Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join with President Bush and Project Hope in commending the extraordinary work of the health professionals from Massachusetts General Hospital who dropped everything and went to Indonesia in January and February to provide medical care to survivors of the tsunami disaster. I especially commend Dr. Laurence Ronan, the group leader at MGH who did so much to organize the trip. These dedicated health professionals answered the urgent call when the disaster struck. As in the past when earthquakes devastated Armenia, and El Salvador, and Iran, they volunteered their services and skills on the USS Mercy, the Navy hospital ship sent to the coast of Indonesia. Massachusetts General Hospital sent the largest health team. More than 60 doctors, nurses, and social workers each spent a month helping on cases too complex to be treated by personnel already on the ground in Indonesia. They had expertise in critical medical specialties such as neurology, burns, lung disease, kidney disease, and pediatrics, and they provided care to hundreds devastated by the tsunami. Massachusetts is very very proud of MGH and the extraordinary health professionals being honored today. Their dedication and caring have served America and the world well.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Vermont. Listening to Senator Leahy reminded us that the Judiciary Committee is in good hands, with Senator Specter and Senator Leahy ensuring we are going to have a fair, open, transparent, and timely hearing, the way the American people deserve. We thank him for his continued service on the Judiciary Committee and for how he is developing this whole process. It is going to be done with great dignity. I thank Senator Leahy. Mr. President, the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court comes at a time of heated debate and great division in America--a debate that is reflected in the deliberations of a Supreme Court in which his vote--just like Justice O'Connor's--will affect the freedoms and liberties of Americans on vital questions before the country. I will not prejudge the President's nominee. And I will not decide whether to support or oppose him based on any single issue. What all Americans deserve to know is whether Judge Roberts respects the core values of the Constitution and falls within the conservative mainstream of America, along the lines of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. That is the issue, and I look forward to asking the important questions that are on the minds of Americans as they consider his nomination to our Nation's highest court. Supreme Court nominations involve far more than the hotly-debated social issues so often discussed in the media. Presidents have 4-year term. Senators serve for 6 years. But Supreme Court Justices serve for life, without ever having to face the electorate. Our decision whether to confirm a Supreme Court nominee affects the rights and freedoms not only of our generation, but those of our children and grandchildren as well. The Court's decisions affect whether employees' rights will be protected in the workplace. They affect whether families will be able to obtain needed medical care under their health insurance policies. They affect whether people will actually receive the retirement benefits that they were promised. They affect whether people will be free from discrimination in their daily lives. They affect whether students will be given fair consideration when they apply to college. They affect whether persons with disabilities will have access to public facilities and programs. They affect whether we will have reasonable environmental laws that keep our air and water clean. And they affect whether large corporations are held accountable when they injure workers and consumers. Each of these issues--and many others--has been addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years. In many of these cases, the Court was narrowly divided, and these issues are likely to be the subject of future Court decisions in the years to come. Because so much hangs in the balance, Supreme Court nominees have a heavy burden to show that they will uphold justice for all. They must demonstrate a core commitment to preserving equal protection of the laws, free speech, workers' rights, and other individual rights. Americans deserve to know if nominees will be on the side of justice and individual liberties, or if they will side with powerful special interests. The Senate's role will be to establish clearly whose side John Roberts would be on if confirmed to the most powerful court in the land. Because Judge Roberts has written relatively few opinions in his brief tenure as a judge, his views on a wide variety of vital issues are still unknown. What little we know about his views and values lends even greater importance and urgency to his responsibility to provide the Senate and the American people with clear answers. The key question is whether he will uphold core constitutional and statutory principles. For instance, in a case involving the ability of Congress to protect the environment, he issued an opinion with sweeping implications not just for the environment, but for a host of other important protections. In it, Judge Roberts questioned the settled interpretation of the commerce clause--the constitutional provision that is the foundation for not only the environmental laws that protect our natural heritage and ensure that we have clean air and clean water in our communities, but also for Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, and many other important national protections. I can imagine few things worse for our seniors, for the disabled, for workers, and for families than to place someone on the highest court in the land who would put these protections at risk. If applied in other cases, Judge Roberts' view could severely undercut the ability of Congress to respond to real challenges facing our nation. His decision raises questions about whether he would roll back a host of other laws protecting civil rights, workers' rights, civil rights, and even many of our federal criminal statutes. I believe that most Americans would agree that we should not re-fight the civil rights battles of the past. The spirit of America is to move forward to greater opportunity--not return to the days of second class citizenship for many. Too many of our fellow citizens over many generations have sacrificed everything--including their lives--so that others can fully enjoy the fruits of our liberties and freedoms. They have given their all for the rights of people of color, of women, of the disabled, of immigrants, of workers, of senior citizens, and so many who make up the vibrant American fabric that makes our nation the envy of the world. So it is important to know where Judge Roberts stands on this great question of opportunity and justice for all. The significance of the constitutional principles at issue is clear from the comments of other judges who serve in the same court as Judge Roberts. They noted that the constitutional provision he questioned not only is the basis of many of our civil rights laws, but also underlies important product safety laws and environmental legislation. Judge Roberts urged the full court to review the panel decision to reconsider the established interpretation of the commerce clause in the Rancho Viejo v. Norton case. Let me be clear. I do not prejudge Judge Roberts's nomination based on his decision in this case or any other. Nor should anyone else. But we must not fail in our duty to the American people to responsibly examine Judge Roberts' legal views. Other aspects of Judge Roberts's record also raise important questions about his commitment to individual rights. He has opposed programs to guarantee equal opportunity. He opposed the right to privacy and argued to overturn Roe v. Wade, saying the case is ``wrongly decided'' and ``finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.'' As a private attorney, he represented coal companies against workers' rights. He sought to limit every American's right to a lawyer by arguing to narrow the Supreme Court's core precedent in Miranda v. Arizona. Judge Roberts represented clients in each of these cases, but we have a duty to ask where he stands on these issues. I don't prejudge them, but the American people deserve to know more. I join my colleagues in the hope that the process will proceed with dignity. But the nominee will be expected to answer fully, so that the American people will know whether Judge Roberts will uphold their rights. Anything less would make the Senate a mere rubberstamp in Supreme Court nominations. In recent days, some have suggested that the Senate should not ask full questions about the nominee's legal views and judicial philosophy. The President made clear that he would consider judicial philosophy in choosing a nominee, and the Senate should not turn a blind eye to that issue. When Justice Thurgood Marshall was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1967, I said that Senators should not vote against him just because they don't agree with him on every issue. But that is different from saying we should not consider judicial philosophy at all. Particularly today, when philosophy is important to the White House in choosing nominees, Senators should consider it as well. To be clear, here is what I said in 1967: I believe it's recognized by most Senators that we are not charged with the responsibility of approving [justices] if [their] views always coincide with our own . . . We are really interested in knowing whether the nominee has the background, experience, qualifications, temperament, and integrity to handle this most sensitive, important, and responsible job. But if someone would clearly fail to uphold basic rights, that should be considered and the Senate is entitled to know. There are few debates more important than this one, and I look forward to considering this important nomination. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I see my friend and colleague from Arizona on the floor. I understand by previous agreement we are voting at 12:20, so I am glad to divide the time that is remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. I will proceed then for my 10 because I understand there will be adequate time for the others. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my statement appear at an appropriate part of the debate on this issue. (The remarks of Mr. Kennedy are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on the matter before the Senate today, the Burma sanctions, I want to point out that this legislation addresses one of the worst human rights tragedies in the world, the atrocious acts of the Burmese junta. They suppress dissent. They jail opponents. They deny the basic rights of free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly, and they have had Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for many years. So the action we take today is appropriate. I am proud Massachusetts has led the way to encourage sanctions against this abusive government. In 1996, the Massachusetts legislature adopted a law barring State agencies from doing business with companies that do business with Burma. It was the first step toward national action. I hope our Senate colleagues will support this measure here today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment provides $28 million for the International Republican Institute and $28 million for the National Democratic Institute for their democracy-building programs in Iraq in fiscal year 2006. Funding will be used by the institutes to continue democratic development assistance in the areas of governance, elections, civil society, women's rights and political party development. The additional funding set aside in this bipartisan democracy amendment is necessary for the IRI and NDI to continue their important work in Iraq through the end of fiscal year 2006. Both institutes, whose cutting-edge democracy work is well-known and respected in Iraq and throughout the world, have substantial operations in Iraq outside the Green Zone. Unfortunately, despite their deep commitment to advancing democracy and the great risks their employees take by working in a war zone, they have not been assured funding beyond February 2006. If additional funding is not provided, the danger is very real that they will need to begin cutting back on their democracy activities. Under the current schedule, the new Iraqi Constitution now being drafted must be completed by August 15, and a referendum on it will take place on October 15. If it is approved, elections for a permanent government will take place in December. This is no time to short change democracy in Iraq. Doing so would send a very troubling and discouraging sign about the U.S. commitment to this difficult struggle. IRI's programs in Iraq are bigger than its programs anywhere else in the world. It has offices in Baghdad, Irbil, and Basra, and it also operates a substantial media center. The Institute employs some 200 people, including those responsible for security. Similarly, NDI is conducting a number of democracy programs in Iraq focusing on elections, political parties, governance, civil society and women's rights. It works directly with Iraqi partners, including hundreds of civic organizations, the Iraqi National Assembly, more than 81 political parties and entities, and the Constitutional Drafting Committee. It has helped train more than 10,000 Iraqi election monitors, who covered 80 percent of the country's polling sites in January and provided opportunities for ordinary Iraqis to participate in that election. It is currently providing legal assistance directly to the Constitutional Drafting Committee, and is facilitating countless local civic dialogues on the constitution in communities throughout Iraq. NDI operates much of the time outside the relative safety of the Green Zone. It has offices in Baghdad, Basra, and Irbil, with resource centers in Hilla and Kirkuk. It works with approximately 30 international staff and 200 Iraqi staff, including security personnel, to strengthen democracy for all the people of Iraq. Its people have sacrificed greatly. In February, insurgents killed an Iraqi woman working for NDI, and a Czech security guard working for the institute was killed in April. Three of NDI's Iraqi staff left their jobs because they felt their lives were in danger. While Iraq continues to struggle with the insurgency, there is important progress to be made on the political front. Thousands of Iraqis are working very hard, often at great risk to themselves, to develop civic groups, participate in political parties, run for and serve in political office, and contribute to the constitutional process. These are critical building blocks for the long-term development of democracy in Iraq. Its people continue to express a tremendous demand for the kind of nonpartisan assistance for long-term political development that NDI and IRI are providing. All of us feel that long-term progress to defeat the insurgency is directly related to progress on the political front, and ongoing work on this key issue must be a top priority. History shows that building democratic institutions, including government, parties, and civil society, takes many years, considerable political engagement, and patience. For a country as repressed as Iraq, a serious long-term democracy plan must look at least a decade into the future. At a minimum, it should look to the end of fiscal year 2006, as our amendment would do. The development of the constitution and the subsequent referendum and election are only the beginning of that process. It makes no sense to send a signal now that our support for Iraqi democracy will end next February. We must be clear in our intention to stand by organizations such as NDI and IRI that are working on the front lines in the struggle for democracy in Iraq every day. We also need to demonstrate to Iraqis and others that we are committed to Iraq's long-term democratic development. We need a long-term plan and a long-term strategy that is backed by appropriate resources. To date, approximately $1 billion of the $18 billion provided by Congress for reconstruction has been allocated for democracy-building and related activities, including governance, the rule of law, human rights, civic programs, and the U.S. Institute of Peace. Nearly all of these funds have already been committed for specific programs and more than half of this amount has been spent. We need to do far more. The hard work of strengthening democracy will continue long after the adoption of a constitution and the election of a permanent government. On June 28, in his address to the Nation, President Bush spoke about the importance of democracy in Iraq as a way to quell the insurgency and end the violence. He said: They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty, as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world. Our financial commitment to the organizations at the forefront of the democracy effort must be strong and unambiguous. Funding IRI and NDl only through February 2006 sends an ominous signal that can only be harmful to this very important effort. America spends $1 billion a week on the war in Iraq. At this rate, it would take the military just 10 hours to spend the $60 million. Certainly, we can make a commitment to spend this level of funding on democracy programs next year in Iraq. Regardless of whether we supported or opposed the war, we all agree that the work of building democracy requires patience, skill and, importantly, adequate resources. We need to demonstrate we are genuinely committed to Iraq's political development. We need a long-term political strategy, and we need to back up that strategy with the necessary resources, if we truly hope for a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has now been 1 week since the President met with Senate leadership and the chairman and and ranking Democrat of the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the nomination of a successor for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. All of us were saddened by Justice O'Connor's resignation. She served this Nation with great dedication for over 2 decades. She embodied the principles of fairness and reasoned judgment, and had a sincere appreciation for the effect of the Court's decisions on the everyday lives of all American people. Her dedication continues in her pledge to remain in office as long as it is necessary for her replacement to be confirmed, so that the Court will not have a vacancy while the task of selecting a new Justice is carried out. All of us regret Justice O'Connor's departure, but we are grateful for her service to the Nation, and we wish her well in what I am sure will be an active retirement. I hope that the President will choose a consensus nominee, who can bring the Nation together, as Justice O'Connor herself did, rather than further divide us. As President Bush and the Senate prepare to begin the process of confirming Justice O'Connor's successor, consultation between the President and the Senate has an important role. I was encouraged when the President met with the leaders of both parties in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee a week ago. I am also encouraged that the President has contacted a number of other Senators of both parties to hear their views. This was an important first step. But the sign of whether there has been a meaningful consultation is not simply the process, but the result. In the past, real consultation has led to consensus nominees, who could be easily confirmed with the support of a large bipartisan majority of the Senate and the confidence of the American people. To reach that result, consultation must be more than a one-way street. No one is suggesting that Senators co-nominate candidates for the Supreme Court. But for Members of the Senate to provide advice to the President, there must be a real discussion and a two-way conversation about specific candidates. It is a fundamental part of our system of checks and balances that the power to appoint judges, especially Justices of the Supreme Court, is shared by the President and Senators from all fifty States, so that the Nation's diverse interests can be represented in this important choice. The Founders believed that the whole Senate and the President together would do the best job of confirming independent Supreme Court justices, who would be above politics, and not beholden to any politician or political party. They wanted an independent, impartial Supreme Court that would give everyone a fair hearing, rather than favoring powerful corporations or special interests with political clout. In the early 1990s, as Senator Hatch recounts in his book, President Clinton consulted with Senator Hatch--then the ranking Republican Senator on the Judiciary Committee--sharing the names of candidates he was considering for the Supreme Court. President Clinton asked Senator Hatch's opinion, even though Republicans were then in the minority in the Senate. Senator Hatch recommended Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. President Clinton agreed that these were excellent choices, and nominated Justice Ginsburg in 1993 and Justice Breyer in 1994. Both were easily confirmed. If the President takes seriously the advice of Senators from both parties on the persons he is considering, the result will be a distinguished nominee who is acceptable to the vast majority of the American people, and who will easily be confirmed. That was the case when Ronald Reagan nominated Justice O'Connor, a mainstream Republican, to the Court, and I am optimistic that this will be the case with her successor. I hope the Senate and the White House can set aside partisanship, to ensure that the best possible person is nominated and confirmed to the Court. Consultation is about more than process. It is about an outcome, and a consensus nominee is the best outcome for the Nation. The importance of a consensus nominee is clear when we consider all of the vital issues decided by the Supreme Court, issues with enormous impact on Americans and their daily lives. A Supreme Court nomination matters to all Americans. It is not just about a few hotly debated social issues. It is of great importance to every man, woman and child in America because the decisions of the Court affect their lives every day. The Court's decisions affect whether employees' rights will be protected in the workplace. They affect whether families will be able to obtain needed medical care under their health insurance policies. They affect whether people will actually receive the retirement benefits that they were promised. They affect whether people will be free from discrimination in their daily lives. They affect whether students will be given fair consideration when they apply to college. They affect whether persons with disabilities will have access to public facilities and programs. They affect whether we will have responsible environmental laws that keep our air and water clean. They affect whether large corporations are held accountable when they injure workers and consumers. The list goes on and on. Each of these issues has been addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years. In many of those cases, the Court was narrowly divided, and each of these areas is likely to be the subject of future Court decisions in the years to come. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, entitled ``Business Pushes Its Own Brand of Justice,'' major corporations are ready to ``bankroll large-scale efforts to promote the President's choice'' if he nominates a candidate who will side with big business against workers, consumers and environmentalists. Eighteen million dollars has already been raised--much of it from these corporate interests, and that amount is only the first installment of what they are willing to spend to influence the direction of the Court. In recent years, approximately 40 percent of the Supreme Court's docket has been cases involving economic issues, and that pattern is likely to continue in coming years. So it is essential that the new justice be someone who will hear these cases with an open mind, not someone who is biased in favor of corporate wealth and power. The outcome of such cases will obviously affect the wellbeing of all Americans. The Nation is facing major economic challenges today. In the last 4 years, we have lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. Long-term unemployment has nearly doubled. Outsourcing threatens to export millions more American jobs. Workers are losing health insurance and pension benefits at an alarming rate. Those in the elected branches of our government have a responsibility to deal with these economic challenges--to develop innovative policies that will provide greater economic security for workers and their families--just as they did in earlier periods of economic difficulty. Those appointed to the Federal Courts--and particularly to the Supreme Court--must respect the role of the elected branches in addressing these urgent economic challenges. America cannot afford justices who would turn back the clock to the Lochner era, and impose an extreme, discredited 19th century ideology on our Nation's 21st century economy. That the Supreme Court plays such a major role in our national life is not new. When Alexis de Toqueville described America in the early years of the 19th century, he noted that: scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. That fact has been true throughout our history. We are a nation of laws. That is why it is so important for the President to nominate Justices with mainstream views who respect the national values of our Constitution, not ideological extremists who seek to impose their personal philosophy on the American people. I sincerely hope that President Bush will nominate a justice whose views are in the national mainstream on these important issues, not one who sees the role of the judiciary as the defender of entrenched economic interests. The American people will be watching us closely, and they expect us to live up to our oath of office to defend the Constitution and its great promise of equal protection of the laws for all our people.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to David Dorsey during consideration of the nomination of Lester Crawford to be FDA Commissioner.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate my friend and chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions for his leadership in ensuring that the Senate will have an opportunity to vote on Dr. Crawford and, hopefully, approve his nomination. During one time or another during 3 of the last 4 years we have not had a head of the Food and Drug Administration. As Chairman Enzi has pointed out, this agency has enormous power, influence, and say-so on many of the different issues that affect every family in this country. It regulates food, cosmetics, drugs, medical devices, even televisions and cell phones a full quarter of every dollar consumers spend. And FDA really sets the standard for the rest of the world in how it regulates these products. The rest of the world looks to our Food and Drug Administration as the gold standard, and, as Chairman Enzi pointed out, we have not had a permanent Commissioner for 3 of the last 4 years. I think we have suffered because of it. Now we have the opportunity, with Dr. Crawford, to fill that job, and I will explain in just a few moments why I think he is eminently qualified. I agree with those who believe that we are in the life science century. We have seen a commitment to the promise of the this century by the Congress and by administrations in recent times when we effectively doubled the NIH budget. We have seen the sequencing of the gene, the progress that we have made with DNA, the real possibility of breakthrough drugs, and the debates we are having on stem cell research. This is truly the life science century. Quite frankly, the most important position in this life science century is who is heads the Food and Drug Administration, because we will want to have these breakthrough drugs and other treatments available to people at the earliest possible time, and that is FDA's job. We want to make sure these treatments are safe and effective. That is going to be an enormous responsibility, but I believe the possibilities and the meaning for families will be breathtaking. So that is why this position, and the FDA, is so important. There are many things that we do in this body, and many people who are directly involved say this or that thing is the most important thing that we are going to do in the session. Well, this might not be the most important thing that is done in this session, but having a responsible, informed, enlightened, future-looking, tough-minded administrator at the Food and Drug Administration is enormously important for all Americans. That is what this debate and discussion is about. It has also been about the importance of following science. This is enormously important, and I will say an additional word about that. It is important for the FDA to have the confidence of the American people that the FDA is calling the important decisions it makes as the science reveals that ideology and politics have not become involved. I rise in support of Dr. Crawford to be the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Modern drugs, vaccines, and medical devices can work miracles but only if FDA does its job to see that they are safe and effective. We use food and food products from around the world and we count on the FDA to see that they are not contaminated. FDA touches the lives of every American every day. As I said before, a full quarter of consumer products are regulated by the FDA. That is why it is so important the FDA have a full-fledged Commissioner. I fully support Dr. Crawford's nomination for the position. His impressive record and clear commitment to public health will serve the agency well. He has dedicated his life to public service and to public health. He is trained as both a veterinarian and a pharmacologist and has many years of experience in government, industry, and the academic world. His leadership experience at FDA dates back to 1978 when he headed the Center for Veterinary Medicine. Over the years since then, he has led the Food Safety and Inspection Service at the Department of Agriculture, headed a major association on veterinary medical education, and most recently served as Deputy Commissioner and Acting Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration itself. Under Dr. Crawford's leadership at FDA, we have seen stepped up efforts to monitor drug safety and to inform patients and doctors about the risks of drugs. We have recently seen increased scrutiny of drug advertising. FDA also made Herculean efforts to seek and permit the use of flu vaccines from other sources after the vaccine shortage last year, and I am hopeful that these efforts will pay off this year and in the following years in new manufacturers of flu vaccine for the U.S. market. Clearly, more must be done. With a Commissioner in place, we can work much more effectively on the key issues facing the agency, from how FDA monitors drug safety to ways to address the flu vaccine shortage, to how it handles the conflicts of interest on its advisory committees and how it has acted on Plan B. I intend to work with Chairman Enzi and the other members of our HELP Committee to see that these issues are addressed, to help Dr. Crawford make any changes at the agency that are needed, and to help craft legislation that will allow FDA to do its vital job more effectively. On drug safety, FDA can only request drug companies to take action to protect the public. It is obvious that companies often have conflicts of interest and the FDA needs the authority to require better labels and insist on clinical trials of drugs already on the market, not just request them. We need to improve the post-market monitoring of drug safety. Clinical trials before approval can and do detect many safety problems, but they should not end FDA's responsibility for the safety of drugs already on the market. When needed, new clinical trials should be required. I just mention at this time that we intend to report out information technology legislation from the HELP Committee, hopefully this week. With information technology, we will be able to better monitor how drugs are used and the adverse reactions to those drugs, and hopefully have those reports promptly so that we will be able to provide greater protection to the public. That legislation will hopefully come out of our committee with a strong bipartisan commitment and with new leadership, and the opportunities that are out at the FDA with these new breakthrough drugs, it can make an enormous difference in terms of the quality of health care and the safety of treatments for the American people. Above all, FDA needs enough resources to do its job effectively. The Office of Drug Safety does not even have computer systems capable of analyzing data as thoroughly as possible, and it cannot always purchase access to drug usage databases that could identify safety problems. It inspects less than 2 percent of imported food, and this much only because of a large increase in funds to FDA for that purpose after 9/ 11. I note my friend and colleague, the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, when he was chairman of the Health and Human Resources Committee, we worked together to try to help make sure the FDA would get the kind of resources to modernize itself and develop the kinds of technology to deal with a number of these issues. I know of Dr. Crawford's concern for these problems and look forward to working with him to address them. I also commend Senator Murray and Senator Clinton for their leadership in addressing the FDA's refusal to act on Plan B. Thanks to their leadership, the FDA has committed to making a decision on this application by September 1. I commend Secretary Leavitt and Dr. Crawford for this commitment. I commend Chairman Enzi of the HELP Committee, who both in committee and on the floor has been even handed yet persistent in pursuing Dr. Crawford's nomination to be Commissioner. Once again, he has shown the leadership that will serve our committee well. I look forward to working with him to assist Dr. Crawford and the agency in its important public health work. Dr. Crawford is well qualified to be Commissioner. He deserves to have full authority as Commissioner. It is time for the Senate to give him the title as well as the responsibility. I support his confirmation. I urge my colleagues to do so as well and I look forward to working with him in the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. I look forward to the opportunity of working with the Senator from Utah, the Senator from Wyoming, and the Senator from Iowa. We ought to give this agency the authority, the power and the responsibility, as well as the resources to use it effectively. I know under Chairman Enzi we will have the oversight to make sure the agency is doing what it should. But I do believe this nominee deserves to be the Commissioner. I think it is about time we have a Commissioner. Then let's all work together to make sure he and the agency meet his and its responsibilities.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield another minute? Am I right, we have until a quarter of?

Mr. KENNEDY. May I ask the Senator for a minute?

Mr. KENNEDY. Seeing who is in the chair, does the Senator not agree with me that one of the additional important responsibilities of the FDA is going to be bioterrorism? We are going to need a Commissioner at the FDA to lead this important work to prepare us against a bioterrorist attack. That is going to be enormously important. The HELP Committee has had our recent briefings on this issue, and bioterrorism is certainly an important area on which we will need the leadership of the FDA. I know the Senator from Wyoming is concerned about this bioterrorism, and the BioShield legislation, to make sure we have the vaccines and other medical products on line to respond to the dangers of bioterrorism. Bioterrorism is a pressing area in which we are going to have to work, and we need a leader at FDA to help us.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate my friend and chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions for his leadership in ensuring that the Senate will have an opportunity to vote on Dr. Crawford and, hopefully, approve his nomination. During one time or another during 3 of the last 4 years we have not had a head of the Food and Drug Administration. As Chairman Enzi has pointed out, this agency has enormous power, influence, and say-so on many of the different issues that affect every family in this country. It regulates food, cosmetics, drugs, medical devices, even televisions and cell phones a full quarter of every dollar consumers spend. And FDA really sets the standard for the rest of the world in how it regulates these products. The rest of the world looks to our Food and Drug Administration as the gold standard, and, as Chairman Enzi pointed out, we have not had a permanent Commissioner for 3 of the last 4 years. I think we have suffered because of it. Now we have the opportunity, with Dr. Crawford, to fill that job, and I will explain in just a few moments why I think he is eminently qualified. I agree with those who believe that we are in the life science century. We have seen a commitment to the promise of the this century by the Congress and by administrations in recent times when we effectively doubled the NIH budget. We have seen the sequencing of the gene, the progress that we have made with DNA, the real possibility of breakthrough drugs, and the debates we are having on stem cell research. This is truly the life science century. Quite frankly, the most important position in this life science century is who is heads the Food and Drug Administration, because we will want to have these breakthrough drugs and other treatments available to people at the earliest possible time, and that is FDA's job. We want to make sure these treatments are safe and effective. That is going to be an enormous responsibility, but I believe the possibilities and the meaning for families will be breathtaking. So that is why this position, and the FDA, is so important. There are many things that we do in this body, and many people who are directly involved say this or that thing is the most important thing that we are going to do in the session. Well, this might not be the most important thing that is done in this session, but having a responsible, informed, enlightened, future-looking, tough-minded administrator at the Food and Drug Administration is enormously important for all Americans. That is what this debate and discussion is about. It has also been about the importance of following science. This is enormously important, and I will say an additional word about that. It is important for the FDA to have the confidence of the American people that the FDA is calling the important decisions it makes as the science reveals that ideology and politics have not become involved. I rise in support of Dr. Crawford to be the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Modern drugs, vaccines, and medical devices can work miracles but only if FDA does its job to see that they are safe and effective. We use food and food products from around the world and we count on the FDA to see that they are not contaminated. FDA touches the lives of every American every day. As I said before, a full quarter of consumer products are regulated by the FDA. That is why it is so important the FDA have a full-fledged Commissioner. I fully support Dr. Crawford's nomination for the position. His impressive record and clear commitment to public health will serve the agency well. He has dedicated his life to public service and to public health. He is trained as both a veterinarian and a pharmacologist and has many years of experience in government, industry, and the academic world. His leadership experience at FDA dates back to 1978 when he headed the Center for Veterinary Medicine. Over the years since then, he has led the Food Safety and Inspection Service at the Department of Agriculture, headed a major association on veterinary medical education, and most recently served as Deputy Commissioner and Acting Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration itself. Under Dr. Crawford's leadership at FDA, we have seen stepped up efforts to monitor drug safety and to inform patients and doctors about the risks of drugs. We have recently seen increased scrutiny of drug advertising. FDA also made Herculean efforts to seek and permit the use of flu vaccines from other sources after the vaccine shortage last year, and I am hopeful that these efforts will pay off this year and in the following years in new manufacturers of flu vaccine for the U.S. market. Clearly, more must be done. With a Commissioner in place, we can work much more effectively on the key issues facing the agency, from how FDA monitors drug safety to ways to address the flu vaccine shortage, to how it handles the conflicts of interest on its advisory committees and how it has acted on Plan B. I intend to work with Chairman Enzi and the other members of our HELP Committee to see that these issues are addressed, to help Dr. Crawford make any changes at the agency that are needed, and to help craft legislation that will allow FDA to do its vital job more effectively. On drug safety, FDA can only request drug companies to take action to protect the public. It is obvious that companies often have conflicts of interest and the FDA needs the authority to require better labels and insist on clinical trials of drugs already on the market, not just request them. We need to improve the post-market monitoring of drug safety. Clinical trials before approval can and do detect many safety problems, but they should not end FDA's responsibility for the safety of drugs already on the market. When needed, new clinical trials should be required. I just mention at this time that we intend to report out information technology legislation from the HELP Committee, hopefully this week. With information technology, we will be able to better monitor how drugs are used and the adverse reactions to those drugs, and hopefully have those reports promptly so that we will be able to provide greater protection to the public. That legislation will hopefully come out of our committee with a strong bipartisan commitment and with new leadership, and the opportunities that are out at the FDA with these new breakthrough drugs, it can make an enormous difference in terms of the quality of health care and the safety of treatments for the American people. Above all, FDA needs enough resources to do its job effectively. The Office of Drug Safety does not even have computer systems capable of analyzing data as thoroughly as possible, and it cannot always purchase access to drug usage databases that could identify safety problems. It inspects less than 2 percent of imported food, and this much only because of a large increase in funds to FDA for that purpose after 9/ 11. I note my friend and colleague, the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, when he was chairman of the Health and Human Resources Committee, we worked together to try to help make sure the FDA would get the kind of resources to modernize itself and develop the kinds of technology to deal with a number of these issues. I know of Dr. Crawford's concern for these problems and look forward to working with him to address them. I also commend Senator Murray and Senator Clinton for their leadership in addressing the FDA's refusal to act on Plan B. Thanks to their leadership, the FDA has committed to making a decision on this application by September 1. I commend Secretary Leavitt and Dr. Crawford for this commitment. I commend Chairman Enzi of the HELP Committee, who both in committee and on the floor has been even handed yet persistent in pursuing Dr. Crawford's nomination to be Commissioner. Once again, he has shown the leadership that will serve our committee well. I look forward to working with him to assist Dr. Crawford and the agency in its important public health work. Dr. Crawford is well qualified to be Commissioner. He deserves to have full authority as Commissioner. It is time for the Senate to give him the title as well as the responsibility. I support his confirmation. I urge my colleagues to do so as well and I look forward to working with him in the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. I look forward to the opportunity of working with the Senator from Utah, the Senator from Wyoming, and the Senator from Iowa. We ought to give this agency the authority, the power and the responsibility, as well as the resources to use it effectively. I know under Chairman Enzi we will have the oversight to make sure the agency is doing what it should. But I do believe this nominee deserves to be the Commissioner. I think it is about time we have a Commissioner. Then let's all work together to make sure he and the agency meet his and its responsibilities.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield another minute? Am I right, we have until a quarter of?

Mr. KENNEDY. May I ask the Senator for a minute?

Mr. KENNEDY. Seeing who is in the chair, does the Senator not agree with me that one of the additional important responsibilities of the FDA is going to be bioterrorism? We are going to need a Commissioner at the FDA to lead this important work to prepare us against a bioterrorist attack. That is going to be enormously important. The HELP Committee has had our recent briefings on this issue, and bioterrorism is certainly an important area on which we will need the leadership of the FDA. I know the Senator from Wyoming is concerned about this bioterrorism, and the BioShield legislation, to make sure we have the vaccines and other medical products on line to respond to the dangers of bioterrorism. Bioterrorism is a pressing area in which we are going to have to work, and we need a leader at FDA to help us.