Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will not object. My feeling is, I regretted the fact we got off the Defense bill--particularly because of its importance to our national security--to go on to this gun liability bill. I am not going to object to the leader coming back. As one who has an amendment--I know many of our colleagues were eager to focus on those amendments. We will expect to hear from our leader as to when the leader will do that. Further reserving the right to object, is it the intention of the leader to permit amendments to the gun liability bill so we will, now that we are on that legislation, at least be able to talk about and offer amendments on the gun liability legislation?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I take a moment to explain the effect of our proceeding to this gun bill. We are putting aside an important debate on national security and the needs of our troops in a time of war. Last Friday I listed a number of the amendments that still were pending that would affect the National Guard and our Reserve troops and also provide additional kinds of protections for the service men and women. The decision by the Republican leadership was that we had spent enough time on the legislation, even though we chose to spend 2 weeks earlier in the year on the credit card industry and on bankruptcy and a similar amount of time on the class action legislation which benefited special interest groups. The credit card industry will profit about $6 billion more this year than last year because of the actions taken. We also spent time on the special interest legislation dealing with class actions. We spent the time on that, but we are not on the Defense authorization bill. We had an important amendment on the whole policy of the administration in developing new nuclear weapons which has profound implications in terms of the issues of nuclear proliferation and nuclear safety. We looked forward to having an opportunity to debate that issue. That was put aside by the Republican leadership because they were concerned about a provision that had been introduced to the Defense authorization bill last Thursday. Senator Levin, Senator Reed, Senator Rockefeller, and I introduced an amendment to create an independent commission to examine the administration's policy surrounding the detention and interrogation of detainees as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. The response of the White House was instant and negative. The President announced he would veto the Defense authorization bill, all $442 billion of it, if it included any provisions to restrict the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or creating a commission to investigate detainee operations. No other response could have demonstrated so clearly the urgent need to establish a commission than that this imperial White House considers itself immune from restraints by Congress on its powers no matter what the Constitution says. It is appalling that the administration is so afraid of the truth that they are even willing to veto the Defense bill which includes billions of dollars for our troops, pay raises for our troops, and funds for armored humvees to protect our troops in Iraq. But the administration was prepared to veto that legislation because of this amendment that had been offered by Senator Levin, Senator Reed, Senator Rockefeller, and myself. Now the Senate Republican leaders have pulled the Defense bill from the floor. It is interesting that Republican leaders hatched this plan after Vice President Cheney visited with Senate Republicans last week. He told them the White House does not want votes on amendments to require an inquiry into their detention policies and practices. The White House has not only threatened to veto a national defense bill to avoid accountability, but is preventing us from voting on the issue. It is already obvious that the administration's detention and interrogation policy failed to respect the longstanding rules that have guided our policy in the past, rejecting the collective wisdom of our career military and State Department officials. In today's newspapers we see the result of this action once again with the use of dogs against detainees. We need to return to our core values of openness and accountability. The facts we know so far about torture and other abuses, about indefinite detention, have already become recruiting tools for terrorists. But if we act now to uphold our principles, we can end the outrage, we can end the coverups, and hold officials accountable at the highest levels. We need to disavow the abuses and harsh techniques. We need to ensure our actions do not become an excuse for our enemies to torture American troops when they are captured in the future or to attack innocent Americans in any part of the world. The reports of abuse also undermine our own security efforts at home. The vast majority of Muslim Americans and Arab Americans are willing to help identify potential terrorists, help prevent charitable donations from being misused, and act as eyes and ears of a community uniquely capable of identifying potential threats. When the reports of abuses go unanswered, they undermine the community's willingness to provide that assistance. It is impossible for many Muslim Americans and Arab Americans to be persuaded to help against such threats if they feel their own religious beliefs have been targeted. The reality is our safety and security depend on accountability. It is not enough to pretend that problem does not exist, but that is how the President has responded to the flow of reports about abuses. Contrary to the protests of the administration, we do not have the answers we need. So far, we have had 12 separate so-called investigations of allegations, but not a single report has adequately examined the role that civilian authorities have played in crafting the policies that led to our missteps. Twelve investigations and counting, and the coverup continues. The administration and its proxies in the coverup have vilified anyone who calls for a full inquiry into the policies. They even stooped to claiming a request for full accounting is somehow a smear against our troops. The real smear is that the administration continues to prosecute only a few low-level offenders without holding accountable the higher-ups who laid the groundwork for all the abuses. The real disservice to our troops and to our country is done by those who leave those at the bottom of the chain of command holding the bag while officials at the top are promoted and rewarded. We need a commission independent of political influence to find the relevant facts, not just the facts that suit the partisan needs of the administration. We need an investigation of the country's so-called rendition policy which sends detainees to other countries where torture is well known. We need answers about the administration's reaction to FBI complaints about abuse. We need a thorough assessment of the legal regime that is currently in effect. With its willingness to conceal the truth, the administration will never tell the American people about this practice of rendition on its own. We need an independent commission to examine our policies and practices and make appropriate recommendations. The American people deserve to understand the choices made by this President and to evaluate them. In sum, our interrogation and detention policies need much more thorough review. In avoiding accountability, the administration has made it clear it won't accept responsibility for giving our Nation the clear answers it deserves. As Benjamin Franklin said, half a truth is often a great lie. Until now we have been fed half truths and coverups by the administration. With the recent veto threat, the White House has declared war on any full and honest accounting of responsibility. The safety of our troops and our citizens depends on finding out the whole truth and acting on it. An independent commission of respected professionals with backgrounds in law and military policy and international relations is the only way we can learn the truth about what has happened so we can end the suppression and establish a policy for the future that is worthy of our Nation and worthy of our respect of all nations. Administration secrecy doesn't stop with their interrogation policy. This administration has a systematic disregard for oversight and openness. Government is intended to be ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' Democracy requires informed citizens, and to be informed, citizens need to have information about the government. Congress and the executive branch are supposed to be open and accountable, so the American people know what is being done in their name. But under the Bush administration, openness and accountability have been replaced by secrecy and evasion of responsibility. They abuse their power, conceal their actions from the American people, and refuse to hold officials accountable. No one disputes the necessity of classifying information critical to protecting our national security--military operations, weapon designs, intelligence sources, and similar information. But in the post-9/11 world, the administration is making secrecy the norm and openness the exception. It has used the tragedy of 9/11 to classify unprecedented amounts of information. Material off-limits to the public has become so extensive that no other conclusion is possible. The Bush administration has a pervasive strategy to limit access to information in order to avoid independent evaluation of its actions by Americans whose job it is to observe and critique their government. When even Congressmen, journalists, and public interest groups complain about limits on access to information, we know the difficulties faced by ordinary Americans seeking information from their government. At a hearing last August in the House Subcommittee on National Security, the Director of the Government's Information Security Oversight Office, J. William Leonard, testified that ``it is no secret that the government classifies too much information. Too much classification unnecessarily impedes effective information sharing.'' The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Counterintelligence and Security, Carol A. Haave, said that as much as half of all classified information doesn't need to be classified. Last year, a record 15.6 million documents were classified by the Bush administration at a cost of $7.2 billion, many under newly invented categories with fewer requirements for classification. The administration argues that all this secrecy is necessary to win the war on terrorism. But the 9/11 Commission Report said that too much government secrecy had hurt U.S. intelligence capability even before 9/ 11. ``Secrecy stifles oversight, accountability, and information sharing,'' says the report. They know from their own experience. In July 2003, the 9/11 Commission's cochairmen, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, complained publicly that the administration was failing to provide requested information. In October 2003, the Commission had no choice, after repeated requests, but to subpoena records from the FAA. In November 2003, after multiple requests, the Commission again had to subpoena information, this time from the Department of Defense. For the rest of that fall and spring, the administration repeatedly tried to deny access to presidential documents important to the Commission's investigation, until public outcry grew loud enough to convince the administration otherwise. Key members of the administration balked at testifying, until public opinion again swayed their stance. And then, in an ironic twist, 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report itself was classified. So, is all this secrecy really about protecting us from the terrorists? Or is it just to avoid accountability? This administration, once in office, wasted no time challenging those who would hold them accountable. In May 2001, Vice President Cheney's energy task force issued its report recommending more oil and gas drilling to solve our energy problems. In light of his former employment at Halliburton, the recommendation was hardly astonishing. What was astonishing was the Vice President's refusal to identify the people and groups who helped write the policy. In June 2001, the GAO, the nonpartisan, investigative arm of Congress, requested information on the energy task force, following reports that campaign contributors had special access while the public was shut out. GAO's request was simple. It asked, ``Who serves on this task force; what information is being presented to the task force and by whom is it being given; and the costs involved in the gathering of the facts.'' Considering that the task force wrote the nation's energy policy, it was not an unreasonable request. The administration refused to comply, even though GAO's request was not out of the ordinary. President Clinton's task forces on health care and on China trade relations were both investigated by GAO. The Clinton administration turned over detailed information on the participants and proceedings of the task forces. But the Bush administration argued that GAO did not have the authority to conduct the investigation. For the first time in its 80- year history, GAO was forced to file suit against an administration to obtain requested information. But the court sided with the administration in Walker v. Cheney, and GAO's investigative oversight authority was effectively reduced. Independent oversight is critically important when one party controls both Congress and the White House, and GAO is critical to that oversight. On October 12, 2001, John Ashcroft wrote a memo outlining the Justice Department's views on Freedom of Information Act requests. The memo set the tone for an administration hostile to such requests. It discouraged executive branch agencies from responding to Freedom of Information Act requests, even when the agencies had the option to respond. He basically reversed the longstanding policy of prior administrations. The Clinton administration policy, set forth by Attorney General Janet Reno, was that if a document could be released without harm, an agency should do so, even if there were technical grounds for withholding it. They knew that government openness was essential to an informed public. When the Bush administration came to office, Attorney General Ashcroft disagreed--he wrote that if there is any technical ground for withholding a document under the Freedom of Information Act, an agency should withhold it. The Clinton policy had been ``release if at all possible.'' The Bush policy was ``keep secret if at all possible.'' Why should the public know what the administration is doing? Why release documents that might be embarrassing to the White House or its friends in business? Some organizations claim, based on their experience, that this obsession with secrecy goes even farther, and that executive branch agencies are being told to withhold information until it is subpoenaed. Sean Moulton, a senior policy analyst at OMB Watch, argued that ``if there are documents the government doesn't want to release but doesn't have any legal basis for withholding, unless you're willing to go to court, you're not getting those documents.'' Since the tragedy of September 11, this administration has effectively shut down inquiry after inquiry: In November 2001, energy companies were planning a natural gas pipeline through the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. Local citizens, led by former U.S. Army Ranger Joseph McCormick, asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a map of the planned pipeline. These citizens weren't being nosy--they wanted to know if a large new pipeline for natural gas would be going through their backyards. FERC denied the citizens' request in the name of national security, even though this type of information had been public before 9/11. Clearly, national security concerns are legitimate. But without knowledge of the pipeline's location, how could these citizens defend their property? Joseph McCormick put it bluntly: ``There certainly is a balance,'' he said. ``It's about people's right to use the information of an open society to protect their rights.'' In the fall of 2002, the chemical compound perchlorate was found in the water supply of Aberdeen, Maryland--near the Army's famous Aberdeen Proving Ground. Perchlorate is a main ingredient of rocket fuel. It also stunts the metabolism and brain growth of newborns. A group of citizens organized, and worked with the Army to protect their drinking water from further contamination. But a few months later, the Army began censoring maps and information that would help determine which areas were contaminated, supposedly in the interest of national security--if citizens could find out where the water was contaminated, then terrorists could find it too. The head of the citizens' group was a 20-year army veteran. His water well was only a mile and a half away from the proving ground. ``It's an abuse of power,'' he said. ``The government has to be transparent.'' Even Members of Congress have had to subpoena information in order to do their work. Last October, Congressmen Christopher Shays and Henry Waxman, the chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, asked for an audit of the Development Fund for Iraq. The copy they received had over 400 items blacked out. They had so much difficulty obtaining an unredacted report from the Defense Department that they had to prepare a subpoena. Once they finally received an unredacted copy, guess what had been blacked out? More than $218 million in charges from Halliburton. So far, no one has been held accountable. It has now been 744 days without a White House investigation into the CIA leak case. It took 85 days for the administration even to require its staff to turn over evidence relating to the leak. Senate Republicans held 20 hearings on accusations against President Clinton and the Whitewater case, but they have held zero hearings on the leak of the covert identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. So far, no one has been held accountable. Last week, the Defense Department refused to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release secret photographs and videotapes of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The ACLU had sued to obtain release of 87 photographs and 4 videotapes, but the administration filed sealed documents resisting the order. They are so obsessed with secrecy that they even make secret arguments to keep their secrets. So far, no one has been held accountable. Also last week, the administration submitted an initial report on progress in training Iraqi security forces. It has been more than 2 years since the fall of Baghdad, and a reliable assessment of our progress in training those forces was long overdue. The key questions that the American people want to know are how many Iraqi security forces are capable of fighting on their own and what our military requirements will be the months ahead. But the answers remain classified. The American people deserve to know the facts about our policy. They want to know how long it will take to fully train the Iraqis and when our military mission will be completed. They can deal with the truth, and they deserve it. No one wants to do anything that would help the insurgents. But the administration must do a better job of responding to the legitimate concerns of the American people. The administration still isn't willing to be candid. It needs to find a way to shed some of the secrecy and answer these questions in good faith for the American people. The silence is deafening. There is also a pattern of withholding information from members of Congress on the administration's nominations. In 2003, Miguel Estrada was nominated for a Federal judgeship. We requested legal memoranda he wrote as Assistant Solicitor General, and we were repeatedly denied. In 2004, Alberto Gonzales was nominated to be Attorney General. We requested various memoranda he authorized on administration torture policy, and we were repeatedly denied. Earlier this year, John Bolton was nominated to be Ambassador to the United Nations. We requested documents to determine if he acted appropriately in his previous job, and we have been repeatedly denied. Instead of coming clean and providing the information to the Congress, we have been stonewalled. Our questions have gone unanswered. And now, the President appears to be poised to abuse his power further, rub salt in the wound, and send John Bolton to the United Nations anyway with a recess appointment of dubious constitutionality. Now John Roberts has been nominated to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. We hope this nomination will not be another occasion for administration secrecy, but press accounts suggest otherwise. Even before we asked for any documents, the administration announced it will not release many of the memoranda written by John Roberts. The White House spokesman says they will claim attorney-client privilege, but many of the memos vital to our consideration of Judge Roberts for the Supreme Court were written while he worked as a top political and policy official in the Solicitor General's office. That office works for all the American people--not just the President. Attorney-client privilege clearly has never been a bar to providing the Senate with what it needs to process a nomination. As we all know, no one is simply entitled to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. One has to earn that right. And one earns that right by getting the support of the American people, reflected in the vote here in the United States Senate. And that is what the confirmation process is all about. We know that the administration is familiar with and aware of Judge Roberts' positions on various issues. They have had a year to study it and had their associates talk with him and with those who worked with him. The real question is: Shouldn't the American people have the opportunity to get the same kind of information so that they can form their own impression and so that the Senate can make a balanced, informed judgment and see whether or not the balance in the Supreme Court will be furthered? That is the issue and it appears that the administration is continuing to withhold important information that would permit the Congress the ability to do so. Yes, the administration has consistently used the horror of 9/11 and its disdain of congressional oversight to get its way and avoid accountability. It consistently uses this secrecy to roll back the rights of average Americans. But even its best spin doctors can't conceal some of the administration's most flagrant abuses of power. Last August, the New York Times reported that ``health rules, environmental regulations, energy initiatives, worker-safety standards and product-safety disclosure policies have been modified in ways that often please business and industry leaders while dismaying interest groups representing consumers, workers, drivers, medical patients, the elderly and many others.'' Often, this has been done in silence and near secrecy. In 2000, Congress responded to the disclosure of defects in Firestone tires, which may have been responsible for as many as 270 deaths, by passing legislation which would make information on auto safety and related defects readily available. But in July 2003, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration decided that reports of defects would cause ``substantial competitive harm'' to the auto industry, and exempted warranty claims and consumer complaints from the Freedom of Information Act. Clearly, that was another abuse of power that protects big business while putting the American public at greater risk. In 2003, the administration knowingly withheld cost estimates of its Medicare prescription drug bill--one of the most important pieces of legislation that year. The estimates showed costs over $100 billion more than the administration claimed, but the information was withheld because of fears that the actual numbers would persuade Members of Congress to vote no. Administration officials threatened to fire Chief Actuary Richard Foster ``so fast his head would spin,'' if he informed Congress of the real cost estimate. I wrote a letter to the administration on this subject, but they never responded to my questions. In 2003, the Food and Drug Administration kept secret a report that children on antidepressants were twice as likely to be involved in suicide-related behavior. The FDA also prevented the author of the study--their expert on the issue--from presenting his findings to an FDA advisory committee. Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, a Harvard psychiatrist, said ``Evidence that they're suppressing a report like this is an outrage, given the public health and safety issues at stake . . . For the FDA to issue an ambiguous warning when they had unambiguous data like this is an outrage.'' In November 2003, the White House told the Appropriations Committees in both Houses of Congress that it would only respond to requests for information if they were signed by the committee chairman. In a time of one-party rule, this tactic made congressional oversight almost completely impossible. In April 2004, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords, was forced to place holds on several EPA nominees after the administration refused to respond to twelve outstanding information requests, including information on air pollution. In August 2004, under pressure from the Department of Homeland Security, the FCC decided to make telephone service outage reports confidential, and exempt them from Freedom of Information Act requests. The FCC argued it was because companies could use competitors' service outages in ad campaigns. You may not be able to make informed decisions on your phone company, but at least the company will be protected from nasty advertising. Last month, we discovered that the administration had blocked studies criticizing the Central American Free Trade Agreement--after it had already paid for them. In 2002, the Department of Labor hired the International Labor Rights Fund to back up its argument that Central American countries had improved on labor issues. The contractor found the opposite, and posted its results on its Web site in March 2004. The Labor Department ordered its removal from the website, banned its release, and barred the contractor's employees from discussing the report. The Department of Labor denied a Congressman's request for the report under the Freedom of Information Act. These are the American people's tax dollars. But when the administration didn't like an answer, it abused its power to avoid accountability--at their expense. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal disclosed yet another list of abuses in Iraq reconstruction. Ten billion dollars of no-bid contracts were awarded; $89 million was doled out without contracts at all; $9 billion is unaccounted for, and may have been embezzled. An official fired for incompetence was still giving out millions of dollars in aid, weeks after his termination. A contractor was paid twice for the same job. A third of all U.S. vehicles that Halliburton was paid to manage are missing. It is a staggering display of incompetence and cover-up, so that no one will be held accountable. Americans deserve better. They deserve the information necessary to become informed, effective citizens. We as lawmakers are better able to represent our constituents when we have access to the critical information held by the executive branch. We must never forget who we work for--the American people. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and we have a duty to hold the administration accountable for its actions. Mr. President, on the matter we have before the Senate at the present time, here we go again on the issue of legal immunity for the gun industry. Without shame, the Republican leadership has brought back this special interest, anti-law enforcement bill that strips away the rights of victims to go to court. Why the urgency to take up this bill now? This is a critical moment in this country's future. Surely, the Republican leadership can take some time to address other priorities before attempting to give a free pass to the gun industry. Why aren't we completing our work on the Defense authorization bill? That is what was before the Senate. Why have we displaced a full and fair debate on the issue of the Defense authorization bill--which has so many provisions in there concerning our fighting men and women in Iraq and about the National Guard and defense--in order to consider special interest legislation? That is what is before the Senate, and that is what we are considering at the present time, as a result of the Republican leadership. Surely, the Congress can do more for our citizens than rush to pass unprecedented special interest legislation. We can and should be acting to meet our real challenges. Last year, the Federal Government recalled a water pistol, the Super Soaker, just a few days before the assault weapons ban expired. America does more to regulate the safety of toy guns than real guns, and it is a national disgrace. The gun industry has worked hard to avoid Federal consumer safety regulation. Where are our priorities? Where is the logic in passing a bill that makes it harder to sue for harm caused by real guns than harm caused by a plastic toy gun? The industry has conspicuously failed to use technology to make guns safer. It has attempted to insulate itself from its distributors and dealers, once guns leave the factory. Under this bill, it will not even matter if the guns are stolen by factory employees and snuck out of the factory in the middle of the night. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe gun dealers and gun manufacturers should be held accountable for their irresponsible conduct, similar to everyone else. Cities, counties, and States incur billions of dollars in costs each year as a result of gun violence. Studies estimate that the public cost of firearm-related injuries is over $1 million for each shooting victim. Yet this bill would take a fierce toll and dismiss even pending cases where communities are trying to get relief. This bill would bar the legal rights of hard-working law enforcement officers, such as Ken McGuire and David Lemongello. These two police officers from Orange, NJ, were seriously wounded in a shootout with a burglary suspect. The gun used by the suspect was one of 12 guns sold by a West Virginia pawnshop to an obvious straw purchaser for an illegal gun trafficker. Fortunately for the officers, this bill did not become law last year, and their case was able to proceed. Recently, David Lemongello was able to obtain a $1 million settlement. Significantly, the settlement required the dealer and other area pawnshops to adopt safer practices. These reforms go beyond the requirements of current law and are not imposed by any manufacturers or distributors. This is not about money. This is about public safety, and I commend these brave officers for their courageous battle to change the system. It is clear what will happen if Congress gives the gun industry this unprecedented legal immunity, on top of its existing exemption from Federal consumer safety regulations. Guns will be more dangerous. Gun dealers will be more irresponsible. More guns will be available to terrorists and criminals. There will be more shootings and more dead children. The Nation's response to this death toll has been unacceptable. Yet, year after year, little changes in our approach to regulating guns. How can we justify this neglect? How can we continue to ignore the vast discrepancy in gun deaths in the United States compared to other nations? How can we possibly justify this effort to give the gun industry even greater protection for irresponsible behavior? Mr. President, this bill is nothing short of Congress aiding and abetting the provision of guns to criminals. It takes the gun industry off the hook when their guns are sold to the wrong people who are out to hurt us. Under this administration, we have seen the budget cuts to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, so our law enforcement do not have the resources they need to keep guns out of criminal hands. That is why these citizen lawsuits are so important. If the police cannot do their job, then citizens should be able to do it. But this legislation will throw the citizens out of court. It is wrong. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, can the leader give us some indication as to when we will go on the Defense authorization bill, as one who has an amendment and is glad to participate?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am not going to object to the other, but that sounds to me as if--having been around and familiar with the rules of the Senate--they can effectively let what amendments come up that are agreeable to the floor managers and deny other Members the opportunity to offer amendments. I think the Senate rules provide, when we are dealing with cloture, to be able to offer amendments that are relevant to the underlying bill. I don't understand why we are not going to be permitted the different options. I am not going to object to the leader being able to go to Defense authorization when he wants to, but it does seem to me we are facing a stacked deck here and denying Members under the Senate rules the opportunity which the rules provide for. It would be simple to say we are going to run consideration of the gun liability according to the Senate rules. That would be the answer most of us would have hoped. I guess there is a different plan ahead for the Senate, but we all want to be fully aware of what that means. That means some Members will be able to get their amendments in and others will not.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I object.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Improvement Act. The bill makes several improvements in the 1990 law that established the Foundation. Most significantly, it assures the Foundation at least $500,000 annually from the NIH to support its administrative and operating expenses. The annual allocation is capped at $1.25 million. These funds will enable the Foundation to use its own resources for the actual support of projects to strengthen NIH programs, rather than raise money for its own expenses. As the bill makes clear, the NIH Director and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs are ex officio members of the Foundation's board of directors. Congress established the Foundation in 1990 to raise private funds to support the research of the NIH. The Foundation has been a remarkable success. For every dollar the Foundation received from the NIH in 2003, it raised $426 in private funds. Since its creation, it has raised $270 million, or $68 in private support for every dollar from the NIH. The Foundation is currently managing 37 programs supported by $270 million generated from private contributions. As one important example, the Edmond J. Safra Family Lodge on the NIH campus gives families of patients receiving in-patient treatment at the NIH Clinical Center a place to stay, at no cost to them. In addition, the Foundation has formed partnerships with the NIH to develop new cancer treatments, to identify biochemical signs of osteoarthritis and Alzheimer's Disease, and to build on the promise of genomics. Through a public-private partnership, the Foundation has helped accelerate the sequencing of the mouse genome. It is also collecting private funds to study drugs in children. In 2003, Bill Gates announced a gift to the Foundation of $200 million over the next 10 years to support research on global health priorities. Clearly, the Foundation's partnership with the NIH will grow productively in the coming years. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this legislation, which will enable the Foundation to continue its effective support of the work and mission of the NIH.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if we go to cloture and cloture is invoked, do we not displace the Defense authorization bill for consideration in this Chamber this afternoon and for the next days, if we pass it? Is that not the case?

Mr. KENNEDY. So the answer is affirmative, that we are displacing the Defense authorization bill by voting on cloture on the motion to proceed. Am I not correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I object.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we celebrate the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990--one of the greatest civil rights laws in our history. Fifteen years ago, the Nation adopted the fundamental principle that people should be measured by what they can do, not what they can't. The Americans with Disabilities Act began a new era of opportunity for millions of disabled citizens who had been denied full and fair participation in society. For generations, people with disabilities were pitied as people who needed charity, not opportunity. Out of ignorance, the Nation accepted discrimination for decades, and yielded to fear and prejudice. The passage of the ADA finally ended these condescending and suffocating attitudes--and widened the doors of opportunity for all people with disabilities. The 15th anniversary of this landmark legislation is a time to reflect on how far we have come in improving the ``real life'' possibilities for the Nation's 56 million people with disabilities. In fact, the seeds were planted long before 1990. In 1932, the United States elected a disabled person to the highest office in the land. He became one of the greatest Presidents in our history. But even Franklin Roosevelt felt compelled by the prejudice of his times and hid his disability as much as possible. The World War II generation began to change all that. The 1940s and the 1950s introduced the Nation to a new class of Americans with disabilities--wounded and disabled veterans returning from war to an inaccessible society. Even before the war ended, rehabilitation medicine had been born. Disability advocacy organizations began to rise. Disability benefits were added to Social Security. Each decade since then has brought significant new progress and more change. In the 1960s, Congress responded with new architectural standards, so we could have a society everyone could be a part of. No one would have to wait outside a new building because they were disabled. The 1970s convinced us that greater opportunities for fuller participation in society were possible for the disabled. Congress responded with a range of steps to improve the lives of people with mental retardation, to support the right of children with disabilities to attend public schools, to guarantee the right of people with disabilities to vote in elections, and to insist on greater access to cultural and recreational programs in their communities. The 1980s brought a new realization, however, that when we talk about helping people with disabilities, we can't just rely on government programs. We need to involve private industry as well. Congress guaranteed fair housing opportunities for people with disabilities, required fair access to air travel, and made telecommunications advances available for people hard of hearing or deaf. The crowning achievement in these decades of progress was passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 and its promise of a new and better life to every disabled citizen, in which their disabilities would no longer put an end to their dreams. As one eloquent citizen with a disability has said, ``I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the State look after me. I want to take the calculated risk, to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I want to enjoy the benefits of my creations and face the world boldly, and say, this is what I have done.'' Our families, our neighbors, and our friends with disabilities have taught us in ways no books can teach. The inclusion of people with disabilities enriches all our lives. My son Teddy continues to teach me every day the greatest lesson of all that disabled does not mean unable. As the saying goes, when people are excluded from the social fabric of a community, it creates a hole--and when there is a hole, the entire fabric is weaker. It lacks richness, texture, and the strength that diversity brings. The fabric of our Nation is stronger today than it was 15 years ago, because people with disabilities are no longer left out and left behind. And because of that, America is a greater and better and fairer nation. Today in this country we see the signs of the progress that mean so much in our ongoing efforts to include persons with disabilities in every aspect of life--the ramps beside the steps, the sidewalks with curb-cuts to accommodate wheelchairs, the lifts for helping disabled people to take buses to work or the store or to a movie. Disabled students are no longer barred from schools and denied an education. They are learning and achieving at levels once thought impossible. They are graduating from high schools, enrolling in universities, joining the workforce, achieving their goals, enriching their communities and their country. They have greater access than ever to the rehabilitation and training they need to be successfully employed and become productive, contributing members of their communities. With the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, we finally linked civil rights closely to health care. It isn't civil and it isn't right to send a disabled person to work without the health care they need and deserve. These milestones show us that we are well on the way to fulfilling the promise of a new, better, and more inclusive life for citizens with disabilities--but we still have a way to go. Today, as we rightly look back with pride, we also need to look ahead. We still face many challenges, especially in areas such as health care and in home-based and community-based services and supports. Many people with disabilities still do not have the health care they need. A strong Medicare prescription drug benefit is essential for all people with disabilities. Today, about one in six Medicare beneficiaries--over six million people--are people with disabilities under age 65. Over the next 10 years that number is expected to increase to 8 million. These persons are much less likely to be able to obtain or afford private insurance coverage. Many of them are forced to choose between buying groceries, paying their mortgage, or paying for their medication. Families raising children with significant disabilities deserve health care for their children. No family should be forced to go bankrupt, stay in poverty, or give up custody of their child in order to get needed health care for their disabled child. They deserve the right to buy in to Medicaid, so that their family can stay together and stay employed. People with disabilities and older Americans need community-based assistance as well, so they can live at home with their families and in their communities. We need to find a way to ensure this support is available, without forcing families into poverty. This is today's challenge to the Nation, and we need to work together to meet it. The Americans with Disabilities Act was an extraordinary milestone in the pursuit of the American dream. Many disability and civil rights leaders in communities throughout the country worked long and hard and well to achieve it. To each of you, I say thank you. It is all of you who are the true heroes of this achievement, and who will lead us in the fight to keep the ADA strong in the years ahead. Sadly, the Supreme Court is not on our side. In the past 15 years, it has restricted the intended scope of the ADA. Imagine you are a person with epilepsy in a job you love and you get excellent personnel reviews. You are taking medicine that controls the seizures and you have no symptoms. But your employer finds out you have epilepsy and fires you. Should you be able to sue your employer for discrimination? Congress intended you should--but the Supreme Court ruled you can't. The Court continues to carve out exception after exception in the ADA. But discrimination is discrimination, and no attempt to blur that line or write out exceptions into the law should be tolerated. Congress wouldn't do it and it is wrong for the Supreme Court to do it. The ADA was a spectacular example of bipartisan cooperation and success. Passed by overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike took rightful pride in the goals of the law and its many accomplishments. I know that the first President Bush, Senator Bob Dole, and many Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle consider their work on the ADA to be among their finest accomplishments in public service. It is widely regarded today as one of the true giant steps in our ongoing two-centuries-old civil rights revolution. The need for that kind of bipartisan cooperation is especially critical today, as the Senate considers the nomination of John Roberts to fill Justice O'Connor's vacancy on the Supreme Court. Many people are generally aware of Justice O'Connor's role in a number of landmark decisions on reproductive and civil rights. Few know, though, that she cast the deciding vote in Lane v. Tennessee in 2004, the 5-4 ruling on the constitutionality of the ADA and whether Congress has the power to prohibit the exclusion of people with disabilities from public facilities in communities across the country. The four dissenting Justices, in the name of States' rights, believed that Congress had no authority to do so. The case was brought by a paraplegic who complained that he was forced to crawl up the steps of the local courthouse to gain entry to the building. Justice O'Connor's swing vote upheld the ADA and the right of Congress under the Constitution to pass this landmark law to protect persons with such disabilities and guarantee their access to courts and other public facilities. The Senate's decision on the confirmation of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court may very well determine whether the ADA will survive as we know it. His views on a wide range of issues are little known, but some of his views raise serious questions about his position on the rights of those with disabilities, and Senators have a clear responsibility in the coming hearings to determine his views on these basic issues. Hopefully, the new Supreme Court will continue to support the right of Congress to act in this important area, so that the extraordinary progress of the past 15 years will be sustained, not undermined. I intend to do all I can to see that it is. Today, more than ever, disability need no longer mean the end of the American dream. Our goal is to banish stereotypes and discrimination, so that every disabled person can realize the dream of working and living independently, and being a productive and contributing member of our community. That goal should be the birthright of every American--and the ADA opened the door for every disabled American to achieve it. A story from the debate on the ADA eloquently made the point. A postmaster in a town was told to make his post office accessible. The building had 20 steep steps leading up to a revolving door at the only entrance. The postmaster questioned the need to make such costly repairs. He said, ``I've been here for 35 years, and in all that time, I've yet to see a single customer come in here in a wheelchair.'' As the Americans with Disabilities Act has proved so well, if you build the ramp, they will come, and they will find their field of dreams. So let's ramp up our own efforts across the country. We need to keep building those ramps, no matter how many steps stand in the way. We will not stop today or tomorrow or next month or next year. We will not ever stop until America works for all Americans. I ask all Senators to join me today in committing to keep the ADA strong. It is an act of conscience, an act of community, and above all, an act of continued hope for the future.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our military is first in the world, because of the quality and training of our personnel and because of the technological sophistication of our equipment and weaponry. A large portion of the best civilian scientific minds in the Defense Department are nearing retirement age--yet the legislation before us cuts funding for the military's basic research in math and science. Amendment No. 1401 that I am offering with the Senator from Maine and others will ensure that the Department maintains its support for scientific research and development. It includes $10 million, to double the funding for the Department's current ``SMART Scholars'' program, which is essentially an ROTC program for the agency's civilian scientists. It increases by $40 million the Department's funding of basic research in science and technology, to ensure that its investment in this field is maintained and our military technology remains the best in the world. The $50 million total cost of the amendment is offset by a $50 million reduction in Department-wide administrative funding. Our amendment provides sufficient funding for the full cost of college scholarships and graduate fellowships for approximately 100 science, technology, engineering, and math students. It increases basic research on an equal basis in the Army, Navy, Air Force, DARPA, and National Defense Education Program. It is supported by more than 60 of the most prestigious institutions of higher education in America. Defense Department-sponsored research has resulted in stunningly sophisticated spy satellites, precision-guided munitions, stealth equipment, and advanced radar. The research has also generated new applications in the civilian economy. The best known example is the Internet, originally a DARPA project. Advances in military technology often have their source in the work of civilian scientists in Department of Defense laboratories. Unfortunately, a large percentage of these scientists are nearing retirement. Today, nearly one in three DOD civilian science, technical, engineering, and mathematical employees is eligible to retire. In 7 years, 70 percent will be of retirement age. Another distressing fact is that the number of new scientists being produced by our major universities at the doctoral level each year has declined by 4 percent over the last decade. Many of those who do graduate are ineligible to work on sensitive defense matters, since more than a third of all science and engineering doctorate degrees awarded at American universities go to foreign students. It is unlikely that retiring DOD scientists will be replaced by current private industry employees. According to the National Defense Industrial Association, over 5,000 science and engineering positions are unfilled in private industry in defense- related fields. The Nation confronts a major math and science challenge in elementary and secondary education and in higher education as well. We are tied with Latvia for 28th in the industrialized world today in math performance, and that is far from good enough. We have fallen from 3rd in the world to 15th in producing scientists and engineers. Clearly, we need a new National Defense Education Act of the size and scope passed nearly 50 years ago. At the very least, however, the legislation before us needs to do more to maintain our military's technological advantage. The pending bill irresponsibly cuts science and technology research by 17 percent. It increases funding for the SMART civilian ROTC science program but to only one-third of the Defense Department's request. Last year, over 100 ``highly rated'' SMART Scholar applications were turned down because of insufficient funding. Our amendment has sufficient funds to support every one of those talented young people who want to learn and serve. It also increases the investment in basic research in science and technology. Investments by DOD in science and technology through the 1980s helped the United States win the Cold War. But funding for basic research in the physical sciences, math and engineering has not kept pace with research in other areas. Federal funding for life sciences has risen four-fold since the 1980s. Over the same period, appropriations for the physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics have remained essentially flat. Funding for basic research fell from fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 2004 by more than 10 percent in real terms. The Defense Science Board has recommended that funding for Science and Technology reach 3 percent of total defense spending, and the administration and Congress have adopted this goal in the past. The Board also recommended that 20 percent of that amount be dedicated to basic research, but the pending bill would cut funding for such research by 17 percent. We must do better, and this amendment does that. The amendment's offset reduces the defensewide administrative fund under the Secretary of Defense. It does not affect operations and maintenance funding for the Army, Navy, or Air Force. For example, it would reduce by 2\1/2\ percent the $2 billion that the bill gives the Secretary for his ``business and financial management'' transformation proposal--an area that the Government Accountability Office has deemed at ``high-risk'' for waste. We can't afford not to pass this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act of 2005. The bill makes needed corrections in the Device User Fee Act we passed in 2002. Most important, it extends this worthwhile program beyond September 30. It ensures stable growth for individual user fees by limiting increases to 8.5 percent a year in 2006 and 2007, and it raises the threshold for businesses to be eligible for the reduced small business fees from $30 million to $100 million. The user fee program has provided much needed support for the Food and Drug Administration over the past 3 years to expedite its review of medical devices. The FDA has improved its ability to review devices more quickly, and laid the groundwork for further progress as well. Unfortunately, however, fees on individual applications have climbed rapidly in the past 3 years--much faster than anticipated. Our bill maintains this valuable program and limits the rate of growth in fees. It strikes a fair balance between the competing interests of FDA and the various industries. The agency is not guaranteed the growth in fees that it received under the original legislation to meet the need to expedite its reviews. It makes sense to limit fee increases in response to the concern that the fees have climbed too quickly and are discouraging innovation in these valuable devices. That is why we call the bill the User Fee Stabilization Act. The bill also clarifies the provision in current law on the identification of the makers of single-use medical devices. Adverse event reports should not be inaccurately attributed to the wrong company, and doctors should not be misled about the source of the device. Since many so-called single-use devices are often reprocessed and used again, the legislation requires reprocessors of single-use devices to identify their role in preparing the device. When the manufacturer of the original device is identified on the device, the reprocessor must do so as well. When the manufacturer of the original device has not done so, the bill permits the use of detachable labels on the package of the reprocessed device, so that the label can be placed in the patient's medical chart. These provisions will become effective 12 months after the date of enactment, and they are a reasonable compromise of the interests of the FDA, the original manufacturers, and the reprocessors. I commend Chairman Enzi for his leadership in producing this much- needed legislation, and I welcome the strong, bipartisan support for the bill in our Health Committee. I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation, so that this valuable medical device program can continue effectively beyond September 30.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. An important new study issued last week finds that exempting association health plans from State oversight will lead to increased health insurance fraud against small businesses and their workers. The author of the study, Assistant Professor Mila Kofman at Georgetown University, is one of the Nation's leading experts on private health insurance fraud, and the report provides evidence of the potential harm that the pending association health plan legislation will have on patients and working families. It finds that exempting association health plans from State oversight will ``create a regulatory vacuum'' and have the ``unintended consequence of widespread fraud threatening the coverage and financial security of millions of Americans.'' The report notes the 30-year history of health insurance scams involving associations and multiemployer arrangements after the Congress exempted such arrangements from State oversight in 1974. Widespread fraud resulted from the exemption, and Congress acted to restore State authority and oversight in 1982. In the years when the Federal Government was responsible for oversight of the plans, widespread fraud took place and large numbers of businesses and workers victimized. Insurance fraud involving such plans continues, but without State oversight and enforcement, the numbers would have been much worse. States have shut down many illegal arrangements, and saved millions of dollars for consumers in recent years. We can't afford to take away State authority now, and give plans broad exemptions from oversight. According to a study by the Government Accountability Office, the most common way for insurance scams to proliferate is by selling coverage through associations--many of which are the same bona-fide professional and business associations that would be shielded from oversight under this legislation. The pending bill would create large loopholes and shield plans from oversight. It relies largely on self-reporting and self-regulation, and makes it far more difficult for regulators to shut down fraudulent plans. The bill's convoluted regulatory structure would also create widespread confusion about who actually regulates association plans-- the Federal Government or States, and this confusion will invite scams to proliferate. We need to make affordable health insurance for working families a top priority, but this study shows the serious consequences of exempting association health plans from State and oversight and enforcement. The result is predictable: mounting medical bills, greater bankruptcy, medical care denied or delayed, and coverage lost. It is wrong for Congress to turn back the clock to the days of widespread fraud against small businesses and their employees by exempting association plans from appropriate oversight and enforcement, and I urge my colleagues not to take this damaging step.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I join the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, in paying tribute to the Armed Services Committee. I have been lucky enough to be on that committee now for 24 years. I must say that all of us have the highest regard and respect for the Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the committee. There has never been a time that he has not been courteous and diligent and thoughtful and considerate for those who have differing views that come up before the committee. I understand the remarks by the Senator from Michigan and also our leader, Senator Reid; and although our friend takes the responsibility, we have been around here long enough to know that the overall schedule and timetable is made by the majority leader, with all due respect. He has the responsibility, obviously, for the Senate and the Senate agenda. The part which is of concern is this, and I will mention this briefly. When we have cloture, we find out that many amendments that are related and are enormously important in terms of the subject matter, which is the Defense authorization bill, are effectively eliminated. I took a quick look at some of the amendments that have been filed to date. We have a Stabenow amendment to fully fund health care for veterans. Nobody could watch the news last night and not understand the challenge our veterans are having in getting coverage and being treated well. That is true in my State, and the Nation was alerted again. We have had some debate on that issue. It is an issue of enormous importance. We make a commitment to those young men and women who volunteer and fight in our wars that they are going to have their needs attended to when they come back. They are not being attended to. The Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, has an amendment that probably would not be eligible after cloture. It is on pay equity for reservists who are being deployed. We have so many being deployed over in Iraq, and it is an important amendment to make sure they are to be compensated. It is very important in terms of morale and, most of all, in terms of fairness for the reservists. Then there is reform of the Pentagon procurement, with all of the kinds of challenges we have seen on the purchasing of the humvee. We reviewed that last night once again. An article that was written in the New York Times and the purchase conflict between the services, the lack of priority that was given really as a result of a failure of our procurement policies, we can do something about that, but we are not going to do something about it if we have cloture. Then there is the limitation of profits on defense contractors. We don't have to take a lot of time on that issue, but I think the American taxpayer, when they see hundreds of millions in windfall profits going to so many defense contractors, would have to say that spending a few moments on that to make sure, for example, the allegations that our troops are going to get the food they deserve and need on time and not be given second- level food is something that ought to be debated. My amendment with Senator Feinstein and Senator Kerry on bunker busters relates to the whole issue of nuclear proliferation and stability. We probably would not be eligible to bring that up. There have been important issues on funding for the cooperative threat reduction, which is so important in terms of the nuclear proliferation, with the very important and impressive study released this last week. Those give you a little bit of a flavor, and they are related to national security and defense. We are told we don't have time for that. I have been here when we spent 2 full weeks debating bankruptcy and for the credit card companies. The result of the bankruptcy bill we passed here means the profits for the credit card companies are going up $5.6 billion this next year. We spent 2 weeks on that issue that will benefit special interests. We spent more than a week on class action, which will benefit very special interests. We spent more than a week on highways. If you can spend more than a week on highways and you can look after the credit card companies and you can look after the major financial interests in class action, surely we can debate these issues that are related to the security and well-being of the troops of this country. That is the point. I believe it is irrefutable myself. We were told last night, well, we had heard that Senator Levin, Senator Reid, and others might propose a commission to look into the whole question of the torture policies that have taken place at Abu Ghraib. We had 12 different studies done by the Armed Services Committee, and we still don't have anybody in the civilian areas that has been held accountable, even though they were the architects of the torture policy. This has given us a black eye all over the world. It has been an incentive, and it is inflaming al-Qaida. It has been a recruiting tool used in order to gather more recruits for al-Qaida. It had been suggested that we have an independent commission review that. And then guess what happened. Within a matter of hours, the White House says, If that amendment is accepted, I will veto the bill that is developing with Defense authorization. Imagine that. The President will veto the bill if that amendment is accepted. He will veto the bill that provides the resources for our fighting men and women if we are going to have an independent kind of review about how we got into all of this trouble in terms of torture and inflaming al-Qaida because of those activities. They are going to veto the bill. Therefore, we are going to have cloture. We don't have to be around here for a number of years to understand what is happening. That is just plain wrong, Mr. President. It is just plain wrong. It is not the way this body ought to be doing business. These issues are too important. People are ready to debate them. We had the amendment that I have here, which is very similar to the amendment Senator Feinstein and I offered earlier on another appropriations bill. It is a matter of enormous importance in terms of the issue of nuclear proliferation. There is an excellent study this last week about the worst weapons in the worst hands. The National Security Advisory Group is chaired by Willian Perry, former Secretary of Defense, and is made up of an extraordinary group of men and women who have spent their lives in terms of national security and defense and talking about the dangers of increased nuclear weapons. Well, we have now in this bill the design for new nuclear weapons. They will say: No, we don't, it is only $4.5 million. Look at the Department of Energy's congressional budget, right here on page 63, where cumulatively they are planning to spend a half billion dollars on it. New nuclear weapon? We are looking at a new nuclear weapon in the Defense authorization bill. Look at the front page here of the New York Times, right up on the top: ``New York Starts to Inspect Bags on the Subways.'' What is the greatest threat to our homeland security, a new nuclear weapon or--here it is--``New York Starts to Inspect Bags on the Subways.'' The second story: Bombs set in London at four sites, failed to explode, no one hurt. And we are going out and building another nuclear weapon. We welcome the opportunity to address the Senate now on Friday, but this is a matter of enormous importance and consequence. We are told these issues are not as important as freeing the gun industry from liability, a special interest. So we have an NRA check. I know where the votes are on that. We are going to get another special interest check. We have a special interest check for credit cards, a special interest check because of class actions, and we are going to get another one now from the NRA. We are not going to have the chance for these Senators to be able to debate pay equity for the reserves? Health care for veterans? No. We don't have the time. What is more important to us? I have plans at the end of next week along with everybody else, but what is more important than continuing and finishing this legislation? That is what we are supposed to do as Senators. Mr. President, when you look over where we spend the time and how we have spent the time, surely these issues that are of such fundamental importance to our national security and to the security of the American people deserve the kind of time our leader and Senator Levin have suggested. For the past 60 years, one of the principal tenets of the American national security policy has been to limit the number of nuclear weapons in the world and to limit the number of countries that possess them. In 1962, President Kennedy warned that if action weren't taken at that time, there would be 20 nuclear weapon nations by the end of the 1970s. That is what he said in 1962. Because of initiatives he and successive Presidents--Republican and Democrat--took to prevent that, today there are only eight nuclear armed states. Through careful negotiations, we arrived at the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, the foundation of all current global nuclear arms control. The nonproliferation treaty, signed in 1968, has long stood for the fundamental principle that the world will be safer if nuclear proliferation doesn't extend to other countries. I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and my colleague and friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, in that compact of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, the foundation of all global nuclear arms control, 184 nations have voluntarily rejected nuclear weapons. These include 40 states, such as Japan, Germany, Sweden, and Singapore, that have the technical infrastructure to build nuclear arsenals if they chose to do so. In addition, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Taiwan, South Korea, and others have turned away from nuclear weapons because of the NPT and our leadership. America led the way to a safer world by example. By adhering to these carefully crafted agreements, we were able to discourage the spread of dangerous nuclear weapons that would threaten our security. However, the Bush administration has abandoned that course. Not only has this White House expressed disdain for decades of nuclear arms control, but it now threatens to launch a new nuclear arms race. As we are discouraging North Korea and Iran from producing nuclear arms--and as we are trying to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists--the Bush administration recklessly proposes for the United States to produce a new breed of nuclear weapon. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld want to develop a new tactical nuclear weapon that can burrow deep into the earth and destroy bunkers and weapon caches. The new weapon they propose has the chilling title of robust nuclear earth penetrator. They hold the dangerous and misguided belief that our Nation's interests are served by developing what they consider a more easily usable nuclear bomb--more easily usable nuclear bomb. That is just what we need more of today. Most Americans believe that is wrong. Therefore, the amendment that Senator Feinstein and I offer today will halt this dangerous new policy and redirect the $4 million in funds from the robust nuclear earth penetrator research program to the National Guard for the more urgent task of preventing another terrorist attack on our Nation's capital. This action is especially warranted in light of the bombings in the London subway. Instead of developing new nukes, we should address the real-world challenges of terrorism that we face right here, right now. In the end, the administration would like us to buy something we don't need, that endangers us by its mere existence, and that makes our important diplomatic goals much more difficult to achieve. Our challenge in addressing nuclear nonproliferation issues is not that there are too few nuclear weapons in the world, but that there are too many; not that they are too difficult to use but too easy. North Korea has recently acquired nuclear weapons and does not hesitate to rattle them. Iran is widely thought to be moving forward on the development of nuclear weapons capability. The increased availability of nuclear technology to other nations is an ominous development, especially when it is difficult to accept at face value their statements that the technology is intended only for peaceful purposes. What moral authority do we have to ask other nations to give up their desire for nuclear weapons of their own when we are developing a new generation of such weapons of our own? How can we tell other nations not to sell their nuclear technology to others when we are exporting our own technology? For the past 2 years, Congress has raised major doubts about the bunker-buster program and significantly cut back on its funding. But the administration still presses forward for their development. For fiscal year 2004, they requested $15 million for it, and Congress reluctantly provided half that amount. For 2005, they requested another $27 million and submitted a 5-year request for nearly $500 million, and Congress denied their request. This year, nothing has changed. The fiscal year 2006 budget request from the President includes $4 million for the Department of Energy to study the bunker buster, and $4.5 million for the Department of Defense for the same purpose. Thankfully, our colleagues in the House were wiser and eliminated the funds. The administration obviously is still committed to this reckless approach. Secretary Rumsfeld made his position clear in January, when he wrote to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham: I think we should request funds in 06 and 07 to complete the study . . . You can count on my support for your efforts to revitalize the nuclear weapons infrastructure and to complete the RNEP study. The fiscal year 2006 budget requests funds only to complete the feasibility study for these nuclear weapons, but we already know what the next step is. In the budget sent to us last year, the administration stated in plain language that they intend to develop it. Ambassador Linton Brooks, the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, claims the future budget projection was merely a placeholder ``in the event the President decides to proceed with the development and Congress approves.'' But their fiscal year 2005 budget clearly shows the administration's unmistakable intention to develop and ultimately produce this weapon. They would like us to believe this is a clean, surgical nuclear weapon. They say it will burrow into underground targets, destroy them with no adverse consequence for the environment. But science says such claims are false. A National Academy of Sciences April 2005 study confirms exactly what most of us thought: that these nuclear weapons, like other nuclear bombs, result in catastrophic nuclear fallout. They can poison tens of millions of people and create radioactive lands for many years to come. The study goes on to say: Current experience and empirical predictions indicate that the earth-penetrator weapons cannot penetrate to depths required for total containment of the effects of a nuclear explosion. To be fully contained, a 300 kiloton weapon would have to be detonated at the bottom of a carefully stemmed emplacement hole about 800 meters deep. Because the practical penetrating depth of an earth penetrating weapon is only a few meters--a small fraction of the depth for the full containment--there will be blast, thermal, initial nuclear radiation, and fallout effects-- From the use of the weapon. Even if we were willing to accept the catastrophic damage a nuclear explosion would cause, the bunker buster would still not be able to destroy all the buried bunkers the intelligence community has identified. This chart, based on the data from the National Academy of Sciences, depicts the simulated maximum effect of a 1-megaton earth-penetrating weapon. This massively destructive weapon cannot reach more than 400 meters. All an adversary has to do is bury its bunker below that depth. Bunker busters also require pinpoint accuracy to hit deeply buried bunkers. But such accuracy requires precise intelligence about the location of the target. As the study emphasized, an attack by a nuclear weapon can be effective in destroying weapons or weapons materials, including nuclear materials and chemical or biological agents, but only if it is detonated in the actual chamber where the weapons or materials are located. Even more disturbing, if the bomb is only slightly off target, the detonation may cause the spread of deadly chemical and germs, in addition to the radioactive fallout. If it were clear that this weapon were needed to protect our troops, then Congress would probably support it. But that is not the case. At the House Armed Services Committee hearing in March, program chief Linton Brooks once again was asked if there was a military requirement for the bunker buster, and he categorically said: No, there is not. This chart shows how important it is that the bunker buster be precise, in terms of targeting, or otherwise it is not going to destroy the target, and the dangers of chemical and nuclear material proliferation are dramatic. Our military has no need for a nuclear bunker buster. Existing conventional weapons have the ability to neutralize this threat. These charts from the National Academy of Sciences show the types of deeply buried, hardened bunkers the nuclear bunker buster is intended to destroy. All bunkers must have air intakes, energy sources, and entrances. If we can destroy them by conventional means, we have accomplished our purpose. The administration's effort to build a new class of nuclear weapon is only further evidence of their reckless nuclear policy. We have studied this issue long enough. It is ridiculous for the administration to try to keep this program going, and it could be suicidal for the Nation and for our troops. While the administration studies a weapon that will never work and may never be used, it has taken its eye off the true danger: terrorists with weapons of mass destruction here at home in our subways and our train stations. Protecting our Nation should be the administration's No. 1 priority and, sadly, they have not learned that lesson from 9/11. The alarm bell that went off on September 11, 2001, is still ringing loudly. It rang in London earlier this month and again yesterday. It rang in Madrid last year. And it has been ringing in Turkey, Indonesia, Morocco, Kenya, and elsewhere around the world in the nearly 4 years since the tragedy of 9/11. In our Nation's Capital, the alarm bell continues to sound, but the administration has been inexcusably slow in heeding its warning. Our amendment will better protect our Nation's Capital from a terrorist attack. It provides urgently needed funds to the Washington, DC, National Guard to make up for the shortfalls they face in equipment and training. U.S. officials plainly state that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are determined to strike the United States again. And we all know that our Nation's Capital is a prime target. On July 10, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that ``the desire and the capability'' are there for another terrorist attack in America. The former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, ADM James Loy, told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16: We believe that attacking the homeland remains at the top of al-Qaida's operational priority list . . . We believe that their intent remains strong for attempting another major operation here. He says: The probability of an attack is assessed to be high. . . . FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Intelligence Committee on February 16: The threat posed by international terrorism, and in particular from al-Qaida and related groups, continues to be the gravest we face . . . Despite these serious and terrifying threats, the DC National Guard, which provides an indispensable role in responding to terrorist attacks, has long received inadequate funding. In a terrorist attack, the DC National Guard will be mobilized to assist in evacuation efforts, provide security at the attack site, and assist in mass casualty care. Mayor Williams and the city council realize the vulnerability to such attacks and the potentially catastrophic consequences if terrorists attack a train carrying hazardous material. According to a RAND analysis on terrorism and railroad security, 40 percent of freight being carried from city to city across the country, including half of the Nation's hazardous material, is moved by rail. In 2003 alone, 11,000 railroad cars containing hazardous material passed through Washington, DC. We believe the administration's position in supporting the development of a new nuclear weapon system is misguided. It is not based on sound science. And there is a recognition that they do not have their priorities straight. We have learned the lesson of this past week, that what we have to do is expand our attention in terms of the homeland security issue. That has to be our focus, and we learned that again this morning in London. Why the administration insists that they think our national security is going to be enhanced and expanded by building a new system makes no sense at all. A final point. There are those who will say this is just a study; we ought to be able to study; we ought to be able to study what progress can be developed in terms of the shape of our warheads and the building materials that are necessary to make it more effective; we live in a dangerous world. All of which is true, we ought to be able to have a study, but that is not what this is about. As I have mentioned, the opposition, by and large, will say this is just a study. Then we will have to come back to Congress and get the approval. See what the intention of this administration is. ``Department of Energy, 2005 Congressional Budget Request, National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of the Administrator, Weapons Activities.'' Open this to page 63. There it is. They talk about what is going to be the request over the period of these next 5 years, and it is $484 million. That is not a study. That is the development of a weapons system. Those resources could be more effectively used providing security at home, working through homeland security, than developing a new weapons system which will make it more complicated and more difficult for the United States to be the leader in the world, which we have been under Republican and Democratic Presidents since 1962, in reducing the number of countries that have dangerous nuclear weapons. We should stay the course. That has been a wise judgment and decision by Republican and Democratic Presidents. We should not be about the business of developing new nuclear weapons, which is going to upset that whole movement and make this country less secure. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Enzi, Senator Gregg, Senator Jeffords, Senator Frist, and all of the other members of our Health Committee who have done so much to achieve this bipartisan consensus on the complex issue of preventing medical errors and improving patient safety. I also commend our colleagues in the House of Representatives, especially Chairman Barton of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the ranking member of that committee, Representative Dingell, for their willingness to work with us to resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills on this important issue. For even one American to die from an avoidable medical error is a tragedy. When thousands die every year from such errors, it is a national tragedy, and it is also a national disgrace, and an urgent call to action. Five years ago, the Institute of Medicine reported that medical errors cause 98,000 deaths every year. That is an average of 268 deaths a day, every day. If errors in aviation killed 200 passengers a day in plane crashes, we would do more than simply encourage voluntary reporting. If errors at factories caused the deaths of 200 workers a day, we would demand more than corporate reports. We would require real changes. Unfortunately, the culture of medicine has an expectation of infallibility in health professionals, and this unrealistic assumption has been reinforced by generations of medical training and medical practice. When confronted with a mistake in health care, doctors and patients and citizens often ask, ``How can there be errors without negligence?'' Obviously, the fear of legal liability or embarrassment among peers and in the press leads to strong pressure to cover up mistakes. In many cases, however, the inadequate design and implementation of health systems are responsible for the problem, including excessive work schedules and unreasonable time pressures. We can do better. We can encourage the development of a safer health care system. We can learn important lessons from other dangerous fields, such as the aviation industry and the military, which are skillful in designing ways to provide maximum feasible safety. The Institute of Medicine has called for strong action, and our proposal is responding to that call. The Institute's series of reports on health care quality contain numerous recommendations for improving patient safety, and if we work together, we can make more of them a reality. The Institute recommended that health care professionals should be encouraged to report medical errors, without fearing that their reports will be used against them. Our legislation implements this sensible recommendation by establishing patient safety organizations to analyze medical errors and recommend ways to avoid them in the future. The legislation also creates a legal privilege for information reported to the safety organizations, but still guaranteeing that original records, such as patients' charts will remain accessible to patients. Drawing the boundaries of this privilege requires a careful balance, and I believe the legislation has found that balance. The bill is intended to make medical professionals feel secure in reporting errors without fear of punishment, and it is right to do so. But the bill tries to do so carefully, so that it does not accidentally shield persons who have negligently or intentionally caused harm to patients. The legislation also upholds existing state laws on reporting patient safety information. The legislation can be the beginning of more effective action on patient safety, but other reforms are also necessary. The Federal Government should have a leading role in improving safety and improving the quality of care for patients. The title of one of IOM's most important reports, Leadership by Example, highlights the central role that the Federal Government should have on this issue. Other actions are also necessary. Hospital systems that have improved health care quality have done so by making far-reaching reforms in which improving health care quality is a key part of the practice of medicine. To turn best practices into everyday practices, hospitals have created clinical guidelines and assessments of outcomes to help see that every patient receives the best possible care. The Senate is acting to approve needed legislation on the use of information technology in health care, such as in electronic medical records, decision support software, and computer reminders for needed screening tests. These and other features of health IT systems can improve overall health care. In a culture where doctors can learn from mistakes and near misses, these IT systems can dramatically improve health care for all Americans. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol, who came together to bring this major legislation to a vote, so that every patient in America will receive effective, high quality health care. Amendment No. 1411 (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I know the time has run out. I want to mention the family of Mr. Hart, from Dracut, MA, who lost a son in Iraq. I remember seeing the letter that his son wrote that said: Unless we get an up- armored, I am not going to last very long. And 30 days later he was killed. Mr. Hart has been tireless in trying to make sure other service men and women in Iraq receive the kind of protection they need. I have to mention his name associated with the increase in the protection for American servicemen because here is an individual who has made an extraordinary difference for our service men and women.

Mr. KENNEDY. As I remember, we spent 2 weeks of the Senate's time on the bankruptcy legislation, which is basically special interest for the credit card companies, and we spent 2 weeks on class action, which is special interest legislation. That is 4 weeks. We are asked now to spend less than a week debating the authorization for the fighting men and women after we spent 2 weeks for the credit card companies and 2 weeks for class action that will benefit special interests. And now we will be asked in less than 2 or 3 days to snuff off and silence debate on the issues affecting the men and women of this country on the first line of defense?

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand my friend from New Jersey has a unanimous consent request to make. I will be glad to yield. Amendment No. 1351

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for 30 seconds?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join our chairman of the Armed Services Committee and others in cosponsoring the chairman's amendment. I commend him for his impressive leadership in bringing it before the Senate as one of the first amendments on this extremely important bill. The amendment increases funding by $340 million for the Marine Corps and $105 for the Army for more and better armored vehicles for our troops in Iraq. This issue has been divisive for far too long. All of us support our troops. We obviously want to do all we can to see that they have proper equipment, vehicles, and everything else they need to protect their lives and carry out their missions. More than 400 troops have already died in military vehicles vulnerable to roadside bombs, grenades, and other notorious improvised explosive devices. Many of us have visited soldiers and marines at Walter Reed and Bethesda and seen the tragic consequences of inadequate armor. We want to ensure that parents grieving at Arlington National Cemetery no longer ask, ``Why weren't more armored humvees available?'' It is scandalous that the administration has kept sending them into battle year after year in Iraq without adequate equipment. It is scandalous that desperate parents and spouses here at home have had to resort to Wal-Mart to try to buy armor and mail it to their loved ones in Iraq to protect them on the front lines. Secretary Rumsfeld has rarely been more humiliated than on his visit to Iraq, when a soldier had the courage to ask him why the troops had to scavenge scrap metal on the streets to protect themselves. The cheer that roared out from troops when he asked that question said it all. We have been trying to make sure the Army and Marine Corps has had the right amount of funding for vehicles for over 2 years. Last year, we tried to get additional funding in committee and faced resistance, but ultimately added money to the supplemental. This past spring, we were successful in getting the Army $213 million for uparmored humvees. That amendment was adopted, but it was a very narrow vote. The Marine Corps leadership clearly understated the amount and types of ground equipment it needs. In April, we were told in a hearing that based on what they knew from their operational commanders, the Marine Corps had met all of the humvee requirements for this year, which was 398 uparmored humvees. Less than a month later, the Inspector General of the Marine Corps conducted a readiness assessment of the their ground equipment in Iraq. One of the key findings was that the requirement for additional upamored humvees would continue to grow. Based on that report and other factors, the Marine Corps reversed itself and testified the need was almost triple the original amount. The inspector general's teams inspected many humvees in Iraq that had been damaged by mines and other explosive devices. In nearly every case, they found that the cabin was well protected despite significant damage to the engine compartment wheels. The inspector general also found that even with recommended changes, including replacing damaged vehicles, the war will continue to take a toll on the marines' equipment. Nearly all of its fighting gear is ready for combat this year, they found but it would drop to less than two-thirds by the middle of 2008. It has taken far too long to solve this problem. We have to make sure we solve it now, once and for all. We can't keep hoping the problem will somehow go away. We have been told for months that the Army's shortage of uparmored humvees was a thing of the past. In a letter last October, General Abizaid said: The fiscal year 2004 Supplemental Request will permit the services to rapidly resolve many of the equipment issues you mentioned to include the procurement of . . . humvees. The Army could have and should have moved much more quickly to correct the problem. As retired General Paul Kern, who headed the Army Materiel Command until last November, said: It took too long to materialize. He said: In retrospect, if I had it to do all over, I would have just started building uparmored humvees. The most efficient way would have been to build a single production line and feed everything into it. In April, GAO released a report that clearly identifies the struggles the Pentagon has faced. In August 2003, only 51 uparmored humvees were being produced a month. It took the industrial base a year and a half to work up to making 400 a month. Now the Army says they can now get delivery of 550 a month. The question is, Why did it take so long? Why did we go to war without the proper equipment? Why didn't we fix it sooner, before so many troops have died? We need to get ahead of this problem. It is a tragedy for which our soldiers are still paying the price for this delay. As Pentagon acquisition chief Michael Wynne testified to Congress a year ago: It's a sad story to report to you, but had we known then what we know now, we would probably have gotten another source involved. Every day, our soldiers are killed or wounded in Iraq by IEDs, RPGs, small-arms fire. Too many of these attacks are on humvees that are not uparmored, . . . We are directing that all measures to provide protection to our soldiers be placed on a top priority, most highly urgent, 24/ 7 basis. But 24/7 didn't happen even then until January this year. The plant had capacity that the Pentagon never consistently used, as the plant's general manager has said. The delay was unconscionable. Without this amendment, the production rate of uparmored humvees could drop off again later this year. That is the extraordinary thing. We need to guarantee that we are doing everything possible to get the protection to our troops as soon as possible. We owe it to them, to their families here at home and to the American people. We have an opportunity now to end this frustration once and for all. Our soldiers and marines deserve the very best, and it is our job in Congress to make sure the Department of Defense is finally getting it right. Too many have died because of these needless delays, but hopefully, this will be solved by what we do in this bill. The amendment contributes significantly to this goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.