Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this morning, 660,000 police officers and 300,000 firefighters across the country will get up and go to work to protect our homes, our families, and our communities. They will go into burning buildings, patrol our streets, and put their lives on the line, because they believe in the importance of what they are doing. These dedicated workers are in the trenches every day making life-or- death decisions, and their experiences give them tremendous knowledge about how to protect our country. We need to listen to their recommendations and consider their advice. Unfortunately, however, all too often, our first responders have no voice in the decisions that affect their lives and their livelihoods. Their input is disregarded because they don't have the same rights as other workers. Workers in the private sector who want a voice on the job have the right to form and join a union. They can fight for a safer, fairer workplace. But 300,000 police and 70,000 firefighters live in States in which their State governments deny them the fundamental right to a voice on the job. Even if these workers overwhelmingly agree that they want to form and join a union, their State government says they can't have one. That is not fair. We are asking these workers to do so much for their communities--the least we can do in return is give them a voice at the table in the life-and-death discussions and decisions that affect their families and their futures. They deserve the opportunity to choose for themselves whether they want the advantages that unions bring. That is why it is an honor to join Senator Gregg and Senator Dodd in sponsoring the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act to guarantee that our first responders will have a path they can use to decide if they want a union. If the workers don't want a union, they don't have to follow that path. But the State has to make it available and let the workers choose. It won't be difficult for States to create this path. All they have to do is provide four basic rights: the right to form and join a union; the right to sit down at the table and talk; the right to sign a contract if both parties agree; and the right to go to a neutral third party when there are disputes. Apart from these four rights, all the other details of the collective bargaining system are left up to the States. They have the flexibility to decide whether to exempt small communities. They decide how workers can select a union. They can also decide how workers and employers should resolve disputes--through arbitration, mediation, factfinding, or some other mechanism. This bipartisan bill has been carefully drafted to preserve a balance between the interests of State and local governments and the rights of the workers they employ. It has been the product of years of careful negotiations, including a hearing and two markups in the HELP Committee. It was passed by the House of Representatives in the last Congress with an overwhelming bipartisan margin, including 98 Republican votes. No it is time to get it across the finish line and give our dedicated first responders the fair treatment they deserve. It is a matter of fundamental fairness and an urgent matter of public safety. I commend Senator Gregg for his leadership on this very important issue, and I urge my colleagues to show these heroes the respect they deserve by supporting the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this morning, 660,000 police officers and 300,000 firefighters across the country will get up and go to work to protect our homes, our families, and our communities. They will go into burning buildings, patrol our streets, and put their lives on the line, because they believe in the importance of what they are doing. These dedicated workers are in the trenches every day making life-or- death decisions, and their experiences give them tremendous knowledge about how to protect our country. We need to listen to their recommendations and consider their advice. Unfortunately, however, all too often, our first responders have no voice in the decisions that affect their lives and their livelihoods. Their input is disregarded because they don't have the same rights as other workers. Workers in the private sector who want a voice on the job have the right to form and join a union. They can fight for a safer, fairer workplace. But 300,000 police and 70,000 firefighters live in States in which their State governments deny them the fundamental right to a voice on the job. Even if these workers overwhelmingly agree that they want to form and join a union, their State government says they can't have one. That is not fair. We are asking these workers to do so much for their communities--the least we can do in return is give them a voice at the table in the life-and-death discussions and decisions that affect their families and their futures. They deserve the opportunity to choose for themselves whether they want the advantages that unions bring. That is why it is an honor to join Senator Gregg and Senator Dodd in sponsoring the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act to guarantee that our first responders will have a path they can use to decide if they want a union. If the workers don't want a union, they don't have to follow that path. But the State has to make it available and let the workers choose. It won't be difficult for States to create this path. All they have to do is provide four basic rights: the right to form and join a union; the right to sit down at the table and talk; the right to sign a contract if both parties agree; and the right to go to a neutral third party when there are disputes. Apart from these four rights, all the other details of the collective bargaining system are left up to the States. They have the flexibility to decide whether to exempt small communities. They decide how workers can select a union. They can also decide how workers and employers should resolve disputes--through arbitration, mediation, factfinding, or some other mechanism. This bipartisan bill has been carefully drafted to preserve a balance between the interests of State and local governments and the rights of the workers they employ. It has been the product of years of careful negotiations, including a hearing and two markups in the HELP Committee. It was passed by the House of Representatives in the last Congress with an overwhelming bipartisan margin, including 98 Republican votes. No it is time to get it across the finish line and give our dedicated first responders the fair treatment they deserve. It is a matter of fundamental fairness and an urgent matter of public safety. I commend Senator Gregg for his leadership on this very important issue, and I urge my colleagues to show these heroes the respect they deserve by supporting the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I strongly support the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. She will be the most experienced jurist to be placed on the Supreme Court in a century, and she will be the first Latina Justice in our Nation's history. With her extensive career in public service and her lifelong commitment to equal justice, Judge Sotomayor will bring a remarkable perspective to the Court. Given her extraordinary and far-ranging experience, she has already distinguished herself as one of the most able and hardworking Federal judges in the Nation, and I am confident that she will bring the same high ability and dedication to all issues before the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor has already spent 17 years as a Federal judge. She was first nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush. Six years later, she was nominated by President Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She received bipartisan support in the Senate each time, and it is a special privilege for me to support her for the third time. Judge Sotomayor has a deep understanding of our legal system as a result of the experience she has had as an attorney and a judge. She has more judicial experience at both the appellate and district court level than any Supreme Court nominee in the past 70 years. In addition, in her earlier legal career, she served as an assistant district attorney in New York City and worked as a civil litigator in private practice. Her experience in the criminal and civil systems and as a district judge and an appellate court judge give her a unique perspective that will be invaluable as a Justice of the Supreme Court. During her years as a Federal judge, she has participated in over 3,000 decisions, including over 400 Second Circuit decisions by panels that included at least one judge appointed by a Republican President. In those cases, she has agreed with the result favored by the Republican appointee over 95 percent of the time. Some have sought to portray Judge Sotomayor as a judicial activist, but her record clearly shows that she is a mainstream jurist who does not let personal ideology dictate the outcome of the cases she is deciding. Not only is Judge Sotomayor eminently qualified by her experience to serve on the Supreme Court, but her nomination is historic. I, like many Americans, welcome the insight and perspective that Judge Sotomayor will bring to the Court, and she will serve as a role model for millions of our people. Judge Sotomayor's compelling life story is an impressive example of the best of our country. She was born in the Bronx and raised in New York City by hardworking parents. Through the strong support of her family and her own hard work and dedication and extraordinary achievement, she has been nominated to be the Nation's 111th Supreme Court Justice. I commend President Obama for selecting her. With her intelligence, insight, and experience, she is an excellent choice to serve in this distinguished role, and I am sure she will do an outstanding job protecting the rule of law and the fundamental rights and liberties of all Americans. Judge Sotomayor has worked hard to achieve success, and I commend her for her life's accomplishments. I wish her well in this new role, and I urge my colleagues to support her confirmation. On the day soon to come, when she walks up the steps of the Supreme Court and passes under those famous and inspiring words, ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' inscribed in the marble over the entrance, millions of our fellow citizens and communities across the Nation will be able to say, ``Yes, the American dream is alive and well in America today.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Protecting America's Workers Act. Almost 40 years ago, Congress set out to guarantee a safe workplace for all Americans. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was landmark legislation that has dramatically improved the well-being of working men and women. Since then, the annual job fatality rate has dropped from 18 deaths per 100,000 workers to less than four. Thousands of lives have been saved each year. These are not abstract numbers--they represent thousands of families who have been spared the pain and heartache of losing a loved one on the job. We are enormously proud of the progress we have made, but we also know that too many workers continue to face needless dangers in the workplace. In 2007, almost 5,500 workers were killed on the job and 4 million other workers became ill or were injured. Fifteen workers still die on the job every day, and nearly 11,000 who are injured or become ill because of dangerous conditions. We now have strong partners in the White House and at the Department of Labor who are committed to making our workplaces safer. But they need action by Congress as well. That is why today we are reintroducing the Protecting America's Workers Act, to take concrete steps to address many of the failures of the existing law. First, this legislation expands the coverage of the current job safety laws to protect the millions of public employees and transportation workers who are not covered by these laws. In Massachusetts alone, 350,000 public sector workers lack the protections granted by the federal workplace safety law. Our bill also protects workers who speak up about unsafe conditions on the job, by updating OSHA's whistleblower provisions. OSHA inspectors can't be in every workplace, every day. We must rely on workers who have the courage to come forward when they know their employer is cutting corners on safety. This legislation makes good on the promise to stand by those workers and guarantee they don't have to sacrifice their jobs in order to do the right thing. In addition, the legislation gives workers and their families and representatives a seat at the table on safety issues. It includes sensible reforms to ensure that victims and their families have a right to talk to OSHA before a citation issues, to obtain copies of important documents, to be informed about their rights, and to have their voices heard before OSHA accepts a settlement that lets an employer off the hook for endangering workers. Finally, a critical element of this bill is the increase in penalties on employers who turn their backs on the safety of their workers. Too many employers in our country blatantly ignore the law, and too often they are not held accountable. They pay only minimal fines, which they treat as just another cost of doing business. Last year, my office issued a report that showed that the median penalty for a workplace fatality was only $3,675. In other words, in cases investigated by OSHA where workers were killed on the job, half of all employers were fined $3,675 or less. Workers' lives are obviously worth far more than that. We know this administration will do better, but it needs our help. The bill makes reasonable increases in civil penalties--especially in the most serious cases. It also creates a strong criminal penalty, including the possibility of felony charges and significant prison terms. These changes will create the deterrence we need so that employers will think twice before they gamble with workers' lives to save a few dollars. We need to send a strong message that it is unacceptable to treat workers as expendable or disposable. Earlier this year a brave young woman, Tammy Miser, testified before our Labor Committee about her brother Shawn, who was killed in an explosion at the Hayes Lemmerz manufacturing plant in Huntington, Indiana in 2003. We can't bring Shawn back and we can't ease Tammy's pain at the loss of her beloved brother. But we can stand with her as she pursues her life's work since then of speaking out for the right of every worker to come home safely at the end of the day. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the millions of hardworking Americans who deserve real protection by supporting the Protecting America's Workers Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as justice is denied to any of our fellow citizens. We have made remarkable progress in the long march towards equal opportunity and equal justice for all Americans, but this is no time for complacency. Civil rights remains the unfinished business of America. Millions of our people are still shut out of the American dream solely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act brings us closer to fulfilling the promise of America for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens, and I am proud to join Senators Merkley, Collins, and Snowe today in introducing this important legislation. ENDA reflects the bedrock American principle that employees should be judged on the basis of job performance, not prejudice. It prohibits employers from making decisions about hiring, firing, promotions, or compensation based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It makes clear that there is no right to preferential treatment, and that quotas are prohibited. While some states have taken this important step to guarantee fair treatment in the workplace, ENDA is necessary to guarantee these rights for all. It is unacceptable that in our country in 2009, it is legal anywhere to judge people on who they are, not what they can accomplish. This legislation will right this historic wrong. ENDA has broad, bipartisan support. It reflects non-discrimination principles already in place at some our country's largest employers. In the past, this legislation has been endorsed by a broad religious coalition, civil rights leaders, and distinguished Americans from both parties. I am proud to join my colleagues today in bringing us one step closer to our ideal of a nation free from prejudice and injustice. I look forward to doing all I can to pass this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support us.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as justice is denied to any of our fellow citizens. We have made remarkable progress in the long march towards equal opportunity and equal justice for all Americans, but this is no time for complacency. Civil rights remains the unfinished business of America. Millions of our people are still shut out of the American dream solely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act brings us closer to fulfilling the promise of America for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens, and I am proud to join Senators Merkley, Collins, and Snowe today in introducing this important legislation. ENDA reflects the bedrock American principle that employees should be judged on the basis of job performance, not prejudice. It prohibits employers from making decisions about hiring, firing, promotions, or compensation based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It makes clear that there is no right to preferential treatment, and that quotas are prohibited. While some states have taken this important step to guarantee fair treatment in the workplace, ENDA is necessary to guarantee these rights for all. It is unacceptable that in our country in 2009, it is legal anywhere to judge people on who they are, not what they can accomplish. This legislation will right this historic wrong. ENDA has broad, bipartisan support. It reflects non-discrimination principles already in place at some our country's largest employers. In the past, this legislation has been endorsed by a broad religious coalition, civil rights leaders, and distinguished Americans from both parties. I am proud to join my colleagues today in bringing us one step closer to our ideal of a nation free from prejudice and injustice. I look forward to doing all I can to pass this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support us.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Protecting America's Workers Act. Almost 40 years ago, Congress set out to guarantee a safe workplace for all Americans. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was landmark legislation that has dramatically improved the well-being of working men and women. Since then, the annual job fatality rate has dropped from 18 deaths per 100,000 workers to less than four. Thousands of lives have been saved each year. These are not abstract numbers--they represent thousands of families who have been spared the pain and heartache of losing a loved one on the job. We are enormously proud of the progress we have made, but we also know that too many workers continue to face needless dangers in the workplace. In 2007, almost 5,500 workers were killed on the job and 4 million other workers became ill or were injured. Fifteen workers still die on the job every day, and nearly 11,000 who are injured or become ill because of dangerous conditions. We now have strong partners in the White House and at the Department of Labor who are committed to making our workplaces safer. But they need action by Congress as well. That is why today we are reintroducing the Protecting America's Workers Act, to take concrete steps to address many of the failures of the existing law. First, this legislation expands the coverage of the current job safety laws to protect the millions of public employees and transportation workers who are not covered by these laws. In Massachusetts alone, 350,000 public sector workers lack the protections granted by the federal workplace safety law. Our bill also protects workers who speak up about unsafe conditions on the job, by updating OSHA's whistleblower provisions. OSHA inspectors can't be in every workplace, every day. We must rely on workers who have the courage to come forward when they know their employer is cutting corners on safety. This legislation makes good on the promise to stand by those workers and guarantee they don't have to sacrifice their jobs in order to do the right thing. In addition, the legislation gives workers and their families and representatives a seat at the table on safety issues. It includes sensible reforms to ensure that victims and their families have a right to talk to OSHA before a citation issues, to obtain copies of important documents, to be informed about their rights, and to have their voices heard before OSHA accepts a settlement that lets an employer off the hook for endangering workers. Finally, a critical element of this bill is the increase in penalties on employers who turn their backs on the safety of their workers. Too many employers in our country blatantly ignore the law, and too often they are not held accountable. They pay only minimal fines, which they treat as just another cost of doing business. Last year, my office issued a report that showed that the median penalty for a workplace fatality was only $3,675. In other words, in cases investigated by OSHA where workers were killed on the job, half of all employers were fined $3,675 or less. Workers' lives are obviously worth far more than that. We know this administration will do better, but it needs our help. The bill makes reasonable increases in civil penalties--especially in the most serious cases. It also creates a strong criminal penalty, including the possibility of felony charges and significant prison terms. These changes will create the deterrence we need so that employers will think twice before they gamble with workers' lives to save a few dollars. We need to send a strong message that it is unacceptable to treat workers as expendable or disposable. Earlier this year a brave young woman, Tammy Miser, testified before our Labor Committee about her brother Shawn, who was killed in an explosion at the Hayes Lemmerz manufacturing plant in Huntington, Indiana in 2003. We can't bring Shawn back and we can't ease Tammy's pain at the loss of her beloved brother. But we can stand with her as she pursues her life's work since then of speaking out for the right of every worker to come home safely at the end of the day. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the millions of hardworking Americans who deserve real protection by supporting the Protecting America's Workers Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the Senate for including the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, and I am optimistic that at long last, our 12-year effort to enact this legislation into law is finally reaching fruition. Hate crimes are acts of domestic terrorism. Like all terrorist acts, hate crimes are intended to strike fear into whole communities by crimes against a few. We have committed ourselves to protecting our country from terrorists who strike from abroad, and now we have committed ourselves to protecting Americans from hate-motivated crimes in our own backyards. That is why 63 Senators from both sides of the aisle voted to include the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The House of Representatives already approved a very similar measure with strong bipartisan support earlier this year. The Matthew Shepard Act strengthens the ability of the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It removes excessive restrictions in current Federal law that prevent effective hate crimes prosecutions. And it offers Federal assistance to State and local authorities in preventing, investigating, and prosecuting despicable crimes. I am proud that President Obama is a strong supporter of this bipartisan legislation along with Attorney General Eric Holder. The Attorney General has been with us from the beginning of our efforts to get this done, and it is significant that swift enactment of this legislation would ensure that the measure is implemented under his impressive guidance. The Attorney General's leadership at the Justice Department is launching a new era of civil rights enforcement. In recent months, we have worked with the Justice Department to improve the Senate-approved hate crimes bill so that it addresses hate crimes in the most effective and meaningful way, and I appreciate the time and expertise of so many at the Department on this matter, especially Mark Kappelhoff, Ron Weich, and Judy Appelbaum. In addition, I must thank the Justice Department for diligently working to provide its recent views letter which concludes that the Matthew Shepard Act would be ``wholly constitutional.'' Passage of the amendment would not have been possible without the skill and dedication of many in the Senate. I commend Majority Leader Reid for his leadership and commitment to seeing that the amendment was passed before the August recess. In addition, I commend Serena Hoy of the majority leader's staff for her constant attention to the issue. I also especially commend Senator Levin for working so hard with me on this measure for so many years, and Rick Debobes and Kaye Meier of his staff for their tireless work on the Senate floor. I am also very grateful for the support and leadership of Senator Leahy and his excellent staff, including Ed Pagano, Bruce Cohen, Kristine Lucius, Noah Bookbinder, and Roscoe Jones. I appreciate as well the hard work of Senator Durbin and his staffer Mike Zubrensky, as well as Senator Collins and her staff, including Rob Epplin, Amanda Wood, and Nikki McKinney. I also thank Judiciary Committee staffers Lara Flint and Danyelle Solomon, as well as Mike Jones on the Budget Committee, for their contributions as well. I also appreciate the expert and patient assistance of John Henderson and Bill Jensen in the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate. As is the case with many challenging issues before the Senate, passage of the Matthew Shepard Act would have not been possible without the effective support of the Democratic cloakroom, especially Lula Davis. Finally, I commend the outstanding work of so many in my own office, including Carey Parker, Christine Leonard, Ty Cobb, and Sara Kingsley-- as well as Bethany Bassett, Jorie Feldman, Joe Barresi, Colin Taylor, and Jamie Susskind, who helped us get through the final stretch. For over a decade, we have been working to see this measure become law, and we certainly wouldn't be where we are today without the contributions of so many dedicated and determined staffers along the way. Inclusion of the Matthew Shepard Act as part of the National Defense Authorization Act sends a strong signal that just as our Nation is concerned about terroristic acts abroad, it is also dedicated to eliminating homegrown terrorism against our Nation's own communities. We will be a stronger and better nation in the years ahead, once our laws recognize that bias-motivated violence has no place in the United States.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 2 years ago I opposed a bill considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee to strip State and local police departments of their ability to enforce rules and policies on when and how their own officers can carry weapons. Today, I continue to oppose attempts to supersede or limit State gun control laws, and for this reason I oppose Senator Thune's amendment that would infringe on the ability of State and local governments to regulate concealed guns in their jurisdictions. I have said it before, and I say it again--each State should be able to make its own judgment about whether citizens can carry concealed weapons within their jurisdictions. There is no reason for Congress to override gun safety measures in any State. Yet the Thune amendment would override the laws of 48 States by requiring them to recognize concealed carry permits from other States, even if the permit holder would not be allowed to possess or carry a gun under the laws of those States. Currently, only two States-- Illinois and Wisconsin--have a total prohibition against concealed carry weapons. This amendment would require the remaining 48 States to recognize a permit granted by another State that has issued a concealed weapon permit. Such a system leads to ludicrous results. For example, under the Thune amendment, a person who can't obtain a concealed carry permit in his home State could apparently circumvent his State law by finding another State in which that person would be eligible for a nonresident permit and then, using the reciprocity granted by the amendment, carry the concealed weapon back home. State and local governments do not have a one-size-fits-all approach on gun control. Yet the Thune amendment treats them as if they were all the same. Under this amendment, a State would be prevented from limiting who can carry a concealed gun in its jurisdiction. In doing so, the amendment threatens the safety of our citizens, our communities, and our States. States need the right to control who can carry a concealed weapon in their jurisdiction. What State officials, law enforcement, and legislators decide are the best policies for rural States may not be the best policies for urban States--and vice versa. This bill creates a race to the bottom, in which gun owners can get a permit in a State with the least restrictive licensing regulations and use that gun in every other State--except Illinois and Wisconsin, where there is a total prohibition. The amendment even entitles residents in Alaska and Vermont, the two States that allow residents to carry concealed guns without permits, to carry their guns in other States. In 35 States, such as Massachusetts, a permit holder must have attended a safety course. Other States don't require a safety course, and residents in Alaska or Vermont are not required to have a permit at all. Yet, with the adoption of the Thune amendment, gun owners would be able to carry a concealed weapon without a safety course in all these States. This is absurd. In addition, other State licensing laws, which prohibit permits for individuals with criminal backgrounds or substance abuse problems, would be waived under the Thune amendment if the individual is issued a permit in a jurisdiction with more permissive regulations. According to the most recent statistics, in 2006, an average of nine young people aged 19 and under were killed by a gun each day in the United States. In 2007, an average of 48 children a day were nonfatally wounded. The scourge of gun violence frequently attacks the most helpless members of our society--our children. Does the Thune amendment--authorizing more widespread use of concealed guns--improve these statistics? Does creating a system that reduces the regulations for permits for many concealed gun carriers improve these statistics? I think not. In fact, it was found that concealed handgun license holders in Texas were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81 percent higher than that of the general population of Texas, aged 21 and older. Expanding the ability of a concealed gun holder to carry his weapon in a far larger number of jurisdictions will not lower gun deaths or crime. Our brave police forces face risks every day in the line of duty. Policing the streets, and even routine traffic stops, are perilous enough without increasing the number of guns that officers encounter. Under the Thune amendment there is no easy way for a police officer to determine the legality of a gun being concealed by an individual with a permit from outside the State. This confusion, and the increase in the number of guns on the street, could result in violent incidents, some of which could lead to more deaths from gun violence. The Senate should be working to make the job of police officers safer. The Thune amendment does the opposite. The amendment takes away the right of a State to determine who can carry a concealed gun within that State. As a result, the amendment will increase the number of concealed guns that will be allowed on any given street. More than 400 mayors, numerous State legislators, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Major Cities Chiefs Association oppose this amendment because of the danger it brings to our streets, our citizens, and our law enforcement. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against Senator Thune's amendment. It is unwise policy that could lead to tragic results.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Sessions has introduced an amendment that would create two new death penalty eligible offenses for crimes under the Matthew Shepard Act. I stand firmly in opposition to any new legislation that would radically expand the use of the death penalty, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to oppose the Sessions amendment because it adds another new death penalty to the Federal Criminal Code. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the 1970s, the Death Penalty Information Center has reported that 135 people have been released from death row in the United States because of innocence-- approximately one exoneration for every nine executions. Some have attempted to argue that the large number of death row exonerations demonstrates that the system is working. Yet in many cases, fatal mistakes were avoided only because of discoveries made by students or journalists, not the courts. In the last 6 months, there have already been five exonerations in death penalty cases in four different States. Ronald Kitchen was freed from prison in Illinois after the State dismissed all charges against him on July 7. He had spent 13 years on death row and a total of 21 years in prison. Herman Lindsey was freed from Florida's death row on July 9 after the State supreme court unanimously ruled for his acquittal from a 2006 conviction. As the court said: [T]he State failed to produce any evidence in this case placing Lindsey at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder. . . . Indeed, we find that the evidence here is equally consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. There have also been three other exonerations of death row prisoners, including Nathson Fields in Illinois, Paul House in Tennessee, and Daniel Moore in Alabama. This high number of exonerations has led many observers, both liberal and conservative, to express concern about the fairness of the death penalty's administration. As former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has stated ``if statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.'' How can we continue to expand a system that likely leads to the execution of innocent defendants? The U.S. Government should not be in the business of taking the lives of innocent Americans. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg once said that the deliberate institutionalized taking of human life by the state is the greatest degradation of the human personality imaginable. We must not expand this flawed system by accepting Senator Sessions' broad amendment. In 2007, New Jersey became the first State to repeal the death penalty since the modern era of capital punishment began in the 1970s. New Mexico followed in 2009. The number of States without a death penalty has now increased to 15. States have begun to recognize that flawed administration of the death penalty has dire consequences--no matter how slight or unintentional that flaw may be. The American public has also recognized the danger created by a society that supports the death penalty. A 2008 Gallup poll found that support for the death penalty is at its lowest level in the last 30 years. American citizens are deciding that they will not tolerate this archaic form of punishment. Furthermore, there is no denying that there is a pattern of racial bias in death sentencing. A study in California found that those who killed Whites were over three times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed Blacks, and over four times more likely than those who killed Latinos. In addition, a study found that in 96 percent of the States where there have been reviews of race and the death penalty, there was a pattern of either race-of-victim or race-of- defendant discrimination, or both. Administration of the death penalty is flawed, and that flaw disproportionately affects racial minorities. The average cost of defending a Federal murder case when the death penalty is sought is $620,000. That is about eight times the cost of a Federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought. It has been shown time and time again that sentencing an individual to life in prison is far cheaper than the administration of the death penalty. For example, the California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million a year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life. Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the State's executions. While the monetary costs of seeking the death penalty are high, the possibility of executing an innocent American is the ultimate cost. Some argue in favor of the death penalty because they believe it deters individuals from committing some of the most severe crimes. According to a survey of the former and current presidents of the Nation's top academic criminology societies, 88 percent of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. In addition, a Hart Research Poll of police chiefs in the U.S. found that the majority of the chiefs do not believe that the death penalty is an effective law enforcement tool. If the death penalty does not deter violent crime, we shouldn't ask our government to play executioner. Stephen Bright is a preeminent scholar on the death penalty. In his law review article Will the Death Penalty Remain Alive in the Twenty- First Century?, he states: If we here in the United States examine our own system, face its flaws, and think about what kind of society we want to have, we will ultimately conclude that, like slavery and segregation, the death penalty is a relic of another era, that it represents the dark side of the human spirit, and that we are capable of more constructive approaches to the problem of crime in our society. All violent crime is reprehensible and deserves to be punished. However, as Stephen Bright points out, we are capable of more constructive approaches to dealing with crime than by using the death penalty. The death penalty is a relic of the past. It has been proven to lead to wrongful executions where innocent lives are lost at the hand of their government. Although most developed nations in the world have abandoned the death penalty, the United States, which purports to be a leader in the protection of human rights, continues to increase the number of death-eligible offenses that are on the statute books. The Kennedy amendment being offered will ensure consistency with existing federal law and Supreme Court precedent by setting forth clear standards for the use of the federal death penalty only in hate crimes cases where a murder occurs. Given concerns regarding the well- documented mistakes and racial disparities associated with death penalty cases, this amendment adds appropriate safeguards in cases where the federal government seeks the ultimate--and irreversible-- penalty of death. In a hate crime prosecution involving the death penalty, the amendment will empower the trial court to determine whether the case was properly considered to be among the most aggravated of death-eligible hate crimes. The Kennedy amendment is modeled after an existing Nebraska State law, and will establish a system of meaningful proportionality review in capital hate crime prosecutions. If the court determines that a case is not among the ``worst of the worst'' of hate crimes resulting in a homicide, it can dismiss the government's request for a death penalty at the conclusion of the guilt trial or at the conclusion of the penalty trial, before the sentencing decision is submitted to the jury. Under the Kennedy amendment, the test applied by the trial court to determine whether a case is among the ``worst of the worst'' is whether death sentences are sought and imposed more than half the time in similar Federal cases. This information will enable the court to assess the extent to which race or other inappropriate factors may have been a systemic factor in prior capital charging and sentencing decisions in hate crimes that have resulted in the victim's death. The Kennedy amendment's requirements are a significant improvement over existing Federal practice in death penalty cases. Senator Sessions' amendment increases the number of death-eligible offenses. It expands the use of the death penalty to two new offenses-- those created by the Matthew Shepard Act. It is time to stand up against expansion of the death penalty. With this statement, I submit several letters of opposition to the Sessions amendment and other amendments proposed by Senator Sessions. I urge my colleagues to vote against Senator Sessions' amendment and to support the Kennedy amendment to correct the flaws in Senator Sessions' proposal. In addition, Senator Sessions has introduced an amendment that creates a new Federal criminal offense for cases involving assaults or battery of a U.S. serviceman--or a member of the serviceman's immediate family. It creates a new Federal crime to punish individuals who knowingly destroy or injure the property of an active or retired serviceman or the property of an immediate family member, or conspires to do so. Crimes against veterans, members of the armed service are reprehensible. It is undeniable that our Nation is held together by the protection that these brave men and women provide each day. This amendment places another mandatory minimum in our Federal code. Mandatory minimums are unjust, unwise and unnecessary. Such sentences tie the court's hand to review the facts of an individual case. I hope that problems with the broad language of this amendment and the inclusion of a mandatory minimum can be worked out in conference. Finally, I appreciate that we were able to work with Senator Sessions to make some modifications to his amendment regarding the issuance of Attorney General guidelines for hate crime offenses. For over 40 years, the Justice Department's record demonstrates objective decisionmaking when selecting hate crime cases for prosecution--regardless of the administration in charge. DOJ guidance and professional responsibility rules already guard against any nonmeritorious prosecution. As originally drafted, Senator Sessions' amendment could have prevented ``mistake of fact'' cases-- such as an attack against a White person whom the defendant believed to be African American or cases based upon associations--in which a White woman is targeted because her spouse is African American. In addition, there was concern about whether the amendment could also impede prosecutions where a hate crimes victim was perceived to be African American, Latino, or gay because the amendment covers a more narrow class of victims than those covered under the hate crimes bill. With the cooperation and assistance from Chairman Leahy's staff along with Senator Sessions' staff, I believe that the modified version of this amendment will address these concerns so that the amendment will not be interpreted in any way to limit the scope of victims who are protected under the Matthew Shepard Act. Mr. President, I ask to have the letters to which I referred printed in the Record. The letters follow. American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, July 20, 2009. Re: ACLU urges ``No'' vote on SA 1615--Sessions Death Penalty Amendment to Hate Crimes Amendment in Defense Authorization Bill (S. 1390); Sessions amendment is unconstitutional. Dear Senator: On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a non-partisan organization with more than a half million members, countless activists and supporters, and fifty-three affiliates nationwide, we write to urge you to oppose Senate Amendment 1615, being offered by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). This unconstitutional and misguided amendment seeks to expand the reach of the federal death penalty, including to non-homicide crimes, by adding it to a hate crimes provision that the Senate adopted by unanimous consent on Thursday night. Capital punishment has been proven to be an unreliable and expensive means of punishment and Congress should oppose any effort to expand its scope and reach. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 135 innocent people have been exonerated from death row since 1973, including five so far in 2009 alone. Such a high error rate illustrates the fallibility of our nation's death penalty system. Indeed, chronic problems, including inadequate defense counsel and racial disparities, have always plagued the death penalty system in the United States. In a 2003 report entitled ``Death by Discrimination--The Continuing Role of Race in Capital Cases,'' Amnesty International found that even though blacks and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers of crimes, 80 percent of people executed since the death penalty as reinstated have been executed for murders involving white victims. More than 20 percent of black defendants who have been executed were convicted by all-white juries. Even if one supports the death penalty in theory, there is no justifiable reason to expand our system of capital punishment while such discriminatory impacts continue to exist. A troubling record of the death penalty being imposed on defendants who were later found to be innocent, along with a long history of racial and geographic disparities in its use, have spurred states to move away from its use. In 2007 and 2008, New Jersey and New Mexico, respectively, abolished the death penalty, bringing to 15 the number of states (including the District of Columbia) that currently have no death penalty. In addition, in recent years, the number of death sentences returned by juries has declined precipitously--from around 300 a year in the 1990s to approximately 120 in the past few years. The ACLU is also concerned that the Sessions Amendment would unconstitutionally expand the reach of the federal death penalty to include certain non-homicide crimes. The United States Supreme Court has already held that the death sentence is an unconstitutional penalty for kidnapping (see Eberheart v. Georgia); sexual abuse (see Coker v. Georgia and Kennedy v. Louisiana); and attempted murder (see Enmund v. Florida and Tison v. Arizona), all crimes included in the scope of the Session amendment. To now expand the reach of the federal death penalty to these non-homicide crimes would be clearly unconstitutional, under recent Supreme Court precedent. The ACLU has a long history of supporting civil rights legislation, including legislation responding to criminal civil rights violations. While we did not support the underlying hate crimes provision in the defense authorization bill because of First Amendment weaknesses, an expansion of the federal death penalty stands in stark contrast to furthering the cause of civil rights in the United States. The ACLU urges you to oppose the Sessions Amendment (S.A. 1615) to the defense authorization bill and to vote ``NO'' when it comes to the floor. The ACLU will score this vote. Please do not hesitate to contact Chris Anders at (202) 675- 2308 if you have any questions regarding this amendment or the underlying hate crimes provision. Sincerely, Michael W. Macleod-Ball, Interim Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office. Christopher E. Anders, Senior Legislative Counsel. Jennifer Bellamy, Legislative Counsel.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in supporting the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. We need to pass this bill without further delay. The House passed a hate crimes bill with a vote of 249 to 175 in April. President Obama has repeatedly stated that he supports swift enactment of hate crimes legislation. The Department of Justice has expressed a need to strengthen our Federal hate crimes law. And, over 300 law enforcement, religious, civil rights, and community organizations have stated their support for this act. We need to make certain that every American is protected from hate crimes. No one should be a victim of violence because of who they are. In fact, hate crimes are domestic terrorism. Like all terrorist acts, they seek to bring fear to whole communities through violence on a few. We have committed ourselves to protecting our country from terrorists that strike from abroad, so we must make the same commitment to protecting Americans from homegrown terrorism. Only weeks ago, a small distance from this Capitol, James von Brunn, a formerly convicted criminal and a known anti-Semite, entered the DC Holocaust Memorial Museum and began firing a rifle. During the attack, von Brunn shot and killed security guard Stephen Johns. As tragic as this incident was, the heroism of Stephen Johns, and the heroism of other members of the museum's security team, prevented von Brunn from conducting a violent massacre of innocent men, women, and children. Von Brunn planned a hate crime, an act of domestic terrorism. Our society recognizes that such a crime cannot be tolerated. Attacks like these send shockwaves through American communities and must be prosecuted as terrorizing crimes. The original hate crime statute, enacted in 1968, criminalized violent acts based on a victim's race, color, religion, or national origin. Over the past 40 years, we have learned from experience that hate crime perpetrators often target communities unprotected by the original statute. This amendment strengthens that statute to protect victims targeted with violence because of their gender, their sexual orientation, their gender identity, or their disability. In Boston on August 24, 2008, Jonathan Howard and three friends were viciously attacked by four men while walking home from a Boston nightclub. The assault began when a Honda pulled up beside the victims. The four men in the vehicle began yelling obscenities and homophobic slurs at the group. The perpetrators told Howard to die and repeatedly kicked his head into the pavement. After the event, Howard stated that ``the type of assault that we encountered was completely random, unprovoked, and unforgivable.'' This type of attack was just as much a hate crime as the attack by James von Brunn, and it needs to be recognized as a Federal hate crime. The victims did nothing to provoke their attack. They did not deserve to be the subjects of violence. No member of the LGBT community should be terrified to walk down the street for fear of hateful violence. Hate crimes perpetrators must not be allowed to place our communities in fear. On May 11, the Boston Globe reported that the historic election of President Barack Obama spurred a wave of hate crime violence. The article cites a study by the Southern Poverty Law Center that shows the number of White extremist groups in the United States has increased by nearly 50 percent since 2000, and that White extremist activity has sharply increased over the past several months. Last November 5, following the election of President Barack Obama, four men rampaged across Staten Island, assaulting African Americans in response to President Obama's victory. The attackers beat a 17-year-old boy with a pipe. They physically assaulted another man to the ground, verbally harassed individuals suspected of voting for President Obama, and slammed into a man with a car because they mistakenly believed he was African American. None of these victims were known to their attackers. None of these victims could have prevented the attacks. The victims were terrorized because their attackers wanted to send a violent message of hate to the African American community. Last July 12, in Shenandoah, PA, Luis Ramirez, a 25-year-old Mexican and father of two, was beaten by several drunken students from the local high school. Authorities said the teenagers yelled ethnic slurs as they punched and kicked Mr. Ramirez, causing him to lose consciousness and begin to foam at the mouth. As a result of the attack, Mr. Ramirez died 2 days later. During the attack, one of the assailants reportedly yelled, ``tell your . . . Mexican friends to get . . . out of Shenandoah . . . .'' According to Pennsylvania Governor Rendell, ``Luis Ramirez was targeted, beaten, and killed because he was Mexican.'' Yet after a jury trial in State court, the killers were acquitted of the most serious charges and convicted of simple assault-- yes, simple assault. As the result of this case, the Justice Department is currently investigating civil rights violations with one hand tied behind their back. Because the incident occurred while the victim was walking by a park, and because walking by a park may not be considered a ``federally protected activity,'' the Justice Department is not able to fully investigate and prosecute this crime. This legislation closes the flagrant loophole that prevents prosecution of a hate crime when a victim is not engaged in a federally protected activity. It provides that hate crime perpetrators may be prosecuted, regardless of where their victim was or what they were doing when he or she was attacked. In addition, this bill authorizes the Justice Department to make grants to State, local, and tribal authorities to combat, investigate, and prosecute hate crimes more effectively. During these times of economic crisis, State and local authorities are cash-strapped to deal with costly hate crime incidents. Investigations tend to be expensive. They require considerable law enforcement effort and extensive use of grand juries. To ease the extraordinary costs and complexity of such cases, the bill authorizes $5 million in Justice Department grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement officials who have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. The legislation also authorizes the Justice Department to make grants for State, local, and tribal programs that combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes. With hate crimes against Latinos on the rise, and hate crimes against LGBT individuals on the rise, and hate group activity on the rise, we must ensure that our State and local law enforcement authorities have all the tools and resources they need to combat, investigate, and prosecute hate crimes. I am proud to take this opportunity to recognize the work of the Boston Police Department as the only major police department to incorporate hate crimes training into its mandatory training program. Unfortunately, many police departments around the country do not have the resources necessary to provide such training. This bill specifically authorizes the Justice Department to allocate funds for training so that other police departments may follow the example set by the Boston PD. Violent attacks based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability deserve to be criminalized by Federal law. Our Nation must show that it will not permit these communities to be terrorized--one victim at a time. For the past 10 years, the Senate and the House of Representatives have each passed this legislation on multiple occasions--only to face political setbacks that have prevented the measure from being enacted. Now, we must finish the job and send this legislation to the President for his signature. By doing so, Congress will be reflecting the will of the American people. We will be sending a strong message that hate crime violence will not be tolerated--and that every citizen deserves Federal protection against such crimes. Religious leaders across the country support the amendment. As my colleagues know, the Golden Rule is recognized as one of the deepest principles in virtually every religious tradition. It is the simple principle that we ought to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated. In the book of Matthew, chapter 7, Jesus says, ``So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.'' This amendment embodies the Golden Rule by extending protection to individuals in communities that are vulnerable to violence fueled by hatred. Religious leader, Pastor Joel C. Hunter, has said, ``I would think that the followers of Jesus would be first in line to protect any group from hate crimes . . . This bill protects both the rights of conservative religious people to voice passionately their interpretations of their scriptures and protects their fellow citizens from physical attack.'' Many religious groups have expressed their support for the bill, including the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Interfaith Alliance, the Presbyterian Church, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the United Methodist Church, and the Congress of National Black Churches. Over 10 years have passed since the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act was first introduced in the Senate. Over 10 years have passed since Matthew Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence, and left to die because he was gay. I commend Matthew's mother, Judy Shepard, for her years of inspiring advocacy that have brought us to this moment. Now is the time for the Senate to vote and show that we will not allow domestic terrorism to tear apart the fabric of our Nation and take the lives of innocent Americans. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to follow their hearts and minds and vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege today to be introducing two bills to improve our schools and bring them into the 21st century. The Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act, S. 1410, or TIME Act, seeks to expand our 19th century school calendar to provide more time for learning across the curriculum. The Keeping Parents and Communities Engaged Act, S. 1411, or Keeping PACE Act, will encourage greater involvement of parents in their children's education, and engage community partners in supporting the comprehensive learning needs of students in school. These bills take different approaches, but both address critical challenges for our Nation's schools. By providing the time and resources for students to succeed, we can ensure that all students are equipped with the tools needed to be successful in the 21st century economy. As a result of the current 6 hours a day, 180 days a year schedule, American students spend about 30 percent less time in school than students in other leading nations. This gap hinders the ability of our students to compete with their peers around the globe who derive a significant advantage by having more time to learn what they need to know. About 1,000 U.S. schools are already tackling this problem on their own, and now it's time for the Federal Government to step up and help more students obtain the time in school they need. The TIME Act authorizes $350 million next year, increasing to up to $500 million in 2014, to support schools in expanding learning time by 300 hours a year and redesigning their school day to meet the needs of students and teachers. The act promotes partnerships between schools and community-based organizations in expanding and redesigning the school schedule to give students a broader learning experience and encourage innovation. The goal of the act is not merely to encourage schools to add more time at the end of the day, but to take a close look at how they use their time and redesign the entire school schedule for the benefit of students' learning experiences. Studies document the difference an extra hour of school each day, a few more weeks of school each year, or additional time after or before school for tutoring can make to all students. According to these studies, the students for whom this time is most important for are the students we need to be focusing on--our neediest students. Students in disadvantaged families show a drop-off in learning over long summer recesses compared to their better-off classmates, and they fall farther behind each year. A 2007 study found that \2/3\ of the reading achievement gap between 9th graders of low and high socioeconomic standing in Baltimore public schools can be traced to what they learned, or failed to learn, during their summers. These students also are less likely to have parents with the time to help them with their school work. Expanded learning time can help these needy students catch up by shortening their summer recesses, providing more time for educators to support student learning, and giving schools the opportunity to provide these students with additional nutritious meals. In addition to those at risk of falling behind, more time for learning helps students who are on grade level get ahead, by providing greater time for enrichment and a broader curriculum. Additional time also enables more students to participate in experiential and interactive learning, in service learning opportunities in their schools and communities, and in internships, all of which help keep students engaged in school and make school more relevant. For additional time to be used most effectively, it must also work for teachers. The act encourages the use of this time for greater teacher planning and collaboration across grades and subjects, so that teachers can work together to help their students. Today's elementary school teachers spend less than 10 percent of their time planning lessons and preparing for classes--compared to over 40 percent for their Asian counterparts. Just as it does for students, time matters for teachers, by helping them to help their students more effectively. To assess the difference these programs will make, the TIME Act calls for a comprehensive evaluation of the programs it supports. We're still in the learning stages of expanded learning time. It is intuitive that time matters, but we're still learning what practices work best--for teachers, for students, and for schools. This evaluation will ensure that we will learn as much as possible about what works, and that the Department of Education will be able to do a better job of sharing best practices nationwide in supporting these initiatives. Expanded learning is an idea whose time has come, thanks in large part to the leadership of Massachusetts. As John Adams wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780, the education of the people is ``necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties.'' Ever since, Massachusetts has been ahead of the curve in education reform. In recent years, the Commonwealth has developed a significant expanded learning time initiative that enables schools to offer 300 additional hours of instruction during the school year, allocated as each school chooses. The initiative began with 10 schools in 2006. Twenty-six schools are now participating, and more than 40 are now planning to participate. At the Edwards Middle School in Boston's Charlestown neighborhood, additional time has made a difference. The percentage of students scoring ``proficient'' on math tests rose almost thirteen points during its first year with expanded school hours, and the school is also offering a wide array of extracurricular activities, including Latin American Dance, Musical Theater, and valuable apprenticeship opportunities. We know that many schools and districts around the country are seeking better ways to strengthen the support they offer parents and to deepen their connection with their communities. The No Child Left Behind Law includes requirements to develop parent-involvement policies and programs, release school report cards, and engage parents and community representatives to construct plans to improve struggling schools. The Keeping PACE Act builds on these activities to support schools in making parents and the community full partners in the education of their children. Parents are their children's first teachers, and they have immense influence over their children's attitudes, focus, priorities and goals. Well-informed parents are more likely to be involved, to ask questions, to suggest constructive changes and to make a difference in their child's education. They deserve to know what their children are learning and being tested on, what their children's grades and assessment scores mean, and how assessment data can be used to improve learning. Informed and engaged parents can help turn around struggling schools. Educators have long recognized this fact, based on their own experience and abundant research. Unfortunately, a series of reports by Appleseed make clear schools and districts continue to face too many challenges that undermine the effort to achieve parental involvement. Parents may feel intimidated by language or cultural barriers, or have difficulty understanding their role as an advocate for their children. Parents too often find that the information provided by schools and districts is not released in a timely manner, is not clear and student- specific, and uses technical terms that are unfamiliar. Poor communication also often obscures the school-choice and supplemental- services options for parents under the No Child Left Behind Act. Heather Weiss, the director of the Harvard Family Research Project, emphasizes that with the conclusive evidence now available, the time has come for action. As she states, ``The question we must ask is, in addition to quality schools, what non-school learning resources should we invest in and scale up to improve educational outcomes, narrow achievement gaps, and equip our children with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the complex and global 21st century?'' To encourage greater parent involvement, this bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to enable States to award grants to local education agencies to assist schools in hiring and maintaining Parent and Community Outreach Coordinators. These coordinators will build vital partnerships among families, schools, and the community. They'll work with school principals, teachers, and staff to encourage parents to become more involved in their child's education and give them the tools necessary to become successful advocates for their children. Instead of giving teachers, counselors, and principals more to do, every school should have a resource they can turn to for help with identifying student needs and using community resources to help all students succeed. Educational research also shows that students flourish in environments in which learning is a community value and in which schools have the ability to address a broad range of student needs. Many school districts have established full-service community schools that directly involve parents, families, and the entire community in education. These schools use integrated services to students to help meet multiple local needs in areas such as education, health, social services, and recreation. President Obama has recognized the power of these schools, by often citing the extraordinary success of the Harlem Children's Zone and using it as a model for his Promise Neighborhoods proposal. Responding to this research and to success stories from around the nation, the Keeping PACE Act will help school districts do more to increase community involvement in schools, provide a wide range of support and services to children, and make schools the center of their neighborhood. The Keeping PACE Act supports incentives for local education agencies to coordinate with mayors, community-based organizations, for-profit entities, and other local partners to re- design and modernize their current school plans and facilities to link students more effectively with existing resources. Improved coordination among parents, schools, and their communities can create networks that enable and empower students to take advantage of many more opportunities to learn, and by doing so, we will uncover innovations to help all schools. As with the TIME Act, establishing this network will benefit not only students who need the greatest help with their learning, or who are at risk of dropping out, but also those who need more challenging schoolwork to keep them engaged and making progress. Yet again, Massachusetts is leading the way. A current Massachusetts pilot initiative has placed 32 full-time family and community outreach coordinators in Boston public schools. These coordinators are responsible for supporting families, teachers, and the community in a common effort to help students academically and socially, and their efforts have been successful. For example, the Family and Community Outreach Coordinator at the Condon School in Boston has offered workshops for parents on middle school transition and math curriculum and coordinated parent participation on an anti-bullying initiative at the school, called the School Climate Committee. The Coordinator has helped teachers and parents make connections for parent-teacher conferences, bringing in over 200 parents to participate in a fall open house, in which some of the teachers have reported contact with over 80 percent of their students' families. The Coordinator has also inspired donations to the school through the generosity of local businesses. Now is the time for the nation as a whole to make a greater effort on expanded learning and parent and community involvement. These two bills constitute a strong commitment to meet the comprehensive learning needs of children and families, guarantee a role for parents and families in local schools, and provide real hope to students most at-risk of dropping out. Addressing these challenges is essential to the future and prosperity of our nation as a whole. We know the dimensions of the problem we face. Today, 65 percent of 12th graders do not read on grade level, and 1.2 million students who enter the ninth grade fail to receive a high school diploma four years later. We can no longer afford to pay this high price, either in terms of lost human potential or national productivity. These bills will help millions of young people reach their potential, and help make our education system the best in the world once again. The Keeping PACE Act is supported by 40 organizations representing education communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their joint letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege today to be introducing two bills to improve our schools and bring them into the 21st century. The Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act, S. 1410, or TIME Act, seeks to expand our 19th century school calendar to provide more time for learning across the curriculum. The Keeping Parents and Communities Engaged Act, S. 1411, or Keeping PACE Act, will encourage greater involvement of parents in their children's education, and engage community partners in supporting the comprehensive learning needs of students in school. These bills take different approaches, but both address critical challenges for our Nation's schools. By providing the time and resources for students to succeed, we can ensure that all students are equipped with the tools needed to be successful in the 21st century economy. As a result of the current 6 hours a day, 180 days a year schedule, American students spend about 30 percent less time in school than students in other leading nations. This gap hinders the ability of our students to compete with their peers around the globe who derive a significant advantage by having more time to learn what they need to know. About 1,000 U.S. schools are already tackling this problem on their own, and now it's time for the Federal Government to step up and help more students obtain the time in school they need. The TIME Act authorizes $350 million next year, increasing to up to $500 million in 2014, to support schools in expanding learning time by 300 hours a year and redesigning their school day to meet the needs of students and teachers. The act promotes partnerships between schools and community-based organizations in expanding and redesigning the school schedule to give students a broader learning experience and encourage innovation. The goal of the act is not merely to encourage schools to add more time at the end of the day, but to take a close look at how they use their time and redesign the entire school schedule for the benefit of students' learning experiences. Studies document the difference an extra hour of school each day, a few more weeks of school each year, or additional time after or before school for tutoring can make to all students. According to these studies, the students for whom this time is most important for are the students we need to be focusing on--our neediest students. Students in disadvantaged families show a drop-off in learning over long summer recesses compared to their better-off classmates, and they fall farther behind each year. A 2007 study found that \2/3\ of the reading achievement gap between 9th graders of low and high socioeconomic standing in Baltimore public schools can be traced to what they learned, or failed to learn, during their summers. These students also are less likely to have parents with the time to help them with their school work. Expanded learning time can help these needy students catch up by shortening their summer recesses, providing more time for educators to support student learning, and giving schools the opportunity to provide these students with additional nutritious meals. In addition to those at risk of falling behind, more time for learning helps students who are on grade level get ahead, by providing greater time for enrichment and a broader curriculum. Additional time also enables more students to participate in experiential and interactive learning, in service learning opportunities in their schools and communities, and in internships, all of which help keep students engaged in school and make school more relevant. For additional time to be used most effectively, it must also work for teachers. The act encourages the use of this time for greater teacher planning and collaboration across grades and subjects, so that teachers can work together to help their students. Today's elementary school teachers spend less than 10 percent of their time planning lessons and preparing for classes--compared to over 40 percent for their Asian counterparts. Just as it does for students, time matters for teachers, by helping them to help their students more effectively. To assess the difference these programs will make, the TIME Act calls for a comprehensive evaluation of the programs it supports. We're still in the learning stages of expanded learning time. It is intuitive that time matters, but we're still learning what practices work best--for teachers, for students, and for schools. This evaluation will ensure that we will learn as much as possible about what works, and that the Department of Education will be able to do a better job of sharing best practices nationwide in supporting these initiatives. Expanded learning is an idea whose time has come, thanks in large part to the leadership of Massachusetts. As John Adams wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780, the education of the people is ``necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties.'' Ever since, Massachusetts has been ahead of the curve in education reform. In recent years, the Commonwealth has developed a significant expanded learning time initiative that enables schools to offer 300 additional hours of instruction during the school year, allocated as each school chooses. The initiative began with 10 schools in 2006. Twenty-six schools are now participating, and more than 40 are now planning to participate. At the Edwards Middle School in Boston's Charlestown neighborhood, additional time has made a difference. The percentage of students scoring ``proficient'' on math tests rose almost thirteen points during its first year with expanded school hours, and the school is also offering a wide array of extracurricular activities, including Latin American Dance, Musical Theater, and valuable apprenticeship opportunities. We know that many schools and districts around the country are seeking better ways to strengthen the support they offer parents and to deepen their connection with their communities. The No Child Left Behind Law includes requirements to develop parent-involvement policies and programs, release school report cards, and engage parents and community representatives to construct plans to improve struggling schools. The Keeping PACE Act builds on these activities to support schools in making parents and the community full partners in the education of their children. Parents are their children's first teachers, and they have immense influence over their children's attitudes, focus, priorities and goals. Well-informed parents are more likely to be involved, to ask questions, to suggest constructive changes and to make a difference in their child's education. They deserve to know what their children are learning and being tested on, what their children's grades and assessment scores mean, and how assessment data can be used to improve learning. Informed and engaged parents can help turn around struggling schools. Educators have long recognized this fact, based on their own experience and abundant research. Unfortunately, a series of reports by Appleseed make clear schools and districts continue to face too many challenges that undermine the effort to achieve parental involvement. Parents may feel intimidated by language or cultural barriers, or have difficulty understanding their role as an advocate for their children. Parents too often find that the information provided by schools and districts is not released in a timely manner, is not clear and student- specific, and uses technical terms that are unfamiliar. Poor communication also often obscures the school-choice and supplemental- services options for parents under the No Child Left Behind Act. Heather Weiss, the director of the Harvard Family Research Project, emphasizes that with the conclusive evidence now available, the time has come for action. As she states, ``The question we must ask is, in addition to quality schools, what non-school learning resources should we invest in and scale up to improve educational outcomes, narrow achievement gaps, and equip our children with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the complex and global 21st century?'' To encourage greater parent involvement, this bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to enable States to award grants to local education agencies to assist schools in hiring and maintaining Parent and Community Outreach Coordinators. These coordinators will build vital partnerships among families, schools, and the community. They'll work with school principals, teachers, and staff to encourage parents to become more involved in their child's education and give them the tools necessary to become successful advocates for their children. Instead of giving teachers, counselors, and principals more to do, every school should have a resource they can turn to for help with identifying student needs and using community resources to help all students succeed. Educational research also shows that students flourish in environments in which learning is a community value and in which schools have the ability to address a broad range of student needs. Many school districts have established full-service community schools that directly involve parents, families, and the entire community in education. These schools use integrated services to students to help meet multiple local needs in areas such as education, health, social services, and recreation. President Obama has recognized the power of these schools, by often citing the extraordinary success of the Harlem Children's Zone and using it as a model for his Promise Neighborhoods proposal. Responding to this research and to success stories from around the nation, the Keeping PACE Act will help school districts do more to increase community involvement in schools, provide a wide range of support and services to children, and make schools the center of their neighborhood. The Keeping PACE Act supports incentives for local education agencies to coordinate with mayors, community-based organizations, for-profit entities, and other local partners to re- design and modernize their current school plans and facilities to link students more effectively with existing resources. Improved coordination among parents, schools, and their communities can create networks that enable and empower students to take advantage of many more opportunities to learn, and by doing so, we will uncover innovations to help all schools. As with the TIME Act, establishing this network will benefit not only students who need the greatest help with their learning, or who are at risk of dropping out, but also those who need more challenging schoolwork to keep them engaged and making progress. Yet again, Massachusetts is leading the way. A current Massachusetts pilot initiative has placed 32 full-time family and community outreach coordinators in Boston public schools. These coordinators are responsible for supporting families, teachers, and the community in a common effort to help students academically and socially, and their efforts have been successful. For example, the Family and Community Outreach Coordinator at the Condon School in Boston has offered workshops for parents on middle school transition and math curriculum and coordinated parent participation on an anti-bullying initiative at the school, called the School Climate Committee. The Coordinator has helped teachers and parents make connections for parent-teacher conferences, bringing in over 200 parents to participate in a fall open house, in which some of the teachers have reported contact with over 80 percent of their students' families. The Coordinator has also inspired donations to the school through the generosity of local businesses. Now is the time for the nation as a whole to make a greater effort on expanded learning and parent and community involvement. These two bills constitute a strong commitment to meet the comprehensive learning needs of children and families, guarantee a role for parents and families in local schools, and provide real hope to students most at-risk of dropping out. Addressing these challenges is essential to the future and prosperity of our nation as a whole. We know the dimensions of the problem we face. Today, 65 percent of 12th graders do not read on grade level, and 1.2 million students who enter the ninth grade fail to receive a high school diploma four years later. We can no longer afford to pay this high price, either in terms of lost human potential or national productivity. These bills will help millions of young people reach their potential, and help make our education system the best in the world once again. The Keeping PACE Act is supported by 40 organizations representing education communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their joint letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the members of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission for its excellent report and recommendations. Sadly, rape and sexual abuse have often been regarded as inevitable facts of life in prisons across the country. Until now, the Federal Government had never conducted a reliable study of the issue--even though more than 2 million men and women are now behind bars nationwide. The shocking reality is that 1 in 10 of those 2 million will be victims of rape. At greatest risk are the 100,000 juvenile inmates, the 200,000 men and women held in immigration detention centers, and the many inmates suffering from mental illness. Juvenile facilities in particular are regularly the site of shocking physical and mental abuse, and juveniles incarcerated in adult facilities are five times more likely to report being victims of sexual assault than those in juvenile facilities. The recommendations contained in this new report identify the steps and standards needed to achieve safer conditions in our prison system. The members of the Commission deserve our gratitude for their skill and dedication in examining all aspects of this complex and serious problem, and so do all those who contributed their knowledge and expertise to the Commission's work. Their leadership is a major step toward resolving this festering crisis. I look forward to the important work ahead by the Congress, the Attorney General, and the many dedicated professionals, advocates, and experts to implement the Commission's recommendations.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, later today, the Senate will vote to approve legislation that should have been enacted years ago-- authority for the FDA to regulate tobacco products, the most lethal of all consumer products. It has been a long and arduous path with many political obstacles. Fortunately, the legislative journey is nearing a successful conclusion. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a nearly identical bill earlier this spring. In May, the Senate HELP Committee approved the FDA Tobacco bill with the support of a strong bipartisan majority. On Monday, 61 Senators voted to invoke cloture on the committee-passed bill. President Obama is anxiously waiting to sign it into law. Passage of the legislation is much more than a victory for those of us who have long championed this cause. It is a life saving act for the millions of children who will be spared a lifetime of addiction and premature death. The need to regulate tobacco products can no longer be ignored. Used as intended by the companies that manufacture and market them, cigarettes will kill one out of every three smokers. Yet the Federal agency most responsible for protecting the public health is currently powerless to deal with the enormous risks of tobacco use. Public health experts overwhelmingly believe that passage of H.R. 1256 is the most important action Congress can take to protect children from this deadly addiction. Without this strong congressional action, smoking will continue at its current rate, and more than 6 million of today's children will ultimately die from tobacco-induced disease. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America. Nationally, cigarettes kill well over 400,000 people each year. That is more lives lost than from automobile accidents, alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, AIDS, murder, and suicide combined. The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Medical Association, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and eighty-six other national public health organizations speak with one voice on this issue. They are all supporting H.R. 1256 because they know it will give FDA the tools it needs to reduce youth smoking and help addicted smokers quit. A landmark report by the Institute of Medicine, released 2 years ago, strongly urged Congress to ``confer upon the FDA broad regulatory authority over the manufacture, distribution, marketing and use of tobacco products.'' Opponents of this legislation argue that FDA should not be regulating such a dangerous product. I could not disagree more. It is precisely because tobacco products are so deadly that we must empower America's premier public health protector--the FDA--to combat tobacco use. For decades the Federal Government has stayed on the sidelines and done next to nothing to deal with this enormous health problem. The tobacco industry has been allowed to mislead consumers, to make false health claims, to conceal the lethal contents of their products, to make their products even more addictive, and worst of all--to deliberately addict generations of children. The alternative to FDA regulation is more of the same. Allowing this abusive conduct by the tobacco industry to go unchecked would be terribly wrong. Under this legislation, FDA will for the first time have the needed power and resources to take on this challenge. The cost will be funded entirely by a new user fee paid by the tobacco companies in proportion to their market share. Not a single dollar will be diverted from FDA's existing responsibilities. Giving FDA authority over tobacco products will not make the tragic toll of tobacco use disappear overnight. More than 40 million people are hooked on this highly addictive product and many of them have been unable to quit despite repeated attempts. However, FDA action can play a major role in breaking the gruesome cycle that seduces millions of teenagers into a lifetime of addiction and premature death. What can FDA regulation accomplish? It can reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which targets children. It can help prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors. It can stop the tobacco industry from continuing to mislead the public about the dangers of smoking. It can help smokers overcome their addiction. It can make tobacco products less toxic and less addictive for those who continue to use them. And it can prohibit unsubstantiated health claims about supposedly ``reduced risk'' products, and encourage the development of genuinely less harmful alternative products. Regulating the conduct of the tobacco companies is as necessary today as it has been in years past. The facts presented in the Federal Government's landmark lawsuit against the tobacco industry conclusively demonstrate that the misconduct is substantial and ongoing. The decision of the Court states: ``The evidence in this case clearly establishes that Defendants have not ceased engaging in unlawful activity . . . Defendants continue to engage in conduct that is materially indistinguishable from their previous actions, activity that continues to this day.'' Only strong FDA regulation can force the necessary change in their corporate behavior. We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The tobacco industry currently spends over thirteen billion dollars each year to promote its products. Much of that money is spent in ways designed to tempt children to start smoking, before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity of the health risk. Four thousand children have their first cigarette every day, and 1,000 of them become daily smokers. The industry knows that nearly 90 percent of smokers begin as children and are addicted by the time they reach adulthood. Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies' own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children into dependency on their deadly product. Studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the substantial role of industry advertising in decisions by young people to use tobacco products. If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, FDA must have the power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children. This legislation will give FDA the authority to stop tobacco advertising that glamorizes smoking to kids. It grants FDA full authority to regulate tobacco advertising ``consistent with and to the full extent permitted by the First Amendment.'' FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. Nearly every State makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 18, but surveys show that many of those laws are rarely enforced and frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self- service displays and vending machine sales. There must also be serious enforcement efforts with real penalties for those caught selling tobacco products to children. This is the only way to ensure that children under 18 are not able to buy cigarettes. The FDA conducted the longest rulemaking proceeding in its history, studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its proceeding, the Agency promulgated rules on the manner in which cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new multiyear rulemaking process on the same issues. This legislation will give the youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by FDA the force of law, as if they had been issued under the new statute. Once they are in place, FDA will have the authority to modify these rules as changing circumstances warrant. The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These warnings will be larger and more explicit in their description of the medical problems which can result from tobacco use. Each cigarette pack will carry a graphic depiction of the consequences of smoking. The FDA is given the authority to change the warning labels periodically, to keep their impact strong. The nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say that it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco companies vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products. No one can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under oath before Congress that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through the discovery process proves that the companies not only knew of this addictiveness for decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even more addictive. An analysis by the Harvard School of Public Health demonstrates that cigarette manufacturers are still manipulating nicotine levels. Between 1998 and 2005, they significantly increased the nicotine yield from major brand-name cigarettes. The average increase in nicotine yield over the period was 11 percent. The tobacco industry has a long dishonorable history of providing misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end. Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the FDA regulate them for the protection of the public. Over 40 million Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. No responsible public health official believes that cigarettes should be banned. A ban would leave 40 million people without a way to satisfy their drug dependency. FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers overcome their addiction, and to make the product less toxic for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA must have the authority to reduce or remove hazardous and addictive ingredients from cigarettes, to the extent that it is scientifically feasible. The inherent risk in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded. Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes. Some are already on the market making unsubstantiated claims. This legislation will require manufacturers to submit such ``reduced risk'' products to the FDA for analysis before they can be marketed. No health-related claims will be permitted until they have been verified to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential to prevent deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the public into a false sense of health safety. Only by preventing bogus claims will there be a real financial incentive for companies to develop new technologies that can lead to genuinely and verifiably safer products. This legislation will vest FDA not only with the responsibility for regulating tobacco products, but with full authority to do the job effectively. It is long overdue. Voting for this legislation today is the right thing to do for America's children. They are depending on us. By passing this legislation, we can help them live longer, healthier lives. I know that the Senate will not let them down.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in this turbulent economy, working families are facing enormous challenges. Too many families are living paycheck to paycheck, just one layoff or health crisis away from disaster. Now more than ever, workers are struggling to balance the demands of their jobs and their families. When a sickness or health problem arises, these challenges can easily become insurmountable. Unfortunately, almost half of all private sector workers--including 79 percent of low-wage workers--have no paid sick days they can use to care for themselves or a sick family member. For these workers, taking a day off to care for their own health or a sick child means losing a much-needed paycheck, or even putting their jobs in danger. In a recent survey, 1 in 6 workers reported that they or a family member have been fired, punished or threatened with termination for taking time off because of their own illness or to care for a sick relative. Workers can't afford to take that kind of risk now. Losing even one paycheck can mean falling behind on bills, foregoing needed medicines, or skipping meals. As a result, many employees continue to go to work when they are ill, and send their children to school or day care sick, because it's the only way to make ends meet. The lack of paid sick day is not just a crisis for individual families--it is a public health crisis as well. The current flu outbreak provides a compelling illustration. To prevent the spread of the virus, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, and numerous state and local public health officials urged people to stay home from work or school if they flu-like symptoms. Strong scientific evidence proves that this is one of the best ways to prevent the spread of disease and protect the public health. But without paid sick days, following this sound advice is often impossible--millions of employees want to do the right thing and stay home, but our current laws just do not protect them. The Family and Medical Leave Act enables workers to take time off for serious health conditions, but only about half of today's workers are covered by the act, and millions more can not take advantage of it because this leave is unpaid. Hardworking Americans should not have to make these impossible choices. That's why Senator Dodd, Representative Rosa DeLauro and I are introducing the Healthy Families Act, which will enable workers to take up to 56 hours, or about 7 days, of paid sick leave each year. Employees can use this time to stay home and get well when they are ill, to care for a sick family member, to obtain preventive or diagnostic treatment, or to seek help if they are victims of domestic violence. This important legislation will provide needed security for working families struggling to balance the jobs they need and the families they love. It will improve public health and reduce health costs by preventing the spread of disease and giving employees the access they need to obtain preventive care. It will also help victims of domestic violence to protect their families and their futures. In addition, the legislation will benefit businesses by decreasing employee turnover, and improving productivity. ``Presenteeism''--sick workers coming to work and infecting their colleagues instead of staying at home--costs our economy $180 billion annually in lost productivity. For employers, the cost averages $255 per employee per year, and exceeds the cost of absenteeism and medical and disability benefits. The lack of paid sick days also leads to higher employee turnover, especially for low-wage workers. When the benefits of the Healthy Families Act are weighed against its costs, providing paid sick days will actually save American businesses up to $9 billion a year by eliminating these productivity losses and reducing turnover. Above all, enabling workers to earn paid sick time to care for themselves and their families is a matter of fundamental fairness. Every worker has had to miss days of work because of illness. Every child gets sick and needs a parent at home to take care of them. And all hardworking Americans deserve the chance to take care of their families without putting their jobs or their health on the line. It is long past time for our laws to deal with these difficult choices that working men and women face every day. As President Obama has said, ``Nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child.'' I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting the Healthy Families Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in this turbulent economy, working families are facing enormous challenges. Too many families are living paycheck to paycheck, just one layoff or health crisis away from disaster. Now more than ever, workers are struggling to balance the demands of their jobs and their families. When a sickness or health problem arises, these challenges can easily become insurmountable. Unfortunately, almost half of all private sector workers--including 79 percent of low-wage workers--have no paid sick days they can use to care for themselves or a sick family member. For these workers, taking a day off to care for their own health or a sick child means losing a much-needed paycheck, or even putting their jobs in danger. In a recent survey, 1 in 6 workers reported that they or a family member have been fired, punished or threatened with termination for taking time off because of their own illness or to care for a sick relative. Workers can't afford to take that kind of risk now. Losing even one paycheck can mean falling behind on bills, foregoing needed medicines, or skipping meals. As a result, many employees continue to go to work when they are ill, and send their children to school or day care sick, because it's the only way to make ends meet. The lack of paid sick day is not just a crisis for individual families--it is a public health crisis as well. The current flu outbreak provides a compelling illustration. To prevent the spread of the virus, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, and numerous state and local public health officials urged people to stay home from work or school if they flu-like symptoms. Strong scientific evidence proves that this is one of the best ways to prevent the spread of disease and protect the public health. But without paid sick days, following this sound advice is often impossible--millions of employees want to do the right thing and stay home, but our current laws just do not protect them. The Family and Medical Leave Act enables workers to take time off for serious health conditions, but only about half of today's workers are covered by the act, and millions more can not take advantage of it because this leave is unpaid. Hardworking Americans should not have to make these impossible choices. That's why Senator Dodd, Representative Rosa DeLauro and I are introducing the Healthy Families Act, which will enable workers to take up to 56 hours, or about 7 days, of paid sick leave each year. Employees can use this time to stay home and get well when they are ill, to care for a sick family member, to obtain preventive or diagnostic treatment, or to seek help if they are victims of domestic violence. This important legislation will provide needed security for working families struggling to balance the jobs they need and the families they love. It will improve public health and reduce health costs by preventing the spread of disease and giving employees the access they need to obtain preventive care. It will also help victims of domestic violence to protect their families and their futures. In addition, the legislation will benefit businesses by decreasing employee turnover, and improving productivity. ``Presenteeism''--sick workers coming to work and infecting their colleagues instead of staying at home--costs our economy $180 billion annually in lost productivity. For employers, the cost averages $255 per employee per year, and exceeds the cost of absenteeism and medical and disability benefits. The lack of paid sick days also leads to higher employee turnover, especially for low-wage workers. When the benefits of the Healthy Families Act are weighed against its costs, providing paid sick days will actually save American businesses up to $9 billion a year by eliminating these productivity losses and reducing turnover. Above all, enabling workers to earn paid sick time to care for themselves and their families is a matter of fundamental fairness. Every worker has had to miss days of work because of illness. Every child gets sick and needs a parent at home to take care of them. And all hardworking Americans deserve the chance to take care of their families without putting their jobs or their health on the line. It is long past time for our laws to deal with these difficult choices that working men and women face every day. As President Obama has said, ``Nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child.'' I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting the Healthy Families Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Taoiseach Brian Cowen met with the ninth class of George J. Mitchell Scholars. His decision to meet with this impressive group of students demonstrates the major contribution this program is making to strengthen the future of the United States-Ireland relationship. The United States-Ireland Alliance was created in 1998 by my former foreign policy adviser, Trina Vargo. With limited resources and staff, the alliance has been at the forefront of recognizing, and then responding to, the fundamental changes in the United States-Ireland relationship. The Mitchell Scholarship program is the keystone of the United States-Ireland Alliance. It has been led ably by Mary Lou Hartman, and has gone from strength to strength. In a few short years, the program has become as competitive and as sought after as other renowned scholarships such as the Rhodes, Marshall, and Fulbright Scholarships. This year, 300 people applied for the 12 annual Mitchell Scholarships. I have followed the causes of these former Mitchell Scholars and they are already making outstanding contributions and reflect the commitment to service exemplified by our former Senate colleague, George Mitchell. One former Mitchell Scholar, Seena Perumal, lives in Cambridge, MA, where she serves is chief of staff for the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy. Seena graduated with a bachelor's degree in religion and a master's in public health from Case Western Reserve University. She founded and was president of Project Sunshine, which serves hospitalized children, and founded and was president of Alternative Break, an organization that helps organize community service trips during spring breaks from college. She also worked with Cleveland Jobs With Justice, a group that ensures workers' rights. As a Mitchell Scholar, she obtained a master's degree in international human rights at the National University of Ireland in Galway. She then served as the director of new initiatives for the New York City Department of Homeless Services, the agency that oversees policies and programs for the city's approximately 37,000 homeless persons. The U.S. Government has provided $500,000 each year for the Mitchell Scholarship Program. I commend Irish businessman Derek Quinlan for his commitment to raise 20 million euros toward establishing a permanent endowment for this program. The Irish Government has agreed to match what is raised for this impressive program, and I am sure that United States-Ireland ties will continue to benefit significantly from these important scholarships in the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my Senate colleagues for confirming the President's nominee for FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg. Strong, new leadership is needed to improve the operations and morale of the agency and make the FDA again the world class agency that Americans trust to protect the health of their families. Dr. Hamburg's expertise in community health, biodefense, and nuclear, biological, and chemical preparedness is well-known and highly respected, and her experience makes her eminently well-qualified to lead the FDA at this difficult time. As a student and researcher, Dr. Hamburg learned first hand about many of the issues which confront the FDA. Later, at the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, as assistant director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at NIH, and as the commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, she proved herself to be a brilliant scientist and leader. Her skills were particularly impressive on tuberculosis, which was the leading infectious killer of youths and adults in the city in the 1990s and had become resistant to standard drugs. Within 5 years, the TB rate in New York City fell by 46 percent overall, and 86 percent for the most drug-resistant strains. Dr. Hamburg's impressive experience was further enhanced by her service as President Clinton's Assistant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation at HHS, as a member of the Institute of Medicine, and as vice president for Biological Programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Dr. Hamburg will face many challenges as FDA Commissioner but she is obviously well-prepared to deal with them. She has impressive experience in both clinical practice and research, and her background makes her ideal to lead the FDA as it combats food-borne illnesses, works with other agencies to combat disease outbreaks, and protects our food, drugs, and medical devices. Her confirmation marks the beginning of a welcome new era at FDA, and I look forward very much to working with her.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that remarks by Ralph Neas be printed in the Record. The being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Remarks of Ralph G. Neas, CEO of the National Coalition on Health Care, the Special Otis Bowen Lecture, University of Notre Dame, March 26, 2009 Thank you. It is truly an honor and a privilege to be here with you today as a participant in the Otis Bowen lecture series. I want to express my appreciation to Dr. Mark Walsh for inviting me, and commend all the conveners and hosts of this gathering. I congratulate Indiana University and the University of Notre Dame for the collaboration that brought IU's medical school to the Notre Dame campus. I want to especially thank Otis ``Doc'' Bowen, the 44th Governor of Indiana, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services during the Reagan Administration. His leadership, commitment to the public interest, and his contributions to Indiana and the Nation are exemplary and should serve as a model for us all to emulate. Dr. Bowen, both Dr. Henry Simmons, the visionary founder and president of the National Coalition on Health Care (NCHC), and former Governor Robert Ray of Iowa, the Co-Chair of NCHC, send their warm regards. Dr. Simmons was one of President Richard Nixon's top health care advisors in the early 1970s and worked on the Grace Commission which in the 1980s found that one-third of all income taxes were consumed by waste and inefficiency. He has devoted his professional life to improving health care for all Americans. And Governor Ray worked with Dr. Simmons and you many times over the past several decades. I am so proud to be working with them. Our timing is propitious. Indeed, the conveners of this event were prescient. We gather tonight at an extraordinary moment in history: The Nation is facing the worst economic crisis in more than seven decades and Americans urgently need a better health care system; our health care system is dysfunctional and represents an unsustainable drain on our economy as a whole. It is inefficient and inequitable; urgent action is required to systematically address what is an incredibly challenging and morally troubling policy problem affecting every American. In short, the health care system in the United States is in desperate need of significant reform. However, we should emphasize at the beginning that we need an American solution. We can and should borrow from the best of what works elsewhere. But we should recognize our unique history and the special characteristics of the American people. The good news is that the President and Congress are seriously considering health care reform. In fact, in just the past month we have seen a presidential address to a joint session of Congress, a presidential budget, and a presidential summit, all prominently featuring systemic, systematic health care reform. In addition, the Senate and House of Representatives have already commenced comprehensive hearings. We must succeed. Too much is at stake: the health and well- being of millions of American families, and the future of the Nation's economic and fiscal health. Also at stake, I believe, is whether we can help restore the trust and confidence of the American people in their government. So I cannot imagine a better time for us to be having this conversation. And I couldn't be happier that it is happening here. The University of Notre Dame, and people connected to Notre Dame, have been central to my life in more ways than I can count. I was a student here during the 1960s. As a young person I had watched on television as Bull Connor turned dogs and fire hoses on civil rights marchers. I had watched Martin Luther King champion human dignity in the face of bigotry and violence. Early on, I wondered whether I had a vocation to the priesthood, but I found in Dr. King and the Kennedys an inspiration to public service as a different kind of vocation. And that brought me to Notre Dame. Father Ted Hesburgh became the first of many Notre Dame role models, teachers, and mentors who have sustained and guided me ever since. The last time I spoke at Notre Dame was about 25 years ago, in 1983. I was just a short time into my tenure as executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and I was asked to address a conference for Catholic laity on work and faith in society sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. I believe, like the late Senator Phil Hart of Michigan, that politics can be a high vocation--that a politician can be a lay priest of society. In preparing for that speech, I realized that I had learned about human dignity and equality before God from my church and my family long before I learned about the legal principle of equality under the law from my college and law school professors. Those principles have guided my life's work and are central to what I am here to talk about today. Another principle that has guided my political life is bipartisanship. I had the extraordinary good fortune to work for two remarkable Republican senators early in my public service career--Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts, and David Durenberger of Minnesota. They were politicians and public servants who were less interested in ideology and political positioning, and more interested in moving the Nation forward, in finding workable solutions to the Nation's problems. They weren't just willing to work across the partisan aisle; it was central to who they were. These principles were at the core of my decision last month to accept the position as CEO of the National Coalition on Health Care. After I decided to step down as president of People For the American Way, I had spoken with many other health care coalitions and institutions. But I had a keen personal and professional interest in working to achieve health care reform in the most non-ideological and most non- partisan way possible. And I was impressed by what a great fit there was between the National Coalition and my skills, background, and approach to public policy. The National Coalition on Health Care is the largest, broadest, most diverse coalition working to achieve comprehensive health care reform. It is an alliance of 79 organizations representing business, unions, health care providers, associations of religious congregations, minorities, people with disabilities, pension and health funds, insurers, and groups representing patients and consumers. Our member organizations represent more than 150 million Americans. They speak for a cross-section, and a majority, of our population. Our board includes Frank Carlucci, who served several Republican and Democratic presidents in a range of intelligence, national security, and ambassadorial positions, and Israel Gaither, the National Commander of the Salvation Army. It includes John Sweeney, the president of the AFL-CIO, and William Novelli, the CEO of AARP. It includes John McArthur, dean emeritus of the Harvard Business School, Cheryl Healton, President of the American Legacy Foundation, and John Seffrin, CEO of the National Cancer Society. These are organizations and leaders who individually play a major role in our society and in public policy making. Together they represent an extraordinary breadth of expertise and resources. The Coalition is rigorously nonpartisan. Former Presidents George H. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter are our honorary co- chairs. Former Iowa Governor Robert Ray, a Republican, and former Congressman Bob Edgar, a Democrat from Pennsylvania are its co-chairmen. We believe it is essential to make reform a bipartisan process and a bipartisan achievement. I am especially proud of two of the pillars of the Coalition. One of those pillars is religious organizations. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is a member of the National Coalition on Health Care because the Catholic tradition affirms that access to health care is a basic human right and a requirement of human dignity. The Catholic bishops are joined in that belief, and in our coalition, by the Salvation Army, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches, the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, and the National Council of Churches. The backing and active participation of these religious communities gives us access to their networks of local religious leaders and lay people. We are well equipped to engage policymakers and the public on the moral poverty of leaving millions of Americans without access to quality affordable health care, and on the moral urgency of tackling that problem. Another especially significant pillar of our coalition is the medical societies, which together represent hundreds of thousands of doctors. They include the American College of Cardiology, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Surgeons, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Emergency Physicians. Also included are the American Dental Education Association, the Duke University Medical Center and Johns Hopkins Medicine. And just yesterday the Association of American Medical Colleges, along with the Council of Teaching Hospitals, joined our Coalition. This is a very serious brain trust of physicians, medical educators, and their advocates. During the last major health care reform effort in 1993 and 1994, many of the medical societies opposed that effort. But they working with us now, I think, for several reasons. First, the need for reform has become increasingly obvious and urgent to everyone who cares about making sure that people have access to quality health care. Second, I believe that doctors have a better view than anyone of the current system's problems, inefficiencies, and distortions. I remember a time in the 1980s when a rallying cry from conservative pundits was ``let Reagan be Reagan.'' Part of what we're trying to accomplish here is to ``let doctors be doctors!'' More than just about anything else, doctors want to practice medicine. Also, this year, everyone has been invited to the table. My own experience tells me that is how lasting progress is made. In the early 1980s, I was selected to lead the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Nation's oldest and largest civil rights coalition. Working with Republican and Democratic leaders, with business and labor and public interest advocates, we accomplished great things. The passage of the life- and culture-changing Americans with Disabilities Act. The strengthening of every major civil rights law with huge bipartisan congressional majorities, and often with the support of the business community. That could only be accomplished by building active alliances across party lines, engaging business and nonprofit leaders, public officials and community activists. We had to find ways to address each community's needs with a pragmatic and principled eye on the ultimate goal of advancing the common good. The members and board of the National Coalition on Health Care understand that all the elements of our health care system are interdependent. So are the health care sector and the broader economy. That is why any solution must be systemic and system-wide if it is to be meaningful and effective. And that's also why reform must be accomplished now. Let me make a case for urgency by discussing the nature of our health care problem. There is no question that our system produces and includes extraordinarily gifted medical professionals. I am alive today because 30 years ago I had access to some of the best medical care the world has to offer. But millions of Americans do not have affordable access to that care. Indeed, nearly 50 million Americans do not have health insurance--a number that grows with every layoff, or with every employer who cuts health coverage to avoid cutting jobs. Every 2 years, some 90 million Americans go without health coverage. Another 20 million are underinsured. What does that mean to individuals and families? It can be disastrous for their physical and financial health. People without insurance--or without sufficient insurance-- are less likely to get preventive care that will keep them healthy. They are less likely to go to a doctor when they become ill. Their serious illnesses are diagnosed when they are more advanced and harder to treat. They put off treatments they need but cannot afford. And when they do face serious injury or illness, the cost of treatment can be devastating to their families. There are a lot of numbers and statistics that we use to analyze and describe the current state of our health care system. One that really leaps out to me--that is especially heartbreaking--is that currently one-half of all personal bankruptcies, and one half of all foreclosures, are caused by an inability to pay medical expenses. Think about what that means. Thousands and thousands of families, already traumatized by serious illness or tragic accident, are punished even further. They go through a medical crisis and are forced into a financial crisis. They say good-bye to a loved one--and are forced out of their home. And there is no telling the toll on communities of citizens who are sidelined--or worse--by a condition that could have been treated less expensively and more effectively if the cost of care had not kept people away. These are not just tragic stories. They are evidence of an unforgivable level of cruelty in our current health care system. And, of course, all these consequences are not limited to the uninsured and underinsured. The consequences are shared; the burden is shared, by everyone. The costs of emergency room care for the uninsured are shifted to other parts of the system, to other payers. According to a study by Emory University health care economist Kenneth Thorpe, the cost of providing uncompensated care to uninsured patients adds more than $1,000 per year to the average cost of employer- sponsored family coverage. And that leads us to the second part of the problem we must address--the staggering cost of health care in this country, which is growing in ways that Americans and America cannot afford. The cost of insurance is an increasingly heavy burden even for those who have it. Over the past decade, employers and workers have seen their health care costs rise 120 percent. On the other hand, wages only increased 34 percent during the same period (while inflation rose 29 percent). The average cost to families rose from just over $6,000 per year to about $12,000 per year. That is a huge amount for many middle class families. It is an insurmountable burden for working families. And unless we act, it will only get worse. Richard Johnson and Rudolph Penner of the Urban Institute projected that in 2030, out-of-pocket health care costs will consume more than 35 percent of after-tax income for older married couples. That is more than double the 16 percent that health care costs took from those couples in 2000. As a Nation, we spend $2.5 trillion in health care costs every year. That is a sixth of our national economy, or about $6,000 per capita. That is twice as much as the average of all industrialized countries, and 50 percent more than the next Nation on the list. (And remember, those countries cover all their citizens, while 15 percent of Americans have no coverage at all.) Costs have been consistently rising at a much higher rate than the consumer price index. We as a Nation simply cannot afford double-digit growth in health care costs year after year. They make it harder for businesses to provide health care coverage for their employees--and those employees find it harder to pay the growing share they are asked to contribute to that coverage. The increasing cost to small and large businesses is a dire challenge to their profitability, competitiveness and survival. It drains funds from research and development, makes it more expensive to hire new employees, and makes it less affordable to offer workers increased wages. Increasing costs undermine the viability of pension funds. And they increasingly put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage to companies abroad who have much lower health care costs. And the fiscal drain to state and federal governments is ruinous. It has been estimated that by 2050, Medicare and Medicaid combined will consume more than double their current share of our gross national product. Our country's financial health--as well as that of individuals, families, and companies--requires that we get costs under control. Closely connected to the problem of runaway costs is the national epidemic of substandard care. It may be hard to believe, but every year 100,000 Americans die from preventable medical mistakes. Another 100,000 die from infections contracted in U.S. hospitals. Millions of others are injured or affected, with cascading consequences for their families, their employers, their communities. It has been estimated that preventable health care accidents, errors, and poor quality of care are the Nation's third leading cause of death after cancer and heart disease. A few years ago a major study by the RAND Institute examined the medical records of thousands of patients from 12 metropolitan areas and evaluated the care they received using indicators of quality developed by specialty expert panels. They found that patients got about 55 percent of recommended care. We should not be willing to accept or tolerate this mismatch between standards and actual practices. And here is more evidence of the interconnected nature of these problems. Two different research studies have estimated that dealing with defects in the quality of our health care could reduce the total cost of health care by 30 percent. 30 percent. That's $750 billion per year. That is a huge financial incentive to deal with the quality of care and the waste and inefficiencies of our current system. So that is the outline of the health care challenge we face--uncontrolled costs, unacceptable quality of care, and unconscionable lack of access to care for millions of Americans. Acting urgently is both a moral and financial imperative. The current economic crisis is putting more families out of work, putting greater strain on companies that struggle to provide health care, and putting enormous fiscal strains on Federal and State budgets. President Obama has called for lawmakers to take action this year. In response, some pundits and critics have suggested that the Obama administration is putting too much on its plate--that it should hold off on health care reform while it figures out how to deal with the financial crisis. But that is not possible. Health care is such an enormous part of the economy, is so interwoven with individual, corporate, and governmental crises, that it is not possible to address our economic woes without taking up health care reform. We have reached the point where the public's most pressing domestic concerns--economic growth, jobs, and retirement security, and health care--are fundamentally intertwined. The first three concerns cannot be addressed effectively unless health care costs are contained. The cost of doing nothing far exceeds the costs of taking action now. And if we implement real systemic reforms now, we will save trillions of dollars in the long run. As economist Peter Orzag says, the road to fiscal sustainability runs through health care reform. Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve System, puts it this way: ``The decision we make about health care reform will affect many aspects of our economy, including the pace of economic growth, wages and living standards, and government budgets, to name a few . . . As the public interest in these issues testifies, the stakes associated with health care reform, both economic and social, are very high.'' So, act we must. But how? It is easy to be dismayed at the size and complexity of the problem--and by past failures to address it. But we cannot shy from reform. Nor can we let a political stalemate grind the process to a halt. I am a veteran of many difficult battles in Washington. I've been part of them for 35 years. And I've never seen a bigger challenge, substantively or politically. But I am cautiously optimistic about the possibilities for real reform this year. There exists a rare confluence of economic, political, and historic circumstances. There is a much broader consensus on the need for ambitious reform. And we are seeing all the stakeholders coming to the table, not with the goal of turning the table over and maintaining the status quo, but to seek some kind of resolution to the systemic problems that can no longer be denied or rationalized away. That's what the National Health Care Coalition is committed to doing this year. And, I'm proud to say, we're ready because we've already done our homework. I've been talking a lot about the problem. Let's talk about the solution. The Coalition spent 18 months working with our board, member organizations, and health care experts to reach a consensus on principles and specifications for reform. There's no more detailed or comprehensive proposal on the table that I'm aware of. The overarching requirement is that reform be both systemic and system-wide. With that as an understanding, we have laid out five principles for reform and specific and achievable approaches within each category. The first principle is coverage for all Americans. We believe coverage should be defined clearly and comprehensively. It should include emergency care, acute care, prescription drugs, oral health care, early detection and screening, preventative care (including smoking cessation programs), care for chronic conditions, and end-of-life care. There should be no exclusion for pre-existing conditions. We recognize a range of options--and possible combinations of options--can be used to achieve this goal: employer mandates, supplemented with individual mandates as necessary; expansion of existing public programs that cover subsets of the uninsured; creation of new public programs targeted at groups of the uninsured; or establishment of a universal publicly financed system. Participation must be universal, and there must be subsidies provided for those least able to afford coverage. But none of these options requires a government-run system. The second principle is cost management. The numbers that I talked about earlier make it clear that it will not be possible to achieve sustainable reform without tackling the cost issue head-on. Cost management must be a multi-faceted undertaking. It should include: a plan to make health insurance premiums easier to compare by requiring insurers to establish separate premiums for the core benefit package and any supplemental coverage; a rational mechanism for increasing the cost- effectiveness of capital spending; cost-sharing and other tools to provide more and better information and incentives for patients to make good choices about health maintenance and care, and reduce over-use and under-use; an increased emphasis on prevention and early detection of disease; a commitment to improving quality of care; investment in a health care information infrastructure; and steps to modernize and simplify the administration, and dramatically reduce the administrative costs of the health care system. It is true that successful reform of all the areas we have talked about will produce significant long-term savings. But it is also essential to begin immediately to bend the cost curve and slowing those double-digit increases that are outstripping our ability to pay for them. The increases in health care costs and insurance premiums for the core package of benefits should be brought into line with percentage increases in per-capital gross domestic product. And we should aim to achieve that goal within 5 years after the enactment of legislation. There must be short-term cost constraints that would include rates for reimbursing providers for care encompassed by the core benefit package, and limits in increases in insurance premiums for the core benefit package. We are not advocating for cuts in reimbursement rates. But slowing the rate of increase is vital--and will reduce the likelihood of sudden cuts made under the stress of financial crisis. We recommend that these efforts to manage costs be established and administered by an independent board chartered and overseen by Congress. The third basic principle is one I just mentioned in terms of cost containment--that is a national effort to improve the quality and safety of care. This includes accelerated development of a national information technology infrastructure, as well as increased emphasis on prevention and early detection of disease, and research on comparative effectiveness and practice guidelines to reduce waste and improve the safety and effectiveness of health care. The members of the National Coalition on Health Care recommend that national practice guidelines be developed by panels of leading health care professional based on reviews of research on the effectiveness and impact of technologies and treatment. Conforming to these best practice guidelines could not only reduce unnecessary treatment and costs, but could also help protect medical professionals against frivolous or marginal lawsuits. Fourth, we must make the financing of health care more equitable and reduce or eliminate cost-shifting. Again in this area we have identified a range of mechanisms that could be used, individually or in some combination, to fund the costs of necessary reforms and assuring that every American is covered: general revenues, earmarked taxes or fees, required contributions from employers, required contributions from individuals and families, which would include co-payments, deductibles, and contributions toward premiums. Subsidies should be provided, or financial obligations varied, based on relative ability to pay for less affluent individuals, families, and employers. And fifth, we must simplify the administration of health care. The United States spends more than any other Nation-- hundreds of billions of dollars every year--to administer our health care system. Administrative expenses incurred by private health insurers rose 52 percent between 1999 and 2002. Our system's complexity is not only expensive; it is also confusing and frustrating for patients and doctors. And its lack of transparency undermines both accountability and the ability of individuals and organizations to make market-based decisions. Assuring coverage for all Americans, and establishing a core benefit package, would create a consistent set of ground rules for patients, providers and payers. An integrated technology infrastructure would not only reduce administrative complexity and costs, but help to reduce medical errors, protect patients' safety, and improve outcomes. These principles--coverage for all, cost containment, quality and effectiveness of care, simplified administration, and equitable financing--are interdependent. And we must deal with them that way. Taken together, the National Coalition on Health Care specifications provide an ambitious and achievable guide to our Nation's lawmakers. We know what investments and policy changes we need to make now in order to improve access and quality of health care in a way that the Nation can afford. We have a road map. Now we need to keep policymakers focused on the journey. President Obama, who recently hosted a bipartisan summit on health care reform at the White House--has urged Congress to give him reform legislation this year. He has put a significant down payment for reform in his budget. While I do not think the Administration has yet been ambitious enough--dealing, for example, in a realistic way with the need to contain costs--I believe the White House has learned important lessons from the experience of 1993 and 1994. They are including all stakeholders from the beginning. They are putting forward broad principles and counting on Congress to write the legislation. And they are moving in a bipartisan fashion, inviting Republican and Democratic congressional leaders into their conversations. I believe bipartisanship is essential not just because we need 60 votes in the Senate, but because a bipartisan consensus would be good for the country as we move forward in this enormous, and enormously important, undertaking. We must understand fully that time is our most formidable foe. We must achieve health care reform now, not only to protect and advance Americans' health, but to shore up our reeling economy. We must take advantage of the political momentum for change. We must overcome those who might be tempted to see the failure of reform as a political opportunity. Reform must be enacted this year--and as of today the year is already almost one-quarter behind us. In Congress, there are at least seven major committees that have some jurisdiction and will be involved in crafting reform legislation. That means multiple subcommittee hearings and markups, full committee markups, House and Senate floor debates and votes, and the House-Senate conference committee. All of this takes time. As I tell my law school legislative process classes, there are 100 decision-making points in the legislative process, and each of them is a point at which compromise can take place. If we are to have reform enacted this year, we must have a bill through the Senate with a bipartisan consensus by Labor Day. So each day is enormously consequential. We have no time for ideological warfare or partisan posturing. This truly is a time for pragmatism to trump ideology. We need to be focused on what works. And we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We can do this. A few years ago, my father-in-law was in Rome. He was at the Vatican when he collapsed with a heart problem. He was attended to by the Pope's doctor--the finest care he could have asked for. And when he had recovered and asked how much he owed, the answer was ``nothing!'' His health care in Italy was free. I know it's a simple story, and our quest for an American solution is anything but simple, but there's no reason we cannot achieve the same kinds of access to affordable quality care that other nations provide. There is another story that explains why I am so committed to making this work--and why I have faith that it can. In 1979, as a young man of 32, I was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a disease that paralyzes the nerves and muscles. Over a period of weeks I became completely paralyzed, unable to breathe on my own or move a muscle. I was put on a respirator for 75 days, and was eventually given general absolution when it was not clear that I would survive. Three of my doctors in St. Mary's hospital in Minneapolis, Minnesota, were Notre Dame graduates, including chief of staff Pat Barrett, who was the football team's doctor on the road. They helped me survive and recuperate. But no one was more important than my mother, who traveled to Minneapolis from a suburb of Chicago and sat at my bedside, holding my hand, for 50 of my first 100 days in the intensive care unit. And then there was Sister Margaret Francis Schilling, a nun who had survived Guillain-Barre 25 years earlier, and who was celebrating her 50th anniversary as a nun in 1979, who talked to me every day, who prayed with me every night, and who helped save my life and renew my faith. You can probably understand why, when given the opportunity to be transferred to the Mayo Clinic, I told my parents that I wanted to stay at St. Mary's. Sometimes the appearance of near-mystical serendipity trumps all other considerations. The experience taught me many things, most notably how vulnerable each of us is, and how dependent we are on each other. I had been a young hot-shot on a fast track congressional career. I thought I could do anything. As long as I worked hard and never gave up, I would not need anybody. I learned the hard way how wrong I was. I learned first-hand how quickly our lives and health can take a turn. I came out of that experience with a renewed commitment to public service, and with a sense of how interdependent different vocations--like Sister Margaret's, my doctors', and mine-- could be. After I finished my physical rehabilitation, and recovered my physical and mental stamina, I began interviewing for jobs. My parents, Senator Brooke, and Senator Durenberger were all advocating that I join a law firm and begin a more traditional way of life. In the middle of my deliberations, John Sears, a Notre Dame grad, a lawyer, and the former campaign manager for Ronald Reagan, gave me contrary advice. He told me that I could join a law firm at any time. But the Nation in 1981 was about to begin a historic debate about civil rights, social justice, and the role of the Federal Government. He told me that if I had an opportunity to have a leadership position, I should seize the moment. He told me how important it was to be on ``the front lines of history.'' Only then could you make a dramatic difference for your family, your community, and your country. And that is the opportunity and the challenge that we all face at this moment. The great Irish poet Seamus Heaney has written: History says, Don't hope On this side of the grave. But then, once in a lifetime The longed-for tidal wave Of justice can rise up, And hope and history rhyme. We all have a chance, working together, to make hope and history rhyme. Regardless of where you stand on the health care issues before us, I urge you to get involved. This is a time for all of us--of whatever vocation--to come together. We must all be willing to sacrifice for an accomplishment that would address a great moral failing, that would strengthen our Nation's economy as well as its social fabric, that could point the way toward dealing constructively with other systemic challenges ahead. I hope you will support the principles of the National Coalition on Health Care. But the most important thing, in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, is to ``share the passion and action'' of one's time. Please do not sit on the sidelines. Immerse yourself, passionately, in this historic moment. Please know how much it has meant to me to be here. I am profoundly grateful for the opportunity to be with you tonight. Thank you.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly supported the confirmation of Governor Kathleen Sebelius to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. America needs strong and effective leadership in public health. That is true at all times but never more so than when the Nation faces a grave threat from a serious disease epidemic. We face such a threat now from swine flu. The world has looked on with growing apprehension as cases of this deadly new illness appeared first in one nation, then in another, and another. Yesterday, Spain reported its first case. Today, New Zealand. Tomorrow, who knows where the epidemic will have spread. In our own Nation, we have seen cases of swine flu in New York, California, Texas, Kansas, and Ohio. The disease will surely become more widespread before it abates. That is why we need effective leadership at the helm of our public health agencies with the authority that only Senate approval can confer. To have delayed this vote would make no sense--the epidemic would grow and more cases would be reported. The Nation urgently needs Governor Sebelius' leadership at HHS in the fight against this deadly epidemic. Governor Sebelius will face other important challenges as well. None of these is more pressing or more urgent than the need to reform America's broken health care system. Today we stand at a historic crossroads in health care in America. The United States spends more than $2 trillion a year on health care, accounting for roughly one-sixth of our entire economy. We spend more per person on health care than any other country. Yet our health outcomes, as measured by key benchmarks like infant mortality and life expectancy, lag behind other developed countries. Nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured including over 8 million children and a disproportionate share of minorities. 25 million more of our citizens remain underinsured, and even those with insurance often receive substandard or inappropriate care. Our health care system cries out for reform, and now is the time. Governor Sebelius has the experience, compassion and steady hand to take the helm of the Department of Health and Human Services and help lead our Nation toward high-quality, affordable health care for all. She has served the people in Kansas well for over 20 years as State legislator, as insurance commissioner and as Governor, and she has demonstrated deep knowledge of the problems plaguing our health care system, and the vision and skill to fix them. Time and time again she has reached across the aisle and achieved practical solutions that have resulted in tangible benefits to families and businesses. She was asked by former Republican Governor Bill Graves to design and lead the Kansas Children's Health Insurance Program in 1998, and she led an expansion of coverage from 15,000 to over 51,000 children. As Governor, her Healthy Kansas Initiative has helped to contain runaway health care costs, streamline the bureaucracy, and make health insurance and prescription drugs more affordable for thousands of children, working parents and small businesses. To give all children a healthy start on life, she further proposed providing health insurance to every uninsured child from birth to age five. Governor Sebelius set up counseling programs as well to help senior citizens navigate the complexities of the Medicare prescription drug benefit plan and choose the best plan for their needs. She also established a multistakeholder group of business leaders, consumer groups, health care providers and private insurers to make recommendations on modernizing the health system, promoting coordination and consistency of care and reducing administrative burdens on patients and providers alike. Through this broad consultative process, Governor Sebelius created a public-private partnership to build and install nationally-recognized health information technology systems, and she pioneered the Kansas ``smart card'' the first health insurance ID card to implement state- wide standards. Achievements such as these have brought wide accolades. Governor magazine named her as one of its Public Officials of the Year when she served as Kansas insurance commissioner in 2001. Time magazine named her one of the Nation's top five Governors in 2005. Her nomination is supported by the American Medical Association, the AFL-CIO, and scores of other stakeholders. As Warren Buffet said, ``With this appointment, the President just hit one out of the park.'' I thank my Senate colleagues for confirming Governor Sebelius' nomination as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and I look forward to working with her in the months ahead to achieve real health reform for the American people this year at long last.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, hate crimes harm innocent victims, terrorize entire communities, and threaten the very fabric of our nation. They send a poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are or who they are perceived to be. Hate crimes offend the fundamental ideals on which Nation was founded. They can not be tolerated in any free society, and it is long past time to enact legislation to correct the deficiencies in the current federal hate crimes statute. For far too long, law enforcement has been forced to investigate hate crimes with one hand tied behind its back. Now is the time to change this. This bill strengthens the Federal Government's ability to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It removes the excessive restrictions currently existing in federal law. It offers Federal assistance for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes to State and local law enforcement. It provides training grants for local law enforcement to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles. The first Federal hate crimes statute was passed over 40 years ago in 1968, soon after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It authorized the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute crimes committed against individuals because of their race, color, religion, or national origin. The original statute was a major advance in the march of progress, but it is now a generation out of date. The time has come to stand up for all victims of hate crimes--victims like Matthew Shepard, for whom this bill is named. Matthew died a horrible death in 1998 at the hands of two men who singled him out because of his sexual orientation. Since Matthew's murder, his mother has worked courageously to make sure that we never forget the suffering that her son endured, and to remind Congress that it has a responsibility to protect individuals like her son. Yet today, more than 10 years after Matthew's death--10 years--we still have not modernized our hate crimes laws. How long are we going to wait? The bill we are introducing today expands the current hate crimes statute and gives Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities greater ability to investigate and prosecute hate crimes effectively. The bill closes flagrant loopholes in the current statute that prevent or undermine the prosecution of the individuals who commit these vicious crimes. This bill broadens the original Federal hate crimes statute by prohibiting crimes based on a victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. According to FBI statistics, hate crimes based on sexual orientation make up approximately 17 percent of all hate crimes. Considering that gays and lesbians make up approximately 3 percent of the population, the FBI statistics suggest that gays and lesbians are victimized at a rate approximately 6 times higher than that of the average American. Research suggests that hate-motivated violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens is particularly extreme. As these statistics and the research make clear, hate crimes are a very real danger to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens. We must act--without further delay--to correct these unacceptable deficiencies in current law and protect all citizens from these brutal crimes. Our bill also increases the Federal Government's ability to prosecute hate crimes. It removes the prerequisite that a victim be engaged in a ``federally protected activity'' before the Federal Government can prosecute an offender under the statute. This restrictive provision is outdated, unwise, and unnecessary, particularly when one considers the unjust outcomes that can result from limiting prosecution to offenders to target victims participating in one or more of the following 6 narrow categories of federally protected activity: attending or enrolling in a public school or public college; participating in a benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity administered by a state or local government; applying for or working in private or state employment; serving as a juror in a state court; using a facility of interstate commerce or a common carrier; or enjoying public accommodations or places of exhibition or entertainment. We know that individuals may be victimized while engaging in activities that are not included in this list of activities--they could be victims while engaging in routine activities, going about their normal day. Americans should be protected from hate crimes in everything they do. There should be no distinction between hate crimes occurring while a victim is engaged in a routine activity or one of the six specified federally protected activities described above. This bill corrects a gap in the current hate crimes statute that limits prosecution to offenders who interfere with a victim's participation in certain federally protected activities. In June 2003, six Latino teenagers went to a family restaurant on Long Island. The teenagers knew one another from involvement in community activities and have come together to celebrate a birthday. As the group entered the restaurant, three men who were leaving the bar assaulted the teenagers, pummeling one boy and severing a tendon in his hand with a sharp weapon. During the attack, the men yelled racial slurs and one identified himself as a skinhead. Two of the men were tried under the current Federal hate crimes law and were acquitted. The jurors said they acquitted the offenders because the Government failed to prove that using a restaurant was a federally protected activity. The result in this case is just one example of the inadequate protections provided under current law. The bill we introduce today will eliminate the federally protected activity requirement and give jurors greater ability to convict all perpetrators of hate crimes. The bill modernizes the Federal Government's ability to prosecute hate crimes, but it fully respects the primary role of state, local, and tribal law enforcement authorities in responding to hate crimes in their jurisdictions. The bill protects these local interests with a strict certification process, which requires the Federal Government to consult with state and local officials before prosecuting a Federal case. In accord with certification, it is our belief that the vast majority of hate crimes will continue to be prosecuted at the State and local level. In addition, our bill authorizes the Justice Department to increase the number of Department personnel to prevent and respond to hate crimes. This increase will enable Federal authorities to develop the manpower necessary to act effectively to prevent and respond to hate crimes. The bill also authorizes the Justice Department to provide needed investigative resources to state and local law enforcement during these challenging economic times. This expansion of federal assistance is meant to supplement, not supplant, the efforts of state and local law enforcement authorities, so that hate crimes can be effectively investigated and prosecuted in the future. Hate crimes investigations tend to be expensive, requiring considerable law enforcement effort, and extensive use of grand juries. The bill expands the Justice Department's opportunity to provide support for these expenses. It authorizes the Attorney General to offer grants of up to $100,000 to help state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials manage the high costs of investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. It also authorizes the Justice Department to award grants to State, local, and tribal authorities for programs that combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs designed to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting and preventing hate crimes. These measures will help ensure that state and local authorities have the resources necessary to successfully combat and prosecute hate crimes. Collecting data on hate crimes is important for analyzing crime trends and tailoring effective criminal policy. Our bill increases the Federal Government's ability to monitor hate crimes by requiring the FBI to increase the statistics it collects about such crimes. Currently, the FBI collects hate crimes data on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, and disability. Our bill requires the FBI to collect new statistics on hate crimes based on an individual's gender or gender-identity, and hate crimes committed by juveniles. By increasing the amount of data collected by the FBI, we will be able to better understand the gravity of the hate crimes committed in our communities. Hate crimes are a festering problem, causing terror in neighborhoods across America. According to the most recent statistics released by the FBI, there were at least 9,527 victims of hate-motivated crimes in 2007. Based on that number, an average of 26 victims per day were terrorized as a consequence of their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or disability. The FBI's statistics reveal that race-related hate crimes are the most common type of hate crimes, comprising approximately 50 percent of all hate crimes reported to the FBI. That said, crimes based on religion, sexual orientation, and ethnic background occur with alarming frequency as well. These hate crimes statistics are disturbing, but they represent only the tip of the iceberg of hate crimes occurring in America. The Southern Poverty Law Center, the Human Rights Campaign, and the US Bureau of Justice Statistics agree that the FBI's hate crimes numbers do not reflect the actual number of hate crimes occurring in our communities each year. The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that the annual number of hate crimes committed in the U.S. is close to 50,000. In addition, the Human Rights Campaign states that a hate crime occurs every 6 hours. Survey data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' biannual National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that an average of 191,000 hate crime victimizations take place each year. Based on this survey, over 540 people are victimized each day, based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or disability--more than 22 victims per hour. These statistics are not just shocking--they are shameful. It is time for Congress to specifically address the serious problem of hate crimes in America. In addition to the legal impact of this bill, its symbolic impact is equally important. This bill emphasizes the devastatingly unique nature of hate crimes. It says we recognize that hate crimes provide aggressors with the means to attack an entire community through a single act of violence, and send a message of fear that vastly transcends the immediate crime and its victim. It shows we understand that hate crime offenders should be prosecuted for committing a crime against an entire community. After so many years of inaction, we in Congress have an obligation to demonstrate that we understand how hate crimes affect our nation's communities. It takes only a brief survey of any major news outlet to find horrifying stories of hate crimes and the inability of law enforcement to prosecute offenders for their acts of hate. The 1999 murder of four women in Yosemite National Park graphically illustrates the need to include gender in our hate crimes statute. These four women were murdered by a man who admitted having fantasized about killing women for most of his life. These women lost their lives for one reason-- because they were women. We need to send a clear message that we will not accept such acts of hate. Without this bill, however, such a crime cannot be federally prosecuted as a hate crime. Gender identity must also be included in our definition of those characteristics protected by a hate crimes statute. Many are familiar with the story of Brandon Teena, who was raped and beaten in Humboldt, Nebraska in 1993 by two male friends after they discovered that he was living as a male but was anatomically female. The local sheriff refused to arrest the offenders, and they later shot and stabbed Brandon to death. A more recent, less well-known incident occurred when Fred C. Martinez Jr., a Navajo transgender youth, was murdered while walking home from a party. Fred was killed for one reason alone--because he was a transgender youth. By passing this bill, the Senate will send a strong message that hate crimes based on sexual identity are unacceptable and perpetrators of such crimes will face tough criminal penalties under Federal law. Hate crimes against disabled Americans are very disturbing and deserve protection at the Federal level as well. In October 2002, two deaf girls, one of whom was wheelchair bound due to cerebral palsy, were harassed and sexually assaulted by four suspected gang members in a local park. The girls were attacked because they were disabled and unable to defend themselves. Although the alleged perpetrators were prosecuted, the assaults could not be charged as hate crimes because no State or Federal protections for disability-based hate crimes existed in Federal or State law. This must change. These are only a few examples of the hate perpetrated against individuals in America based on their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability. We can no longer allow any of these communities to live in fear. Crimes based on an individual's sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability must be prosecuted for what they are--crimes of hate. Individuals should not only be protected from hate crimes because of their actual characteristics; they must also be protected from hate crimes based on the inaccurate perceptions of others. Last year in Brooklyn, New York, Jose Sucuzhanay was walking arm in arm with his brother, Romel Sucuzhanay, after attending a church party. According to officials, about half a block from Jose's home, a black sports utility vehicle drove by and the two men in the vehicle began shouting what witnesses described as vulgarisms against Hispanics and gay men. The car stopped and one of the two men approached Jose and smashed a beer bottle over the back of his head. The other man then took an aluminum baseball bat from the rear of the vehicle and repeatedly struck Jose on his shoulder, ribs, and back. Once Jose fell to the ground, he received several full-forced, crushing blows to his head with the aluminum baseball bat. Jose, a father of two and local real estate agent, died 5 days later because of the hate-motivated attack. He did not deserve to lose his life because he was perceived to be gay. That is why the bill we are introducing today criminalizes crimes based on the perceived characteristics of a victim. We also know that hate crimes covered by current Federal law--based on race, religion, national origin, and color--still occur and must be prosecuted. Following the 2008 presidential election, three men in New York went on a rampage attacking African-American residents of Staten Island in response to the historic election of President Barack Obama. The men attacked one 17-year-old African-American man with a metal pipe and collapsible baton. They attacked another African-American man by pushing him to the ground. They assaulted still another man, whom they mistakenly believed was African-American, by mowing him down with a car while yelling racial epithets at him. Clearly, this demonstrates that race-based violence is continuing at an unacceptable level, and we must act to help law enforcement more vigorously deal with hate crimes. Hate crimes legislation has the support of President Obama, a majority of Congress, 26 State Attorneys General, and a broad coalition of law enforcement, civic, religious, and civil rights groups. Recent history shows that Congress is ready to make hate crimes legislation into law. In 2007, the Senate voted 60 to 39 in support of a similar hate crimes bill. An equally powerful statement was made by the House when it voted 237 to 180 for the hate crimes bill introduced that year. As a Senator, President Obama voted to support hate crimes legislation. Now, as President, he has included the expansion of hate crimes in his civil rights agenda. The political will of our Nation is clear--it is time for this bill to become law. Over 300 law enforcement, civil rights, civic, and religious organizations have endorsed our bill, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Anti- Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Interfaith Alliance. All these diverse groups have come together to say that now is the time for us to protect our fellow citizens from the brutality of hate-motivated violence. They strongly support this legislation because they know it is a balanced and sensible approach that will bring greater protection to our citizens, along with much-needed resources for local and State law enforcement fighting hate crimes. Passing this bill will send a message, loud and clear, that those who victimize individuals because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability will go to prison. In addition, passing this bill will provide Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities with stronger means to prosecute crimes of hate. It has been over 10 years since Matthew Shepard was left to die on a fence in Wyoming because of who he was. It has also been 10 years since this bill was initially considered by Congress. In those 10 years, we have gained the political and public support that is needed to make this bill become law. Today, we have a President who is prepared to sign hate crimes legislation into law, and a Justice Department that is willing to enforce it. We must not delay the passage of this bill. Now is the time to stand up against hate-motivated violence and recognize the shameful damage it is doing to our Nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, hate crimes harm innocent victims, terrorize entire communities, and threaten the very fabric of our nation. They send a poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are or who they are perceived to be. Hate crimes offend the fundamental ideals on which Nation was founded. They can not be tolerated in any free society, and it is long past time to enact legislation to correct the deficiencies in the current federal hate crimes statute. For far too long, law enforcement has been forced to investigate hate crimes with one hand tied behind its back. Now is the time to change this. This bill strengthens the Federal Government's ability to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It removes the excessive restrictions currently existing in federal law. It offers Federal assistance for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes to State and local law enforcement. It provides training grants for local law enforcement to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles. The first Federal hate crimes statute was passed over 40 years ago in 1968, soon after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It authorized the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute crimes committed against individuals because of their race, color, religion, or national origin. The original statute was a major advance in the march of progress, but it is now a generation out of date. The time has come to stand up for all victims of hate crimes--victims like Matthew Shepard, for whom this bill is named. Matthew died a horrible death in 1998 at the hands of two men who singled him out because of his sexual orientation. Since Matthew's murder, his mother has worked courageously to make sure that we never forget the suffering that her son endured, and to remind Congress that it has a responsibility to protect individuals like her son. Yet today, more than 10 years after Matthew's death--10 years--we still have not modernized our hate crimes laws. How long are we going to wait? The bill we are introducing today expands the current hate crimes statute and gives Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities greater ability to investigate and prosecute hate crimes effectively. The bill closes flagrant loopholes in the current statute that prevent or undermine the prosecution of the individuals who commit these vicious crimes. This bill broadens the original Federal hate crimes statute by prohibiting crimes based on a victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. According to FBI statistics, hate crimes based on sexual orientation make up approximately 17 percent of all hate crimes. Considering that gays and lesbians make up approximately 3 percent of the population, the FBI statistics suggest that gays and lesbians are victimized at a rate approximately 6 times higher than that of the average American. Research suggests that hate-motivated violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens is particularly extreme. As these statistics and the research make clear, hate crimes are a very real danger to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens. We must act--without further delay--to correct these unacceptable deficiencies in current law and protect all citizens from these brutal crimes. Our bill also increases the Federal Government's ability to prosecute hate crimes. It removes the prerequisite that a victim be engaged in a ``federally protected activity'' before the Federal Government can prosecute an offender under the statute. This restrictive provision is outdated, unwise, and unnecessary, particularly when one considers the unjust outcomes that can result from limiting prosecution to offenders to target victims participating in one or more of the following 6 narrow categories of federally protected activity: attending or enrolling in a public school or public college; participating in a benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity administered by a state or local government; applying for or working in private or state employment; serving as a juror in a state court; using a facility of interstate commerce or a common carrier; or enjoying public accommodations or places of exhibition or entertainment. We know that individuals may be victimized while engaging in activities that are not included in this list of activities--they could be victims while engaging in routine activities, going about their normal day. Americans should be protected from hate crimes in everything they do. There should be no distinction between hate crimes occurring while a victim is engaged in a routine activity or one of the six specified federally protected activities described above. This bill corrects a gap in the current hate crimes statute that limits prosecution to offenders who interfere with a victim's participation in certain federally protected activities. In June 2003, six Latino teenagers went to a family restaurant on Long Island. The teenagers knew one another from involvement in community activities and have come together to celebrate a birthday. As the group entered the restaurant, three men who were leaving the bar assaulted the teenagers, pummeling one boy and severing a tendon in his hand with a sharp weapon. During the attack, the men yelled racial slurs and one identified himself as a skinhead. Two of the men were tried under the current Federal hate crimes law and were acquitted. The jurors said they acquitted the offenders because the Government failed to prove that using a restaurant was a federally protected activity. The result in this case is just one example of the inadequate protections provided under current law. The bill we introduce today will eliminate the federally protected activity requirement and give jurors greater ability to convict all perpetrators of hate crimes. The bill modernizes the Federal Government's ability to prosecute hate crimes, but it fully respects the primary role of state, local, and tribal law enforcement authorities in responding to hate crimes in their jurisdictions. The bill protects these local interests with a strict certification process, which requires the Federal Government to consult with state and local officials before prosecuting a Federal case. In accord with certification, it is our belief that the vast majority of hate crimes will continue to be prosecuted at the State and local level. In addition, our bill authorizes the Justice Department to increase the number of Department personnel to prevent and respond to hate crimes. This increase will enable Federal authorities to develop the manpower necessary to act effectively to prevent and respond to hate crimes. The bill also authorizes the Justice Department to provide needed investigative resources to state and local law enforcement during these challenging economic times. This expansion of federal assistance is meant to supplement, not supplant, the efforts of state and local law enforcement authorities, so that hate crimes can be effectively investigated and prosecuted in the future. Hate crimes investigations tend to be expensive, requiring considerable law enforcement effort, and extensive use of grand juries. The bill expands the Justice Department's opportunity to provide support for these expenses. It authorizes the Attorney General to offer grants of up to $100,000 to help state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials manage the high costs of investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. It also authorizes the Justice Department to award grants to State, local, and tribal authorities for programs that combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs designed to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting and preventing hate crimes. These measures will help ensure that state and local authorities have the resources necessary to successfully combat and prosecute hate crimes. Collecting data on hate crimes is important for analyzing crime trends and tailoring effective criminal policy. Our bill increases the Federal Government's ability to monitor hate crimes by requiring the FBI to increase the statistics it collects about such crimes. Currently, the FBI collects hate crimes data on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, and disability. Our bill requires the FBI to collect new statistics on hate crimes based on an individual's gender or gender-identity, and hate crimes committed by juveniles. By increasing the amount of data collected by the FBI, we will be able to better understand the gravity of the hate crimes committed in our communities. Hate crimes are a festering problem, causing terror in neighborhoods across America. According to the most recent statistics released by the FBI, there were at least 9,527 victims of hate-motivated crimes in 2007. Based on that number, an average of 26 victims per day were terrorized as a consequence of their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or disability. The FBI's statistics reveal that race-related hate crimes are the most common type of hate crimes, comprising approximately 50 percent of all hate crimes reported to the FBI. That said, crimes based on religion, sexual orientation, and ethnic background occur with alarming frequency as well. These hate crimes statistics are disturbing, but they represent only the tip of the iceberg of hate crimes occurring in America. The Southern Poverty Law Center, the Human Rights Campaign, and the US Bureau of Justice Statistics agree that the FBI's hate crimes numbers do not reflect the actual number of hate crimes occurring in our communities each year. The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that the annual number of hate crimes committed in the U.S. is close to 50,000. In addition, the Human Rights Campaign states that a hate crime occurs every 6 hours. Survey data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' biannual National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that an average of 191,000 hate crime victimizations take place each year. Based on this survey, over 540 people are victimized each day, based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or disability--more than 22 victims per hour. These statistics are not just shocking--they are shameful. It is time for Congress to specifically address the serious problem of hate crimes in America. In addition to the legal impact of this bill, its symbolic impact is equally important. This bill emphasizes the devastatingly unique nature of hate crimes. It says we recognize that hate crimes provide aggressors with the means to attack an entire community through a single act of violence, and send a message of fear that vastly transcends the immediate crime and its victim. It shows we understand that hate crime offenders should be prosecuted for committing a crime against an entire community. After so many years of inaction, we in Congress have an obligation to demonstrate that we understand how hate crimes affect our nation's communities. It takes only a brief survey of any major news outlet to find horrifying stories of hate crimes and the inability of law enforcement to prosecute offenders for their acts of hate. The 1999 murder of four women in Yosemite National Park graphically illustrates the need to include gender in our hate crimes statute. These four women were murdered by a man who admitted having fantasized about killing women for most of his life. These women lost their lives for one reason-- because they were women. We need to send a clear message that we will not accept such acts of hate. Without this bill, however, such a crime cannot be federally prosecuted as a hate crime. Gender identity must also be included in our definition of those characteristics protected by a hate crimes statute. Many are familiar with the story of Brandon Teena, who was raped and beaten in Humboldt, Nebraska in 1993 by two male friends after they discovered that he was living as a male but was anatomically female. The local sheriff refused to arrest the offenders, and they later shot and stabbed Brandon to death. A more recent, less well-known incident occurred when Fred C. Martinez Jr., a Navajo transgender youth, was murdered while walking home from a party. Fred was killed for one reason alone--because he was a transgender youth. By passing this bill, the Senate will send a strong message that hate crimes based on sexual identity are unacceptable and perpetrators of such crimes will face tough criminal penalties under Federal law. Hate crimes against disabled Americans are very disturbing and deserve protection at the Federal level as well. In October 2002, two deaf girls, one of whom was wheelchair bound due to cerebral palsy, were harassed and sexually assaulted by four suspected gang members in a local park. The girls were attacked because they were disabled and unable to defend themselves. Although the alleged perpetrators were prosecuted, the assaults could not be charged as hate crimes because no State or Federal protections for disability-based hate crimes existed in Federal or State law. This must change. These are only a few examples of the hate perpetrated against individuals in America based on their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability. We can no longer allow any of these communities to live in fear. Crimes based on an individual's sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability must be prosecuted for what they are--crimes of hate. Individuals should not only be protected from hate crimes because of their actual characteristics; they must also be protected from hate crimes based on the inaccurate perceptions of others. Last year in Brooklyn, New York, Jose Sucuzhanay was walking arm in arm with his brother, Romel Sucuzhanay, after attending a church party. According to officials, about half a block from Jose's home, a black sports utility vehicle drove by and the two men in the vehicle began shouting what witnesses described as vulgarisms against Hispanics and gay men. The car stopped and one of the two men approached Jose and smashed a beer bottle over the back of his head. The other man then took an aluminum baseball bat from the rear of the vehicle and repeatedly struck Jose on his shoulder, ribs, and back. Once Jose fell to the ground, he received several full-forced, crushing blows to his head with the aluminum baseball bat. Jose, a father of two and local real estate agent, died 5 days later because of the hate-motivated attack. He did not deserve to lose his life because he was perceived to be gay. That is why the bill we are introducing today criminalizes crimes based on the perceived characteristics of a victim. We also know that hate crimes covered by current Federal law--based on race, religion, national origin, and color--still occur and must be prosecuted. Following the 2008 presidential election, three men in New York went on a rampage attacking African-American residents of Staten Island in response to the historic election of President Barack Obama. The men attacked one 17-year-old African-American man with a metal pipe and collapsible baton. They attacked another African-American man by pushing him to the ground. They assaulted still another man, whom they mistakenly believed was African-American, by mowing him down with a car while yelling racial epithets at him. Clearly, this demonstrates that race-based violence is continuing at an unacceptable level, and we must act to help law enforcement more vigorously deal with hate crimes. Hate crimes legislation has the support of President Obama, a majority of Congress, 26 State Attorneys General, and a broad coalition of law enforcement, civic, religious, and civil rights groups. Recent history shows that Congress is ready to make hate crimes legislation into law. In 2007, the Senate voted 60 to 39 in support of a similar hate crimes bill. An equally powerful statement was made by the House when it voted 237 to 180 for the hate crimes bill introduced that year. As a Senator, President Obama voted to support hate crimes legislation. Now, as President, he has included the expansion of hate crimes in his civil rights agenda. The political will of our Nation is clear--it is time for this bill to become law. Over 300 law enforcement, civil rights, civic, and religious organizations have endorsed our bill, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Anti- Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Interfaith Alliance. All these diverse groups have come together to say that now is the time for us to protect our fellow citizens from the brutality of hate-motivated violence. They strongly support this legislation because they know it is a balanced and sensible approach that will bring greater protection to our citizens, along with much-needed resources for local and State law enforcement fighting hate crimes. Passing this bill will send a message, loud and clear, that those who victimize individuals because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability will go to prison. In addition, passing this bill will provide Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities with stronger means to prosecute crimes of hate. It has been over 10 years since Matthew Shepard was left to die on a fence in Wyoming because of who he was. It has also been 10 years since this bill was initially considered by Congress. In those 10 years, we have gained the political and public support that is needed to make this bill become law. Today, we have a President who is prepared to sign hate crimes legislation into law, and a Justice Department that is willing to enforce it. We must not delay the passage of this bill. Now is the time to stand up against hate-motivated violence and recognize the shameful damage it is doing to our Nation.