Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to speak and also the Senator from West Virginia. After they have finished, I will proceed to make an opening statement. How much time would the Senator like?

Mr. KENNEDY. I wanted to just thank the Senator for her leadership in this College Access Partnership Program, and I commend her amendment. As she knows, and Senator Enzi understands, we tried to make an estimate in terms of the cost of the total legislation, and we ended up with an excess of $176 million over the 5-year period. And the amendment of the Senator from Alaska will take that money, those resources, and make it available to the States. They will be able to use it with nonprofit organizations to help children have access to college. I commend her for that. We have tried, as she knows, in this legislation, to deal with some of the financial aspects that have discouraged particularly students who come from working families--middle-income, low-income families-- from going on to college. The Senator mentioned the FAFSA application, which currently is a voluminous document, and through the solid good judgment of our friend from Wyoming, who has worked on that and has simplified it in a very important and significant way, so that now the application will not be so great an impediment. Too often these young people do not have the knowledge, the encouragement, or the awareness of college opportunities, and the Senator's good amendment will make this funding available nationwide-- nationwide--so that programs that reach out to children will be available to help them be able to go on to college. She has spoken eloquently about the challenges that her State faces as a rural State, and we have tried to work with her and will continue to work with her to meet that responsibility. In other areas, we can see, in my own State of Massachusetts, how these resources can help support the nonprofit organizations, such as the Educational Resource Institute, which supports and works with the GEAR-UP programs and the TRIO programs which have been enormously successful in our State. So this is something that I know the Senator has cared very deeply about, she has spoken about it in our committee, and we had indicated we wanted to work with her. I can't think of how these resources--and they are not insignificant--but how these resources could be spent more effectively or better. So I thank the Senator, and I hope we will have a chance to address this and vote on this amendment, and I would certainly hope we get a very strong vote. I thank her for her work, and I think the people in Alaska and in many other States will benefit from this in a very important and significant way.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, when Congress passed the Federal Employees Compensation Act 41 years ago, we made a basic promise to Federal workers that if they get hurt on the job, they will be taken care of. Today, more than 2.5 million Federal workers rely on the act as a safety net in case of injury. These men and women are our Government at work in all its aspects, and they deserve a system that will care for them when they are injured. The legislation which Senator Isakson and I are introducing will ensure that this promise is fulfilled for all Federal workers. Today, many injured Federal workers find the treatment they need and the compensation they deserve are out of reach. According to a Congressional Research Service report last year, one in five Americans lives in areas with a shortage of health care professionals. Citizens in such areas must often travel more than a hundred miles to see a doctor. Seeing a primary care doctor is often impossible or exorbitantly expensive. To get immediate treatment, they often rely on the expertise of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, who are more likely than doctors to practice in such areas. These health care professionals fill a vital need, as the primary source of medical care for many patients. Their practice is regulated in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. They are licensed by State laws to write prescriptions and provide many of the services provided by primary care physicians. But Federal workers who turn to nurse practitioners and physician assistants for care are often denied compensation for their job injuries under current law. This gap in the compensation system for Federal workers is unacceptable. No one with a serious injury should have to make the impossible choice between driving a hundred miles to see a doctor who can sign the paperwork for a Federal compensation claim, or getting convenient and competent care from a local nurse practitioner or physician assistant, knowing he won't qualify for reimbursement for medical bills. This bill will solve the dilemma for our Federal workers across the Nation who seek care from nurse practitioners or physician assistants. It makes a simple change to our Federal compensation program by allowing such cases to qualify for compensation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, so we can keep our promise of care for all injured Federal workers.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my friend and colleague Senator Leahy in introducing the Protection of Health Information Privacy and Security Act of 2006. Protecting the privacy of patients' health information is a major priority in health reform, and I look forward to the enactment of this legislation to do so. In 1996, the Senate enacted HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which I introduced with Senator Kassebaum. That law gave Americans the ability to continue their health insurance when they changed jobs. It has become clear, however, that the privacy rules under the act have not succeeded in protecting patients adequately. Since HIPAA became law, numerous privacy bills to protect personal health information have been introduced in Congress, but none of them has been enacted. In fact, the HIPAA law required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop privacy regulations if Congress failed to enact privacy rules by August 1999. When Congress did not act, the Department of Health and Human Services prescribed privacy rules, but its authority to do so under HIPAA was limited to regulating only the privacy-related activities of three specific ``covered entities,'' health care providers, payers, and clearinghouses. Other entities, such as schools, employers, and health agencies, can be regulated only indirectly, as business associates of covered entities, even though many of them also possess confidential health data. This indirect oversight has made it very difficult to enforce implementation of the Department's safeguards for entities other than the three specifically listed in the HIPAA privacy rule. The result is that Americans continue to be at risk of having their personal medical records and other confidential health information wrongly distributed and exposed without their authorization, and often even without their knowledge. One common problem involves domestic and offshore outsourcing. HIPAA- covered entities and business associates can hire outside companies, either in the U.S. or in other countries, to do work for them. The tasks of those outside companies may require them to obtain personal health information. There is widespread concern, however, that once this private information leaves the original holder, the legitimacy of any subsequent disclosure of it becomes much more difficult to enforce. Obviously, we need to revise our approach to health information privacy in order to protect the rights of those who rely on their doctors and their Government to safeguard their private information. The pending health information technology bill, S. 1693, was the subject of much discussion on this issue. Some feel that the bill should include more extensive privacy regulations than it does. But that measure is not the best vehicle to restructure health-information privacy. Attempting to rewrite privacy rules through health IT legislation would be a piecemeal approach to correcting the shortcomings of privacy protections. The Health Information Privacy and Security Act presents an opportunity to make comprehensive improvements to health privacy protections. Addressing health information privacy through this legislation will ensure the security of patients' information, in any form, electronic or otherwise. The bill that Senator Leahy and I are introducing today corrects the longstanding errors in the ways in which confidential patient information is handled and distributed. We live in a time when Americans are increasingly aware of breaches of their privacy. It is essential for us to enact effective reforms to protect all Americans from further infringements on their health privacy. The system now in place allows much of importance to fall through the cracks. Enforcement has been inadequate. The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for the enforcement of HIPAA, has received more than 20,000 complaints, but it has not imposed any civil penalties in response. The Department of Justice has effectively prosecuted only four criminal violations of HIPAA. A few examples illustrate the problem. In June 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid reported that the health information of 17,000 Americans whose insurance plans are provided by Humana, Inc. was at risk because of unsecured computer data. Last September, the Government Accountability Office urged Medicare to implement stronger oversight over the transmission of private health records. A GAO survey had found that almost half of all responding Medicare Advantage contractors admitted to recent breaches of privacy of health records. In addition, the number of health plan providers that identified themselves as ``mostly compliant'' with HIPAA's privacy regulations decreased from 91 percent in 2005 to 85 percent in 2006. These findings demonstrate that patients' right to know and authorize who views their medical information is being neglected. Americans live in a democracy where they believe, rightly, that they themselves should have the power to decide when, and to whom, their health information is disclosed. The bill we are introducing today will better enable Federal privacy rules to fulfill that expectation. This bill complements and strengthens Federal privacy regulations by adding more effective oversight and individuals' access to their own personal information. It requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to revise the HIPAA Privacy Rule to make it consistent with this act. The bill gives each American the full ability to obtain and modify any of their health records, whether the records are carried by one of the HIPAA Privacy Rule's three ``covered entities'' or by any other entity. Except in rare cases, authorization by an individual is required before any other person or entity can disclose, obtain, or use that individual's protected health information. The bill also addresses the existing outsourcing problem by improving transparency. Any entity that entrusts outside agents or overseas providers with personal health information must publish their names and ensure that they abide by the required privacy and security measures. The act requires all entities that deal with protected health information in any way to implement safeguards to protect that information. Such entities must also maintain safeguards that are up- to-date with current technology. Any entity that possesses or obtains an individual's protected health information is required to give that individual a notice of privacy rights and practices, including the individual's right to be alerted if a security breach concerning the information occurs. Individuals are also promised a clear description of who will have access to their personal health information and how the information will be used. In this way, people will always be aware of what is going on with their private information. They will feel more secure about it, and be more secure. The bill also establishes a demonstration grant program to help those who have low health literacy or limited english-language proficiency to exercise their privacy rights and avoid cultural or linguistic barriers. This Act also creates a new office in the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Health Information Privacy, which will oversee investigations of alleged violations and verify compliance with the act. This office will also be responsible for establishing and implementing standards and product certifications for systems and networks that handle protected health information. Until now, many entities have been confused about how to implement health privacy regulations. This new office will help them understand Federal privacy rules, so that they can conduct their business accordingly. Federal privacy regulations now in place also make it difficult to prosecute illegal activities. The Office of Health Information Privacy will be charged with resolving this problem. It will do so in part by instituting penalties for wrongful sharing or use of private health information by any entity. Overall, a delicate balance must be struck. On one hand, we must allow the sharing of information necessary for effective health care. At the same time, however, we must protect Americans' right to have their health records and individual health information kept private. For too long, the balance has been tilted too far against patient privacy, and our bill is a needed effort to correct that imbalance. Americans deserve stronger guarantees of patient privacy, more helpful guidelines for security implementation, and more dependable enforcement and penalties for the misuse of protected health information. I look forward to the early enactment of this legislation to achieve these important goals.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my friend and colleague Senator Leahy in introducing the Protection of Health Information Privacy and Security Act of 2006. Protecting the privacy of patients' health information is a major priority in health reform, and I look forward to the enactment of this legislation to do so. In 1996, the Senate enacted HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which I introduced with Senator Kassebaum. That law gave Americans the ability to continue their health insurance when they changed jobs. It has become clear, however, that the privacy rules under the act have not succeeded in protecting patients adequately. Since HIPAA became law, numerous privacy bills to protect personal health information have been introduced in Congress, but none of them has been enacted. In fact, the HIPAA law required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop privacy regulations if Congress failed to enact privacy rules by August 1999. When Congress did not act, the Department of Health and Human Services prescribed privacy rules, but its authority to do so under HIPAA was limited to regulating only the privacy-related activities of three specific ``covered entities,'' health care providers, payers, and clearinghouses. Other entities, such as schools, employers, and health agencies, can be regulated only indirectly, as business associates of covered entities, even though many of them also possess confidential health data. This indirect oversight has made it very difficult to enforce implementation of the Department's safeguards for entities other than the three specifically listed in the HIPAA privacy rule. The result is that Americans continue to be at risk of having their personal medical records and other confidential health information wrongly distributed and exposed without their authorization, and often even without their knowledge. One common problem involves domestic and offshore outsourcing. HIPAA- covered entities and business associates can hire outside companies, either in the U.S. or in other countries, to do work for them. The tasks of those outside companies may require them to obtain personal health information. There is widespread concern, however, that once this private information leaves the original holder, the legitimacy of any subsequent disclosure of it becomes much more difficult to enforce. Obviously, we need to revise our approach to health information privacy in order to protect the rights of those who rely on their doctors and their Government to safeguard their private information. The pending health information technology bill, S. 1693, was the subject of much discussion on this issue. Some feel that the bill should include more extensive privacy regulations than it does. But that measure is not the best vehicle to restructure health-information privacy. Attempting to rewrite privacy rules through health IT legislation would be a piecemeal approach to correcting the shortcomings of privacy protections. The Health Information Privacy and Security Act presents an opportunity to make comprehensive improvements to health privacy protections. Addressing health information privacy through this legislation will ensure the security of patients' information, in any form, electronic or otherwise. The bill that Senator Leahy and I are introducing today corrects the longstanding errors in the ways in which confidential patient information is handled and distributed. We live in a time when Americans are increasingly aware of breaches of their privacy. It is essential for us to enact effective reforms to protect all Americans from further infringements on their health privacy. The system now in place allows much of importance to fall through the cracks. Enforcement has been inadequate. The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for the enforcement of HIPAA, has received more than 20,000 complaints, but it has not imposed any civil penalties in response. The Department of Justice has effectively prosecuted only four criminal violations of HIPAA. A few examples illustrate the problem. In June 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid reported that the health information of 17,000 Americans whose insurance plans are provided by Humana, Inc. was at risk because of unsecured computer data. Last September, the Government Accountability Office urged Medicare to implement stronger oversight over the transmission of private health records. A GAO survey had found that almost half of all responding Medicare Advantage contractors admitted to recent breaches of privacy of health records. In addition, the number of health plan providers that identified themselves as ``mostly compliant'' with HIPAA's privacy regulations decreased from 91 percent in 2005 to 85 percent in 2006. These findings demonstrate that patients' right to know and authorize who views their medical information is being neglected. Americans live in a democracy where they believe, rightly, that they themselves should have the power to decide when, and to whom, their health information is disclosed. The bill we are introducing today will better enable Federal privacy rules to fulfill that expectation. This bill complements and strengthens Federal privacy regulations by adding more effective oversight and individuals' access to their own personal information. It requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to revise the HIPAA Privacy Rule to make it consistent with this act. The bill gives each American the full ability to obtain and modify any of their health records, whether the records are carried by one of the HIPAA Privacy Rule's three ``covered entities'' or by any other entity. Except in rare cases, authorization by an individual is required before any other person or entity can disclose, obtain, or use that individual's protected health information. The bill also addresses the existing outsourcing problem by improving transparency. Any entity that entrusts outside agents or overseas providers with personal health information must publish their names and ensure that they abide by the required privacy and security measures. The act requires all entities that deal with protected health information in any way to implement safeguards to protect that information. Such entities must also maintain safeguards that are up- to-date with current technology. Any entity that possesses or obtains an individual's protected health information is required to give that individual a notice of privacy rights and practices, including the individual's right to be alerted if a security breach concerning the information occurs. Individuals are also promised a clear description of who will have access to their personal health information and how the information will be used. In this way, people will always be aware of what is going on with their private information. They will feel more secure about it, and be more secure. The bill also establishes a demonstration grant program to help those who have low health literacy or limited english-language proficiency to exercise their privacy rights and avoid cultural or linguistic barriers. This Act also creates a new office in the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Health Information Privacy, which will oversee investigations of alleged violations and verify compliance with the act. This office will also be responsible for establishing and implementing standards and product certifications for systems and networks that handle protected health information. Until now, many entities have been confused about how to implement health privacy regulations. This new office will help them understand Federal privacy rules, so that they can conduct their business accordingly. Federal privacy regulations now in place also make it difficult to prosecute illegal activities. The Office of Health Information Privacy will be charged with resolving this problem. It will do so in part by instituting penalties for wrongful sharing or use of private health information by any entity. Overall, a delicate balance must be struck. On one hand, we must allow the sharing of information necessary for effective health care. At the same time, however, we must protect Americans' right to have their health records and individual health information kept private. For too long, the balance has been tilted too far against patient privacy, and our bill is a needed effort to correct that imbalance. Americans deserve stronger guarantees of patient privacy, more helpful guidelines for security implementation, and more dependable enforcement and penalties for the misuse of protected health information. I look forward to the early enactment of this legislation to achieve these important goals.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I welcome this opportunity to extend my warmest congratulations to Nichole Bernier of Wellesley, MA, as she celebrates her fortieth birthday. Nichole is a truly remarkable woman-- a distinguished author, a community leader, a wonderful wife to her husband Tom, and a magnificent mother to her children Connor, Hadley, and Declan. Nichole has worked tirelessly for over a decade on a variety of charitable causes, including animal welfare, education, and cancer research. Through both her writing and her activism, Nichole has made an impressive difference in people's lives, especially those in need. Her service and dedication have meant a great deal to countless fellow citizens. It's a privilege to join her family and her many, many friends in congratulating her on this important milestone in her life, and I wish her many happy returns.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. With the persuasion of my friend from Arizona, I expect to be 20 to 25 minutes. I am glad to do it at any time. I would like to speak on the amendment that has been offered. I understand that generally the authors of the amendment are usually recognized first. I am prepared to wait my turn. I would like to talk for 20, 25 minutes after that.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the Senate resumes debate on Iraq, our heartfelt support and appreciation go to our troops in harm's way. All Americans support our troops. They have fought bravely and continue to do so under extraordinary circumstances. They have answered the call to service. Many are on their third or fourth tour of duty in Iraq, separated from their families and loved ones for years. They have borne a great burden, and we owe them an extraordinary debt of gratitude. History will write, however, that the President has repeatedly failed them by failing to have a policy worthy of their sacrifice. The President failed our troops from the outset by sending them into this misguided war without a plan to win the peace and by refusing to send sufficient troops to keep the peace. Who can forget the words of GEN Eric Shinseki, who warned that America would need several hundred thousand troops to secure Baghdad? Who can forget the way the administration shunted him aside, ignored his advice, and allowed the looting and violence to spiral out of control? The administration's insistence that a small rapid force could achieve regional change and maintain a stable Iraq was utterly wrong, and chaos took the place of peace. The President also failed our troops by repeatedly sending them into battle without proper equipment. Secretary Rumsfeld's callous comments that ``stuff happens'' and his mindless assertion that you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time still ring loud and clear in this Chamber, a constant reminder of the failure of leadership at the highest levels of the Pentagon. The President failed our troops by relying for too long on a military solution to politically inspired violence and failing to engage in sustained regional diplomacy. We have been behind the curve every step of the way rather than leading, reaching out, and working to find solutions with Iraq's neighbors. The President has also failed our returning troops home. Who can forget the horror we felt over the reports of our injured soldiers being housed in mold-infested rooms at Walter Reed Hospital? The services and medical care our troops need and deserve have fallen far short of meeting our responsibility. We have given this President every opportunity. He has failed our troops by clinging to an unworkable policy that delivers less and less for our military and our mission in Iraq and stands no chance of succeeding now, in September, or ever. The best way to honor our troops is to bring America's involvement in this misguided war to an end, not to pour more and more American lives into the endless black hole of our failed policy in Iraq. The American people know this war is wrong. Voting against it was the proudest vote of my entire career in the Senate. It is wrong to abdicate our responsibility by allowing this failed war to drag on and on and allowing casualties to mount higher and higher. We don't need to wait until September to know that the surge will prove to be no better than the surges and failed strategies that preceded it. President Bush keeps trying to buy more time for his failed policy by promising yet again that hope and change is around the corner. But after more than 4 years of such smoke and mirrors, Congress and the American people have lost faith in the President's competence in managing the war. The American people have heard these new pleas before from the President. The death of Saddam's sons was supposed to have quelled the violence. It didn't. Capturing Saddam and bringing him to justice was supposed to stop the violence. It didn't. Three elections and a new Iraqi Constitution were supposed to have brought stability. They didn't. At every critical step, the administration has promised calm, but there is no calm. Our soldiers have constantly been faced with an increasingly violent and lethal insurgency. The promise of success around the corner through the surge is no different. Initially, the administration told the American people the surge would add 21,000 troops to Iraq, but they didn't reveal the fact that there would be a wave after the surge, and we ended up sending nearly 30,000 troops. In January, Secretary Gates said: It's viewed as a temporary surge. In February, Secretary Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee: I think General Petraeus believes that we will have a pretty good idea whether this surge and whether this strategy is working, probably by early summer. In April, Secretary Gates told us more time would be needed. He said: I think it's been General Petraeus' view all along that . . . some time, at some point during the summer, mid to late summer, perhaps, he has thought that he would be in a position to evaluate whether the plan was working so far. In May, President Bush said even more time would be necessary. He told us: As General Petraeus has said, it will be at least the end of the summer before we can assess the impact of this operation. Congress ought to give General Petraeus' plan a chance to work. A week later, Secretary Gates said the administration would ``make their evaluation of the situation and the surge in September.'' Temporary surge, early summer, mid to late summer, at least the end of the summer, September--these are the administration's desperate efforts to hide its failure just a little longer. I have no doubt that in September the administration will ask for yet another chance, but there are no more chances. Time is up. It is wrong to ask the American people and our military to cling to the false hope that September will bring change. It is wrong to ask our troops to bear the brunt of a failed policy. It is past the time to acknowledge that the administration's policy has failed and adopt a new course now to begin to withdraw our troops from Iraq. The facts are clear. President Bush argued that the surge would bring security, create an opportunity for political reconciliation, and enable reconstruction to make progress. When he announced the surge last January, the President said: America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. Yet, more than 6 months later, the violence continues unabated in Baghdad. The Pentagon's own June report on Iraq, which covered the months of February through May, stated: Violence against coalition and Iraqi security forces remained consistent with previous levels. Unidentified bodies continue to be found in Baghdad at an alarming rate. Press reports say that in April, 411 unidentified bodies were found. In May, 726 bodies were found. In the first 6 days of June alone, 167 bodies were found. Many showed signs of torture and execution. Some have been beheaded. U.S. casualties have also increased in Baghdad during the surge. Our troop losses in Baghdad this year have more than doubled over the same period as last year. The number of Americans killed in Baghdad from January through June in 2006 was 96, but the number from January through June of 2007 was 250--2\1/2\ times higher. The presence of additional U.S. troops in Baghdad has also resulted in the spread of violence outside the city. The Pentagon's June report confirmed this trend. It said: Many insurgents and extremists have moved operations to Diyala, Ninewa, and the outlying areas of Baghdad Province . . . American soldiers are bearing the brunt of the violence, and they understand this trend as well. From January through June of this year, we lost 86 troops in Diyala--more than four times the number of troops killed there in all of 2006. Attacks against Iraqi civilians are spreading across the country as well. According to the Associated Press, nearly 1,900 Iraqis have been killed in suicide attacks in 2007 and more than 4,400 have been wounded. Our troops continue to be attacked and killed at a higher rate than ever across Iraq. Every month in 2007, American casualties have been higher than the same month in 2006. In January of this year, 83 of our soldiers were killed, compared to 62 the same month a year ago. In February of this year, 80 of our soldiers were killed, compared to 55 in the same month a year ago. In March of this year, we lost 81 of our soldiers, compared to 31 in March a year ago. In April of this year, 104 of our soldiers were killed, compared to 76 in the same month a year ago. In May of this year, 126 of our soldiers were killed, compared to 69 in the same month a year ago. In June of this year, 100 of our soldiers were killed, compared to 61 in the same month a year ago. We don't need to wait until September to conclude that the surge has led to greater violence, not less, and that the time has come to bring our troops home. Political progress has been nonexistent. In announcing the surge in January, President Bush told the American people that it would facilitate reconciliation. He said: Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace--and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible. In fact, it has not happened. In December 2006, the Iraq Study Group outlined a list of commitments made by the Iraqi Government and stated that by the end of 2006 or early 2007, Iraqis would need to approve a provincial election law, set an election date, approve a petroleum law, approve a debaathification law, and approve a militia law. In fact, none of the dates have been met and none of the crucial Iraqi legislation so essential to reconciliation has been approved. The Pentagon's report in June made this point bluntly. It said: Key legislative or reconciliation actions--such as the Hydrocarbon Law, de-Ba'athification reform, and Article 140 (Kirkuk)--were not completed during this reporting period. The Pentagon's June report also addressed the problem more generally. It said: Reconciliation remains a serious unfulfilled objective. It said: Mass-casualty attacks on Shi'a targets and the April 2, 2007 attack on the Council of Representatives have made the Shi'a wary of reconciliation. It said: There is also significant evidence of violence against Sunni Arabs, sometimes involving government security forces, that undermines reconciliation efforts. It said: Public perceptions of violence have adversely affected reconciliation. As long as the commitment of our troops continues to be open ended, there is unlikely to be progress on reconciliation. It won't be until the Iraqis know our troops will not fight their civil war indefinitely that they will begin to make the hard political choices necessary to achieve reconciliation. Importantly, the surge has not even been able to deliver on the President's goal of enabling reconstruction to go forward and fulfill its promise of a better standard of living for the Iraqi people. On the fundamental issue of providing basic services for the Iraqi people, the Pentagon report in June said: The Iraqi government has made little progress. Despite the billions and billions of dollars our Government has spent on reconstruction, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that Iraq is still plagued by power outages, inadequate oil production, and shortages of clean water and health care. Electricity levels in Baghdad are half of what they were before the invasion. At the Baghdad International Airport, almost $12 million was spent on electrical generators, but more than half the money invested has been wasted. Problems with reconstruction are not limited to Baghdad. Of eight reconstruction projects that the United States had declared a success 6 months to a year earlier, the special inspector general found that seven of them were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, or apparent looting. Of the 142 primary health care clinics planned for Iraq, only 15 have been built, and of those 15, only 8 are open to the public. Mr. President, 800 schools have been built and thousands of teachers have been trained, but less than a third of the Iraqi students attend class. No one in this administration can tell the American people in good faith and good conscience that we are making progress in Iraq. Bringing this war to an end will not destroy the administration's policy. The policy has already self-destructed. Nothing good will come of staying on the same perilous failed course. Iraq is sliding deeper and deeper into civil war. Instead of solving the problem, the open-ended presence of our military is only making it worse. The choice is clear: Do we continue to put our trust in those who have led us astray, or do we end this failed policy and begin a new course in Iraq? Finally, the cost in precious American lives for this failed mission is reason enough to end this mistaken and misguided war. But the costs here at home hit us again this week when our Congressional Research Service raised the estimate of what we are spending in Iraq from $8 billion to $10 billion a month. With the passage of this latest Defense spending bill, we will have spent $450 billion on the war. We know where this money comes from. It comes from America's families, and it means that urgent domestic priorities at home are going unmet because they are starved of funds. We know we must deal with the soaring cost of health care and finding a way to cover the millions of Americans who have no health insurance at all. This festering crisis is a major worry for families across America, and we owe it to our people to address it. Six million uninsured children in America should be enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program, but there is not enough money to do that. For the cost of 6 weeks in Iraq, we could cover every one of these children. For less than the cost of 1 month in Iraq, we could double the budget for the Centers for Disease Control to keep American families safe from bioterrorism and other deadly epidemics. For the cost of 2 weeks in Iraq, we could double the funding for the National Cancer Institute, which is vital to finding a cure for that deadly disease. For the cost of 1 day in Iraq, we could double the ability of the Food and Drug Administration to protect Americans from unsafe foods by increasing inspections, upgrading facilities, and hiring more safety personnel. For less than the cost of a day in Iraq, we could allow a million uninsured Americans to be served by community health centers. In education, the price of Iraq is also very high. Each year, 400,000--400,000--high school graduates do not go to 4-year colleges because they cannot afford it. For the cost of less than a week in Iraq, every one of those students--every one--could receive the assistance they need to go to college. We know that early education programs, such as Head Start, make an enormous difference to a child's future. But Head Start now serves only half of the millions of children who are eligible for the program. For the cost of 3 weeks in Iraq, we could serve every eligible child and family in the Nation. The administration has failed to fund the No Child Left Behind Act by $56 billion since its enactment in 2002. For the cost of less than 6 months in Iraq, we could make our public schools whole by providing all the funding they have been denied over the past 5 years. For the cost of only 49 days in Iraq, we could fully fund this important program for every public school in this country. The war in Iraq is also denying urgently needed resources for the first responders and emergency personnel who are keeping us safe at home in all 50 States. For the cost of 1 month in Iraq we could provide 3 million portable radios to our first responders, enabling them to communicate during a natural disaster or terrorist attack. We could provide our heroic firefighters with 12 million additional units of breathing gear or 40,000 new firefighting vehicles. The list goes on and on and on. Countless high-priority items at home must go underfunded or unfunded because the war in Iraq is draining vast amounts of resources. In the days ahead, the Senate will debate these all important issues. For the sake of our men and women in uniform, for the sake of our values and our ideals, we must adopt a new course and bring our troops home to the heroes welcome they have so clearly earned and get about the business of putting America back on track.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, the CLASS Act. This important piece of legislation builds on the promise and possibilities of the Americans with Disabilities Act by helping the large numbers of Americans who struggle every day to live productive lives in their communities. Too many Americans are perfectly capable of living a life in the community, but are denied the supports they need. They languish in needless circumstances with no choice about how or where to obtain these services. Too often, they have to give up the American Dream, the dignity of a job, a home, and a family, so they can qualify for Medicaid, the only program that will support them. The bill we propose is a long overdue effort to offer greater dignity, greater hope, and greater opportunity. It makes a simple pact with all Americans--``If you work hard and contribute, society will take care of you when you fall on hard times.'' The concept is clear, everyone can contribute and everyone can win. We all benefit when no one is left behind. For only $30 a month, a person who pays into the program will receive either $50 or $100 a day, based on their ability to carry out basic daily activities. They themselves will decide how this assistance will be spent, on transportation so they can stay employed, or on a ramp to make their home more accessible, or to cover the cost of a personal care attendant or a family caregiver. It will help keep families together, instead of being torn apart by obstacles that discourage them from staying at home. The bill will strengthen job opportunities for people with disabilities at a time when 70 percent are unemployed. They have so much to contribute and the bill will help them do it. It will save on the mushrooming health care costs for Medicaid, the Nation's primary insurer of long-term care services, which also forces beneficiaries to give up their jobs and live in poverty before they become eligible for assistance. The CLASS Act is a hopeful new approach to restoring independence and choice for millions of these persons and enabling them to take greater control of their lives. It is time to respect the rights and dignity of all Americans, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this bill enacted into law.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, the CLASS Act. This important piece of legislation builds on the promise and possibilities of the Americans with Disabilities Act by helping the large numbers of Americans who struggle every day to live productive lives in their communities. Too many Americans are perfectly capable of living a life in the community, but are denied the supports they need. They languish in needless circumstances with no choice about how or where to obtain these services. Too often, they have to give up the American Dream, the dignity of a job, a home, and a family, so they can qualify for Medicaid, the only program that will support them. The bill we propose is a long overdue effort to offer greater dignity, greater hope, and greater opportunity. It makes a simple pact with all Americans--``If you work hard and contribute, society will take care of you when you fall on hard times.'' The concept is clear, everyone can contribute and everyone can win. We all benefit when no one is left behind. For only $30 a month, a person who pays into the program will receive either $50 or $100 a day, based on their ability to carry out basic daily activities. They themselves will decide how this assistance will be spent, on transportation so they can stay employed, or on a ramp to make their home more accessible, or to cover the cost of a personal care attendant or a family caregiver. It will help keep families together, instead of being torn apart by obstacles that discourage them from staying at home. The bill will strengthen job opportunities for people with disabilities at a time when 70 percent are unemployed. They have so much to contribute and the bill will help them do it. It will save on the mushrooming health care costs for Medicaid, the Nation's primary insurer of long-term care services, which also forces beneficiaries to give up their jobs and live in poverty before they become eligible for assistance. The CLASS Act is a hopeful new approach to restoring independence and choice for millions of these persons and enabling them to take greater control of their lives. It is time to respect the rights and dignity of all Americans, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this bill enacted into law.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, over half a century ago, in Brown v. Board of Education, a unanimous Supreme Court stuck down laws requiring racial segregation in our public schools. Yesterday's decision limiting voluntary efforts to desegregate public schools is false to Brown's promise of equality by making it far more difficult for local school boards to bring students of different races together in the classroom. The landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education called on us to honor not only the requirements of the Constitution but also of our consciences. America was made stronger as a result. Although the Brown decision initially met with intense resistance in many parts of the country, it eventually came to be recognized as one of the Court's finest hours. Yesterday's decision, however, makes it far more difficult to achieve equal educational opportunity for children of all races. Brown was a giant step in ending racially segregated public schools, but achieving integration takes more than a court decision. It takes good will, vision, creativity, common sense, and a firm commitment to the goal of educating all children, regardless of race. Above all, it takes a realistic assessment of local communities to determine what will work to bring students together. That challenge is difficult to meet, because in many parts of the Nation, neighborhoods continue to be highly segregated by race and national origin. Without specific efforts by local school boards to promote diversity, public schools often reflect the same racial segregation as the neighborhoods around them. As over 500 prominent social scientists who have studied residential segregation explained in their brief in the Seattle and Jefferson County, KY, cases, without voluntary efforts, neighborhood schools cannot achieve the integration that we as a society recognize is so important. The benefits of integration, both for individual students and for society, are enormous. Children who participate in classes attended by students of many races enjoy greater parental involvement in public schools, and greater cross-cultural understanding. It helps close the racial gap in education by helping African-American children achieve greater academic success. One of the Nation's leading conservative judges, Alexander Kozinski, described Seattle's integration plan as an ``eminently sensible'' ``stirring of the melting pot,'' which helps children learn to interact as citizens of our common society. Without integrated schools, children will not learn these important lessons. That's a result we cannot afford. Local school boards such as Jefferson County's have transcended the legacy of Jim Crow segregation to achieve not only enhanced opportunities for students but greater cooperation, participation, and genuine friendship between children of different races. We should honor that achievement. We should also ensure that school districts such as Jefferson County's, that do not want to return to the days of all-White and all-Black schools, receive the support and information needed to continue that success. The Court's ruling undermines the important goal of racial integration by ignoring the real world consequences of its decision. Ironically, Chief Justice Roberts, who helped form the majority on this decision, stated at his confirmation hearing that this was something he would not do. My first question to John Roberts at his confirmation hearing was about Brown v. Board of Education. I asked whether he agreed that the Court in Brown properly based its opinion on ``real world consideration[s] . . . at the time of its decision.'' ``Certainly, Senator,'' he responded, ``you have to look at the discrimination in the context in which it is occurring.'' Yet his plurality opinion in yesterday's decision ignores the context of Brown that Chief Justice Roberts said at his hearing was so important. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts would have gone even further than a majority of the Court and argued to outlaw virtually any use of race in voluntary efforts to integrate public schools. The central tragedy in Brown was society's abandonment of African- American children to second-class schools. Every child relegated to such schools is harmed. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion disregards that reality by defining the only harm in Brown as the consideration of race in assigning children to school. The harm to these children is not less just because their segregation is the result of housing patterns rather than discriminatory laws. The cruel irony of the Chief Justice's view is that it would undermine Brown by ensuring that thousands of minority children would continue to attend segregated schools. Fortunately, a majority of the Supreme Court understood that we cannot afford to ignore the harm to students in segregated schools. Despite professing moderation and promising to uphold precedent, the Court's newest members have already voted to radically limit the Clean Water Act. They have argued that the Environmental Protection Agency has no power to control air pollution, and overturned a 7-year-old precedent on a woman's right to choose. More recently, they cut back on workers' ability to hold companies responsible for pay discrimination, ignoring the intent of Congress by imposing unreasonably narrow deadlines for pay discrimination claims. But their decision striking down voluntary integration is the most sweeping proof that they failed to be candid about their extreme views when they testified before the Senate in their confirmation hearings. Fortunately, the views of the newest Justices, which would have made voluntary integration almost impossible, were not shared by a majority of the Court. The majority recognized that local school boards have a compelling interest in preventing de facto racial segregation in public schools, so long as they do so in a way that is narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Although the majority wrongly concluded that the carefully crafted programs in Seattle and Jefferson County, KY, were not permissible, it made clear that local school districts still have the ability to create racially inclusive public schools. Congress is not powerless to address this important issue. We should support school districts that desire to achieve diversity in their public schools within the limits of the Court's ruling. I plan to hold hearings in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on the effects of the decisions. It is my hope that those hearings will shed new light on the best way to support schools that want to continue our national progress toward integration in public education. The words of Brown ring as true today as they did half a century ago. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court declared that ``education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. . . . It is the very foundation of good citizenship. . . . In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education,'' and that opportunity ``is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.'' These words could have been written today. It is up to us to revitalize them for the years ahead. The promise of Brown will never be fulfilled until America opens opportunity to all, not just to some. Brown showed that even against great odds, we can change America for the better. We must renew our commitment to genuine educational equality for all children in America. Despite yesterday's decision, we must not falter, now or ever. Separate can never be equal. We must continue the racial progress of the last 50 years. Only then will America truly become one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that at the hour of 10:30 we will be having the cloture vote on the immigration legislation. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, this has been a long journey to try and bring our broken immigration system and our broken borders to the place where this Senate can take action. Today's action is going to be absolutely key to whether we will be able to continue and finalize this legislation at the end of the week. So today's vote is a critical vote, key vote, perhaps the most important vote we have had here on this issue over the period of the last 3 years. Our Judiciary Committee has been working on this legislation. Senator Specter has been a key part of this whole effort. It has been a bipartisan effort. Our quest has been a bipartisan effort here on the floor of the Senate. Those of us who are committed to this issue believe we have an important responsibility to try to achieve something. We believe the reason for us being here, whether it is from Massachusetts or Pennsylvania or from other States, is to deal with the public's business, the Nation's business. This is the Nation's business. I think outside of the issue of the war in Iraq, this is front and center for our country. People in my State are concerned and affected by it, and they are in other parts of the country as well. We have 900,000 nonnative-born individuals in my State of Massachusetts. Of those 900,000, 200,000 are undocumented. We have more than 3,000--in the city of Boston--more than 3,000 small businesses directly responsible for 34,000 jobs, more than half a billion dollars in pay and sales taxes in my State by those who are born in other countries. They represent probably less than 10 percent of the State's population, and 17 percent of the job market. The workers in our State, 17 percent are nonnative born, a demonstration that those individuals who have come here to the United States want to work. They want to work. They also are men and women of faith. They are men and women who care about their families, by the fact that more than $48 billion is returned every single year to the countries in Central and South America. They care about their families. They want to work. More likely than not, they are all men and women of deep faith and religious belief. That is reflected in many of our communities in my State and in travels around the country. You see that day in and day out. Also they want to be a part of the American dream. We have seen that reflected in the total numbers of individuals who have served in the Armed Forces of our country. Some 70,000 have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many have lost their lives. But in a number of instances, individuals, the undocumented, have crossed the line in terms of immigration, drawn here by the great economic magnet, the economic magnet that is on this side of the border that says: Look, we need you over here to make the American economy work. We want to pay you over here when you are unemployed over here. We will provide you the resources so you can look after your family. People have been attracted to that magnet. We have them here. For those toward the end of this discussion and debate, as we have heard on the floor, we know what they are against. We do not know what they are for. Time and time again they tell us: We do not like this provision; we do not like that provision; we do not want that part of it. They ought to be able to explain to the American people what they are for. What are they going to do with the 12\1/2\ million who are undocumented here? Send them back? Send them back to countries around the world, more than $250 billion; buses that would go from Los Angeles to New York and back again? Try and find them? Develop a type of Gestapo here to seek out these people who are in the shadows? That is their alternative? That is their alternative? This country and this Senate is better. We have a process that said: Look, okay, you are here and undocumented. You are going to have to pay a price. We are going to take people who are in the line who have said they want to play by the rules. They go and they wait, and you wait and you wait and you wait. You pay and pay, and you pay and you pay. You pay your fees, you pay your processing fees, your adjustment fees. You pay not only for yourself but the other members of the family. You demonstrate you are going to learn English, you demonstrate you worked here, that you are a good citizen, that you have not had any run-in with crime, and then maybe you get on that pathway with a green card, and, perhaps, in 15, 18 years you will be able to raise your hand and be a citizen here in the United States. This is the issue. Are we going to have a constructive and positive resolution of this issue, or are we going to be naysayers, bumper sticker sloganeers who say: We are against amnesty, or, we are against this bill? America deserves better. The issue is too important. Now is the time, this is the place. The Senate is the forum where we have to take this action. I am hopeful that America is watching this and will understand what is at stake here. This is an issue and this is a vote of enormous importance. We talk of votes here. Some are more important than others. A few are of enormous significance and consequence. A few of them are going to have a defining impact about what kind of society we are going to be in, how we are going to treat each other, whether we have a respect for our fellow human beings and our fellow individuals who are here in this country, and whether we believe that our greatest days are yet to come. Are we going to respond to the voices of fear? And that is the issue. Are we going to have a positive resolution, a constructive resolution, that is going to continue to be shaped as it goes to the House of Representatives, shaped there as well by different responsible figures? It may have somewhat of a different view. Or are we going to say no, no, we have listened to those voices of fear who say: Absolutely not. We are going to take the status quo. Every person who votes ``no'' is going to know that this situation is going to get worse and worse and worse. We are going to say that: Oh, yes, sure, we will do something down on the border. But you are never going to have the kind of workforce enforcement, you are never going to have the kind of absolutely essential identification system that any responsible immigration system is absolutely required to have. This is a vital vote about the future of our country or the past. That is going to be the issue in question when the time comes to vote. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have 11\1/2\ minutes; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Colorado and the remaining time between the Senator from Illinois and myself.

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand we have 7\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask to be notified when I have 30 seconds remaining. We are called today by the ancients, the Founders of this Republic. Are we going to form a more perfect union? It was in this Chamber a number of years ago that we knocked down the great walls of discrimination on the basis of race, that we knocked down the walls of discrimination on the basis of religion. We knocked them down regarding national origin, we knocked them down with regard to gender, we knocked them down with regard to disability. Here in this Senate we were part of the march for progress. Today, we are called on again in that exact same way. This issue is of the historical and momentous importance that those judgments and those decisions were. When the Senate was called upon, it brought out its best instincts, values, and its best traditions. We saw this Nation move forward. Who among us would retreat on any of those commitments? Who among us would say no to that great march for progress that we had in this Nation? The question is: Is it alive? Is it continuing? Is it ongoing? Those who vote ``aye'' say it is ongoing, that we are continuing that march toward progress. Year after year, we have had broken borders. Year after year, we have the exploitation of workers. Year after year, we see people who live in fear within our own borders of the United States of America. This is the opportunity to change it. Now is the time. Now is the time to secure our borders. Now is the time to deal with the national security issue. Now is the time to resume our commitment to family values, to people who want to work hard, men and women of faith, people who care about this country and want to be part of the American dream, who have seen their sons and daughters, in many instances, fight and lose their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is the challenge. Now is the time. This is the place. This bill is strong. It is fair and practical. Today, my friends, we have the choice: Are we going to vote for our hopes, or are we going to vote for our fears? Are we going to vote for our future, or are we going to vote for our past? This is the place. Now is the time. This is the vote. Vote ``aye'' for America's future.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield that time to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is now clear that we are not going to complete our work on immigration reform. That is enormously disappointing for Congress and for the country. But we will be back and we will prevail. The American people sent us here to act on our most urgent problems, and they will not accept inaction. I have seen this happen time and time again. America always finds a way to solve its problems, expand its frontiers, and move closer to its ideals. It is not always easy, but it is the American way. I learned this first as a child at my grandfather's knee. He taught me that in America progress is always possible. His generation moved past the cruel signs in the windows in Boston saying ``Irish Need Not Apply'' and elected that son of an Irish immigrant as mayor of Boston. I learned that lesson firsthand when I came to the Senate in 1962. Our Nation was finally recognizing that the work of civil rights had not ended with the Emancipation Proclamation, nor with the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. It was up to Congress to take action. The path forward has never been an easy one. There were filibusters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But we didn't give up and we ultimately prevailed. The same was true in our battles for fair housing and for an end to discrimination against persons with disabilities. On immense issues such as these, a minority in the Senate was often able to create stalemate and delay for a time. But they had never been able to stop the march of progress. Throughout all of those battles, we faced critics who loudly warned that we were changing America forever. In the end, they were right. Our history of civil rights legislation did change America forever. It made America stronger, fairer, and a better nation. Immigration is another issue like that. We know the high price of continuing inaction. Raids and other enforcement actions will escalate, terrorizing our communities and businesses. The 12 million undocumented immigrants will soon be millions more. Sweatshops will grow and undermine American workers and wages. State and local governments will take matters into their own hands and pass a maze of conflicting laws that hurt our country. We will have the kind of open border that is unacceptable in our post-9/11 world. Immigration reform is an opportunity to be true to our ideals as a nation. Our Declaration of Independence announces that all of us are created equal. Today, we failed to live up to that declaration for millions of men and women who live, work, and worship beside us. But our ideals are too strong to be held back for long. Martin Luther King had a dream that children would be judged solely by ``the content of their character.'' Today, we failed to make that dream come true for the children of immigrants. But that dream will never die. It has the power to overcome the most bitter opposition. I believe we will soon succeed where we failed today, and that we will enact the kind of comprehensive reform that our ideals and national security demand. Soon, word will echo across the country about the consequences of today's vote. The American people will know that a minority of the Senate blocked a record investment in border security. H.L. Mencken said that for every complex problem, there is a simple solution--and it is wrong. A minority in the Senate has employed a simple label against this bill--amnesty--and they were wrong, too. A minority in the Senate rejected a stronger economy that is fairer to our taxpayers and our workers. A minority of the Senate rejected America's own extraordinary immigrant history and ignored our Nation's most urgent needs. But we are in this struggle for the long haul. Today's defeat will not stand. As we continue the battle, we will have ample inspiration in the lives of the immigrants all around us. From Jamestown, to the Pilgrims, to the Irish, to today's workers, people have come to this country in search of opportunity. They have sought nothing more than a chance to work hard and bring a better life to themselves and their families. They come to our country with their hearts and minds full of hope. We will endure today's loss and begin anew to build the kinds of tough, fair, and practical reform worthy of our shared history as immigrants and as Americans. Immigration reforms are always controversial. But Congress was created to muster political will to answer such challenges. Today we didn't, but tomorrow we will. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes of our time be allocated to the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senate today must make a choice. We can listen to the American people and support comprehensive immigration reform or we can ignore their voice and allow a dysfunctional immigration system to continue, at serious risk to our national security. If we do not choose reform, we will perpetuate a system that allows 500,000 illegal immigrants to enter the United States each year, forces 12 million illegal immigrants to live in the shadows, and fosters a culture of fear and hatred against immigrants. America demands change. Our bill provides the change the country needs. Change is not easy. There is much to criticize in this bill, but criticism is much easier than rolling up your sleeves and finding a solution. The American people are growing impatient for a solution. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that more than 1,000 bills have been introduced in the last year by State legislators fed up with congressional inaction. States and cities are starting to step in and solve their immigration problems in their own way, regardless of the national interest. We cannot let that happen. We are the guardians of the national interest. The national interest demands action on immigration. If you are for a national immigration policy, a policy that is bipartisan in spirit and determined to succeed, then support this bill. This bill contains the toughest and most comprehensive crackdown on illegal immigration in our Nation's history. It enhances our national security through tougher border protections. It ensures that criminals do not enter this country or receive immigration benefits. It prevents undocumented workers from obtaining jobs, and cracks down on employers who defy the law by hiring them. This bill tackles the essential problem of providing the workers our economy needs. It will allow businesses to recruit temporary immigrants as workers--workers who will return home--if American workers and legal immigrants are not available to fill needed jobs. This bill will allow families to plan for the future by tackling the plight of 12 million people hidden in the shadows of this country. We are giving undocumented immigrants a chance to earn legal status. People deserve this chance if they pay stiff fines, work for 8 years, pay their taxes, learning English, and go to the back of the line to wait their turn. The American dream is a story of immigrants. We now have an opportunity to write a new chapter in the story of the American dream-- an opportunity to enact tough but fair measures that protect our national security, restore the rule of law, and uphold our tradition as a nation of immigrants. I look forward to the coming debate. Let's go forward together and achieve genuine immigration reform. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator from California.