Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield for that purpose.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I spoke at some length on Friday, and I will only take a few moments now. If there are Members who desire to seek recognition to offer an amendment, I will yield the floor. I just want to, as we come back to the discussion at the start of this week, once again underline the importance of the legislation; but, secondly, I want to mention the various groups that are in strong support of it. Again, I am enormously grateful to my friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein, who spends a great deal of time on immigration issues, as do Senators Kyl and Brownback. I commend all of them for their wonderful work in helping develop this legislation. They all have spoken very effectively on this legislation and have made a very strong case for it. I will mention again the various groups that are in strong support of the legislation. It is always a fair indication of the breadth of support. First of all, we have the principal student organizations that deal with international education. This is extraordinarily important because one of the most complicated and difficult issues is trying to know, when educational visas are given, whether the student comes to the United States; and when they come and gain entrance, whether they actually attend the college, whether they attend the classes, whether they graduate. They can have those visas for a long period of time, and it is very easy to lose complete track of them. We have worked out a very effective and detailed way of making sure the Immigration Service is going to know the whereabouts of those students. The Alliance for International Education and Culture Exchange says: We have worked with your staffs as the legislation developed and had opportunities for input to help ensure the bill strikes the right balance between our strong national interests and increased security and continued openness and exchange of visitors, students and scholars from around the world. We believe this legislation accomplishes this goal. The National Association for International Educators has a similar endorsement: We have worked closely with your offices. While at the same time maintaining openness to international students and scholars, we also understand the national security issues. That is enormously important. We are grateful for their strong support. The Chamber of Commerce has indicated its strong support for the legislation. The important reliance on biometrics, we had good hearings on how we can benefit from the various breakthroughs taking place in that area of science and research. We have worked very closely with the biometric industry, and the International Biometric Industry Association is strongly in support of the legislation. Another group of supporters includes the broad group of organizations that understand immigration law. The American Immigration Lawyers Association, an organization which spends a great deal of time on immigration and immigration law, has been a strong supporter, as well as the various church groups, church world services, and civil rights groups. Supporters include the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Council of La Raza, and the National Immigration Forum. So the basic overall groups we rely on that work on the settlement of refugees, work with immigrants and this settlement, work with various families, all reviewed these various provisions. They understand what we are attempting to do, and that is to maintain our historic role in terms of the reunification of families. We have important national security issues as well in trying to work out that balance. These groups have been very supportive of what we have done, which is, again, reassuring. Finally, the most important compelling letter from the Families of September 11. We had wonderful testimony from MaryEllen Salamone, who is director of the Families of September 11, in support of this legislation, very moving testimony. I commend those who have lost loved ones who are channeling their grief into useful and productive and constructive action, in this case, to try to make our country more secure in terms of the dangers of terrorists. Her very strong testimony and the support of the Families of September 11th is enormously important. I am sure there are ways that we could have done this more effectively. We have the National Border Patrol Council that is strongly supportive of the program as well. We have tried to balance the various interests we have talked about: One, making sure we are going to collect and have the appropriate sharing of information about foreign terrorists--and we set up a very important and up-to-date technology to be able to get to do that-- getting the intelligence about potential terrorists into the hands of the Nation's gatekeepers in real time; it creates the layers of security with multiple opportunities to stop someone intent on doing us harm; it eliminates opportunities for terrorists to hide behind fraudulent travel documents, which is so important; and it determines how our Government might best work with the Governments of Canada and Mexico to deter terrorists arriving in North America in the first place and to manage our land borders in ways that deter the dangerous passage of people and cargo while facilitating the lawful and orderly passage of commerce and people who benefit our country. This is what we have attempted to do. As I say, we welcome the opportunity to consider the amendments or to go into greater discussion of the particular provisions as the afternoon goes on. We invite our colleagues who have amendments to offer them. We were ready on Friday last to consider them. We spent some time in the afternoon in the presentation. Those Members who had the opportunity to read through the record will understand both the substance of this legislation and the very broad and wide support. We are hopeful we can make progress through the course of the afternoon. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the next few weeks, the Senate will debate the important issue of cloning. Using cloning to reproduce a child is improper and immoral--and it ought to be illegal. I think that every member of the Senate would agree on this point. But some want to use our opposition to human cloning to advance a more sweeping agenda. In the name of banning cloning, they would place unwarranted restrictions on medical research that could improve and extend countless lives. In a letter to the Congress this week, 40 Nobel Laureates wrote that these restrictions would ``impede progress against some of the most debilitating diseases known to man.'' I am saddened that the President has endorsed these restrictions to the detriment of patients across America. Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Diane Feinstein, and I have developed legislation that bans human cloning, but allows medical research to go forward with strict ethical oversight. I am confident that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this balanced and responsible bipartisan approach--rather than voting to ban an area of medical research that holds such great promise. We must not let the misplaced fears of today deny patients the cures of tomorrow. The recent announcement that rogue doctors may have initiated a pregnancy through cloning shows how urgently our legislation is needed. Such actions should be a crime, and our legislation will make human cloning punishable by fines and imprisonment. But we must not confuse human cloning with medical research using the remarkable new technique of nuclear transfer. One creates a person and should be banned. The other saves lives by helping doctors find cures for diseases that deprive people of their dignity, their careers or even their very lives. We owe it to our fellow citizens to do everything we can to encourage this extraordinary research that brings such great hope to so many Americans. Medical research using nuclear transfer does not reproduce a child or create carbon copies of ourselves. But this debate isn't about abstract ideas or complex medical terms-- it's about real people who could be helped by this research. Dr. Douglas Melton is one of the nation's foremost researchers on diabetes. For Dr. Melton, the stakes involved in this research could not be higher. His young son, Sam, has juvenile diabetes, and Dr. Melton works tirelessly to find a cure for his son's condition. One of the most promising areas of research on diabetes involves using stem cells to provide the insulin that Sam--and thousands of children like him--need to live healthy, active lives. But a shadow looms over this research. A patient's body may reject the very cells intended to provide a cure. To unlock the potential of stem cell research, doctors are trying to reprogram stem cells with a patient's own genetic material. Using the breakthrough technique of nuclear transfer, each one of us could receive transplants or new cells perfectly matched to our own bodies. Can we really tell Sam Melton, and the millions of Americans suffering from diabetes, or Parkinson's disease or spinal injuries that we won't pursue every opportunity to find a cure for their disorders? Some have said that this research will put women at risk by subjecting them to undue pressures to donate eggs. Our legislation addresses this concern by applying to all nuclear transfer research-- whether publicly or privately funded--the same strict ethical standards used in research funded by the NIH. These protections guarantee ethical review, informed consent, and respect for the privacy of donors. Congress has rejected calls to place undue restrictions on medical research many times in the past. In the 1970s we debated whether to ban the basic techniques of biotechnology. Some of the very same arguments that are raised against nuclear transfer research today were raised against biotechnology back then. Some said that the medical promise of biotechnology was uncertain, and that it would lead to ecological catastrophe or genetic monsters. Because Congress rejected those arguments then, patients across America today can benefit from breakthrough new biotechnology products that help dissolve clots in the arteries of stroke victims, fight leukemia, and help those with crippling arthritis lead productive lives. When in vitro fertilization was first developed in the 1980s, it too, was bitterly denounced. And once again, there were calls to make this medical breakthrough illegal. Because Congress rejected those arguments then, thousands of Americans today can experience the joys of parenthood through the very techniques that were once so strongly opposed. Congress was right to place patients over ideology in the past, and we should do the same again today.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have had a good presentation from our colleagues on the issue of border security that has had several hours. I am enormously grateful for the presentation of my friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein, and also Senator Brownback, Senator Kyl, and the thoroughness of their presentations. During the course of the day, since we have been considering this bill, we have been responding to a number of questions that have been brought up. For all intents and purposes, I don't know another of our colleagues wanting to speak. I don't intend to foreclose that possibility, but I think we were prepared to consider amendments this afternoon. We understood, as the majority leader indicated, there would not be any votes, but we were hopeful at least that we would be able to consider some amendments and set those aside and at least have the opportunity to review them this afternoon and put them in the Record so our colleagues could examine them on Monday next. But we will look forward, when we resume this discussion on Monday, to considering other amendments. We invite colleagues, if they have them and if they would be good enough, to share those amendments with myself or the other principal sponsors. We will do the best we can to respond to them, and those who are related we may be willing to accept. We will consider them and indicate to Members if they are acceptable and, if not, why they are not. We are thankful to the leaders for their cooperation in arranging for us to be able to bring this matter before the Senate. I will not repeat at this time why there is a sense of urgency about it. I think that case has been well made. Earlier today, we had a good hearing on this subject matter and we received additional support for this measure, for which we are very grateful. So I think it represents our best judgment on a matter that we consider to be important to the security of our country. I hope we will be able to dispose of this legislation in the early part of next week.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is time to enact the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. I thank my colleagues, Senators Brownback and Kyl, on the Judiciary Committee, the Republican leaders on the Judiciary Committee and on this issue, and also acknowledge the very strong leadership of my colleague and friend from California, Senator Feinstein. We have worked very closely together. We all had different legislation in different forms and shapes, but all on a similar subject matter. We have worked closely to make a unified recommendation to the Senate which reflects our best judgment. It also reflects the best judgment of those who have had the opportunity to study the issues that we have included, and we have benefited from a number of recommendations. I am very grateful to all of our colleagues for all of the good work they have done. We present this as a unified team. This legislation would strengthen the security of our borders, improve our ability to screen foreign nationals, and enhance our ability to deter potential terrorists. This legislation addresses the significant national security challenges we face today. The House passed the Border Security Act in December. The Senate action is long overdue. I believe there are five dimensions to our security challenge today. First is the military. The Armed Forces are performing superbly, and they are well led. Secondly, we have a new intelligence challenge that deals primarily with the control of nuclear and biological materials in the former Soviet Union, and the gaps in what we know about terrorist groups. A third involves a cracking-down on money laundering and improving our ability to follow the financial trail of terrorist groups through the international monetary system, and we have seen important legislation on that subject successfully completed in this body. Fourth is the area of bioterrorism. Senator Frist and I have worked closely together to enact the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act signed by the President in the year 2000. We are in conference now with the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. We have very good bipartisan support for this legislation--Congressman Tauzin, House Members--and we are very close to making recommendations with a conference report sometime next week or very shortly thereafter. We have worked very closely in a bipartisan, bicameral way to meet this particular challenge. Finally, there is the security of our borders, which remains the challenge that needs attention. As the recent mistakes of the INS demonstrate, the need is urgent to close the loopholes in our immigration system. Border security is the shared responsibility of the INS, the State Department, intelligence agencies, and the Customs Service, and requires improved technology, enhanced intelligence capacity, and dynamic information sharing, updated training for border officials and Foreign Service offices, and expanded monitoring of foreign nationals already in the United States. Additional restructuring within agencies to streamline the implementation of this multi-faceted goal may be necessary over time, but are not a precondition to the passage of this legislation. The pressing need for enhanced border security must proceed without further delay. As I mentioned, the reorganization, restructuring of the INS is important. I and others have introduced that restructuring in the 105th and 107th Congresses. Basically, that incorporated the recommendations of what we call the Barbara Jordan Commission. The Commission itself spent over a year evaluating and examining the series of recommendations about how to make the whole INS more effective and efficient and respond to both its enforcement as well as its service needs. It is a solid base from which we should move ahead. But it does seem to all of us that it is important we get about this business now in terms of border security first and not wait for the more general kinds of debates on the restructuring and reorganizing, because whatever is going to be done with that, these provisions that we will be accepting and endorsing today will be well incorporated into that system. In strengthening our security at our borders, we must also safeguard the unobstructed entry of the more than 31 million persons who enter the United States legally each year as visitors, students, and temporary workers. Many others cross our borders from Canada and Mexico to conduct daily business or visit close family members. We are talking about 550 million people who come and go from the United States every year--with the possibility of some visitors who might pose some danger to our country and society in the form of terrorism. It is really like finding a needle in the haystack. We have to use technology to the greatest effect we can--with well- trained people and good technology at the entry level. With this new technology, we will be able to track when individuals acquire a visa and follow that individual while they are in the United States to know when they are leaving or when they should leave the United States. This technology will keep alive the knowledge and the whereabouts of individuals who are visiting our country. That capability does not exist today. It is key in terms of trying to deal with the challenges of border security. And now that we have recognized that the terrorists were visitors to this country who acquired visas, we understand the importance of trying to deal with this issue and deal with it effectively. We believe the legislation we are supporting is not going to answer all of the problems, but it is going to move us into the modern technology age and will take advantage of all the new technology to help provide security for our country. We also must live up to our history and heritage as a nation of immigrants. We can go to a more restrictive kind of border security. It probably would not be responsive to the nature of the terrorists, and it would have important implications in terms of families and in terms of commercial relationships. We want to provide a recommendation consistent with our historical and economic interests, but also use the best of technology in terms of identifying it and seeking out those who mean to do harm to our society. Continued immigration is a part of our national well-being, our identity as a nation, and our strength in today's world. In defending America, we are also defending the fundamental constitutional principles that made us strong in the past and will make us even stronger in the future. Our action must strike a careful balance between protecting civil liberties and providing the means for law enforcement to identify, apprehend, and detain potential terrorists. It makes no sense to enact reforms to severely limit immigration into the United States. ``Fortress America,'' even if it could be achieved, is an inadequate and ineffective response to the terrorist threat. This legislation strikes the balance. Immigrants are not the danger; terrorists are. We have to keep that in mind. Our legislation creates increased and improved layers of security by providing multiple opportunities for our government to turn away or apprehend potentially dangerous visitors and travelers. Our first layer of security is the intelligence information provided to consular offices, the INS, and border guards. Our efforts to improve border security must therefore include targeted intelligence gathering and analysis to identify potential terrorists, and coordinated information-sharing within and between the Department of State, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This legislation will require the President to submit and implement a plan to improve the access to critical security information. It will create an electronic data system to give those responsible for screening visa applicants and persons entering the United States the information they need in real time and the tools they need to make informed decisions. It also provides for a temporary system until the President's plan is fully implemented. Now, most foreign nationals who travel here must apply for visas at American consulates overseas. We must improve the ability of the Foreign Service officers to detect and intercept potential terrorists before they arrive in the United States. Traditionally, consular offices interviewing visa applicants have focused on trying to determine whether the applicant is likely to violate his or her visa status. Although this review is important, consular offices must also be trained specifically to screen for security threats, not just potential visa violators. We are basically talking about two concepts. One is in terms of the technology and the shared information and the other is the training. Too often we find that the intelligence agencies refuse to provide information in terms of the dangers of individuals who may pose a threat to the United States and share that with the consular offices that are making decisions and judgments with regard to whether they ought to give that person a visa. And it has been a bureaucratic snafu that continues too often, even today. The intelligence community believes that if they provide that information, they are somehow potentially sacrificing their sources in a given country because there are foreign nationals in the consular offices and they will be able to get wind of what is happening and endanger their sources of information with regard to those who pose us a threat. So in many instances they will not make those individuals and the dangers of those individuals available to the consular offices. Clearly, if the consular offices, no matter how well-trained, don't have that information, then they are unable to make a judgment about the kinds of threats that individual poses for the United States. That has to stop. There is no question, with the level of technology that is available at this time and the whole processing that can be utilized, we can meet the responsibilities of the intelligence community, as well as ensuring that well-trained consular offices are going to have the kinds of information they are going to need in order to make a solid judgment in terms of the individual. That is a key element. We need to have the training of the consular offices so they are not just looking at the usual judgments, whether individuals may overstay, based upon family relationships; but they need the additional kind of training in order to be able to detect and determine, to the extent that the training can, whether individuals pose us a threat. Those two factors are included in this legislation and strongly supported. It is extremely important, right at the very beginning, to make sure you are going to have the best information that is going to be available to that visa officer, and that the visa officer is going to have the best possible training to not only understand their responsibility on individuals who want to get a touring visa, but also they are going to be carefully trained in order to use their skills to be able to root out those who may potentially be a threat. Those are very important parts of this legislation. Terrorist lookout committees will be established in every U.S. consular mission abroad in order to focus the attention of our consular officers on specific threats and provide essential critical national security information to those responsible for issuing visas and updating the database. So if the other intelligence agencies are going to be able to pick up information, as we have seen happen at different times, that a particular area is a potential threatened area, that information can be made available as well to the consular offices to put them on a higher alert. That too often does not exist today. That has to be altered and changed. This legislation does that. This legislation will close gaps on restrictions on visas for foreign nationals from countries that the Department of State has determined are sponsors of terrorism. It prohibits issuing visas to individuals coming from countries that sponsor terrorism, unless the Secretary of State has determined on a case-by-case basis that the individual is not a security threat. The current visa waiver program, which allows individuals from participating countries to enter the United States for a limited period of time without visas, strengthens relations between the United States and those countries and encourages economic growth around the world. Given its importance, we must safeguard its continued use, while also ensuring the country's designation as a participant in the program does not undermine the U.S. law enforcement and security. This legislation will only allow a country to be designated as a visa waiver participant--or continue to be designated--if the Attorney General and Secretary of State determine that the country reports instances of passport theft to the U.S. Government in a timely manner. There is a criterion for selecting those countries. Those countries are eligible for a visa waiver if they demonstrate that 97 percent of those who are granted visas return. That has been reviewed and studied over a period of time. Rather than using the personnel when we know individuals will be returning, part of all of this effort is to use the resources we have, which are not infinite, to target the areas where there is the greatest need. We have 22 million visitors who come from these visa waiver countries. There is not a careful monitoring of those individuals when they are here or when they are returning. That has to change. This legislation ensures the INS will know when those individuals come here, their whereabouts, and when they are going to leave. That is enormously important. Another provision is the student waiver program. We have 22,000-- listen, 22,000--educational institutions that can grant an educational visa. We do not now know when the individual comes in, once they get by the port of entry, whether they ever go to the college, whether they ever attend for any period of time, or, quite frankly, whether they graduate, which is an enormous loophole. That has to change. There are provisions in this legislation that do that. We have accomplished this with the cooperation of the universities and the educational centers. They cooperated. They helped us. We will have a chance to go through this in greater detail to the extent Members want to, but that is included in this legislation as well. We must require also that all airlines electronically transmit passenger lists to destination airports in the United States, so that once the planes have landed, law enforcement officers can intercept passengers on the lookout list. United States airlines already do this, but some foreign airlines do not do it. Our legislation requires airlines to electronically transmit passenger manifest information prior to arrival in the United States. That information is going to be put into the computers so we know when the visa is granted and that it is based on the most current information. We will know when that individual purchased a ticket. That information will be shared. We will know by the tracking of that ticket when the person enters. When the border security person sees that individual at the port of entry, they are going to have up-to-date information and ultimately will have biometric technology to make sure the person standing before them is the same person who was granted the visa. That does not exist today, and it creates enormous opportunities for abuse. We make that commitment in this legislation. We do not minimize the complexity in achieving all of this, but we believe it represents our best effort in how we can improve our current system. Enforcement personnel at our ports of entry are a key part of the battle against terrorism, and we must provide them greater resources, training, and technology. These men and women have a significant role in the battle against terrorism. This legislation will ensure that enforcement personnel receive adequate pay, can hire necessary personnel, are well trained to identify individuals who pose a security threat, have access to important intelligence information, and have the technologies they need to enhance border security and facilitate cross- border commerce. The Immigration and Naturalization Service must be able to retain highly skilled immigration inspectors. Our legislation provides incentives to immigration inspectors by providing them with the same benefits as other law enforcement personnel. They do not have that today. Our bill does. Expanding the use of biometric technology is critical to prevent terrorists from traveling under false identities. This legislation is needed to bring our ports of entry into the digital and biometric age and equip them with biometric data readers and scanners. These secure travel document scanners will verify that a person entering the country is the same person who was issued the passport and the visa. We must expand the use of biometric border crossing cards. The time frame previously allowed for individuals to obtain these cards was not sufficient. This legislation extends the deadline for individuals crossing the border to acquire the biometric cards. There are some instances where individuals, particularly in Mexico, have the cards and we have not put the investment into the technology that is necessary to read these cards. The USA PATRIOT Act addressed the need for machine-readable passports but did not focus on the need for machine-readable visas issued by the United States. This legislation enables the Department of State to raise fees through the use of machine-readable visas and use the funds collected from these fees to improve technology at our ports of entry. The fee raising has been enormously successful. It has funded these programs. It makes a great deal of sense. We must also strengthen our ability to monitor foreign nationals within the United States. In 1996, Congress enacted legislation mandating the development of an automated entry/exit control system to record the entry of every non-citizen arriving in the United States and to match it with the record of departure. Although the technology is available for such a system, it has not been put in place because of the high costs involved. Our legislation builds on the antiterrorism bill and provides greater direction to the INS for implementing the entry/exit system. Also, we include in the legislation a very interesting proposal, and that is to first look north and then south at perimeter security. We are not only looking at our border with Canada, but we are also working with Canada to find out who is coming into Canada as a first line of defense. That is shared information, with the idea that we can set up systems that are going to be cooperative and interchangeable with the exchange of information and intelligence on individuals. The Canadian Government is responding very positively. Our Ambassador to Canada, the former Governor of Massachusetts, Paul Cellucci, testified before our committee about the steps that are being taken. That will take time to work through. Then we can obviously think about doing the same job on the southern perimeter. Most of those who worked on the whole security issue believe that can be enormously important and very worthwhile. It is time for the Senate to support this bill. The security concerns addressed by this legislation cannot be ignored, action cannot be postponed, and the cost is reasonable. The estimated cost of the legislation is $1.2 billion in 1 year, $3.2 billion for full implementation. It is a small price to pay for the security this bill will provide the American public. Some have urged Congress to delay the passage until we have had, as I mentioned, the opportunity to restructure the INS. But the many important goals of this bill, including developing an interoperable data system to give immigration and consular officers access to relevant law enforcement and intelligence information, requiring biometric identifiers be included in travel documents, and strengthening the training of consular officers and immigration inspectors are important reforms that need to be enacted regardless of how our agencies are organized. These reforms cannot wait for a bureaucratic arrangement to be resolved, as we have seen the risks are too great. While reorganization of the INS is a top priority, which Congress plans to quickly address, we cannot afford to wait until that task is implemented to undertake the necessary changes advanced in the border security bill. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act has the broad bipartisan support of 60 Senators and the support of numerous coalitions such as the National Border Patrol Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Better Borders, International Biometric Industry Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Association of International Educators, the Leadership Council for Civil Rights, National Council of La Raza, National Immigration Forum, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the AFL-CIO. The USA PATRIOT Act was an important part of the effort to improve immigration security, but further action is needed. This legislation is a needed bipartisan effort to strengthen the security of our borders and enhance our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks while also reaffirming our tradition as a nation of immigrants. I see my colleague and friend Senator Feinstein is in the Chamber. At this time, I state for the record the very strong support from the National Border Patrol, which represents 9,000 nonsupervisory Border Patrol employees, talking about the very important aspects of this legislation, and rest assured we can count on the support of the National Border Patrol Council to secure the passage of this legislation. Americans for Better Borders, similarly they have indicated their strong support and state that given the importance of this legislation, they urge swift passage in the Senate. Also included are the groups I have indicated in this chart, which are as broad a range of groups in support of this legislation as one could hope for in this body. One of the most important groups that support this--and I intend to yield in a moment--are the Families of September 11. We heard marvelous eloquence today from MaryEllen Salamone, who is the director of the Families of September 11. These families testify about the importance of this legislation. They are attempting not only to try and bring their lives together, but also in areas of public policy they are expressing their views in ways of ensuring, to the extent that we can, that we will not have a similar kind of tragedy as September 11. We heard testimony so powerful today in support of legislation from that group. I will include those letters of support, as well as from the International Biometric Industry, as to why they believe this legislation is so important. I have letters from the Alliance, which is the International Education and Cultural Exchange, and the Association of International Educators. There is strong support from those who would be impacted by this legislation. This is good legislation. It is necessary, and I hope the Senate will support it. I am so glad to see my colleague and friend from California, who I have indicated has been a driving force in this area as in so many other areas, and she has been an essential partner. We always enjoy the opportunity to work closely with her, and we always learn from that experience. I ask unanimous consent that the letters I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Melanne Civic, a detailee on my Judiciary Committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on border security.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the exemplary work of Dr. Kathy Hudson, who after 10 years is leaving government service. For the last 7 years Dr. Hudson has served with distinction as the Director of the Office of Policy, Planning and Communications and the Assistant Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health. While at the Institute, she has been responsible for communications, government relations, program planning, and education activities. Dr. Hudson has provided focus and leadership in numerous areas for the Institute. She has played a particularly important leadership role in public policy and public affairs for the Human Genome Project, the international effort to decipher the human genetic code and apply the results to improving human health. She has led efforts to identify barriers such as genetic discrimination that could impede the fair and equitable application of genetic information to public health and has led development of policies to protect privacy and prevent genetic discrimination. In his regard, she was instrumental in the development of an Executive Order signed in February 2000 that banned discrimination in Federal employment based on genetic information. She has also provided exceptional technical advice to my staff and many others in drafting legislation on genetic nondiscrimination. I look forward to seeing that important legislation enacted soon. Dr. Hudson received her B.A. in biology at Carleton College in Minnesota; her Masters in microbiology from the University of Chicago; and the Ph.D. in molecular biology from the University of California, Berkeley. Before joining the NIH, Dr. Hudson was a senior policy analyst in the office of the Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human Services. She advised the assistant secretary on national health and science policy issues involving NIH. Prior to that, Dr. Hudson worked in the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment as a congressional science fellow. Through her signal contributions to social policy and to the Nation's health, Dr. Hudson's work has exemplified the best of government service and the difference in our Nation's well being that a dedicated scientist can make. I wish Dr. Hudson all the best in her new venture as the Director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at the Johns Hopkins University, and on behalf of the Congress and the country, thank her for her outstanding government service.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to draw to the attention of our colleagues in the Senate and also to the American people the unfortunate decision by this administration to recommend that we alter and change some enormously important privacy protections. These protections were recommended by the previous administration--by President Clinton--and were scheduled to go into effect about a year from now. These protections to ensure the privacy of medical records. I will speak on the substance of the issue in a moment. What I find equally distressing is that we are seeing a series of actions taken by the administration--this is just the latest example-- where the administration seems to be opting in favor of the companies and corporations at the expense of individuals. In this case, the administration is acting at the expense of the medical privacy of our fellow citizens. We have recently seen the administration effectively undermine the very sensible and responsible ergonomics recommendations to try to protect people in the workplace. This affects 800,000 workers-- primarily women--in our society. Those workers are risking their health without protections. In this case, we saw the administration siding with the companies and corporations at the expense of workers. We have seen it most recently in the Enron situation. We have seen individuals who are the major players in the corporations walking away with millions and millions of dollars, and the workers seeing their life's savings eliminated. And just this week, we tried to put in protections for workers in the future. The administration opposed those particular recommendations. In an entirely different area, we see where the administration has come down on the side of the major health corporations at the expense of individuals on the powerful issue of medical privacy and medical records. The most sensitive information that individuals have is in their medical records. We have seen over the period of this last year and a half a considerable amount of dialog and discussion, and a number of hearings. We had recommendations in place, which were to go into effect about a year from now. These were announced by the previous administration in response to a requirement put into law in what we call the HIPAA legislation--the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation that dealt with health insurance portability and accountability. We put in that legislation a requirement on the administration to come forward with medical records protections. But announced yesterday and today was the decision by the administration to recommend that we wipe away the most important protections that individuals have; that is, their ability to say, no, I will not share the information that is in my medical records. In the existing proposed regulations, an individual could say, all right, the hospital or the doctor could share it with the insurance company, but that is all they could share it with. It permitted individuals to say that some information is so sensitive that they do not want to share it with the insurance company. They could pay for a doctor's visit out of pocket rather than sending the information to their insurer--which could very well come back, as it so often does, to their employer. We have not passed legislation that will prohibit discrimination against individuals in the workplace--even genetic discrimination. This is the most sensitive information. We had the promulgation of rules and regulations under the administration that were to go into effect next year. It is surrounding information which is of the most sensitive nature. The American people give a high priority to privacy. They do not want to have their own private lives infringed on by individuals or by any governmental agencies. They hold their medical information in the highest order of priority. For the administration to side with the medical corporate world in being willing to share that kind of sensitive information which individuals do not want shared, I think, is an infringement on the rights to privacy for Americans that this country will not and should not tolerate. In our committee, we will have hearings on this administration's proposal as soon as we return from the April recess. We will introduce legislation to ensure the protection of privacy for the American public. I see my friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, who has worked on this issue. Our colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has been a leader on this issue. It has not been a partisan issue. It has been bipartisan in nature. But it is an issue of high importance and consequence. Privacy is an enormously important value for our fellow citizens. To try at the stroke of a pen to say that your medical records are not going to be protected is a violation of the most important and basic privacy rights of an individual. It is wrong. It is basically a surrender to major corporate interests. We have seen that too often in recent times. We want an administration that is going to represent the best in terms of protecting our individual rights and our individual liberties, and not always be serving the large medical corporate interests. The administration's decision has been recommended, suggested, and supported by those interests. It is wrong. We are going to do everything we possibly can to prevent it.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the good Senator for his presentation today, reviewing the historical background of the record of the committee, as the Senator from Vermont, our chairman, Mr. Leahy has done--and he has been assaulted and attacked. Senator Schumer has also reviewed the unfairness of the treatment of individuals as a result of the Republican activities. I agree with the Senator from New York. We ought to understand what the Constitution asks of us; that is, have shared power with the Executive. We know this President has the primary responsibility, but it is a shared power. We ought to exercise it in a responsible way. I hope that will be the way in the future. If there is any benefit that will come from this debate and discussion, perhaps it is that we will have a better understanding, as will the American people, and we will move ahead in trying to get well- qualified people who deserve to be there. I have a number of echoes that still ring in my mind about how people were treated. Numbers do not always define how people were treated. I was in the Senate when Ronnie White, who had been reported out of our committee, and on a Tuesday afternoon was going to be voted on at 2:15, the Republican caucused on Ronnie White, and without any information to any of the members of the Judiciary Committee, came here, after distorting and misrepresenting his position, and voted unanimously-- every single Republican--against him, without any notification, serious distorting, and misrepresentation of his outstanding record as a judge. Talk about fairness. This was after Senator Bond from Missouri had introduced him to the Judiciary Committee recommending the Judiciary Committee support him, and the Judiciary Committee did support him. But not behind closed doors, with distortion and misrepresentation, in an attempt to humiliate him. Fairness goes there, too, does it not? Also, I remember the case of Bill Lann Lee very clearly. There are many Horatio Alger stories about the struggle of parents who have sacrificed in order to give the opportunity for education to their children. But they have a hard time mentioning the extraordinary sacrifice of the parents of Bill Lann Lee. I remember the hearings on Bill Lann Lee. He had been an outstanding civil rights leader. Individuals on the opposite side of his cases came in and testified about his fairness and how he committed to the Judiciary Committee that he was prepared to uphold the law. But not according to the Judiciary Committee and to the majority of the Judiciary Committee. They refused to let him go ahead and get confirmed and let the President of the United States have his own person, his own man in this case, to be the head of the Civil Rights Division. It is not just numbers; it is how people are treated. I would hope we could get about the business in trying to find a way to work together. I was surprised--I don't know whether the Senator was surprised--to read in the newspaper, and I don't know if it is accurate, about how a principal Presidential adviser indicated they were prepared to take up what they consider a challenge by the Judiciary Committee and continue to nominate individuals who were going to be representative of a particular philosophy. If we are trying to talk about fairness, trying to talk about balance, trying to talk about quality in the Federal judiciary, I don't know if the Senator finds it perplexing we have representatives of the party talking about fairness, and at the same time principal advisers of the President of the United States are evidently giving reassurances to, in this case the Washington Post, saying to individuals: Not to worry; the administration will continue to support very conservative nominees. I ask unanimous consent to have this article from the Washington Post printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am interested in any reaction of the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. We have seen examples where we have worked together. I can think of the area in which I have been most involved, working with the administration on education reform. We have seen other actions out here--the bioterrorism effort, and just recently working together in our committee--the Senator is a Member--on the whole reform of the immigration system. We have a strong bipartisan effort. We have lines of communication. We do not get everything we need, but that is the way it works. I daresay our judiciary ought to be the No. 1 area where we are working together because of the key aspect, the protection of the basic and fundamental liberties that are enshrined in the Constitution, ultimately rests with the judiciary. That ought to be the prime example of working together. History has given us those examples. What we find distressing is, now, the report of Mr. Rove to a group: Bush to press for conservative judiciary. It isn't we are going to be pressing for the best qualified members of the judiciary. It isn't going to be the ones who can serve the public best. This is the kind of view that is evident within the administration. I regret that. I think the Senator has outlined, really, the way we should proceed. I want to give him the assurance--I know the Senator from New York feels this way, and we see the Presiding Officer, the Senator from North Carolina, a member of the Judiciary Committee--we all want to try to get in the courts well-qualified individuals who have a fundamental and core commitment to constitutional rights and liberties. I thank the Senator and appreciate his comments.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as the Senate concludes debate on campaign finance reform, I want to commend Senator Daschle for his leadership in bringing this important issue to a successful conclusion. I thank Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their commitment and hard work in crafting meaningful, bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. The enormous amounts of special interest money that flood our political system have become a cancer in our democracy. The voices of average citizens can barely be heard. Year after year, lobbyists and large corporations contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to political campaigns and dominate the airwaves with radio and TV ads promoting the causes of big business. During the 2000 election cycle alone, according to Federal Election Commission records, businesses contributed a total of $1.2 billion to political campaigns. A Wall Street Journal article reported that $296 million, almost two-thirds of all ``soft money'' contributions given in the last election, came from just over 800 people, each of whom gave an average of $120,000. With sums of money like this pouring into our political system, it's no surprise that the average American family earning $50,000 a year feels alienated from the system and questions who's fighting for their interests. The first step in cleaning up our system is to close the gaping loophole that allows special interests to bypass existing contribution limits and give huge sums of money directly to candidates and parties. These so-called ``soft-money'' contributions have become increasingly influential in elections. From 1984 to 2000, soft money contributions have sky-rocketed from $22 million to $463 million--an increase of over 2000 percent. We cannot restore accountability to our political system, until we bring an end to soft money. McCain-Feingold does just that. Another vital component of meaningful reform is ending special interest gimmickry in campaign advertising. Today, corporations, wealthy individuals, and others can spend unlimited amounts of money running political ads as long as they do not ask people to vote for or against a candidate. These phony issue ads, which are often confusing and misleading, have become the weapon of choice in the escalating war of negative campaigning. The limits McCain-Feingold places on these ads will help clean up the system and make it more accountable to the American people. Although the reforms in the McCain-Feingold bill are not a magic bullet that will solve all our problems, they do represent important and long over due changes to the system. Passage of campaign finance reform legislation is also a signal to the American people that their elected representatives can and will put the interests of the people above those of wealthy special interests.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business and that my remarks be printed at the appropriate place in the Record and not interfere with the debate on the energy bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today justice was shining as the Scottish court in the Netherlands upheld the conviction of Libyan intelligence officer Abdel Basset al-Megrahi for the terrorist bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. In this heinous crime, Libyan terrorists blew up Pan Am flight 103, ruthlessly murdering 270 innocent people, including 189 Americans. Until the September 11 terrorist attack, the Pan Am case was the most fatal terrorist atrocity in American history. Since 1989, our Nation has joined the victims' families to bring the terrorists to justice and to compel the Libyan Government to acknowledge its responsibility for this terrible act. Today, after more than 13 years, a measure of justice has finally been achieved. This verdict by the Scottish court is a victory for the families of the victims who have been tireless advocates for justice. Thirteen families from Massachusetts lost loved ones in the Pan Am flight 103 attack. Over these 13 difficult years, we have worked with them and the other families to bring about today's verdict. From the outset, the families of the victims have translated their grief into action. They stood up to powerful interests of the oil industry, and they have kept the prosecution of those responsible for the death of their loved ones at the top of our Nation's agenda. This trial and this verdict would not have happened without their impressive and ongoing efforts. Discussions between the American, British, and Libyan Governments regarding compliance with outstanding U.N. Security Council resolutions are underway in London. Now that the legal case has run its course, diplomatic efforts will intensify to ensure that the Government of Libya fully and satisfactorily complies with Security Council resolutions before sanctions can be permanently lifted. In Security Council Resolution 748, the United Nations required the Libyan Government to comply with requests addressed to Libyan authorities by the governments of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. One of those requests clearly states that the British and American governments expect the Government of Libya to ``accept complete responsibility for the actions of Libyan officials.'' This requirement must be fulfilled completely, totally, and unequivocally. The United States Government has consistently maintained that the Libyan Government carried out this atrocity. Indeed, when two Libyan intelligence officials were indicted in 1991, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said: ``This was a Libyan Government operation from start to finish. The bombing of Pan Am 103 was not a rogue operation.'' Although the explosion did not take place on American soil, America was clearly the target of this attack. The Scottish court concluded that Libya was responsible for the bombing, and the Libyan regime must accept that responsibility as well. As the London discussions proceed between our government, the British Government and the Libyan Government the U.S. must make it crystal clear that we will accept nothing short of an explicit acceptance of responsibility by Qadhafi's government to satisfy this condition. Security Council Resolution 748 also requires the Libyan Government to ``disclose all it knows of this crime, including the names of all those responsible.'' The head of Libyan intelligence, Musa Kusa, has been participating in the trilateral discussions in London. At the time of the Pan Am bombing, Musa Kusa was the Deputy Chief of Intelligence, working under colonel Qadhafi's brother-in-law, and he should be able to provide a significant amount of information to satisfy this condition. I expect that the U.S. Government is asking Musa Kusa to provide this information with the goal of fulfilling this requirement. Another clear requirement of Security Council Resolution 748 calls on the Libyan Government to ``pay appropriate compensation.'' Discussions are underway between private attorneys and the representatives of the Libyan Government to address this condition. I am aware that the State Department is not directly involved in these negotiations. However, our government must ensure that any financial agreement is not considered a substitute for acceptance of responsibility accompanies the financial agreement. Finally, the Security Council Resolution calls on the Government of Libya to ``commit itself definitively to cease all forms of terrorist action and all assistance to terrorist groups and promptly, by concrete actions, demonstrate its renunciation of terrorism.'' Libya has in the past supported, trained, and harbored some of the most notorious terrorist groups in the world. Our Government must be convinced, beyond a doubt, that Libya has abandoned all support for terrorism before concluding that this requirement has been satisfied. The Congress has consistently stated its view that the Libyan Government must fulfill all Security Council resolutions related to the Pan Am 103 bombing, most recently when it overwhelmingly approved a five-year extension of sanctions in the Iran Libya Sanctions Act. I know the administration is working diligently on this matter, and I look forward to full and satisfactory compliance with Security Council resolutions. These brave families deserve no less. Mr. President, this tragedy took place 13 years ago. It is instructive for all of us to understand that the only way we are going to be able to deal with terrorists is by developing the kind of hard- edge determination, resolution, persistence in pursuing justice that this case has followed over 13 years. Too often, with the kinds of challenges we are facing, we find out that there is a flurry of activity, and then we find other forces come to bear to try to override the underlying issues which are basically at stake. We have seen the powerful interests of the oil industry trying to push aside the sanctions which we have had in effect. We have seen powerful interests in Europe as well try to discount these sanctions. It is only because the United States has been resolute, determined, and persistent over the period of 13 years, both in the area of sanctions as well as pursuing this in the international courts, that we have the judgment as we have seen today. That judgment is extremely clear in pointing out responsibility to the world. The Scottish court is pointing the world to the cause of the terrorism which took 13 families from my State, 67 members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and scores of other Americans. This is a victory for those families. It is a very important step that has been taken. It is a reaffirmation in our system of justice, and it is a clear indication to countries around the world that the United States is going to be consistent and persistent to bring those who have created terror to justice, no matter how long it takes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the hour is late and the time allotted earlier has been exceeded. I did want to take a moment to acknowledge the overly generous comments of my colleagues and true friends. I first of all thank my colleague and friend, John Kerry, who was so instrumental in arranging these few minutes this afternoon in the Senate's business. As I have said all across Massachusetts, this is an individual who served our flag and our colors gallantly and bravely in Vietnam and then came back because of his strong commitment to the ideals which motivated him in the service of our country--not unlike our friend and colleague from Georgia and others--and now continues to fight for these matters. He is a person for whom I have enormous respect and admiration. I am enormously grateful to him for this opportunity this afternoon. I thank our leader, Senator Daschle, who really is a leader for our times. I think all who get to know him better and better as the time goes on, and as the American people get to understand and know him better and better, will understand the true value of his leadership and the difference he is making for this institution and our country. I am grateful to him. I thank my colleagues for all of their comments. I was very touched and moved by so many of the stories that were recounted. I am grateful. I love this institution. I have friends in this institution who make a great difference to my life, to me personally, but also in being allies in attempting to advance the unfinished business of this country. Many spoke today. I am extremely grateful. I was in Massachusetts this last week and was fortunate, as a result of my wife Vicki arranging some preliminary birthday celebrations, to meet with many friends. I mentioned at the time when I was in Massachusetts that my birthday was a rather unusual birthday because my mother entered St. Margaret's Hospital in Dorchester, MA, on February 12, 1932--that is Lincoln's birthday--then she left the hospital on February 18. I had not arrived. She went back in on February 20, and I arrived on the 22nd, which is George Washington's birthday. My mother stayed there until March 16, which is the eve of St. Patrick's Day. So if you add Lincoln's, Washington's, and St. Patrick's, you get a politician, the way I look at it. People in Massachusetts wondered how long I was going to serve in the Senate. I am asked that question frequently generally by my nephews and nieces, and by some others. I said I could run four more times and still be younger than Strom Thurmond. We joked or laughed about that. Nonetheless, I have been enormously blessed with heroes, my heroes being the members of my family, and by the commitment to public service which was so strong in our family, and, along with a strong faith, the sense that we all should give something back to this country in return for all it has given to us. I have seen the political process work. I believe in the political process. I have seen it work at the time of the election of a Congressman, then a Senator, and then a President, and a President making a difference in people's lives, President Kennedy. And I have seen the process work here. I still believe, as we were brought up to believe, that politics is a noble profession. It is not always recognized as such in this country, at this time, but I think for all Members in this institution and for all those outside of the institution who are attempting to gain the opportunity to serve in this extraordinary, rare opportunity and extraordinary honor, they recognize it as well. I am enormously mindful every day of my life that the greatest public honor of one's life is the service in the Senate. It is for me. I always think the greatest contribution I will have made will have been my children, but the greatest public honor will be the service in the Senate representing, in my case, Massachusetts, the State I love, which has played such an extraordinary role in this Nation, from the Revolution of this country, to its members being involved in the Constitutional Convention, to the strong support by the abolitionists in ending slavery, the support for the suffragettes--by great leadership by Republicans and Democrats. The people of Massachusetts have a high standard for progress to be made by their Representatives, and it is one that challenges all of us each day. Let me just say, finally, I don't think people are asking very much in our country. They want schools that teach. They want a health care system, so they can pay into a system but also have a quality health system that is going to cover themselves and their family. They want respect for their senior citizens. They want good jobs, so they can have a future for themselves and for their families and for their children. They want to knock down the walls of discrimination. Americans are fair, and they understand that this country has to free itself from discrimination in every form and shape we face. They want decent housing, and, as a part of the American dream, they want to be able to breathe the air and drink the water that is clean. They want safe and secure neighborhoods, strong defense, and they want us to represent overseas the best of American values. I came to this body believing that the privileged and the powerful can look out for themselves but that our challenge is to make sure we are going to have as even a playing field as we possibly can for all Americans. I think it is something that should get us up early in the morning and have us willing to work long and hard, as long as we are privileged to serve here, to be able to achieve. That is really what America is all about: Freeing us from the forms of discrimination, creating an even playing field so that our fellow citizens can be what they truly can be and want to be. I was reminded just the other day of the cartoon ``Peanuts'' by Charles Schultze. It gave me some hope because, as Peanuts has said: After you go over the top of the hill, you go faster on the other side. So I am looking forward, with even greater spirit and greater determination, to the battles that lie ahead in this Senate Chamber, representing my State. I thank all of those who have been a part of today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The land in Dracut is along a road that is traveled by many families, commuters, and tourists. All those who pass by the land will know of John Ogonowski's life and his family's love of farming. John farmed these fields for many years as a young man and was often seen riding on his John Deere tractor with a wave and a smile for those he passed. His family continues to maintain substantial farmland in the community, but John was deeply concerned about this portion that had been sold recently. To John, the original Ogonowski farm was one of the wonders of the world, and John had worked skillfully and tirelessly to create the Dracut Land Trust to preserve it. Now, in a well-deserved tribute to John Ogonowski, we will work to help the Dracut Land Trust preserve these 33 beautiful acres. Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Harkin for his effective work on this legislation. I particularly commend Senator Harkin for his leadership in including programs in this farm bill that will help farmers across the Nation, including those in the Northeast. I would like to take a few moments to speak about John Ogonowski, the courageous pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, which was hijacked by terrorists on September 11th and which crashed into the first tower of the World Trade Center that day. At the time of his tragic death, John Ogonowski had been working tirelessly to preserve 33 acres of land that had once been part of the Ogonowski farm in Dracut, MA. The Farmland Protection Program serves as a vehicle to help preserve farmland, and I hope that the funds from that program can be used to preserve the land that John cared so much about. I hope that we can make John's dream come true.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Kerry-Snowe amendment, and thank Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe for their leadership in bringing this important proposal before the United States Senate. The Atlantic Northeast Multispecies Fishermen Permit Buyback Program established under this amendment would allow hard-working New England fishermen to retire from this economically stressed industry with dignity, while the work continues to rebuild our fish stocks to sustainable levels. This fishermen's permit buyback will help end the cycle of boom and bust that plagues our fisheries and assist in developing a long-term sustainable fishery in New England. Fishing has been an important industry in the United States. In my own state of Massachusetts, as in other states, it is a trade that is rich in tradition. Generation after generation of families has passed on their knowledge of this trade to their children. So it is not just a key part of our economy. It is also as much a part of our heritage as the family farm. Many port cities across the country rely on fishing as their main industry. This is particularly true in Massachusetts. The city of New Bedford, Massachusetts is the second biggest fishing port in the United States. And we have in our state more than 10,000 fishermen who rely on the sea to earn a living and care for their families. Over the past few years, we have taken a number of steps to help these hardworking families and this important industry. The fishermen in Massachusetts did not have health insurance until the State and Federal Government intervened. In fact, even though this is one of the most dangerous occupations in the world, our fishermen did not have health insurance until 1998. Today, as a result of our efforts, 800 fishermen and their families now have health care. Fishermen have also suffered because of Federal regulations. As a result of federal actions over the past decade, fishing has declined, and the incomes of these families has plummeted as a result. In recent times, the National Marine Fishing Service has taken steps to help rebuild the fish stocks. The fishing season has been shortened from twelve months to six months and there are catch limits to prevent overfishing of fragile stocks. At the same time, fishermen have adapted to the changes and working with scientists at the National Marine Fishing Service to help both the fishermen and the government to better understand the steps necessary to protect fishing stocks, while protecting fishing jobs. For example, in 1999, the scallop industry off George's Bank was set to be closed because it was believed that the scallop stocks were depleted. Scientists and the fishermen worked with NASA to obtain satellite photographs of scallop beds of George's Bank. They were able to get accurate pictures of the scallop beds and found that stocks were full. This past year the scallop industry logged a record year, with profits over $350 million. This is an example of how science has helped the fishing industry, and is the kind of cooperation that should be supported. The fishermen have also made changes to their equipment to minimize damage to the environment and fishing stocks. Preserving this historic industry will be an ongoing challenge. And the Kerry-Snowe amendment moves us ahead in meeting that challenge.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. This farm bill makes important progress in ensuring the nutritional well-being of low-income children. The food stamp program is by far our nation's largest and most important child nutrition program. Over half of all food stamp recipients are children. Four- fifths of all food stamp benefits go to families with children. Despite its important mission, however, this program has been in trouble. Fully half of the savings in the 1996 welfare law came from budget-driven cuts in food stamp benefits. Since then, sharp reductions in the participation rate among eligible households have produced huge additional problems. As a result, significant unmet need exists among low-income children in our country. This legislation takes important steps to address these problems. It recognizes that one of the clear consequences of welfare reform is that children have been hurt. It was never the intention of the 1996 law to cut off these children. This legislation restores benefits to all children to eliminate confusion, and to encourage parents to apply for benefits on behalf of their children. In addition, this legislation recognizes that families with children have greater living expenses than single individuals, and it adjusts the food stamp standard deduction accordingly. It relies on the fundamental concept, similar to the concept in legislation I introduced last year with Senator Specter, that food stamp benefits should not start to phase down until a family's income is nine percent above the poverty line. By providing more adequate food assistance benefits to children, we can help ensure that they go to school ready to learn and grow up to be strong, healthy, productive members of our society.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support this legislation. I commend Senator Harkin, Senator Lugar and all our colleagues on the Agriculture Committee for their hard work on it and I welcome the opportunity to discuss its important provisions to deal more effectively with the challenge of nutrition and hunger in our society. It is long past the time for Congress to end the gap in the nation's nutrition safety net. Hunger is a silent crisis affecting families across America today. No corner of our land is immune from this crisis. Thirty one million Americans, including twelve million children, suffered from hunger last year. Over seventeen million Americans participated in the food stamp program but four out of ten of those who are eligible did not receive benefits. Last year, 23 million Americans, including 9 million children, sought emergency food relief through America's Second Harvest--an increase of more than 2 million and that increase took place during a time of unprecedented economic prosperity in the nation. The average food stamp benefit is 81 cents a meal and it should be available to everyone who truly needs it. The need for action is especially urgent in this current serious downturn in the economy. Too many individuals and families in America have trouble putting food on the table. Their plight is all too clear in the stories of real people: A mother in Springfield, MA, asked, ``Should my kids sit in the dark or should they go hungry? One of my kids has multiple handicaps, so I have to pay the utility bills to have heat and light. But, then we have no food.'' Karen Norman, a mother in Worcester, MA, explained, ``I used to donate food to the food pantry. I always thought, `There's someone out there who needs it.' Now all I have left is pictures of when I had a very nice life. Now I make brunch because I don't have enough to give my kids breakfast and lunch. When I leave the kitchen I can hear my five-year-old say to my eight-year-old, `How come we can't have breakfast and lunch?' and my eight-year-old says, `We have to stretch out the food.' Then at night she'll cry, `I'm hungry! I'm hungry! I'm sorry, but I'm hungry.' '' Their plight is unacceptable, but it is all too consistent with the national data collected in reports by the Greater Boston Food Bank, the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts, and America's Second Harvest. Nationwide, participation in the Food Stamp Program has declined by 34 percent since 1996 four times faster than the decline in the poverty rate. This means that over 2 million fewer people who live in poverty are obtaining food stamps today. Over a quarter of the reduction in food stamp participation between 1994 and 1998 resulted from welfare reform and its elimination of food stamp eligibility for legal immigrants which made them ineligible for food stamps and discouraged their U.S. citizen children from obtaining food stamps. The results are predictable. The Department of Agriculture has determined that 5 million adults and 2.7 million children live in households that experienced hunger last year. Women and children are disproportionately hurt. Last year, over half of all food stamp participants were children. Sixty-eight percent of the children were of school age and 70 percent of adult participants were women. The most vulnerable are recent immigrants, children, and the elderly, and they are the ones who face the greatest difficulty. The nutrition provisions in this bill are a significant step to reduce hunger in America. It restores food stamp benefits for all legal immigrant children and persons with disabilities. It is clear that the people now most in need of nutritional assistance are immigrants who entered the United States legally. For the first thirty years of the Food Stamp Program, legal immigrants were eligible for food stamps. It was unfair for Congress to exclude them in 1996 and it is time for us to close this unconscionable gap. While hunger and malnutrition are serious problems for people of all ages, their effects are particularly damaging to children. Hungry and undernourished children are more likely to become anemic and to suffer from allergies, asthma, infections, and other health problems. They are also more likely to have behavioral problems and difficulty in learning. When children arrive at school hungry, they cannot learn. If children are hungry, our investments in education and early learning will not have the full positive impact that they should. The nutrition title of this bill includes a number of other important policy provisions, including changes in the Food Stamp Program to improve access and simplify administration. These reforms are vital to ensure that low income families receive the nutrition assistance they need. Excessive requirements for reporting income, counting assets, calculating expenses for deductions, and determining on-going eligibility can be an overwhelming burden for families who lack transportation or child care, or who have inflexible work schedules. These requirements often make it difficult or impossible for low income families to participate. Given current economic conditions, an effective and efficient Food Stamp Program is now more important than ever. The bill also provides states more options for helping families make the transition from welfare to work. Current food stamp law allows a 3- month state option for a transitional food stamp benefit. This bill reflects Medicaid's six-month Medicaid transitional benefit for food stamps. It simplifies state record keeping, increases state flexibility, and helps welfare families make the transition to work. The bill ends the child penalty under current food stamp law. Just as the marriage penalty in our tax code unfairly penalizes some couples, the existing food stamp law unfairly limits nutritional assistance for many families with children. The bill corrects this problem by indexing the food stamp standard deduction to family size, so that every family in deep poverty will receive the maximum current food stamp benefit, regardless of family size. The bill helps single parents struggling to make ends meet. It ensures that the food stamp law treats child support payments like income, by disregarding 20 percent of these payments when calculating benefits. This measure is consistent with last year's overwhelming approval of a plan by the House of Representatives to encourage states to see that child support actually benefits the children in low-income families. Parents who know that their children will directly benefit if they pay child support are more likely to pay the support and stay involved in their children's lives. In addition, this bill improves access to food stamp information, helping to see that families are aware of the help available. Less than one-third of the people who seek emergency hunger relief are currently receiving food stamps even though three-fourths are eligible for the relief. This bill will help rural families apply for food stamps online or by telephone. It eliminates the need to travel to food stamp offices. In addition, the bill also supports stronger public-private partnerships to distribute information about nutrition assistance programs. Finally, the bill increases federal support for emergency food programs, which have had sharp increases in requests for help in the past year. Many food banks find themselves unable to meet the heavy new demands. America's Second Harvest reports that 23.3 million people-- equal to the combined population of the 10 largest U.S. cities-- received emergency hunger relief last year--two million more than in 1997. One-in-five local charitable agencies were already facing problems that threatened their ability to serve hungry people in their communities--before the current economic crisis. For all of these reasons, it is critical that we maintain the $6.2 billion funding level for the nutrition title of this bill. This amount is urgently needed and it must be part of the final bill. The policy changes that will be accomplished will make an enormous difference in the lives of many families. Fewer children will go to bed hungry and arrive at school hungry and unfed. The current downturn in the economy means that even more families, including farm families, are facing the impossible choice between feeding their children and paying the rent, a choice no person should have to make. We have the resources to make the modest investment that is necessary. Once again, I commend Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar for their skillful work and I urge my colleagues to support the needed funding levels for nutrition.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, there is good news today for working men and women across the Nation. For months, we have fought to extend unemployment benefits for the millions of workers who need them in this troubled economy. Today, after weeks of debate, our opponents in the Senate finally relented. They joined us to pass a 13-week extension for all laid-off workers who have exhausted their benefits. Since the beginning of the recession more than 2 million workers have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Extending benefits will help these workers, including nearly sixty thousand workers in Massachusetts who have lost their jobs, and are still looking for new employment. They have been refinancing their homes, and in some cases, even selling them, just to make ends meet. The battle is not over. We still need to get approval from the House of Representatives. And then it is up to President Bush to honor the commitment he made in his State of the Union speech to make this achievement a reality for our workers. Unfinished business remains. Outdated unemployment rules exclude hundreds of thousands of workers who have been laid-off through no fault of their own. Laid-off part-time and low-wage workers have paid into the system, but often fail to receive the benefits they need. Recent data suggest that only 18 percent of unemployed low-wage workers were collecting benefits. For months, we have fought to expand coverage to benefit more than 600,000 additional unemployed part-time and low- wage workers. We will not give up that fight. We have also fought to increase weekly unemployment benefits by the greater of $25 a week, or 15 percent. Currently, unemployment benefits do not replace enough lost wages to keep workers out of poverty. In 2000, average unemployment benefits replaced only 33 percent of workers' lost income, a major reduction from the 46 percent of workers' wages replaced by jobless benefits during the recessions of the 1970's and 1980's. During an economic crisis, unemployed workers have few opportunities to rejoin a declining workforce. They depend on unemployment benefits. We will continue to work for a benefit increase to ensure that laid-off workers are not impoverished during periods of unemployment. Benefit levels are too low for laid-off workers to afford the health care they need. Health premiums can cost nearly $600 a month for a family--most of an unemployment check. That is why only about one in five laid-off workers today continue their coverage, even if they are eligible. For months, we have fought to pass an economic recovery plan that would cover 75 percent of the health care premium for those who are eligible to continue their coverage, but can't afford the cost. Some workers are not eligible for any continuing health plan. Our plan would have allowed states to cover these vulnerable workers. Taken together, our plan would have ensured that men and women who lose their jobs don't have to worry about losing their health insurance as well. We cannot let our workers down when it comes to health care. America deserves better. We have also fought to provide fiscal relief to the states, which face serious budget shortfalls, yet must meet yearly balanced budget requirements. We have been working to increase Medicaid payments, so that states don't have to cut back on coverage, just as more workers need help. This is the top priority for Republican and Democratic Governors. We should provide our States relief now. The American people have strongly supported our efforts to give workers the support and assistance they deserve. But some of our colleagues in Congress have stalled our efforts to help these courageous workers. Democrats have proposed an effective and balanced plan to stimulate the faltering economy, but throughout the past few months, our opponents have used procedural maneuvers to block the measure. When House and Senate negotiators tried to reach a compromise, our opponents delayed it at every turn. They were unwilling to support any recovery package unless it contained tens of billions of dollars for new tax breaks for wealthy individuals and corporations, including $250 million in tax breaks for Enron. It makes no sense to hold laid-off workers hostage to such irresponsible and costly tax breaks. Our opponents consistently offered plans that fail the nation's workers. They offered a plan to extend unemployment benefits, but only to laid-off workers in a few states. They offered a plan to use National Emergency Grants for unemployment insurance, health care and job training--guaranteeing that few funds would actually go to unemployment insurance. They offered a plan to provide Reed Act distributions that would primarily be used for state tax cuts and could go into state unemployment trust funds, instead of offering new or extended benefits. Today, we will vote to extend unemployment benefits for 13 weeks, something we have done in every recession. Today, we will celebrate our long-fought for victory. Tomorrow, we will continue the fight for America's workers.