Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Senate has today approved important bipartisan legislation to improve the treatment of two afflictions that take the lives and blight the health of millions of Americans. The Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act establishes important new initiatives to improve the quality of stroke care for patients across America. The Community Access to Emergency Defibrillation Act will make these lifesaving medical devices much more widely available in public places throughout the country. I commend my colleague, Senator Bill Frist, for joining me in sponsoring these two measures. Senator Frist and I have worked closely on this legislation to establish new initiatives to reduce the grim toll of injury and death taken by stroke and cardiac arrest, and I commend him for his leadership. We are also grateful to the many colleagues on our committee and throughout the Senate who have worked with us so effectively on these two proposals. Stroke is a national tragedy that leaves no American community unscarred. It is the third leading cause of death in the United States. Every minute of every day, somewhere in America, a person suffers a stroke. Every three minutes, a person dies from a stroke. Strokes take the lives of nearly 160,000 Americans each year. Even for those who survive, it can have devastating consequences. Over half of all survivors are left with a disability. Since few Americans recognize the symptoms of stroke, crucial hours are often lost before patients receive medical care. The average time between the onset of symptoms and medical treatment is a shocking 13 hours. Emergency medical technicians are often not taught how to recognize and manage the symptoms of stroke. Rapid administration of clot-dissolving drugs can dramatically improve the outcome of stroke, yet fewer than 3 percent of stroke patients now receive such medication. If this lifesaving medication were delivered promptly to all stroke patients, as many as 90,000 Americans could be spared the disabling consequences of stroke. Even in hospitals, stroke patients often do not receive the care that could save their lives. Treatment by specially trained health care providers increases survival and reduces disability due to stroke, but a neurologist is the attending physician for only about one in ten stroke patients. To save lives, reduce disability and improve the quality of stroke care, the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act authorizes needed new public health initiatives to enable patients with symptoms of stroke to receive timely and effective care. The Act establishes a grant program for States to implement systems of stroke care that will give health professionals the equipment and training they need to treat this disorder. The initial point of contact between a stroke patient and medical care is usually an emergency medical technician. Grants under the Act may be used to train these personnel to provide more effective care to stroke patients in the crucial first few moments after an attack. The Act provides new resources for States to improve the standard of care for stroke patients in hospitals, and to increase the quality of stroke care in rural hospitals through improvements in telemedicine. The Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a national media campaign to inform the public about the symptoms of stroke, so that patients receive prompt medical care. The bill also creates the Paul Coverdell Stroke Registry and Clearinghouse, which will collect data about the care of stroke patients and assist in the development of more effective treatments. The Community Access to Emergency Defibrillation Act will increase the availability of lifesaving cardiac defibrillators in communities throughout the nation. We could save thousands of lives every year if defibrillators were more widely available, yet few communities are able to make this technology widely accessible. The measure approved by the Senate today will establish new initiatives to increase access to defibrillators. It will assist communities in placing these lifesaving medical devices in public areas like schools, workplaces, community centers, and other locations where people gather. It will help communities provide training to use and maintain the devices, and to coordinate planning with emergency medical personnel. The legislation will also assist in placing defibrillators in schools so that cardiac arrest can be effectively treated when it strikes the youngest and most vulnerable of our citizens. Sudden cardiac arrest is a tragedy for families all across America. Communities that have already implemented programs to increase public access to defibrillators like the extremely successful ``First Responder Defibrillator Program'' in Boston have been able to increase survival rates by 50 percent. More than 50,000 lives could be saved each year if more communities implemented programs such as Boston's. The two measures approved by the Senate today can make a significant difference in the lives of the thousands of Americans who suffer a stroke or cardiac arrest every year. For such patients, even a few minutes' delay in receiving treatment can make the difference between healthy survival and disability or death. We need to do all we can to see that those precious minutes are not wasted. This legislation is important to every community in America. I commend my colleagues for having approved these measures, and I urge our colleagues in the House of Representatives to act on them promptly.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. (for himself, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Reed) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 202 Whereas, yesterday, the New England Patriots pulled off a thrilling 20-17 victory over the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday, the New England Patriots pulled off a thrilling 20-17 victory over the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI. The victory is the first world championship for the Patriots, and it could not have come at a more poignant time for our country. Since September 11, the courageous acts of countless Americans have set a new standard for the Nation. Indeed, a new American spirit has been forged. That sprit is characterized by sacrifice, humility, and a refusal to quit in the face of adversity. At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down indivualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good. That example came from the top, and it came from the start of the season. Choosing to be introduced before the game as a team, not as individuals, the Patriots set the tone for their victory. Coach Bill Belichick stressed teamwork, saying that only by working together could the Patriots overcome their opponent, the best team in the NFL's regular season, the St. Louis Rams. The coach put his faith in second year quarterback Tom Brady, the youngest quarterback ever to win a Super Bowl, and the eventual MVP of the game. At the same time, Drew Bledsoe, team captain and the consummate team player, cheered him--and the entire team--from the sideline. But this was not a game won by a star quarterback alone, it was a team effort. No one player rose above the rest--but together, they excelled and defied long odds. The defense, a no-name bunch forced to depend on each other, stifled the high-octane Rams offense. It was this defense, led by Ty Law, Teddy Bruschi, Mike Vrabel, and rookie Richard Seymour, that got the Patriots ahead early in the game. The second half saw a Rams comback, and a lesser team could have fallen under such dire circumstances. But these Patriots once again banded together, for one final drive. With the game tied, momentum on the side of the Rams, and overtime seemingly inevitable, the Patriots showed their true spirit, using running back Kevin Faulk, receiver Troy Brown, and intelligent play from Brady to drive from inside their own 20 yard line to give kicker Adam Vinatieri a chance to win the game with only 7 seconds left on the clock. As his kick sailed through the uprights, the Patriots completed their unthinkable task: they defeated the Rams, and won their world championship. All of us in Massachusetts, and indeed all who live in New England, are proud of the Patriots and their extraordinary season. They finished the season with 9 straight victories, a feat that could only be accomplished by a team using all 53 players on its roster. The Patriots had to win two tough playoff games to make the Super Bowl. And even after these improbable victories over the Oakland Raiders and Pittsburgh Steelers, they were big underdogs to the Rams yesterday. Unfazed by these odds, the Patriots won again, defying their critics and naysayers. Eight years ago Bob Kraft bought the Patriots, and today he will bring the Lombardi trophy home to fans who have been waiting for 42 years. Congratulations. The Rams also deserve credit, as they had a spectacular season and played a wonderful game. They are certainly an impressive team. The Patriots' hard work and dedication encapsulates the new spirit in America. I urge the Senate to approve this well-deserved resolution, which I will offer today. In Boston, April 15 is Patriots' Day--a day when we celebrate the brave men and women who fought for our Nation's independence. But, for generations of New England sports fans--from Bangor to Boston-- yesterday will always be our Patriots' Day. Today, the New England Patriots are the true patriots all over the land. Their perseverance, teamwork, and devotion represent the best of America, and I'm proud to call them not only my home team, but also world champions. Mr. President, I would like to speak further to the Senate and ask if I could extend my time for an additional 10 minutes. The PRESIDENT, pro tempore. Hearing no objection, the Senator is recognized for the additional 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the budget President Bush presented today clearly demonstrates that we cannot meet our national security needs in the wake of September 11, and afford to fully implement the enormous tax cuts which were enacted prior to that fateful day, unless we ignore our vital education, health, and human resources needs. All of us agree that we must spend what is necessary to defend the Nation against the threat of terrorism. These new demands on our resources, coupled with the recession, necessitate a reevaluation of the entire budget picture--including the expenditure of $1.7 trillion to finance the tax cut. Unfortunately, when it comes to the tax cut, the administration is unwilling to admit that the world has changed. If future tax cuts which disproportionately favor our wealthiest citizens are treated as a sacred cow, many of the programs that help our neediest citizens will be sacrificed. The war requires shared sacrifice, not placing all the burden on those families least able to carry it. Today, we find ourselves in a dramatically different and far less advantageous position than we did one year ago. In January 2001, CBO projected a $5.6 trillion surplus for fiscal years 2002-2011. One year later, the projected surplus for that period is only $1.6 trillion, nearly all of it attributable to Social Security. According to CBO, an on-budget surplus will not reappear until fiscal year 2010. Four trillion dollars of the surplus is gone. Whatever the merits of last year's tax bill at the time it was enacted, those circumstances clearly no longer exist. In the aftermath of September 11, we are facing major new demands on our national resources which must take priority. We cannot meet these demands and afford such an enormous tax cut without raiding Social Security and Medicare. Jeopardizing the security of millions of senior citizens to finance the full tax cut is not an acceptable price to pay. We cannot now afford the entire tax cut without ignoring critical national needs. Neglecting our children's education and the health and well-being of our families to finance this tax cut is not an acceptable price to pay. Yet, that is what the administration budget would do. At this critical moment, the Senate must transcend the old boundaries of the debate, and act in the nation's best interest. Social Security is a major victim of the President's budget. His budget does not merely dip into the Social Security Trust Fund for a couple of years when we are experiencing a recession and fighting a war. It proposes to raid Social Security every year through at least 2010, taking a total of $1.464 trillion out of the trust fund. The magnitude of the administration planned raid on Social Security is truly shocking. It would dramatically weaken Social Security's long- term financial stability. This reckless scheme seriously threatens the well-being of every senior citizen and disabled person who will be depending on the program in the years ahead. Even with the raid on Social Security, the budget does not meet the nation's critical domestic spending needs. Discretionary domestic spending does not even keep pace with the rate of inflation. It receives a real dollar cut. The only fiscally responsible course of action now is to postpone some future tax cuts that exclusively benefit the wealthiest taxpayers. These future tax breaks are not scheduled to take effect until 2004 and later. However, if they are allowed to take effect, they will cost hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the decade. By delaying them, we can save approximately $350 billion. More than one trillion dollars of tax cuts will still take effect as scheduled. Under the plan I have proposed, no taxpayer would pay a higher tax rate than he or she paid last year. In fact, income tax rates for everyone would be lower in 2002 and in succeeding years than they were in 2001. The child tax credit would be increased as planned and marriage penalty relief would be provided as scheduled. The $350 billion in cost savings would result solely from a delay of future reductions in the tax rate paid by the wealthiest taxpayers in the highest income brackets and from maintaining the estate tax on estates above $4 million. While a small number of the most wealthy taxpayers may receive less of a tax reduction than they anticipated, they will still be receiving billions of dollars in new tax breaks as a result of last year's bill. Especially in a time of national crisis, it is certainly reasonable to ask them to contribute a fair share to keep our Nation strong. These future tax cuts for those at the top are not part of the fight against the recession. They are not scheduled to occur until long after the economy emerges from the downturn. In fact, taking fiscally responsible action now will actually help the economy--by leading to reductions in long-term interest rates that have remained stubbornly high because of the fear that unaffordable tax cuts will lead to growing Federal deficits throughout the decade. Reducing that threat will reduce the cost of long-term borrowing for businesses, and provide a stimulus for new job creation now. Such a modest reduction in future tax cuts will help us to meet our responsibility to the American people to improve education all along the continuum from birth through college, to extend better health care to more people, and to ensure that workers can find the training that they'll need to fully participate in the modern world economy. The American people have not made future tax cuts their first priority, and Congress should not either. At the very least, fairness and fiscal responsibility require that future tax cuts be reduced by the cost of the increased defense and homeland security spending these perilous times require. This would allow our domestic priorities to receive the same funding which all of us agreed last year was the essential minimum. We have only had the administration's budget for a few hours. However, the disturbing neglect of many of our Nation's most pressing domestic needs is evident. I would like to take just a few moments to describe those to the Senate at this time. First of all, let us take the area of health care. Support for our public hospitals will be reduced by $27 billion. The public hospitals in this country are some of the most beleaguered health institutions that we have in this Nation. They are the ones that respond to the pressure when unemployment increases and millions of workers lose their health insurance. Where do laid-off workers go when they get sick? Where do their children go when they get sick? They go to the public hospitals. They are the principal institutions that treat the uninsured and the neediest people in our society. The idea that we will see additional reductions in terms of support for these major institutions, which are primarily in the great urban areas of our country and operating on such a narrow edge in any event because of the extraordinary kinds of burdens they are facing, is a major mistake from a health policy point of view in terms of caring for our fellow citizens. Reductions in the support for the training of pediatricians in our children's hospitals by some $85 billion is also a major mistake. We want to make sure we are going to have the best trained pediatricians in the world to care for our children. I think the idea that the budget is going to shortchange the training for those individuals who have made a commitment to making a difference, effectively equals a reduction in the quality of care, and is shortsighted. We are talking about caring for the children of this country. We see further reductions in support for medical education, which will clearly reflect itself in a reduction of quality. We have many challenges in our health care system, but one of the most important successes of our health care system is the training, the professionalism, and the quality of our health professionals, who are the envy of countries all over the world. Our training of health professionals is a magnificent example of the best we can provide. We have other challenges in the delivery of health care services. For example, the cost of health care and the fact that we don't pay for prescription drugs, which our elderly desperately need. But the training of well-qualified personnel is something in which all of us take a sense of pride. We should not lose it. We are seeing a significant reduction in terms of support. We are seeing reductions in health care professionals at a time when we still have a very significant imbalance in underserved areas--both in rural areas and urban areas. To see a reduction in support for that kind of program makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Cutting funding in terms of the Child Care Development Block Grant program, at a time when the program is only serving about 12 percent or 15 percent of the need in this country, fails children. Considering the importance of that program for working families, and particularly for the working poor, it also fails workers and families. Seeing resources cut that help States move individuals from welfare to work, and which can also be used for childcare, training programs, and transportation, undermines our effort to help move people from a sense of dependency into independence. I am disappointed in the area of education funding after we worked very conscientiously with the Administration to restructure the K-12 program. We are reaching only a third of the children who would be affected by the thrust of the Title I provisions of the reform of education programs. We are effectively going to see the same number of children covered. Because of the recession, an increasing number of children will qualify. One billion dollars of that is going to be cumulative. We are only reaching about a third of the children rather than meeting the needs of all the children who could benefit from that program. There is effectively an increase of $1 billion in terms of IDEA, which is the program to help local communities all across this country offset some of the burden they are facing in providing educational opportunities for special needs children. At this rate, it will take 15 to 17 years before we meet our responsibilities in assisting local communities and States in this area. We are failing our special needs children by failing to give that program the support it should have. Finally, in the area of teacher quality, there is only level funding. Similarly, for after school programs and bilingual education, there is no increase. We spent a great deal of time in the last Congress to make sure we were going to use the best of Republican ideas, Administration ideas, and Democratic ideas to try to bring about changes in our educational system, but we all knew it was going to take a combination of reform and resources. As we pointed out during the course of the debate, just having reform without the resources was not going to be consequential. Just having resources without the reforms was not going to be meaningful. We tried to bring those two elements together. I think we did a good job, but now we see in this budget no increase for many of these provisions--many of which are so important in terms of strengthening academic achievement and accomplishment for our young people. Finally, about 400,000 children drop out of school every single year. We have the Youth Opportunities Act to try to reach out to those young people, to try to get them back into school, and to try to get them employment. One of the major reforms of the Workforce Investment Act, it is an effort to provide educational opportunities and job training to our most impoverished youth. Effectively, that program has been emasculated. The new Administration budget dramatically cuts funding for the program, beginning it's eventual phase-out. It makes absolutely no sense. We were trying to get reforms in terms of education, and then with the Youth Opportunities Program we were trying to reach out to children who have dropped out and try to bring them back into the system, either to complete their education or to move them into training programs so they can be productive. That program has been undermined. There are training programs for workers to get the skills necessary to be able to compete and produce--on-the-job training programs which have really been the result of very strong bipartisan efforts to reform the 128 different job training programs and 12 different agencies. Republicans and Democrats worked together. We streamlined these programs in a very efficient and effective way to try to help workers develop new skills in order for them to be more competitive. We now find out this program is being significantly undermined. If you are talking about young people, if you are talking about failing to develop an effective prescription drug program for our seniors, if you are talking about missed opportunities in the area of education and in training for young people, that is all reflected in this budget. The final point is that we are in danger of using up all of our Social Security funds, paid by working men and women, by transferring them into a tax break for the wealthiest individuals in this country. The tax breaks that will go into effect in 2004 have jeopardized our ability to meet important domestic priorities. There is going to be a battle during the course of this year in terms of priorities. I look forward to being a part of that debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be brief.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, since September 11, our Nation's workers have come together in the face of new challenges. Today, more than 8 million of these workers are unemployed and the unemployment rate is 5.8 percent and expected to climb to 6.5 percent. We need an effective economic recovery package to bring the unemployment rate down and help laid-off workers across the Nation. We see more layoffs every day. United Airlines has laid off nearly 20,000 people since October. Lucent Technologies in North Andover, MA, recently laid off 1,700 workers. Toys R Us has just announced they were closing more than 60 stores and laying off 1,900 employees. Some say the recession's end is near and recovery is around the corner. Even if those predictions come true, the consequences will linger for working families. The unemployment rate will continue to rise. Laid-off workers will still have great difficulty finding new jobs, and other workers may still be facing layoffs. More than 58,000 laid-off Massachusetts workers have exhausted their benefits in the last twelve months. This includes workers like Christina Young of Billerica, MA. Christina was laid off at the end of June and, since then she has been looking for a new job. She recently learned that she is pregnant. Christina's unemployment benefits, her husband's income and their savings were keeping them afloat, paying the mortgage, the expensive winter heating bills, their bills for health care and groceries. But Christina's unemployment benefits have run out, and now she can't afford her pre-natal care. Selma Burgert of Malden, MA was laid off by Polaroid in May and her unemployment benefits ran out last month. She has been looking for work for months. But every time she applies for a job, she finds herself competing with two hundred to three hundred other applicants. She is fortunate to have savings to get by. Selma knows many people who aren't as fortunate, and have had to sell their homes or cut down on the food they provide for their families. In communities throughout Massachusetts and the Nation, workers like Christina and Selma are running out of unemployment benefits while competing for the dwindling number of open jobs. How long are we going to wait before we help them? The time to do it is now. The amendment we are debating will make a big difference for these workers. The American people strongly support 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 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 have consistently offered plans that failed 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. Our amendment demonstrates our commitment to helping workers. It updates the unemployment insurance system to meet the urgent needs of the economy. By improving unemployment insurance, our amendment both stimulates the economy and helps the families who need help the most. Every dollar invested in unemployment insurance boosts the economy by $2.15. Unemployment insurance also helps to prevent the loss of even more jobs during a recession. The amendment makes three important changes. First, it extends unemployment benefits for 13 weeks for laid-off workers across the nation. Second, it expands the coverage to include laid-off part-time and low-wage workers who do not currently receive benefits. Third, it increases meager unemployment benefit levels. These changes will help nearly four-fifths of laid-off workers who currently are not receiving benefits. Even during good times, about a third of those receiving unemployment insurance exhaust their benefits. During recessions, the number rises. That's why Congress has provided federally-funded extended benefits repeatedly during recessions in the past. Today, more than two million laid-off workers have already exhausted their benefits. How much longer are we going to wait before we help those workers? The time to help them is now. Although part-time and low-wage workers are least likely to have savings and other safety-nets to help them, few are eligible for unemployment benefits. Laid-off part-time and low-wage workers have paid into the system, but they often fail to receive the benefits they need. Recent data suggest that only 18 percent of unemployed low-wage workers were collecting benefits. Expanding coverage will benefit more than 600,000 additional unemployed part-time and low-wage workers. The time to do it is now. It is also time to increase weekly unemployment benefits by the greater of $25 a week, or 15 percent. This increase in benefits, an average of $150 a month, will be an immediate stimulus to the economy. Unemployed households will spend it to pay the rent or a medical bill, buy groceries, keep the family car running, or hire a babysitter during job interviews. Currently, unemployment benefits do not replace enough lost wages to keep workers out of poverty. In 2000, the national average unemployment benefit only replaced 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. Adding $150 a month to unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy and help these laid-off workers support their families while they look for a new job. More than three hundred thousand laid-off workers in Massachusetts would benefit from this amendment. At least thirteen million laid-off workers would benefit nationwide. The American public is ready for honest action that genuinely helps these deserving workers. We passed an airline security bill, without providing any help for workers. We adjourned for the recess without providing any help for workers. We owe it to the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs to act now to provide the support they need and deserve. In conclusion, Madam President, at the time of September 11, I think most of us believed there was a new spirit and a new atmosphere in this country. We have tried to respond to those who lost loved ones. We have seen generosity in reaching out to families all over this country. There is a new spirit in America for people who are hurting and are in need. What we are talking about today are men and women who have lost their jobs, often as a result of the terrorist acts. There are other incidents where they might not be directly related, but by and large it is as a result of the terrorist attack. In this Senate, we hear Members nickel and dime American workers who work hard, play by the rules, put in a good day's work, and as a result of economic conditions have lost their jobs. There is $38 billion that has been paid into a fund that otherwise would have gone to workers' salaries. That fund is out there, and we are using $15 billion. We used it four times in the 1990s, with seldom less than 90 votes--or 80 votes in the Senate. We are reaching out to part-time workers and low-income workers. They, too, have paid into that fund. The money is there for this kind of circumstance. It is there for the Federal Government to act. Why? Because in many of these States there is an economic pinching. They cannot afford to take the kind of economic action, and that is why this program was developed. Now is the time to take the action. Let us not nickel and dime America's workers who have suffered as a result of the kinds of attacks we saw on this country. That is what this is about. Are we going to stand up for those men and women who want to work and should be able to work? This is what the Durbin amendment is about, and I look forward to supporting it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I concur with my colleague from New Hampshire.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to approve this important bipartisan legislation to respond to one of the most severe dangers our country faces, the grave threat of bioterrorist attacks. I commend my colleagues Senator Frist and Senator Gregg for their impressive continuing leadership on this vital issue. We are all well aware of the emergency we face. In recent weeks, a handful of anthrax cases stretched our health care system to the breaking point. A larger attack could be a disaster, and the attack of the past weeks has clearly sounded the alarm. The clock is ticking on America's preparedness for a future attack. We've had the clearest possible warning, and we can't afford to ignore it. We know that lives are at stake, and we're not ready yet. The Department of Health and Human Services has made anthrax vaccine available to workers at risk for exposure to the deadly spores, but there has been few plans to distribute the vaccine and inform workers about the risks and benefits of vaccination. In a major outbreak, our public health agencies and hospitals would be strained to the breaking point by the task of providing vaccinations against anthrax, smallpox, or other deadly plagues to thousands or even millions of Americans. Some cities have already developed plans and procedures for providing care to patients affected by bioterrorism, but too few communities are adequately prepared. The needs are great. A summit meeting of experts on bioterrorism and public health concluded that $835 million was needed just to address the most pressing needs for public health at the State and local levels. The National Governors Association has said that States need $2 billion to improve readiness for bioterrorism. John Hopkins Hospital is spending $7.5 million to improve its ability to serve as a regional bioterrorism resource for Baltimore. Equipping just one hospital to this level in each of 100 cities across America would cost $750 million. The Appropriations Committee has recognized the importance of significant investments in bioterrorism preparedness. The Department of Defense conference bill provides as important down payment for the Nation's needs for bioterrorism preparedness. I commend Senator Byrd, Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, Senator Harkin, and Senator Specter for their impressive leadership in this area. In particular, they have begun to address the basic issue of State and local preparedness and the readiness of hospitals to deal with bioterrorism by providing $1 billion for these purposes. The need for help at the State and local level is especially urgent. In the first 3 weeks of October alone, state health departments spent a quarter billion dollars responding to the anthrax attack. Many departments were forced to put aside other major public health responsibilities. Massachusetts has suspended many public health activities other than bioterrorism, and has fielded over 2,000 calls from worried residents, each one taking half an hour of time for personnel. South Dakota has had to suspend an investigation of serious food poisoning outbreak to investigate rumors of anthrax attacks, even though no actual attack appears to have occurred. The Georgia Health Department has spent 3,000 person-hours just in 1 week on anthrax. Hospitals across the country have immediate needs. According to the American Public Health Association, hospitals are hard-pressed even during a heavy flu season, and could not cope with a lethal contagious disease like smallpox. The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act we are proposing will address these deficiencies. It provides new resources for bioterrorism preparedness to the States under a formula that guarantees help to each State. These resources will be available to improve hospital readiness, equip emergency personnel, enhance State planning, and strengthen the ability of public health agencies to detect and contain dangerous disease outbreaks. The need is great at the State and local level, but gaps need to be addressed at the Federal level too. So far, we have had only a handful of patients diagnosed with anthrax, but our resources have been stretched to the breaking point. We can't afford further delays in meeting these critical needs. Ft. Detrick, one of our two national reference laboratories, processed over 19,000 samples after the attacks began, and they are already stretched to the limit. The story was the same at CDC. Usually, a few dozen CDC experts respond to a disease outbreak. But CDC assigned nearly 500 specialists to the anthrax attacks. One out of eight employees at CDC headquarters in Atlanta is working on the current outbreak. Staffers worked round the clock and slept in hallways and only 18 cases of actual illness was known. In a recent article, CDC Director Koplan summed up the situation this way: Right now, we are working flat out. I keep thinking, if you know you;re in a marathon, you pace yourself for a marathon; if you know you're in a sprint, ou pace yourself for a sprint. But our guys are sprinting, and the sprint distance is long over. We're sprinting a marathon. The diversion of resources to anthrax has also led to the neglect of other important health priorities. According to a recent article in the Chicago Tribune, CDC has had to postpone programs to prevent meningitis among college students. They've delayed the development of vaccines urgently needed to combat diseases in the developing world. They've deferred activities to contain the spread of deadly infections resistant to antibiotics. Hawaii is facing a serious outbreak of dengue fever. When local health authorities asked CDC to analyze lab samples, they were told that no facilities were available due to the anthrax outbreak. Instead, the Hawaii doctors had to send their important samples to a lab in Puerto Rico for analysis. Dr. David Satcher, the Surgeon General, recently said that the country ``should be ashamed of the condition of the laboratories of the CDC.'' These vital national resources, he said, were without power for 15 hours during the early days of the anthrax outbreak. Computers are covered in plastic to protect them from leaky roofs, and termites have chewed holes through laboratory floors. Dr. Satcher is right to call this problem a national disgrace. We cannot continue to expect the CDC to do a first class job, if we provide only third-rate facilities. Clearly, our legislation is an important downpayment on preparedness. But we must make sure that our commitment to achieving full readiness is sustained in the weeks and months to come. Since September 11, the American people have supported our commitment of billions of dollars and thousands of troops to battle terrorism abroad. But Americans also want to be safe at home. We have an obligation to every American that we will do no less to protect them against terrorism at home than we do to fight terrorism abroad. Federal stockpiles of antibiotics, vaccines, and other medical supplies are an essential part of the national response. We have a strategic petroleum reserve to safeguard our energy supply in times of crisis. We need a strategic pharmaceutical reserve as well, to ensure that we have the medicines and vaccines stockpiled to respond to bioterrorist attacks. Our legislation establishes this reserve, and authorizes the development of sufficient smallpox and other vaccines to meet the needs of the entire U.S. population. The legislation will also help protect the safety of the food supply, through increased research and surveillance of dangerous agricultural pathogens. Our legislation draws on the work and suggestions of numerous colleagues on both sides of the aisle. One of the important areas addressed in the legislation is the threat of agricultural bioterrorism. Deliberate introduction of animal diseases could pose rave dangers to the safety of the food supply. Such acts of agricultural bioterrorism would also be economically devastating. The outbreaks of ``mad cow'' disease in Europe cost over $10 billion, and the foot and mouth outbreak cost billions more. We must guard against this danger. Protecting the safety of the food supply is a central concern in addressing the problem of bioterrorism. Senator Clinton, Senator Mikulski, Senator Harkin, Senator Collins, and Senator Durbin have all contributed thoughtful proposals about food safety. Our bill will enable FDA and USDA to protect the Nation's food supply more effectively. We are grateful for the leadership of other Senators who have made significant contributions to this legislation. Senator Bayh and Senator Edwards contributed important proposals on providing block grants to States, so that each State will be able to increase its preparedness. Their proposals ensure that each state will receive at least a minimum level of funding. We are also grateful for the contributions that many of our distinguished colleagues have made to meet the special needs of children. Senator Dodd, Senator Collins, Senator Clinton, Senator DeWine and Senator Murray have emphasized the crucial needs of children in any plan to deal with bioterrorism. The legislation includes significant initiatives to provide for the special needs of children and other vulnerable populations. The events of recent weeks have also shown the importance of effective communication with the public. Our legislation incorporates proposals offered by several of our colleagues on improving communication. Senator Carnahan has recognized the importance of the internet in providing information to the public. The legislation includes the provisions of her legislation to establish the official Federal internet site on bioterrorism, to help inform the public. Senator Mikulski also contributed provisions on improving communication with the public. A high-level, blue-ribbon task force can provide vitally needed insights on how best to provide information to the public. Senator Mikulski also recommended ways to ensure that states have coordinated plans for communicating information about bioterrorism and other emergencies to the public. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have a leading role in responding to bioterrorism. Senator Cleland has been an effective and skillful advocate for the needs of the CDC. Our legislation today incorporates many of the proposals in his legislation on public health authorities. Hospitals are also one of the keys to an effective response to bioterrorism. We must do more to strengthen the ability of the Nation's hospitals to cope with such attacks. Senator Corzine has proposed to strengthen designated hospitals to serve as regional resources for bioterrorism preparedness. I commend him for his thoughtful proposals, which we have incorporated in the legislation. We must also ensure that we monitor dangerous biological agents that can be used for bioterrorism. There is a serious loophole in current regulations, and we are grateful for the proposals offered by Senator Durbin and Senator Feinstein to achieve more effective control of these pathogens. In a biological threat or attack, mental health care will be extremely important. We are indebted to Senator Wellstone for his skillful and compassionate advocacy for the needs of those with mental illnesses. In the event of a terrorist attack, thousands of persons would have mental health needs, and our legislation includes key proposals by Senator Wellstone to meet these needs. Mobilizing the Nation's pharmaceutical and biotech companies so that they can fully contribute to this effort is also critical. Senator Leahy, Senator Hatch, Senator DeWine, and Senator Kohl made thoughtful contributions to the antitrust provisions of the bill, which will help encourage a helpful public-private partnership to combat bioterrorism. This legislation is urgent because the need to prepare for a bioterrorist attack is urgent. I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation, so that the American people can have the protection they need.

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand my colleague's concerns and commend him for his commitment to protecting consumers. His concerns are legitimate and I will work to improve these provisions in response to his concerns in the conference.

Mr. KENNEDY. I intend to press for adoption of these provisions. the security of our nation's water supply is crucial to the health and well-being of our citizens.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. I also believe that this issue should be given serious consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. I also agree with Senator Gregg. I thank the Senator from Utah for bringing these important issues to the attention of the Senate. I will look forward to working with him in resolving these issues during the conference.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. I intend to press for adoption of these provisions. The security of our Nation's water supply is crucial to the health and well-being of our citizens.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. With pleasure.

Mr. KENNEDY. First, I commend my colleague for his longstanding advocacy for food safety. He has been a leader, both in the House of Representatives and here in the Senate, in seeking the resources, the authority and the public awareness which will reduce the yearly epidemic of foodborne illness. The CDC has estimated that foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year. I also point out that he has played an instrumental role, with our colleagues, Senator Mikulski, Senator Collins, and Senator Clinton, in assuring that food safety is addressed in this legislation. In response to my colleague's inquiry, I fully concur with his interpretation of the food safety provisions in our legislation. It is precisely our intent, with respect to the food safety sections of this bill, that the standard of serious adverse health consequences or death with respect to these provisions in this bill should be understood to enable the FDA to protect all Americans, including vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly. I agree that there are instances where foodborne pathogens, such as those mentioned by my colleague, whether accidentally or deliberately introduced into food, may threaten some more vulnerable individuals but not the healthy adult population. For that reason, my colleague is correct that the agency would be able to exercise these food safety authorities to protect such vulnerable populations.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to express my strong support for the confirmation of Michael Hammond to be Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, and I urge the Senate to confirm him. Mr. Hammond is a distinguished composer, conductor, arts educator and scientist. His is the Dean of the Shepherd School of Music at Rice University, where he is also a professor of music and a faculty fellow in neuroscience. Mr. Hammond is an excellent choice to lead the Arts Endowment. He is also one of the nation's leaders in the field of cognitive development and he understands the vast potential of the arts in early childhood education. I welcome his leadership, and I believe that he will be an outstanding chairman for this very important agency. During the consideration of his nomination by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, I submitted a number of questions to Mr. Hammond. His responses are impressive and I ask unanimous consent that they may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has been over three months since the terrorist atrocities of September 11. Since that day, the Nation's workers have been among the Nation's most respected heroes. They have come together in the face of new challenges, risking their lives in the rescue and recovery efforts, and in too many cases, losing their lives. Our hearts are heavy with those losses. Our Nation's workers have come together, and the American people strongly support our efforts to give them the support and assistance they deserve. But our Republican colleagues in Congress have stalled our efforts to help these heroic workers. Senator Daschle proposed an effective and balanced plan to stimulate the faltering economy. It had a majority of support in the Senate. The provisions had the support of the nation's most preeminent economists, including nine Nobel prize laureates. But our Republican colleagues refused to even debate it. They said it wasn't an ``emergency.'' Listen to what the economists say. They say the House Republican proposal ``will do little to assist a near term recovery and is likely to undermine growth in the economy.'' But also listen to what our values say, that we cannot abandon our fellow citizens in their time of need. If there is any lesson from the tragedy of September 11, it is this: that we are one American community, and the backbone of that community comes from average Americans. Millions of members of that community are hurting today because they lost their jobs. Yet, our Republican friends repeatedly say no to the very actions that would help these families and strengthen our economy at the same time. Democrats tried to negotiate in good faith, but Republicans have been unwilling to support any recovery package unless it contains tens of billions of dollars for new tax breaks for wealthy individuals and corporations that will jeopardize the nation's long-term fiscal health and threaten Social Security and Medicare. We cannot let Republicans hold laid-off workers hostage to these irresponsible and costly tax breaks. Republicans have also refused to agree to a proposal to provide real health insurance to the victims of this terrorist attack and the current economic downturn. Instead, they offer only inadequate plans that leave workers with sky-high premiums for meager health benefits, and that leave behind the survivors of September 11 and many other of our most vulnerable workers. The Democratic economic recovery proposal puts money in the hands of the people who will spend it immediately. We strengthen unemployment insurance, and guarantee affordable health care to laid-off workers on the front lines of the economic battle. These workers deserve no less. Every day that we fail to pass a stimulus package, we fail to help more laid-off workers. The unemployment rate is now 5.7 percent, a 33 percent increase since the recession began. Over 8 million Americans will start the year out of work, through no fault of their own. Millions of Americans are left with no paycheck and no golden parachute. We cannot accept a plan that fails these workers. 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. Our plan covers 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 also allows states to cover these vulnerable workers. Taken together, our plan ensures that men and women who lose their jobs don't have to worry about losing their health insurance as well. Our plan also provides fiscal relief to the States, which face serious budget shortfalls, yet must meet yearly balanced budget requirements. We increase Medicaid payments, so that States don't have to cut back on coverage, just as more workers need help. The head of the Republican Governors' Association, Governor John Engler, said without this plan, a stimulus package is ``robbing Peter to pay Paul, because States will have to cut critical services, stifling the positive effect of any stimulus measures enacted at the federal level.'' Our Democratic plan assures 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits for laid-off workers. The current recession is already 9 months old, and the two million workers who have run out of unemployment insurance benefits should not have to continue to wait for our help. Our plan also makes part-time and low-wage workers eligible for unemployment benefits. In 1975, on average, 75 percent of unemployed workers received unemployment benefits. Last year, the figure was only 38 percent. Expanding coverage to include part-time and low-wage workers will benefit more than 600,000 more of those who have been laid-off, and it will also provide additional economic stimulus. In addition, our plan supplements the current meager level of unemployment benefits, which do not replace enough lost wages to keep workers out of poverty. In 2000, the national average unemployment benefit only replaced 33 percent of workers' lost income, a steep drop 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 to live. Adding $150 a month to unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy and help these laid-off workers support their families while they look for a new job. While Democrats have been negotiating an economic recovery package in good faith, the House Republicans pulled the rug out from under those negotiations. They walked away from the negotiating table, made harsh personal attacks against our Democratic leader, and brought a separate Republican bill, largely a repackaging of the previous bill--back to the House floor. The latest GOP plan is not an effort to stimulate the economy or help workers. It is a Republican game of political hot potato, to avoid blame. They do not deserve credit for a misguided plan that does nothing for the economy and nothing for workers. The latest House Republican bill fails the economy. It fails the states, which are struggling to balance their budgets. It fails the millions of workers who have been laid off through no fault of their own and are struggling to keep a roof over their families' heads and food on their tables. What it will do is blow a deep hole in our economy, estimated at $250 billion, adding to deficits already expected next year. All of it will have to come from the Social Security Trust Fund. Our Republican colleagues are more concerned about helping wealthy corporations and individuals than about stimulating the economy or assisting laid-off workers. The new House Republican bill continues to gut the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. They refuse to offer any true help for workers, but wealthy corporations will receive a promise that they won't have to pay any income tax in future years. The Republican bill also provides new tax reductions for wealthy individuals. Only the top quarter of American families will receive any benefit from these rate reductions and only the top 4.4 percent will receive the full benefit. The House bill also maintains a 30 percent bonus depreciation over the next 3 years, even though nobody believes the recession will last 3 years. With no incentive for immediate action, companies will not invest, now when the economy is weak. Instead, they will get windfalls in later years. At the same time, states will suffer revenue losses for the full 3 years of this proposal, on top of the $35 to $50 billion budget deficits they are already facing. The Republican bill drains money from States, but it provides little fiscal relief. Since states must balance their budgets even in recessions, the Republican plans will force still-larger budget cuts. These losses in revenue will almost certainly result in deep cuts for Medicaid, education, and other vital State and local services. The Republican bill clearly shortchanges workers. It does little to provide unemployment benefits or affordable health care for laid-off workers. Perhaps the best and purest form of economic stimulus is to increase unemployment benefits for families, because they are sure to spend it quickly. Yet, the unemployment insurance provisions in the bill passed by the House do not accomplish nearly enough. The bill leaves out hundreds of thousands of low-wage and part-time workers who have paid into the unemployment fund, but are not eligible for benefits under it. The Republican plan fails to raise the meager level of benefits, which currently replace half or less of an individual's lost wages. A few weeks ago, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee proposed temporarily suspending income taxes on UI benefits as a way of raising these meager benefits. That step would be slower and less inclusive than a benefit increase, but at least it acknowledged that we need to raise benefit levels. However, even that tax suspension has been dropped from the latest Republican bill. Instead, that bill provides funding for unemployment insurance that will most likely be used for employer tax cuts, and to boost trust fund reserves instead of worker benefits. The Republican health proposals are also an empty promise to millions of Americans. Their plan leaves out hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers. It excludes the survivors of the September 11 attack. It excludes low-wage and part-time workers. Even for those are eligible, it provides an inadequate subsidy that most workers can't afford to use. The Republican plan leaves deserving Americans who are not eligible for COBRA to the flawed individual insurance market which charges thousands of dollars for inadequate benefits. Their plan does not prevent HMOs and insurers from discriminating against sick and older workers, or from charging unlimited premiums. In these difficult economic times, it is wrong to ignore the needs of working families. It is wrong to repeatedly help our Nation's most prosperous firms, while ignoring the needs of millions of workers. It is wrong to tell workers, who have been laid off that they don't deserve unemployment benefits. It is wrong to tell hard-working men and women that the price they must pay for the terrorist attack is to go without the health care they need and deserve. It is wrong to offer only an empty promise with unlimited premiums. It is wrong to enact a stimulus plan that says yes to the greedy and no to the needy. It is time to end the suffering of the millions of families who have lost jobs and health insurance in this economic downturn. It is time for Congress and the President to listen to the voices of working families, instead of powerful special interests. Over the past 3 months, Congress has acted to help affected industries receive the assistance that they need. Businesses have also received stimulus after stimulus from the Federal Reserve which has cut interest rates 11 times. But business clearly has excess capacity today. Providing more benefits to business is not what will help this country recover most effectively. Economic recovery will come best and quickest helping unemployed workers pay for their groceries, their mortgage and their health costs. We reject the Republican proposals, because we cannot accept a plan that fails so many millions of workers. We owe it to all the Americans who have lost their jobs to provide the support they need and deserve, and to provide it now.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Nurse Reinvestment Act. Our goal in this bipartisan legislation is to do as much as we can to alleviate the nursing shortage experienced by health care facilities across the United States. Increasing the number of nurses is an essential part of the ongoing effort to reduce medical errors, improve patient outcomes, and encourage more Americans to become and remain nurses. The Nation's nurses provide care for Americans at the most vulnerable times in the lives. We must act now to halt the decline in the number of nurses. Enrollment in schools of nursing is falling, and the average age of the nursing workforce is rising. Across the country, communities are losing vast numbers of nurses, just as we need more to care for the millions of aging baby boomers and deal with the many medical challenges facing our hospitals. The current shortage means that too many nurses now have to care for too many patients at once, undermining the high quality of care that nurses want to give, and patients deserve. A recent survey by the American Nurses Association showed that 75 percent of nurses believe that the quality of nursing care at their facility has declined. More than half of those surveyed said that the time they can spend with patients has decreased. A nurse in Massachusetts said that she would not go the hospital where she worked, if she needed care. Nationally, the shortfall is expected to rise to 20 percent in the coming years. Yet nurses themselves are already seriously questioning the quality of bedside treatments now being provided on intensive care units, in emergency rooms, and at the bedsides of patients where they work. Their questions are call for help. This legislation can be significant in strengthening the nursing profession, and responding to the urgent need. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will recruit new students into schools of nursing through outreach programs, public awareness and education campaigns, and area health education centers. It establishes a national nurse service corps, which will offer scholarships to bring individuals into the profession and place them in medically under-served areas and facilities. The Act expands school-to-career partnerships to show youths the high value and importance of a nursing degree. It invests in today's nurses by providing education and training at every step of the career ladder, and by helping them obtain advanced degrees, from a B.S. in Nursing to a Ph.D. in Nursing. It includes provisions developed by Senator Lieberman and Senator Clinton to help health care facilities retain nurses. Our country has the best health care system in the world. But that system is being jeopardized today by the shortages plaguing the nursing workforce. Even our best medical facilities are in deep trouble if their beds go unfilled and their floors remain empty because there are no nurses to staff them. I commend Senator Mikulski, Senator Kerry, Senator Hutchinson, and Senator Jeffords for their leadership in this initiative. Bringing more nurses into the profession will help to ensure that nurses are ready and able to provide the highest quality of care to their patients. The Nurse Reinvestment Act is a significant step that Congress can take to support the Nation's nurses, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Nurse Reinvestment Act. Our goal in this bipartisan legislation is to do as much as we can to alleviate the nursing shortage experienced by health care facilities across the United States. Increasing the number of nurses is an essential part of the ongoing effort to reduce medical errors, improve patient outcomes, and encourage more Americans to become and remain nurses. The Nation's nurses provide care for Americans at the most vulnerable times in the lives. We must act now to halt the decline in the number of nurses. Enrollment in schools of nursing is falling, and the average age of the nursing workforce is rising. Across the country, communities are losing vast numbers of nurses, just as we need more to care for the millions of aging baby boomers and deal with the many medical challenges facing our hospitals. The current shortage means that too many nurses now have to care for too many patients at once, undermining the high quality of care that nurses want to give, and patients deserve. A recent survey by the American Nurses Association showed that 75 percent of nurses believe that the quality of nursing care at their facility has declined. More than half of those surveyed said that the time they can spend with patients has decreased. A nurse in Massachusetts said that she would not go the hospital where she worked, if she needed care. Nationally, the shortfall is expected to rise to 20 percent in the coming years. Yet nurses themselves are already seriously questioning the quality of bedside treatments now being provided on intensive care units, in emergency rooms, and at the bedsides of patients where they work. Their questions are call for help. This legislation can be significant in strengthening the nursing profession, and responding to the urgent need. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will recruit new students into schools of nursing through outreach programs, public awareness and education campaigns, and area health education centers. It establishes a national nurse service corps, which will offer scholarships to bring individuals into the profession and place them in medically under-served areas and facilities. The Act expands school-to-career partnerships to show youths the high value and importance of a nursing degree. It invests in today's nurses by providing education and training at every step of the career ladder, and by helping them obtain advanced degrees, from a B.S. in Nursing to a Ph.D. in Nursing. It includes provisions developed by Senator Lieberman and Senator Clinton to help health care facilities retain nurses. Our country has the best health care system in the world. But that system is being jeopardized today by the shortages plaguing the nursing workforce. Even our best medical facilities are in deep trouble if their beds go unfilled and their floors remain empty because there are no nurses to staff them. I commend Senator Mikulski, Senator Kerry, Senator Hutchinson, and Senator Jeffords for their leadership in this initiative. Bringing more nurses into the profession will help to ensure that nurses are ready and able to provide the highest quality of care to their patients. The Nurse Reinvestment Act is a significant step that Congress can take to support the Nation's nurses, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Madam President, first of all, I join with others in commending our friend and colleague from Iowa for an excellent job in finding scarce resources and focusing them on the Nation's needs. I think particularly of the great efforts he made to make sure children in this country were going to have the benefits, hopefully, of an education bill that can provide educational opportunities for young people in this country. As a result of the actions of Senator Harkin and his committee, more than 600,000 children who would not have participated in the title I program will participate in that program; 400,000 children who would not have participated in a bilingual program will participate in those programs; 200,000 children who would not have had an opportunity for after-school programs will benefit from those programs; and there will be tens of thousands of children who will benefit from the 1.2 billion that he has had in special education. So this has been an impressive achievement. When you look at the allocations for funding of these programs in the early part of the year, none of this was foreseen. I think he would agree with me that we are going to have to do even better in the future as we are facing the challenges in education, and understanding the importance that has in the lives of families in this country. I also commend him for his extraordinary efforts in leading this body, along with Senator Hagel and our colleague, Senator Jeffords, in the funding for the IDEA program, which is related to education. There are those who say it is not, but I think we understand, as indicated in the conclusion of the debate on education, that two out of three of the children who receive IDEA funding also qualify for Title I. These, in many instances, are the same children. Shortchanging one group pits one group against the other. By adding the money even over the administration's budget, it will mean additional quality services for needy children. We were unable to get the funding for the children who need IDEA, and that is going to be the subject of my comments this morning. I also want to thank Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for the great progress that was made in funding the health care priorities. Graduate Medical Education was increased by $50 million; the National Health Service Corps was increased by $24 million; and Community Health Centers received an increase of $175 million, which is the largest increase in its history. Of course Senator Harkin was there in the beginning with his subcommittee, understanding the importance of getting the funding to deal with bioterrorism. His committee worked with the Appropriations Committee and had very instructive and productive hearings developing the strong case for funding for bioterrorism as well as building a stockpile of vaccines. I feel strongly that, just as we have a petroleum reserve, we ought to have a pharmaceutical reserve so every child can be protected against any of these potential threats. Senator Harkin, in his committee, held very important hearings. Then Senator Byrd, with his strong leadership was able, working with Senator Harkin, to make sure we are going to meet our Nation's responsibility. All of us are thankful for that leadership. For more than 200 years, Americans have fought battle after battle against discrimination in all its forms. We have fought for racial equality to assure that all people are judged not by the color of their skin. We have fought for voting rights for women, and their rightful place in shaping the nation's democracy. We have acted to end discriminatory practices against the elderly and disabled. Despite our many successes in the ongoing battle for fairer treatment for all, there is one form of dangerous discrimination that still pervades every community in this country. Few families have escaped facing this discrimination personally, or seeing the harm it has caused to loved ones, friends, or acquaintances. This discrimination is not based on skin color, gender, or age. It is based on an illness--mental illness. For years, millions of Americans across this country with mental illness have faced stigma and misunderstanding. Even worse, they have been denied the treatment that can cure or ease their cruel afflictions. Too often, they are the victims of discrimination practiced by health insurance companies. It is unacceptable that the Nation continues to tolerate actions by insurers that deny medically necessary care for curable mental illnesses, while fully covering the cost of treatment for physical illnesses that are often more costly, less debilitating, and less curable. It is long past time to end this unjust discrimination. Unfortunately, we have just suffered a serious setback in the ongoing battle for the rights of the mentally ill. The House Republican leadership has blocked the Domenici-Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act, which assures fair health insurance coverage of mental illness for the millions of Americans who must live with depression, post-traumatic stress, anorexia, and other mental illnesses. This important bill was approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee last month on a unanimous vote. It passed the Senate without a word of opposition. This success was achieved by the skilful leadership and hard work of the bipartisan team of Senator Paul Wellstone and Senator Pete Domenici. That bill deserved to become law this year, but the House Republican leadership has refused to act. Three House committees have jurisdiction over parts of this legislation, but none has held a markup. Not one has held a single day of hearings. Now, operating behind the closed doors of the conference committee, the House Republican leadership has insisted on striking the amendment which the Senate added to the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill to achieve this essential goal. The House leadership has bowed to the pressure of insurers and big business, at the peril of the health of millions of Americans. This legislation has the support of the American people. It has the support of a broad bipartisan majority of the Congress. It is cosponsored by 65 Members of the Senate. Over 240 Members of the House have signed a letter urging the House leadership to accept the Senate mental health parity amendment as part of the appropriations bill. The collective will of Congress has been flagrantly disregarded. The message of the opponents on this basic issue is the same message of delay and denial that has been such a shameful blot on our national history when it was applied to African-Americans, to women, to the disabled, and to the elderly. One of the most disappointing things about this first session of Congress has been the apparent retreat from the principles of equality and nondiscrimination. On the education bill, the Congress failed to provide needed funding for IDEA. The Congress retreated from the commitment made a quarter of a century ago to assure that every child with disabilities would have a fair and equal chance for a quality education. Today, Congress has once again retreated on a basic question of civil rights and nondiscrimination--fair treatment for the mentally ill. As one who has been involved in these struggles to end discrimination throughout my career, I know that the American people understand that discrimination against any American diminishes all Americans. They understand that discrimination is not only a denial of our brotherhood as human beings, it denies our country the ability to benefit from the talents and contributions of all our citizens. Surely, this time of renewed patriotism in the struggle against the common enemy of terrorism is the wrong time to retreat from our basic American ideals. Equal treatment for the mentally ill is not just an insurance issue, it is a civil rights issue. At its heart, mental health parity is a question of simple justice. The House Republican leadership has now succeeded in blocking action for this session of Congress. But the battle goes on, and it will not end until true parity has been achieved once and for all. The American people understand that this battle is about justice for the mentally ill and their families. The Senate and a majority of the House understand it. It is time for the House Republican leadership to stop kowtowing to powerful special interests and listen to the voice of the American people--and to what is fair, just, and right for all those who suffer from mental illness. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I see my friend and colleague from Minnesota. I am mindful that there is only about 12 minutes remaining to the Senator from Iowa.