Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, at least it was the intention of the leadership, following my comments, we were going to go to the bioterrorism conference. As I understand it--I know our colleagues will be attending a 2:30 meeting and briefing--I will speak for a period of time and then the Republican side will speak for a period of time and then we will go to the time agreement on bioterrorism, and there is 45 minutes a side; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. And we will have a vote after the using of the time?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have serious reservations about this bill and I intend to vote against it. I have a lifelong record of supporting free trade. I have supported trade agreements in the past. I have supported trade agreements with China and Vietnam. I supported NAFTA. I supported GATT. But this bill protects the rights of corporations at the expense of workers and the environment. It is not free trade and it is not fair trade when we must compete with countries and foreign businesses that abuse their workers and ignore their obligations to the environment with impunity. The proponents of this bill have said that this is the most progressive trade bill on the issues of labor and the environment ever to reach the Senate. I agree there is progress on some fronts, but I'm very disappointed that we didn't do more. It is clear that, before the Congress gives up much of its constitutional responsibility to regulate international commerce, much stronger safeguards must be put in place. Labor rights protections must be a vital part of our international trading system. These protections help to lift the standards for workers around the world, and to help protect America's workers from unfair foreign competition. As we work with other nations to develop rules for the global economy, we can't create new rights for businesses and leave workers out in the cold. By fighting for the rights of workers in our own country and around the world, we are representing the best values of the American people-- that an honest day's work should receive an honest day's pay that workers deserve fairness in the workplace, fair pay and fair working conditions, and that workers are a resource to be supported, not a commodity to be abused. I am very concerned this bill creates a dangerous double standard on the rights of corporations and the rights of workers. On the one hand, this bill directs the United States Trade Representative to encourage our trading partners to adopt U.S. standards of intellectual property law--the most complex and difficult patent laws to maintain and enforce in the world--and includes even stronger language on the enforcement of patent laws. If a trading partner fails to enforce the highest standards of patent law, retaliation would be swift and severe. While there is a place for intellectual property protections, especially with the acceptance of my amendment assuring access to life-saving medicines, the disparity with labor rights protections is astounding. If a trading partner fails to enforce its own labor laws, this bill clearly states that ``no retaliation may be authorized.'' It is as if we're telling our trading partners we'll look the other way if they provide cheap, unregulated labor for corporations. This is the wrong time for Congress to send that message to our trading partners. Today, workers around the world are facing unprecedented assaults on their basic rights. In Colombia, according to the Central Workers Union of that country, 160 trade unionists were murdered last year and 79 trade unionists disappeared. In many other nations around the world, workers are prevented from meeting together freely or from joining together to form a union to advocate for their interests. Without these fundamental rights, workers in these nations are not truly free. We should be building a global economy in which children have the universal opportunity for education, rather than stolen childhoods filled with endless hours of toil for next to nothing. Several key amendments strengthening the labor rights and environment protections in this agreement and enhancing trade adjustment assistance were defeated because of overwhelming Republican opposition. Vice President Cheney broke a tie to prevent the Congress from helping workers displaced by trade to pay their mortgages. I'm very concerned with the message this sends--when it comes to protecting the interest of corporations, spare no expense. When it comes to protecting workers or their families, cause no expense. Too often the current trading system enriches multi-national corporations at the expense of working families. To build a fair global economy, all parties to trade agreements should reaffirm their obligations and commitments under the International Labor Organization's Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Unless workers around the world have basic freedoms, such as freedom of association and the right to organize a union and bargain collectively, free trade will not be fair trade. At the same time that we are encouraging the growth of global trade, we must take care of workers at home who are hurt from expanded trade. I am pleased that Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have provided trade adjustment assistance that includes essential health care subsidies for laid-off workers who otherwise could not afford to maintain their coverage. This assistance is a lifeline to workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. We've tripled the job training funds. We have added wage insurance for older workers who are fortunate enough to find new jobs but forced to take a lower wage. This assistance is long overdue and it is right to include it in this legislation. I am also pleased that the trade adjustment package will cover some secondary workers, but it is unfair that downstream workers have been excluded from this coverage. There is no good reason that workers who produce the finished product or package articles should be ineligible for trade adjustment assistance while workers who produce parts or work for supplier companies are covered. Both groups of workers are hurt by trade and need to feed their families. Finally, this bill should have included actions to protect the health coverage of steel retirees. An estimated 600,000 steel retirees, widows and their families are now in jeopardy to lose their coverage because of growing trade imbalances. For decades, the steel industry has been a leader in the American economy. The cars we drive and the buildings we work in would not be possible without the backbreaking work of America's steelworkers. We must recognize the contribution of these workers to building America. We must not let them down in their hour of need. Hundreds of thousands of America's workers were promised decent health care by their companies in exchange for years of service in the workplace. The Mikulski amendment would have kept that promise, and it was wrong for Republicans to block this worthy proposal. Earlier in the last century, many argued that labor rights were not the business of the national government. They were wrong. Without the basic labor protections of the New Deal, America's workers would be entirely at the mercy of corporations. Today, those who say that labor rights have no place in trade agreements are just as wrong. Unless we build a global economy that respects basic freedoms and labor rights, we are doing an enormous disservice to workers around the world. We had a good deal of discussion over the course of these past days about the impact on workers at home and overseas. I will review for a few minutes the plight of some of the workers at home and what I believe would have a much more favorable impact on their quality of life for themselves and their children. That is the increase in minimum wage, rather than this legislation. That is why I am strongly opposed to the legislation and why I regret very much we were unable to get an agreement by this body to address the issue of the increase in the minimum wage, which would be effectively $1.50 over a 3-year period. There was some discussion as the majority leader requested a unanimous consent agreement that we consider this legislation by the end of June. There was an objection made by the other side that this was somehow an idea whose time has come and gone. I was reviewing last evening the Republican Presidents who signed increases in the minimum wage law. President Eisenhower signed an increase in the minimum wage law. At that time it was not a partisan issue. It was basically, how much should the increase in the minimum wage be? President Nixon signed an increase in the minimum wage law. The first President Bush signed an increase in the minimum wage law, as a number of Democratic Presidents have, as well. It is a time-honored issue that is not complicated. It is an issue we have looked at in the Senate on a number of different occasions. The fact remains, if we fail to see an increase in the minimum wage, we will find we have slipped to virtually an all-time low in the purchasing power of the minimum wage. That is why I strongly support the efforts of our majority leader to ensure this body will have an opportunity to address this issue no later than the end of July-- hopefully with the agreement of the other side; hopefully with the support of our colleagues on the other side. We do have several Members on the other side who will support the increase. We should not be denied the opportunity to vote on this issue. As we look down the road in terms of this issue, I remind our colleagues what we are facing in terms of the workers at the lower end of the economic ladder. We will, in a very short period of time--July--also be looking at welfare reform. That raises the question about how we are going to free people from dependency to independence. It seems to me what we have seen from the period since the passage of the last welfare bill is if you make work pay, you are going to get individuals who are going into jobs. They are going to need skills, they are going to need some training, they are going to have to have assurances that they have some daycare for their children. They don't want to lose any health care if they are able to receive it. But fundamentally--you have to make work pay. That is what the minimum wage issue is really all about. That is why its discussion now is important. As we are looking at the trade bill, we hear a great deal about how this is going to improve the lot of workers at the lower part of the economic ladder. I daresay this legislation to guarantee an increase in the minimum wage will have a great deal more positive impact on their well-being. This chart is about ``Working Hard But Losing Ground, The Real Value Of The Minimum Wage.'' If you were looking at where its purchasing power would be in 1968, in today's dollars it would be $8.14. We can see if we fail to act by next year, we will be right back to $4.70. We have not increased it in the period of the last 6 years. Workers are working longer. They are working harder. I will point that out in just a moment. But these are the facts. This chart, ``All The Gains From The Last Increase,'' shows the gains in the last 6 years will be eaten away by inflation if we fail to act on this. This chart shows what is happening in the minimum wage, and its relationship to the poverty line. As I have said many times, and as I believe the American people have demonstrated, they believe if people are going to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, they ought to have a livable wage. They should not have to live in poverty. Americans understand fairness. When we look at this chart, what the poverty line is, and look at this other line indicating where the minimum wage is and how it has been falling, we can see individuals who work hard are still falling further and further below the poverty line, even though they are working, and working hard, trying to provide for themselves and provide for their families. The increase in the minimum wage can make a difference in the quality of life for those individuals. The question comes up about what has been going on in the workplace. How about American workers? Let's look at this chart, ``Poor Parents Working Harder Than Ever.'' This is a comparison of the total number of hours workers are working today to what they were working 20 years ago. Look at this chart. This is the increased number of hours per year for workers who are in the lowest 40-percent income bracket of families with children--the lowest 40 percent of family incomes in the country. This shows 416 hours for all workers in the lower income level, the lower 40 percent, with children. They are working 416 hours more now than they were working 20 years ago; white workers are 393; Hispanic, 477; African American are 531 hours.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct. This is a women's issue because the great majority, 60 percent of those who receive the minimum wage, are women. And over one-third of those women have children, so it is a children's issue. It is quality of life for children. It is a family issue. We hear a great many speeches around here with regard to family issues. This is a family issue. I remind the Senator from Nevada about what is happening out there in the workforce. In the lower 40 percent, which includes the minimum wage, they are working harder, longer, more than at any time in the history of our country. It is 10 or 12 weeks, effectively--effectively 10 weeks longer than they were working 20 years ago. Look at productivity. Let me bring this to the attention of our colleagues. This chart shows the increase in productivity. We will hear many of the arguments: The increase in wages ought to be related to the increase in productivity. If that was the test, we would have an increase in the minimum wage of much more than it is today, if it was directly related to productivity because of the increase in productivity of low-wage earners. But that is not where we are on this. It should be, but we are not there. The arguments are always made on the impact on inflation. We can discount that. The loss of employment, we can discount that. But this shows what has been happening in the workforce, about minimum wage workers increasing their productivity. Generally, we have always thought wages ought to be somewhat related to increased productivity. If people are going to work harder, work longer, work more efficiently, they ought to be rewarded. That is an American value. That is understandable. That may apply to some workers, but it doesn't apply to minimum wage workers. That is a matter that should be remedied and we are going to try to remedy that with our particular proposal. Just to get back to what is happening in terms of workers working longer and working harder, this is a general profile. This is from the ``Families And Work Institute and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.'' I will have printed in the Record the citations for all of this. Workers now work more hours than workers in any industrial society-- it is about 450 hours more than any other industrial society. One in five Americans works more than 50 hours a week. If this trend continues, the average person will be working more than 60 hours per week in 20 years. Half of young workers today say that not having enough time for family and work responsibilities is their biggest worry. These are young workers trying to raise their families, working longer and harder--increasing hours away from their families and children. In addition to working longer hours in primary jobs, 13 percent of Americans are working a second job to make ends meet. The second jobs add an average of 13 hours to the work week. That is with regard to these minimum wage earners. These are people, our fellow Americans, men and women of great dignity, who take pride in the jobs they are doing. All they want is respect for the jobs they are doing, and that is related to being compensated fairly and decently for their employment. This issue is about respect. This is about dignity of these working families. That is what this issue is all about. This chart indicates that job growth continues even after the minimum wage is increased. We have heard these arguments. Let's look at what has happened to the increased minimum wage and what has happened to employment. This goes back to October 1996. This is just the jump in the minimum wage. The first increase was 50 cents. Then in 1997 it was 40 cents. You see the lines indicating the total number of Americans who are employed continues to increase. This is a false argument that suddenly we are going to lose jobs. I want to bring this matter to the attention of our colleagues. Increasing the minimum wage by $1.50 is vital to the workers but a drop in the bucket of the national payroll. Look at this: Americans earn $5.4 trillion a year. A $1.50 minimum wage increase would be less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the national payroll. We will hear all the argument that this is enormously inflationary, that it will have a disruptive effect in terms of the economy. It is one-fifth of 1 percent of the national payroll for these workers. But it is vitally important to these individuals who are receiving it because it makes all the difference in the world in terms of their quality of life. I want to show what our proposed minimum wage is really all about. It is at a historic low. We have a proposal that will be phased in over a 3-year period--60 cents this year, 50 cents in 2003, and 40 cents for 2004. Let us look at the proposal in relationship to the increases we have had since 1956. As this chart shows, this is a very modest increase in terms of the increases in the minimum wage. All we are trying to do is restore the purchasing power for working families who receive the minimum wage back to where we were 6 years ago. It is very modest. At that time, it finally passed overwhelmingly here in the Senate after we had been debating it for about 2 years. But it finally passed at that time. Our proposal is an extremely modest one. As I pointed out yesterday, it makes an enormous difference in terms of the lives of the people who are receiving this. When the $1.50 is totally phased in, it will amount to $3,000 for a minimum wage family. It is the equivalent of 15 months of groceries, over 8 months of rent, over 7 months of utilities, and full tuition for a community college degree. That may not sound like a lot to Members of the Senate. It certainly doesn't sound like a lot for those individuals receiving this extraordinary tax break with the bill we passed, or who will be benefiting from the $600 billion the President is requesting of the Congress even at this time in terms of the future. But it makes an enormous difference to those working families.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct. We are talking about entry-level jobs. As I pointed out, it is primarily women who are in the market, maybe having a family and exiting the market, and trying to come in and provide for their family. They work hard. When we think about who these individuals are making the minimum wage, they are teacher's aides in the classrooms. We passed the Leave No Child behind legislation. We are giving this focus and attention. We have a difference with the administration on funding levels of that legislation. We think we need to invest in our children as a national priority. But the fact is, when you have children in that classroom--this is related as well to what is going on in the classroom--it is not only about having a well-qualified teacher, but also it is about teacher's aides. Teacher's aides are the ones receiving the minimum wage. Men and women who work in nursing homes look after parents who fought in our world wars and lifted the country out of the Depression--the great heroes of our time. You will find more often than not that people working in those nursing homes are working for minimum wage. These are people who are caring and, as I mentioned, have a sense of pride. They are the people who clean the buildings so American enterprise can flourish in the daytime. They take tough, gritty jobs at nighttime in order to provide for their families. They are jobs in which men and women take a great deal of pride. They should be treated with respect and with dignity. Let me point this out as a final chart. Speaker Dennis Hastert couldn't have said it any clearer on June 8 when he said: Lawmakers ought to be able to keep up with the cost of living so they can take care of their families and provide for their families like everybody else does. I think that's the decent thing to do. So do I. That is what this minimum wage is all about. Dennis Hastert has the right idea. Let us be able to provide an increase in the minimum wage so people can deal with the cost of living which is eating away the increase we passed 6 years ago so the parents can take care of their families and provide for them as everyone else does. That is the decent thing to do. That is what this issue is about. It is, as I said before, a women's issue, a children's issue, a civil rights issue, but most of all a fairness issue. Americans understand fairness. They understand that people working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, and even longer now, for the minimum wage ought not to have to live in poverty. Their children should not have to live in poverty. This country is a country of fairness and decency and justice. This is a defining issue, I believe, about economic justice in this country.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I yield such time as remains to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. KENNEDY. I do not know how you would answer that if you voted no in terms of the increase on this minimum wage, particularly since we have had four increases for Members of Congress since the last increase in the minimum wage. They were accepted by the membership. Why would we begrudge nearly 9 million hard-working Americans across this country who are working hard to provide for their families their opportunity to take care of their families as Members of Congress do with theirs? This is an issue we are going to talk about during the course of these next few weeks. We welcome the opportunity to debate it. We welcome the opportunity to vote on it. I am enormously grateful to the leadership, Senator Daschle and Senator Reid, for their strong commitment in this undertaking, and our colleagues. We look forward to that debate and discussion at an early time. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, there is an hour and a half evenly divided; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. I wish to comment on the efforts of our friend and colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, on the pediatric drug labeling rule. As Senator Clinton pointed out, this issue is of great importance to herself, Senator Dodd, and Senator DeWine. Senator Dodd, who is chairman of the Children's Caucus, Senator DeWine, and Senator Clinton have worked very effectively on the question of pediatric drugs, particularly on the recent reauthorization of pediatric drug exclusivity. I had hoped we would be able to secure the Pediatric Rule in this conference, but we were unable to do so. The research which would flow from this important rule is critical to children. That is why the FDA and the Administration took another look at their proposal to suspend the Rule. It was very wise of them to review that decision and to keep the Rule in place. But with the litigation ongoing, it is still being challenged. This is something we in the Senate will give focus and attention to in the very near future. I have spoken with Senator Dodd, Senator DeWine, and Senator Clinton. They know that we will address the Pediatric Rule in our committee in the near future. We will talk to our colleagues about the timing. But we will try to address it in the near future. We thank them for their continued interest. So my colleagues understand what is at stake, let me repeat: without the Rule, there will be less research conducted on the impact of many drugs on children, and some products will not be studied at all. Again, I give my colleagues the assurance that we will pursue this issue in the coming months. We can't afford to compromise children's health. Mr. President, during consideration of the bioterrorism legislation, there were a number of items which our colleagues raised which were included, a great majority of which were strengthened and which we were able to include in the conference report. I talked with Senator Carnahan about the importance of developing a Web site on bioterrorism so that accurate and good information would be available and accessible to people across the country. This has been included. It will provide important, accurate information to the public as a result of Senator Carnahan's legislation. We are certain this will be helpful to families, not only in her State but across the country. Senator Tim Johnson had some important proposals on agricultural bioterrorism. Those provisions were added to strengthen the food safety aspects of our legislation. We have included those, not least of which calls for the President's Council on Food Safety to develop in a timely but collaborative manner a national strategy for food security. Senator Wellstone had major proposals on enhancing the FDA's ability to protect the public health. We included many of those, particularly those strengthening oversight of drug safety and drug promotions. Senator Daschle was enormously interested in how we were going to protect America's farm families. We have many additional protections included in the legislation dealing with agroterrorism, such as mad cow disease, which are very important. His work with Senator Roberts led to a broad increase in resources and requirements for USDA. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the information of the membership, we understand Senator Collins will be coming in a few moments. After she speaks, we intend to yield back the remaining time and move to a vote. I anticipate we will have a vote on the conference report in probably about 10 minutes. We will ask for the yeas and nays. So Members should be alerted that we will proceed in that manner.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself such time as I might use. Mr. President, today, the Senate considers historic legislation to enhance the Nation's preparedness for bioterrorism. This legislation has benefitted from the leadership of many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol. I thank all of our colleagues who have made such important contributions to this legislation. In particular, I commend my fellow conferees for their dedicated and effective leadership on this issue in the conference committee on this legislation. Under the skillful and effective leadership of our conference chairman, Representative Billy Tauzin, the conferees and their staffs have worked tirelessly to ensure that this legislation was completed in a timely manner, and I thank them for their efforts. Our conference has reported legislation that will provide a historic $4.6 billion investment to prepare the Nation to respond effectively to bioterrorism. This is the single greatest investment our Nation has ever made in public health. Many members of the public had never heard of the word ``bioterrorism'' before the anthrax attacks of last fall showed us all how chillingly vulnerable we are to this new form of terrorist attack. But bioterrorism was a challenge that our committee had addressed long before the terrible events of September 11 and the anthrax attacks of October. In 1998, my colleague, Senator Bill Frist, and I began to assess the Nation's preparedness for the new challenge of bioterrorism. We learned of the terrible loss of life that could result from a major attack using anthrax, Ebola, smallpox or some other deadly biological weapon. In the Armed Services Committee, my colleagues and I learned that biological weapons engineers in the former Soviet Union had conducted chilling experiments to make these already deadly pathogens yet more lethal through genetic engineering. Our committee learned that our Nation's preparedness for the threat of bioterrorism was dangerously inadequate. Supplies of vaccine against smallpox were decades old and insufficient to protect the entire US population. We also learned that more and more germs were becoming resistant to the antibiotics doctors rely on to treat dangerous infections. The Nation's public health agencies were underfunded and understaffed. Rapid communication of information about dangerous disease outbreaks is an essential part of a national bioterrorism response yet many public health agencies lacked equipment as basic as a fax machine or an e-mail account. To address these grave deficiencies in our Nation's response to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies, Senator Frist and I-- together with many of our colleagues in the Senate--introduced The Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act of 2000. Congress approved this legislation later that year. The act was the basis for the infusion of needed resources that were provided to help prepare for bioterrorism in the supplemental appropriation at the end of last year. I commend my colleagues on the Appropriations subcommittees, Senator Harkin, Senator Inouye and Senator Specter, and our distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, for their vision and leadership in recognizing the needs of the Nation for bioterrorism preparedness, and for providing the funds that will help our Nation prepare for this threat. I look forward to working with these distinguished colleagues on our supplemental appropriation and on funding for the initiatives authorized in the conference report for fiscal year 2003. I wish I could say that all the deficiencies that Senator Frist and I learned about in 1998 have been put right. Sadly, I cannot. But we have made a good start. Public health and laboratory personnel have received intensive training in identifying biological weapons. The laboratory technicians who identified the cause of the mysterious illnesses in Florida as anthrax had recently received such training. Without that preparation, it is impossible to know how long the anthrax attack would have gone undetected. Our legislation authorized rebuilding of CDC's dilapidated and obsolete facilities in Atlanta. In 1998, we found that the laboratories and facilities of the CDC were in a shocking state of disrepair. Ceilings leaked onto sensitive equipment. Offices were scattered across Atlanta, requiring scientists to spend time fighting traffic when they should be fighting disease. Our legislation authorizes the funds needed to complete the CDC's building plan. No Member of this body has been a more forceful and dedicated advocate for the CDC than my good friend, Senator Max Cleland. He has spared no effort in his determination to enhance the ability of CDC to improve the health of every American. He was one of the original sponsors of the legislation the Congress enacted 2 years ago to improve the CDC, and his leadership has been indispensable in including provisions to enhance CDC in the conference report. His vision and leadership has enabled CDC to become a magnet for new health care companies in Atlanta, and he has been a guiding force in the development of a new business park. Through these tireless efforts, CDC has contributed not only to the Nation's health, but to the economy and prosperity of Atlanta and the entire State of Georgia. Senator Cleland's leadership has been instrumental in adding over $300 million for CDC facilities to the supplemental appropriation. Public health agencies have received new funds to invest in better training, improved laboratory equipment and modern communications technology. Medical researchers are using the tools of this new century of the life sciences to discover better ways to prevent or cure deadly infections. We have come a long way since 1998, but we still have far to go. Too many communities are still underprepared for bioterrorism. Too many hospitals--crippled by savage cutbacks in their funding under Medicare and Medicaid--cannot make the investments needed to prepare for bioterrorism. Too many Americans are still at risk. The conference report that the Senate is considering today expands and extends the legislation approved 2 years ago so that we can build on the progress we began in 1998. The keys to responding effectively to a bioterrorist attack lie in three concepts: detection, treatment, and containment. Detecting an attack is the key to containing it. Initiatives authorized in the conference report will improve the training of doctors to recognize the symptoms of a bioterrorist attack, so that precious hours will not be lost as doctors try to diagnose their patients. The report will accelerate development of new methods for disease surveillance, using modern information technology to provide real-time reporting of disease outbreaks. The report will also provide public health laboratories with the training, the equipment, and the personnel needed to identify biological weapons as quickly as possible. Once an attack has been identified, we must have adequate medical supplies to contain it and treat its victims. The conference report requires the production of enough doses of smallpox vaccine to meet the needs of every American, so that the Nation will be protected if our enemies ever unleash this ancient plague. The legislation also enhances Federal stockpiles of pharmaceuticals, vaccines and other medical supplies that can be brought to the aid of communities affected by terrorism, as was done by Secretary Thompson so swiftly and effectively in the terrible aftermath of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Bioterrorism is a threat to the entire Nation and it demands a national response. Our legislation authorizes $1.6 billion in grants to states to enhance bioterrorism preparedness in every state in the nation. The conference report also sets aside $520 million to enhance hospital preparedness for bioterrorism. Since bioterrorism will affect entire communities, our legislation encourages hospital planning to be integrated with community-wide planning by funding partnerships between hospitals and state or local governments. Our legislation also includes a proposal made by my friend, Representative Ed Markey, to provide needed medications to communities living in the shadow of nuclear power plants. The report will enhance preparedness for bioterrorism at the national, state and local levels. Because of the initiatives we approve today, American families can go to sleep tonight knowing that their security will be enhanced. Title II of the conference report provides important, new protections against the misuse of dangerous pathogens like anthrax. These provisions are a decisive step forward for the security of our country. Once implemented, they will assure greater certainty over the possession and use of the substances which cause anthrax, plague and botulism. Ever since the attacks using anthrax in the fall, our country has been trying to figure out how this could have happened. And we have learned that we don't even know who possesses anthrax in the United States. In response, and through the leadership of Senators Feinstein, Harkin, and Durbin, we've added significant new authority for the CDC and the Department of Agriculture to oversee the possession of anthrax and other dangerous biological agents that could be used to harm our citizens or agriculture. Laboratories will now have to register to possess such materials, and they will have to meet guidelines to ensure the safety and security of these materials. Individuals who work with these materials in labs will now be screened to see whether they are terrorists or might otherwise put the agents to criminal use. Most importantly, we have enhanced the controls on these materials while preserving the ability to pursue legitimate research--research that will produce the treatments, vaccines, and tests that will protect us from these biological agents, should they ever be used against us. In light of the anthrax attacks, we have become increasingly concerned that terrorists could use food as a delivery vehicle for one of these agents, or that terrorists could attack with biological agents capable of crippling or destroying our food supply and our agricultural economy. And so, we have given the FDA more funding and substantial new authority to protect the food we eat, and the USDA more funding to enhance the security of the food supply and agribusiness. I am proud of these accomplishments. In the hands of the FDA, these provisions will be at work every day to better protect the health and safety of Americans. They will prevent deliberate attacks on our country, and they will help reduce our country's epidemic of foodborne illness. By some estimates, contaminated food in our country causes 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths each and every year. For many years, Senators Clinton, Durbin, Mikulski and Reed have understood this problem and have long championed strong, new food safety authority and resources for the FDA. Senator Durbin has made this a top priority throughout his congressional career in both the House and Senate. For years, Senator Mikulski and I have sought new authorities over imported foods. Thanks to the provisions in this legislation, the American public will greatly benefit from what has been rightly described by the New York Times as ``the most significant expansion of federal authority over the food industry in more than six decades.'' FDA will have new authority to prevent unsafe food from entering the country, new authority to inspect food records and require additional records to assist in tracing the origins of foodborne illness, and new authority to register food manufacturers. And we've provided for grants to States for food inspections and for surveillance and detection of outbreaks of foodborne illness. FDA also has more authority to track imported drugs, and authority to monitor more closely bulk ingredients of drugs, medical devices, and foods that are imported for export to ensure that these products are not diverted into domestic commerce. Just as we have focused attention on securing our Nation's food supply, Senator Jeffords has led our efforts to secure our Nation's water supply. Thanks to Senator Jeffords' patient and deliberative efforts, this legislation will better protect the American public. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, our colleague worked closely with the ranking member, Senator Bob Smith, on provisions to anticipate and prevent vulnerabilities in our water supply. Their careful work will fund and enable community water systems across the country to assess their vulnerabilities, address immediate and urgent security needs, and carefully plan for potential terrorist attack. I am also happy to note that the conference report includes S. 1275, ``The Community Access to Emergency Defibrillation Act'' authored by myself and Senator Frist. This important legislation has the demonstrated potential to save two of thousands of lives annually and is strongly endorsed by the American Heart Association. I am very pleased we have reauthorized the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, PDUFA, for the second time. When I authored the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 with Congressmen Dingell and Waxman and Senator Hatch, I hoped this law would provide urgently needed funds to the Food and Drug Administration to speed the review of new drugs. Before user fees were enacted, FDA was short staffed and underfunded. Every beneficial drug delayed because FDA had insufficient staff to act promptly represented a therapeutic opportunity denied to patients and consumers. The past decade has more than fulfilled my hopes and expectations. The FDA has done a remarkable job of reviewing new drugs in a rapid but deliberative manner. Patients have benefitted from the agency's dramatic success in speeding drug reviews, and this legislation promises to continue this track record of success. At the same time that speedier approvals have benefitted patients, there have been growing concerns over whether faster speed to market for drugs has come with heightened risks to patients. The fact that more new drugs have reached American consumers first in the world means they are also the first to be exposed to new risks and new safety concerns. A recent Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation by David Willman of the Los Angeles Times documented the urgent need to balance rapid approval of drugs with an equal commitment to assuring safety. This concern is substantiated by a recent General Accounting Office study which I requested on the user fee program. According to GAO, the proportion of safety-related drug withdrawals has increased for drugs approved under PDUFA II compared to drugs approved under the first PDUFA. While only 1.6 percent of drugs approved from 1993 through 1996 were withdrawn for safety reasons, over 5 percent of drugs approved from 1997 through 2000 were withdrawn due to safety. While the number of drugs involved is still small only seven in the latter period compared to two in the earlier period--this report is still an important caution and a substantial increase in our investment in drug safety is warranted. These are the issues I have shared and discussed for years with patient advocates, consumer groups and independent scientists. And for many years, I have made clear that we must restore public confidence in the FDA's stewardship of prescription drugs. Our dramatic investments in drug reviews had to be matched by a corresponding renewal of effort in post-marketing surveillance and drug safety. Anything less would only serve to cast doubts on the integrity of FDA's regulation of drug safety. In the past year, our committee, including Senators Reed, Clinton, Bingaman, Mikulski, Harkin, Dodd, and Edwards, worked closely with the Patient and Consumer Coalition and with independent drug safety experts to develop solutions. We found that our concerns were shared by our colleagues in the House, including Congressmen Dingell, Brown, Waxman and Stupak. Throughout congressional deliberations on the reauthorization of prescription drug user fees, we agreed upon the need for additional resources and stronger authorities for FDA. While it is important for us to bring drugs to market quickly, we agreed that this redoubles our obligation to assure the safety of those drugs. Today, I am happy to say that is precisely what we have accomplished in this legislation. First, the FDA's performance goals relating to the speed of approval have not changed. The many review staff hired by FDA with user fees can continue to scrutinize the safety of drugs seeking approval. The increased fees in the new agreement will be used not to further accelerate the approval of drugs, which is already the fastest in the world, but to assure that the studies underlying drug applications are given the most careful possible scrutiny to assure that the drugs are in fact safe and effective. The public and my colleagues in the Senate should also understand that the performance goals contained in all of the PDUFA agreements are not goals for the approval of new drugs; rather they are goals for the timely review of new drugs. FDA meets these goals whether or not the agency approves or denies approval of a drug. Best of all, I want my colleagues to know that this reauthorization is a tremendous accomplishment where drug safety is concerned. We will increase FDA's drug safety spending by over 80 percent over the life of this user fee agreement. With FDA's annual drug safety activities currently funded at $36 million, this legislation will ensure an increase of $29 million in the fifth year of this agreement, for a total of $65 million in annual drug safety funding at FDA. To achieve this goal, we have made a fundamental change to how user fees are used. The user fee agreement includes a dramatic funding increase of $76 million over five years for FDA to plan, execute and fund drug safety ``risk management'' activities for newly marketed drugs. While these activities would be limited in scope and duration, FDA will be able to greatly expand its focused scrutiny of these drugs. But in order to give FDA greater freedom of action, we have also mandated substantial funding increases for the agency's Office of Drug Safety. In fiscal year 2003, the Office will receive an additional $5 million, and an additional $10 million in fiscal year 2004, with increases assured in subsequent years. Since these funds will be drawn from FDA's appropriations, Congressman Tauzin, my fellow conferees and I are committed to doing all that is necessary to ensure that these are new funds and will not be cannibalized from FDA's other essential programs and activities. We have made other important steps to advance public health and safety. In response to the explosion of direct-to-consumer drug advertising, we have authorized an additional $27 million over five years for FDA's scrutiny of drug advertising and promotions. In response to delays in generic drug approvals, some of which arise from anti-competitive practices by the brand-name drug industry, we have authorized an additional $45 million over five years for FDA's Office of Generic Drugs to ensure that generic drugs reach the public more quickly. We have also squarely addressed a persistent problem with the prescription drug industry. For years, drug companies would promise to complete post-market, or phase IV, clinical trials to answer important questions about their products. These commitments paved the way for reaching the market earlier. In the case of fast track drugs and drugs approved through the accelerated approval, these trials were mandatory. Yet many companies have failed to begin or complete these trials. And to respond, FDA's only--and usually unacceptable--recourse would be to withdraw a drug for market. The industry's track record has been disappointing. According to the FDA, since 1998, only four of 109 post-market commitments have been fulfilled for fast track drugs. Only a quarter of the industry's commitments for standard drugs since 1991 have been fulfilled. And only a third of its commitments for accelerated approval drugs since 1992 have been fulfilled. Five years ago, I urged the adoption of new authorities for FDA to enable the agency to bring these companies into compliance with the law and to ensure these essential trials are conducted in a timely way. I am very pleased that this legislation includes new authority for the FDA to publicize the failure of companies to fulfill their legal obligations to complete post-market studies. FDA will publicize such failures through their website, through `dear prescriber' letters, and public statements on the late, uncompleted studies and the resulting, unanswered questions of clinical benefit and safety. I am hopeful that the FDA will be able to employ these new tools to bring about more responsible conduct by the industry, and consequently resolve unresolved questions of drug safety and efficacy. I am disappointed that some of my colleagues objected to addressing in this legislation a crucial priority for children's health. The FDA has a Pediatric Rule that requires a company, before approval of a drug, to study in children the use for which approval is sought in adults. It also gives FDA the authority to require, in certain circumstances, that drugs that are already marketed be studied for their approved use in children. The Pediatric Rule has always served as a complement to pediatric exclusivity, which we recently reauthorized in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. But today, the Rule is being challenged in court by parties who believe the drug industry should be free to decide when or whether to determine their drugs are safe and effective for children. The Rule was recently threatened with withdrawal, but the Administration reconsidered this ill-advised step. That is why a clear signal must be sent. This research is of critical importance to children. Without the Rule, less of this research will be conducted. And some products, such as biologicals, will not be studied at all. With my colleagues, Senators Clinton, Dodd and DeWine, I intend to pursue this issue in the coming months. We cannot afford to compromise the health of our children with half measures. Finally, I am disappointed that we could not reach agreement on legislation enacting medical device user fees. In 1994, I introduced such legislation with Congressmen Dingell and Waxman. But dissension within the device industry prevented us from enacting this important reform. Since then, the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health and suffered severe losses in its budget and staffing. Its staff has shrunk by almost eight percent since 1995 and it has effectively lost more than $34 million in its base funding. With support of my colleague, Senator Gregg, we urged the FDA and the device industry to seek agreement on performance goals and fees. And to their great credit, the FDA and the industry reached agreement. But some in the device industry insisted on including extraneous proposals that could not be worked out in the limited time available. Medical device user fees are a win for patients, the industry and the FDA. That is why I am committed to achieving a consensus on this issue. I believe that we can enact such legislation, so long as we can dispense with extraneous controversies and focus on the common goals of restoring the resources of FDA's device center, establishing reasonable performance goals for device reviews, and assuring that safe and effective devices are approved in a more timely manner. The timely completion of the conference report would not have been possible without the hard work of the many staff members who worked on this important legislation. I particularly want to thank Bill Baird of Senate Legislative Counsel and Pete Goodloe of House Legislative Counsel. Both of these dedicated professionals worked many long, late hours and met many tight deadlines to allow this report to be completed. I want to also thank Patrick Morrissey, Tom DiLenge, Brent Delmonte, Amit Sachdev, Bob Meyers and Nandan Kenkeremath from Congressman Tauzin's staff; Katy French, Vince Ventimiglia, and Steve Irizarry from Senator Gregg's staff; Adam Gluck, Eric Juzenas, and Lowell Ungar with Senator Harkin; Rhonda Richards with Senator Mikulski; Alison Taylor, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and Sean Donohue with Senator Jeffords; Deb Barrett and Jim Fenton with Senator Dodd; Shana Christrup, Helen Rhee and Dean Rosen from Senator Frist's staff; John Ford, David Nelson, Edith Holleman, Bridgett Taylor and Dick Frandsen from Congressman Dingell's staff; Karen Nelson, Ann Witt and Greg Dotson with Congressman Waxman. On my own staff, I want to thank David Bowen for his outstanding work on all aspects of the bioterrorism issue. He has been tireless and insightful and I know everyone involved in this effort appreciates his work. I also want to thank Paul Kim and David Dorsey for their extraordinary efforts to assure protection of our food and water supply, as well as providing better security for potentially dangerous bio-materials in our nation's laboratories. They also worked very hard to assure that the Prescription Drug User Fee Agreement was a step forward for every patient in this country. David Nexon, my Health Staff Director, brought his usual energy and commitment to the effort. Michael Myers, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee Staff Director, kept his hand on the tiller throughout. The conference report is a landmark in our national response to terrorism and the security threats of this new century. Congress today sends the message in one unified and clear voice that this nation will not remain unprepared for the threat of bioterrorism. The front lines in the new war against bioterrorism will be our health care system. Today we take a historic step forward in preparing America's health care professionals to win the war against bioterrorism. Amendment No. 3462, As Modified

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Corzine amendment No. 3462 be modified with the language at the desk; further, that the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Deborah Wolf, a fellow in Senator Reed's office, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 3448, the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Bowen and David Dorsey be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the bioterrorism bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my fellow Senators today to introduce the Early Care and Education Act. I commend my colleagues for their commitment and leadership on this issue of national priority, Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking member of the H.E.L.P. Committee with whom I am proud to share leadership with on this issue; Senator Patty Murray, a former early educator herself who brings to the H.E.L.P. Committee a depth of knowledge from the front lines of education in our country; Senator George Voinovich for his leadership through the Families and Children First initiative as Governor of Ohio and his long-standing commitment to this issue; Senator Paul Wellstone, who continues to show support for parent and family education, and has demonstrated impressive results with the care of infants in Minnesota; Senator Ted Stevens, who has a long commitment to children and championed the Early Learning Opportunities Act; Senator John Edwards, whose dedication to the interests of children with special needs is greatly appreciated; and Senator Chris Bond, for his innovation with the Parents as Teachers program in Missouri. Today, in America, there are over 19 million children under age 5, and over 11 million of these children have parents who work. Sixty-two percent of children from birth to age 5 spend time cared for by someone other than their parents, and too many are spending increasing hours in a hodge-podge of programs, in a variety of settings, cared for and taught by sometimes unqualified and certainly under-compensated providers. As a result, almost half of our Nation's children start school unprepared for the challenges before them. This result is costly for our parents, our teachers and providers, and most importantly, for our children. The Early Care and Education Act that we introduce today is based on decades of science and research that show that what parents and providers do for young children during their earliest years will impact school performance and later success in life. This bill will build upon current Federal, State, and local efforts to address the early care and education needs of young children. And, it will promote school readiness by creating a system of early care and early education that includes quality services and programs staffed by an educated, motivated, and stable workforce that is paid in accordance to their very important responsibilities as the earliest educators of our children. During the first five years of life, our children have a number of experiences that have strong influence on their social, emotional, and cognitive development. Together, these early encounters set the stage for later learning and performance. This has been confirmed by research and life experience. Based on this knowledge, we must give the same high priority and commitment to early education that we devote to the elementary, secondary, and college levels. Education is a continuum that begins at birth, and we must invest in our children from the beginning if we expect the best for them and from them. this means an investment in their parents, caregivers, and teachers as well. To ensure that children enter school prepared to learn, we must coordinate and improve the quality of services children and families receive, eliminate duplication, and maximize the use of existing federal and state resources. The Early Care and Education Act will accomplish this by providing incentive grants so that states may: Offer education, training, and professional development opportunities to improve the skills and compensation of the early care and education workforce; conduct needs assessments and evaluations of State and local programs and services for young children; provide training and technical assistance to help health care providers conduct analyses of child development as a part of routine physical examinations; improve parent, provider and public awareness of the early childhood development activities that will help children reach social, emotional, and cognitive milestones, and; support voluntary parent and family education programs that address early literacy, school preparedness, and overall development growth. These activities I've just described have been demonstrated in research and practice to address the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development needs that simultaneously influence a child's ability and willingness to learn. I bring the Early Education and Care Act to the floor today with a strong voice. My fellow Americans, parents, and providers have placed education, and specifically, early education, as a top national priority. Study after study has called for better access and quality for early education. And, in the past few months alone, numerous reports have accurately described the shortcomings of early care and education in our country, as well as the need to respond. We began to identify solutions years ago with Perry Preschool and the Carolina Abecedarian Project. These proven solutions have been more recently demonstrated in programs like the Chicago Child-Parent Center program and described in publications, such as Eager to Learn and From Neurons to Neighborhoods. After years of research articulating the need, and years of intervention showing us what works, we can no longer afford to ignore these calls to action. I have long-been committed to the education and welfare of children in this country. They are who will keep the greatness and prosperity of this nation going in the years to come. The first few months of 2002 have already created some dynamic changes for our young citizens. In January, I joined President Bush as he signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, into law. This display of bipartisan commitment paved the road for future collaboration on other areas much in need of attention and commitment, including quality early care and education. Since then, the President has stated his commitment to school readiness with the Administration's announcement of the ``Good Start, Grow Smart'' initiative, and the First Lady has repeatedly expressed her dedication to this issue by testifying before the Senate Education Committee, at White House events, and at engagements across the country, including the second annual early childhood education summit earlier this month in Little Rock, Arkansas. Today, I sand with the President, the First Lady, and America's parents, providers, and teachers to call for quality early care and education for our nation's youngest children. The public and policy makers agree on its importance, and we now have the opportunity--and obligation--to act. Investing in our children early is not an option. It is our responsibility as a nation. With stronger K-12 student requirements through ESEA, we cannot fairly hold our children accountable for poor performance later in school if we don't give them the best opportunities at success from the start. We must narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. The Early Care and Education Act will help us to narrow that gap. As I close, I would like to recognize the many researchers, practitioners, and advocates who have contributed their expertise and practical insight as we crafted this legislation. I ask unanimous consent a multitude of letters and other material we have received in support of this legislation be printed in the Record. The Nation is behind this effort, and I hope that my colleagues will join us in supporting and passing this very important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my fellow Senators today to introduce the Early Care and Education Act. I commend my colleagues for their commitment and leadership on this issue of national priority, Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking member of the H.E.L.P. Committee with whom I am proud to share leadership with on this issue; Senator Patty Murray, a former early educator herself who brings to the H.E.L.P. Committee a depth of knowledge from the front lines of education in our country; Senator George Voinovich for his leadership through the Families and Children First initiative as Governor of Ohio and his long-standing commitment to this issue; Senator Paul Wellstone, who continues to show support for parent and family education, and has demonstrated impressive results with the care of infants in Minnesota; Senator Ted Stevens, who has a long commitment to children and championed the Early Learning Opportunities Act; Senator John Edwards, whose dedication to the interests of children with special needs is greatly appreciated; and Senator Chris Bond, for his innovation with the Parents as Teachers program in Missouri. Today, in America, there are over 19 million children under age 5, and over 11 million of these children have parents who work. Sixty-two percent of children from birth to age 5 spend time cared for by someone other than their parents, and too many are spending increasing hours in a hodge-podge of programs, in a variety of settings, cared for and taught by sometimes unqualified and certainly under-compensated providers. As a result, almost half of our Nation's children start school unprepared for the challenges before them. This result is costly for our parents, our teachers and providers, and most importantly, for our children. The Early Care and Education Act that we introduce today is based on decades of science and research that show that what parents and providers do for young children during their earliest years will impact school performance and later success in life. This bill will build upon current Federal, State, and local efforts to address the early care and education needs of young children. And, it will promote school readiness by creating a system of early care and early education that includes quality services and programs staffed by an educated, motivated, and stable workforce that is paid in accordance to their very important responsibilities as the earliest educators of our children. During the first five years of life, our children have a number of experiences that have strong influence on their social, emotional, and cognitive development. Together, these early encounters set the stage for later learning and performance. This has been confirmed by research and life experience. Based on this knowledge, we must give the same high priority and commitment to early education that we devote to the elementary, secondary, and college levels. Education is a continuum that begins at birth, and we must invest in our children from the beginning if we expect the best for them and from them. this means an investment in their parents, caregivers, and teachers as well. To ensure that children enter school prepared to learn, we must coordinate and improve the quality of services children and families receive, eliminate duplication, and maximize the use of existing federal and state resources. The Early Care and Education Act will accomplish this by providing incentive grants so that states may: Offer education, training, and professional development opportunities to improve the skills and compensation of the early care and education workforce; conduct needs assessments and evaluations of State and local programs and services for young children; provide training and technical assistance to help health care providers conduct analyses of child development as a part of routine physical examinations; improve parent, provider and public awareness of the early childhood development activities that will help children reach social, emotional, and cognitive milestones, and; support voluntary parent and family education programs that address early literacy, school preparedness, and overall development growth. These activities I've just described have been demonstrated in research and practice to address the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development needs that simultaneously influence a child's ability and willingness to learn. I bring the Early Education and Care Act to the floor today with a strong voice. My fellow Americans, parents, and providers have placed education, and specifically, early education, as a top national priority. Study after study has called for better access and quality for early education. And, in the past few months alone, numerous reports have accurately described the shortcomings of early care and education in our country, as well as the need to respond. We began to identify solutions years ago with Perry Preschool and the Carolina Abecedarian Project. These proven solutions have been more recently demonstrated in programs like the Chicago Child-Parent Center program and described in publications, such as Eager to Learn and From Neurons to Neighborhoods. After years of research articulating the need, and years of intervention showing us what works, we can no longer afford to ignore these calls to action. I have long-been committed to the education and welfare of children in this country. They are who will keep the greatness and prosperity of this nation going in the years to come. The first few months of 2002 have already created some dynamic changes for our young citizens. In January, I joined President Bush as he signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, into law. This display of bipartisan commitment paved the road for future collaboration on other areas much in need of attention and commitment, including quality early care and education. Since then, the President has stated his commitment to school readiness with the Administration's announcement of the ``Good Start, Grow Smart'' initiative, and the First Lady has repeatedly expressed her dedication to this issue by testifying before the Senate Education Committee, at White House events, and at engagements across the country, including the second annual early childhood education summit earlier this month in Little Rock, Arkansas. Today, I sand with the President, the First Lady, and America's parents, providers, and teachers to call for quality early care and education for our nation's youngest children. The public and policy makers agree on its importance, and we now have the opportunity--and obligation--to act. Investing in our children early is not an option. It is our responsibility as a nation. With stronger K-12 student requirements through ESEA, we cannot fairly hold our children accountable for poor performance later in school if we don't give them the best opportunities at success from the start. We must narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. The Early Care and Education Act will help us to narrow that gap. As I close, I would like to recognize the many researchers, practitioners, and advocates who have contributed their expertise and practical insight as we crafted this legislation. I ask unanimous consent a multitude of letters and other material we have received in support of this legislation be printed in the Record. The Nation is behind this effort, and I hope that my colleagues will join us in supporting and passing this very important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield for a point, this is not being offered as an amendment. It is just a unanimous consent request. We take action on it later on in the session. It was not an attempt to offer it as an amendment tonight.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wonder if the majority leader would be kind enough to yield for a few questions.