Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, stroke is a devastating disease that affects young and old, women and men, regardless of their race or ethnic background. The physical, emotional, and financial toll of stroke on individuals and their families is enormous. Fortunately, we have achieved major advances in the prevention and treatment of stroke in recent years that have reduced the high toll of death and disability. The Nation's investment in research through the National Institutes of Health has led to many of these advances, and it's tragic that so many stroke patients do not yet have access to these advances. That's why Senator Cochran and I have introduced the bipartisan Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act in Congress, to help bring what we've learned in the laboratory to the bedside of the patient more quickly. Both Houses of Congress know the importance of this issue, and identical legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives. This bill is intended to become a national commitment to end the suffering from stroke. It will also be a promise that every American can lead a better and healthier life.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues in reintroducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. Our strong commitment to equal rights for men and women should be clearly reflected in the Nation's founding document. The ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the beginning of our history as a Nation, women have had to wage a constant, long and difficult battle to win the same basic rights granted to men. That battle goes on today, since discrimination still continues in many ways. Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce and many areas of the economy. Today, women earn about 77 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. In 2004, African American women earned only 67 percent of the earnings of white men, and Hispanic women earned only 56 percent. Women with college and professional degrees have achieved advances in a number of professional and managerial occupations in recent years. Yet more than 60 percent of working women are still clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations, and female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. A stronger effort is clearly needed to finally live up to our commitment of full equality. The Equal Rights Amendment alone cannot remedy all discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing efforts of women across the country to obtain equal treatment. We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that amending the Constitution to include the ERA will not be easy to achieve. But its extraordinary significance requires us to continue the battle to finally see it approved by Congress and ratified by the States. The women of America deserve no less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, stroke is a devastating disease that affects young and old, women and men, regardless of their race or ethnic background. The physical, emotional, and financial toll of stroke on individuals and their families is enormous. Fortunately, we have achieved major advances in the prevention and treatment of stroke in recent years that have reduced the high toll of death and disability. The Nation's investment in research through the National Institutes of Health has led to many of these advances, and it's tragic that so many stroke patients do not yet have access to these advances. That's why Senator Cochran and I have introduced the bipartisan Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act in Congress, to help bring what we've learned in the laboratory to the bedside of the patient more quickly. Both Houses of Congress know the importance of this issue, and identical legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives. This bill is intended to become a national commitment to end the suffering from stroke. It will also be a promise that every American can lead a better and healthier life.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues in reintroducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. Our strong commitment to equal rights for men and women should be clearly reflected in the Nation's founding document. The ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the beginning of our history as a Nation, women have had to wage a constant, long and difficult battle to win the same basic rights granted to men. That battle goes on today, since discrimination still continues in many ways. Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce and many areas of the economy. Today, women earn about 77 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. In 2004, African American women earned only 67 percent of the earnings of white men, and Hispanic women earned only 56 percent. Women with college and professional degrees have achieved advances in a number of professional and managerial occupations in recent years. Yet more than 60 percent of working women are still clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations, and female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. A stronger effort is clearly needed to finally live up to our commitment of full equality. The Equal Rights Amendment alone cannot remedy all discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing efforts of women across the country to obtain equal treatment. We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that amending the Constitution to include the ERA will not be easy to achieve. But its extraordinary significance requires us to continue the battle to finally see it approved by Congress and ratified by the States. The women of America deserve no less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Older Americans Technical Corrections Act of 2007 that I introduced today with Senator Enzi and Senator Roberts will restore States' ability to obtain Department of Agriculture commodities under the Nutrition Services Incentive Program. Through this program seniors obtain their meals through organizations in the community such as Meals on Wheels. Last year, during the Older Americans Act Reauthorization negotiations, the Department of Agriculture asked Congress to make a change to this program. It was not made clear to us at the time that, under this change, States could not continue to receive commodities through the Department of Agriculture. Without this correction, thousands of seniors in Massachusetts and a number of other States will be affected. Department of Agriculture commodities are much less expensive than what States can purchase on the commercial market and are of higher quality. And they're less expensive. The State distributing agency in Massachusetts has calculated that purchasing similar commodities would cost $1 million more a year which would lead to 500,000 fewer meals served. Six States in addition to Massachusetts have been obtaining USDA commodities for several years. The program is especially important to our States, to their partners, and to the seniors who obtain their meals through this program. I urge our colleagues in both the Senate and the House to pass this legislation without delay.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to thank our leader for his comments about the progress that has been made in the Senate on issues that affect the working middle-class families of this country and also for his responses on the issue of the war in Iraq, where there should be an opportunity, as we focus on the particular amendment, to get into that in greater detail. But I thank him for his very worthwhile comments this afternoon.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the leaders of Northern Ireland took another giant step toward lasting peace earlier today when Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party reached a landmark agreement to share power in a joint administration to be established on May 8. The agreement gives hope to all who have worked so long and so hard to bring unionists and nationalists together in government on a permanent basis. Prime Minister Ahern of Ireland and Prime Minister Blair of Britain have been strong allies for peace. John Hume and many others have been heroes along the way. But the indispensable persons in this historic agreement today are Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, and Ian Paisley, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party. In reaching this agreement, they have acted to strengthen democracy and create a future of peace and stability for the future of that troubled land. Today, the people of Northern Ireland salute them both for reaching this new day, and the world congratulates them as well. We know it was not an easy step to take. Their past disagreements have been intense and deep. The challenges they have faced often seemed irreconcilable, and the scars of the past have often seemed impossible to heal. Compromises have been difficult and painful to achieve. But with this agreement, Sinn Fein and the DUP have finally taken the essential step of looking forward together--not backward--and have agreed at long last to work with one another for the future of Northern Ireland. The eyes of the world will be on them on May 8. All who care about lasting peace and stability look forward to the permanent restoration of the Northern Ireland Government at that time. In a world where political resolution often is elusive, these leaders deserve enormous credit for giving us hope. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that my State Department fellow, Mike Stanton, and my Marine Corps fellow, Mark Carlton, be granted floor privileges for the duration of debate on H.R. 1591 supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 7, 8 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Chair let me know when there is a minute and a half remaining? Mr. President, first of all, I think all of America ought to understand a basic and fundamental principle: this budget debate is really about national priorities. It is about a national priority. That is why we rise here. Senator Baucus, Senator Rockefeller, myself--it is not just the Democrats on this issue of the Children's Health Insurance Program, but Republicans as well--but we have been around here for many years, and what a difference a year makes because in this particular budget we are putting children first. We are putting children first. We are putting children's health care first, and we are putting children's education first. What a difference it is from the recent years where all we had is tax breaks, after tax breaks, after tax breaks. This budget is different. This budget is very different. It says children are going to be first. Secondly, it says that we know there are probably 9 million children who do not have any kind of health insurance, but about 6 million of them are eligible for Medicaid and CHIP. We find that working Americans are having more and more difficulty affording health insurance. One of their great concerns is not just for themselves but for their children. Help is on the way with this budget because with this budget makes a commitment of $50 billion, to help those working families get health insurance for their children. So if their child has an earache, if that child is suffering from asthma, if that child has intestinal flu, the parent will not have to stay awake all night and wonder whether that child is $225 sick, because that is what it is going to cost that working family to take that child down to the emergency room. They won't have to worry about sending that child to school sick while they go out to work. That day, the child will be able to get good, quality health care. That is what we stand for on this side. We see the success of this program. We have seen over the period of these last years the growth of millions of enrolled children, up to 6 million children, and we know this program can work for an additional 6 million children. But we are faced with a budget on the opposite side by the Republicans, and what would that do? It would effectively drop almost half of the children who are currently covered. Here is a map which says 14 States will run out of SCHIP funds in fiscal year 2007 under what the administration has proposed. Big alternative. You asked about alternatives. Our budget would provide the full coverage. This is what happened in the red States on the chart. If you live in those red States and have children, you are in big trouble. Here it is in 2008, an increasing number of States that are going to be excluded. Finally, by 2012, under the Republican budget--look at this-- virtually 80 percent of the States will see a drop in the coverage for their children. With the program that has been put forward by Senator Conrad and others, it will mean all of this will be white because we will make sure all of those children are covered. Now, what is the impact in terms of health disparities? Let's talk now about the impact on children. We talked about the numbers. We talked about the budget. Let's talk about what the health impact is on the children. The SCHIP program reduces health disparities. This chart shows the disparities between the various groups before the enrollment--between White, African American, and Hispanic--and after enrollment. Look at this dramatic reduction in terms of the disparities. Health disparities are one of the principal problems we are facing in our health care system today. This is one of the best ways to resolve the health disparities, with the Baucus amendment, to try to make sure that there is coverage for every child in America, because of all of the long-range implications of reducing the costs of health care, but most of all because we care about the children. This shows one particular disease: asthma. We have seen the rate of asthma virtually double over the period of the last 5 years. The principal reason for that is because this administration has relaxed environmental protections and increased numbers of toxins that are in the air. We have double the number of children who are dying from asthma now, this year, than we had 9 years ago. But look at what this does for those children who have asthma, before enrollment and after enrollment--the dramatic reduction. Here are the number of asthma attacks, the number of medical visits, and we see the dramatic reduction of attacks in terms of the children of this country. So it really comes down to this: This chart demonstrates the alternatives, what is included in the Baucus-Rockefeller amendment and what we have with the Republican proposal. Their proposal is less than half than what is needed to maintain the current services--the current services; not increasing and providing the health care coverage for children but just for current services--and the Senate budget resolution is the $50 billion to cover all eligible children. That is the issue. This budget puts the children first, and the most dramatic example of that is the strong commitment to ensure that all the 6 million children who are eligible for CHIP and Medicaid are covered. Those who are basically the sons and daughters of working families in this country will know that under this budget, help is on the way. This will be true in every State across this country. This has been a success, and it has been bipartisan. I take my hat off to my colleagues and friends, Senator Hatch, Senator Snowe, and Senator Smith--all Republicans. Republicans and Democrats have worked together. But on this issue in terms of priorities, which is a key element in this budget debate and a key difference between the two views about the budget, this amendment is an essential aspect of the budget proposal, and I commend Senator Conrad and those on the Budget Committee for supporting it. I yield back the floor.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Five minutes, yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if you would let me know when there is 1 minute left. I would like to take a few minutes to respond to the points the senior Senator from New Hampshire made yesterday regarding the track record of the administration and the Republican Congress on education funding. Senator Gregg points to the historic increases in the No Child Left Behind Act funding under President Bush, but what he doesn't point out is that most of the increase happened after the first year of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act when Democrats controlled the Senate and demanded a substantial increase. Since then, new funding for elementary and secondary education has plummeted. These are the figures. The President's budget for fiscal year 2002 contained virtually no increase in funding for No Child Left Behind. In the two years following that, he actually proposed cuts in funding for No Child Left Behind. The year after that saw a minimal increase and then No Child Left Behind was actually cut. In fact, since President Bush has been in office, most increases in funding for education have come about due to pressure from Congressional Democrats. No Child Left Behind is only half the story. Under Republican control of the Senate, increases in funding for education programs overall have gotten smaller year after year. Two years ago, funding for education was actually cut by over half a billion dollars. Last year, the President proposed the largest cut to overall education funding in the history of the Department of Education--$2.2 billion--and again this year, the President's proposal is an overall cut of $1.3 billion. So my colleague from New Hampshire is right. President Bush claims to include an increase of $1 billion in No Child Left Behind funding in his budget for this year, but that is not a real increase. First, it does nothing more than fill the cut that was enacted in 2006, and worse, as he has time and again, the President robs other education programs to pay for it. As I mentioned, he proposes a $1.3 billion cut to education programs overall. That is not providing new resources for our schools; that is a shell game. But even more important than these points is the fact that the funding which has been secured is simply insufficient to fulfill the bipartisan promise to leave no child behind. That was a promise, not a political slogan. But year after year of broken promises by the White House and the Republican Congress have left 3.7 million children behind. Their budgets have meant larger, not smaller, class sizes. They've meant fewer teachers trained. This irresponsible neglect comes at a time when schools are being asked to do more. We had the debate and the discussion yesterday, and my colleagues listened to my friend and colleague from New Hampshire talk about all the increases in education. Go ask any school board in this country, go ask any superintendent in the country, go ask any teacher in this country what has happened in their school and what has happened in their district and what has happened in their community on education. You will hear the answer: It has been cut, cut, cut, cut. That has been the answer. You can make all the charts in the world. But go out and ask the schoolteachers, go out and ask the superintendents of schools, and they know what has been happening. It has been as we have described here. That has certainly been true as well in the Republican reconciliation bill last year, which my colleague from New Hampshire claimed provided $9 billion in student benefits and did not cut $12 billion from the student loan programs. The facts are that $22 billion was cut from the student loan programs. About $9 billion was spent by that bill more than half of it on sweetners for the banks, such as increased loan limits on federally subsidized loans and reduced origination fees which translate to increased profits for banks. A small grant program was included, but as my friend from New Hampshire acknowledged yesterday, 90 percent of students are not eligible for that program. 4.7 million Pell eligible students were left out in the cold. The Senate bill included $6 billion in grant aid for all Pell eligible students, but the Republicans jettisoned that proposal in a partisan conference. This program also wrongly limits eligibility to students enrolled in school full time. So forget it if you're trying to support a family and have to work while you're trying to get your degree. This limitation and others related to curriculum also exclude virtually all community college students. But the most important fact is one conceded by the Senator from New Hampshire. The vast majority of the cuts to student loan programs were not dedicated to student aid. Instead, $12 billion was used to offset tax giveaways for the wealthy. Our schools, children and families deserve more than accounting gimmicks. Our schools need new resources to make progress on reform, and families need real help to afford a college education for their children. Republican budgets have provided neither. How much greed do those lending companies want? Has anybody read the New York Times recently about what is happening with the investigations of the student loan program, those billions of dollars going to the student loan program? Sallie Mae--the value of its stock was $3.17 in January 1995; it has traded above $50 per share for most of this year. That is coming from students and from low- and middle-income families. But when you talk about investing in children, don't listen to the Senator from New Hampshire and don't listen to me; listen to your superintendent of schools, listen to the schoolteachers, listen to parents, and you will find out what has been happening and where the cuts have been over the past years. If there is a question about what has been happening in student loans, ask any middle-income or low- income family. Ask any students who are going to our fine public and private colleges. You will find out the tuitions have been going up through the roof, and a substantial part of that is by the fact that we have a student loan program that works for the banks and not for the students.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Fifteen minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the two leaders for their kindness and their consideration, permitting me to speak on the budget. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the opening discussion of this debate, particularly as it centers around national priorities. I do think, quite frankly, we rarely see the contrast so clearly as in the recent debate and discussion on the Senate floor between those who want additional tax reductions for wealthy and powerful groups and those who are really interested in the agenda and the priorities of working families and middle- income families who are primarily concerned about the future of their children, health care for their children, and education for their children. Certainly they are concerned about veterans; all of us are. I commend those who have spoken very eloquently this afternoon about how this budget reflects our priority to address the needs of our veterans. I would like to take a few moments--and will the Chair let me know when I have 5 minutes left, please, Madam President--to talk about the priorities that have been included in this budget that Senator Conrad has mentioned, and why it really ought to gain the support of the majority of the American people. This really represents the people's agenda and the people's priorities. There is a very important commitment in this budget to the children of this Nation, in terms of their education and in terms of their health. I will speak this evening on those two issues. There are other matters of the budget which are important, and perhaps I will speak about those at another time. I take pride that an ancestor of our State, John Adams, was the one who identified the importance of education for this Nation. He did so in 1780, which was the year the Massachusetts Constitution was passed. It was passed 7 years prior to the Federal Constitution. In that document is the most elaborate commitment of any constitution in this country. But just about every other State has, basically, copied language similar to the language in the Massachusetts Constitution-- that commits the people in that State and in this country to quality education for young people. We have seen the progress that has been made since that time. In 1837, Horace Mann campaigned relentlessly for the support and improvement of public schools. He reminded us that a free and public education was vital to our future. At the turn of the last century, we expanded from the early grades and founded public high schools to enable the nation to move forward. We have seen the extraordinary progress that was made with the creation of the land grant colleges. In the height of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln signed the legislation into law and made a commitment on behalf of this Nation to the education of the children of our country. Time and again, when America was faced with challenges, we responded by strengthening education. We did it once again when the Russians sparked the Space Age with the Sputnik launch. We came together as a nation and doubled the education budget. There are those on the other side who say: You can throw money at an issue, and it doesn't solve all the problems--and that is true. But a clear indication of national priorities is whether we are going to invest in education. There are many reasons to do it. Obviously ``for the benefit of the child'' is the best reason. Obviously ``so we will have a well-educated, democratic society'' is important. Obviously, ``so we can have well-educated individuals to compete in a global economy.'' And, obviously, ``because we need well-trained, intelligent individuals to serve in the Armed Forces of our country.'' For all those reasons and more we need strong investment in education. We are facing a global challenge around the world. It is fair to ask: What has this budget done with regard to education? All you have to do is to look at the contrast between this budget and what has happened over the period of recent years under Republican control. This column on the left of this chart is the 5-year cumulative increase in funding for K-12 programs, specifically for No Child Left Behind and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, from 2003 to 2007--the five-year increase is $4.7 billion. Over here, we see this year's Democratic budget--a $3.8 billion increase in one year alone. This is a commitment to education, and it is extremely important. It is essential. We hear a great deal about the commitment we made to our children in the No Child Left Behind Act. But the Administration and Republican Leadership in Congress have failed to keep their promises about funding the law, and today we are leaving 3.7 million children behind. I have said many times that when we passed Social Security, we enrolled everyone who was eligible in the Social Security system. In Medicare, we said we wanted to cover all the elderly, and today, everyone who is eligible is included in Medicare. So when we said No Child Left Behind, I thought we meant that no child was going to be left out and left behind. But the reality is that 3.7 million children are being left behind today. The challenges that schools are facing are real, and the idea that we are leaving these children behind is completely unacceptable. There is a simple comparison. If this had been our approach when President Kennedy said we were going to go to the Moon, we would have spent the money to get our rockets together and we would have sent people to the Moon. They would have landed on the Moon and gotten halfway back, and then we would have pulled the funding. Today, 3.7 million children are not receiving the resources we promised. If you look at other indicators like what's happened with rising college costs and stagnant student aid, you see the same picture. If you look at the gap between the increased cost of attendance at a four- year public college and the maximum Pell grant, you see that the gap has gone up and up and up as the Pell Grant has remained effectively flat. Every middle-income family understands the explosion of the costs of college and the 5.3 million children who depend on the Pell grant have been faced with this crisis. But earlier this year, under the joint funding resolution, Democrats increased the Pell grant for the first time since 2003. With this budget, we're going to build on that, and for the first time in the last 5 years, we are going to extend a helping hand to children who are talented, who have been accepted into schools and colleges of this country. Each year, 400,000 college ready students do not go on to a four-year college. Families and students need this kind of help and assistance to make college a reality. This budget is about children. It is about education. It is about national security. It is about our economy, and it is about our ability to compete in a global economy. This budget will allow us to increase the maximum Pell grant to at least $4,600. It will also help us do even more for struggling students and families. We are going to continue our work to cut the student loan interest rates. We are going to cap student loan payments at 15 percent of discretionary income. And we are going to have a loan forgiveness program for individuals in public sector jobs. We want the middle class and working families to know: If you are concerned about the costs of your children's education, this budget is going to provide help and assistance to you. Make no mistake about it. On another issue, health care, we have also made enormous progress through the years. Probably the most dramatic, I believe, was the progress made under President Lincoln at the time that he made that magnificent speech, saying we cannot lose sight of our responsibilities to the widows and the orphans of the Civil War. And we began the process.

Mr. KENNEDY. So we started the process toward taking care of those who have served in our country. Then we saw the need that we had after the Second World War. We said we are not going to have a whole generation that brought us out of the Depression and fought in the war live, effectively, without any kind of health care coverage. We had passed Social Security in the 1930s. Then we passed the Medicare program in the 1960s. In 1965, we started the community health care centers program. Today there are more than 16 million Americans who get their health care through that extraordinary program. In 1997, this body, in a bipartisan way, passed the CHIP program. We have seen the remarkable growth, in terms of covering children. This is about children of working families. If you go up to 300 percent of poverty, you are talking with a family of three, about $49,800 a year. That is not an enormous income. For families with even one or two children, the cost of health insurance is virtually out of sight. In Massachusetts the children of these families would be covered by the CHIP program. This program has been a remarkable success--some 6 million children have been included, but we know there are 9 million who are not. Under the President's budget, these red States on the map are the States that would effectively have to drop children in 2007. Down here in Georgia, even my State of Massachusetts and the State of Maine. If we continue like that in 2008, look at the growth of the number of States that would be dropping hundreds of thousands of children. If you continue with the Republican budget, you virtually emaciate that program in terms of covering children. But under this budget that is different. We are committed to making sure that the children of this country who don't have health coverage will be able to benefit. In this budget, $50 billion over 5 years is committed to making sure that all of the children of working families are going to be able to get the health care coverage they need. This means they are going to listen and learn when they go to school because they will have had the health care that they need. This means they are going to grow up strong and healthy. This is our commitment to the children of this Nation. It is our commitment to the children of working families. We say this is a priority in this budget. We say children are a priority, and we are committed to making sure that the young children of this Nation are going to grow up strong and healthy, and we commit to them that they are going to have the educational opportunity they need to be successful. That is the priority. Anybody who watched this debate this afternoon would say one side has been talking about tax loopholes, talking about how this budget is going to increase their taxes. We are talking about a responsible budget that is going to have children as its priority. I hope when the time comes that it will have the kind of broad support that it deserves. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on this point?

Mr. KENNEDY. Two quick questions, but I will settle for one. Is it not a fact that those who are eligible under that program are less than 10 percent of all of the Pell recipients?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support S. 214 as an urgently needed step in our effort to restore our constitutional system of checks and balances and to protect the rule of law. In recent weeks, Congress has finally begun to investigate the damaging politicization of the administration of justice by the White House and the Department of Justice. The problem did not begin with the recently disclosed firings of eight U.S. attorneys. It was well underway in 2002 when Attorney General Ashcroft abolished the process for hiring new career attorneys for the Department of Justice. That process had been established by the Eisenhower administration half a century ago to eliminate partisanship and cronyism in the Department's hiring. Under Attorney General Ashcroft, however, the process was placed entirely in the hands of political appointees who set out to remake the ranks of career attorneys by hiring new attorneys based on partisan and ideological qualifications. Predictably, the result has been partisan and ideological law enforcement. The civil rights division virtually stopped enforcing the Voting Rights Act on behalf of African Americans. It even sued African- American officials in Mississippi for discriminating against White voters. Contrary to the recommendations of career attorneys, the new regime also approved the Texas redistricting law that was later struck down by the Supreme Court. It also approved a Georgia photo identification law for voting that was subsequently struck down by a Federal Court as a poll tax. Approval of the Georgia photo identification law was driven by the same partisan motivation that produced the current U.S. attorney scandal. Georgia's Republican-dominated State legislature said it was enacting the law to respond to allegations of voter fraud. But evidence of fraud to justify the law did not exist. The ID law was passed anyway, with full awareness that it would disproportionately prevent minorities from voting. When the law was submitted to the Civil Rights Division for approval under the Voting Rights Act, the career staff of attorneys and analysts recommended an objection by the Department, which would have prevented the law from going into effect, but the recommendation was rejected by the political appointees. The Federal Court struck down the law as the equivalent of a poll tax, because the State offered to sell ID's for $20 to prospective voters who did not have them. Tellingly, the State did not establish offices selling ID's in many of the State's most heavily minority districts. After the law was blocked, the State reenacted it without the $20 fee, in a blatant effort to gain partisan advantage by manipulating the law. Once again, the political appointees in the Civil Rights Division approved it. Fortunately, a court struck down the new law, finding that it placed an undue burden on the voting rights of minority and elderly voters. The story does not end there. Shortly after political officials rejected the career attorneys' recommendation to block the law, they transferred Robert Berman--the leader of the career team that reviewed the Georgia law and a 28-year veteran of the Civil Rights Division--out of his job as a Deputy Chief of the Voting Section and into a dead-end training job. When the Attorney General testified before the Judiciary Committee last July, I asked whether this transfer was retaliation for the career attorney's role in recommending that the Department object to the Georgia photo ID law. I still haven't received an answer. When Wan Kim, the head of the Civil Rights Division, testified before the Committee in November, I asked him if Mr. Berman was transferred in retaliation for the Georgia matter. I still haven't received an answer. As the problems in the Civil Rights Division make clear, the real danger with this administration's politicization of Justice Department's hiring is the corruption of the rule of law. U.S. Attorneys and other Department of Justice officials are selected by the President, but they are the people's lawyers. Their first duty is to enforce the rule of law--not to push a partisan agenda. This administration has forgotten that basic truth, and the rule of law has suffered. The conclusion is inescapable that the Department of Justice ended Mr. Berman's long and distinguished career as a voting section attorney because he applied the law faithfully and well, and refused to serve the partisan interests of his political superiors. His plight is one of many examples of loyal career public servants who have been pushed aside for their failure to toe the partisan line in the Department of Justice. Incredibly, Bradley Schlozman, the inexperienced political appointee who oversaw approval of the Georgia ID law and the retaliation against the career staff, was rewarded with an appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the Western District of Missouri. He has served in that capacity for a year without Senate confirmation. Mr. Schlozman's appointment is symptomatic of the problem that the bill before us will solve--the appointment as U.S. attorneys of unqualified partisan operatives who would be unlikely to win Senate confirmation, but who can serve for extended periods of time anyway. The continuing revelations about the 8 fired U.S. attorneys show how thoroughly partisanship has infected the administration of justice in the Bush administration. As explanation after explanation has unraveled, it has become increasingly clear that the purge of U.S. attorneys had its genesis in the White House and its roots in a desire to remove U.S. attorneys who were not sufficiently committed to the political agenda of the administration. The initial explanation that 7 of the 8 were fired for poor performance was a smokescreen manufactured out of thin air. Their performance assessments were largely outstanding. Evidence is mounting that the administration was concerned that Carol Lam was too successful in her investigation and prosecution of Republicans in the Duke Cunningham scandal. John McKay was on the list because of his refusal to open an unwarranted investigation into voter fraud after a close 2004 election victory by a Democrat. David Iglesias was the subject of Republican complaints about his unwillingness to pursue voter fraud investigations of Democrats, and he was pressured by Republicans in Congress to indict Democrats before last November's election to help the Republican candidate in a tight congressional race. Recently released e-mails show that part of this scheme was to use the little-noticed change in the law inserted in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act last year which permitted the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. attorneys to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation. The bill before us eliminates that provision and reinstates the 120-day limit on service by interim U.S. attorneys appointed by the Attorney General. This change will force the administration to send nominees to the Senate to fill vacant slots, or have them filled by a court instead. This change in the law is an important first step we can take to remedy the problem, as we continue to investigate the political purge of U.S. attorneys. That investigation must continue. A full investigation is essential if we hope to restore confidence in Federal law enforcement. U.S. attorneys protect the Nation from violent crime, terrorism, violations of civil rights, organized crime and public corruption. They must be above partisan or ethical reproach, if the rule of law is to have any meaning in our modern society. There are few greater threats to our democracy than such efforts to turn our system of Federal law enforcement into a partisan political tool. As Justice Robert Jackson said: The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty and reputation than any other person in America. That awesome power must not be used in the service of partisan goals. U.S. attorneys are political appointees, but once they are appointed, they can no longer be part of the political process. Politics can shape policies and priorities but the decision whether or not to investigate or prosecute cannot be influenced by the slightest hint of partisanship. No U.S. attorneys should be subjected to partisan political pressure to make a particular decision in a prosecution, and no U.S. attorney should be retaliated against for making decisions that are politically unpopular in the eyes of his superiors. The bill before us will help guard against such partisanship, by restoring the requirement for the administration to submit nominees for U.S. attorneys promptly to the Senate for confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill without amendment. iraq Mr. President, as our Nation begins its fifth year of the war in Iraq it is abundantly clear to the American people that our current policy has failed, and that we need a new policy that will better serve both our national security and our service men and women. President Bush continues to look for good news with a microscope. Despite his repeated claims that success is just around the corner, Iraq is falling deeper and deeper into the chaos of civil war. Our troops are in the untenable position of policing a nation at war with itself. More than 3,200 American soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice, and more than 24,000 have been wounded during the 4 years of his failed policy. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, and nearly 4 million have been displaced inside Iraq and across the region. The insurgency is growing in strength, and its lethal explosives are growing in sophistication. Attacks on American soldiers continue to increase. Militias are increasing their power, and their ability to brutalize the Iraqi people is increasing as well. No amount of American military might can end Iraq's civil war. Only a political settlement by Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people can end the bloodshed and suffering. Rather than fanning the flames of chaos by sending more U.S. troops into Iraq's civil war, it is time for the President to begin to redeploy our troops out of harm's way. The war in Iraq has been a disastrous and deeply dangerous debacle in American foreign policy. It has made America more hated in the world than at any other time in our history. It has emboldened terrorists across the globe. It has stretched our military to the breaking point. As a result, our national security is increasingly at risk. The President's policy of escalating the war will not make success any more likely. It will only result in more death and more tragedy for American soldiers, and it will undermine our national security even further. The American people have been patient. But America has now been in Iraq longer than it took us to win World War II. Instead of progress, we continue to see unacceptably high levels of violence, death, and destruction. The American military and the American people deserve far better. The President seeks more funding for the war without strings and without delay. Because the President stubbornly insists on escalating the same failed strategy, Congress must stand up to the President and stand up for our troops by requiring him to redeploy our combat forces out of Iraq as soon as possible. We have an opportunity to do so on the supplemental appropriations bill that will soon be before us, and it is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's an honor to join Senator Hatch and my HELP Committee colleagues today in introducing this bill to reauthorize the community health centers program. The Health Centers Renewal Act extends the program through 2012, it authorizes the funds needed to stabilize existing centers and enable them to increase their capacity and funds for new centers in underserved areas that have no existing center. The community health centers program has been a success story by any measure over the past 40 years. It began as a two-site demonstration project for ``neighborhood health centers'' in 1965, with funds for Columbia Point in Massachusetts and Mound Bayou in Mississippi. The health center model was the brainchild of two young physicians and civil rights activists, Dr. H. Jack Geiger and Dr. Count Gibson. Their model was intended to address both health care and the roots of poverty, by giving communities a voice in their health care through a patient-majority community board, by creating jobs and investments in local communities, and by focusing on primary care and reducing health disparities among income groups. Today, more than 1,000 health centers provide good health care to 16 million patients each year. They provide safety nets in their communities for the most vulnerable Americans, and bring care to 1 of every 4 Americans living in poverty. Nearly 70 percent of health center patients have incomes below the poverty line, and two-thirds are members of racial and ethnic minorities. Health centers give those who are so often disenfranchised in our society a voice in their own health care and in the care available in their community. Health centers are also an incentive for economic growth, providing 50,000 jobs across the country for residents in their communities. As the number of uninsured and underinsured persons grows each year, the need for health center services increases. More than 40 percent of health center patients have no health insurance and their number is increasing. Another 36 percent of patients have coverage through Medicaid or CHIP, and cuts in these programs affect health centers as well. As the number of patients who rely on health centers continues to grow, we must provide the funds needed to open new centers in areas that are underserved and to provide additional funds to enable existing centers to meet the growing demand for care. The funding authorized in this bill will provide stability and expanded services in existing centers, and enable new centers to open in areas that have no centers today. The legislation will keep health centers on track to serve 20 million patients by 2010 and more than 23 million patients by 2012. It also provides the funds needed to expand existing health centers to reach more uninsured and underinsured patients, open new centers in underserved areas with no current centers, expand coverage of mental health, dental, and pharmacy services to all centers, invest in information technology, and take other steps to improve health outcomes. Our goal in the bill is to make sure that health centers can provide high-quality care to their patients for years to come, and I look forward to its enactment into law. I ask unanimous request that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President day in and day out across America, millions of men and women go to work in jobs that are the backbone of our economy. They make our country great and prosperous. They work hard to provide for their families and care for them. Often, however, they have to miss days of work because of illness. Every parent knows what it's like to care for a sick child, and every child knows the importance of a parent taking care of them when they are ill. Yet, every day, countless Americans find their paychecks or even their jobs at risk when illness strikes. As Members of Congress, we don't lose our pay or risk our jobs if we stay home because of illness. But millions of our fellow citizens are not so fortunate. Mr. President, 57 million Americans--nearly half of all private- sector workers in the United States--do not have paid sick days. Seventy percent don't have paid sick days they can use to care for family members. They can't take a day off to recover from the flu. They can't leave work to care for a child who is running a fever. Among workers in the lowest income quarter, the numbers are even worse--percent do not have the right to take time off for illness without losing their payor even their jobs. This lack of protection is especially difficult for working women with children. Women have moved into the workforce in record numbers, but they continue to have primary responsibility for their children's health. Nearly 80 percent of mothers say they are solely responsible for their children's medical care. Yet they can't take a day off to care for a sick child. If we truly care about families, we have to change those facts. Americans want to be responsible employees and responsible parents. We need workplace laws that allow workers the time needed to care for themselves or family members when they are sick without losing payor risking their jobs. That is why today I am introducing the Healthy Families Act, to give American workers up to seven paid days of sick leave a year. Now Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro is introducing the legislation in the House of Representatives. Earlier this week, she and I met with hundreds of workers and parents from around the country, representing tens of thousands of parents asking Congress to take action. I am talking about hard-working people such as Bertha Brown, who spoke to hundreds of us in front of the Capitol. Bertha is a home healthcare aide. She has spent her life caring for America's sick and elderly, yet she herself has no paid sick days to care for herself or her children. She told us how she had to leave her sick daughter at home when she went to work. Paid sick days aren't just a family issue--they are also a public health issue. When sick people go to work, they are likely to infect their coworkers and the public. Every day, we hear reports of stomach illnesses breaking out in restaurants or on cruise ships. We learn of flu outbreaks leading to hospitalization of the elderly. Such illnesses are contagious, but their spread can be minimized if sick people stay at home. However, a high proportion of workers who have constant contact with the public have no paid sick days--85 percent of food service workers and 55 percent of workers in the retail industry are denied that benefit; 30 percent of health care workers can't take paid time off when they are ill. That is why nurses and doctors support paid sick days. When our Health Committee held a hearing on this issue last month, we heard from pediatricians at Boston Children's Hospital and a public health expert in San Francisco about the significant health benefits and reduction of medical costs that result from paid sick days. We all know that preventive care helps reduce medical costs. Giving people the opportunity to obtain medical treatment for illnesses or chronic medical conditions before their conditions worsen is common sense. Paid sick days also are important to help children stay healthy and in school so that they can learn. When sick children go to school, they don't learn well, and they are likely to infect their fellow students. We also heard this week from Carolyn Duff, a nurse in an elementary school in South Carolina. She treated a fifth grader she suspected had strep throat. His parents did not have paid sick days and could not take him to the doctor. After 4 days, his condition worsened. He developed scarlet fever and a rash covered his entire body--all because his parents, for fear of losing their jobs, weren't able to take time off to care for him. As Carolyn Duff said, the child not only suffered without the care of his parents, he also lost 10 precious days of his studies at school. Paid sick days will result in significant savings to our economy and our health care system. That is why employers support paid sick days too. Dancing Deer Bakery--a small business Boston--sent me a letter making this important point: A national paid sick days law creates a level playing field for all businesses. . . . We hope that a bill will move through both Chambers and be on the President's desk. Paid sick days should be a non-partisan issue. A healthy nation is a productive nation. Paid sick days are good for families, good for our public health, and good for our economy. Our people have waited long enough for this need to be met. It is time to pass the Healthy Families Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's an honor to join Senator Hatch and my HELP Committee colleagues today in introducing this bill to reauthorize the community health centers program. The Health Centers Renewal Act extends the program through 2012, it authorizes the funds needed to stabilize existing centers and enable them to increase their capacity and funds for new centers in underserved areas that have no existing center. The community health centers program has been a success story by any measure over the past 40 years. It began as a two-site demonstration project for ``neighborhood health centers'' in 1965, with funds for Columbia Point in Massachusetts and Mound Bayou in Mississippi. The health center model was the brainchild of two young physicians and civil rights activists, Dr. H. Jack Geiger and Dr. Count Gibson. Their model was intended to address both health care and the roots of poverty, by giving communities a voice in their health care through a patient-majority community board, by creating jobs and investments in local communities, and by focusing on primary care and reducing health disparities among income groups. Today, more than 1,000 health centers provide good health care to 16 million patients each year. They provide safety nets in their communities for the most vulnerable Americans, and bring care to 1 of every 4 Americans living in poverty. Nearly 70 percent of health center patients have incomes below the poverty line, and two-thirds are members of racial and ethnic minorities. Health centers give those who are so often disenfranchised in our society a voice in their own health care and in the care available in their community. Health centers are also an incentive for economic growth, providing 50,000 jobs across the country for residents in their communities. As the number of uninsured and underinsured persons grows each year, the need for health center services increases. More than 40 percent of health center patients have no health insurance and their number is increasing. Another 36 percent of patients have coverage through Medicaid or CHIP, and cuts in these programs affect health centers as well. As the number of patients who rely on health centers continues to grow, we must provide the funds needed to open new centers in areas that are underserved and to provide additional funds to enable existing centers to meet the growing demand for care. The funding authorized in this bill will provide stability and expanded services in existing centers, and enable new centers to open in areas that have no centers today. The legislation will keep health centers on track to serve 20 million patients by 2010 and more than 23 million patients by 2012. It also provides the funds needed to expand existing health centers to reach more uninsured and underinsured patients, open new centers in underserved areas with no current centers, expand coverage of mental health, dental, and pharmacy services to all centers, invest in information technology, and take other steps to improve health outcomes. Our goal in the bill is to make sure that health centers can provide high-quality care to their patients for years to come, and I look forward to its enactment into law. I ask unanimous request that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President day in and day out across America, millions of men and women go to work in jobs that are the backbone of our economy. They make our country great and prosperous. They work hard to provide for their families and care for them. Often, however, they have to miss days of work because of illness. Every parent knows what it's like to care for a sick child, and every child knows the importance of a parent taking care of them when they are ill. Yet, every day, countless Americans find their paychecks or even their jobs at risk when illness strikes. As Members of Congress, we don't lose our pay or risk our jobs if we stay home because of illness. But millions of our fellow citizens are not so fortunate. Mr. President, 57 million Americans--nearly half of all private- sector workers in the United States--do not have paid sick days. Seventy percent don't have paid sick days they can use to care for family members. They can't take a day off to recover from the flu. They can't leave work to care for a child who is running a fever. Among workers in the lowest income quarter, the numbers are even worse--percent do not have the right to take time off for illness without losing their payor even their jobs. This lack of protection is especially difficult for working women with children. Women have moved into the workforce in record numbers, but they continue to have primary responsibility for their children's health. Nearly 80 percent of mothers say they are solely responsible for their children's medical care. Yet they can't take a day off to care for a sick child. If we truly care about families, we have to change those facts. Americans want to be responsible employees and responsible parents. We need workplace laws that allow workers the time needed to care for themselves or family members when they are sick without losing payor risking their jobs. That is why today I am introducing the Healthy Families Act, to give American workers up to seven paid days of sick leave a year. Now Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro is introducing the legislation in the House of Representatives. Earlier this week, she and I met with hundreds of workers and parents from around the country, representing tens of thousands of parents asking Congress to take action. I am talking about hard-working people such as Bertha Brown, who spoke to hundreds of us in front of the Capitol. Bertha is a home healthcare aide. She has spent her life caring for America's sick and elderly, yet she herself has no paid sick days to care for herself or her children. She told us how she had to leave her sick daughter at home when she went to work. Paid sick days aren't just a family issue--they are also a public health issue. When sick people go to work, they are likely to infect their coworkers and the public. Every day, we hear reports of stomach illnesses breaking out in restaurants or on cruise ships. We learn of flu outbreaks leading to hospitalization of the elderly. Such illnesses are contagious, but their spread can be minimized if sick people stay at home. However, a high proportion of workers who have constant contact with the public have no paid sick days--85 percent of food service workers and 55 percent of workers in the retail industry are denied that benefit; 30 percent of health care workers can't take paid time off when they are ill. That is why nurses and doctors support paid sick days. When our Health Committee held a hearing on this issue last month, we heard from pediatricians at Boston Children's Hospital and a public health expert in San Francisco about the significant health benefits and reduction of medical costs that result from paid sick days. We all know that preventive care helps reduce medical costs. Giving people the opportunity to obtain medical treatment for illnesses or chronic medical conditions before their conditions worsen is common sense. Paid sick days also are important to help children stay healthy and in school so that they can learn. When sick children go to school, they don't learn well, and they are likely to infect their fellow students. We also heard this week from Carolyn Duff, a nurse in an elementary school in South Carolina. She treated a fifth grader she suspected had strep throat. His parents did not have paid sick days and could not take him to the doctor. After 4 days, his condition worsened. He developed scarlet fever and a rash covered his entire body--all because his parents, for fear of losing their jobs, weren't able to take time off to care for him. As Carolyn Duff said, the child not only suffered without the care of his parents, he also lost 10 precious days of his studies at school. Paid sick days will result in significant savings to our economy and our health care system. That is why employers support paid sick days too. Dancing Deer Bakery--a small business Boston--sent me a letter making this important point: A national paid sick days law creates a level playing field for all businesses. . . . We hope that a bill will move through both Chambers and be on the President's desk. Paid sick days should be a non-partisan issue. A healthy nation is a productive nation. Paid sick days are good for families, good for our public health, and good for our economy. Our people have waited long enough for this need to be met. It is time to pass the Healthy Families Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 4 minutes.