of health safety. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America. Congress must vest FDA not only with the responsibility for regulating tobacco products, but with full authority to do the job effectively. This legislation will give the FDA the legal authority it needs: To reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which targets children; to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors; to help smokers overcome their addiction; to make tobacco products less toxic for those who continue to use them; and to prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking. We cannot allow the tobacco industry to stop us from doing what we know is right for America's children. I intend to do all I can to see that Congress enacts this legislation this year. The public health demands it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Medicare is a solemn promise between government and its citizens and between the generations. It says, ``Contribute to the system during your working years and we will assure you health security in your retirement years.'' But that promise is broken every day, because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. The Graham-Miller-Kennedy Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2002 sends the message loud and clear: it is time to mend Medicare's broken promise. There is no domestic issue that is more important to the American people than assuring that senior citizens can afford the prescription drugs they need. Senior citizens have an average income of $15,000, and they spend an average of $2,000 of that limited income on prescription drugs. Too many of our elderly citizens must choose between food on the table and the medicine their doctors prescribe. Too many of the elderly are taking half the drugs their doctor prescribes, or none at all, because they simply can't afford them. Every day we delay, the problem becomes worse. Prescription drugs costs are escalating at double-digit rates. One-third of all senior citizens don't have a dime of prescription drug coverage, and those who do have coverage are in danger of losing it. The sad fact is that the only senior citizens who have reliable, affordable, adequate coverage are the very poor on Medicaid. That is not good enough, and we are here today to say that America owes it to its senior citizens to do better. Every politician understands that senior citizens, and their children, and their grandchildren want action. Every politician understands that opposition to a prescription drug benefit is not a sustainable position. The question is not whether Congress will pass a bill; the question is whether we will pass a bill that truly provides the protection senior citizens need. The elderly do not need a prescription drug benefit that cannot pass the truth in advertising test. They don't need a benefit that pays pennies on the dollar for the medicines the elderly need to survive. They do not need a benefit that offers the pretence of relief but not the performance. The bill we are offering today mends the broken promise of Medicare. It offers real benefits at a price the elderly can afford. It is a lifeline for every senior citizen who needs prescription drugs. It is a priority for the American people. It is time to pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. It is time for Congress to listen to the American people instead of the powerful special interests.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I join my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, in expressing our appreciation to all of our cosponsors for this legislation that we have introduced. And I commend him for the excellent presentation and description of the legislation that he has just given to the Senate this morning. We indicate to our friends and colleagues that this legislation is very similar to the legislation that was included in the larger tobacco legislation the Senate considered several years ago. It was not really subject to any amendments that I remember during that period of time. That overall legislation, I believe, gained 58 votes on the floor of the Senate. So we had broad support for the legislation. In many respects, I think there is even broader support for this particular legislation. So we are very hopeful we will be able to make progress in considering this legislation favorably in the Senate, and in the House, and have it become law. We have every intention of holding hearings and, hopefully a markup in July. I believe we will have very broad support from our colleagues for the reasons Senator DeWine has outlined. This legislation is focused on children and what we can do to discourage children from becoming addicted to tobacco in this country. I will just take a very few moments to review the highlights. Just very quickly, every day, 5,000 children try their first cigarette. More than 2,000 become new daily smokers. A third will die prematurely. If the current trend continues, 6.4 million children, who are under 18 years of age, will die prematurely from smoking related illness. 400,000 people a year die from smoke related illness. We are telling the youth of America their lives are going to be greatly shortened as a result of this kind of addiction. As I mentioned, 400,000 Americans die each year from smoke-caused disease, and tobacco costs $75 billion in annual health care costs. These are costs that are spent by Medicare, Medicaid, veterans hospitals, and expended privately. Again, to give the focus of where the advertising is going, this chart shows the number of teens between 12 and 17 who were reached five or more times by tobacco advertising in the year 1999. A March 2002 study asked teenagers and adults, ``have you seen any advertising for cigarettes or spit tobacco in the last 2 weeks?'' For the teenagers, 64 percent had seen advertising; while for adults, just 27 percent. What we are maintaining is that the industry is targeting children. These are commercial surveys, and they substantiate our point. The money that is being expended for these extraordinary advertising budgets is targeted to teenagers, to effectively hook them and addict them. This chart shows the very substantial increase in promotional expenditures from 1997 to the year 2000. As the chart showed, expenditures totaled $5.660 billion in 1997 and increased to $9.5 billion in the year 2000. Over the last 5 years, it has virtually doubled. Where is it being targeted? The children. Are the children seeing it? Yes. Are they becoming more addicted? Yes. Is this really a national problem? Yes. Can we do something about it? Yes. Will this legislation do something about it? Yes, because it incorporates many of the recommendations made by former heads of the FDA as well as from the many experts we have heard from at a range of hearings we have held. The bottom line: If smoking rates do not decline, over 6 million children who are alive today under the age of 18 will suffer premature death. This is a matter of enormous importance. It is of importance to families, to parents, to children, and to our country. We have targeted, responsible legislation to deal with this issue. We are serious about presenting it to the Senate, which we will do. We are looking for broad support from the American people. We are grateful for all of the public health agencies that support it: cancer, heart, lung, all of the various health-related agencies that support this legislation. They are going to be strong allies. Mr. Myers, who is with Tobacco Free Children, has done such an extraordinary job and has made this a high priority. We are serious about it, and we hope to be able to help the families in this country by doing something about children being addicted to cigarettes. This bill will give the Food and Drug Administration broad authority to regulate tobacco products for the protection of the public health. We cannot in good conscience allow the federal agency most responsible for protecting the public health to remain powerless to deal with the enormous risks of tobacco, the most deadly of all consumer products. The provisions in this bill closely track those in the bipartisan compromise reached during Senate consideration of comprehensive tobacco control legislation in 1998. Fifty-eight Senators supported it at that time. That legislation was never enacted because of disputes over tobacco taxation and litigation, not over FDA authority. This FDA provision is a fair and balanced approach to FDA regulation. It creates a new section in FDA jurisdiction for the regulation of tobacco products, with standards that allow for consideration of the unique issues raised by tobacco use. It is sensitive to the concerns of tobacco farmers, small businesses, and nicotine-dependent smokers. But, it clearly gives FDA the authority it needs in order to prevent youth smoking and to reduce addiction to this highly lethal product. I believe that any attempt to weaken the 1998 language would undermine the FDA's ability to deal effectively with the enormous health risks posed by smoking. This concern is shared by a number of independent public health experts. The bipartisan compromise agreed to in 1998 is still the best opportunity for Senators to come together and grant FDA the regulatory authority it needs to substantially reduce the number of children who start smoking and to help addicted smokers quit. Nothing less will do the job. The stakes are vast. Five thousand children have their first cigarette every day, and two thousand of them become daily smokers. Nearly a thousand of them will die prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in the nation today. Cigarettes kill well over four hundred thousand Americans each year. That is more lives lost than from automobile accidents, alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, AIDS, murder, suicide, and fires combined. Our response to a public health problem of this magnitude must consist of more than half-way measures. We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The tobacco industry currently spends over nine billion dollars a year to promote its products. Much of that money is spent in ways designed to tempt children to start smoking, before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity of the health risk. The industry knows that more than 90 percent of smokers begin as children and are addicted by the time they reach adulthood. Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies' own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children into dependency on their deadly product. Recent studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the substantial role of industry advertising in decisions by young people to use tobacco products. If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, FDA must have the power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children. This legislation will give FDA the ability to stop tobacco advertising which glamorizes smoking from appearing where it will be seen by significant numbers of children. FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. Nearly every state makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 18, but surveys show that those laws are rarely enforced and frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self- service displays and vending machine sales. There must also be serious enforcement efforts with real penalties for those caught selling tobacco products to children. This is the only way to ensure that children under 18 are not able to buy cigarettes. The FDA conducted the longest rulemaking proceeding in its history, studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its proceeding, the Agency promulgated rules on the manner in which cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new multi- year rulemaking process on the same issues. This legislation will give the youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by FDA the immediate force of law, as if they had been issued under the new statute. The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These warnings will be more explicit in their description of the medical problems which can result from tobacco use. The FDA is given the authority to change the text of these warning labels periodically, to keep their impact strong. Nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say that it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco companies have vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products. No one can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under oath before Congress as recently as 1994 that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through the discovery process proves that the companies not only knew of this addictiveness for decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even more addictive. The tobacco industry has a long, dishonorable history of providing misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end. Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the FDA regulate them for the protection of the public health. Over forty million Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. No responsible public health official believes that cigarettes should be banned. A ban would leave forty million people without a way to satisfy their drug dependency. FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers overcome their addiction, and to make the product less toxic for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA must have the authority to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, to the extent that it becomes scientifically feasible. The inherent risk in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded. Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes. This legislation will require manufacturers to submit such ``reduced risk'' products to the FDA for analysis before they can be marketed. No health-related claims will be permitted until they have been verified to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential to prevent deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the public into a false sense of health safety. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America. Congress must vest FDA not only with the responsibility for regulating tobacco products, but with full authority to do the job effectively. This legislation will give the FDA the legal authority it needs: To reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which targets children; to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors; to help smokers overcome their addiction; to make tobacco products less toxic for those who continue to use them; and to prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking. We cannot allow the tobacco industry to stop us from doing what we know is right for America's children. I intend to do all I can to see that Congress enacts this legislation this year. The public health demands it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Medicare is a solemn promise between government and its citizens and between the generations. It says, ``Contribute to the system during your working years and we will assure you health security in your retirement years.'' But that promise is broken every day, because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. The Graham-Miller-Kennedy Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2002 sends the message loud and clear: it is time to mend Medicare's broken promise. There is no domestic issue that is more important to the American people than assuring that senior citizens can afford the prescription drugs they need. Senior citizens have an average income of $15,000, and they spend an average of $2,000 of that limited income on prescription drugs. Too many of our elderly citizens must choose between food on the table and the medicine their doctors prescribe. Too many of the elderly are taking half the drugs their doctor prescribes, or none at all, because they simply can't afford them. Every day we delay, the problem becomes worse. Prescription drugs costs are escalating at double-digit rates. One-third of all senior citizens don't have a dime of prescription drug coverage, and those who do have coverage are in danger of losing it. The sad fact is that the only senior citizens who have reliable, affordable, adequate coverage are the very poor on Medicaid. That is not good enough, and we are here today to say that America owes it to its senior citizens to do better. Every politician understands that senior citizens, and their children, and their grandchildren want action. Every politician understands that opposition to a prescription drug benefit is not a sustainable position. The question is not whether Congress will pass a bill; the question is whether we will pass a bill that truly provides the protection senior citizens need. The elderly do not need a prescription drug benefit that cannot pass the truth in advertising test. They don't need a benefit that pays pennies on the dollar for the medicines the elderly need to survive. They do not need a benefit that offers the pretence of relief but not the performance. The bill we are offering today mends the broken promise of Medicare. It offers real benefits at a price the elderly can afford. It is a lifeline for every senior citizen who needs prescription drugs. It is a priority for the American people. It is time to pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. It is time for Congress to listen to the American people instead of the powerful special interests.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as the Supreme Court has made clear, ``being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.'' Government officials have a duty under the Constitution to prevent prison violence. Too often, however, officials fail to take obvious steps to protect vulnerable inmates. Prison rape is a serious problem in our Nation's prisons, jails, and detention facilities. Of the two million prisoners in the United States, it is conservatively estimated that one in ten has been raped. According to a 1996 study, 22 percent of prisoners in Nebraska had been pressured or forced to have sex against their will while incarcerated. Human Rights Watch recently reported, ``shockingly high rates of sexual abuse'' in U.S. prisons. Prison rape causes severe physical and psychological pain to its victims. It also leads to the increased transmission of HIV, hepatitis, and other diseases. The brutalization in prison also makes it more likely that prisoners will commit crimes after they are released, as 600,000 prisoners are each year. To deal with this serious problem, Senator Sessions and I are today introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002. This bipartisan legislation is intended to address the prison-rape epidemic in an effective and comprehensive manner, while still respecting the primary role of States and local governments in administering prisons and jails. Our bill directs the Department of Justice to conduct an annual statistical review and analysis of the frequency and effects of prison rape. It establishes a special panel to conduct hearings on prison systems, prisons, and jails where the incidence of rape is high. It directs the Attorney General to collect complaints of rape from inmates, transmit them to the appropriate authorities, and review how the authorities respond. It also directs the Attorney General to provide information, assistance, and training to Federal, State, and local authorities on the prevention, investigation, and punishment of prison rape. Our bill also authorizes $40 million in grants to enhance the prevention, investigation, and punishment of prison rape. These grants will strengthen the ability of state and local officials to prevent these abuses. Finally, our bill establishes a commission that will conduct hearings over two years and recommend national correctional standards on a wide range of issues, including inmate classification, investigation of rape complaints, trauma case for rape victims, disease prevention, and staff training. These standards should apply as soon as possible to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prison accreditation organizations that receive Federal funding should also adopt the standards. States should adopt the standards too. If they ``opt out'' by passing a statute, they will suffer no penalty, but States that fail to act at all will lose 20 percent of their prison-related federal funding. Our bill is supported by a broad coalition of religious, civil rights, and human rights organizations, including the Salvation Army, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals, Prison Fellowship, Focus on the Family, the Presbyterian Church, the Justice Policy Institute, the Sentencing Project, Youth Law Center, Human Rights Watch, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the National Council of La Raza. Together, these diverse groups have demonstrated impressive moral leadership on this issue. It is a privilege to work on this legislation with Congressmen Frank Wolf and Bobby Scott in the House and Senator Sessions in the Senate. While we may disagree on other issues relating to criminal justice, we all recognize that rape is unacceptable, and it is long past time to end it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as the Supreme Court has made clear, ``being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.'' Government officials have a duty under the Constitution to prevent prison violence. Too often, however, officials fail to take obvious steps to protect vulnerable inmates. Prison rape is a serious problem in our Nation's prisons, jails, and detention facilities. Of the two million prisoners in the United States, it is conservatively estimated that one in ten has been raped. According to a 1996 study, 22 percent of prisoners in Nebraska had been pressured or forced to have sex against their will while incarcerated. Human Rights Watch recently reported, ``shockingly high rates of sexual abuse'' in U.S. prisons. Prison rape causes severe physical and psychological pain to its victims. It also leads to the increased transmission of HIV, hepatitis, and other diseases. The brutalization in prison also makes it more likely that prisoners will commit crimes after they are released, as 600,000 prisoners are each year. To deal with this serious problem, Senator Sessions and I are today introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002. This bipartisan legislation is intended to address the prison-rape epidemic in an effective and comprehensive manner, while still respecting the primary role of States and local governments in administering prisons and jails. Our bill directs the Department of Justice to conduct an annual statistical review and analysis of the frequency and effects of prison rape. It establishes a special panel to conduct hearings on prison systems, prisons, and jails where the incidence of rape is high. It directs the Attorney General to collect complaints of rape from inmates, transmit them to the appropriate authorities, and review how the authorities respond. It also directs the Attorney General to provide information, assistance, and training to Federal, State, and local authorities on the prevention, investigation, and punishment of prison rape. Our bill also authorizes $40 million in grants to enhance the prevention, investigation, and punishment of prison rape. These grants will strengthen the ability of state and local officials to prevent these abuses. Finally, our bill establishes a commission that will conduct hearings over two years and recommend national correctional standards on a wide range of issues, including inmate classification, investigation of rape complaints, trauma case for rape victims, disease prevention, and staff training. These standards should apply as soon as possible to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prison accreditation organizations that receive Federal funding should also adopt the standards. States should adopt the standards too. If they ``opt out'' by passing a statute, they will suffer no penalty, but States that fail to act at all will lose 20 percent of their prison-related federal funding. Our bill is supported by a broad coalition of religious, civil rights, and human rights organizations, including the Salvation Army, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals, Prison Fellowship, Focus on the Family, the Presbyterian Church, the Justice Policy Institute, the Sentencing Project, Youth Law Center, Human Rights Watch, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the National Council of La Raza. Together, these diverse groups have demonstrated impressive moral leadership on this issue. It is a privilege to work on this legislation with Congressmen Frank Wolf and Bobby Scott in the House and Senator Sessions in the Senate. While we may disagree on other issues relating to criminal justice, we all recognize that rape is unacceptable, and it is long past time to end it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected an on-budget surplus of $3 trillion over the decade. One year later, the projection is for a $242 billion on-budget deficit. The largest single reason for that stunning change is not the cost of the war on terrorism nor the recession, it is the $1.7 trillion cost of the President's tax cut. The administration's proposed budget this year would make the existing crisis far worse, dramatically expanding the deficit to nearly $1.5 trillion. The Social Security trust fund would be used to cover an on-budget shortfall every year through fiscal year 2012. Just yesterday, at the urging of the administration, we voted to raise the debt limit by $450 billion. That increase will only carry us until next spring. The Treasury Department has already said that we will have to raise the ceiling on government borrowing again early next year. Despite the overwhelming evidence, it seems that some of our colleagues across the aisle remain oblivious to the connection between the larger and larger tax cuts they espouse and the growing deficits that inevitably result. Why, in this time of budgetary crisis--when the war on terrorism is making making new demands on our resources, and when the enormous cost of the retirement of the baby boom generation is looming just over the horizon--should we be considering another large tax cut for the wealthiest taxpayers? There is no good answer. Permanent repeal of the estate tax is unaffordable. In the first year, full repeal will cost $56 billion. Over the decade beginning in 2012, the estimated revenue loss to the Treasury is $740 billion. Permanent repeal of the estate tax is unfair. While it benefits only the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers, each year it will consume billions of dollars which are needed to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits for millions of retirees. Permanent repeal of the estate tax is unnecessary. Currently, all estates under $1 million are exempt from the estate tax. That exemption will rise to $3.5 million under existing law. At that point, only the largest one-half of 1 percent of estates will be subject to the tax. Making that higher exemption level permanent will protect the vast majority of the family farms and family owned small businesses. Their estate tax will be zero. Permanently repealing the estate tax, as our Republican colleagues proposed, would be the triumph of reckless ideology over fiscal prudence. It would jeopardize our ability to meet the Nation's most fundamental responsibilities in future years. In the Bush administration's budget, in a section titled ``The Threat to the Budget from the Impending Demographic Transition,'' it states: ``In the years that follow [2008], the population over the age 62 will skyrocket, putting serious strains on the budget because of increased expenditures for Social Security and for the Government's health programs which serve the elderly--Medicare and increasingly Medicaid.'' The resources which will be lost to the Treasury by repeal of the estate tax are essential to financially strengthening Social Security and Medicare. Dedicating the revenue from the estate tax to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds would go a long way to securing those programs fro future generations of senior citizens. Over the next 75 years, revenue generated by the current estate tax would be equivalent to nearly 40 percent of the shortfall in the Social Security Trust Fund. Those dollars should go where they are needed most--to preserve the promise of Social Security for future generations of retirees. While the advocates of permanent estate tax repeal are reluctant to admit it, this vote is really about the financial future of Social Security and Medicare. Repeal would be a windfall for the wealthiest few at the expense of our ability to keep Social Security and Medicare strong for all seniors. Do we choose to commit hundreds of billions of dollars to cover the cost of estate tax repeal or to maintain Social Security and Medicare for future retirees? In the year 2000, nearly 40 million Americans received Social Security retirement benefits. With the retirement of the baby boomers, that number will steadily grow. By 2010, it will exceed 50 million. In comparison, fewer than fifty thousand of the largest estates paid any estate tax in 2000. That was just 2 percent of decedents. With the increase of the estate tax exemption to $3.5 million by 2009, the number of estates paying tax will be further reduced to about 10,000 a year. Just one-half of 1 percent of estates will be subject to the estate tax. Which group needs our help more--the 50 million men and women counting on Social Security or the heirs of the 10,000 wealthy decedents with multi-million dollar estates? I believe the answer to that question should be clear to all. Those who most passionately decry the ``unfairness'' of taxing multi- million dollar estates are strangely silent about the unfairness of jeopardizing the retirement benefits of low-wage workers or the unfairness of forcing elderly widows to choose between food and medicine. Which of these injustices should move the Senate to action? Many bogus claims have been made to distract attention from the real fairness issue. Those advocating permanent repeal claim it is ``double taxation.'' In fact, a major portion of the assets in these multi- million dollar estates are unrealized capital gains which are never taxed. Those favoring repeal assert the Federal Government takes more than half of all the assets in these estates. This too is incorrect. The Congressional Research Service analyzed the Federal estate tax burden on estates that were subject to taxation in 1999 and determined that the effective rate was just 12.4 percent. On the largest estates, those over $20 million, the effective rate was 17.6 percent. These are certainly not unreasonable rates to ask the richest men and women in the Nation to pay. There appears to be a consensus in the Chamber to permanently exempt estates up to $3.5 million from taxation. That feature is common to all the proposals. I support it. So, in essence the debate is whether the Federal Government should tax estates larger than $3.5 million. Do those who have been given the most--the heirs to these fortunes--have a special obligation to help the less fortunate members of the American community? That is the real fairness question before the Senate today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator makes a point on race, religion, on gender, sexual orientation, on disability. This legislation goes to the core of the bias and hatred and addresses that. It gives the Justice Department the tools to be able to prosecute those. I thank the Senator. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 4 minutes. With regard to the procedure, there have been two occasions when the majority leader has requested that we have a debate on this legislation and have relevant amendments. That process and that procedure were objected to by the other side. First of all, during the more than 30 years that the existing hate crimes statute has been on the books, the federal government has never tried a hate crime case in which it sought the death penalty. There is nothing in our bill that prohibits a State with the death penalty from seeking that punishment if the State decides to prosecute the hate crime. The fact remains that nothing in our bill would allow the federal government to take jurisdiction away from a State that wants to prosecute a hate crime and seek the death penalty. It is interesting. During this debate, we know exactly what our situation is. If you talk about race, national origin, and religion, they are protected, if they fall within the six categories. But sexual orientation is not. Disability is not protected. Neither is gender. Even in the amendment offered by the Senator from Utah, he excludes gender. The Republican leadership of the House of Representatives will not take protection of sexual orientation. Those are the facts. Sometime, some day, we have to deal with the realities. This has been out there for 5 years. We have the support of 22 attorneys general. We have the support of the former Attorney General of the United States, Dick Thornburgh, who understands the importance of this legislation. There is a need out there. You are not going to get that kind of inclusion, those kinds of protections, in terms of gender, under the amendment of the Senator from Utah, and you will not get it under the Republican leadership. Those are the facts. We have the list of the amendments. We have an anti-abortion amendment by the Senator from Pennsylvania here. Relevant amendments. The list goes on. The leader asked for the ability to do that. At some time we have to take action. We know what this is really all about. We have had this for 5 years. We passed it 57 to 42 last year and were denied the opportunity to get this out of the conference because of the Republican leadership in the House. The real question is, Are we going to take the action now? How long do people have to wait to get this protection? They have waited 5 years. We have a lot of pious statements here about the need for protection for American citizens on the basis of sexual orientation and disability and gender. Yet we refuse to address it or pass it. That is the question and the issue. It is domestic terrorism. These are crimes based upon hate and prejudice that ruin not only the individual but the community and the Nation. That is what we are talking about. Trying to dismiss this as routine kinds of investigations isn't what this is about. The Senator from Utah understands that. That is the question--whether we are going to be prepared to take those steps to provide the limited but extremely important opportunity to make sure we are going to do something. How about sending a message to those people out there in terms of the potential of hate-motivated crimes? We sent them a message when we passed the church burning legislation. We sent a powerful message, and that virtually stopped. How about doing the same thing with regard to hate crimes because of sexual orientation or gender or disability? What is the other side scared of? They say we are going to federalize another thing. Well, they found 37 other provisions they are glad to federalize, but not this kind of protection. As the Senator from Oregon said, this protection is rooted in animus, the basic hatred that motivates these kinds of crimes. The question is, Are we going to do something about it? This is the time. Twice Republicans rejected the opportunity for debate on relevant amendments. We know what is happening. This is the vote. This is the time. We want to make it very clear, and I am hopeful that we get cloture. If we do not, I want to give the assurance to the Senator from Utah that we are going to be back again and again. So have no fear about not addressing this issue because this is just the beginning, and we are going to continue the battle through this session.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Senator one additional question, and we will hold our time with the agreement of the Senator to have the last 10 minutes. Does the Senator believe the Federal Government has less of an interest in combating hate violence against gays and lesbians than hate violence based on race?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the most fundamental right we have as citizens is to be able to live in a peaceful country without the fear of violence in our society. We have seen so many different instances where violence has come in our society based on race, religion, and national origin. We have, over a period of years, tried to free ourselves from that form of discrimination. That is what this is about: Making sure that every American, regardless of their race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender, is going to have the full support and weight of the Justice Department to ensure they will be able to live in this country in peace and dignity and some security. That should be a responsibility of the Justice Department, and it should be a common responsibility for all Americans. That is not the state of affairs today, but this legislation will guarantee that. That is why it is so important. We are not prepared to exclude any different group. We want to include all Americans. That is why this legislation includes all of those groups. It is broadly supported by the law enforcement community, 22 attorneys general, former attorneys general from the United States, Republicans, and by virtually all the diverse religious leaders. They understand the moral issues, the moral compulsion, as well as the issues of liberty that are included. I hope we would now invoke cloture. So all Members know, obviously if the amendments are germane, they will be considered after cloture. But let us give this message to all Americans that they will live in a secure nation. Cloture Motion

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator makes a very good point that Congress went on record 32 years ago that we were going to have a Justice Department that was going to prosecute hate crimes. We have addressed that particular issue. We have made the decision. During the more than 30 years since the current hate crimes law was passed, the Federal Government on average, has prosecuted only four hate crimes per year. By working cooperatively, state and federal law enforcement officials have the best chance of bringing the perpetrators of hate crimes swiftly to justice. Now, as the Senator points out, another frequent argument we hear against the hate crimes bill. Opponents argue that the law is unnecessary because these crimes already are prosecuted at the State level. In the past thirty years, Congress has enacted dozens of federal drug and gun laws that criminalize conduct that already is illegal under state law. We didn't pass these laws because States were failing to their job, but rather because we believed that the Federal government had an important role to play in helping States combat violent crime. Our motivation in passing the hate crimes bill is no different. The most important benefit of both state and federal criminal jurisdiction is the ability of state and federal law enforcement officials to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of serious hate crimes. When federal jurisdiction has existed in the limited areas authorized by current law, the federal government's resources, forensic expertise, and experience in the identification and proof of hate-based motivations have often provided valuable investigative assistance to local authorities without usurping the traditional role of states in prosecuting crimes. We made a judgment, and even though there were State laws, we were going to pass this because there was an important interest in doing it. Can the Senator find anything more important than trying to attack the basic core, the bias and hatred that motivates people to commit these crimes and make sure that we have a Justice Department that will be able to fight this with both arms, rather than one arm tied behind its back?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the Senator from Minnesota 2 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand we have 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Oregon, and I will take the last minute and a half.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as I understand it, the time between now and 11:45 a.m. is equally divided, and at 11:45 a.m., we will vote on the cloture motion on the hate crimes legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I object.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Kentucky, I think the objective of the Senator is enormously worthwhile. I may very well come out and support the proposal of the Senator from Kentucky. I have been notified by the leadership there are those who have a proposal that may have some different features and they would like to be heard on that particular proposal, but I thank the Senator. I think the issues on adoption are enormously important. I think the idea of trying to provide assistance to those families is incredibly valuable. I have had the opportunity, for example, to have hearings on families from Canada with grown children who have adopted children with special needs. They adopted these children who had special needs even though they had younger children because, under the Canadian health care system, they offset the medical aspects of the special needs children. I asked the mother why she adopted special needs children when she had three or four children of her own. Her response was she wanted her children to understand what love was really all about. I may very well support the Senator and try to go even further than the Senator from Kentucky. I admire him for raising the issue on the floor, and I only object because of what I have been notified by the leadership.

Mr. KENNEDY. Since I am the one who objected, I say I will bring it up with the chairman of the Finance Committee and ask him if he would talk to the Senator from Kentucky about what their plans are and urge him to give us an opportunity to address this issue.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would be more than glad to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am doing it on behalf of the leadership because I understand we have Members who want to offer amendments and have a somewhat different view than the Senator from Kentucky and want the opportunity to do so and have that determined by the Senate. For that reason, I object.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, each year the American Immigration Law Foundation and the American Immigration Lawyers Association sponsor a national writing contest on immigration. Thousands of fifth-grade students from across the country participate in the competition, responding to the statement, ``Why I'm Glad America is a Nation of Immigrants.'' These essays remind us that it is of great importance that we not forget our rich history and heritage as a nation of immigrants. Continued immigration is part of our national well-being, our identity as a nation, and our strength in today's world. I had the privilege of serving as one of the judges for this year's contest, and was very impressed by the young writers. In their essays, the students showed great pride in our Nation's diversity and its immigrant heritage, and many told the story of their own family's immigration. I am pleased to announce that this year's winner is a Massachusetts resident, Nicole Florio, a fifth-grade student in Framingham, MA. In her poem, ``Why Am I Glad,'' Nicole explores the value of her friends' cultures and how their diversity enhances her life. She describes the diverse traditions and treasures of her friends, from Ceilidh's Irish step-dancing to Anastasia's nesting dolls. In the final stanza, Nicole notes how she herself is a product of immigrants, as all of us are, and that without immigration, ``there would be no me!'' Other students honored for their creative essays were Mike Duffy of Sarasota, FL, Emily Friedman of Los Angeles, CA, Christina Jundt of Norcross, GA, and Ilana Pena of North Miami Beach, FL. I believe that these award-winning essays in the ``Celebrate America'' contest will be of interest to all of us in the Senate, and ask that they be printed in the Record. The essays follow. Why Am I Glad America Is a Nation of Immigrants (By Nicole Florio, Hemenway Elementary School, Farmingham, MA, Grand Prize Winner) People come to America from many different places, I have lots of friends of many different races. Ceilidh's from Ireland, we have loads of fun, she taught me Irish step-dancing we dance till day is done! Jessica's from Colombia, she speaks Spanish, to speak two languages is my wish. Anastasia is from Russia, I adore her nesting dolls, I looked for them in all of the malls. Cara and Cady are from China, Cady's grandma grows bamboo. They both love Chinese New Year and I do too! Murat is from Turkey, his wedding I did love, when we left the fireworks blasted 'bove! Nicole is from Israel, she is thirteen. When she had her Bat Mitzvah she looked like a queen! If I didn't have these friends, how boring life would be! I'm glad America has immigrants as you can plainly see. Mom's family is from Poland, Dad's from Italy, if my grandparents didn't come there would be no me! Based on a true story!

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the Washington Post today in the front section on page A3, there is an article titled: ``Report Urges Stricter Tests for Teachers, Expertise Is Stressed Over Theory.'' This is an important report. It is one that underscores what a number of other reports have said, including those by the National Center on Education Information, which is a report that was out earlier this year, and the was a very solid report from 1996, which is most comprehensive on teacher quality, called ``What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future.'' The Administration's report is very important because it outlines the challenges we face. I want to give an assurance to the American people that we do not need more legislation. We already have the legislation in place in the No Child Left Behind Act, and in the Higher Education Act of 1998, that, if fully implemented and funded, would address the real challenges we are facing in the States. We know that we need to hire over 2 million teachers over the next ten years, we need to improve teacher preparation, and we need to increase professional development. But we don't need new legislation. The No Child Left Behind Act requires 100-highly percent qualified teachers in our classrooms in four years. I believe that is the most important ingredient to have a well-qualified teacher in every classroom, increase professional development each year, and provide funding for mentoring. The Higher Education Act, title II, provides funding for States and universities to improve the teacher preparation with high-quality strategies, including improving alternative routes to certification, and improving the quality of colleges of education. Mr. President, what is left out of the report is the need for resources to help states meet these goals. We need resources to be able to achieve these goals for the children in this country. We need to do more than just count on alternative routes to certification. Alternative routes to certification could provide, at best, one-third of all of the teachers we need in our public school systems. For example, the Troops to Teachers only places about 700 teachers per year. We need to hire more than 200,000 teachers per year to address the shortages. Many of these new teachers need to have specialized training in special education, math and bilingual education. The alternative route programs can provide some assistance, but they are not the core of the solution. The solution lies in improving all of the teacher preparation and training programs and providing all teachers with the ongoing support they need once they are in the classroom. Some traditional teacher preparation programs and alternative routes are successful. All the successful programs have the same characteristics. The recent report by the National Center on Educational Information said that a successful alternative route program is specifically designed to recruit individuals with college degrees; that is, the emphasis is on content. Such a program has a rigorous screening process to attract high-quality candidates. The program is field based to give practical experience through internships. New teachers receive mentoring from trained teachers. Candidates must meet high standards upon completion. The 1996 report had similar characteristics for a high-quality teacher preparation program at universities: organize teacher education around standards for students and teachers; develop and extend year- long programs with year-long internships; create and fund mentoring programs; and create high-quality sources of professional development for ongoing support. So the Administration's report is useful and valuable today, but this is something we have understood now for a number of years. It really is nothing very new. The statistics may give us more recent information on particular States, but we know what needs to be done. We outlined in the No Child Left Behind legislation a series of programs to help and assist the States to address the teacher shortage, but the administration has requested zero increase in their proposed budget for improved teacher quality and reduced class size. There is an excellent study that says all these things need to be done--better training, recruitment, professional development and mentoring. We have to do them. But when it comes to the resources to be provided, we are just not getting it from the administration. That, I think, is a matter of enormous importance. All of us want to address the kinds of needs that are outlined in this report. It is a good report. But in order to do that, it means funding the various programs that we have that are out there and in existence. Mr. President, I want to mention several of the programs that the administration failed to fund this year that cut teacher quality programs by $155 million this year. They include: The elimination of funding for preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology is enormously important. You can get the new technology in the classroom, but unless the teacher understands how to use the technology and how to develop the curriculum to use the technology, you have missed the opportunity for success. This program was oversubscribed, but it was eliminated by the Administration. Funding for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, which is enormously important, was eliminated. Certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, all across the country, is the key for increasing compensation, increasing professionalism, and increasing success. The National Board has been incredibly important and effective and yet the Bush Administration eliminates it. The Bush budget eliminates programs to prepare teachers to teach writing and civics, and provides a 50-percent cut in grants to help train teachers to teach American history. So the point I am making, Mr. President, is that we can have these studies and they can point out what the problem is, but we know what the problem is, but we already know what the problem is. What it takes now is the increased investment in the No Child Left Behind Act and other programs that can really make a difference in terms of teacher quality. We have to look at this in a comprehensive manner. We need to improve working conditions for teachers, including increasing pay, increasing the prestige of teaching, and improving schools so they are safe, modern places in which teachers can work and children can learn. Many schools have obsolete, crumbling, and inadequate facilities. All teachers and students deserve safe, modern facilities with up-to-date technology. Sending teachers and children to dilapidated and overcrowded classrooms sends an unacceptable message. It tells them they don't matter. No CEO would tolerate a leaky ceiling in the boardroom--and no teacher should have to tolerate it in the classroom. This is all part of what we have to understand if we are going to expect that we are going to get quality teachers to teach in our schools. Mr. President, this is just a final point I want to mention on the subject. Despite the goals we share in the recent report, I am concerned that the administration is not meeting the letter of the law in implementing the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act to ensure a high-quality teacher in every classroom. In the draft guidance of the new ESEA title II Teaching Quality Program, released on June 6, the Department proposes a large loophole for alternative routes to certification that I believe violates the law and could lower teacher quality. The guidance says: ``Any Teacher who has obtained full state certification, whether he or she has achieved certification through traditional or alternative routes, has a four-year college degree, and has demonstrated subject matter competence, is considered to be highly qualified under the law. Teachers who are participating in an alternative route program may be considered to meet certification requirements of the definition of a highly qualified teacher if participants in the program are permitted by the state to assume functions as regular classroom teachers and are making satisfactory progress towards full certification as prescribed by the state and the program.'' This creates a double standard when it comes to teachers working through alternate routes compared to teachers working through the regular certification program--those working through the regular certification program must be fully certified--no emergency, temporary provisional certification. Alternate route teachers can be considered highly qualified while holding a provisional certification while they are working to obtain full certification. This is inconsistent with the definition in the ESEA which holds the same standards for all teachers. I hope the draft guidance will be changed to ensure when we say all teachers will be highly qualified, we mean all teachers are highly qualified. We do not want to find on the one hand statements about the importance of these findings, and then on the other hand have the drafting of rules and regulations which are going to result in lower standards for the teachers in the classroom. We welcome this report, but it comes back again to the issue of whether we are prepared to help the States, schools, parents, and children in this country by helping ensure there is a well-qualified teacher in every classroom. We have the legislation. We have followed these various recommendations, and all we need is the investment to make this happen. That is why we are going to continue to battle for the children of this country by insisting that we have an adequate budget invested in teacher quality. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.