Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think I have the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe under the agreement I have 15 minutes; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Iraq Prime Minister Maliki's visit to the United States comes at an important time. All Americans want Iraq's new government to succeed. The principal measure of success will be whether the tide of violence recedes and full-scale civil war is avoided. But for that to happen, the new government must deal quickly, decisively, and effectively with the principal threat to stability--the deadly influence of the militias--especially in Baghdad. It is time for the new government to move beyond vagaries and develop a viable strategy to deal with the militias and prevent Iraq from descending into full-scale civil war. He needs to begin implementing a credible plan to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate the militias into the security forces. He must obtain a real commitment from the political parties to assist in disbanding and disarming the militias. As the new violence in Lebanon demonstrates, political parties cannot govern with one hand and terrorize civilians with militias with the other hand. It did not work with Hezbollah in Lebanon, it cannot work with Hamas, and it will not work in Iraq. Militias are the engines of civil war, and there is no role for them in a legitimately functioning government of Iraq. Iraq's future and the lives of our troops are close to the precipice of a new disaster. The timebomb of full-scale civil war is ticking, and our most urgent priority is to defuse it. America, too, must be honest about the situation in Iraq. President Bush, the Vice President, and Secretary Rumsfeld continue to deny that Iraq is in a civil war. But the increasing sectarian violence, the ruthless death squads, and the increasingly powerful role of the privately armed militias tell a very different story. We cannot ignore this major danger. President Bush needs to consider the cold, hard facts and prepare a strategy to protect our troops who are at risk of getting caught in the middle of an unwinnable sectarian civil war. Such planning is not an admission of defeat; it is responsible and necessary to protect the lives of our men and women in Iraq who are serving with great courage under enormously difficult circumstances.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the five poems, the winner and runner-up entries for the Celebrate America Creative Writing Contest about the contribution of immigrants to America, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Teacher Center Act of 2006, to help establish and fund teacher centers across the Nation. Its goal is to provide more effective and relevant professional development for teachers, and create a network of support for them to share best practices, improve classroom training, and improve working conditions in their schools. It's a privilege to join my distinguished colleague, Congressman George Miller, who is introducing companion legislation for teacher centers in the House of Representatives. As research makes clear, good teachers are the single most important factor in achieving the success of students, both academically and developmentally. Students who receive good instruction can reach new heights through the hard work, vision, and energy of their teachers. Good teaching can also overcome the harmful effects of poverty and other disadvantages on student learning. In 2002, with the No Child Left Behind Act, we made a commitment to put a first-rate teacher in every classroom to help all students succeed in school and in life. But to reach that goal, we need to recruit, train, retain, and support our teachers. Today, about half of all teachers who enter the profession leave the classroom within five years. That's an unacceptable loss--the 5-year mark is just the time when teachers have mastered their work and are consistently able to improve the education of their students. Too often, teachers lack the training and support needed to do well in the classroom. Eliminating this deficit can make all the difference in their decision to remain in the profession. Teacher centers can help see that teachers have the professional development, mentoring, and support they need in order to succeed. Developing and expanding these centers is an important step toward enriching teachers' lives, enhancing their knowledge and skills, and encouraging them to stay in the profession and succeed in the classroom. The teacher centers model grew out of an innovative approach to supporting the professional development of teachers in England. That model enables teachers to become leaders and decision-makers in their own professional growth and in the environments in which they work. It enables them to collaboratively plan and implement staff development and reform that can be shared with their colleagues, as a means for reflection and improvement in their teaching practice. Since the initial creation of teacher centers in the United States in the late 1970s, we have seen how effective they can be in supporting teachers, so that they can respond more effectively to student needs and help them reach the high standards now required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Teacher centers offer valuable programs for educators when aligned with State standards and school district curriculums. The centers support new teachers during their first years in the profession, and their peer-to-peer networks facilitate communication and collaboration among teachers to improve instruction. The centers also help teachers incorporate new research into their daily routines, and support the use of technology and proven strategies to keep students engaged and help them do well in school. Most important, teacher centers are essential to the development of teacher capability and leadership. The training provided is aimed at building the capability of teachers to reach all of their students through differentiated instruction--a goal central to the promise of leaving no child behind. And by taking advantage of the support provided by teacher centers, educators can have a more active role in their own professional growth and eventually hold leadership positions in their schools and communities. As we know, teachers are on the front lines in the Nation's schools and in our efforts to improve public education. We cannot expect the quality of our classrooms to improve without investing more in the quality of our teachers. Teacher centers ensure that the nation's educators have the time, resources, and support they need to work and learn with one another. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is an historic day. In the quietness of the moment, on the floor of the Senate, we are talking about a major piece of legislation that is basic to the fabric of what America is all about. But the quietness does not belie the fact that this is a momentous piece of legislation that marks the continuation of this Nation as a true democracy. I want, at the outset, to commend my friends and leaders on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter and Senator Leahy. I can remember talking with both of them early on about putting this on the Senate agenda, putting it on the Judiciary Committee agenda. There are not two Members of this body who are more committed to this legislation than Chairman Specter and Senator Leahy. We are here today because of their leadership and their strong commitment to the concept of making sure that America is going to be America by insisting on the extension of this voting rights legislation. They have both been tireless during the course of the series of hearings that we have held. They have been meticulous in terms of determining the witnesses that we would have and in building the legislative record, which is so important and of such great consequence in terms of maintaining the constitutionality of this legislation, which is, of course, so important. So I thank both of them for their leadership and their generous references earlier during their statements. Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States is an extraordinary document, the greatest charter that has ever been written in terms of preserving the rights and liberties of the people. Still, slavery was enshrined in the Constitution. And this country has had a challenging time freeing itself from the legacy of slavery. We had a difficult time in fighting the great Civil War. And we have had a challenging time freeing ourselves from discrimination--all forms of discrimination--but particularly racial discrimination. And we had a difficult time, particularly in the early 1960s, in passing legislation--legislation which could be enormously valuable in freeing a country from the stains of discrimination. But it takes much more than just legislation to achieve that. I was fortunate enough to be here at the time we passed the 1964 civil rights bill that dealt with what we call public accommodations. It is difficult to believe that people were denied access to public accommodations--the ability to go to hotels, restaurants, and other places because of the color of their skin--in the United States of America. Mr. President, this legislation was debated for 10 months. Not just 1 day, as we all have today on voting rights, but for 10 months, the Senate was in session as we faced a filibuster on that legislation. Then, finally, Senator Everett Dirksen responded to the very eloquent pleas of President Johnson at that time and indicated that he was prepared to move the legislation forward and make some adjustments in the legislation. We were able to come to an agreement, and the law went into effect. In 1965, we had hours and hours and hours and hours during the course of the markup of the Voting Rights Act, and hours and hours and hours on the floor of the Senate to pass that legislation, with amendment after amendment after amendment. We were ultimately successful. And just off the Senate Chamber, in the President's Room--just a few yards from where I am standing today--President Johnson signed that legislation. Now, we continue the process. It has not always been easy during the continuation and the reauthorization of the Act. Rarely have we been as fortunate as we are today with the time agreement and an understanding that we will consider this and finalize it this evening, in a way that will avoid a contentious conference with the House of Representatives that could have gone on for weeks and even months, as we've seen in the past. This legislation will go to the President's desk, and he will sign it. There is no subject matter that brings out emotions like the issue of civil rights. That is, perhaps, understandable. But it is still very true. No issue that we debate--health care, education, increasing the minimum wage, age discrimination, environmental questions--whatever those matters are, nothing brings out the emotions like civil rights legislation. But here we have a very important piece of civil rights legislation that is going to be favorably considered, and I will speak about that in just a few moments. We have to understand, as important as this legislation is, it really is not worth the paper it is printed on unless it is going to be enforced. That is enormously important. As we pass this legislation and we talk about its importance, and the importance of its various provisions, we have to make sure we have an administration and a Justice Department that is going to enforce it. That has not always been the case. Secondly, it is enormously important that we have judges who interpret the legislation the way we intended for it to be interpreted. We have, in this situation, a bipartisan interpretation. We have a bicameral interpretation. There should be no reason that any court in this country--particularly a Supreme Court that is looking over its provisions--should not understand very clearly what we intended, the constitutional basis for it. We need judges who are going to interpret this in good faith. That has not always been the case, and I will reference that in terms of my comments. Then, we have to make sure we have a process and system so that, even if we have the legislation, and even if we have a Justice Department correctly interpret it, and even if we have judges correctly interpret it, we have to make sure there are not going to be other interferences with any individuals' ability to vote. That is another subject for another time, but enormously important. We need all of those factors, at least, to make sure that this basic and fundamental right, which is so important, and which we are addressing today, is actually going to be achieved and accomplished for our fellow citizens. Mr. President, we are, as I mentioned, poised to take another historic step in America's journey toward becoming the land of its ideals. As we all know, the battle for racial equality in America is far from over. The landmark civil rights laws that we have passed in the past four decades have provided a legal foundation, but the full promise of these laws has yet to be fulfilled. Literacy tests may no longer block access to the ballot box, but we cannot ignore the fact that discrimination is sometimes as plain as ever, and that more subtle forms of discrimination are plotted in back rooms, to be imposed by manipulating redistricting boundaries to dilute minority voting strength, or by systematic strategies on election day to discourage minority voting. The persistence of overt and more subtle discrimination makes it mandatory that we reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. This act is perhaps Congress's greatest contribution to the march toward equality in our society. As Martin Luther King, Jr., said, voting is ``civil right number one.'' It is the right in our democracy that preserves all others. So long as the vote is available and freely exercised by our entire citizenry, this Nation will remain strong and our other rights will be protected. For nearly a century, the 15th amendment guaranteed that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,'' but it took the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to breathe life into that basic guarantee. And it took the actions of many brave men and women, such as those who gathered at the Edmund Pettis Bridge and faced the shameful violence of those who would deny them the right to vote, before the Nation finally acted. I'm honored to have fought in the Senate for the Voting Rights Act each time it was before Congress--from its historic passage in 1965 to the votes to extend the act in 1970, 1975, and 1982 and to strengthen it along the way. I recall watching President Lyndon Baines Johnson sign the 1965 act just off this chamber in the President's Room. We knew that day that we had changed the country forever. And indeed we had. In 1965, there were only three African American and three Latino Members of Congress. Today, there are 41 African-American Members in the House of Representatives, one African- American Senator, 22 Latino House Members, and two Latino Senators. These gains would not have been possible without the Voting Rights Act. I recall extending the expiring provisions of the act in 1970. I remember extending it again in 1975, and adding protections for citizens who needed language assistance. We recognized that those voters warranted assistance because unequal education resulted in high rates of illiteracy and low rates of voter participation in those populations. And I recall well extending the act again in 1982. That time, we extended the expiring provisions of the act for 25 years and strengthened it by overturning the Supreme Court's decision in Mobile v. Bolden. That decision weakened the act by imposing an intent standard pursuant to section 2 of the act, but despite the opposition of President Reagan and his Department of Justice, we were able to restore the act's vitality by replacing that standard with a results test that provides greater protection for victims of discriminatory treatment. Finally, in 1992, we revisited the act to extend and broaden its coverage of individuals whose English language ability is insufficient to allow them to participate fully in our democratic system. In memory of Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Coretta Scott King, and Cesar Chavez, I feel privileged to have the opportunity to support extension of the act once again for another 25 years. Some have questioned whether there is still a need for the act's expiring provisions. They even argue that discrimination in voting is a thing of the past, and that we are relying on decades-old discrimination to stigmatize certain areas of the country today. I have heard the evidence presented over the past several months of hearings, and I can tell you that they are just plain wrong. Yes, we have made progress that was almost unimaginable in 1965. But the goal of the Voting Rights Act was to have full and equal access for every American regardless of race. We have not achieved that goal. In considering this bill, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held nine hearings and heard from some 46 witnesses. In addition, we have received numerous written statements and have voluminous reports from a variety of groups that have examined the state of voting rights in our Nation. We have explored every aspect of the expiring provisions of the act, and have all come to one inescapable conclusion: continuing discrimination requires that we pass this bill and reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. The evidence demonstrates that far too many Americans still face barriers because of their race, their ethnic background or their language minority status. Section 5 is the centerpiece of the expiring provisions of the act. It requires that covered jurisdictions preclear voting changes with the Department of Justice or the District Court in the District of Columbia by proving that the changes do not have a retrogressive purpose or effect. The act would reverse the second Bossier Parish decision and restore the section 5 standard to its original meaning by making it clear that a discriminatory purpose will prevent section 5 preclearance. Even under the weaker standard that has governed since the Bossier decision, the Department of Justice has had to object to egregious discriminatory practices. The act as reauthorized also overturns the Supreme Court's decision in Georgia v. Ashcroft, restoring section 5's protection of voting districts where minority voters have an ability to elect their preferred candidates. This revision would preclude jurisdictions from replacing districts in which minority voters have the voting power to elect their preferred candidates with districts in which minority voters merely exercise influence. The number of objections under section 5 has remained large since we last reauthorized the act in 1982. Astonishingly, Professor Anita Earls of the University of North Carolina Law School testified that between 1982 and 2004, the Department of Justice lodged 682 section 5 objections in covered jurisdictions compared with only 481 objections prior to 1982. In Mississippi alone, the Department of Justice objected to 120 voting changes since 1982. This number is roughly double the number of objections made before 1982. Behind these statistics are stories of the voters who were able to participate in the political process because the Voting Rights Act protects their fundamental right to do so. For example, in 2001, the town of Kilmichael, MS, cancelled its elections just three weeks before election day. The Justice Department objected to the cancellation, finding that the town failed to establish that its actions were not motivated by the discriminatory purpose of preventing African-American voters from electing candidates of their choice. The town had recently become majority African-American and, for the first time in its history, several African-American candidates had a good chance of winning elected office. Section 5 prevented this discriminatory change from being implemented, and as a result, three African-American candidates were elected to the board of aldermen and an African- American was elected mayor for the first time. Consider the Dinwiddie County Board of Supervisors in Virginia. It moved a polling place from a club with a large African-American membership to a white church on the other side of town, under the pretext that the church was more centrally located. We saw this tactic when we renewed the act in 1970. We didn't expect to see it again in on the eve of the 21st century, but we did. Some have argued that there has been a drop in the number of objections in recent years. As the record shows, that decline is explained by a number of reasons. First, of course, was the Supreme Court's restrictive interpretation of the purpose standard, which we will correct today. In addition, the numbers do not account for proposed changes that are rejected by the district court or proposed changes that are withdrawn once the Department of Justice asks for more information or litigation begins in the District Court. Equally as important are the discriminatory changes the act has deterred covered jurisdictions from ever enacting, and the dialog the act promotes between local election officials and minority community leaders to ensure consideration of minority communities' concerns in the legislative process. And, of course, there are matters that merit objection, but have been precleared by the Bush Department of Justice because the Department's political leadership refused to follow the recommendations of career experts. The Department twice precleared Georgia's effort to impose a photo identification requirement for voting. The first time, the district court threw it out as an unconstitutional poll tax. That's right, a poll tax in 2006. In 1965, we fought the poll tax during the debate of the original Voting Rights Act. After the Supreme Court ultimately held it unconstitutional, we thought this shameful practice had ended. But the court found that the Georgia law was just a 21st century version of this old evil. Georgia reenacted the law without the poll tax, and the Court still found that it unlawfully disadvantaged poor and minority voters, who are less likely to have the required identification. Recently, the Supreme Court held that the Texas Legislature had violated the Voting Rights Act by shifting 100,000 Latino voters out of a district just as they were about to defeat an incumbent and finally elect a candidate of their choice. Once again, section 5 would have blocked this practice, but the leadership of the Department of Justice overruled career experts who recommended an objection. The fact that the number of section 5 objections is a small percentage of the total number of submissions shouldn't be surprising. Jurisdictions take section 5 into consideration when adopting voting changes and many day-to-day changes are noncontroversial. What should surprise and concern us is the fact that there continue to be objections and voting changes like the ones that I have described. It has also been argued that the section 5 coverage formula is both over and under-inclusive. The act addresses that problem by permitting jurisdictions where Federal oversight is no longer warranted to ``bail out'' from coverage under section 5. We have letters from two of the jurisdictions that have taken advantage of the bailout process explaining that they did not find that process to be onerous. So far, every jurisdiction that has sought a bailout has succeeded. For jurisdictions that should be covered but aren't, the act contains a mechanism by which a court may order a non-covered jurisdiction found to have violated the 14th or 15th amendments to obtain section 5 preclearance for its voting changes. As a result, the act's preclearance requirement applies only to jurisdiction where there is a need for such oversight. The act will also reauthorize the provisions of the act that mandate the provision of election assistance in minority languages. In the course of our consideration of this bill, we heard substantial evidence demonstrating that these provisions are still necessary. The original rationale for enactment of these provisions was twofold. First, there are many Americans who speak languages other than English, many of whom are United States citizens by birth--including Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Puerto Ricans. These Americans should not be denied the opportunity to be full participants in our democracy because of the languages they speak. They know they need to learn English to succeed in this country. That's why classes to learn English are oversubscribed all over the country. Additionally, Congress concluded that many Americans--including Native Americans, Alaska Natives, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans--suffer from inadequate educational opportunities that deny them the opportunity to master English at a sufficient level to fully understand electoral issues and cast meaningful ballots. The nationwide statistics illustrate the problem. Only 75 percent of Alaska Natives complete high school, compared to 90 percent of non-Natives, and only 52 percent of all Hispanic Americans have a high school diploma, compared to over 80 percent of all Americans. We heard testimony that while many of these people may speak conversational English, they have been denied the educational instruction--often as a result of intentional discrimination--that would allow them to understand complex electoral issues and technical voting terminology in English alone. Finally, it is crucial that we extend the guarantees of all of the temporary provisions of the act for 25 years. Twenty-five years is not a long time when compared to the centuries of oppression that the law is intended to overcome. While we have made enormous progress, it takes time to overcome the deep-seated patterns of behavior that have denied minorities full access to the ballot. Indeed, the worst thing we could do would be to allow that progress to slip away because we ended the cure too soon. We know that the act is having an impact. We know that it is deterring discrimination. And we know that despite the act, racial bloc voting and other forms of discrimination continue to tilt the playing field for minority voters and candidates. We need to ensure that jurisdictions know that the act will be in force for a sufficiently long period that they cannot simply wait for its expiration, but must eliminate discrimination root and branch. The time has come to renew the Voting Rights Act. This historic piece of legislation renews our commitment to the fundamental values of America. It ensures that all of our citizens will have the right to play an effective role in our governance. It continues us down the path toward a democracy free of the blight of discrimination based on race, ethnicity and language. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: ``The time is always right to do what is right.'' The right thing to do is to pass this bill and the time to do it is now. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Just 2 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank our leader, Senator Reid, for his constancy in support of this legislative effort and for his encouragement to all of us on the Judiciary Committee. I thank my friend from Vermont for his kind words. Earlier today, there have been comments by my friend--and he is my friend--in the Judiciary Committee, Senator Cornyn, and also with regard to particular provisions in section 5, and later there were comments from Senator Cornyn and Senator Kyl about an amendment offered by Congressman Norwood over in the House of Representatives. I think it is important that the Record reflect the results of the extensive hearings that we had on these different issues because it is extensive, exhaustive, and it is presented by the floor managers, Senators Specter and Leahy. Senator Cornyn suggested in his remarks that he wishes we had taken more time to debate fully some of the issues raised by the reauthorization. In particular, he said he wished more time had been taken to consider the trigger formula for section 5. As an initial matter, the Senate began its consideration of renewing the Voting Rights Act with the very substantial record that had been assembled by the House, which contained over 10,000 pages that were the result of by over 8 months of House Judiciary Committee hearings. From our very first Senate hearing, Chairman Specter stressed the need to build a strong record in anticipation of challenges to the act's constitutionality. That's exactly what we did. We heard from legal scholars and voting rights practitioners. We held 9 hearings, heard from 41 witnesses, and received well over ten thousand pages of documentary evidence. That evidence showed, unequivocally that discrimination, including intentional discrimination, persists in the covered jurisdictions, and that the trigger is effective in identifying jurisdictions for section 5 coverage. Senator Cornyn joined a unanimous committee in voting for the committee bill, which retains the act's trigger formula. Senator Cornyn also held up a map of the United States depicting jurisdictions that would be covered if the amendment offered last week in the House by Representative Norwood had been adopted, which would base coverage on voter registration and turnout during the last three Presidential elections. Representative Norwood had a full airing of his proposal and many rose in opposition, including Chairman Sensenbrenner. The opponents of the amendment overwhelmingly carried the day. Senator Cornyn said that the Norwood trigger would not appear to gut section 5. However, under The Norwood formula, the State of Louisiana essentially wouldn't be covered. Yet, there is substantial evidence in our record of ongoing and recent voting discrimination in Louisiana. Yet the so-called updated trigger formula would exclude this sort of jurisdiction from coverage. Finally, Senator Cornyn and Senator Kyl discussed the provision of the bill known as the Georgia v. Ashcroft fix, which clarifies the retrogression standard in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Georgia v. Ashcroft. The bill restores section 5's ``ability-to-elect standard,'' which was set forth in the Beer case. Under the Beer standard, ``ability-to-elect'' districts include majority-minority districts where minority voters demonstrate an ability to elect the candidates of their choice. Contrary to the suggestions of Senator Cornyn and Senator Kyl on the floor, while the standard rejects the notion that ``ability-to-elect'' districts can be traded for ``influence'' districts, it also recognizes that minority voters may be able to elect candidates of their choice with reliable crossover support and, thus, does not mandate the creation and maintenance of majority-minority districts in all circumstances. The test is fact- specific, and turns on the particular circumstances of each case. As both Senator Cornyn and Senator Kyl noted, the Voting Rights Act is not about electing candidates of particular parties. It's about enabling minority voters to participate effectively and equally in the political process. I thank the Senator and yield back whatever time remains.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in May, the Senate passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act to standardize and strengthen registration and monitoring of sex offenders nationwide. Since its passage, the House and Senate have worked closely to resolve their differences and to improve the overall quality of the legislation. The bill before us today contains difficult compromises, but it has achieved that goal. This legislation is critically important to safeguard victims of sexual abuse from harm. It will help protect innocent people from violent offenses. It recognizes the victims and all the suffering both they and their families have endured. With this legislation, we are recognizing the loss of Molly Bish from Warren, MA. At 16, Molly was abducted from her position as a lifeguard, and her family endured terrible uncertainty until her remains were found 3 years later. Molly was a typical teenager who took great joy from life. Her nickname was Tigger, because she was always on the move. She is survived by her parents, John and Magi Bish; her sister, Heather; and her brother, John, Jr., who work every day to keep children safe, honoring her life and her legacy. With this bill, we also remember with sadness another Massachusetts resident, Alexandra Zapp. Ally was 30 years old when she was attacked and murdered in a public restroom by a repeat sex offender in Bridgewater, MA, in 2002. Ally's friends described her as a strong, smart, and independent woman. She had worked at the USA Sailing Association of Portsmouth, RI, where she was a keelboat training coordinator. Ally is survived by her mother and sister, Andrea and Caroline, and her father and stepmother, Ray and Linda. This legislation is dedicated to her memory, along with the memories of Molly Bish and the many other victims of terrible crimes. Several changes have been made to this legislation as a result of our work with the House. It is important to make sure that information on offenders who pose a potential threat is available to the public at large, and this bill provides for Internet listing and community notification about such individuals. At the same time, in order for the registry to be effective, it should be targeted toward those who present the highest risk to our communities. The current version takes a more sweeping approach toward juvenile offenders by expanding their registration requirements. The Senate bill allowed each State to determine whether a juvenile should be included on the registry. This compromise allows some offenders over 14 to be included on registries, but only if they have been convicted of very serious offenses. For juveniles, the public notification provision in this bill is harsh given their low rate of recidivism, which is less than 8 percent according to the most recent studies. For this reason, it is especially important that the bill includes funding for treatment of juvenile offenders. These provisions recognize that juvenile offenders, who have much lower rates of recidivism and have been shown to be much more amenable to treatment than their adult counterparts, shouldn't be lumped together with adult offenders. The bill also provides increased funding for programs to prevent these offenses before they occur. It also authorizes funding for sex offender treatment and management within the Federal prison system. These provisions will be helpful in reducing the future risks to society by convicted sex offenders. If Congress is serious about addressing this problem, it must commit itself to fully funding the legislation. All States currently have registration requirements for sex offenders, but this bill will create a system of national tracking and accountability that preserves the ability of individual States to provide additional procedures to assure the accuracy and usefulness of the registries. Massachusetts has a system that works. We are already doing most of what this bill requires, but our system goes beyond these basic requirements by providing individualized risk assessments of each sex offender who goes on the registry. These individual assessments, combined with hearings allowing offenders to challenge their classification, help ensure that States like Massachusetts can provide the highest quality of information on potential threats to the community while respecting the tremendous impact that community notification can have on offenders' lives. I am pleased that this legislation respects the right of individual States to innovate in this area and does not penalize States who go the extra mile to improve their registries. For this reason, section 125 of the compromise is very important. Each State will face challenges in the implementation of these new Federal requirements, and States should not be penalized if exact compliance with the act's requirements would place the State in violation of its constitution or an interpretation of the State's constitution by its highest court. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has concluded that offenders are entitled to procedural due process before being classified at a particular risk level and before personal information about them is disseminated to the public. Massachusetts has been vigilant in implementing a comprehensive and effective sex offender registry, and it should not lose much needed Federal funding where there is a demonstrated inability to comply with certain provisions of this new Federal law. No State should be penalized and lose critical Federal funding for law enforcement programs as long as reasonable efforts are under way to implement procedures consistent with the purposes of the act. It is essential that the Federal Government continue to collaborate and to provide support for State and local governments, including the prevention, intervention, and enforcement of antigang and antidrug activities as a result of this bill. At the same time, the new mandatory minimum sentences in the act aren't justified by any empirical data or sound policy. Mandatory minimums prevent prosecutors and judges from doing what they do best-- making individual determinations on sentencing, based on the circumstances of individual cases. With more than 2 million Americans in prison or jail--including 12 percent of all African-American men between the ages of 20 and 34--no one can seriously argue that there is an epidemic of leniency in Federal sentencing. This latest batch of mandatory minimums undermines more than two decades of legislative work devoted to striking a sensible balance between consistent sentencing and the need to provide judges with the discretion to make sure each sentence fits the crime. Although it is important to have strong penalties for crimes against children, I have major reservations about the broad expansion of the death penalty in this compromised legislation. It is clear that continued imposition of the death penalty will inevitably lead to the wrongful execution of more and more people. Justice Marshall, in particular, wrote powerfully on this issue. He believed that if our citizens knew the truth about the death penalty, ``its disproportionate imposition on racial minorities and the poor, its utter failure to deter crime, and the continuing likelihood of executing the innocent,'' it would be rejected as morally reprehensible. Last year, the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for juveniles--persons 17 years old or younger. The Court's ruling was significant. It was long past time to erase that stain from our human rights record. The basic injustice of the death penalty is obvious. Experience shows that imposition of the death penalty inevitably leads to wrongful executions. Many of us are concerned about the racial disparities in the imposition of capital punishment and the wide disparities in the State in its application. The unequal, unfair, arbitray, and discriminatory use of the death penalty is completely contrary to our Nation's commitment to fairness and equal justice for all, and we need to do all we can to correct this fundamental flaw. Finally, the national registry of substantiated cases of child abuse in this bill should not be implemented until Congress has a full understanding of its scope and effectiveness. The proposed registry raises serious implementation challenges and could create an additional and unnecessary burden for States. Not all States maintain the same registry information, and most States maintain different rules on disclosure. Tribal entities, which are included in this proposed registry, currently maintain no registries at all. I am concerned that this registry raises serious privacy concerns by including information on cases without the opportunity for due process. For this reason, it is important that the study on establishing data collection standards be completed before such a registry is established. Current standards for inclusion in child abuse registries vary greatly, with some requiring credible evidence and others requiring no standard other than the judgment of the case worker. During the most recent reauthorization of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, we improved current child abuse systems to ensure that law enforcement has the information it needs to pursue and prosecute cases. A new provision was added to require States to ``disclose confidential information to any Federal, State, or local government entity, or any agent of such entity, which has a need for such information in order to carry out its responsibilities under law to protect children from abuse and neglect.'' Rather than developing additional registries and reporting requirements, States need Federal assistance to effectively carry out their roles and responsibilities under CAPTA. I am concerned that this new registry will have limited value in improving or standardizing State recordkeeping for child abuse and neglect cases. Despite these provisions, I commend the work that has been done on this bill. Without further delay, it is important that we get this bill to the President so that it can be signed on July 27th, the 25th anniversary of the abduction of Adam Walsh, and to honor all of the work his parents have done in his memory to protect children in communities across the country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Teacher Center Act of 2006, to help establish and fund teacher centers across the Nation. Its goal is to provide more effective and relevant professional development for teachers, and create a network of support for them to share best practices, improve classroom training, and improve working conditions in their schools. It's a privilege to join my distinguished colleague, Congressman George Miller, who is introducing companion legislation for teacher centers in the House of Representatives. As research makes clear, good teachers are the single most important factor in achieving the success of students, both academically and developmentally. Students who receive good instruction can reach new heights through the hard work, vision, and energy of their teachers. Good teaching can also overcome the harmful effects of poverty and other disadvantages on student learning. In 2002, with the No Child Left Behind Act, we made a commitment to put a first-rate teacher in every classroom to help all students succeed in school and in life. But to reach that goal, we need to recruit, train, retain, and support our teachers. Today, about half of all teachers who enter the profession leave the classroom within five years. That's an unacceptable loss--the 5-year mark is just the time when teachers have mastered their work and are consistently able to improve the education of their students. Too often, teachers lack the training and support needed to do well in the classroom. Eliminating this deficit can make all the difference in their decision to remain in the profession. Teacher centers can help see that teachers have the professional development, mentoring, and support they need in order to succeed. Developing and expanding these centers is an important step toward enriching teachers' lives, enhancing their knowledge and skills, and encouraging them to stay in the profession and succeed in the classroom. The teacher centers model grew out of an innovative approach to supporting the professional development of teachers in England. That model enables teachers to become leaders and decision-makers in their own professional growth and in the environments in which they work. It enables them to collaboratively plan and implement staff development and reform that can be shared with their colleagues, as a means for reflection and improvement in their teaching practice. Since the initial creation of teacher centers in the United States in the late 1970s, we have seen how effective they can be in supporting teachers, so that they can respond more effectively to student needs and help them reach the high standards now required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Teacher centers offer valuable programs for educators when aligned with State standards and school district curriculums. The centers support new teachers during their first years in the profession, and their peer-to-peer networks facilitate communication and collaboration among teachers to improve instruction. The centers also help teachers incorporate new research into their daily routines, and support the use of technology and proven strategies to keep students engaged and help them do well in school. Most important, teacher centers are essential to the development of teacher capability and leadership. The training provided is aimed at building the capability of teachers to reach all of their students through differentiated instruction--a goal central to the promise of leaving no child behind. And by taking advantage of the support provided by teacher centers, educators can have a more active role in their own professional growth and eventually hold leadership positions in their schools and communities. As we know, teachers are on the front lines in the Nation's schools and in our efforts to improve public education. We cannot expect the quality of our classrooms to improve without investing more in the quality of our teachers. Teacher centers ensure that the nation's educators have the time, resources, and support they need to work and learn with one another. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my Senate and House colleagues in introducing the Protecting Children's Health in Schools Act of 2006. This bill will ensure that the Nation's 7 million school children with disabilities will have continued access to health care in school. In 1975, the Nation made a commitment to guarantee children with disabilities equal access to education. For these children to learn and thrive in schools, the integration of education with health care is of paramount importance. Coordination with Medicaid makes an immense difference to schools in meeting the needs of these children. This year, however, the Bush administration has declared its intent to end Medicaid reimbursements to schools for the support services they need in order to provide medical and health-related services to disabled children. The administration is saying ``NO'' to any further financial help to Medicaid-covered disabled children who need specialized transportation to obtain their health services at school. It is saying ``NO'' to any legitimate reimbursement to the school for costs incurred for administrative duties related to Medicaid services. It's bad enough that Congress and the administration have not kept the commitment to ``glide-path'' funding of IDEA needs in 2004. Now the administration proposes to deny funding to schools under the federal program that supports the health needs of disabled children. It makes no sense to make it so difficult for disabled children to achieve in school--both under IDEA and the No Child Left Behind. At stake is an estimated $3.6 billion in Medicaid funds over the next 5 years. Such funding is essential to help identify disabled children and connect them to services that can meet their special health and learning needs during the school day. This decision by the administration follows years of resisting Medicaid reimbursements to schools that provide these services, without clear guidance on how schools should appropriately seek reimbursement. The ``Protecting Children's Health in Schools Act'' recognizes the importance of schools as a site of delivery of health care. It ensures that children with disabilities can continue to obtain health services during the school day. The bill also provides for clear and consistent guidelines to be established, so that schools can be held accountable and seek appropriate reimbursement. The legislation has the support of over 60 groups, including parents, teachers, principals, school boards, and health care providers--people who work with children with disabilities every day and know what is needed to facilitate their growth, development, and long-term success. I urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting these children across the Nation, by providing the realistic support their schools need in order to meet these basic health care requirements of their students.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the attached bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my Senate and House colleagues in introducing the Protecting Children's Health in Schools Act of 2006. This bill will ensure that the Nation's 7 million school children with disabilities will have continued access to health care in school. In 1975, the Nation made a commitment to guarantee children with disabilities equal access to education. For these children to learn and thrive in schools, the integration of education with health care is of paramount importance. Coordination with Medicaid makes an immense difference to schools in meeting the needs of these children. This year, however, the Bush administration has declared its intent to end Medicaid reimbursements to schools for the support services they need in order to provide medical and health-related services to disabled children. The administration is saying ``NO'' to any further financial help to Medicaid-covered disabled children who need specialized transportation to obtain their health services at school. It is saying ``NO'' to any legitimate reimbursement to the school for costs incurred for administrative duties related to Medicaid services. It's bad enough that Congress and the administration have not kept the commitment to ``glide-path'' funding of IDEA needs in 2004. Now the administration proposes to deny funding to schools under the federal program that supports the health needs of disabled children. It makes no sense to make it so difficult for disabled children to achieve in school--both under IDEA and the No Child Left Behind. At stake is an estimated $3.6 billion in Medicaid funds over the next 5 years. Such funding is essential to help identify disabled children and connect them to services that can meet their special health and learning needs during the school day. This decision by the administration follows years of resisting Medicaid reimbursements to schools that provide these services, without clear guidance on how schools should appropriately seek reimbursement. The ``Protecting Children's Health in Schools Act'' recognizes the importance of schools as a site of delivery of health care. It ensures that children with disabilities can continue to obtain health services during the school day. The bill also provides for clear and consistent guidelines to be established, so that schools can be held accountable and seek appropriate reimbursement. The legislation has the support of over 60 groups, including parents, teachers, principals, school boards, and health care providers--people who work with children with disabilities every day and know what is needed to facilitate their growth, development, and long-term success. I urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting these children across the Nation, by providing the realistic support their schools need in order to meet these basic health care requirements of their students.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the attached bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill Yeomans, my Senate Judiciary counsel, be accorded floor privileges for the duration of the debate on H.R. 9 and any votes thereon.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to extend, as I think all of us in this body want to, appreciation to the Senator from Iowa, as well as the Senator from California and the Senator from Pennsylvania, for their long, continuing, and ongoing leadership in such an important area for families in this country. This afternoon, the debate on stem cell research will draw to a close. For Senators, life will go on. Next week, the Senate will deal with other issues and other questions. But millions of Americans don't have that luxury. For them, the struggle against disease isn't something they think about for a few brief days. It is something they confront every day of their lives. A child coping with endless injections of insulin and constant worries about blood sugar cannot simply turn away from this debate. Someone watching helplessly as a parent or a spouse succumbs to the tremors of Parkinson's disease cannot simply move on to other concerns. For us, a vote on stem cell research may take only a few moments in a busy day. But for millions of Americans, the consequences of our vote may last a lifetime. Should this lifesaving legislation pass through Congress, President Bush has said he will veto it. The President may believe that ends the debate, but it does not. This debate will continue as long as lives are diminished and cut short by diseases and injuries that stem cells might cure. This debate will go on as long as there are those of us who believe that rather than discard unwanted embryos, we should embrace them to bring fuller lives to millions of people. For their sake our battle continues--tomorrow, next week, next month, and in the days ahead. To those who suffer and cling to hope, we promise that we will never give up. The promise of a better day that embryonic stem cell research brings cannot be denied forever. I want to take a moment to address some of the arguments our opponents on this issue have made during this debate. Dr. Thomas Murray, one of the Nation's leading scholars in bioethics, has a simple saying: ``Good ethics starts with good facts.'' It is like John Adams, who said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' Sadly, on this most important ethical issue we have heard some very questionable allegations. We have heard that adult stem cells have conquered disease after disease and therefore our legislation is not needed, but the facts tell a different story. The Nation's leading scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, recently published an extensive study that disputes these claims. Contrary to the allegation of opponents of our bill, adult stem cells have not treated Parkinson's disease, cancer, lymphoma, brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, lupus, sickle cell anemia, heart damage, spinal cord injuries, and many other conditions. The Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation was so concerned about the misleading claims that adult stem cells are curing cancer that they sent Congress a letter setting the record straight. Their letter states that the studies used to support these claims are ``not extensive and by no means prove that adult stem cells are effective in treating these cancers.'' In fact, out of the hundreds of diseases and injuries that our legislation might address, only nine have shown promise for treatment with adult stem cells. Let's hope that in time this situation changes. If adult stem cells can cure cancer or Parkinson's disease or spinal injury in the future, we will all--all rejoice. But we must not foreclose the chance of progress with embryonic stem cells while this possibility is tested. No matter how deeply held the convictions are of those who oppose our legislation, they cannot erase the facts. The objective evidence has convinced the Nation's leading medical experts that embryonic stem cell research has unique potential and unparalleled promise. Our opponents have also said that because there have as yet been no cures from embryonic stem cells, we should continue to restrict the research. Is it truly a surprise that a discovery made only a few years ago has yet to move to the clinic, especially when NIH has been prohibited from funding the most promising areas of research? Knowledge about the function of DNA is the foundation of modern medical science. It underlies the development of every major new drug and medical treatment today. In 1973, scientists discovered how to splice pieces of DNA together, the fundamental breakthrough that led to the biotechnology wonders of today. But there were no clinical trials or new cures based on that historic discovery for years that followed. Human embryonic stem cells were discovered in 1998. Of course, they have not led to a range of new cures in the brief time since then, just as discovering how to splice DNA did not lead to immediate clinical breakthroughs. But it would be just as foolish to keep restricting stem cell research today as it would have been to stop basic DNA research in the 1970s because it did not produce instant cures. The ethical debate surrounding stem cell research is not unique. Such debates have accompanied many breakthroughs and new therapies. It is essential for researchers to be bound by strict ethical guidelines, especially in the early days of a new science as we seek to understand its potential. Such controversy also accompanied other lifesaving and beneficial medical developments, such as DNA research and in vitro fertilization. But now, DNA research has saved lives and is alleviating suffering. And IVF has brought the joy of parenthood to couples across America. Would any of us turn back the clock and shun the new medicines that DNA research has brought? Would any of us deny the joy of children to those able to conceive only through IVF? Of course not. In a few short minutes, the Senate will decide whether to open the extraordinary promise of stem cell research to millions of Americans who look to it with hope for new cures and a better day. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Two years ago I held a forum on stem cell research. One of the participants was Moira McCarthy Stanford from Plymouth, MA, whose 14-year-old daughter was suffering from juvenile diabetes. I received this letter from her: For as long as I can remember, I've had to take a lot of leaps of faith. I've had to believe my parents when they told me taking four or five shots a day and pricking my finger eight or more times a day was just ``a new kind of normal.'' I've had to just smile and say I'm fine when a high blood sugar or low blood sugar forced me to the sidelines in a big soccer game; or into the base lodge on a perfect ski day; or out of the pool during a swim meet. But when I watched, with my parents, President Bush's decision on Stem Cell research in the summer of 2001, I just could not accept it. You see the one thing that has helped me accept all I've had to accept these years is the presence of hope. Hope keeps me going. That night, President Bush talked about protecting the innocent. I wondered then: what about me? I am truly innocent in this situation. I did nothing to bring my diabetes on; there is nothing I can do to make it any better. All I can do is hope for a research breakthrough and keep living the difficult, demanding life of a child with diabetes until that breakthrough comes. How, I asked my parents, is it more important to throw discarded embryos into the trash than it is to let them be used to hopefully save my life. I am so happy to hear that the Senate is thinking of passing H.R. 810. I can dream again--dream of that great time when I write a thank you letter to the Senate, the House and everyone who helped me become just another girl; a girl who dreamed and hoped and one day, got just what she wanted: her health and future. That's all I'm really asking for. Mr. President, in a few moments we will have the opportunity to answer her. I hope the answer will be in the affirmative. I yield whatever time remains.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am proud to join with Senator Hatch in sponsoring the reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act. This bill will provide valuable assistance to the millions of children and adults in our nation who are facing an array of problems because of their injuries. First, it is critical for us to acknowledge the important role which the programs authorized under this bill can play for the large number of soldiers wounded in the war. As of June 2006--almost 19,000 service members have been wounded in Iraq and data continue to demonstrate that brain injuries are approximately two-thirds of the injuries suffered in the war. On top of that, there is an extremely high incidence of traumatic brain injuries among children between birth and age 14--approximately 475,000 a year--and some of the highest numbers of injuries are among children under the age of five. Soldiers and children--I cannot think of groups more deserving of our attention. Reauthorization of the TBI Act is crucial to continued federal funding for a range of traumatic brain injury programs. The bill will reauthorize grants that have provided vital assistance to States, Territories, the District of Columbia, and American Indian Consortia in building or enhancing coordinated systems of community-based services and supports for children and adults with traumatic brain injuries. In addition, when Congress first authorized the Traumatic Brain Injury Act as part of the Children's Health Act of 2000, it had the foresight to include funding for the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Traumatic Brain Injury Program. This program has played a crucial role because individuals with traumatic brain injury have help in returning to work, finding a place to live, accessing needed supports and services such as attendant care and assistive technology, and obtaining appropriate mental health, substance abuse, and rehabilitation services. Often those with brain injuries--including our returning veterans--are forced to remain in extremely expensive institutional settings far longer than necessary because the community- based supports and services they need are not available. Effective protection and advocacy services for people with traumatic brain injury can lead both to reduced Government expenditures and increased productivity, independence and community integration for patients. However, those who advocate for the injured must possess specialized skills and the work is often time-intensive. This legislation also provides funding for critical CDC programs that provide extremely important surveillance and injury prevention information. In a time when both the administration and Congress are searching for programs that provide the right kind of ``bang for the Federal buck,'' the recent findings in an Institute of Medicine March 2006 report show that the TBI programs work. Last year the various programs in the TBI bill were funded for a total of only $12 million--yet look at the good they do. Not only should these programs be reauthorized, the funding also should be increased. The IOM calls the TBI programs an ``overall success,'' stating that ``there is considerable value in providing funding,'' and ``it is worrisome that the modestly budgeted HRSA TBI Program continues to be vulnerable to budget cuts.'' As the IOM study suggests, this program must be continued and allowed to grow in order to ensure that each state has the resources necessary to maintain critical services and advocacy for the estimated 5.3 million people currently living with disabilities resulting from brain injury. Again, soldiers and children, I cannot think of two more deserving groups of people in our Nation. We owe them the services and advocacy that these critical programs offer. And I urge our colleagues to support the passage of this important piece of bipartisan disability legislation this year.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am proud to join with Senator Hatch in sponsoring the reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act. This bill will provide valuable assistance to the millions of children and adults in our nation who are facing an array of problems because of their injuries. First, it is critical for us to acknowledge the important role which the programs authorized under this bill can play for the large number of soldiers wounded in the war. As of June 2006--almost 19,000 service members have been wounded in Iraq and data continue to demonstrate that brain injuries are approximately two-thirds of the injuries suffered in the war. On top of that, there is an extremely high incidence of traumatic brain injuries among children between birth and age 14--approximately 475,000 a year--and some of the highest numbers of injuries are among children under the age of five. Soldiers and children--I cannot think of groups more deserving of our attention. Reauthorization of the TBI Act is crucial to continued federal funding for a range of traumatic brain injury programs. The bill will reauthorize grants that have provided vital assistance to States, Territories, the District of Columbia, and American Indian Consortia in building or enhancing coordinated systems of community-based services and supports for children and adults with traumatic brain injuries. In addition, when Congress first authorized the Traumatic Brain Injury Act as part of the Children's Health Act of 2000, it had the foresight to include funding for the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Traumatic Brain Injury Program. This program has played a crucial role because individuals with traumatic brain injury have help in returning to work, finding a place to live, accessing needed supports and services such as attendant care and assistive technology, and obtaining appropriate mental health, substance abuse, and rehabilitation services. Often those with brain injuries--including our returning veterans--are forced to remain in extremely expensive institutional settings far longer than necessary because the community- based supports and services they need are not available. Effective protection and advocacy services for people with traumatic brain injury can lead both to reduced Government expenditures and increased productivity, independence and community integration for patients. However, those who advocate for the injured must possess specialized skills and the work is often time-intensive. This legislation also provides funding for critical CDC programs that provide extremely important surveillance and injury prevention information. In a time when both the administration and Congress are searching for programs that provide the right kind of ``bang for the Federal buck,'' the recent findings in an Institute of Medicine March 2006 report show that the TBI programs work. Last year the various programs in the TBI bill were funded for a total of only $12 million--yet look at the good they do. Not only should these programs be reauthorized, the funding also should be increased. The IOM calls the TBI programs an ``overall success,'' stating that ``there is considerable value in providing funding,'' and ``it is worrisome that the modestly budgeted HRSA TBI Program continues to be vulnerable to budget cuts.'' As the IOM study suggests, this program must be continued and allowed to grow in order to ensure that each state has the resources necessary to maintain critical services and advocacy for the estimated 5.3 million people currently living with disabilities resulting from brain injury. Again, soldiers and children, I cannot think of two more deserving groups of people in our Nation. We owe them the services and advocacy that these critical programs offer. And I urge our colleagues to support the passage of this important piece of bipartisan disability legislation this year.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I am to be recognized for 20 minutes. I would like the Chair to let me know when I have 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my friend and colleague from North Dakota in giving special recognition to Mrs. Reagan on this issue. As someone who has been interested in this issue for some time, as many of my colleagues have, I think all of us pay tribute to her, to a very gracious, lovely, wonderful, warm First Lady and someone I admire so much because after she has been to the top of the mountain, so to speak, and entitled to a very secure and well-deserved retirement, she is still restless about this issue and tireless about talking with people and speaking about this issue with great knowledge, great awareness, great understanding, and great compassion. I mention that at this time. I think we all know this debate has moved farther down the road toward a hopeful conclusion because of her work. Today, the Senate begins the debate on legislation unlike any other we have considered this year. Today's debate is not about economic gain or loss or helping one State or one region of the country. Today's debate is about something far more basic, something that touches the spirit of every American. Today's debate is about hope. Hope is one of those qualities of spirit that makes us human. Hope allows us to dream of a better life for our children, our community, our world, and especially for loved ones now suffering or in pain. Hope is what stem cell research holds for the parents of children with diabetes who dream of a day when their constant fears for their children's well-being are things of the past. Hope is what stem cell research brings to those with Parkinson's disease who long for a time when the tremors of that disease are banished forever. Hope is what stem cell research brings to millions of Americans who seek better treatments and better drugs for cancer or diabetes, spinal injury, and many other serious conditions. And hope cannot be extinguished or destroyed, but it can be delayed. In the Bible, the Book of Proverbs tells us: Hope deferred makes the heart sick. And today hearts are sick almost to the breaking point because, for the last 5 years, the Bush administration has shut down the stem cell research program begun at the National Institutes of Health and imposed the arbitrary restrictions on this lifesaving research. Hope soared anew a year ago when the House of Representatives set aside partisan differences and courageously approved legislation to end those restrictions and to give our scientists the tools they need to make the progress in the fight against disease. The vote in the House affirmed that embryonic stem cells can promote a true culture of life by enabling fuller, longer lives for millions of our citizens. The House voted for hope, for progress, and for life. The supporters of this legislation in the Senate come from backgrounds as diverse as its proponents in the House. All of the supporters of H.R. 810, with our different backgrounds and different faiths, representing different parts of this country, have concluded that support of this legislation is the moral choice to make. The legislation before us takes only two actions, but they hold the key to medical progress. First, our legislation overturns the restrictions on the embryonic stem cell research imposed by Presidential order 5 years ago. That unilateral action by the administration bypassed Congress and froze progress in its tracks by barring the NIH from funding research on stem cells derived after 9 p.m. eastern daylight time, August 9, 2001--an arbitrary date and time chosen solely to coincide with a Presidential speech. At the time the President's order was issued, it was claimed that over 60 independent stem cell colonies, or lines, would be available to NIH researchers. Initially, the NIH listed 78 such lines in its registry, but time and the unalterable facts of science have shown that two-thirds of these lines are useless or that claims about them proved to be an illusion. Today, only 21 stem cell lines are available to NIH researchers, and all of these were obtained using out-of-date methods and outmoded techniques. Each of these 21 lines is contaminated with animal tissue because each was cultured on a so-called feeder layer of mouse cells. Techniques developed since 2001 have allowed scientists to grow stem cells without mouse cells, but these are all off limits to NIH-funded scientists because of the administration's restrictive policy. Even if the 21 lines were not contaminated with mouse cells, they would still be unusable for treatments. The reason is that the use of every one of these cells is constrained by a legal contract called a material transfer agreement, and each of these documents contains a clause forbidding the use of the cells in patients. Let me be clear. If the cells in the NIH registry weren't already useless for treatment because they are contaminated, they would be useless because the contract under which they are provided forbids their use in patients. Five years ago, we warned that imposing an arbitrary date restriction on new stem cell lines would freeze progress by denying NIH researchers access to new lines that might hold the key to medical breakthroughs, and these fears have proven well-founded. Since the restrictions were imposed, scientists working overseas or with limited private funds have developed new lines with exceptional promise for research. For example, Dr. Douglas Melton at Harvard has derived 17 new stem cell lines with improved techniques. Scientists at the University of California have shown that stem cells can be derived without contamination from animal cells. And doctors in Israel have developed stem cell lines that have genetic traits with the potential of treating hereditary diseases, such as muscular dystrophy. These astonishing breakthroughs could lead to new cures and new understanding of these disorders, but the administration's restrictions bar NIH from supporting research to explore their promise. To unlock the healing power of stem cell research, the first action our legislation takes is to end the ban that keeps NIH from supporting research on new stem cell lines. But science without ethics is like a ship without a compass. Strong ethical guidelines are needed to ensure that scientific progress follows the moral course that we as a society set. For this reason, the second major action our legislation takes is to establish ethical safeguards for stem cell research. And once again allowing NIH to lead stem cell research, we bring more research under the strong ethical standards that are part of every NIH grant for any kind of medical research. The bedrock principles of these standards are informed consent of the patient and approval of an ethics committee. In addition, when it comes to stem cell research, our legislation requires NIH to go beyond these general requirements and requires NIH to issue specific standards for stem cell research. Before the NIH stem cell research program was terminated in the early days of the Bush administration, it had developed an extensive and robust ethical framework for the research. These requirements include an extra level of review to assure that all research was conducted according to special protections applicable to stem cell research. They limit research only to cells derived from embryos from fertility clinics that were never to be used to initiate a pregnancy and were likely to be discarded. They prohibit payment for donation of cells. They forbid improper inducements to donate embryos to further ensure that all cells used for research must come from embryos that would not be used to initiate a pregnancy. I want to take a moment to discuss this last point in detail. Even with the intense debate on stem cells over the last 5 years, there remains some confusion about the source of stem cells. The cells are not derived from fetuses, they are not from embryos that might otherwise have been used to start a pregnancy. Our legislation explicitly requires the stem cells to be derived: From human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purpose of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment. Those are the words, Mr. President. In fertility clinics around the country, there are thousands of embryos that are simply thrown away. Hundreds of thousands more are frozen and never used. They are not the result of a pregnancy; they are not the product of an abortion or a miscarriage. The only way they can produce life is to be implanted in a woman, and these embryos we propose to save for research have not been and will not be. We believe it is better to save embryos that would otherwise be destroyed so they can give the gift of life to patients who are suffering. Life is too precious to allow an opportunity to cure illness to be simply thrown away. Some say this debate is only about science, and that it is not a moral choice. I disagree. A vote on this bill involves a deeply moral choice. It is a choice between making progress toward better treatment for patients or spurning a chance for new cures. There are deeply moral people on both sides of this debate, but I am convinced that medical progress is the right one. We have faced similar choices many times in the past. In the 1970s, Congress was considering whether to ban research on recombinant DNA-- the very foundation of biotechnology. Then, as now, some raised ethical concerns or dismissed the promise of this research as a pipedream, and urged Congress to forbid it. In the 1980s, Congress made the right choice by rejecting attempts to outlaw IVF, a technique that has fulfilled the hopes and dreams of thousands of parents who never would have been able to have a child otherwise. Other forms of medical progress brought similar controversy: transplantation, blood transfusion, even vaccines. All of these breakthroughs were once new and controversial, with strong voices raised against them. All were discussed and debated and eventually adopted in ways that are consistent with American values. Each time we looked to the future and saw the potential of controversial research, we chose progress, and the benefits have been immense. We should make the same choice on stem cell research. We should not allow the misplaced fears of today to deny patients the cures of tomorrow. Some argue that we should support research on adult stem cells, or stem cells from umbilical cords, or stem cells derived from using new genetic techniques. I agree. We should leave no stone unturned in the search for new cures. Perhaps some cures will come from one technique and other breakthroughs from another. Let's encourage our scientists to explore every avenue that is ethical and could lead to progress. But there is no sense in closing the door on one of the most promising areas of medical research discovered in decades, while we wait for other, less hopeful methods to show success or failure. That is not my assessment; it is the judgment of every major scientific leader in America. According to a letter by 80 Nobel laureates: For disorders that prove not to be treatable with adult stem cells, impeding human pluripotent stem cell research risks unnecessary delay for millions of patients who may die or endure needless suffering while the effectiveness of adult stem cells is evaluated. The Institute of Medicine was just as clear on the need for embryonic stem cell research: Embryonic stem cells studied in animals clearly are capable of developing into multiple tissues and capable of long-term self-renewal in culture, features that have not yet been demonstrated with many adult stem cells. In a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the Director of the NIH, said: It is clear that more cell lines would be helpful in ensuring expeditious progress in this important field of science. His conclusions were echoed by other NIH Institute Directors such as Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, head of the NIH Institute on Heart, Lung and Blood Disorders, who said: The limitations of existing cell lines are hindering scientific progress among a community that is very eager to move forward in this promising area. The judgment of the Nation's scientific leaders could not be clearer or more emphatic: Yes, we should study adult stem cells, but we should let science decide which approach works best for patients. But in the end, this debate is not about abstract principles or complex terms of science. It is about people who look with hope to stem cell research to help them with the challenges they face. Two years ago, I held a forum in Boston on the promise of stem cell research. One of the participants was Moira McCarthy Stanford from Plymouth, MA, whose 14-year-old daughter Lauren has juvenile diabetes. I wish to end my remarks today with a letter that Lauren wrote to me. It explains far more eloquently than any Senator could the urgent need to pass this legislation. These are Lauren's words: For as long as I can remember, I have had to take a lot of leaps of faith. I have had to believe my parents when they told me taking four or five shots a day and pricking my finger eight or more times a day was just a new kind of normal. I had to--

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Presiding Officer. I had to just smile and say I'm fine when a high blood sugar or a low blood sugar forced me to the sidelines in a big soccer game, or into the base lodge on a perfect ski day, or out at the pool during a swim meet. But when I watched, with my parents, President Bush's decision on stem cell research in the summer of 2001, I just could not accept it. You see, the one thing that has helped me accept all I have had to accept these years is the presence of hope. Hope keeps me going. That night, President Bush talked about protecting the innocent. I wondered then: What about me? I am truly innocent in this situation. I did nothing to bring my diabetes on. There is nothing I can do to make it any better. All I can do is hope for a research breakthrough and keep living the difficult, demanding life of a child with diabetes until the breakthrough comes. How, I ask my parents, is it more important to throw discarded embryos into the trash than it is to let them be used to hopefully save my life. I am so happy to hear that the Senate is thinking of passing H.R. 810. I can dream again--dream of that great day when I write a thank you letter to the Senate, to the House, and everyone who helped me become just another girl; a girl who dreamed and hoped and one day, got just what she wanted: her health and her future. That's all I'm really asking for. Those are Lauren's words, and they command us to act. Tomorrow, we must cast a vote of conscience and of courage. We must reaffirm that our common value of bringing hope to those who need it outweighs any single ideology. We must approve the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and we must call upon the President of the United States not to veto hope. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Let me ask, if we had a 9/11-type situation and you had Wal-Mart that was closed down, with broken windows, and they have a series of guns in the back, and K-Mart and pawn shops were broken down, does the purpose of this for first responders say they have to leave those guns on the shelves so that looters can arm themselves and terrorize a community? Would that be the result, in your reading of this?