Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. And the time is divided?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, America deserves laws that protect both their security and their civil liberties. This conference report does not. After years of doubt about the PATRIOT Act, this morning Americans woke up to more startling reports. For the past 3 years, the administration has been eavesdropping on hundreds of calls without warrants or oversights. These are the newspapers: ``Bush Authorized Domestic Spying.'' ``Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts.'' Well, the administration is not responding to the article, but they tell us: Trust us. We follow the law. Give me a break. Across the country and across the political spectrum, no one is buying it anymore. This administration feels it is above the law, and the American people and our Constitution pay the price. There is no accountability. There is no oversight. The President continues to ignore history. In the 1970s, Big Brother spied on its citizens, and the American people stood up and said ``no.'' President Nixon's program, the COINTELPRO, allowed broad spying on law-abiding American citizens. We stopped Big Brother then by establishing the FISA court to ensure proper oversight and protections. Now this administration believes it is above even those protections. This is Big Brother run amok. With these new developments, we must take a step back and not rush the PATRIOT Act, further risking our civil protections. The entire world is watching to see how we strike the balance between intelligence gathering and the Constitution. We cannot protect our borders if we do not protect our ideals. We need a bipartisan consensus that protects both our security and our liberty while restoring the public trust. Our country is at a new low. Not since Watergate has there been such a lack of openness and honesty in our Government. Americans deserve better. The leaking of a CIA agent's identity is the prime example. The President promised he would clean house of anyone in the White House who had anything to do with the leak in the Plame case or the coverup. It has been suggested that the President himself may know the identity of the source, and I urge him to set the record straight. The President needs to answer three questions: One, what did he know and when did he know it? Two, did he tell the special prosecutor, Fitzgerald, the whole story? And, three, who else knows the facts? Cheney? Gonzales? Ashcroft? If Novak knew and the President knew, then the American people should know, too. Mr. President, answer these questions. In the last few days, we have heard a lot about whether America will be safer if the Senate approves the PATRIOT Act conference report this week. Let's set the record straight--our national security will not be 3 jeopardized--at all--if existing laws stay in place for 3 more months. These surveillance methods will expire only if the Republican leadership refuses to negotiate--even with Members of their own party. We have unfinished business on the table. The conference report fails to do all we can to improve intelligence-gathering capabilities and legislative oversight. Americans deserve a law that protects both their security and their liberties, and this bill does not. We need to preserve the basic powers created by the PATRIOT Act, but we also need to improve the safeguards that are indispensable to our democracy. Civil liberty protections are a continuing source of our country's strength--not just fringe benefits to be abandoned in time of crisis. We all agree on the need for law enforcement and intelligence officers to have strong powers to investigate terrorism, to prevent future attacks, and improve information-sharing between Federal, State and local law enforcement. In the wake of the tragic events on September 11, Congress, the administration, and the country faced the urgent need to do everything possible to strengthen our national security and counterterrorism efforts, and the original PATRIOT Act was our response to that need. Even at that time, many of us had concerns about whether the law went too far. In November 2001, Nancy Talanian and a small group of neighbors in western Massachusetts came together to launch the Bill of Rights Defense Committee--what has now become a nationwide movement to protect the Bill of Rights. This small Massachusetts group encouraged similar community discussions across the country. Seven States and hundreds of local governments engaged in vigorous public debate on the scope of the PATRIOT Act. As of this week, 400 resolutions have been passed. These efforts can't be casually dismissed because the administration claims there have not been any ``verified abuses'' of the PATRIOT Act. The Republican leadership tells us that time has run out and this legislation must be passed without further debate. We are told that enough oversight has taken place. But it took 2 years--2 years--for the Department of Justice to respond to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee about the use of the PATRIOT Act tools. We didn't receive the significant written answers until after the committee approved its bill. We then learned that the Federal Government has only reported three instances in which a U.S. person was informed of a search because there was no national security interest in keeping it secret. Only three times has the Attorney General notified a United States person that they have been searched. Yet we read more newspaper stories about FBI mistakes. The FBI says it averages about 10 mistakes a year. As a result of litigation, the FBI has admitted publicly that unauthorized electronic surveillance has gone on for months before mistakes were caught. Now, I don't doubt that the FBI is trying to do a good job--but how many mistakes does it take to count as an abuse? This administration tells us to disregard such mistakes because the information is being collected only about individuals linked to terrorism. Clearly, that is not the case. I know personally about mistakes in the war on terror. Not long ago. I was on the no-fly list, and had to make a number of calls to clear up the resulting confusion. Countless others have had a similar experience. I received a letter from a man in California. He had gone to the airport with his family to begin a vacation to Disneyland. Arriving at the airport, they encountered an unexpected surprise. His nephew, Liam Collins--at that time just 7 years old--was on the government's no-fly list. Seven years old and on the no-fly list. Liam and his family convinced airport officials it was a ``mistake.'' Liam made it to Disneyland but he sent me a picture about his experience--which had become a memorable part of the trip. Since then, Liam hasn't traveled by plane, so no one knows whether the ``mistake'' has been fixed. What about other mistakes? The Justice Department tells us that the so-called libraries provision has never even been used to search a library. That may be just a clever way of saying that it is happening in a different way. In 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft told Congress that ``national security letters'' would be the better tool for library searches anyway. Maybe Ashcroft was right. The so-called libraries provision has only been used 35 times--but over 30,000 national security letters have been issued, according to the Washington Post. The public doesn't know if that number is accurate, because the administration refuses to confirm it. The conference report will require public reporting on the use. It will also require the Inspector General to audit their use. But under these authorities, the Government is not required to obtain a court order. Your local library has no clear right to challenge demands for computer records in court. For consumers, there is zero protection--much less notice--if your records are taken by mistake. The recipient of a national security letter is barred forever from talking about it--even if the need for secrecy no longer exists. On these national security letters, the conference report has two major shortcomings. One of the most glaring omissions is the failure to include a sunset provision for national security letters, which would be consistent and logical given the new reporting and auditing provisions contained in the conference report. Without doubt, it is more meaningful to have a sunset on a provision used 30,000 times than one that is used 35 times. What we anticipated 4 years ago is abundantly clear now: 4-year sunsets are the only means to ensure adequate congressional oversight of controversial law enforcement and counterterrorism activities. In addition, recipients of these orders should have a meaningful right to judicial review. The administration's acquiescence in giving recipients the right to consult an attorney is not a meaningful concession. The Justice Department has already taken that position in litigation. The conference report does not advance civil liberties on that point. In fact, it makes it harder to win in court. Under the conference report, banks, phone companies, and libraries challenging these authorities will have to overcome an even higher threshold in court, and companies may have to turn over records even where there is not even an individualized suspicion of terrorism. The Federal Government should focus on whether the country is doing enough to protect citizens from another terrorist attack, and is providing adequate safeguards to protect fundamental civil liberties. What Americans want and deserve is responsible legislation. Our Senate bill included the necessary assistance for law enforcement, while maintaining fundamental protections in accord with the Bill of Rights. As a result, it received unanimous approval of the entire Senate. At the first and only meeting of this conference, I urged my colleagues to support the Senate bill, keeping in mind the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which made clear that the executive branch has the burden of proof to justify why a particular governmental power should be retained--and Congress has the responsibility to see that adequate guidelines and oversight are made available. On the two most contentious surveillance methods, the executive branch has failed to meet the 9/11 Commissioners' burden of proof--much less the burden of persuasion. The American people are not convinced that these methods achieve the right balance between our national security and protection of our civil liberties. This conference report, however, failed to meet the 9/11 Commissioners' recommendations. It is especially alarming that the Commissioners' report card gave five failing grades in key areas of need. Obviously, America is not as safe as it should be. Snooping on library computers is no substitute for strong and effective steps to prevent terrorist attacks. With this conference report, some harsh provisions were deleted, but other abusive provisions were added. Debate about extraneous provisions took priority over improvements in the core provisions. It appears that the PATRIOT Act can't get better without also getting worse. The administration wants to get this bill done--but the American people want it done right. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting our bipartisan bill to extend the deadline for the expiring provisions for another 90 days. With a March 31 deadline, we can deal responsibly with the major issues still on the table. Serious concerns about the standards and oversight of the most contentious surveillance methods can and must be addressed. Our Senate bill contained fundamental protections in accord with the Bill of Rights. It passed with our unanimous support, and it is disappointing that this conference report fails to do the same. We need an effective strategy to win the war on terror, a strategy that strengthens terrorism laws that work, corrects laws and policies that don't, and protects the rights and privacy of all law-abiding Americans. The entire country is watching to see how we strike the balance between national security and the Constitution. We are very close to agreement on this bill. Let's take the necessary time to reach a bipartisan consensus that protects both our security and our liberty, and restores the public trust in Congress as an institution.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think the Senator from California had a unanimous consent request?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my Senate colleagues in paying tribute to Jon Corzine, congratulating him on his election as Governor of New Jersey, and commending him for his skillful service to the people of New Jersey and to the Nation as a Senator. For the past 5 years in the Senate, Senator Corzine has stood up for working families, for affordable health care, for pension security, and on many other challenges. Again and again, he has demonstrated his commitment to the fundamental principle of fairness--that government should represent the interests of all Americans, regardless of race, income, or disability. It has been an honor to work with him. Jon is committed to helping others achieve the American Dream. He believes very deeply that through hard work and determination, people can make better lives for themselves and their families. He believes this so deeply, because he has lived it himself. Growing up on a small farm in Illinois, Jon dedicated himself to his studies and graduated from the University of Illinois. He then joined the Marine Corps Reserve and began his impressive career in business and banking. His talents helped him rise in the business world too--from a bond trader at Goldman Sachs to chairman and CEO of the firm. Once his hard work and talent helped him reach the pinnacle of his profession, Jon decided to give something back by helping all Americans achieve their full potential. When he came to the Senate in 2001, he made an immediate impact, bringing the same talents and commitment in the business world to his work for New Jersey and the country. We could all see that Jon was a committed and progressive public servant, motivated by a strong sense what's right and what's fair. Not long after he was elected, the Nation faced a sudden challenge of massive corporate fraud, involving Enron, WorldCom, and others. Families' pensions were lost. Workers' savings went up in smoke because of cooked books and insider deals. The administration dragged its feet, but Jon stood up for those workers and sent a clear message to those executives that if they defraud the American people, they must pay. Jon's compassion and invaluable business experience helped persuade Congress to pass the most sweeping corporate reforms since the Great Depression. He brought that same knowledge of the financial markets and securities industry and that same sense of fairness to the battle to protect Social Security. When others tried to frighten the American people into undermining the most important social safety net program the Nation has ever had, Jon stood firm, and the so-called reforms were not passed. I was especially impressed by the way Senator Corzine rose to the challenge of 9/11 and rallied the people of New Jersey after the terrorist attacks. He was only 9 months into his term, but he stepped up and provided real leadership at a time of enormous crisis and uncertainty. He did his best to ease the grief of the survivor's families, and he did everything he could to see that the Federal Government lived up to its responsibility to provide relief to those families. Month after month, year after year, Jon also insisted that the 9/11 Commission get answers to their tough questions, no matter how entrenched the opposition. For 5 years, he has been a driving force to improve homeland security, by making sure that our Nation's ports receive the resources they need, and by pressing the administration to protect chemical plants in New Jersey and across the Nation. We will miss Jon's leadership and eloquence here in the Senate. The people of New Jersey are fortunate to have him as their new Governor, and I know he will continue the outstanding leadership we have all come to know and admire. New Jersey is in good hands, and I wish him continuing success in the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join with those on our side and I think most Americans in commending the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for his steadfastness and determination to make sure we are a fairer country, a country that is going to offer better opportunities for many of those who have been left out and left behind. I listened carefully to his excellent presentation earlier in outlining the choices, the alternatives for the American people presented in this particular legislative proposal. Once again, he has made the convincing case that we can, as Americans, do a great deal better in terms of those who have been left behind. With this recommendation that has come back from the conference which represents basically the Republican priorities, there are going to be millions and millions of Americans who are going to have a dimmer Christmastime this particular year. There is an extraordinary irony that we are within 9 days of Christmas Eve when families will gather around the Christmas tree, exchange gifts, will attend church services, and think about the spirit of Christmas. When they realize what their representatives have done in Congress, they know they will have a dimmer Christmas with fewer opportunities for their children and their parents and for the lives of working families in this country. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his excellent presentation and for the continued battle for decency in our country. As the Senator from Iowa has pointed out, this is an issue of choices for our Nation. Budgets are an issue of choices and priorities. He mentioned that during his presentation, and he has repeated the areas where we are going to see further reductions that are going to make it more difficult for families in this country. But you can't get away from the major fact, that a judgment and a decision has been made by the majority for a tax giveaway, effectively, to the wealthiest individuals in this country of $95 billion. Someone has to pay for it. The judgment that has been made by the majority party is that it is going to be the neediest members of our society who are going to have their belts tightened over this period of time. Nothing illustrates it better or more effectively than this chart illustrating where the House bill leaves tax cuts for the wealthy individuals under the Christmas tree but leaves middle-class families out in the cold. Families with incomes over $1 million will receive $32,000, and those families with incomes under $100,000 will receive $29. And people can say, Is that what this legislation is all about? Why in the world are you doing that? We just listened to the Senator from Iowa talk about all these cuts. What does that have to do with tax cuts? The fact is, if you are going to provide $32,000 in tax incentives to families making over $1 million in income and only $29 for families making under $100,000 in income, you not only have the issue of fairness if you are going to go for the $95 billion--it is grossly unfair in the distribution--but then you have to ask, How are we going to pay for all of that? The Senator has done a very comprehensive job in presenting that issue. I will take a couple of areas. We have gone through these at other times with the Senator from Iowa--and I commend him--in the health area, the neighborhood health centers, the training of personnel, all the range of public health programs. What I would like to do this morning is take a look at where we are with education funding. This chart shows where we have been in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002. Look what has been happening in the last 4 years, and this Republican bill contains a $59 million cut in education programs. Look at America's priorities as reflected in education. One can say money doesn't solve everything. It doesn't, but it is a clear reflection of a nation's priorities. This chart is backed up with budget figures. I have the budget items right here that reflect all of this. They indicate that this is what we are saying to Americans on the issues of education. In my State, we have made some important progress in education. We have made some important progress. Quite frankly, we put in place in our State a number of the reforms that were eventually put into No Child Left Behind--smaller classes and better trained teachers. In the NAEP test, which is the national education test, Massachusetts scored higher than all other states in reading, and tied for first in the Nation in math. In Boston, we saw a 19 point increase in the number of Hispanic students proficient on the math test, and a 10 point increase for African American students. These are the first major breakthroughs in the history of our country in these disparities. We are beginning to see progress because we have been investing in children. Not anymore. Here is where we are going: Right back to the good old bad days in terms of a nation's priorities in education. Today, we will have an opportunity, on the issue of education, to reaffirm what we did in the Senate. That was a bipartisan effort that produced a decent bill. We met our obligations under what they call reconciliation and the budget items. In a bipartisan way, led by our chairman, Senator Enzi, and with the assistance of Republicans and Democrats, what did we do? We--in our committee and on the floor-- virtually unanimously in our committee increased the maximum need based aid to Pell-eligible students to $4,500. Before that, we haven't been able to increase the maximum Pell grant. We have been flat on these Pell grants. These affect the neediest students. There are 400,000 students who won't go to colleges, who are academically qualified to go to colleges, because they can't afford the dramatic increase in the cost of tuition. The Senate did something about it. We increased these grants to $4,500, and we gave an additional boost to those students in their junior and senior years who are going to be studying math and science. Why math and science? Because as all of us understand, if we are going to have an innovative economy, we are going to have to invest in the degrees that are going to permit us to have an innovative economy. That is necessary not only because we need an invigorated economy, but we need strengthened national security and defense. We were able to do this in the Senate. What has the House of Representatives done? The House of Representatives has raised the interest rate caps for students to 8.25 percent. At that rate, the typical borrower will pay as much as $2,600 more on loans. They raise the origination fees on direct loans in the short term, which will cost the typical borrower $400; they impose a new 1- percent fee on all students who consolidate their loans. It is going to cost students, parents, and families thousands of dollars more to attend or to send their children to college. That is where the House of Representatives goes--increasing the cost of college for working families who are already struggling. That is why we believe it is so important that our negotiators hold firm to the provisions in the Senate bill. We meet our responsibilities, and we provide the kind of help which is so necessary for students in this country. That is what our bill does. We will have a chance to vote on our motion to instruct conferees this afternoon. We do not always have a chance to offer amendments or motions to instruct conferees on every subject matter but we will in terms of the issues on education and higher education. I want to mention one other item that the good Senator from Iowa has spoken to because I think it is enormously important to our fellow Americans. Here is the cover of Nature Magazine, publisher of the original human genome paper. The Senator from Iowa was visionary in ensuring that NIH was going to move forward in giving the support for the mapping of the human genome. With the mapping of the human genome, we have seen all kinds of possibilities in terms of health care and medical breakthroughs. We have seen medical breakthroughs in the historic diseases that have affected every family across America, including all of us in the Senate and the House of Representatives. We have seen breakthroughs addressing the problems of Alzheimer's, the problems of Parkinson's disease, the problems of cancer, the problems of diabetes. We have begun to see enormous progress that is being made. We are at the tip of the cusp. That is because we have had bipartisan cooperation. The Senate was working together, as we have in education. We worked together, Democrats and Republicans, all during period from the late 90's through 2002 to try to get investment in breakthrough research. Just about every scientist who has appeared before the Senate's Committee on Appropriations says this is the life science century. The possibility of achieving breakthroughs that benefit every family in America are virtually unlimited if we invest the resources. Does anyone think that is what this administration is doing? No. They say, let us give $95 billion more in tax breaks to the wealthiest, and let us cut all of that potential right off at the knees. That is what they have done. That is what is before us. That is why the Senator from Iowa has said that this is an unacceptable budget. Do not take our word for it. Look at the budget, the choices that have been made. If one goes back, at least in my State, and talks with families, they will probably be talking to you now about the Medicare D Program and how they are going to deal with the confusion. But underneath it all, when it comes to the end of the conversation, they will say: What are the possibilities of getting some real breakthroughs? My father has Alzheimer's, my uncle has Parkinson's disease, what are the real chances of doing something about these diseases? We have to take care of them. We love our family members, what are the possibilities of finding breakthrough treatments to save them? Every scientist and every researcher was moving along on this. We thought we had an agreement to consider the stem cell legislation, another area on which the Senator from Iowa has been a leader. We thought we had an agreement by the leaders that we were going to bring this up. The House of Representatives has acted on it. My State of Massachusetts has acted on it. Other States have acted on it. What is wrong with the Senate? They say, we have to take more time to pass more tax giveaways to the wealthiest individuals, we cannot afford to take the time to do the stem cell research. No, sir, we cannot do that. I say, this is the priority. That is why the Senator from Iowa is as worked up as he is. This is the reality of the NIH budget. Dr. Landis, who is the Director of the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke, says: If we are to fund new programs, we will have to stop funding old programs. For every young investigator, a senior investigator will be unfunded. For every senior investigator who's refunded, it means a junior investigator won't be.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I welcome that very important statement. What we are seeing from the research community is not only the progress that is being made in basic research, but the acceleration of breakthroughs through the use of advanced engineering and computers to fast track this kind of research. This chart reinforces the point that the good Senator has made. Four out of five new ideas will be rejected in fiscal year 2006. This chart states that 79 percent of grant applications to NIH will be rejected. This will be the highest percent of grant rejections in decades. In these grants lie the possibilities of life saving treatments and cures. When we are talking about the grants, as the Senator knows, we are talking about serious grants. These are not grants submitted by someone off the street saying: Listen, give me some dough, I think I think I have an idea. These grants have been researched, examined, and tested. They are the best, in the opinions of the scientists in that particular area, and are worthy of further progress. The opportunities for meaningful progress are in these projects. Eighty percent of those grants are being rejected. Why? Because we want $95 billion to go to the wealthiest individuals in this country. This is who is paying for the budget cut, this right here--the 80 percent of scientists whose grants will be rejected. With the budget squeeze and those few hundreds of millions of dollars saved, we will be able to provide the additional tax breaks, giveaways to the wealthiest individuals. Finally, I want to bring up the subject on which the Senator from Iowa has been the leader. I want to talk about the dangers of avian flu and the dangers of the pandemic. I have listened to the Senator make the persuasive case for our Nation that avian flu is a danger. I have listened to him stop this Senate and say: Look, we have to take action on this flu legislation. We have to provide the resources to deal with this challenge we are facing. I know this chart is difficult to read, but it is a time line going back to 1990. It lists all the warnings from June, 1992 through today. We see the warnings all the way back 1992: Policymakers must realize and understand the potential magnitude of a pandemic. Here's the warning in Hong Kong, 1997. Here it is in the GAO report: Federal and State influenza plans do not address key issues surrounding the purchase and distribution of vaccines and antivirals. Here it is from the World Health Organization: Authorities must understand the potential impact and threats of pandemic influenza. Here it is in Vietnam. Here is the December 2003 outbreak in Korea. The Senator rightfully challenged this body to say we have to do something about the pandemic threat. And we responded. I had the opportunity to be at NIH when the President of the United States made his commitment to this deal with $7.8 billion. What happened? The money that had been requested by the President, the money that had been put into the budget by the Senator from Iowa was struck out. The President requested it. The Senate went on record. We have the warnings. We have been told about this. Secretary Leavitt has spoken passionately about this issue. Former Secretary Thompson has spoken out about this issue. But we are still falling behind on pandemic preparedness. This chart is familiar to the Senator from Iowa but is one I think we need constant reminding of. Japan had their comprehensive flu plan in October of 1997; Canada, February `04; Czech Republic, `04; Hong Kong, `05; Britain, `05. We have gone through their plans and they are extensive. The United States released our plan November of `05, and it is incomplete. Do we think in this budget we are giving the assurances to the American people that we are going to be leaders, able to deal with a possible pandemic? Absolutely not. I share the real frustration of the Senator. He had mentioned earlier the problems they were going to have in terms of heating oil. Under current funding, families in Massachusetts will receive LIHEAP assistance that is effectively enough for only one tank of oil. Basically, low-income and middle-income working families use two to four tanks over the course of the winter, two to four tanks. They will have one tank under current funding levels. I think of the number of people, primarily women, who are waiting to go back to work. There are some women who want to go to work, but they do not have the childcare to take care of their child so they can go to work. In Massachusetts, 13,000 children are on waiting lists for childcare slots. Most of these mothers have the opportunities to go to work, but they can't without childcare assistance. I think that is a long, difficult wait for so many of these families who are constantly challenged to protect their child while going out and working and providing for their family. They are constantly facing that every morning they wake up. Do you think we are helping them? Oh, no, we are adding more burdens to them. There will be fewer slots, under this particular proposal, for those families. I think of the 160,000 people who are unemployed in my State and the 72,000 jobs that are out there waiting for people to be able to receive. The only thing that is missing is the training programs, to train part of the 160,000, train 72,000 so they can get those jobs. Do you think that is in this legislation so these families will be able to participate in their community, make even a greater contribution to their community, plus pay taxes? Oh, no. We are cutting back on that funding. There are further cutbacks on the training programs. We are cutting back or eliminating the dropout prevention programs. We are cutting back on the afterschool programs. The list goes on. The point has been made very eloquently by the Senator from Iowa. As the Senator from Iowa has pointed out and as I mentioned, this day is about choices in the Senate. It is about choices--whether, on the one hand, we think in our national interest it is more important to give the $95 billion in tax giveaways to the wealthiest individuals in this country. It is not even a fair plan. If you were for a tax program that was going to be fair, at least you could make that case, I would think, and hold your head up. This is $95 billion, and the $32,000 to every family earning over the $1 million and $29 to every family earning under $100,000--that is not even fair, if you thought that was the Nation's priority, paid for by the most vulnerable people in our society. I do not want to hear a lot from the other side talking about the Christmas spirit. We have seen how the Christmas spirit is reflected in real terms in their votes on these issues here. It is not going to be a happy one. In our motion to instruct on higher education, which we will address in the afternoon, the following Senators have indicated support. There are others that have contacted me about it as well. Senator Harkin and Senator Durbin, Senator Dodd, Senator Reid, Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerry, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Corzine, Senator Clinton, and I will add others as the day goes on. I thank my colleague and friend from Iowa for his excellent presentation, for his review of all these issues and questions, and for posing the vital issue for the American people, almost at the time of Christmas Eve. He has summarized it. There is no one more knowledgeable or understanding, or anyone who has been a more forceful advocate of all of these causes, than the Senator from Iowa. I thank him for his energy and persuasiveness and his presentation. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take 30 seconds because the other 30 seconds will be taken by the chairman of the HELP Committee. All this motion does is insist that the student aid program--which provides $8 billion more for Pell eligible students--that passed out of our committee, virtually unanimously, will be affirmed in the conference. Effectively, we are taking what was the bipartisan agreement in our committee under the leadership of Senator Enzi and instructing the conferees to support that position. Many of our colleagues have voiced their public support for this motion, including Senators Durbin, Harkin, Dodd, Reid, Lieberman, Kerry, Reed, Corzine, Clinton, and Lautenberg. If you are for American competitiveness in the global economy, you will vote for this motion. If you are for a strong national security, you will vote for this motion. If you are for opportunity for every American, you will vote for this motion. I urge my colleagues to join me in doing what is right for American families, especially at Christmas, and send a strong message that students need our help now. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all Americans are inspired by the way the Iraqi people once again demonstrated their courage, dedication, and resilience by going to the polls to place their future--and the future of their country--squarely on the side of democracy. Every American salutes our men and women in uniform who are serving so ably under enormously difficult circumstances, and whose dedication and sacrifice have made today's elections possible. More han 2,100 of America's finest soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and we owe them and their loved ones an immense debt of gratitude. We all hope that successful elections will give the Iraqi people new confidence that a brighter future lies ahead. Successful elections can and should be the turning point we've been waiting so long for, when our troops can begin to come home. As our Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalizad, said today, because the training of the Iraqi security forces is proceeding, ``some draw down can begin in the aftermath of the elections.'' An open-ended commitment of America's military forces does not serve America's interest and it does not serve Iraq's interest either. If America want a new Iraqi government to succeed, we need to let Iraqis take responsibility for their own future.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, tomorrow, we are going to have a series of votes in the Senate to give instructions to our conferees. It is an expression of the Senate to give instructions to conferees on priority items that are going to be before the conference. In this particular instance, it is dealing with the issues of higher education. I intend to address the Senate again tomorrow. I want to urge a favorable vote by Republicans and Democrats alike because the resolution I will be offering is a reflection of the action that was taken in our HELP Committee, chaired by Senator Enzi, in which there was extremely broad bipartisan support--virtually unanimous support-- for that position. That position basically was that the committee would have $8 billion in additional savings for need-based aid. Our intention is to give this additional aid to Pell eligible students. We would also offer an additional grant of up to $1,500 to Pell-eligible juniors and seniors who are majoring in math or science. We know that one of the great challenges we are facing in the United States is how we are going to deal with the challenges of globalization. We have to ask ourselves as Americans whether we are going to be consumed by globalization or whether we are going to accept the challenge and equip every man, woman, and child with the ability to compete in a global market and to equip our country with the ability to succeed in a global market. That means we must be the country, the society, the economy that is innovative and creative, and that is going to mean new opportunities that are presented. That is going to be essential not only for our economy but for our national security. The kind of investments we have and those recommended by our committee are a good start. I believe we are going to have to do more, and I welcome the opportunity to do more in the next session of this Congress. This motion that I offer and others support, that will be voted on tomorrow, is a reaffirmation of the importance of strengthening higher education. There are many different aspects of the education budget which are of concern to us. Senator Harkin and others have outlined those concerns. I join them in expressing our anxiety and disapproval at the fact that we are either going to support education or support greater tax incentives, essentially giveaways, to the wealthiest individuals in our country. This is really the issue. This is the question. We will have an opportunity to express ourselves tomorrow. The whole battle over the budget is an issue about priorities for our Nation. We can say expending more resources in the area of education isn't going to solve all of our problems, but it is an expression of a nation's priorities: investing, investing, investing to make sure that every young person who has ability, who wants to continue their education is going to be able to do it. Finally, I will just mention that the additional reason this motion is needed is because the Republican proposal from the House could actually increase the cost of college loans by more than $2,000. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk. As I understand, the leadership will work out the voting sequence, and we will have an opportunity tomorrow to go into greater detail on this motion.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as Congress meets for a final session before we adjourn for the holidays, we should be focused on the true meaning of Christmas and the special thoughts that Americans of many faiths have at this time of year regarding their families, their friends and neighbors, and the rest of humanity. Christmas is a season of great hope--a time of goodwill and special caring for others. That's what we should remember as we celebrate the birth of Christ, and the glad tidings of great joy that came to us that day. There are those in America who urge the return of the word ``Christmas'' to this holiday season. I believe that Christmas is more than a word. It is a belief in a power far greater than ourselves. It is a belief in the possibility of lives full of hope and fulfillment. It is a belief that each of us has a sacred obligation to care for one another and to help those in need--to lend a hand to the least of those in our midst. But I am sad to report, that is not what we are seeing in Congress this week. As families across America struggle to make ends meet with higher health costs, higher college costs, higher gas prices, higher heating costs, and higher housing costs, Congress is about to make things worse for them. Millionaires will be given tens of thousands of dollars in new tax breaks, but Medicaid cuts could mean that 22 million poor Americans will face a reduction in help from that lifesaving program and two million others may lose their health care entirely. Proposed budget cuts would mean that 750,000 poor preschoolers who are eligible for Head Start won't be able to get into the program. More than a quarter of a million poor Americans could lose their food stamps, and could face hunger. These cuts are proposed just as the Department of Agriculture reports that 38 million Americans face hunger, an increase of 5 million in 5 years. Hundreds of thousands of children could lose their child support because of Republican proposals to cut enforcement against delinquent fathers. Three million poor children could be left behind in school. They won't get the quality teachers and after-school help and supplemental services they need to catch up and succeed. Hundreds of thousands of airline workers--the ones who are helping us get home for the holidays--could see their pensions hanging in the balance, and millions of other Americans could lose their pensions, too. That is what is at stake in Congress this Christmas. Are these actions consistent with the spirit of this holiday season? Rather than debate whether the word ``Christmas'' should appear in our stores and on our greeting cards, shouldn't we be living out the hope that came from the first Christmas and do more for our fellow citizens than greater tax breaks for the rich and greater hardship for the poor and struggling middle class? As Christian leader Reverend Jim Wallis said last week: The Bible does not condemn prosperity. It just insists that it be shared. So I would hope that those in Congress who seek to lavish more tax breaks on the privileged few at the expense of the rest of America will reconsider--not only at Christmas, but throughout the year. Otherwise, what we face this week is a Republican plan in which billions of dollars will go from programs that assist low income families and senior citizens into the pockets of the already wealthy. The provisions in the House bill that would cut the tax rate on capital gains and dividend income are particularly unfair, because more than 86 percent of the tax benefits will go to taxpayers with incomes above $100,000 a year. Nearly half the benefits--45 percent--will go to taxpayers with incomes over $1 million a year. The average millionaire will save $32,000 a year from these tax breaks for capital gains and dividends. In stark contrast, families with incomes less than $100,000 would receive an average tax cut of only $29. This is by no means the only outrageous provision in the Republican plan--just the most costly. There are others. Republicans in the House propose a $5 billion tax break for financial services companies doing business in foreign countries. This provision actually creates a tax incentive for these huge corporations to invest abroad instead of in the United States. The spirit of Christmas should compel us to take another path. We should start investing in the health and well-being of all families. The average family is being squeezed unmercifully by stagnant wages and ever-increasing costs for the basic necessities of life. The cost of health insurance has risen 59 percent in the last five years. Gasoline is up 74 percent. College tuition is up 46 percent. Housing is up 44 percent. The list goes on and on, up and up--and paychecks are buying less each year. The economic trends are very disturbing for any who are willing to look at them objectively. The gap between rich and poor has been widening in recent years. Mr. President, 37 million Americans now live in poverty, up 19 percent during the Bush Administration. One in six American children lives in poverty and 14 million children go to bed hungry each night. Long-term unemployment is at historic highs. The silent slavery of poverty is not so silent anymore. Katrina focused the Nation's attention on the immense hardships that low-income Americans face each day, and presented us with an historic and challenging opportunity to find better ways to lift up the most vulnerable among us. This is Christmas. Surely, the American people deserve better. In the Senate, we did our best to respond to the needs of average Americans by helping to expand access to a college education. We cut the fat out of bank profits and put it back where it belongs--helping students afford the cost of college. Our bill included a virtually unprecedented increase in need-based aid--over $8.25 billion over 5 years. All together, it provides $12 billion in new aid and additional benefits for needy children who have the ability to go to schools and colleges all across this country--bipartisan, unanimous, out of our committee and on the floor of the Senate, all in jeopardy this afternoon. Hopefully, our good chairman, Chairman Enzi, will be able to fight for those provisions. But that is now in jeopardy from those who believe that tax breaks are more important than our children's future. Americans know that education is the great equalizer. When young people work hard, study, play by the rules to be well qualified academically, they should be able to attend college. The cost of public college tuition fees has skyrocketed 46 percent since 2001. That leaves the lowest income students at 4-year public colleges with an average of $5,800 in unmet need. Too many qualified students, 400,000 each year, do not go to a 4-year college. They can't afford it. They have the academic ability to succeed in those schools and colleges. They will not do that, and they cannot do that because of the finances. Almost 200,000 do not attend even a community college. This is not acceptable, and we should be able to do better. In addition, the Republican plan, as we found in the bill funding education and health care, will cut funds for public schools for the first time in a decade, leaving 3 million children behind. It provides no new funds for afterschool programs. It strips funding for technology in our schools. The bill covers even less of the cost of meeting the educational needs of students with disabilities. Instead of meeting our promise to parents and communities to do more, we are doing less. Remember when we passed the IDEA program, we said we would establish that the Federal Government would get 40 percent to pay for disabled children and that we expect the States and local communities to pick up the difference. Now we are retreating. We have attempted, under the leadership of Senator Harkin, to be able to meet that responsibility. And now we are finding that 18 percent is slipping and going in the wrong direction rather than helping States, local communities and parents, particularly the parents that have disabled children. It leaves Pell grants frozen in place for the fourth year in a row, even as college costs are soaring. That is in the Republican proposal. The Republican proposal cuts job training, even as the number of good jobs is shrinking, and fails to provide adequate increases for programs to ensure worker safety. We have 161,100 unemployed workers in my State of Massachusetts. Yet funds for unemployment insurance offices and to help unemployed workers with job-seeking are being cut. The proposal cuts job training, even as the number of good jobs is shrinking. We have 73,000 jobs that are going, that are vacant by employers all over our State. But we are missing is the linkage between training these workers so they can get these jobs and so they will be taxpayers contributing to their community and making a difference. We are cutting back on that program. The House bill cuts the child support enforcement program by $5 billion over 5 years, resulting in a $24 billion reduction in child support collections over the next ten years. The House bill will reduce child support collections in Massachusetts by $140 million over the next five years. This is an enforcement program to make those who have an obligation to children take personal responsibility and help their children grow and learn. The House bill cuts this necessary and successful support program. There are currently over 13,500 children in Massachusetts waiting for child care. Do you know what? We are cutting back the number of Child care subsidies for low income families. Who knows how many more thousands of people will not work because they cannot provide and look after their children any longer. Does that particularly make sense with regard to the child and the parent in terms of the family? Clearly, it does not. Funding for unemployment insurance has been cut by $141 million, and funds for programs to help unemployed workers with job seeking have been cut by $89 million, even in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, with 8 million Americans unemployed. We know those within the administration would like to pretend Katrina never existed and the devastation that took place in Mississippi and New Orleans never happened. Those people should disappear, deny that those States are part of the United States of America. We are one country. We do have one history. We are one Nation. And now we pretending, evidently, that disaster never took place. Finally, I want to go into the area of health care. We live in an era of medical miracles. This is the life science century. We have had the mapping of the human genome, the DNA, the sequencing of the gene. These breakthroughs which were unheard of 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago, bringing together the latest new technologies in engineering, with the latest in terms of the possibility of research--and the possibilities are virtually unlimited in our lifetime--to see major breakthroughs for new cures for multiple sclerosis, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease. What do we do after the Congress and Senate doubled the NIH budget? We see the possibilities, but we are basically cutting back on those possibilities and cutting back for giving help and assistance to our fellow citizens. Finally, I am deeply concerned about what is happening to the millions of our fellow citizens who are looking to retirement and looking to pensions. We know there is effectively a three-legged stool for retirees. If you look at what has happened to their savings, they have been effectively eviscerated, wiped out because of the sudden increased costs that working families have been affected by. If they had been in the 401(k)s, they have had virtual stability and very little growth in recent years. The last major part is the pensions, and 700 companies have dropped their pension plans, and an estimated $8 billion in future benefits has been lost to American workers in the period of the last 5 years--$8 billion that has been paid in by American workers who sacrifice; who say: No, we will not take more wages to provide for our family now, we want to put something aside for when we require. No, we will not take that extra money so we can have a little vacation. We will put it aside. We need those resources. We will put it aside for another day. No, we will sacrifice in terms of additional time. We will work overtime, and we will contribute into the pensions, $8 billion in the last 5 years--and those numbers are going to continue unless we pass a pension bill. We can't get in conference with the House of Representatives. Do you want to know why? Because House Leadership is holding a bill effectively hostage in the House of Representatives. What are you going to tell those airline workers? You talk about abuse of power and abuse of authority. It is absolutely outrageous. The Senate moved toward a pension bill last month. We passed that with two dissenting votes--not everything that Senator Enzi would have wanted, not everything that I would have wanted, certainly not what a lot of others would have wanted. Our leaders in this, Senators Mikulski, Tom Harkin, Jeff Bingaman, and many others, bipartisan in nature, Republican and Democrats alike, got together and passed that legislation under the leadership of Senator Enzi, and we are being effectively stonewalled. The House could have engaged in a bi-partisan process. But instead they chose to forge ahead with a bill that has no Democratic support and that threatens our manufacturing companies, cutting off benefits for workers whose plants close; leaves older workers without protections when their companies switch to new plans; and leaves workers at the mercy of conflicted investment advice. That is why they are unable to pass legislation this year. I urge members of the House to take a page from the Senate's book. It is not too late to reach a consensus on a bill that can be passed quickly with Democratic support. We are talking about the holiday season. We are talking about the Christmas time. Hundreds of thousands of workers, retirees of airline companies, see their retirement on the line. That includes the retired mechanic, Randy Daly, of Apple Valley, MN, who spent 40 years as a mechanic at Northwest Airlines. At 61, he thought his best years were ahead of him. But now he has learned, if his company's pension plan fails, he stands to lose over 40 percent of his retirement benefits. Most of his fellow retirees fear a similar fate. Our airline companies are under tremendous financial pressure from terrorism, the recent catastrophes of Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina, and increased jet fuel costs. Some of these companies have filed for bankruptcy. The list goes on, as the Senator from West Virginia knows. The whole challenge is for many manufacturers, the hundreds of thousands of workers in companies such as Bethlehem Steel, LTV, many of the coal and other companies where workers have paid the price and lost their pensions. We should not be waiting more time for the brink of failure before we act. This legislation helps nearly millions of workers and retirees. We should not at this time turn them down. In the pension bill we also included the key reforms to respond to the Enron, the WorldComs, and other corporate scandals where employees were forced to invest in company stock at a huge risk and then lost it all while the employers walked away with huge pension security packages. Finally, we address the women's retirement security with provisions from the Women's Pension Protection Act, which was bipartisan. The Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, myself, and many others, recognized the particular challenges women have in terms of the pension issue. American workers and their families expect Congress to protect their hard-earned pensions. Americans expect Congress to help them send their children to college, not make it more expensive at a time when workers need more and more skills. Americans expect Congress to increase, not cut, education and job training. Americans expect Congress to help secure health care, not cut health care assistance. Americans expect more from us. Americans deserve better, especially at this Christmastime.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his kind words and for his typical graciousness. I am so glad we had an opportunity to have a brief celebration at your recent birthday. It is good to see the Senator up, as always, in fighting trim and fighting form. I am grateful for the Senator's comments.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know not many of our colleagues are here at this time, but I certainly hope a number of Americans have been listening to a very important history lesson and a real lesson about the rules and some fundamental issues and rights that have been debated over the last hour in the Senate. I think it has been enormously helpful and very informative. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. I have attended some 22 of these nominations. I have spent a good deal of time since the Senate went into recess in preparation for these hearings and will continue to do so. But I join with my friend and colleague from West Virginia in saying that I do not know a single member, certainly of the Judiciary Committee, who has said they are going to filibuster this nominee. Nor do I know a single member of this side of the aisle who has stated they were going to go ahead with a filibuster. A number of our colleagues, including myself, have been asked, Does this mean under any circumstances you will not? The appropriate answer is, as the Senator from West Virginia stated so clearly and compellingly, we are not going to give up any of our rights prior to consideration of a nominee until there has been a completion of the hearings and until we make a balanced and informed judgment. That is the responsibility we have because the Constitution has stated so. During the debates at the Constitutional Convention, our Founding Fathers considered on four different occasions who would have the right to nominate judges to the Supreme Court. On three of the four they gave the complete power and authority to the Senate. It was only in the last 10 days of the Constitutional Convention they decided that it would be a shared power: One, the President would nominate and, second, we had a constitutional responsibility to give our judgment whether we believed that nominee was committed to constitutional rights and liberties. That is the responsibility we have, which is an enormously important one. I do not think anyone could have listened to the debate in the last hour or so and not understood the strong feelings that not only the Senator from West Virginia but all of us have on this particular judgment. I do not think there is a decision outside of the issues of war and peace that is more important than the votes we cast for a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States. The debate is closed, but as a member of the committee I do want to correct a few items. We can go back through, but the record is very clear that Republicans have filibustered Democratic nominees. I was here at the time of Judge Fortas. So they have filibustered Democratic nominees in the past and denied them the right of a vote. As Senator Byrd has pointed out, I have been a member of the Judiciary Committee where President Clinton's nominees were effectively killed by denying them the opportunity to have a hearing. I have been in the Senate when we have had what they call secret holds and that is when Republicans put a hold on a nominee so that we do not even get a chance to consider the nominee. All of that is history and we should not be bothering about debating it. We can go back and debate whether it is history or it is not, but as a member of the Judiciary Committee and one who has been participating in these various debates and discussions, the record is very clear. It has been exhibited on the floor of the Senate in recent times in the discussions of it. So I want to join my colleague and friend from West Virginia. The last thing we need now is threats about the process and the procedure. What we need to have is an informed hearing on this nominee. As nice, decent, and fine a nominee as we might have, that in and of itself is not enough to promote this individual to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any nominee has to demonstrate his or her core commitment to constitutional values. Those are the most precious rights and liberties we have. The essence of the terms of the Constitution is to protect the rights and liberties of individuals, as has been pointed out by the Senator from West Virginia, from tyrannical governments, kings and monarchies. This is enormously important. We take our responsibilities extremely seriously. Reference was made during the consideration of the 1985 memorandum that Judge Alito had written, and I am not going to spend a great deal of time this afternoon going through it, but there are troublesome aspects of statements he made when he was applying for a job in the Justice Department. He has pointed out that it was just applying for a job in the Justice Department. So when he said he was so critical of the Warren Court that made judgments and decisions that guaranteed the rights of counsel in the Gideon v. Wainwright case, also the one-man, one-vote case which has been so fundamental against the background and history of gerrymandering of voters in this country which has excluded the rights of people, on those two important decisions--or the rights of a defendant in Miranda--when these decisions now are bedrock in terms of jurisprudence, we have to ask what was so troublesome to him in 1985 about those particular judgments and decisions? He says he was just applying for a job. Well, he was 35 years old. Now he is applying for another job. So there are important issues and questions which we have every right to go into. As to the Vanguard case, Judge Alito mentioned he would recuse himself from any decisions on the Vanguard case. Then the case comes for a decision in his court and he does not recuse himself. Then he writes to the Judiciary Committee some time later--after he had been to the Judiciary Committee and gave the Judiciary Committee the assurance he would recuse himself, he decided himself he would no longer recuse himself. Is that not interesting? Who did he notify? Did he notify the Judiciary Committee he changed his mind? Did he notify the circuit court? The White House says the reason he did it was because of a computer glitch. Then he says to the members of the Judiciary Committee that he did it because it was a pro se case, so it did not make much difference. Yet a pro se case is probably the most important. Those are cases which involve such individuals where they do not involve a whole battery of lawyers or law firms. When he gives his word to the Senate Judiciary Committee and then changes his mind, is it not worth finding out something about this nominee? So we are looking forward to this hearing. These hearings are enormously important. As one who has gone through the cases in which he has dissented--a good part of the cases he has been a part of the majority, a good part of the cases have not been published, they are nonpublished cases--I am certainly concerned about certain patterns that indicate a greater proclivity toward the powerful and less interest in protecting the smaller person, the little guy, on many of these cases. I am not prepared to make a judgment or decision on this. This is an enormously important consideration, and I could not agree more with the Senator from West Virginia. Why do we need to divert focus and attention on the process and the procedure when there is not a single member in the Senate who has said they were going to filibuster? Why attempt to chill debate and discussion? The only effect of this kind of comment is basically to threaten or to chill debate and discussion about a nominee. The Senator from West Virginia is not going to be intimidated, nor myself, but I do not think that serves the process well. It was entirely appropriate for the Senator from West Virginia to point out these comments that were on the front section of a newspaper, the New York Times, but wherever it was, wherever it was said, it was being said by the majority leader and the message was very clear. I certainly received the message, although I did not accept it. I do not think I would have been as clear and as eloquent as the Senator from West Virginia, but the message was very clear, do not you dare take too much time in consideration of this nominee or I am going to change the rules of the Senate in ways that are going to deny free speech. That is not where we should be in terms of giving fairness to this nominee and to give him the kind of thoughtful hearing which the Judiciary Committee is capable of doing and which it did under Chairman Specter during the Roberts hearing. I think Americans who followed that would feel the nominee was treated with respect and dignity and that members of the Judiciary Committee had opportunities to inquire and also to hear from other outside witnesses. That is the way it should go. I am confident that is the way it will go. I agree with my friend and colleague from West Virginia, the less talk about the threats about changing the rules of the Senate and particularly by the leadership, the better off we are going to be.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my friend from West Virginia. That is what that previous hour was about, and why it was so important, because it was about preserving this institution. I know I speak for all of us, I think pretty generally across both sides of the aisle, in saying that there is no individual who is more dedicated to the preservation of this institution and the magnificent framework in which our Founding Fathers had conceived of it. It was really that issue that was talked about in that previous hour. It is important, as all of us go through the process of pressing our own views and our own vision about the future of this country, that we hear the clear and persuasive and knowledgeable voice, the voice of history, that speaks about the institution and its importance to the American people. That is what we just heard with the exchange of the Senator from West Virginia. That is why I was so pleased to have an opportunity to listen. I just wish the other 98 Senators had that opportunity to be so informed as well. I thank the Senator for his kind words.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think you got your message across pretty well.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank Senator Byrd. Mr. President, I know we are in the morning hour of business; am I correct? I would like to be able to speak continuously. Do we have a time limit? I would like to be able to speak until I conclude.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, winter is coming, and it could easily become a perfect storm of high energy prices, bitter cold, and too little heat for those in need. Households heating primarily with natural gas will pay an average of $306 more this winter for heat, an increase of an incredible 41 percent over last year. Those relying primarily on oil for heat will pay $325 more, an increase of 27 percent. The poor, the elderly, and the disabled need our help and they need it now. Wilhelmina Mathis is one example of what is happening to the most vulnerable in our society. Wilhelmina is 71 years old and lives alone. All last winter she kept her thermostat set at 60 degrees to save money. She hopes the Federal Government will come through with more LIHEAP money. She says: ``I turn down the thermostat as low as I can and sometimes I turn it off and put on extra sweaters. I don't know how much longer I can keep doing this.'' We have tried four times this year to increase funds for LIHEAP, and all four times we were defeated by the overwhelming Republican majority who voted in lock-step to reject it. The failure of the Republican Congress to increase LIHEAP funds continues to put millions of our fellow citizens at risk. But the Bush administration and the Republican Congress are telling the elderly, the disabled, and children across America that it doesn't matter if they have no heat this winter--they aren't a priority. In fact, the Republican leadership is forcing us to make impossible choices. Look at the Labor-HHS bill. The Republican leadership is telling us that if we fund LIHEAP, we must cut health care for seniors, cut education for our children, cut essential job training funds for people trying desperately to enter the workforce and attain a level of self-sufficiency. It is unconscionable. Why are we being forced to help one family at the expense of another? We must increase LIHEAP funds and fight against cuts to other essential health, education, and labor programs. It is time for Congress to stand up for the American people. We tell them we hear them and understand their struggle, now it is time to put our money where our mouth is. We need to stop the rhetoric and take action. The American people deserve nothing less.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I was proud to serve on the Education Committee when it recommended the original Education for the All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, and I am proud to join Senator Enzi today as a sponsor of this resolution, which recognizes the major impact of the law on the lives of disabled children and their families across the Nation, by guaranteeing the right of every disabled child to a free public education. We know that disabled does not mean unable. Children with disabilities have the same dreams as every other child in America to grow up and lead a happy and productive life. We know that IDEA helps them fulfill that dream. It says children cannot be cast aside or locked away because they have a disability. Those days are gone in America--hopefully forever. Children with disabilities have rights like every other child in America, including the right to learn with other children in public schools and prepare themselves for the future. But even as we celebrate 30 years of continuing success in the education of disabled children, we continue to hear objections to the act's high cost, its paperwork, and the burden of litigation. Those are important considerations, but we can't let them overwhelm the vast benefit of IDEA. The act is about disabled children and their rights. It is about their hopes and dreams of living independent and productive lives. It is about parents who love their children and struggle for them every day against a world that is too often inflexible and unwilling to meet their needs. It is about teachers who see the potential inside a disabled child, but don't have the support or training they need to fulfill it. IDEA is our declaration as a nation that these children matter and that we will do all we can to help their parents and teachers and communities achieve their education goals. That is why the government should make a clear commitment to provide adequate funds for special education. What is needed is a solid education plan for each child, a way to chart the child's progress, and a way to hold schools accountable if they fall short. That is not placing an unfair burden on schools. It is the correct expectation of a decent school system in America. Brown v. the Board of Education struck down school segregation by race and said that all children deserve equal access to education under the Constitution. But it wasn't until the passage of the Education for the Handicapped Act in 1975 that the Brown decision had real meaning for children with disabilities. Only then did we finally end school segregation by disability and open the doors of public schools to disabled children. Only then did the Nation's 4 million disabled children begin to have the same opportunities as other children to develop their talents, share their gifts, and lead productive lives. We must never go back to the days when disabled children were denied public education, when few if any preschool children with disabilities received services, and when the disabled were passed off to institutions and substandard schools to be kept out of sight and out of mind. We have made immense progress since those days. Six and a half million children with disabilities now receive special education services. Almost all of them--96 percent--are learning alongside their nondisabled fellow students. The number of young children with early development problems who receive childhood services has tripled in the past 30 years. More disabled students are participating in State and national testing programs. Graduation rates and college enrollment rates for disabled students are steadily rising. The opportunities for further progress are boundless. We know far more about disability today than a quarter century ago. We have much greater understanding of childhood disabilities, and how to help all such children to learn and achieve. We are finding out more and more each year about the power of technology to enable these children to lead independent lives. It means they can communicate with others, explore the world on the Internet, and move in ways we couldn't have imagined 5 years ago, much less in 1975 when the law was first enacted. I hope all our colleagues will join us in recognizing the extraordinary role of IDEA in protecting the rights and broadening the opportunities available to children with disabilities. Let's work together to renew our commitment to IDEA and fulfill its great promise of hope for the future.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, each year the Kennedy Center pays tribute to distinguished artists who have made extraordinary contributions to the American cultural experience. The Nation will be delighted to know that this year Robert Redford will receive one of these prestigious awards. Mr. Redford exemplifies the record of achievement and accomplishment that define the Kennedy Center Honors Awards. With special grace and great talent, he has become a legend in film. His roles as an actor are among the most memorable ever on screen. He can be charming, as he was in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting, and Barefoot in the Park. He can be serious, as he was in The Candidate and All the President's Men. And he is always compelling--never more so than in The Great Gatsby and A River Runs Through It. Mr. Redford is equally accomplished as a director and producer. But whether he stars, directs, or produces--and sometimes all three--a Redford project is always remarkable for its integrity, beauty, and power. In 2003, he was in Washington to deliver the annual Nancy Hanks Lecture on the role of the arts in public policy. This lecture is a tribute to the memory of Nancy Hanks, who served as the early chair of the National Endowment for the Arts, and Mr. Redford's lecture was especially fitting, because he believes so deeply in the fundamental importance of the arts in our public policy. His passionate belief in arts education has been a continuing part of his outstanding career. He founded the Sundance Institute as part of his lifelong commitment to expand opportunities for new works and new artists to ensure a vigorous American cultural legacy for future generations. I commend all that he has accomplished. It is a privilege to join in congratulating him on this well-deserved award from the Kennedy Center. I am sure my brother would be proud of him. Vote Explanation

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to join in commending one of America's greatest artists who will receive a Kennedy Center Honors Award next month. Tony Bennett is renowned and revered by millions because of his extraordinary talent and outstanding musical career which spans a half century, and he will always be a part of America's musical legacy. His performances are part of our national songbook--tunes each of us know by heart and love to hear time and again. His distinctive voice and inspiring interpretations have set the standard for musical artists across the years. His signature song, ``I Left My Heart in San Francisco,'' was released over 40 years ago, but it is as fresh today as it was in 1962, the year it won three Grammy awards. His album ``MTV Unplugged'' captured the hearts of a new generation and was awarded a Grammy for Album of the Year in 1994. It was also one of the most successful recordings in a career that includes countless other musical awards and achievements. He has left his heart in communities far beyond San Francisco. Still today, he remains forever young at heart, as one of America's most beloved musical icons who continues to entertain us and enrich all our lives. It is gratifying to know that his remarkable career will be recognized in the Honors Awards celebration at the Kennedy Center next month as a tribute to his enduring contributions to our national cultural heritage. Countless lives have been touched by his artistry. This year at the Kennedy Center Honors, the country will have the opportunity to thank him for all that he has done so well for so long.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we have a time limit of 15 minutes.