Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oregon and 1 minute to the Senator from California.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe we have 2 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, and I commend my colleagues, Senator Murray and Senator Snowe, for introducing it again this year. This is an issue of basic fairness for all of the women who have voluntarily dedicated their lives to protecting our country or who are dependents of military service members. The current ban on abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas discriminates against women who are serving abroad in our armed forces. This ban is not fair to our servicewomen, and it is unacceptable. They are willing to risk their lives for our country, and it is wrong for our country to ask them to risk their lives to obtain the health care that is their constitutional right as American citizens. Abortion is illegal in many of the countries where our servicewomen are based. The current ban on abortions endangers their health by limiting their access to reproductive care. Without proper care, abortion can be a life-threatening or permanently disabling procedure. It is unacceptable to expose our dedicated servicewomen to risks of infection, illness, infertility, and even death, when appropriate care can easily be made available to them. Over 100,000 American women live on military bases overseas and rely on military hospitals for their health care. They should be able to depend on military base hospitals for all of their medical needs. They should not be forced to choose between lower quality medical care in a foreign country, or travelling back to the United States for the care they need. Forcing women to travel to another country or return to the United States to obtain an abortion imposes an unfair burden on them and can lead to excessive delays and increased risk. Servicewomen in the United States do not face these burdens, since quality health care in non-military hospital facilities is readily available. It is unfair to ask those serving abroad to suffer a financial penalty and expose themselves to health risks that could be life-threatening. Congress has an obligation to provide safe medical care for those serving our country both at home and abroad. This amendment does not ask that these procedures be paid for with federal funds. It simply asks that servicewomen overseas have the same access to all medical services as their counterparts at home. Every woman in the United States has a constitutionally-guaranteed right to choose whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. A woman's decision to have an abortion is a very difficult and extremely personal one, and it is wrong to impose an even heavier burden on women who serve our country overseas. It is time for Congress to end this double- standard for women serving abroad. I urge the Senate to support the Murray-Snowe amendment and correct this grave injustice.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. President, hate crimes are a national disgrace, and they attack everything for which this country stands. We, as a Congress, must take a clear and unequivocal stand. We have the opportunity to do so this afternoon. It ought to be bipartisan, and it ought to be an overwhelming statement of law. As a country and as a people, we are committed to equal protection under the law. We all take pride in that. We do not say we have equal protection under the law only if you are a white male. We do not say we have equal protection under the law if you have no disability. We are not going to say we have equal protection under the law only if you are ``straight.'' We say equal protection under the law must apply to all Americans. That is what this is about. The Hatch amendment is a study. We are beyond studying. The American people want action on hate crimes. That is what our amendment does, very simply. We ought to have the support of the overwhelming majority of the Members of this body. Hate crimes are rooted in hatred and bigotry. If America is ever going to be America, we should root out hatred and bigotry. We do not have all of the answers, but we ought to be able to use the full force of our power to make sure we are going to do everything we can--that we are not going to stand alongside but are going to be involved in freeing this country from hate crimes. Our amendment will do so.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank all of our colleagues for addressing this issue on this Monday afternoon. We generally, on Monday afternoons as well as on Friday afternoons, have less heavy matters before our body. This afternoon we have had a very impressive series of statements that have urged us to take the action on tomorrow to move ahead and pass strong hate crimes legislation. I listened earlier to a number of our colleagues. I thought there were many excellent statements, which I am hopeful our Members will have a chance to review in the early morning in the Congressional Record. These statements have been absolutely superb. We have had a wide variety of different Members from different backgrounds and experiences, different political viewpoints, speak on this issue. That is the way it should be because we are talking about a matter of fundamental importance for our society and our country. We are talking about what our country is really about, what steps we are prepared to take to make America, America. We have shown that over a period of time, certainly since the end of the Civil War, this Congress has taken steps to guarantee the protection of constitutional rights, going back to 1866. In the more modern time, we enacted civil rights legislation in the early 1960s, after the extraordinary presence of Dr. King who awakened the conscience of our Nation in the latter part of the 1950s and early part of the 1960s. We went ahead and took action in 1964 on what was known as the Public Accommodation Act. We were asked: Will the kinds of enforcement mechanisms stand up under constitutional challenge? And they did. Then, in 1965, we took action in order to preserve the right to vote for our citizens. Now it seems almost extraordinary that a large number of Americans were denied the right to vote. At that time, it was debated for some time. We took strong steps to ensure that America was going to be America in terms of the right to vote. In 1968, we had our Fair Housing Act to make sure that citizens whose skin was a different color were not going to be denied the opportunity to purchase homes. We took action in 1968 to protect that right. It wasn't very effective. We had to come back and revisit that again in 1988. Still, the progress went on. In 1988, we passed legislation to protect the rights of the disabled in our society. We had made some progress with what is known as Title VII over time, but the Americans with Disabilities Act was the legislation that established protections. We were saying to the American people--and the American people supported it--that if individuals have a disability, they should not be discriminated against in our society. This is what we are talking about. We are talking about forms of discrimination. Discrimination is rooted in the basic emotion of hatred, of distrust, and of bigotry. We have seen it manifested in race relations in our country. Hatred, distrust and bigotry have also been reflected in other ways: on the basis of religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, and disability. We freed ourselves from discrimination based on national origin with the 1965 Immigration Act. The Immigration Act had certain rules for those who came from the Asian Pacific Island triangle. We only permitted less than 150 Asians to come onto our shores prior to 1965. Then we also had what was called the national origin quota system which discriminated against people who came from a number of the European countries. All of this is part of our national history. One of the amazing and important aspects of the progress that America has made in recent time is in trying to free us from the stains of discrimination. We are talking not only about those who have been discriminated against but those who have perpetrated the discrimination. We are talking about a continuum of this Nation attempting to define what America ought to be--a nation free from the forms of discrimination and hatred and bigotry. That is what distinguishes hate crimes from other criminal activities. Crimes based upon hatred and bigotry wound not only the individual, but they also wound and scar an entire community. Hate crimes occur on a daily basis in the United States of America. Numerous hate crime incidents have been mentioned by our colleagues and illustrated time and again. According to FBI statistics, nearly one hate crime is committed every hour. My colleagues and I want to take action that will move this country forward and free us from those acts of hatred that divide us. We can't solve all of these problems, but there is no reason, when we have violence in our society, that those who are charged with protecting the Constitution of the United States ought to be standing on the sidelines when violence based upon discrimination is taking place in the United States of America. Why should we limit ourselves-- those who have a responsibility--from helping and assisting those who are involved in local enforcement and State law enforcement, particularly when we are talking about these hate crimes against women in our society? An individual was charged in Yosemite this past year with the murder of four women. He told the police investigators he had fantasized about killing women for three decades. A gay, homeless man in Richmond, VA, was found with a severed head and left at the top of a footbridge in James River Park near a popular gay meeting place. In Crystal Lake, IL, a Japanese American shopowner was shot to death outside of Chicago, based upon the fact of discrimination against Asians. Three synagogues in Sacramento, in July of 1999, were destroyed by arson on the basis of anti-Semitism. These things are happening today. With all due respect to my friend and colleague from Utah, his legislation is basically to have a further study about whether these kinds of activities are taking place. This amendment that he has, on page 1, talks about studies, the collection of data, the data to be collected. Then it shows the number of relevant offenses, the percentage of offenses prosecuted. It continues on with the identification of trends. Then it has provisions for grants to local communities, and eligibility, and grants of $100,000. We have had the FBI doing the study for the last 10 years. We have the figures that the FBI has produced. The one thing that the FBI has testified to, and is very clear about in their studies, is they believe it is vastly underestimating the amount of hate crimes that are taking place, because in so many instances there isn't the local training or prioritizing of hate crimes by local communities and State communities in order to collect the information or data on this. So we do know that this is happening today. It is happening in increasing numbers. The reports that we do have basically underestimate the amount of action and activity that is taking place, and the States themselves--some of them--have taken action. But very few, if any, have taken the kind of comprehensive action we are talking about. There are enormous gaps in the activities of the States in the kinds of protections they are providing. Others have talked about it, and I am glad to get into the various kinds of protections that we are talking about here, the reasons for this legislation. Again, I say, this is our opportunity--and tomorrow--to say whether we are going to be serious about taking action in this area of bigotry and hatred that is focused on particular groups in our society. We have been willing to take action in the past. We were willing to do it in the past. I have mentioned six or eight instances when this Congress thought there was such a compelling reason for us to take the action that we went ahead and took that action in order to try to do something about discrimination in our society. We have the same issue in a different form before the Senate now. In the early 1960s, we had discrimination against blacks because we were not going to permit them to vote. We passed legislation and then implementing legislation. We said we were not going to protect discrimination and bigotry, discriminating against blacks in the areas of housing. We did the same regarding the disabled on the Americans With Disabilities Act. We made progress on discrimination against women in our society, and we have made progress as well in terms of understanding the various challenges on freeing ourselves from some forms of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation--although we have made very little in that area. The question is not the issue on sexual orientation. It is about violence against individual Americans. That is what it is about when you come down to it. It is violence based on bigotry. You can read long books about the origins of hatred and the origins of bigotry and the origins of prejudice and how they develop against individuals or individual groups. Many of them are different in the way that they did develop. But there is no difference about what is there basically when it is expressed in terms of violence. It is still violence against those individuals, and that is what we are attempting to address. I will put in the Record the various justifications, in terms of the constitutional issues. We can get into those and debate and discuss those in the course of the evening. We believe we are on sound basis for that. We have spent a great deal of time in assuring that the legislation was going to meet the challenges of Supreme Court decisions. I believe that we do. I respect those who believe we have not. But we are talking about taking action and doing it now. There are all kinds of reasons in this body why not to take action. But if we want to try to have an important response to the problems of hate crimes in our society, this is the way to do it. It is a bipartisan effort, and it has been since the development of our initial efforts under the leadership of Senator Simon and others a number of years ago, with just the collection of material. It has been, since that time, basically bipartisan, and it is on this measure now. It is whether we in the Senate are going to say that we have enough of the Matthew Shepard cases, that we have enough of the kind of vicious murdering on the basis of race, that we have enough prejudice and discrimination and expression of violence against Jewish individuals in our society, and we have had enough in terms of the violence against those who have a different sexual orientation. That is what the issue is, no more and no less. I want to take a few moments, and if others want to address the Senate, I will obviously permit them to do so. I want to give the assurances to our colleagues about how this particular legislation has been fashioned and has been shaped. It is targeted, it is limited, it is responsive in terms of its constitutional standing and how it basically complements the work of the States, which are attempting to try to deal with those issues, and how it is positive in terms of helping those States, and how, in many circumstances--for example, in a number of the rapes or aggravated sexual assaults, because criminal penalties under State laws are actually more severe than under Federal laws, the prosecution quite clearly would fall in those circumstances. As has been pointed out, in all the hate crimes prosecutions, the Federal authorities consult with the State and local enforcement officials before initiating an investigation or prosecution. The Federal jurisdiction allows the States to take advantage of the Department of Justice resources and personnel. Even if the State authorities ultimately bring the case, the Federal jurisdiction also allows the Attorney General to authorize the State prosecutor to bring a case based on Federal law, when that should be important or necessary. In cases where the States have adequate resources to investigate and prosecute a case and it appears determined to do so, the Federal Government will not file its own case. As has been the case under existing law, prosecutions under expanded case law would occur primarily in four situations: where the State does not have jurisdiction or the State prosecutors decline to act; or, after consultation between Federal and local authorities there is a consensus that a Federal prosecution is preferable because of the higher penalties and procedural advantages due to the complexity of the case; third, the state does not object to the Justice Department assuming jurisdiction; or fourth, that the State prosecution does not achieve a just result and the evidence warrants a subsequent Federal prosecution. Those are very limiting factors because they effectively give the States veto rights over Federal jurisdiction. We are talking about having an extremely effective remedy, one that will be in the interest of justice but one that is carefully sharpened in terms of its scope to make sure that we maintain local involvement and consider local priorities. The point is made that the Federal Hate Crimes Act would, in many cases, continue to overlap State jurisdiction. People have opposed this proposal for that reason. Violent crimes, whether motivated by discriminatory animus or not are generally covered under State law, and such an overlap is common. For example, there is overlapping Federal jurisdiction in cases of many homicides, in bank robberies, in kidnapings, in fraud, and other crimes. We have been willing to do it in other circumstances, and I believe that we must have overlapping jurisdiction for violent crimes based on animus and hatred as well. We must take meaningful steps to do something about it. Clearly, I think we have an important responsibility to act. The importance of the amendment is to provide a backstop to State and local enforcement by allowing a Federal prosecution, if it is necessary, to achieve an effective just result and to permit Federal authorities to assist in local investigations. As has been mentioned, every Federal prosecutor would have to prove motivation beyond a reasonable doubt in all cases. The prosecution would present evidence that indicated that a motivating factor in the defendant's conduct was bias against a particular group. That is a question for the jury to decide. Obviously, the prosecutor must convince the jury that the crime was based upon bias in order to secure a conviction. I withhold and yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I was startled to hear my friend and colleague suggest that when they asked the Justice Department which States took no action in the Federal Government prosecution, he said there was not any. He did not read his response from the Justice Department because I have in my hand the response from the Justice Department that lists their response. I am not going to take the time tonight to go all the way through, but they have been listed. He ought to ask his staff for that because it has been sent to the Judiciary Committee, of which he is the chairman. Included in the Justice Department's response are cases showing instances where the Department has pursued cases Federally when the State cannot respond as effectively as the Federal Government. For example, when State penalties are less severe than Federal penalties or where there are differences in applicable criminal procedure. The idea that there really aren't times when States are unable to prosecute a case just does not hold water, because the cases are out there and have been supplied by the Justice Department. Furthermore, this chart shows what is happening across the country in the various States. Eight States have absolutely no hate crimes statutes, 22 States have criminal statutes for disability bias crimes, 21 States plus the District of Columbia have criminal statutes for sexual orientation bias crimes, and 20 States identify gender bias crimes. But, if you are in any of these States shown on this chart which are colored gray, including many in the Northeast, as well as out in the West, and you are involved in the beating or battering of an individual American because of their sexual orientation, there are no hate crimes statutes under which to prosecute the perpetrator. The States shown in yellow on the chart have no hate crimes statutes at all. As I said, the States shown in gray have no protection at all for crimes committed because of a person's sexual orientation. Many of those States that have hate crimes laws are inadequate because they do not include all of the categories, including sexual orientation, gender and disability. We have one particular State, Utah, where a judge found the hate crime law to be incomplete because it specified no classes of victims-- the State included itself as having a hate crimes law. The judge was forced to dismiss the felony charges against two defendants who allegedly beat and terrorized people in a downtown city. The case was effectively dismissed because the state hate crime law was so vaguely drafted that it failed to provide any of the protections that other state hate crimes law do that clearly define classes of people who are protected by race, religion, national origin, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. The reality in the United States today is that either we believe we have some responsibility to protect our fellow Americans from these kinds of extraordinary actions based upon bigotry and prejudice or we don't. We have taken action in the past. We have done it when the action was based upon bigotry and prejudice and denial of the right to vote. We have taken action when prejudice and bigotry have denied people public accommodation. We have taken action against bigotry and prejudice when people have been denied housing. We have taken action against bigotry and prejudice toward people with disabilities. Now we are asking the Senate to take action when there is violence against American citizens based upon prejudice and bigotry. That is why this vote tomorrow is so important. That is what the issue is about. It is very basic and fundamental, and it is enormously important. It is part of a continuing process of the march towards a fairer and more just America. We have been trying to free ourselves from the stains of discrimination on the basis of race. We are making progress in terms of religion, national origin, and ethnic background. We are doing it with regard to gender, disability, and sexual orientation. What we are doing with this legislation is saying, at least in these areas, protect American citizens from prejudice and discrimination and violence that is being directed towards them. Let us make that a priority; let all Americans know that we are not going to fight prejudice and discrimination with one hand tied behind our backs. The Federal Government should have both hands involved in trying to protect our citizens from this form of discrimination. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on tomorrow we will have the opportunity to choose between the proposal of the Senator from Utah and the amendment Senator Smith and I are recommending to our colleagues. When it is all said and done, as I mentioned earlier, the proposal that has been put forward by my friend and colleague from Utah is basically to conduct a study about the problems and frequency of hate crimes, permits up to $5 million in authorization, and permits the Justice Department to provide grants for prosecution. That is really the extent of the amendment of the Senator from Utah. He has outlined his reasons for supporting that particular approach. I heard him say earlier he believes that it is really going to solve the problem and that it is going to really deal with the issue of hate crimes. Of course, I do not believe that to be the case. We reviewed this issue on a number of different occasions in the Judiciary Committee. I understand his position. I respect it, although I do have some difficulties in being persuaded by it this evening. For example, he basically has not questioned the existing limited hate crimes legislation that is on the books, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245, dealing with the issue of race, color, religion, and national origin in our society, even though it is restricted in its application. He did not say we ought to eliminate that situation. He did not really refer to eliminating current hate crimes law. The fact is, we have very limited hate crimes legislation on the books. Current law is restricted, as the Justice Department testified before the Judiciary Committee, in ways that virtually deny accountability for the serious hate crimes that are committed by individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in our society. Specifically, it requires the federal government to prove that the victim was engaged in a federally protected activity during the commission of the crime. We are trying to address this deficiency and to expand current law to include gender, disability, and sexual orientation. Those of us who will favor our position tomorrow believe the ultimate guarantor of the right for privacy, liberty, and individual safety and security in our society is the Constitution of the United States. That is where the repository for protecting our rights and our liberties is enshrined. It is enshrined in the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. But ultimately we are the ones who help define the extent of the Constitution's protection. When we find that we have inadequate protection for citizens because of sexual orientation, or gender, or race, that challenge cries out for us to take action. My good friend from Utah does not mind federalizing class action suits to bring them into the Federal court. He does not mind federalizing property issues in the takings legislation, to bring those into Federal court. For computer fraud, he does not mind bringing those crimes in Federal courts. But do not bring in Federal power to do something about hate crimes. I find that absolutely extraordinary. Why are we putting great protection for property rights and computer fraud and class actions into Federal court, giving them preference over doing something about the problems of hate crimes in our society that even Senator Hatch admits are taking place? We see from the data collected by the FBI and various studies that hate crimes are taking place. That is a fact. Look at the statistics that have been collected over the last few years, from 1995 through 1998. We see what is happening with regard to race, religion, national origin, ethnic background, sexual orientation, and disability. As we have heard from the FBI and the Justice Department, they believe the FBI statistics vastly underestimate what is happening in our society. The fact is, hate crimes are unlike any other crimes. Listening to the discussion of those who are opposed to our amendment, one would think these crimes were similar to pick-pocketing cases, misdemeanors, or traffic violations. The kind of impact that hate crimes have in terms of not only the individual but the community is well understood. It should be well understood by communities and individuals. I do not have to take the time to quote what the American Psychological Society says about the enduring kind of burden that individuals undergo when they have been the victims of hate crimes over the course of their lifetime, even in contrast to other crimes of violence against individuals. It has a different flavor, and it has an impact on the victim, the family and the community. Hate crimes are an outrageous reflection of bigotry and hatred based on bias that cannot be tolerated in our society. We have an opportunity to take some moderate steps to do something about it--to untie the hands of the Department of Justice. That is what tomorrow's vote is about. We have the constitutional authorities on our side, including the Justice Department, and others. I will include the list of distinguished constitutional authorities that are supporting our positions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the U.S. Department of Justice letter dated June 13, 2000, on the constitutionality of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000 be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I mentioned, the cases were provided by the Justice Department. Let me give you one case, U.S. v. Kila, 1994, a Federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas acquitted three white supremacists of Federal civil rights charges arising from unprovoked assaults upon African Americans, including one incident where the defendants knocked a man unconscious as he stood near a bus stop. For several hours, the defendants walked throughout the town accosting every African American they met, ordering them to leave whatever place or area they were in. Some of these encounters consisted of verbal harassment; in others, Black victims were shoved on the streets, their hats knocked off. Throughout their movements through the city, the subjects were using racial epithets and talking about white supremacy. The subjects' parade of racial hate erupted into serious violence with the assault on Ali--that is the name of the individual--at the bus stop, an assault which knocked him unconscious. According to witnesses, Ali was punched in the face after he fell to the ground, and kicked in the head. He was transported by ambulance to the hospital, having sustained head injuries. He did not have medical insurance. When the doctors asked him to remain for further tests, he left against their wishes. The Federal Government became involved in the case when State officials went to the U.S. Attorney's Office asking for Federal assistance. The State could only proceed on misdemeanors, and in their judgment, the conduct warranted felony treatment, treatment available under Federal law. Some of the jurors revealed after the trial that although the assaults were clearly motivated by racial animus, there was no apparent intent to deprive the victims of the right to participate in any federally protected activity. It is this federally protected activity barrier under current law that is unduly restrictive, and must be amended. The Government's proof that the defendants went out looking for African Americans to assault was insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements and effectively the case was dropped. I could go back as far as 1982. Maybe in some cases defendants get tried for a misdemeanor, as they did in a Western State case I mentioned previously, but they are not getting prosecuted with the full weight of the law. That is what we are talking about. In the 1982 case that I referred to, two white men chased a man of Asian descent from a night club in Detroit and beat him to death. The Department of Justice prosecuted the perpetrators under existing hate crimes laws, but both defendants were acquitted--despite substantial evidence to establish their animus based on the victim's national origin. Although the Justice Department had no direct evidence of the basis for the jurors' decision, the Government's need to prove the defendants' intent to interfere with the victim's engagement in a federally protected right-- the use of a place of public accommodation, was the weak link in the prosecution. These defendants committed murder on the basis of hate. Do we need more cases? I am glad to stay here and go through a whole pile of them. These are examples of what we are talking about. This is what is taking place. The question is whether we are going to do something about it. That is the issue that will be presented to this body tomorrow. I will take a moment to read into the Record the letter from Judy Shepard addressed to the members of the Judiciary Committee: Thank you for your hard work and commitment to combating hate violence in America. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before your committee last year. As the mother of a hate crime victim, I applaud your interest in trying to address this serious problem that has torn at the very fabric of our nation. However, I do have concerns with your bill (S. 1406) as currently written, and I would like to take this opportunity to discuss them with you. As I am sure you remember from our visit last fall, two men murdered my son Matthew in Laramie, Wyoming in October 1998 because he was gay. Though your amendment is well intentioned, it fails to address hate crimes based on sexual orientation, nor does it include disability or gender. The time has long passed for halfway measures to address this devastating violence. While I appreciate your efforts, the appropriate and necessary response is the Smith-Kennedy measure (S. 622), and I strongly urge you to support this approach. Though forty states and the District of Columbia have enacted hate crime statutes, most states do not provide authority for bias crime prosecutions based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Including the District of Columbia, only 22 states now include sexual orientation-based crimes in their hate crime statutes, 21 include coverage of gender-based crimes, and 22 include coverage for disability- based crimes. There is currently no law that allows federal assistance for localities investigating and prosecuting hate crimes based on sexual orientation. As a result, though Matt's killers were brought to justice, the Laramie law enforcement officials told me, as I know they told you last year, that they were forced to furlough five employees to be able to afford to bring the case. The Smith-Kennedy amendment would add sexual orientation, gender and disability to current law, while your amendment would not. I urge you to support the Smith-Kennedy amendment, which is more comprehensive and inclusive. I know that legislation cannot erase the hate or pain or bring back my son, but I believe that passage of this legislation is an essential step in the healing process and will help allow the federal government to assist in the investigation and prosecution of future hate crimes. Again, I respect your commitment to making America a more understanding and just country where hate crimes are no longer tolerated. But I urge you to promptly address my concerns that are shared by so many others, so our nation can be safe for all people, including gay people like my son Matthew. Sincerely, Judy Shepard. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at an appropriate time, I intend to offer the Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act. It is essential for the Senate to deal with this important issue. Hate crimes are modern day lynchings, and this is the time and the United States Senate is the place to take a stand against them. We must firmly and unequivocally say ``no'' to those who injure or murder because of hate. Every day that Congress fails to act, people across the Nation continue to be victimized by acts of bigotry based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Hate crimes are a national disgrace and an attack on everything this country stands for. These crimes send a poisonous message that minorities are second class citizens with fewer rights. And, sadly, the number of hate crimes continues to rise. 70,000 hate crime offenses have been reported in the United States since 1991. In 1991 there were 4,500 hate crimes; 7,500 in 1993; 7,900 in 1995, and over 8,000 in 1997. There were 7,700 hate crimes reported in 1998, and although the numbers dropped slightly, the number and severity of offenses increased in the categories of religion, sexual orientation, and disability. This is a serious and persistent problem--an epidemic that must be stopped. All of us are aware of the most highly-publicized hate crimes, especially the brutal murders of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas, and Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming. But these two killings are just the tip of the iceberg. Many other gruesome acts of hatred have occurred this year: On January 28 in Boston, a group of high school teenagers sexually assaulted and attacked a 16-year-old high school student on the subway because she was holding hands with another young girl, a common custom from her native African country. Thinking the victim was a lesbian, the group began groping the girl, ripping her clothes and pointing at their own genitals, while shouting ``Do you like this? Do you like this? Is this what you like?'' When the girl resisted, officials said, a teenage boy who was with the group pulled a knife on the girl, held it to her throat and threatened to slash her if she didn't obey her attackers. The girl was left unconscious from the beating. Three high school students were arrested in the attack and charged with civil rights violations, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery, and indecent assault and battery. On February 6 Tuscon, Arizona, a 20-year-old gay University of Arizona student was sitting at a cafe when a man came up behind him and punched and stabbed him with a large knife. Witnesses heard the perpetrator using vicious anti-gay epithets. The victim was treated at a local hospial and survived. The attack spurred an anti-hate rally on the campus a few days later, drawing over 1,000 people. March 1 in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, a black man was charged with a hate crime after going on a shooting rampage killing three white men and leaving two others critically wounded. Prior to the attack, he told a black woman that he wouldn't hurt her because he was ``out to get all white people.'' The perpetrator was shouting racial epithets at white maintenance workers, and shot only white men on his rampage. Authorities found anti-white and anti-Jewish writings in his home. On April 29 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Richard Scott Baumhammers, 34, a white man was charged with murder and hate crimes in a shooting rampage targeting minorities that left five people dead and one critically wounded. The first victim was a Jewish neighbor who was shot half a dozen times before her house was set on fire. The perpetrator then went from shopping mall to shopping mall, shooting and killing two Asian Americans at a Chinese restaurant, an African American at a karate school, and a man from India at an Indian grocery. He also fired shots at two synagogues, and the word ``Jew'' and two swastikas were painted in red on one of the buildings. According to press reports, attorney of the accused is raising an insanity defense. On June 4 in Rapid City, South Dakota, press reports indicate that police are baffled by a series of eight inexplicable drowning deaths among mostly Native Americans along Rapid Creek that have occurred over the course of 14 months. Law enforcement officials initially thought that the severely intoxicated men had drowned by accident. But local Native Americans believe an ``Indian-hater'' is waiting for the victims to become drunk and then dragging, rolling or pushing them into the water. These incidents come on the heels of a March 2000 report from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that shows that racial tensions in South Dakota are high, and that Native Americans in the state feel that the justice they received is unfair. The most brutal and shocking hate crimes continue to make national headlines. Yet this list highlights just a few of the many hate crimes that afflict communities throughout the nation. This problem cannot and should not be ignored. We know that hate groups have increased in number in recent years. A study by the Southern Poverty Law Center reported last year that 474 hate groups exist nationwide. Clearly, the Internet has given them a larger megaphone. In earlier years, hate groups would spread their messages of hate by using bulletin boards, newsletters, cable television, and occasional rallies. Now, the Internet gives them a vastly increased audience that can be reached with little effort. Hate sites have proliferated at distressing rates, and recruitment by hate groups has increased substantially. No minority is safe. African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, gays, lesbians, Arab- Americans, Native Americans--all are targeted by these hate groups, which hide behind the first amendment as they spread their hateful messages. Unless we find better antidotes to the poison of high-tech hate, the problem of hate crimes in our free society will become increasingly severe. The federal government has a special role in protecting civil rights and preventing discrimination. We need to take two major steps. We need to strengthen current federal laws against hate crimes based on race, religion or national origin. We also need to add gender, sexual orientation, and disability to the types of hate crimes where federal prosecution is available. Our goal is to make the Justice Department a full partner with state and local governments in investigating and prosecuting these vicious crimes. We must find a way to act on this important issue and now is the time to do it. The silence of Congress on this basic issue has been deafening, and it is unacceptable. We must stop acting like we don't care--that somehow this fundamental issue is just a state problem. It isn't. It's a national problem, and it's an outrage that Congress continues to be A.W.O.L. in the national battle against hate crimes. Recent incidents of hate crimes have shocked the conscience of the country. It is clear that tolerance in America faces a serious challenge. We cannot hide behind the nation's record economic prosperity or its tremendous technological advances, when issues that go to the heart of the nation's founding ideals and basic values are at stake. When bigotry exists in America, we have to root it out. Current federal laws are clearly inadequate. It's an embarrassment that we haven't already acted to close the glaring gaps. For too long, the federal government has been forced to fight hate crimes with one hand tied behind its back. Federal participation in civil rights prosecutions in nothing new. In fact, it is Federalism 101. Federal involvement in the prosecution of racial bigotry dates back to the Reconstruction Era following the Civil War. These fundamental civil rights laws were updated in the 1960's, but now they are no longer adequate to meet the current challenge. Civil rights is still the unfinished business of America, and action we propose is in the best tradition of responsible federal legislation. Our amendment addresses two serious deficiencies in the principal federal hate crimes statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245, which currently applies to hate crimes committed on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. First, in these cases, the statutes requires the government to prove that the defendant committed an offense not only because of the victims race, color, religion, or national origin, but also because of the victim's participation in one of six narrowly defined ``federally protected activities'' listed in the statute. These activities are: (1) Enrolling in or attending a public school or public college; (2) Participating in a service or activity provided by a state or local government; (3) Applying for employment or actually working; (4) Service on a jury in a state or local court; (5) Traveling in interstate commerce; or using a facility in interstate commerce; or (6) enjoying the goods or services of certain places of public accommodation. In other words, even in these types of hate crimes, the prosecution must prove that in addition to the bigotry, the attack was also made because the victim was engaged in one of these six specific activities. Too often, federal prosecutions are not possible, because this additional burden of proof is too great. Second, the federal statute provides no coverage at all for hate crimes based on the victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. In the Matthew Shepard case in Wyoming, for example, no federal prosecution was possible because of this unacceptable gap in federal law. Together, these limitations prevent the federal government from working with state and local law enforcement agencies in the investigation and prosecution of many of the most vicious hate crimes. Our legislation adds new provisions to Title 18 to remedy each of these limitations. In cases involving racial, religious, or ethnic violence, the amendment prohibits the intentional infliction of bodily injury, without regard to the victim's participation in one of the six ``federally protected activities.'' In cases involving hate crimes based on the victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability, the amendment prohibits the intentional infliction of bodily injury whenever the act has a connection to interstate commerce. In addition, when state and local officials request federal assistance, our amendment authorizes the federal government to lend its personnel and its technical resources to local officials, and to award grants of up to $100,000 to assist in the local investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. These provisions will permit the federal government to work in partnership with state and local officials in all aspects of the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. This amendment has the support of the Department of Justice, constitutional scholars, law enforcement officials, and many organizations with a long and distinguished history of involvement in combating hate crimes, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Anti-Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Organization for Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Rights Task Force. This hate crimes amendment is not a full answer, but it will send a strong signal from the President and Congress that violence against individuals because of their membership in certain groups will not be tolerated, and that the federal government will now be a full partner in meeting this threat in the years ahead. It is time to stop abdicating our federal responsibility and start doing more to win this all-important battle against hate crimes. If we fail, America is not America. Mr. President, to review for the Senate quickly, this chart indicates the number of incidents, by bias motivation: Red being the race ethnicity and national origin, green being religion, blue being sexual orientation, and yellow being disability. As you can see from these numbers, they have been virtually flat over the period of these last couple of years. We have seen the increased numbers that have taken place on the basis of sexual orientation and increased numbers with regard to disability. The fact is, in examining these cases, particularly in 1997 and 1998, we find that the incidence of violence has intensified dramatically and the viciousness in manifestations of hatred has increased significantly, reflecting itself in these acts of violence against individuals. One of our great leaders in this cause was our former colleague, Paul Simon of Illinois, who was a strong advocate on this legislation many years ago. We settled at that time for just collecting information. Prior to a few years ago, we did not have accurate information. Now we have the accurate information and it cries out for action. There is no justification for delay, given that we have the information and we do know the cases that are taking place. We do not have to just rely on the various ad hoc cases that all of us read about, tragically almost every single day. We have accumulated these instances. We know from the direct testimony and comments from local law enforcement officials of the value and help and assistance that can be provided and that is needed in the prosecution of these cases. I will take the time of the Senate on Monday to go through a greater description of exactly what we are doing and what we are not doing; the limitations that we have placed upon the prosecution. We will have a chance to review for the Senate what the other amendment, the Hatch amendment that will be before the Senate will do, what it will do and also what it will not do. We will have that opportunity on Tuesday next in the middle of the afternoon. It is imperative to take a vote on whether we are going to be serious here, with the Federal Government participating with States and local communities, trying to do something about the odious aspects of hate crimes. Finally, as we know, these incidents of crime are not just acts against individuals. These acts really impact and affect a whole community because they are based on such bigotry and hatred and reflect that kind of hatred and viciousness, that the whole community is tainted by these kinds of activities. It cries out for appropriate involvement by the Federal Government to be a partner with local and State law enforcement officials. That is what this legislation does. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a partnership using the full force of the National Government to address these crimes. My friend from Oregon is on the floor. He has been involved in this issue for a very long period of time. He has been indispensable as we have tried to move this legislation in the Senate. He has a long record in this area in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. I value his counsel and strong support. It is a pleasure to see Senator Wyden on the floor to speak on this issue this morning.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. We are under a time agreement?

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Corporation for National Service recently announced the winners of the second annual National Service--Learning Leader Schools Program, a Presidential Award that recognizes schools for excellence in service-learning. Learn and Serve America, one of the three national service programs of the Corporation for National Service, is sponsoring the Leader Schools initiative. In its second year, the Leader Schools program is honoring 34 middle schools and 32 high schools in 31 states for thoughtfully and effectively combining academic subjects with community service in a way that benefits students, teaches civic responsibility, and strengthens communities. Service-learning is expanding in the United States. The Department of Education found that in 1984, only 27 percent of all high schools had school-sponsored community service projects and only 9 percent offered service-learning. By the 1998-99 school year, those numbers rose to a remarkable 83 percent and 46 percent, respectively. Three schools in Massachusetts--Wareham High School and Wareham Middle School in Wareham and Tantasqua Regional Junior High School in Fiskdale have been leaders in our state on service-learning and were honored as National Service Learning Leader Schools this year. I commend each of these schools for the important work they have accomplished in making community service an integral part of school life. These schools are impressive models for Massachusetts and for the nation. The Leader Schools program is not simply an awards program. The schools being honored are making a two year commitment to assist other schools through mentoring and coaching, thereby contributing to the spread of service-learning throughout the country. The Corporation for National Service also administers AmeriCorps, the domestic Peace Corps that is engaging Americans in extensive, service activities in this country. In addition, the Corporation administers the National Senior Service Corps which enables nearly half a million Americans age fifty-five and older to share their time and talents to help solve local problems. All of these outstanding programs are achieving great success under the strong leadership of our former colleague in the Senate, Harris Wofford, the chief executive officer of the Corporation. The sixty-six Leader Schools will be honored in a ceremony at the Kennedy Center this week. These schools are true leaders in education reform. I commend them for their academic achievements and their contributions to our country through community service, and I ask the list of the Leader Schools may be printed in the Record. 2000 National Service--Learning Leader Schools Academy for Science and Foreign Language, Huntsville, AL; Eureka Senior High School, Eureka, CA; Irvington High School, Fremont, CA; Howard High School of Technology, Wilmington, DE; Wakulla Middle School, Crawfordville, FL; Neptune Middle School, Kissimmee, FL; Bay High School, Panama City, FL; Taylor County High School, Perry, FL; Carol Shores High School, Tavernier, FL; Waiakea High School, Hilo, HI; Punahou School, Honolulu, HI; President George Washington Middle School, Honolulu, HI; Bettendorf High School, Bettendorf, IA; Resurrection High School, Chicago, IL; Field Middle School, Northbrook, IL, Paoli Senior High School, Paoli, IN; Warren Central High School, Bowling Green, KY; North Laurel Middle School, London, KY; East Jessamine Middle School, Nicholasville, KY; Tantasqua Regional Jr. High School, Fiskdale, MA; Wareham High School, Wareham, MA; Wareham Middle School, Wareham, MA; Phillips Middle School, Phillips, ME; Lahser High School, Bloomfield Hills, MI; Romulus High School, Romulus, MI; Fulton Academy, Fulton, MO; Tupelo Middle School, Tupelo, MS; Chief Joseph Middle School, Bozeman, MT; Lewistown Junior High School, Lewistown, MT; Ramsey Street Alternative Middle School, Fayetteville, NC; Ferndale Middle School, Highpoint, NC; Piedmont High School, Monroe, NC; Woodbury Middle School, Salem, NH; Woodsville High School, Woodsville, NH; Cranford High School, Cranford, NJ; Academy of the Holy Angels, Demarest, NJ; Terence C. Reilly Middle School, Elizabeth, NJ; Delsea Regional Middle School, Franklinville, NJ; Hoboken Charter School, Hoboken, NJ; John F. Kennedy Memorial High School, Iselin, NJ; Linden High School, Linden, NJ; Opportunity School, Reno, NV; Scotia-Glenville Junior High School, Scotia, NY; W.T. Clarke Middle School, Westbury, NY; Russell F. Hobart Middle School, Painesville, OH; Hastings Middle School, Upper Arlington, OH; Jones Middle School, Upper Arlington, OH; The Environmental Middle School, Portland, OR; Tillamook Junior High School, Tillamook, OR; Lamberton Middle School, Carlisle, PA; Parkway West Alternative Center for Education, Oakdale, PA; Feinstein High School for Public Service, Providence, RI; D.R. Hill Middle School, Duncan, SC; Britton's Neck High School, Gresham, SC; Pickens Middle School, Pickens, SC; Wren Middle School, Piedmont, SC; Camp Creek School, Greeneville, TN; Harpeth Hall School, Nashville, TN; Quest High School, Humble, TX; Weatherford High School, Weatherford, TX; Box Elder Community High School, Brigham City, UT; Evergreen Junior High, Salt Lake City, UT; William E. Waters Middle School, Portsmouth, VA; River Bluff Middle School, Stoughton, WI; WVDE at Davis Stuart School, Lewisburg, WV; Morgantown High School, Morgantown, WV.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this morning's session of the Senate was opened by Reverend Monsignor Lloyd Torgerson of Santa Monica, California. I welcome this opportunity to commend Monsignor Torgerson for his eloquent prayer and for the wisdom he has offered the Senate. Monsignor Torgerson is a pastor at the Santa Monica Parish where he has served with great distinction for many years. He ministers to over 7,000 families, as well as an elementary school and a high school. He also serves at the Archdiocese level in Los Angeles, and is Dean of the 19 Westside parishes. Over the years, Chaplain Ogilvie and Monsignor Torgerson have developed an excellent friendship through their work in the Los Angeles community. In fact, Monsignor Torgerson baptized all four of Chaplain Ogilvie's grandchildren. The Senate is graced and honored by Monsignor Torgerson's presence this morning. I commend him for his inspirational prayer and for his service as our guest Chaplain. I ask unanimous consent that biographical information on Monsignor Torgerson's distinguished career be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, between 44,000 and 98,000 patients die each year from medical errors, making it the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. Each day, more than 250 people die because of medical errors--the equivalent of a major airplane crash every day. Estimates of the annual financial cost of preventable errors run as high as $29 billion a year. We can do better for our citizens. We must do better. The Voluntary Error Reduction and Improvement in Patient Safety Act of 2000, which Senator Dodd and I are introducing today, will provide the federal investment and framework necessary to take the first steps to effectively treat this continuing epidemic of medical errors. Today, there errors are a stealth plague hidden deep within the world's best health care system. This legislation will support needed research in this area, and identify and reduce common mistakes. Reducing medical errors can save lives and health care dollars, and avoid countless family tragedies. The field of anesthesia had the foresight to undertake such an effort almost 20 years ago, and today, the number of fatalities from errors in administering anesthesia has dropped by 98 percent. Our goal should be to achieve equal or even greater success in reducing other types of medical mistakes. This legislation lays the foundation to achieve this goal. The 1999 Institute of Medicine report, To Err is Human, documented the compelling need for aggressive national action on the issue. The IOM report recommended the creation of two reporting systems, each with different goals. The first is a voluntary confidential reporting system to learn about medical errors and help researchers develop solutions for future error prevention and reduction. The second is a mandatory public reporting system for certain serious errors and deaths in order to inform the public and hold health care facilities responsible for their mistakes. Our legislation today deals with the first issue, but the second issue is also critical. I believe that the public has a right-to-know about certain serious events, and public disclosure is an important tool to assure that institutions put safety on the front burner, not the back burner. I commend the Administration for recognizing the value of mandatory reporting by recently establishing such programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense health care systems. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is also in the process of evaluating existing mandatory reporting systems, and the Health Care Financing Administration is planning to sponsor a mandatory reporting demonstration project for selected private hospitals. I believe our next step should be to move ahead with mandatory reporting, and the results of these studies will shed needed light on the effectiveness of different options. The bill we introduce today would take a significant first step toward implementing and providing support for the recommendations in the IOM report. The overwhelming majority of errors are caused by flaws in the health care system, not the outright negligence of individual doctors and nurses. Our hospitals, doctors, nurses, and other health care providers want to do the right thing. Our proposal gives the health care community the tools to identify the causes of medical errors, the resources to develop strategies to prevent them, and the encouragement to implement those solutions. First, the Act creates a new patient safety center in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety will improve and promote patient safety by conducting and supporting research on medical errors, administering the national medical error reporting systems created under this bill, and disseminating evidence-based practices and other error reduction and prevention strategies to health care providers, purchasers and the public. Second, the legislation would establish national voluntary reporting and surveillance systems under AHRQ to identify, track, prevent and reduce medical errors. The National Patient Safety Reporting System will allow health care professionals, health care facilities, and patients to voluntarily report adverse events and close calls. The National Patient Safety Surveillance System would establish a surveillance system, which is modeled on a successful CDC initiative that tracks hospital-acquired infections, for health care facilities that choose to participate. Participating facilities will include a representative sample of various institutions, which will monitor, analyze, and report selected adverse events and close calls. Researchers will provide feedback to the participating facilities. Reports submitted to both programs will be analyzed to identify systemic faults that led to the errors, and recommend solutions to prevent similar errors in the future. In order to encourage participation, reports and analyses from both programs will be protected from discovery, and health care workers who submit reports to the programs will be protected against workplace retaliation based on their participation in the reporting systems. In exchange for establishing this reporting system, health care facilities and professionals would be expected to voluntarily implement appropriate patient safety solutions as they are developed. In addition, in recognition of the significant federal investments in error reduction strategies and the provision of health services, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will be required to develop a process for determining which evidence-based practices should be applied to programs under the Secretary's authority. The Secretary will take appropriate, reasonable steps to assure implementation of these practices. Our proposal also requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to develop a similar process for determining which evidence- based practices should be used as purchasing standards for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Plans will also be rated on how well they met these standards, and compliance ratings will be provided to federal employees and retirees during the annual enrollment period. The bill authorizes $50,000,000 for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for FY 2001, increasing to $200,000,000 in FY 2005, to fund error-related research and the reporting systems. Systemic errors in the health care system put every patient at risk of injury. The measure we propose today is designed to reduce that risk as much as possible. Americans deserve the highest quality health care. This bill will raise patient safety to a high national priority, and ensure that patient safety becomes part of every citizen's expectation of high quality health care. This is essential legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to expedite its passage and to develop companion legislation that establishes a mandatory reporting system. I ask unanimous consent that the following summary, fact sheet, and letters of support be inserted into the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, between 44,000 and 98,000 patients die each year from medical errors, making it the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. Each day, more than 250 people die because of medical errors--the equivalent of a major airplane crash every day. Estimates of the annual financial cost of preventable errors run as high as $29 billion a year. We can do better for our citizens. We must do better. The Voluntary Error Reduction and Improvement in Patient Safety Act of 2000, which Senator Dodd and I are introducing today, will provide the federal investment and framework necessary to take the first steps to effectively treat this continuing epidemic of medical errors. Today, there errors are a stealth plague hidden deep within the world's best health care system. This legislation will support needed research in this area, and identify and reduce common mistakes. Reducing medical errors can save lives and health care dollars, and avoid countless family tragedies. The field of anesthesia had the foresight to undertake such an effort almost 20 years ago, and today, the number of fatalities from errors in administering anesthesia has dropped by 98 percent. Our goal should be to achieve equal or even greater success in reducing other types of medical mistakes. This legislation lays the foundation to achieve this goal. The 1999 Institute of Medicine report, To Err is Human, documented the compelling need for aggressive national action on the issue. The IOM report recommended the creation of two reporting systems, each with different goals. The first is a voluntary confidential reporting system to learn about medical errors and help researchers develop solutions for future error prevention and reduction. The second is a mandatory public reporting system for certain serious errors and deaths in order to inform the public and hold health care facilities responsible for their mistakes. Our legislation today deals with the first issue, but the second issue is also critical. I believe that the public has a right-to-know about certain serious events, and public disclosure is an important tool to assure that institutions put safety on the front burner, not the back burner. I commend the Administration for recognizing the value of mandatory reporting by recently establishing such programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense health care systems. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is also in the process of evaluating existing mandatory reporting systems, and the Health Care Financing Administration is planning to sponsor a mandatory reporting demonstration project for selected private hospitals. I believe our next step should be to move ahead with mandatory reporting, and the results of these studies will shed needed light on the effectiveness of different options. The bill we introduce today would take a significant first step toward implementing and providing support for the recommendations in the IOM report. The overwhelming majority of errors are caused by flaws in the health care system, not the outright negligence of individual doctors and nurses. Our hospitals, doctors, nurses, and other health care providers want to do the right thing. Our proposal gives the health care community the tools to identify the causes of medical errors, the resources to develop strategies to prevent them, and the encouragement to implement those solutions. First, the Act creates a new patient safety center in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety will improve and promote patient safety by conducting and supporting research on medical errors, administering the national medical error reporting systems created under this bill, and disseminating evidence-based practices and other error reduction and prevention strategies to health care providers, purchasers and the public. Second, the legislation would establish national voluntary reporting and surveillance systems under AHRQ to identify, track, prevent and reduce medical errors. The National Patient Safety Reporting System will allow health care professionals, health care facilities, and patients to voluntarily report adverse events and close calls. The National Patient Safety Surveillance System would establish a surveillance system, which is modeled on a successful CDC initiative that tracks hospital-acquired infections, for health care facilities that choose to participate. Participating facilities will include a representative sample of various institutions, which will monitor, analyze, and report selected adverse events and close calls. Researchers will provide feedback to the participating facilities. Reports submitted to both programs will be analyzed to identify systemic faults that led to the errors, and recommend solutions to prevent similar errors in the future. In order to encourage participation, reports and analyses from both programs will be protected from discovery, and health care workers who submit reports to the programs will be protected against workplace retaliation based on their participation in the reporting systems. In exchange for establishing this reporting system, health care facilities and professionals would be expected to voluntarily implement appropriate patient safety solutions as they are developed. In addition, in recognition of the significant federal investments in error reduction strategies and the provision of health services, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will be required to develop a process for determining which evidence-based practices should be applied to programs under the Secretary's authority. The Secretary will take appropriate, reasonable steps to assure implementation of these practices. Our proposal also requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to develop a similar process for determining which evidence- based practices should be used as purchasing standards for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Plans will also be rated on how well they met these standards, and compliance ratings will be provided to federal employees and retirees during the annual enrollment period. The bill authorizes $50,000,000 for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for FY 2001, increasing to $200,000,000 in FY 2005, to fund error-related research and the reporting systems. Systemic errors in the health care system put every patient at risk of injury. The measure we propose today is designed to reduce that risk as much as possible. Americans deserve the highest quality health care. This bill will raise patient safety to a high national priority, and ensure that patient safety becomes part of every citizen's expectation of high quality health care. This is essential legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to expedite its passage and to develop companion legislation that establishes a mandatory reporting system. I ask unanimous consent that the following summary, fact sheet, and letters of support be inserted into the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I don't oppose Senator McCain's amendment. It reflects the current broad understanding about the status of the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston. The Big Dig project has suffered from serious cost overruns and there is no disagreement about who will pay for those costs. The Chairman of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the governor of Massachusetts, the leaders of the State legislature, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Inspector General of the Department, the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, and Senator McCain all agree that the total federal contribution remains as it was--$8.549 billion. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to cover any increased costs. The state has developed a plan to do just that, and it is a good plan. The state legislature and Governor Cellucci have worked effectively to prepare a realistic plan to pay for the increased costs of the Big Dig, without asking for additional federal assistance, and without shortchanging important transportation projects throughout the rest of the state. The plan is currently being reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration and is likely to be approved very soon. It is also important to appreciate all that is involved in this project, and all that it will do for Boston and the region. Work of this magnitude and duration has never before been attempted in the heart of an urban area. Unlike any other major highway project, the Central Artery/Tunnel Project is designed to maintain traffic capacity and access to residents and businesses. Using new and innovative technology, it has kept the city open for business throughout the construction. The Big Dig is replacing the current six lane elevated roadway with eight to ten underground lanes. The project will create 150 acres of new parks and open space, including 27 acres where the existing elevated highway now stands. This is an urgently needed project. Today, the Central Artery carries 190,000 vehicles a day with bumper-to-bumper traffic and stop-and-go congestion for six to eight hours every day. If nothing were done, the elevated highway would suffer through bumper-to-bumper conditions for 15 to 16 hours a day by the year 2000. The new underground expressway will be able to carry 245,000 vehicles a day with minimal delays. The elimination of hours of congested traffic will reduce Boston carbon monoxide levels by 12 percent citywide. Without such improvements in its transportation, Boston would not be able to continue to grow as the center of economic activity for the state and the region. Work on this important project is progressing effectively again. I look forward to its conclusion so that the city, state, and region can benefit from the needed improvements this project will bring. Amendments Nos. 3432, As Modified; 3436, As Modified; 3438, As Modified; 3447, As Modified; 3451, 3452, 3453, En Bloc

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, several months ago, my distinguished colleague, Senator Bill Frist, and I began to develop legislation needed to enhance the nation's protections against the triple threat to health posed by new and resurgent infectious diseases, by ``superbugs'' resistant to antibiotics, and by terrorist attacks with biological weapons. Today, Senator Frist and I are introducing the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act of 2000. I commend Senator Frist for his leadership and commitment on this important legislation. The bill that we are introducing today will provide the nation with additional weapons to win the battle against the deadly perils of infectious disease, antimicrobial resistance and bioterrorism. The Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act of 2000 will revitalize the nation's ability to monitor and fight outbreaks of infectious disease, control the spread of germs resistant to antibiotics, and protect the nation more effectively against bioterrorism. Today we face a world where deadly contagious diseases that erupt in one part of the world can be transported across the globe with the speed of a jet aircraft. The recent outbreak of West Nile Fever in the New York area is an ominous warning of future dangers. Diseases such as cholera, typhoid and pneumonia that we have fought for generations still claim millions of lives across the world and will pose increasing dangers to this country in years to come. New plagues like Ebola virus, Lassa Fever and others now unknown to science may one day invade our shores. Less exotic, but also deadly, are the simpler infections that for almost a century we have been able to treat with antibiotics, but that are now becoming resistant even to our most advanced medicines. Drugs that once had the power to cure dangerous infections are now often useless--because ``superbugs`' have now become resistant to all but the most powerful and expensive medications. Strains of tuberculosis that are resistant to antimicrobial drugs are prevalent around the world, and are a growing danger in our inner cities and among the homeless. If action is not urgently taken, we may soon return to the days when a simple case of food poisoning could prove deadly and a mere cut could become severely infected and cost a limb. The growing financial burden of antimicrobial resistance on the health care system is staggering. Treating a patient with TB usually costs $12,000. But when a patient has drug-resistant TB, that figure soars to $180,000. The National Foundation for Infectious Diseases estimates that the total cost of antimicrobial resistance to the U.S. health care system is as high as $4 billion every year--and this figure will only rise as resistant infections become more common. But the most potentially deadly of these threats is bioterrorism. We are a nation at risk. Biological weapons are the massive new threats of the twenty-first century. The Office of Emergency Preparedness estimates that 40 million Americans could die if a terrorist released smallpox into the American population. Anthrax could kill 10 million. Other deadly pathogens known to have been developed in biological warfare labs around the world could kill millions. Our proposal will strengthen the nation's public health agencies, which provide the first line of defense against bioterrorism and many other threats to the public health. Our legislation authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to respond swiftly and effectively to a public health emergency, and provides the Secretary with needed resources to mount a strong defense against whatever danger imperils the nation's health. The bill calls upon the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a national monitoring plan for dangerous infections resistant to antibiotics, and to work closely with state and local public health agencies to ensure that this peril is contained. It is also essential to educate patients and medical providers in the appropriate use of antibiotics. Too often, patients demand antibiotics and doctors provide them for illnesses which do not require and do not respond to these drugs. Our legislation calls upon the federal government to lead a national campaign to educate patients and health providers in the appropriate use of antibiotics. The threat of bioterrorism demands particular attention, because of its potential for massive death and destruction. Currently, dozens of federal agencies share responsibility for domestic preparedness against bioterrorist attacks. This bill will enhance the nation's preparedness by improving coordination among federal agencies responsible for all aspects of a bioterrorist attack. Better coordination will allow us to develop the public health countermeasures needed to defend against bioterrorism, such as stockpiles of essential supplies and effective disaster planning. Since the infectious organisms likely to be used in a bioterrorist attack are rarely encountered in normal medical practice, many doctors or laboratory specialists are likely to be unable to diagnose persons with these diseases rapidly and accurately. Recognizing a bioterrorist attack quickly is a major part of containing it. This bill will improve the preparedness of public health institutions, health providers, and emergency personnel to detect, diagnose, and respond to bioterrorist attacks through improved training and public education. One of the highest duties of Congress is to protect the nation against all threats, foreign and domestic. Deadly infectious diseases, new ``superbugs'' resistant to antibiotics, and bioterrorism clearly menace the nation. We must resist these threats as vigorously as we would fight an invading army. the Frist-Kennedy bill is intended to provide the weapons we need to win this battle.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we are introducing legislation to improve the health of Medicare beneficiaries and the health of the Medicare program itself. Under Medicare, the health and quality of life for millions of older adults and people with disabilities have significantly improved. The rate of chronic disability among adults over 65 continues to decline, but we can do better. A recent report by the World Health Organization showed that the U.S. falls behind 23 other nations in ``healthy life expectancy.'' On average, Americans can expect only 70 healthy years, compared to Japanese citizens who can anticipate 74\1/2\ years of life without disability. Chronic disability robs too many older Americans of active and productive years, and adds $26 billion annually in health care costs as people over 65 lose their ability to live independently. In the next 30 years, the viability of Medicare will be challenged as the baby boom generation ages. Nearly one fifth of the population will be 65 and older by 2025, which means that a larger number of beneficiaries will be supported by a smaller number of workers. The current debate over the future of Medicare often revolves around benefit cuts or tax increases. But an obvious alternative that should be part of the debate is to reduce the demand for Medicare by improving the health of senior citizens. Unfortunately, Medicare today contains few incentives to encourage beneficiaries and providers to take health promotion and disease prevention seriously. This bill will help older adults and individuals with disabilities to improve their health. It will also educate health providers about the best practices for treatment of Medicare patients. Older adults are generally health conscious and are interested in taking steps to maintain their health and independence. Poor lifestyle factors--which include lack of exercise, poor diet, at-risk behaviors, smoking, and alcohol abuse--account for 70% of the physical decline and disease that occur with aging. Experts agree that the potential for better health through health promotion and disease prevention is great. Too often, however, older Americans lack the accurate information that would help them take advantage of these opportunities. This bill will ensure that Medicare beneficiaries are better informed about the lifestyle changes they can make to improve their health, and the preventive health services they can use to prevent disease. To encourage more beneficiaries to use the preventive services that Medicare currently offers, our legislation will eliminate cost-sharing for these services. Prevention saves lives and saves money. The incidence of cancer in adults over 65 is approximately eleven times higher than in persons under 65. Most cancers can be treated and many can be cured if detected early. But cancer screening tests are significantly underused by Medicare beneficiaries. Thirty-eight percent of women over 65 who have survived breast cancer (and remain at risk) do not receive an annual mammogram. Our bill will waive cost-sharing for mammography, screening pelvic exams, colorectal cancer screening, prostate cancer screening, bone mass measurement, hepatitis B vaccine and its administration, and diabetes self-management training. Despite the great potential of preventive services to improve the quality of life for older Americans, few clinical guidelines focus on preventive care for this population. Our bill calls for a task force to conduct studies to determine which preventive services in primary care are most valuable to senior citizens. A separate demonstration project will determine effective means to reduce smoking by Medicare beneficiaries. Cessation of smoking can reduce the risk of lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke. In 1997, smoking-related expenditures were estimated to cost the Medicare program a total of $20.5 billion. There are substantial defects in the quality of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Medical research has established that early use of a beta blocker after a heart attack reduces the risk of mortality and rehospitalization. Yet 51 percent of older adults fail to receive this treatment when it is indicated. In fact, patients at the highest risk of death in the hospital are least likely to receive a beta blocker. Every senior citizen deserves quality health care. The gaps between the best medical practice and actual practice must be narrowed. Our bill asks the Department of Health and Human Services to determine which areas in the treatment of Medicare beneficiaries do not meet the highest professional standards, and to determine the best practices in those areas. Steps will then be taken to inform health care professionals about these standards for treatment. The opportunities for better health care and budget savings are great, if care can be delivered to beneficiaries with high-cost chronic conditions in a more coordinated and effective way. Our legislation authorizes demonstration projects to develop innovative approaches to increase the quality of care and reduce costs for Medicare beneficiaries in skilled nursing facilities. Similar demonstration projects are authorized for beneficiaries with serious or chronic illness who do not reside in nursing facilities. In ways like this, we do more--much more--to preserve and strengthen Medicare, and achieve substantial long-term savings as well. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve this important goal. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, the bill summary, and the relevant fact sheet be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, several months ago, my distinguished colleague, Senator Bill Frist, and I began to develop legislation needed to enhance the nation's protections against the triple threat to health posed by new and resurgent infectious diseases, by ``superbugs'' resistant to antibiotics, and by terrorist attacks with biological weapons. Today, Senator Frist and I are introducing the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act of 2000. I commend Senator Frist for his leadership and commitment on this important legislation. The bill that we are introducing today will provide the nation with additional weapons to win the battle against the deadly perils of infectious disease, antimicrobial resistance and bioterrorism. The Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act of 2000 will revitalize the nation's ability to monitor and fight outbreaks of infectious disease, control the spread of germs resistant to antibiotics, and protect the nation more effectively against bioterrorism. Today we face a world where deadly contagious diseases that erupt in one part of the world can be transported across the globe with the speed of a jet aircraft. The recent outbreak of West Nile Fever in the New York area is an ominous warning of future dangers. Diseases such as cholera, typhoid and pneumonia that we have fought for generations still claim millions of lives across the world and will pose increasing dangers to this country in years to come. New plagues like Ebola virus, Lassa Fever and others now unknown to science may one day invade our shores. Less exotic, but also deadly, are the simpler infections that for almost a century we have been able to treat with antibiotics, but that are now becoming resistant even to our most advanced medicines. Drugs that once had the power to cure dangerous infections are now often useless--because ``superbugs`' have now become resistant to all but the most powerful and expensive medications. Strains of tuberculosis that are resistant to antimicrobial drugs are prevalent around the world, and are a growing danger in our inner cities and among the homeless. If action is not urgently taken, we may soon return to the days when a simple case of food poisoning could prove deadly and a mere cut could become severely infected and cost a limb. The growing financial burden of antimicrobial resistance on the health care system is staggering. Treating a patient with TB usually costs $12,000. But when a patient has drug-resistant TB, that figure soars to $180,000. The National Foundation for Infectious Diseases estimates that the total cost of antimicrobial resistance to the U.S. health care system is as high as $4 billion every year--and this figure will only rise as resistant infections become more common. But the most potentially deadly of these threats is bioterrorism. We are a nation at risk. Biological weapons are the massive new threats of the twenty-first century. The Office of Emergency Preparedness estimates that 40 million Americans could die if a terrorist released smallpox into the American population. Anthrax could kill 10 million. Other deadly pathogens known to have been developed in biological warfare labs around the world could kill millions. Our proposal will strengthen the nation's public health agencies, which provide the first line of defense against bioterrorism and many other threats to the public health. Our legislation authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to respond swiftly and effectively to a public health emergency, and provides the Secretary with needed resources to mount a strong defense against whatever danger imperils the nation's health. The bill calls upon the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a national monitoring plan for dangerous infections resistant to antibiotics, and to work closely with state and local public health agencies to ensure that this peril is contained. It is also essential to educate patients and medical providers in the appropriate use of antibiotics. Too often, patients demand antibiotics and doctors provide them for illnesses which do not require and do not respond to these drugs. Our legislation calls upon the federal government to lead a national campaign to educate patients and health providers in the appropriate use of antibiotics. The threat of bioterrorism demands particular attention, because of its potential for massive death and destruction. Currently, dozens of federal agencies share responsibility for domestic preparedness against bioterrorist attacks. This bill will enhance the nation's preparedness by improving coordination among federal agencies responsible for all aspects of a bioterrorist attack. Better coordination will allow us to develop the public health countermeasures needed to defend against bioterrorism, such as stockpiles of essential supplies and effective disaster planning. Since the infectious organisms likely to be used in a bioterrorist attack are rarely encountered in normal medical practice, many doctors or laboratory specialists are likely to be unable to diagnose persons with these diseases rapidly and accurately. Recognizing a bioterrorist attack quickly is a major part of containing it. This bill will improve the preparedness of public health institutions, health providers, and emergency personnel to detect, diagnose, and respond to bioterrorist attacks through improved training and public education. One of the highest duties of Congress is to protect the nation against all threats, foreign and domestic. Deadly infectious diseases, new ``superbugs'' resistant to antibiotics, and bioterrorism clearly menace the nation. We must resist these threats as vigorously as we would fight an invading army. the Frist-Kennedy bill is intended to provide the weapons we need to win this battle.