Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Akaka and Senator Reid in introducing the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act. Our goal is to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health care, so that all citizens, regardless of income or background, have the best possible health care our Nation can provide. The Institute of Medicine has documented the severity of ethnic and racial disparities in health care. People of color face unequal treatment and unequal outcomes in heart disease, infant mortality, HIV/ AIDS, diabetes, asthma, and other serious illnesses. The health care needs of communities of color are often more severe than those of white Americans. Minorities often face significant obstacles, including poverty and the lack of health insurance. We need to attack disparities in all their forms. A critical first step is to see that health insurance and decent health care are available and affordable for all Americans. This bill strengthens the health care safety net by expanding access to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, and improving health care for Indian tribes, migrant workers, and farm workers. The bill also contains essential measures for removing cultural and linguistic barriers to good care. The United States is a Nation of immigrants, and all Americans deserve to understand what their doctor is telling them. Interpreter and translator services save money in the long run by avoiding harm when patients do not understand their diagnosis or the health advice they receive. Health care institutions deserve to be reimbursed for providing these critically needed services. Other important initiatives to reduce health disparities include diversifying the health care workforce. Minority providers are more likely to serve low-income communities of color, and this bill addresses the shortage of these providers. Federal agencies can do more in this battle too. The bill requires all Federal health agencies to develop specific plans to eliminate disparities. The bill expands the Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Minority Health at the Department of Health and Human Services, and creates minority health offices within the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In addition, the bill strengthens investments in prevention and behavioral health and improves research and data collection. It strengthens health institutions that serve communities of color, provides grants for community initiatives, and funds programs on chronic disease. In each of these ways, we can reduce the gap in health care between people of color and whites, so that all Americans can benefit from the remarkable advances being made in modern health care. It's time for Congress, the administration, and the Nation to end the shameful inequality in health care that plagues the lives of so many people in our society. This bill contains numerous provisions intended to make that happen, and it can have a major impact on the lives of millions of Americans. I commend Senators Akaka and Reid for their leadership on this important health issue. We intend to do all we can in this Congress to see that effective legislation to combat health disparities is enacted into law and funded adequately to do the job.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this Saturday marks the 40th anniversary of Medicaid. Over the past 4 decades, Medicaid has provided quality health care to millions of the most vulnerable members of our society-- low-income children and parents, pregnant women, disabled persons, and senior citizens. While anniversary should be a time to celebrate the progress we have made in improving the health of those who are less fortunate--but instead, we find ourselves defending the program against harsh cuts that will destroy the health security of many of our fellow citizens. Medicaid has served the Nation well over the past 40 years. It provides a critical safety net for those with nowhere else to turn for health care. The majority of Medicaid beneficiaries are too poor or too sick to buy coverage in the private market. Many have disabilities or multiple chronic conditions, or need long-term care. Others have severe mental health problems. More than 50 million people receive health coverage under Medicaid today, and most of them would be uninsured and uninsurable without it. States have significant flexibility to design Medicaid programs that meet the needs of their residents, with important Federal oversight to make sure that minimal standards are maintained. Today, Medicaid covers nearly 40 percent of all births. It provides health coverage for one in four children. It's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment benefit has been a success in making sure that children receive the care they need. Medicaid also provides prenatal care for many low-income women, and it fills in the gaps in coverage for low-income seniors and disabled persons, covering long-term care services that are not covered by Medicare. It is also a major source of coverage for mental health and substance abuse care and is the largest payer of services for AIDS patients. Medicaid enrollment has grown rapidly over the past few years as more and more Americans not only lost their jobs but lost the health care their employers offered. Low-income working families increasingly lost coverage as employers dropped coverage or couldn't afford it, because health costs soared while wages stagnated. It's true that Medicaid costs have risen over the past few years, but this growth is driven primarily by increased need. Medicaid does its job well--responding to economic downturns and providing a health safety net for those with nowhere else to turn. Yet Medicaid is once again under attack by some who want to undermine the progress we have made. This year's budget mandates mean-spirited cuts in the program under the guise of balancing the budget, even though the very same budget includes large new tax breaks for the wealthy. These cuts were ordered even though a bipartisan majority of Senators voted against them. Any changes in Medicaid should be made to improve the care offered to its beneficiaries, not to pay for even greater tax breaks for the wealthy. We need to consider ways to improve Medicaid and make it function more effectively, and we can't accept reforms that do otherwise. Cutting benefits or increasing costs for the poor will keep them from getting the care they need, and cost the Nation far more in the long-run. Cutting health care for those who rely on Medicaid has real consequences. We know what limiting their access to care will do: it will result in more pain and suffering; it will lead to more deaths because treatable diseases will be diagnosed too late; it will lead to emergency rooms overcrowded with patients with no where else to turn; and it will lead to increased costs for those with health insurance, as they are charged more to make up for the cost of covering those with no insurance. I look forward to celebrating many more Medicaid anniversaries. My hope is that we will continue to improve and modernize the program, not abandon it. We need to make it work for those it serves, especially the millions of low-income children who will grow up to healthy adults tomorrow, because we kept the faith with Medicaid today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 40 years ago, after the Selma-Montgomery march, many of us in the Senate and House worked hard to pass the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, to guarantee that racism and its bitter legacy would never again close the polls to any citizen. The failure to ensure voting rights regardless of race or national origin was a national shame, which was finally addressed in this long overdue bill. As we look toward August 6, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, we must recall the sacrifices of those who worked tirelessly to ensure that all Americans have access to the ballot, regardless of race. All of us are grateful for those sacrifices, which forced America to live up to its highest ideals, the ideal of equality and justice for all. And when we say all, we mean all. I want to thank my friend and colleague Congressman John Lewis for his leadership and his courage in joining Dr. Martin Luther King and so many others on the march across Selma's Pettus Bridge to demonstrate the need for voting rights. Those who marched and endured hatred and violence provided the guiding light for Congress. As we celebrate the Voting Rights Act, we also celebrate their contributions. This celebration must also be a wake up call to remind us of the need to strengthen and reauthorize the provisions of the Voting Rights Act that are scheduled to expire in 2007. We must reauthorize section 5, which provides for Federal oversight of voting changes in--areas where a history of discrimination has limited the right to vote. We must also reauthorize Section 203, which provides for bi-lingual elections in areas where necessary, to ensure that American citizens can vote, even if they have limited English proficiency. I look forward to working with my colleagues in both the House and Senate, and on both sides of the aisle, on this important issue.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Medicare has changed the lives of millions of senior citizens over the past four decades. Before Medicare, vast numbers of elderly Americans were unable to afford the health care they needed. Since then, Medicare has made a real difference in their lives. Medicare has also made a real difference in the lives of millions of disabled persons, who became eligible for Medicare in 1972. Today, Medicare means good health care for more than 42 million Americans across the country. It is one of the most popular government programs ever enacted. The number of senior citizens living in poverty has declined dramatically as seniors because of Medicare. Our seniors are able to get the health care they so desperately need. Many important changes have been made over the years to improve the program. One of the most important changes was extending coverage to disabled persons. Another important change is moving Medicare's focus from caring for beneficiaries when they became sick to one that not only treats illnesses but also emphasizes preventive care and the management of chronic illnesses that affect so many senior citizens and disabled persons. While Medicare has accomplished so much over the past four decades, there are still improvements to be made. The lack of coverage of prescription drugs is the most obvious problem, and many of us are deeply concerned that the new prescription drug benefit enacted by the last Congress will not in fact benefit many seniors who need and deserve the coverage. We had a real opportunity to provide all seniors with a good drug benefit, but politics won out. Another significant failure has been ``privatization,'' which has forced many of the elderly into HMOs that cost more than traditional Medicare. The lack of long-term care in Medicare is another shortcoming. Too many Medicare beneficiaries must impoverish themselves in order to obtain the long-term care they need through Medicaid. A further serious problem affects the disabled, who often have no coverage during the two-year waiting period before Medicare is available. We can do better. Bills pending this year will modernize health information technology, and improve the quality of care. We need to provide stronger incentives to reward quality and encourage the availability of the best possible care. We can improve treatment and achieve better coordination of care for those with multiple chronic conditions. And we can use the purchasing power of Medicare to make sure that prescription drugs are priced reasonably. Medicare was a landmark achievement in its day, and we in Congress who revere it now have a responsibility to see that it continues to meet the needs of both current and future beneficiaries in our own day and generation. Putting beneficiaries first is what has made Medicare so popular and successful over the past four decades, and if the same fundamental priority is respected by Congress today and in the years ahead, Medicare will have forty more years of brilliant accomplishment in meeting the needs of our seniors and our fellow citizens with disabilities.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The only point is that, as the leader just said, we are following a procedure where the leadership is going to look at the amendments and then make their judgment as to whether the Senate will get a chance to consider these issues. I must say, that is an unusual procedure to follow, when many of us are trying to cooperate with the leadership. We are more than glad to enter into short time agreements and then to let the Senate work its will. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the leader be good enough to yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, several of us have amendments directly related to the underlying legislation. We understand the time goes to 1 o'clock this evening. I have two amendments dealing with the ability of terrorists to purchase weapons. I know both Senators from New Jersey have amendments. We are more than willing to enter into short time agreements. We want to cooperate on the conference reports, but we understand the process and the procedure that is going on is that the majority is making a judgment decision about which amendments we are going to consider and which ones we are not.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Illinois knows that one of the most important bills that we consider at any time of the year is the Defense authorization legislation. That is the legislation which provides basic resources and support for our armed services, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but all over the world. It is the basic document which is the expression of our national priority in terms of national security and national defense. As one who has been here for some years, having been a member of the Armed Services Committee, we met in the day and in the evening to report that bill out in a timely way so that it could be considered before the August recess. That is what we heard, as members of the Armed Services Committee, and we were in the process of doing that at the end of last week. As a matter of fact, there was one amendment offered by the chairman of the committee to restore money for up- armoring humvees, which I welcomed the opportunity to support. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee had opposed that up-armoring at the time we had the supplemental. That is very important, making sure our men and women serving in Iraq are going to have the body armor and have the best in terms of their protection. That is what is in that legislation. That is what we were considering. That is what we hoped to deal with. All of a sudden, out of the blue, the Republican leadership says, No, we are going to pull that bill down and we will put it back on the calendar and consider this special interest legislation, which they have called up. They now use parliamentary procedures in order to even deny those of us who want to amend that legislation the opportunity to do so. I don't know whether the Senator was here a few moments ago when our majority leader was talking about stem cell research, which we wanted to take up, which offered such hope and opportunity to conquer diseases. The majority leader said: We want everyone's views on our side of the aisle to be considered. It is interesting. They want that on the stem cell research, but not on this special interest legislation. It is deplorable. I know of at least 20 amendments from Members of our side and the other side, amendments that would provide additional help and support for the National Guard, for our reservists in the armed services of this country, that would have provided additional strengthening for our fighting men and women. To deflect that to consider this special interest legislation that is just going to serve the gun manufacturers makes no sense. I know this is an extended answer. As the Senator remembers, we spent 2 weeks on the credit card industry legislation and bankruptcy. We spent 2 weeks in order to protect the credit card industry. We spent 2 weeks after that on class action legislation. We spent more than a week debating highways. We have spent 3 days on the Defense authorization bill. And then we have the Republican leadership pull that down? It makes no sense to me. I wonder what the service men and women think about our priorities when an action like that is taken.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to speak on another subject, the underlying legislation, the gun immunity bill. This bill is deceptively named the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but it will make it virtually impossible to bring lawsuits against the gun industry, even in circumstances in which the industry's conduct contributes to unlawful gun violence. The bill purports to exempt suits in which the manufacturers and sellers engage in illegal or negligent conduct, but these exemptions are poorly defined and clearly would not cover many types of bad conduct. The Senate majority leader says this bill is of urgent importance, taking precedence over the Defense bill because the Department of Defense faces the real prospect of having to outsource side arms for our soldiers to foreign manufacturers. But the real story is that the Republican leadership and the Bush administration will do whatever it takes to give the gun industry all that it wants. The NRA wants gun dealers and manufacturers to be protected from lawsuits. The NRA expects--the NRA demands--that this body remove the last resort for victims of gun violence against negligent and often complicit gun dealers and manufacturers by barring all types of cases. Let's be clear about what this bill does not do. It does not help our law enforcement officials fight crime or terrorism. It does not meet the urgent need to strengthen any of our gun control laws. It does not affect--it does not address at all--the rights or ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase and own a gun. It does not have anything to do with the second amendment, no matter how you interpret the language of that amendment. This bill has one motivation: payback by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of the Congress to the powerful special interests of the National Rifle Association. As the New York Times reported less than 2 weeks ago, Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the NRA, made it clear that the NRA expected total support from its allies--or else. Mr. LaPierre said, ``It's simply bad politics to be on the wrong side of the second amendment at election time,'' asserting that Vice President Al Gore lost the 2000 Presidential election because he supported gun control, including a Federal ban on assault weapons. That is the same assault weapons ban that President Bush told the American people he supported but then allowed to expire. We know what happened when the NRA pushed this special interest bill last year. When the Senate voted to reauthorize the assault weapons ban as part of the bill, the NRA called their supporters and instructed them to vote against the bill for which it had just lobbied. What a disgraceful spectacle, Members of this great body reversing themselves on the Senate floor minutes before a vote because of a single call from the NRA. That same kind of raw special interest power is now being used again to take the Senate away from the important business of protecting our men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan so that a few unsavory gun dealers and gun manufacturers can channel powerful killing machines into the hands of criminals and terrorists in this country without any regulation or judicial oversight whatever. The manufacturing of guns, unlike the manufacturing of nearly every other consumer product in the country, is not subject to consumer product safety standards. As it stands, manufacturers and sellers in the industry are free to design, make, and market these products with no independent review of their potential risk. The gun industry is the only industry whose products are not subject to basic consumer health and safety regulation. Why stop with the gun industry? Why not make tire manufacturers immune from lawsuits or car manufacturers or bicycle manufacturers or toy manufacturers? Obviously, it would be absurd to shield any negligent manufacturers from liability for their action. But when it comes to shielding the gun industry, the NRA is calling the tune and too many Members of this body are tragically dancing to it. The other side also tells us that it is too burdensome on the gun industry to fight these lawsuits. After all, we are told there are thousands of gun laws on the books and the Government can enforce them. Let us look at some of those gun laws and how the gun lobby has systematically made it more difficult, and in some cases even impossible, for the Government to police negligent gun dealers and manufacturers while making it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns. Federal gun dealers are regulated under Federal law and required to perform background checks of gun buyers, but at the urging of the gun lobby several years ago, Congress drastically narrowed the definition of gun dealer. Now there are many unregulated individuals who do not meet the new definition. These reckless and unlicensed dealers are now selling millions of guns to people, including criminals and terrorists, without background checks. All of that is legal because the U.S. Congress kowtowed to the NRA. In the case of Afghanistan, our troops found an al-Qaida manual that instructed terrorists on how to buy guns legally in the United States without having to undergo a background check. Al-Qaida understands that we have created a mess that allows, even encourages, criminals and terrorists to traffic in guns. But we will not do anything about the so-called gun show loophole because the NRA has snapped its fingers and said no. We are told by the other side that victims of gun violence do not need recourse to the courts because the Government is already inspecting and overseeing the businesses of gun dealers. But is that the whole story? Absolutely not. At the direction of the NRA, Congress limited Federal inspection of gun dealers to once a year, and passed laws making it virtually impossible for agents to conduct inspections more than once a year. If an agent happens to inspect a negligent or even grossly negligent gun dealer in January, the dealer does not have to worry about the feds showing up for at least another year. Federally regulated financial institutions can be inspected without notice whenever and as often as the regulators deem appropriate. Meatpacking companies, shipyards, iron foundries, gas refineries can all be inspected without notice whenever and as often as the regulators deem appropriate, but not gun dealers. Congress and the NRA have said they can be inspected only once a year. What difference does that make in the life of the average citizen? It makes a lot of difference. Just ask the innocent victims of the DC sniper attacks. When the regulators cannot keep tabs on gun dealers it means the companies like Bull's Eye Shooter Supply Store, the dealer that supplied the Bushmaster rifle to the DC snipers, can get away with supposedly losing the rifle that ended up in the hands of DC snipers and losing more than 200 other guns that ended up who knows where. The DC sniper victims had only the courts to turn to for recourse because Congress made it impossible for Federal agents to police unsavory gun dealers such as Bull's Eye. Now the NRA is telling us, take away the courts, too. Why? An obvious answer is that gun dealers and manufacturers want to sell more guns. Our laws are designed by the NRA to increase the sales of guns by dealers and manufacturers even if they are sold to or by criminals. The NRA is lavishly rewarded for lobbying successes and so are the Members of Congress who do their bidding. It is hard to reach any other conclusion. The unholy alliance and control of the legislative process against the safety of our citizens is immoral and it is a disgrace. But let us look at the other outrageous actions that this body has taken because the NRA has demanded it. Congress has cut Federal funding for the agency that oversees gun dealers and manufacturers. In fact, the GAO has recently reported that the ATF is so underfunded that it would take 22 years to inspect the records of all gun dealers in this country just once. The GAO report has also found that terrorists and people on the terrorist watch list are not automatically barred from purchasing guns and are routinely buying guns in this country. This must stop. The gun industry must have some accountability. That is why I am offering my amendment that would ensure that cases could be brought against gun manufacturers and dealers aiding or abetting a representative of a designated foreign terrorist organization. One can find a list of the designated foreign terrorist organizations on the Internet, and it includes al-Qaida and Hamas among others. How can Congress deny victims the right to challenge a manufacturer or dealer that provided guns to a foreign terrorist organization which caused them harm? This administration continuously says that we are engaged in a war on terror, but it takes a position that the war on terror does not allow us to prevent terrorists from buying guns in this country. Because of the actions of this administration, this Congress is caving to the NRA. Terrorists can now add assault weapons to their arsenals, all to appease the NRA so they will give campaign contributions and get out the vote. This is not only a disgrace, it is criminal and it has to stop. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. After 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in the history of the Nation, the Justice Department, over the objection of the FBI, at the urging of the NRA, decided that the Government had to destroy within 24 hours the background check records of all gun purchases. What is the rationale for the destruction of background checks of records in 24 hours? Former Attorney General Ashcroft and the NRA decided that it was a violation of privacy rights of law-abiding citizens to have their records held on file for 90 days, as they have been for years since the passage of the Brady bill. This is the same John Ashcroft who, in the immediate aftermath of 9/ 11, prohibited--that is right, he prohibited--the FBI from examining the gun purchasing records of any of the 19 hijackers or any of the 1,200 other terrorist suspects who were detained for questioning. What kind of society are we turning into? We are supposed to be protecting this Nation from terrorism, not aiding and abetting terrorists. Within days of the 9/11 attacks, we knew who the hijackers were. We knew where they sat on the planes. We saw some of their faces on surveillance videos. We know what they had charged on their credit cards. We know where they had gone to school. We know where they lived, where they traveled. We know that they had tried to get pilots licenses. We know they had looked for ways to transport hazardous chemicals, but we did not know where they or their terrorist friends had purchased their firearms because we were worried about their privacy rights and their rights to bear arms. Give me a break. Every day, law-abiding Americans have their every move videotaped by surveillance cameras. They are required to take off their shoes and jackets and be searched at airports, have their luggage inspected and opened. Yet our Government worries about the privacy rights of terrorist gun owners and refuses to let the FBI look at gun purchase records of suspected terrorists? The Justice Department refuses to stop suspected terrorists from buying guns, and then it destroys those records in 24 hours? Something is rotten here, and it has to stop. I ask again, whose side are we on? Instead of addressing the real issues that can make our country and our communities safer, we are considering a bill that will close the courthouse door to victims of gun crimes and give a free pass to the handful of gun dealers and gun manufacturers who sell firearms to terrorists and criminals. We are doing it to appease the special interests of the NRA. Law-abiding citizens who sell or purchase firearms do not want to give criminals a free pass, but that is exactly what this bill will do. If we vote for it, we will be aiding and abetting these wrongdoers, just as Congress has done for years at the command of the NRA. This bill gives greater protection to the gun industry than Congress gave to the health care industry, to teachers and volunteers under the headline of tort reform. The legislation is so extreme that it requires the immediate dismissal of any cases pending in either State or Federal court. By doing so, the bill denies victims their day in court. It amounts to an unprecedented interference with the judicial branch of Government and is an outrageous violation of the rule of law. The bill's supporters misrepresent the real goal of the lawsuits filed against this industry. These lawsuits are not filed in an effort to bankrupt the industry. Like all tort suits, the victims turn to the courts to obtain compensation for their injuries and demand responsible conduct. Let's be clear and debunk a few myths that the other side is spinning. The gun industry is not uniquely burdened with lawsuits. They just do not like what the public discovers about the industry and its practices when documents are produced in litigation. This immunity bill is not aimed only at frivolous lawsuits. The truth is, it bars almost all actions for negligence. If this bill had become law last year, the families of the victims of the DC snipers would have been barred from suing and receiving the settlement from the gun dealer in Washington State that lost and could not account for more than 200 guns in its inventory, like the assault rifle used by the DC snipers, that were used in the commission of other crimes. If passed, the bill forces the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the family of Massachusetts victim Danny Guzman, an innocent bystander shot on Christmas Eve in 1999. Danny was killed by a gun stolen by an employee working in a gun manufacturing plant. Danny, here in the picture with his cousin, was a true victim of negligent conduct. This gun factory lacked adequate security, recordkeeping, and other reasonable safeguards to prevent employees from taking guns in their pockets out of the plant. The lack of security was so bad that the owners of the plant did not even know the guns were missing. Danny's mother and his two surviving daughters sued the manufacturer claiming that it had negligently hired criminals to work in its plant and had such irresponsible security that allowed them to walk out of the plant with guns that did not have serial numbers. One of these guns was used to shoot Danny. This case should not be dismissed. This bill will result in the automatic dismissal of a case just filed in Pennsylvania. Anthony Oliver, a 14-year-old boy, was killed by a handgun that discharged accidentally when he was playing with his friends. Anthony's life was cut short due to the gun seller's reckless conduct. His family filed a case against the gun companies that negligently allowed one of Anthony's friends to obtain a handgun. The dealer who sold the gun had a history of supplying guns to criminals and not even taking the minimum step to screen the purchasers. Over a 4-year period, Lou sold over 400 guns traced to criminals. Under this bill, Anthony's family will not get their day in court, and the irresponsible activities of this gun dealer and its supplier will not be stopped. This case should not be dismissed. This bill would also bar municipal lawsuits. If this case passes, four pending cases involving New York City, the District of Columbia, Gary, IN, and Cleveland, OH, will all be dismissed. This bill is not about protecting the gun industry from bankruptcy. This bill is a blatant special interest bill to protect gun manufacturers and sellers who provide guns to criminals and even terrorists. With this bill, Congress is aiding and abetting in the perpetuation of these crimes. Enough is enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to join me in saying no to this shameful bill and get back to the serious issues that face our country.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator knows the answer to that; that is, there is none. This will be special, unique to a single industry that prides itself, as the spokesman for the NRA said--you better support this or else; basically saying that to the Congress of the United States. Just to complete the thought about the sense of priorities, as legislators we basically express the priorities for the people of our State and the Nation. We express those priorities in our budget, on what we ought to be expending resources, and we express priorities by what we address on the floor of the Senate. One of those amendments that was going to be offered to the Defense authorization bill--I know the Senator from Michigan was going to provide assurance that there was going to be mandatory spending to protect the veterans who are coming back from Iraq so they are guaranteed the kind of health care they are guaranteed before they go over there and fight and become wounded and need those kinds of services. That is offered in light of the fact that we are not providing the resources to serve our veterans. That is something worthy of debate on the floor of the Senate. It seems to me that has a lot more priority for debate and discussion and decision by this body than the special interest legislation that we are considering with the National Rifle Association. I ask whether the Senator would not agree with me on that?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator makes an absolutely accurate point. We have here a list from the FBI of the Most Wanted fugitives. There is an amendment to say at least they have to look at the FBI's Most Wanted fugitives. Under this legislation, if the gun dealer sells it to one of the Most Wanted, they still get a free pass. Under the current legislation, we are not even asking them to look on the Internet for those who are going to be listed on the Internet as members of terrorist organizations. We are not even asking them to do that. If they do, and they sell it, as we saw from the al-Qaida book over in Afghanistan saying go on in there and purchase it because you are not going to be bothered--we are not even holding them accountable to do that. Is that what we want to do, when we have seen what has happened in London, and what is happening, and we appropriate more and more resources for homeland security, not even to require that the gun dealer is going to check the Most Wanted list of the FBI? We can't even offer that amendment so it will be voted on. We are being blocked by the power interests on the other side from even having the Senate consider that amendment. That is the power of the NRA. They are not letting any of these kinds of amendments dealing with the Most Wanted list or the terrorist list--we can't even get it before the Senate. That is the lock, the hold that the NRA has. It is disgraceful. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that exchange be part of leader time and not interfere with the morning hour.

Mr. KENNEDY. The time not to be charged as part of the morning hour.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have half an hour; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. I ask the Chair to notify me when I have 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before leaving the floor, if I can have the attention of our minority leader. Is it the understanding of the leader in propounding this request that the measures proposed in the request had bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, and he believes as I believe--and I see my colleague, the Senator from Iowa, who is a great leader on this, who believes as well--that there is very strong bipartisan support for the legislation, and we could, in a reasonable period of time--really in a matter of hours--pass the legislation and still not exclude the possibility of continued debate and discussion on the other measures relating to stem cells; and that this would permit us to act before August 9, which would be the fourth year since we had the limitation and restriction on stem cell research, the kind of research that 80 Nobel laureates in a letter to President said offers the greatest opportunity for progress in the areas of Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, cancer, and so many other diseases--do I understand the position of the Senator from Nevada is that he believes the progress taken in the House of Representatives in a bipartisan way should be given the opportunity for action in the Senate?

Mr. KENNEDY. Is it the position of the Senator from Nevada that this is the same kind of research that, as I mentioned earlier, Nobel laureates indicate offers the greatest opportunity for progress in dealing with the kinds of illnesses and diseases that just about every family in America in one way or the other is affected by, and he believes, as I do, that this offers an enormous opportunity for hope and progress in conquering or curing these diseases?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing my deep sorrow and regret that the Republican leadership has allowed another month to go by without taking action on the bipartisan stem cell bill approved overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives. Over the last several weeks, Republican leaders in the Senate have ignored the true priorities of the American people. They have denied the Senate the opportunity to provide our troops the protections they need against attack. They have denied the Senate the chance to guarantee funding for veterans' health, and to raise the minimum wage, and to allow importation of lower cost medicine from Canada and other nations. And they have stalled and delayed, and twisted and turned, to deny action on legislation to unlock the healing potential of stem cell research. They say there is no time for stem cells, or for the needs of our troops, or our veterans, or working families. There's plenty of time to protect the makers of lethal assault weapons--but no time for lifesaving cures. The bill is right there, Mr. President, right there on that desk in front of you. At any time, the majority leader could walk over, pick it up and have a vote on a bill that would bring new hope to millions of Americans. For years, patients and their families waited for a medical breakthrough to provide new hope for serious illnesses like Parkinson's disease, spinal injury, and Alzheimer's disease. Then at last, dedicated scientists made that breakthrough. They discovered stem cells, which can repair the injuries that cause untold suffering and shorten lives. The cruel irony is that just as medicine was giving patients new hope, the Bush administration snatched it away through needless restrictions on stem cell research, In a few days, on August 9, patients across America will mark the fourth tragic anniversary of that cruel decision. We in the United States Senate had the opportunity--no, we had the responsibility--to see that August 9 of this year did not mark 4 years of failure and 4 years of missed opportunity. But the Republican leadership would not let us meet that responsibility. They let the first week of July slip by, and then the second, and now the last--all with no action on this urgently needed legislation. Every day that we delay is another day of falling behind in the race to cure diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's disease, and many other serious illnesses. It is another day for America to lose ground to Korea, Singapore, Britain, and other nations in the competition for global leadership in biotechnology. Most of all, it is another day of shattered hopes for millions of patients and their families across America. Some respond to the failure of the current policy by saying we should explore new ways to develop embryonic stem cells. I agree. Let's explore the potential of new discoveries in genetics and cell science to improve the ways we can tap the potential of stem cells. But let's not restrict essential research while scientists explore speculative and preliminary theories. Some say we should encourage research on stem cells from the blood in umbilical cords or on adult stem cells from bone marrow and other tissues. Again, I agree. We should seek help for patients wherever it may be found. But it makes no sense to limit medical research to one narrow channel when the Nation's leading scientists agree that these alternatives have a more limited potential than embryonic stem cells. As a letter signed by 80 Nobel laureates in February 2001 stated: Current evidence suggests that adult stem cells have markedly restricted differentiation potential. Therefore, for disorders that prove not to be treatable with adult stem cells, impeding human pluripotent stem cell research risks unnecessary delay for millions of patients who may die or endure needless suffering while the effectiveness of adult stem cells is evaluated. The conclusion of an NIH report in June 2001 is clear: Stem cells in adult tissues do not appear to have the same capacity to differentiate as do embryonic stem cells. It would be cruel to base the hopes of millions of patients on an ideological conclusion that these experts are wrong. By all means, let's pursue vigorous research on adult stem cells, but let's not deceive the American public into thinking it's an adequate substitute for embryonic stem cell research. Legislation should be an expression of our values, and our legislation says loud and clear that we value patients and their families--not rigid ideology. It is a travesty that no action has been taken on this lifesaving measure.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this morning the IRA has issued a statement indicating that it has formally ordered an end to the armed campaign. I welcome the statement. Hopefully, the statement means we are finally nearing the end of this very long process to take guns and criminality out of politics in Northern Ireland once and for all. I look forward to the final act of decommissioning and the verification that paramilitary activity and criminality have ended. The all-important restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly is reestablished. Peace and violence cannot coexist in Northern Ireland, and all who care about peace and stability look forward to these final actions.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Central American Free Trade Agreements ignores American workers, and ignores Central American workers, too. It ignores the labor injustices that still exist in those countries and it turns its back on American workers who continue to struggle to keep their jobs. It did not have to be this way. We know how to negotiate free trade agreements to improve conditions for workers in other nations and level the playing field for American workers. We have done it before and we can do it again. These Central American nations are important neighbors and partners to the United States. I have long supported their efforts towards progress since President Kennedy's Alliance for Progress. Continuing in that tradition, we owe it to our friends in Central America to ensure that proper labor protections are included and enforced. The President abused his power and presented Congress and the American people with this take-it-or-leave-it plan, ignoring a strong bipartisan recommendation to assist displaced American workers. Congress had the opportunity to ask the President to meet that responsibility. Instead, partisan back room deals were made and the Republican Congress approved the agreement by a narrow majority in the Senate and a razor-thin majority in the House. This Central American agreement is not free trade. It does not create a fair playing field for American workers. It fails to address the issues that we hear time and again are so important to them, and it does not deserve to pass.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senator Reed and I are introducing the ``Vaccine Administration and Supply Act.'' Congressman Waxman is introducing a companion bill in the House. Our goal is to improve vaccine accessibility and administration across the country, by guaranteeing that every American has access to recommended vaccines, and strengthening our public health infrastructure. Vaccines are one of the Nation's most significant success stories in public health. They have wiped out mass killers such as polio and smallpox, and protected millions of Americans from other life- threatening or debilitating infectious diseases. They save lives, and save costs too, in needless treatment and hospitalization for illnesses that could have been prevented. Today, the threat of infectious disease is ever present. Deadly strains of naturally occurring viruses, such as avian flu, are moving from animals to humans. The possibility of bioterrorism is looming. Accessibility to vaccines and improving our public health infrastructure are essential to protect the health of our communities and our Nation--and efforts to do so are long overdue. We have made remarkable progress in protecting children from vaccine- preventable diseases by making vaccines available to uninsured and underinsured children at no cost through the Vaccines for Children and Immunization Grant programs. As a result, childhood immunization rates and disease reductions are near all-time highs. On the other hand, there is a huge gap in adult and adolescent vaccination. Each year, 46,000 to 48,000 adults die from diseases that could be cheaply and effectively prevented by vaccination. Many of these persons miss the opportunity to protect themselves against vaccine-preventable diseases because they don't have adequate insurance coverage. Our legislation will close this gap in public health by mandating that the Secretary of HHS establish an immunization program for adults. Uninsured and underinsured adolescents and adults will be vaccinated at no charge in any Federally qualified health center, or local or State public health department. Participating States will also receive increased funding for the Immunization Grant Program, so that Program Managers can administer vaccinations to uninsured and underinsured citizens, as well as conduct education and awareness campaigns on the importance of vaccination and carry out strategies to increase vaccination rates throughout the States. In addition to increasing vaccine accessibility through State programs, this bill will also improve the national immunization infrastructure. Last year's shortage of influenza vaccine was a wake up call for greater national coordination of vaccine allocation and delivery. Our bill requires the Secretary of HHS to purchase and stockpile needed vaccines, and develop an emergency response plan, within one-year of enactment, to guide States in administering vaccines in the case of a shortage or emergency. As our Health Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness continues to discuss provisions to encourage the development of vaccines and other countermeasures to bioterrorism, this legislation will establish the infrastructure needed to ensure the efficient administration of such countermeasures in a time of crisis. The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials said it well when stating, ``Immunization is a vital public health tool and an essential element in protecting the nation's health.'' In light of the obvious dangers, it is urgent for Congress to increase immunization rates and ensure the efficient allocation of vaccines in an emergency. I commend Congressman Waxman for his leadership on this important health issue in the House, and Senator Reed and I urge our colleagues in the Senate to join in this important effort to improve our public health preparedness.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senator Reed and I are introducing the ``Vaccine Administration and Supply Act.'' Congressman Waxman is introducing a companion bill in the House. Our goal is to improve vaccine accessibility and administration across the country, by guaranteeing that every American has access to recommended vaccines, and strengthening our public health infrastructure. Vaccines are one of the Nation's most significant success stories in public health. They have wiped out mass killers such as polio and smallpox, and protected millions of Americans from other life- threatening or debilitating infectious diseases. They save lives, and save costs too, in needless treatment and hospitalization for illnesses that could have been prevented. Today, the threat of infectious disease is ever present. Deadly strains of naturally occurring viruses, such as avian flu, are moving from animals to humans. The possibility of bioterrorism is looming. Accessibility to vaccines and improving our public health infrastructure are essential to protect the health of our communities and our Nation--and efforts to do so are long overdue. We have made remarkable progress in protecting children from vaccine- preventable diseases by making vaccines available to uninsured and underinsured children at no cost through the Vaccines for Children and Immunization Grant programs. As a result, childhood immunization rates and disease reductions are near all-time highs. On the other hand, there is a huge gap in adult and adolescent vaccination. Each year, 46,000 to 48,000 adults die from diseases that could be cheaply and effectively prevented by vaccination. Many of these persons miss the opportunity to protect themselves against vaccine-preventable diseases because they don't have adequate insurance coverage. Our legislation will close this gap in public health by mandating that the Secretary of HHS establish an immunization program for adults. Uninsured and underinsured adolescents and adults will be vaccinated at no charge in any Federally qualified health center, or local or State public health department. Participating States will also receive increased funding for the Immunization Grant Program, so that Program Managers can administer vaccinations to uninsured and underinsured citizens, as well as conduct education and awareness campaigns on the importance of vaccination and carry out strategies to increase vaccination rates throughout the States. In addition to increasing vaccine accessibility through State programs, this bill will also improve the national immunization infrastructure. Last year's shortage of influenza vaccine was a wake up call for greater national coordination of vaccine allocation and delivery. Our bill requires the Secretary of HHS to purchase and stockpile needed vaccines, and develop an emergency response plan, within one-year of enactment, to guide States in administering vaccines in the case of a shortage or emergency. As our Health Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness continues to discuss provisions to encourage the development of vaccines and other countermeasures to bioterrorism, this legislation will establish the infrastructure needed to ensure the efficient administration of such countermeasures in a time of crisis. The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials said it well when stating, ``Immunization is a vital public health tool and an essential element in protecting the nation's health.'' In light of the obvious dangers, it is urgent for Congress to increase immunization rates and ensure the efficient allocation of vaccines in an emergency. I commend Congressman Waxman for his leadership on this important health issue in the House, and Senator Reed and I urge our colleagues in the Senate to join in this important effort to improve our public health preparedness.