Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, finally, I could not take this moment without thinking back about, personally, the service in this Chamber. When I first arrived in this Chamber, I was fortunate to have two brothers, one a President and another an Attorney General. I had the opportunity to work with them on those responsibilities in that regard. Then, to have a brother who served in the Senate was a golden time for me during that period of time. I have been enormously proud of the work my nephew, Congressman Kennedy, serving in the House of Representatives, and now Patrick, my son, who serves in the House of Representatives and is a leading voice in terms of the mental health issues for our country--I am so proud of all his good work. We grew up in a family that believed in public service, that elective office can make a difference but also understood that other people make extraordinary differences in advancing the cause of fairness and decency in the Nation. I think of the work of my sisters in that undertaking, all of whom have been involved--whether Special Olympics or Very Special Arts or other programs in which they have all been involved. We still believe in the importance of public service and the honor, the high honor that one has in elective office. There are many of those who dismiss that concept as an old-fashioned viewpoint, but I think any of us who have read the history of this Nation and who understood its history know there is no higher personal honor than to have that opportunity. Finally, I welcomed the opportunity to come back to serve as a Senator from Massachusetts, to try to be a voice of what I call the march for progress in this country. Thomas Jefferson used to say every 25 years a nation redefines itself. He talked about the continuing expansion of the real cause of liberty in this Nation--not in ways that so frequently are overused and overstate that word but in its core, principal meaning. As I mentioned, this Nation is a country that is a continuing process. That is why each day that I wake up, I think of a new opportunity to try to have some constructive impact. People will agree, and some will differ, on the directions. Sure, programs change--and that is understandable--but basic, fundamental values about what this Nation is all about and what so many of us who have the great honor of service in this body understand is that America is a continuing discovery and a continuing promise and a continuing opportunity for each and every one of us to make some contribution. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his comments. I remember that debate very well. It was a rather basic and fundamental issue about one person one vote. The question at that time was, is that going to be continued or whether there was going to be such flexibility that we were going to continue the gerrymandering of different districts. Senator Baker, with the very strong assistance of Senator Alexander, reminded this body and helped maintain and insist about what the Supreme Court had said about that issue. I thank him for his comments and also for his continued work in the areas of education and so many other areas. I have been fortunate to have a number of my colleagues here from Massachusetts, a number of members of the delegation. There were some former colleagues here as well. Senator Riegle was here, and Senator Culver. I was reminded actually over the August recess that I had cast the 15,000th vote. I was talking with Senator Culver, and we were reminiscing. He was here when I cast my first vote, which goes back over a very long, considerable period of time. I am grateful for his presence as well as my other colleagues, Bill Delahunt, Jim McGovern. We saw many of those who were here earlier from our Massachusetts delegation. I thank them very much. People ask me how long I will continue to serve in the Senate. I give the same response, that is, I am going to stay here until I get the hang of it. I look forward to that. I would never get the hang of it if I did not have the wonderful love, affection, and warmth my wife Vicky, the joy of my life, gives to me every single day. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my colleagues from Pennsylvania and appreciate their dedication to and support for the cause of mental health parity. I welcome this opportunity to discuss this critical legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY. I can assure the Senators from Pennsylvania that we have labored to ensure that S. 558 will serve only to benefit States and the coverage that citizens receive.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is general agreement on both sides of the aisle that we have a foreign intelligence surveillance problem that should be addressed. The difference between us is that on this side of the aisle we have consistently been willing to work cooperatively to solve the problem. There is a model. In 1976, we faced a similar problem. The Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, known as the Church Committee, had found disturbing abuses of electronic surveillance. Congress and the administration set out to pass a law to prevent such abuses in the future, while still protecting our national security. In 1976, I was the principal sponsor of the original bill that became FISA. When my colleagues and I first introduced the bill, we had a Democratic Congress, a Republican President, Gerald Ford, and a Republican Attorney General, Ed Levi. Attorney General Levi understood the need for Congress and the executive branch to work together. Members of the Judiciary Committee went down to the Justice Department at least four times to meet on the bill. There were discussions with Henry Kissinger, Don Rumsfeld, Brent Scowcroft, and George Bush among others. We worked responsibly and cooperatively to develop legislation to protect our civil liberties and ensure that the Nation could use necessary surveillance. In the end, Attorney General Levi praised the bipartisan spirit of cooperation that characterized the negotiations and produced a good bill. That administration recognized the importance of working with Congress. The final bill was passed by the Senate by a vote of 95 to 1. As this history demonstrates, our Nation is strongest when we work together for our national security. Unfortunately, the current administration has chosen a very different course. President Bush has refused all along to consult Congress on the development and implementation of its surveillance program, and now we find that it violated the law. This is not an argument for granting expanded discretion to the administration. There is simply no basis for trusting this administration to respect the privacy of the American people. Nor do we have any confidence in the administration's competence to adopt a lawful and effective program. When Attorney General Gonzales appeared before the Judiciary Committee in February 2006, I questioned him about FISA and the recently revealed warrantless eavesdropping program. I offered to work with him then. In fact, I asked him why he had not approached Congress sooner, given Attorney General Levi's success and given the cost of getting it wrong. He answered: ``We did not think we needed to, quite frankly.'' Well, we now know that wasn't true. I pointed out to the Attorney General at the time the benefit of having consensus on this issue and the importance of fostering a cooperative atmosphere. His answer to me was: ``I do not think that we are wrong on this.'' But they were wrong, which is why we are debating this issue at the eleventh hour today. I told him then that the administration was sending the wrong message to the courts, that they were jeopardizing our ability to convict terrorists by using these illegal intelligence methods. The Attorney General said: That is the last thing we want to do. We believe this program is lawful. He was wrong again. The program is not lawful and administration needs Congress to fix it. I did not stand alone on these issues. I had the support of many of my colleagues on the committee on both sides of the aisle. Yet the record is clear that the Attorney General repeatedly rebuffed our efforts to work with the Administration to get this legislation right the first time. Instead, the Attorney General and the President have consistently rejected congressional input and oversight. They have repeatedly demanded that Congress rubberstamp their decisions and trust their discretion. We have seen where that leads, and we owe the Nation a better approach. We should pass legislation today that closes the gap in current law and preserves the critical role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in protecting our civil liberties. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues, instead of using this opportunity to work together to safeguard the Nation, would prefer to pass yet another partisan assault on the rule of law and American civil liberties. They insist on diminishing the role of the FISA Court and increasing the unsupervised discretion of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. They want to trust Alberto Gonzales to ensure that the Government does not listen to the phone calls and read the e-mails of Americans without justification. We need to modernize FISA, not undermine it. Their proposal clearly contradicts the fundamental purpose of the initial legislation. This administration railroaded us into war in Iraq, railroaded us into passing the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act and now it wants to railroad us into amending FISA without the time or information to consider the need properly. We take a backseat to no one in wanting to keep our America safe. We know that our families, our friends, and our communities are at stake. We want to give our intelligence agencies the tools they need, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. This eleventh-hour grandstanding by administration is the wrong way to do it. We should remember how we reached this point. For 4 straight years, the Bush administration recklessly conducted warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA. The President acknowledged this surveillance only after it was reported in the press. Until January of this year, the administration refused to bring its surveillance program under the oversight of the FISA Court, despite the clear statutory requirement to do so. The FISA Court has now reviewed the surveillance and has issued a ruling. It has declared that a significant aspect of the President's warantless surveillance program, in operation for 4 years without any oversight, violates the law and cannot continue. Without bipartisan congressional pressure to force that review, these and other despicable violations of the rule of law would have gone on and on. Even today, the Attorney General continues to mislead Congress on basic information about the program, and he refuses to provide the legal justifications on which he relied. Now, after the FISA Court's clear ruling, the administration is urgently demanding that we correct their mistake. We can do that. We can reach the appropriate balance between modernizing the legislation to protect our national security and maintaining its basic protection of civil liberties. If the administration and its allies are serious about effectively protecting the country from terrorist threats, and doing so under the rule of law, they should support such legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our increasingly global economy is creating numerous challenges for America's families nationwide. Across the country, hardworking citizens are being left behind. The value of their wages is declining, their cost of living is going up, and many of their jobs are being shipped overseas. As a result, the Nation is falling behind in the world economy. Study after study tells us the answer is to invest more in education, research and innovation, if we hope to keep up with other countries whose economies are soaring. We know that a sound education is more important than ever for today's youth to succeed. Yet studies show, for example, that 15-year- old U.S. students score below average in math and science compared to the youth of other industrial nations. In one study, our 15-year-olds ranked only 24th in math. High school and college graduation rates are also falling behind. Our college graduation rate today has now dropped below the average graduation rate for OECD countries. We know that Federal investments in research lead to medical, scientific, and technology breakthroughs. But these investments have been shrinking as a share of the economy. In real terms, government spending for research has been flat. Since 1975, we have dropped from third to 15th in the production of scientists and engineers. It is a serious problem and we can't just tinker at the margins. We have a responsibility to our people, our economy, our security, and our Nation to make the investments to achieve the progress we need in the years ahead. The America COMPETES Act is a step in the right direction. It will help put America back on track. It invests in research by doubling the support for research at the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation over the next 7 years, and will increase funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology as well. It invests in innovation by creating a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness to determine the most effective ways to create jobs and move our economy forward. Above all, it will invest in education, especially in math and science, engineering, and technology from the elementary school through high school and beyond, in order to attract more young people to pursue careers in these fields in the years ahead. The problem today is especially serious for our low-income and minority students. Teachers are the single most important factor in improving student achievement and narrowing the achievement gap. One study found that having a high quality teacher for 5 years in a row can close the average 7th grade achievement gap in math between lower income and higher income children. Yet too often, low-income and minority students are taught by the least prepared, least experienced, and least qualified teachers. Math and science classes in high-poverty schools are much more likely to be taught by teachers who do not have a degree in their field. We know what we need to do, and this bill will help us do it. We must make sure all students are getting the teachers they need and deserve in the subjects that matter most in the new economy. This bill addresses the teacher challenge head on by taking strong steps to ensure that all children have access to a high quality teacher with strong content knowledge in math, science, engineering and technology--particularly in high need schools, where such teachers are needed most. The bill expands the Robert Noyce Teacher Program of the National Science Foundation, NSF, by creating a new NSF teaching fellows program to prepare accomplished math, science, technology and engineering professionals to teach in high need schools. It also creates a master teaching fellows program to leverage the talents of the best teachers to improve instruction in high need schools. Teaching fellows in the program will receive annual salary supplements of $10,000 a year in exchange for a commitment to teach for at least 4 years in a high need school. The bill also expands the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century Program at NSF, which provides cutting-edge professional development programs throughout the school year and during the summer for teachers in high-need schools. In addition, the bill supports impressive new programs in colleges and universities to prepare math, science, technology, engineering and foreign language teachers. These programs will combine bachelor's degrees with concurrent teacher certification in their subjects, and will create master's degree programs for teachers to improve their knowledge in these subjects and to encourage math and science professionals to go into teaching. Too often today, elementary and secondary school standards are not aligned with the expectations of colleges and employers. In many cases, high school graduates are struggling to keep up in college and the workplace. Remedial education and lost earning potential costs the Nation $3.7 billion a year, because so many students are not adequately prepared for college when they leave high school. Our bill will help States align their standards with the demands of the 21st century workplace. Grants to States to create P-16 Councils will bring the elementary and secondary schools, college, businesses, and the Armed Forces together to ensure that education standards are better aligned with the expectations of colleges, the workforce, and the military. This alignment is essential if we hope to remain internationally competitive. Support will also be available for new data systems in states to track students' achievement and help them graduate prepared to succeed. The bill will help give students in low-income districts the same opportunities as those in wealthier districts to enroll and succeed in college preparatory classes by expanding access to advanced placement and international baccalaureate classes. This bill invests as well in foreign language education, to ensure that students are exposed to foreign languages and cultures. More than 80 Federal agencies now use tens of thousands of employees with skills in 100 foreign languages, and our businesses need the same. For students to become proficient in foreign languages, they need sustained study, beginning in the early grades. But only a third of students in grades 7 through 12 today and only 5 percent of elementary school students study a foreign language. The bill provides grants to colleges and local educational agencies to create partnerships for students from elementary school through college to study such languages. Finally, the bill will encourage new interest in nuclear science. Massachusetts has long been a leader in this research. Of three dozen licensed research reactors in the United States, three are located in Massachusetts universities The University of Massachusetts in Lowell, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and MIT. These colleges will have an increasingly important role as nuclear science expands, and our bill will expand existing programs and establish new ones to meet the growing demand. All of these programs and investments are designed to help prepare us to compete in the 21st century, but there is more we must do if we intend to keep our nation and our workforce truly competitive. Significant new investments are needed to expand opportunities for higher education. College is more important than ever today, but it is also more expensive than ever. In the Senate 2 weeks ago, we passed the largest increase in student aid since the G.I. bill, and I look forward to delivering that aid for low-income students as quickly as possible. We must also address the increasingly demanding impact of the global economy on American workers and their families. Our hard-working men and women deserve greater job security today and greater job opportunities in the future. This bill puts first things first. Increased investments in education, research, and innovation are indispensable to our success as a nation. We have done it before and we must do it again. Let's begin with this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Presdient, as my colleagues know, the Senate passed S. 1082, the FDA Revitalization Act, on May 9 by a near-unanimous vote. The House passed its version of this legislation, H.R. 2900, the FDA Amendments Act, on July 11, also by a near-unanimous vote. Staff of the Senate HELP Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee has worked many, many hours a day, 7 days a week, to get to a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on the FDA reauthorization bills. Working together with Senator Enzi, we have already made a great deal of progress. We have reached agreement or near agreement on several titles and have narrowed the gap on most others. Important issues remain to be resolved, but we will do the work we need to do to have an agreement for the House and Senate to consider in September. I thank our majority leader, Senator Reid, for his leadership and support throughout this process and for making this important legislation an early priority in the Senate. While we were unable to appoint conferees today, our bipartisan deliberations will continue through August, and I hope we can name conferees in September and finalize this legislation that is so important to the safety and health of all Americans. I also commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, from both the House and Senate. They have a deep knowledge of the issues presented by these bills and have been strong advocates of different positions on some of the issues. I believe this process has improved the legislation and will continue to do so and that it will produce an FDA reauthorization bill that the House and Senate can again endorse with broad, bipartisan support.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues in introducing the Equal Remedies Act of 2007 to repeal the caps on the amount of damages available in employment discrimination cases under the Civil Rights Act of 1991. This legislation will end the glaring inequality in the current Federal antidiscrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 gave women, religious minorities, and disabled workers the right to recover compensatory and punitive damages for intentional employment discrimination, but only up to certain specified monetary limits. By contrast, victims of such discrimination on the basis of race or national origin can recover damages without such limitations, because they can bring their cases under another statute. The Equal Remedies Act will remove this inequity by eliminating the caps on such damages under current law. The caps were included in the 1991 act as part of a compromise that the first President Bush would sign. That legislation also reversed a series of Supreme Court decisions that had rolled back other basic civil rights protections and made it more difficult for working Americans to challenge discrimination. The 1991 Act as a whole represented a significant advance in the ongoing battle to eliminate discrimination in the workplace. But, it's long past time to end the double standard that consigns women, religious minorities, and the disabled to second-class remedies under the civil rights laws. The caps are especially unfair, because they deny adequate remedies to the most severely injured victims of discrimination. For example, a woman who needs extensive medical treatment as a result of severe sexual harassment, such as an assault, she will be limited to receiving only partial compensation for her injury. The goal of providing damages is to hold employers accountable and to make victims whole to the greatest extent possible for the discrimination they suffered. The current limit prevents accountability and keeps the victim from obtaining full relief. The caps serve no justifiable purpose. They shield the worst employers from the full consequences of the most outrageous acts of discrimination. The deterrent purpose of damages fails when employers know that their liability is limited. Take, for example, Sharon Deters and her case against Equifax Credit Information Services. Sharon suffered constant sexual taunts and insults from her coworkers. Her supervisor praised her harassers' behavior and allowed it to continue. The jury in her case was so outraged by her employer's conduct that it awarded her $1 million in punitive damages, finding that such an award was necessary to get her employer's attention and make it change its ways. The caps on damages, however, reduced Sharon's award to $300,000. Results like that are not fair. They fail to fulfill the statutory purpose of such damages provision, which is to deter further violations. By passing the Equal Remedies Act of 2007, Congress will be affirming the basic principle of equal justice for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this important change.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I was wondering if the Senator would yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see the Senator from Wyoming. I want to address the Senate for a minute, but I want to inquire of the good Senator from Mississippi if I could engage him in a question or two. I listened with great interest to the Senator from Mississippi talking about the cost of this program and the paying of this program. Does the Senator agree with me that every Member of the Senate has a health insurance program that is funded and financed 72 percent by the Federal taxpayer? Does the Senator agree with me on that?

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the input is 72 percent for every Member in our health insurance program. Every Member's program, Republican and Democrat, is paid for by the American taxpayer, No. 1. Secondly----

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator wants to offer that amendment, fine. I hear him talk about children, but I do not hear him talk about that. Secondly, would the Senator not agree with me that Members of the Senate have access to Bethesda Naval Hospital and Walter Reed Hospital and virtually free care at those places, which the children of America do not have? Would the Senator not agree with me that we are treating Members of Congress one way and the children another way?

Mr. KENNEDY. I am for having a universal----

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield for one more question. He was talking about coverage. We have 9 million children who are not covered. All of our children are covered. We have $160,000 in income, and every one of our children is covered. Why is the Senator so concerned about trying to cover the remaining children who are not covered in this country? Under this program, we cover 4 million more. All of our children are covered. We have $160,000 in income.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I believe I have 15 minutes. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, Madam President, I think the floor manager intended to yield me 15 minutes, for which I am very grateful.

Mr. KENNEDY. Fifteen minutes. I see the Senator from Connecticut on the floor. I know we had accommodated the Senator from Illinois a short while ago. I do not mind accommodating him. I see, then, the Senator from Kentucky on the floor. Could I ask my friend from Kentucky, if we do not exceed 15 minutes, would he mind if I yielded a few minutes to the Senator from Connecticut? We basically are going from one side to the other.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, if it is agreeable with the floor manager, I would take 11 minutes and yield the Senator 4 minutes, if that is OK. Would the Chair remind me when I have used 10 minutes and I have 1 minute left?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, many of the best ideas in public policy are the simplest. The Children's Health Insurance Program is based on one simple and powerful idea--that all children deserve a healthy start in life, and that no parents should have to worry about whether they can afford to take their child to the doctor when the child is sick. CHIP can make the difference between a child starting life burdened with disease, or a child who is healthy and ready to learn and grow. This need not be a partisan issue. My good friend Senator Hatch and I worked together in 1997 to create this program that was our shared vision for a healthier future for American children. This year we have once again worked together to find common ground on covering the children who deserve decent, quality health care. In Massachusetts in the 1990s we agreed that health care coverage for children is a necessity and that action needed to be taken. In 1993, the Massachusetts Legislature passed the Children's Medical Security Plan, which guaranteed quality health care to children in families ineligible for Medicaid and unable to afford health insurance. A year later, Massachusetts expanded eligibility for Medicaid and financed the expansion through a tobacco tax--the same approach we used successfully a few years later for CHIP and he same approach that is proposed in the bill before us now. Rhode Island followed and other States took similar action and helped create a nationwide demand for action by Congress to address the unmet needs of vast numbers of children for good health care. In 1997, Congress acted on that call, and the result was CHIP. Senator Hatch and I worked together then--as we have this year--to focus on guaranteeing health care to children who need it. Now, in every State in America and in Puerto Rico, CHIP covers the services that give children a healthier start in life--well child care, vaccinations, doctor visits, emergency services, and many others. We know that CHIP works. Children across America depend on it for their health care, but there are still too many children that are left uninsured. In its first year 1997, CHIP enrolled nearly a million children, and enrollment has grown ever since. An average of 4 million are now covered each month, and 6 million are enrolled each year. In every State in America and in Puerto Rico, CHIP covers the services that give children a healthier start in life--well child care, vaccinations, doctor visits, emergency services, and many others. As a result, in the past decade, the percentage of uninsured children has dropped from almost 23 percent in 1997 to 14 percent today. That reduction is significant, but it is obviously far from enough. Children on CHIP are more likely to have a regular source of care than uninsured children. Ninety-seven percent of CHIP children can see a doctor regularly compared to only 62 percent of uninsured children. What does this mean for these children? It means that their overall quality of life is improved because they can get the care they need when they need it. Their parents are more confident that they can get the health care they need, they are more likely to have a real doctor and a real place to obtain care, and their parents don't delay seeking care when their child needs it. Children on CHIP also have significantly more access to preventive care. Studies also show that CHIP helps to improve children's school performance. After just 1 year on CHIP, children pay better attention in class and are more likely to keep up with all school activities. When children are receiving the health care they need, they do better academically, emotionally, physically and socially. CHIP helps create children who will be better prepared to contribute to America. CHIP has perhaps had the greatest impact on minority communities. Sadly, we still have persistent racial and ethnic health disparities in America. African Americans have a lower life expectancy than Whites. Many Americans want to believe such disparities don't exist, but ignoring them only contributes more to the widening gap between the haves and have-nots. Minority children are much more likely to suffer from asthma, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and other diseases than their White counterparts. Minorities are more likely to be uninsured than Whites. More than half of all children who receive public health insurance belong to a racial and ethnic minority group. The good news is that since the beginning of CHIP, the number of uninsured Latino children has decreased by nearly one-third and the number of uninsured African- American children has decreased by almost half. Having CHIP works for minority children. CHIP all but eliminates the distressing racial and ethnic health disparities for the minority children who disproportionately depend on it for their coverage. Minority children are more likely to have their health care needs met. In other word, they can see the doctor when they need to, go to the hospital and get the medicines they need, just like other children, when they are on CHIP. They are also more likely to have a real doctor--not just sporadic visits to the emergency room--when they are covered by CHIP. For specific diseases like asthma, children on CHIP have much better outcomes than when they were uninsured. CHIP's success is even more impressive and important when we realize that more and more adults are losing their own insurance coverage, because employers reduce it or drop it entirely. That is why organizations representing children, or the health care professionals who serve them, agree that preserving and strengthening CHIP is essential to children's health. The American Academy of Pediatrics, First Focus, the American Medical Association, the National Association of Children's Hospitals and countless other organizations dedicated to children all strongly support CHIP. A statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics puts it this way: Ennrollment in SCHIP is associated with improved access, continuity, and quality of care, and a reduction in racial/ ethnic disparities. As pediatricians, we see what happens when children don't receive necessary health care services such as immunizations and well-child visits. Their overall health suffers and expensive emergency room visits increase. Today, we are here to dedicate ourselves to carrying on the job begun by Congress 10 years ago, and to make sure that the lifeline of CHIP is strengthened and extended to many more children. Millions of children now eligible for CHIP or Medicaid are not enrolled in these programs. Of the 9 million uninsured children, over two-thirds--more than 6 million--are already eligible for Medicaid or CHIP. These programs are there to help them, but these children are not receiving that help either because their parents don't know about the programs, or because of needless barriers to enrollment. Think about that number--9 million children in the wealthiest and most powerful nation on Earth. Nine million children whose only family doctor is the hospital emergency room. Nine million children at risk of blighted lives and early death because of illnesses that could easily be treated if they have a regular source of medical care. Nine million uninsured children in America isn't just wrong--it is outrageous, and we need to change it as soon as possible. We know where the Bush administration stands. The President's proposal for CHIP doesn't provide what is needed to cover children who are eligible but unenrolled. In fact, the President's proposal is $8 billion less than what is needed simply to keep children now enrolled in CHIP from losing their current coverage--$8 billion short. To make matters worse, the President has threatened to veto the Senate bill which does the job that needs to be done if we are serious about guaranteeing decent health care to children of working families across America. We cannot rely on the administration to do what is needed. We in Congress have to step up to the plate and renew our commitment to CHIP. The Senate bill is a genuine bipartisan compromise. It provides coverage to 4 million children who would otherwise be uninsured. It adjusts the financing structure of CHIP so that States that are covering their children aren't forced to scramble for additional funds from year to year and so that Congress doesn't have to pass a new band- aid every year to stop the persistent bleeding under the current program. Importantly, this bill will not allow States to keep their CHIP funds if they aren't doing something to actually cover children. Equally important, this bill allows each State to cover children at income levels that make sense for their State. The bill also supports quality improvement and better outreach and enrollment efforts for the program. It is a scandal that 6 million children today who are eligible for the program are not enrolled in it. In sum, this bill moves us forward together, Republicans and Democrats alike, to guarantee the children of America the health care they need and deserve. Our priority should be not merely to hold on to the gains of the past, but to see that all children have an access to decent coverage. Families with greater means should pay a fair share of the coverage. But every parent in America should have the opportunity to meet the health care needs of their children. In Massachusetts, I met a woman named Dedre Lewis. Her daughter Alexsiana developed an eye disease that if left untreated would make her go blind. Because of our State CHIP program, Masshealth, Dedre is able to get the medicine and doctors visits need to prevent Alexsiana's blindness. Dedre said this: If I miss a single appointment, I know she could lose her eyesight. If I can't buy her medication, I know she could lose her eyesight. If I didn't have Masshealth, my daughter would be blind. This is the impact CHIP has on families across America. Let me say that quality health for children isn't just an interesting option or a nice idea. It is not just something we wish we could do. It is an obligation. It is something we have to do. And it is something we can do today. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure this very important legislation is enacted. I want to pick up on a theme I mentioned just a few minutes ago, and I stand to be corrected. I would say there is not a single Member of the Senate who doesn't take, effectively, the Federal employees insurance program, and in our situation, the Federal Government pays for 72 percent of it. We have one Member, and I admire him--I have just learned of his name, and I will not mention it here; I will ask whether I can include it as part of the Record rather than embarrass him--but it is a noble act on his part when he said that until we get universal coverage, he wasn't going to take this. But the idea that all Americans ought to understand now is what we are standing for--and I again commend the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Iowa and my friend, Senator Hatch, when we worked together years ago, and Senator Rockefeller on this program--is a rather simple and fundamental concept, and that is this: Every child in America ought to have a healthy start. Here in the Senate, we are about expressing priorities. Those of us on this side of the aisle and a group on the other side--a small group on the other side, a courageous group on the other side--have stated that same concept, that every child in America should have a healthy start, No. 1; and No. 2, that every parent in America should be relieved of the anxiety of worrying about whether they have sufficient resources to be able to make sure their child is going to receive decent quality health care. Those are revolutionary thoughts, are they not? Those are surprising concepts; isn't that right? Evidently, our friends on the other side of the aisle get all worked up about those two concepts--that all children in this country should have a healthy start and that mothers and fathers should be relieved of the anxiety that when their child has an earache or their child has a soar throat or their child has a headache, they have to wonder whether their child is 150 dollars or 175 dollars sick because that is what it costs to take them to the emergency room. So they wait overnight. They let the child get a little sicker. They have a sleepless night. They worry. They hope and they pray that their child gets better. Well, we in this body say that America can do better. I listened to my friend--and he is my friend--from Mississippi talking about the cost of this program: $60 billion over 5 years. That is what we are spending in 5 months in Iraq--5 months in Iraq. What would the American people rather have--coverage for their children or a continued conflict in Iraq where we are losing the blood of our young men and women? This is the issue. Let's not complicate it. Let's not make it difficult. Let's not make it unreasonable. That is what this is about. Sure, we have listened to the arguments: Oh, someone is going to have to pay for it. Yes, it is going to be those who are smoking. What is the result of increasing the tobacco tax? What is the direct result? Tobacco--cigarettes--when used as advertised increases deaths in America. Among whom? Among children. Every day, 2,800 children become addicted. Every year, 500,000 people die because of the use of tobacco. So what happens if we raise the tax 61 cents on cigarettes? You know what happens. Children stop smoking. Oh, they do? Yes, they do. Who says so? Who says so? Just look at the history of what has happened when we have increased the tax on cigarettes. So I commend those on the Finance Committee for finding a revenue measure that will ensure--not that all children will stop smoking and end it but that this will be a major disincentive for young people to smoke. On the other hand, it gives children a healthy start and relieves the anxiety for parents. So this is a measure which speaks for action. It speaks for justice. It speaks for fairness. It speaks for our values. I, for one, strongly believe in the concept of comprehensive health care, and we will have that debate at another place and at another time. I know my children were covered. They are grown now, as others have been here, but I know when they needed health care, they were able to receive it. I remember very clearly that when my child lost his leg to cancer, we saw families in that chamber who were absolutely driven into poverty because they couldn't afford the same kind of health care we had. This is a statement that we in the Senate find children to be a priority and find their parents to be a priority and find it to be in the interest of children to increase the tobacco tax. This legislation makes a great deal of sense, and I again commend the sponsors for it. Whatever time remains I yield to my friend and colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to extend my warmest congratulations to Michael J. Donoghue on his retirement from the Worcester Regional Retirement System. I commend him for his impressive service to the people of Worcester for the past 30 years, and I know he will be deeply missed by all those he helped and supported. Mike's impressive career extends well beyond his time at Worcester Regional Retirement System. He served two terms on the Worcester City Council before being elected Worcester County treasurer in 1978, and his outstanding experience and knowledge of the issues made him a valuable member of many charitable organizations in our city. Mike also has served on the board of directors of the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives, and he had an invaluable role over the years in establishing Worcester as a center for medical research. All of us in our State owe Mike our gratitude for his skillful efforts on behalf of the less fortunate. Over the years, he has given his skills and impressive leadership to the board of directors for the Visiting Nurses Association Network Foundation, the Worcester Area Mental Health Association, the Worcester Area United Way, and Special Olympics of Massachusetts. It has been an honor to call Mike a friend, and I am especially grateful for his decades of kindness to the Kennedy family. I have relied often on Mike over the years for his advice and wise counsel, and I commend him for his service and dedication. It is a special privilege to join his wife Maureen, their children and grandchildren in congratulating him for all he has achieved in his many years of outstanding service to our Commonwealth, and I wish him well in the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, many of the best ideas in public policy are the simplest. The Children's Health Insurance Program is based on one simple and powerful idea--that all children deserve a healthy start in life, and that no parents should have to worry about whether they can afford to take their child to the doctor when the child is sick. CHIP can make the difference between a child starting life burdened with disease or a child who is healthy and ready to learn and grow. I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hatch for their dedication to making sure that more of America's children have a start at a healthy life. They have worked diligently to reach the bipartisan bill that we have for us today. But I am not surprised by that. Throughout the history of CHIP, Members on both sides of the aisle have exercised true leadership and set politics aside to focus on the needs of children. Senator Baucus, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Baucus have long been advocates for the health and well-being of children and have been willing to work with those who shared that goal. My old friend Senator Hatch and I worked together in 1997 to create this program that was our shared vision for healthier future for American children. This year, we have once again worked together to find common ground on covering the children deserve decent, quality health care. As we now consider the future of CHIP it is instructive to look back on the history of the program and the circumstances in which it was created. The enactment of Medicaid in 1965 brought decent health care to families living in poverty, including children. But it became clearer and clearer as the years and the decades passed, that more and more children were unable to obtain health care because they lived in families whose incomes were too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to afford health insurance. Finally, in Massachusetts, in the 1990s we agreed that health care coverage for children is a necessity and that action needed to be taken. John McDonough, executive director of Health Care for All in Massachusetts, deserves much of the credit for what came next. His pioneering work while he was in the Massachusetts Legislature on children's health care led to the passage in 1993 of the State's Children's Medical Security Plan, which guaranteed quality health care to children in families ineligible for Medicaid and unable to afford health insurance. A year later, Massachusetts expanded eligibility for Medicaid, and financed the expansion through a tobacco tax--the same approach we used successfully a few years later for CHIP and the same approach that is proposed in the bill before us now. Rhode Island and other States took similar action, and helped create a nationwide demand for action by Congress to address the unmet needs of vast numbers of children for good health care. In 1997, Congress acted on that call, and the result was CHIP. Senator Hatch and I worked together then--as we have this year--to focus on guaranteeing health care to children who need it. Now in every State in America and in Puerto Rico, CHIP covers the services that give children a healthier start in life--well child care, vaccinations, doctor visits, emergency services, and many others. In its first year 1997, CHIP enrolled nearly a million children, and enrollment has grown ever since. An average of 4 million are now covered each month, and 6 million are enrolled each year. As a result, in the past decade, the percentage of uninsured children has dropped from almost 23 percent in 1997 to 14 percent today. That reduction is significant, but it's obviously far from enough. CHIP improves the overall quality of life for children fortunate enough to have its coverage, by allowing them to get the care they need when they need it. They are more likely to have a real doctor and a real place to obtain care, and, their parents don't delay seeking care when their child needs it. Children on CHIP also have significantly more access to preventive care. Studies also show that CHIP helps to improve children's school performance. When children are receiving the health care they need, they do better academically, emotionally, physically and socially. CHIP helps create children who will be better prepared to contribute to America. CHIP all but eliminates the distressing racial and ethnic health disparities for the minority children who disproportionately depend on it for their coverage. CHIP's success is even more impressive and important when we realize that more and more adults are losing their own insurance coverage, because employers reduce it or drop it entirely. That's why organizations representing children, or the health care professionals who serve them, agree that preserving and strengthening CHIP is essential to children's health. The American Academy of Pediatrics, First Focus, the American Medical Association, the National Association of Children's Hospitals and countless other organizations dedicated to children all strongly support CHIP. A statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics puts it this way: ``Enrollment in SCHIP is associated with improved access, continuity, and quality of care, and a reduction in racial/ethnic disparities. As pediatricians, we see what happens when children don't receive necessary health care services such as immunizations and well-child visits. Their overall health suffers and expensive emergency room visits increase.'' Today we are here to dedicate ourselves to carrying on the job begun by Congress ten years ago, and to make sure that the lifeline of CHIP is strengthened and extended to many more children. Millions of children now eligible for CHIP or Medicaid are not enrolled in these programs. Of the nine million uninsured children, over two-thirds--more than 6 million--are already eligible for Medicaid or CHIP. These programs are there to help them, but these children are not receiving that help either because their parents don't know about the programs, or because of needless barriers to enrollment. Think about that number--9 million children in the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth; 9 million children whose only family doctor is the hospital emergency room; 9 million children at risk of blighted lives and early death because of illnesses that could easily be treated if they have a regular source of medical care. Nine million uninsured children in America isn't just wrong, it is outrageous. We need to change it as soon as possible. We know where the Bush administration stands. The President's proposal for CHIP doesn't provide what is needed to cover children who are eligible but unenrolled. In fact, the President's proposal is $8 billion less than what is needed simply to keep children now enrolled in CHIP from losing their current coverage--$8 billion short. To make matters worse, the President has threatened to veto the Senate bill which does the job that needs to be done if we are serious about guaranteeing decent health care to children of working families across America. We can't rely on the administration to do what is needed. We in Congress have to step up to the plate and renew our commitment to CHIP. That is why I am supporting the CHIP bill before us. It is a genuine bipartisan compromise. This bill provides coverage to 4 million children who would otherwise be uninsured. It adjusts the financing structure of CHIP so that States that are covering their children aren't forced to scramble for additional funds from year to year and so that Congress doesn't have to pass a new band- aid every year to stop the persistent bleeding under the current program. Importantly, this bill will not allow States to keep their CHIP funds if they aren't doing something to actually cover children. Equally important, this bill allows each State to cover children at income levels that make sense for their state. The bill also supports quality improvement and better outreach and enrollment efforts for the program. It is a scandal that 6 million children today who are eligible for the program are not enrolled in it. In sum, this bill moves us forward together, Republicans and Democrats' to guarantee the children of America the health care they need and deserve. Our priority should be not merely to hold on to the gains of the past, but to see that all children have an access to decent coverage. Families with greater means should pay a fair share of the coverage. But every parent in America should have the opportunity to meet the health care needs of their children. Quality health for children isn't just an interesting option or a nice idea. It is not just something we wish we could do. It is an obligation. It is something we have to do, and it is something we can do today. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure this very important legislation is enacted. I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee and Senators Grassley, Rockefeller, and Hatch, who are putting the children of America first and reminding all of us of the responsibility we have for the most vulnerable Americans, the children. They have, over a considerable period, fashioned legislation that will make an enormous difference in not only the health of the neediest children but will also reduce the increasing disparity in our Nation. We have tried to make some progress in the area of education under the leadership of Senators Baucus, Grassley, Rockefeller, and Hatch. We are going to reduce another area of considerable disparity and that is among the neediest children in the Nation. We are over the long term not only going to say we are going to have a healthier Nation because we are going to invest in children and make sure they will get a healthy start for their future, we are going to be a stronger nation because we are a healthier nation. Over a long period of time, this is obviously going to have important implications in terms of the quality of health not only of the children but of our Nation. This is an enormously important day in the Senate. I thank the leadership for giving this the kind of priority in these first weeks and months of a new Congress. Senator Reid had indicated this was a strong priority. It is an example of where we have had strong leadership in our Finance Committee. We have had strong leadership in the Budget Committee. There are scarce resources because of our involvement in Iraq, limited resources, but nonetheless, under the leadership of Senator Conrad and with the strong support of our colleagues, we were able to get the commitment that we on this side of the aisle and the other side, with those courageous Republicans, are saying this is a matter of national priority. This is of national importance. We are moving ahead. I thank all of those Senators. Having listened in our caucus, a number of our colleagues have been strong supporters of our leaders on the Finance Committee. I thank my colleague and friend John Kerry, among others. I thank all of those for bringing us to where we are today. This is an enormously important occasion. I welcome the opportunity to speak to it. I want to go back over the period when we saw the fashioning of this legislation a number of years ago. We have found this was just about the time the country was dealing with the issue of the tobacco settlement. There was a question about how we could use the resources that were going to be gained from the settlement. There was a great debate. Many in this body thought we ought to use it all for deficit reduction; we ought to give it back to the States and let them make the decision. But there were a number of bipartisan Senators saying: No, let's make sure that we develop what is an extremely important need, and that is health care for children. There was a recognition that in 1965, with the passage of Medicaid legislation, we tried to take care-- we still don't include all the children who should be there--of the poorest of the poor children. We said at that time, as a matter of national policy, that we as a country were going to give focus to the neediest in our country. It was the Medicaid program for the neediest, but a special attention was given to children in the Medicaid program. That was matched with dedication and commitment in the development of a title I program to deal with education for the neediest children in our country. Those went along together, and we are coming back to the point where we are doing that under these circumstances. So this legislation is important, and I welcome the chance to say these words. I wish to also point out, as others have pointed out, the area of need. We know we are making a downpayment on the area of need, but we still have a long way to go if we are serious about including all the children who are eligible. We need to take care of the neediest children in Medicaid. But then we need to look at those in our economy who are working hard, playing by the rules but who cannot afford health care for their children. Those are the ones who are reaching $18,000 or $20,000, up to $35,000, $38,000, $40,000 a year, depending on what part of the country they are in. We find out that those are the individuals and those are the families who are the most hard-pressed in any event to afford health care. We know the cost of $8,000, $9,000 per family for health care. We know the challenges those families are facing, and we know the increasing number of those families who are being dropped from health insurance. This program was to try to build upon the Medicaid Program and then have the CHIP program going, taking care of all children in this country, and to take care of working families--maybe the working poor but, more accurately, working families--to make sure their children were going to be attended to. This, I believe, is where this legislation is targeted. These families are working hard. They are part of our American system. They are playing by the rules. But affording that protection is not available to them. The CHIP program reaches out to them. Some can say: Well, this is an expensive program. I have listened to all my colleagues. I have listened to Senator Wyden from the State of Oregon speak eloquently about this issue. We need to remind ourselves this body is about trying to define priorities. What are the Nation's priorities? What is important to us? We are here to try to give focus and attention and direction to the areas of greatest need. What our bipartisan leadership today is saying is the area of greatest need is the children. In this case, the children are members of working families who are virtually unable to get that kind of focus and attention and coverage unless they have access to this program. What are greater priorities than education and health care focused on our children? We still know there is more to be done. So I welcome this opportunity to speak. I wished to spend a little time speaking on this issue. I have referred to how this whole program has reduced health disparities among children and also how it has reduced disparities on the basis of race in our communities across the country. It was not focused on that, but that was the unintended consequence. So this legislation is a matter of enormous importance. Finally, I would say, as to this program, if we are interested in educating the children of this country, we have to make sure the children can hear the teacher. We have to be able to make sure the children are going to be able to see the blackboard. We have to make sure the children have proper dental care. I commend, particularly, the efforts they have made in dental care for children in this program. It is not mandated, but there are resources here to encourage the development of these dental programs. We are all aware that dental plans are some of the first to leave. We have seen the number of children out there with deterioration of their teeth, with all kinds of consequences. As we all read in the Washington Post not long ago, some children actually lost their lives. So I thank those who have been a part of this process. I commend all of them. This is a very worthwhile effort. I am hopeful it will be very successful.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on May 4, Greensburg, KS, was devastated by a tornado. Our thoughts and prayers are very much with the many families affected by this disaster, and we fully support their rebuilding efforts. I strongly support the amendment offered by Senator Roberts and Senator Brownback to the Homeland Security appropriations bill that would allow Greensburg to hire the essential workers it needs to help rebuild the town. The protections in current law governing national emergency grants under the Workforce Investment Act serve an important purpose. They ensure that the program is targeted to help workers who need it most, and is not used to displace public sector workers with workers that do not receive the same wage and merit system protections. Greensburg, however, faces unique circumstances. In the wake of the disaster, this small city has an obvious need for professionals--such as zoning experts, planning professionals, and building inspectors-- with expertise that is not readily available in the area. In these unique circumstances, the waivers provided for in this bill are a reasonable response. It is obviously not, however, a precedent for future recipients of these emergency grants. I hope very much that these waivers will do as much as possible to help the people of Greensburg restore their city and rebuild their lives, and I wish them well in the years ahead. amendment no. 2474

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we celebrate the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, one of the great civil rights laws in the Nation's history. Seventeen years ago, Congress acted on the fundamental principle that people should be measured by what they can do, not what they can't do. The Americans with Disabilities Act began a new era of opportunity for millions of disabled citizens who had been denied full and fair participation in society. For generations, people with disabilities were treated with pity and as persons who deserved charity, not opportunity. Out of ignorance, the Nation accepted discrimination for decades and yielded to fear and prejudice. The passage of the ADA finally ended these condescending and suffocating attitudes and widened the doors of opportunity for all people with disabilities. The anniversary of this landmark legislation is a time to reflect on how far we have come in improving the ``real life'' possibilities for the Nation's 56 million people with disabilities. In fact, the seeds of action were planted long before 1990. In 1932, the United States elected a disabled person to the highest office in the land, and he became one of the greatest Presidents in our history. But even Franklin Roosevelt felt compelled by the prejudice of his times to hide his disability as much as possible. The World War II generation began to change all that. The 1940s and the 1950s introduced the Nation to a new class of Americans with disabilities--wounded and disabled veterans returning from war and finding a society grateful for their courage and sacrifice but relegating them to the sideline of the American dream. Even before the war ended, however, rehabilitation medicine had been born. Disability advocacy organizations began to grow. Disability benefits were added to Social Security. Each decade since then has brought significant new progress and more change. In the 1960s, Congress responded with new architectural standards, so we could have a society everyone could be a part of. No one would have to wait outside a new building because they were disabled. The 1970s convinced us that greater opportunities for fuller participation in society were possible for the disabled. Congress responded with a range of steps to improve the lives of people with mental disabilities as well. We supported the right of children with disabilities to attend public schools. We guaranteed the right of people with disabilities to vote in elections, and we insisted on greater access to cultural and recreational programs in their communities. The 1980s brought a new realization, however, that in helping people with disabilities, we can't rely only on Government programs. We began to involve the private sector as well. We guaranteed fair housing opportunities for people with disabilities, required fair access to air travel, and made advances in technology available for people hard of hearing or deaf. The crowning achievement of these decades of progress was passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and its promise of a new and better life for every disabled citizen in which their disabilities would no longer put an end to their dreams. As one eloquent citizen with a disability said, ``I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk, to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I want to enjoy the benefits of my creations and face the world boldly, and say, this is what I have done.'' Our families, our neighbors, and our friends with disabilities have taught us in ways no books can teach. The inclusion of people with disabilities enriches all our lives. Every day, my son Teddy, who lost his leg at the age of 12, continues to teach me every day the greatest lesson of all--that disabled does not mean unable. As the saying goes, when people are excluded from the social fabric of a community, it creates a hole--and when there is a hole, the entire fabric is weaker. It lacks the strength that diversity brings. The fabric of our Nation is stronger today than it was 17 years ago because people with disabilities are no longer left out and left behind, and because of that, America is a greater and better and fairer Nation. Today, in this country, we see the many signs of the progress that mean so much in our ongoing efforts to include persons with disabilities in every aspect of life--the ramps beside the steps, the sidewalks with curb-cuts to accommodate wheelchairs, the lifts for helping disabled people to take a bus to work or the store or a movie. Disabled students are no longer barred from schools and denied education. They are learning and achieving at levels once thought impossible. They are graduating from high schools, enrolling in universities, joining the workforce, achieving their goals, enriching their communities and their country. They have greater access than ever to the rehabilitation and training needed to be successfully employed and become productive, contributing members of their communities. With the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act in 1999, we finally linked civil rights much more closely to health care. It isn't civil and it isn't right to send a disabled person to work without the health care they need and deserve. These milestones show that we are continuing the way to fulfilling the promise of a new, better, and more inclusive life for citizens with disabilities--but we still have a way to go. Today, as we rightly look back with pride, we also need to look ahead with hope and dedication. We still face many challenges, especially in areas such as health care and in home-based and community-based services and support. Many persons with disabilities still do not have the services and support they need to make choices about how best to live their lives. Many are unwillingly confined to institutions or unable to have a financial plan for their future. A strong Medicare prescription drug benefit is essential for all people with disabilities. Today, about one in six Medicare beneficiaries--over 6 million people--is a person with disabilities under aged 65. Over the next 10 years that number is expected to increase to 8 million. These persons are much less likely to be able to obtain or afford private insurance coverage. Many of them are forced to choose between buying groceries, paying their mortgage, or paying for their medication. Families raising children with significant disabilities deserve health care for their children. No family should be forced to go bankrupt, live in poverty, or give up custody of their disabled child in order to get needed health care for disabled child. They deserve the right to buy-in to Medicaid so that their family can stay together and stay employed. Congress did its job, and now every State should do its part under the Family Opportunity Act, adopted in 2005. People with disabilities and older Americans need community-based assistance as well, so they can live at home with their families and in their communities. We need to pass the CLASS Act to ensure this support is available, without forcing families into poverty. It is a challenge for the Nation, and we need to work together to meet it. The Americans with Disabilities Act was an extraordinary milestone in the pursuit of the American dream. Many disability and civil rights leaders in communities throughout the country worked long and hard and well to achieve it. To each disabled American, I say thank you. It is all of you who are the true heroes of this achievement and who will lead us in the fight to keep the ADA strong in the years ahead. Sadly, the Supreme Court has not been on our side. In the past 17 years, it has restricted the intended scope of the ADA. Suppose you are a person with epilepsy in a job you love and you get excellent personnel reviews. You are taking medicine that controls the seizures and you have no symptoms. But your employer finds out you have epilepsy and fires you. Should you be able to sue your employer for discrimination? Suppose you are a person with Down's syndrome, doing a fantastic job at the local Wal-Mart, but the manager really doesn't want someone with Down's syndrome greeting the public. Should you be able to sue for discrimination or are you no longer even covered under the ADA? Congress intended full protection from discrimination--but the courts are ruling differently. It is time now to restore the intent of the ADA. The Supreme Court continues to carve out exception after exception in the ADA. But discrimination is discrimination, and no attempt to blur that line or write exceptions into the law should be tolerated. Congress wouldn't do it, and it is wrong for the Supreme Court to do it. The ADA was a spectacular example of bipartisan cooperation and success. Passed by overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike took rightful pride in the goals of the law and its many accomplishments. I know that the first President Bush, Senator Bob Dole, Senator Harkin, and many other Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle consider their work on the ADA to be among their finest accomplishments in public service. It is widely regarded today as one of the giant steps in our ongoing two-centuries-old civil rights revolution. The need for that kind of bipartisan cooperation is especially critical today as Congress embarks on restoring the ADA to its original intent, so that the rights of those with disabilities are protected, not violated. Today, more than ever, disability need no longer mean the end of the American dream. Our goal is to banish stereotypes and discrimination, so that every disabled person can realize the dream of working and living independently and becoming a productive and contributing member of our community. That goal should be the birthright of every American and the ADA opened the door for every disabled American to achieve it. A story from the debate on the ADA eloquently made the point. A postmaster in a town was told to make his post office accessible. The building had 20 steep steps leading up to a revolving door at the only entrance. The postmaster questioned the need to make such costly repairs. He said, ``I've been here for thirty-five years, and in all that time, I've yet to see a single customer come in here in a wheelchair.'' As the Americans with Disabilities Act has proved so well, if you build the ramp, they will come, and they will find their field of dreams. So let's ramp up our own efforts across the country. We need to keep building those ramps, no matter how many steps stand in the way. We will not stop today or tomorrow or next month or next year. We will not ever stop until America works for all Americans. I ask all of us in Congress join today in committing to keep the ADA strong. It is an act of conscience, an act of community, and above all, an act of continued hope for a better future for our country as a whole.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us in Massachusetts are proud of the Boston Celtics. The team is one of the most storied franchises in NBA history, and its players are also impressive leaders in the community. Each year, the Celtics honor outstanding persons in New England as ``Heroes Among Us''--men and women who have made an especially significant impact on the lives of others. The award, now in its 10th year, recognizes men and women who stand tall in service to their community. The extraordinary achievements of this year's honorees include saving lives, sacrificing for others, overcoming obstacles to achieve goals, and lifelong commitments to improving the lives of those around them. The winners include persons of all ages and all walks of life--students, community leaders, founders of nonprofit organizations, member of the clergy, and many others. At home games during the season each year, the Celtics and their fans salute the efforts of various honorees in special presentation to them on the basketball court. So far, over 500 persons have received the ``Heroes Among Us'' award during the past decade. The award has become one of the most widely recognized honors in New England. I commend each of the honorees for the 2006 to 2007 season, and I ask unanimous consent to have their names, their achievements, and their communities printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, before the Senate, I understand, is a Graham amendment dealing with border security. Then there is a second- degree amendment that has been offered on top of that which effectively is where we are at the present time. I would like to make a few comments about this whole issue that has been brought up by Senator Graham in terms of the security aspects at the border. Those of us who supported a comprehensive program on immigration reform supported strong border enforcement because we know there are 400,000 or 500,00 people who have come across the border, minimally, a year. We don't know their names. We don't know where they go. They disappear into American society. There is no question, on a matter dealing with homeland security, we have to be serious about dealing with our borders. We understand that. That is why it is so interesting to me, when I saw we had that opportunity 2 years ago, we had a great deal of fuss on the other side about building a fence along the border and then, after they got their vote, the Republicans never funded that particular program. When we had a chance a few weeks ago to do something on comprehensive border control, again the Republicans, the other side, voted no; they voted it down. Now we have the proposal to try to, I guess, make them politically OK among the voters. We know this issue of undocumented and illegal immigration is a complex one, is a difficult one. We know the primary reason people come across the border down in the Southwest is because of the magnet of jobs in the United States. This amendment does nothing about the magnet of jobs. We should not delude ourselves, if we say we are going to support this particular proposal and then not deal with what is the basic cause of the hundreds of thousands of people who come here, and that is the magnet of jobs. This amendment doesn't deal with the magnet of jobs. Maybe it has a good political ring to it out there on the hustings, that we are doing something, but as we have seen time and time again, as long as we are not going to deal with the magnet of jobs, the efforts we have on the border--we can build the fences, people have ladders to go over them; or you can build fences and people will burrow and go underneath them-- as long as you have the powerful magnet of jobs, the efforts will fail. We are going to have a vote on this issue, although I, for one, believe having strong border security is a key aspect of having comprehensive reform. That is why a number of us are going to support an alternative to the Graham amendment, an alternative that recognizes, No. 1, this is a complex problem--we are for border security and control, to the extent we can--but, No. 2, that we have a situation affecting millions of Americans in agriculture and that is, if we are going to have border control we are going to have to be able to provide agricultural workers. That is why I hope the Senate will consider an amendment which will have the border control provisions but also have what is called the AgJOBS provisions that will address what is the need in agricultural America. Without it, as we have heard so eloquently from Senator Feinstein, as we heard from Senator Larry Craig, we are going to have devastation in major parts of our country. If you are going to have border security, you are going to have to have some way for these workers to get in. The AgJOBS bill is the bill that has had over 60 Members of the Senate who have been supporters of that program. That seems to me to begin to make a good deal of sense. Recognize, in dealing with this whole issue in a comprehensive way, the most vulnerable people inside our borders, those individuals who are here and are undocumented in so many instances are young people, brought here through no fault of their own because their parents brought them here when they were under 16 years of age, who are here for more than 5 years, serving 2 years in the military, graduating from the high schools of this country--it is called the DREAM Act. I see my friend and the principal spokesperson and sponsor of that, the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, on the floor. He speaks so well to this issue. When we have the amendment before the Senate, I will review some of the great, important successes of many young individuals who came here undocumented and have worked long and hard and have graduated from high school, which is no mean feat when you have more than a 50-percent dropout rate among the Hispanic community. The fact that these individuals are here, want to be part of the American dream, want to contribute to our Nation--the DREAM Act gives them the hope and opportunity for the future, which so many who have come here as immigrants and as children, who want to be a part of the American dream, have felt. This will be a proposal I hope we will have a chance to vote on. It will have the border security aspects included in the Graham proposal. It will recognize, if you are going to try to close the border, you are still going to have the great agribusiness in our country that is going to demand workers. We have a way of responding to that, a way about which Senator Feinstein and Senator Larry Craig have spoken to this body, a familiar path that makes a great deal of sense. That will be part of the proposal. Then we say to some of the most vulnerable individuals here, we recognize the challenges you are facing. The proposal we are going to offer is a downpayment on a day where we might be able to come to a more comprehensive approach, which will be clearly in the interests of the Nation and in the interests of those who have come here and hopefully are looking forward to being a part of the American dream--pay their fines, pay their dues but be a part of the American dream. I also mention I was somewhat troubled by the provisions of the Graham amendment, which effectively will say, for those who have overstayed their visa--and we know that is about 46 percent of all the undocumented. You can't deal with the problem of the undocumented here in the United States and just close the border because almost half of those who are undocumented here come from overstays. So let's not confuse the American people and beat our chests and say we have taken a strong security position by dealing with the border and not dealing with the undocumented. We have 12.5 million undocumented here. We simply do not have enough detention centers in which to detain them. We want to deal with the terrorists. We want to deal with the drug smugglers. We want to deal with the hardened criminals. Rather than focusing our attention on those goals, we would divert precious resources to what? Jailing women and children, taking the overstays and putting them into detention? We have an undocumented problem and what are we going to do? This is not the solution. This whole scenario sounds like another plan like we had in Iraq: Al-Qaida in Afghanistan was the organization who attacked the United States and what did we do? We went into Iraq, wasting our resources. This amendment is focused on roundups and mass detention, rather than target the real threats which are terrorism and crimes. This amendment on the Homeland Security Appropriations bill is not the answer. It seems to me an alternative approach makes a great deal of sense. This is a modest program. It is a well-thought-out program. It is a tried and tested program. It is a program where they have had hearings and the Senate is familiar with it. Let's do what is necessary at the border. Let's do what is necessary to ensure that agriculture and those workers who have worked in the fields are going to have the respect and dignity they should have. That has bipartisan support. Let's insist we are going to include the DREAM Act, which has strong bipartisan support as well. Let's move on and accept that concept. That includes the basic thrust of the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina. Then let's move ahead with the Homeland Security bill. I know my friend from Connecticut wishes to address the Senate.