Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct. It is exactly right. And we had those agreed on, Republican and Democrat alike. I think it was by 76 votes here in the Senate on the FSC-ETI legislation. So we had the offset of incentives that were moving jobs overseas. We were closing that loophole and investing in able, capable young Americans in higher education, in training teachers for math and science, of which we are in desperate need. No Child Left Behind has the guarantee that we are going to have a well-qualified teacher in every classroom by the year 2006. We are far behind. This would have given us an opportunity to meet that goal. But most importantly, we would have given the helping hand to many other young people in the TRIO Programs and the Upward Bound Programs and the rest. Mr. President, over 160 organizations representing students and educators supported our amendment. They generated thousands of calls to their legislators. Just in Massachusetts, I received more than 1,000 letters from adult education students and teachers urging that this amendment be retained, telling their stories about how adult education is changing their lives for the better. We have letters from colleges and universities across the country urging Congress to increase the Pell grants, to save the Perkins Loans Program. We have letters from students, counselors, and young adults urging us to save college preparation programs for first-generation students, such as TRIO and GEAR UP. Over 600,000 students have sought more information about this amendment. On their own, five Republican Senators wrote the budget conference committee to tell them this President should support this amendment and the conference committee should support this amendment, and that the education and Pell grants needed their support. Yet this conference rejected all those pleas and cut education. Now, the Republican leadership and the White House decided it was more important to maintain the loopholes to reward corporations that send jobs overseas rather than invest in our own young people here at home. Our amendment embraced the hopes and dreams of millions of Americans. All parents want their children to have lives of fulfillment and opportunity, to raise strong and healthy families, and afford to live comfortably in safe neighborhoods. When we first debated this resolution a little over a month ago, a majority in the Senate said no to the President's cuts in education. Today, a majority of the Senate should say no again. We should stop the raid on student aid and pass a budget that strengthens, not weakens, America. Now, Mr. President, on another subject, just last month the Senate made it clear that cuts to the Medicaid Program were unacceptable. In a bipartisan vote, we agreed to not make any cuts until a bipartisan commission had time to examine the Medicaid Program and recommend possible reforms based on sound policy. Just this week, in an overwhelming, bipartisan vote, the House instructed the budget conferees not to cut Medicaid. Yet the budget we will be voting on shortly not only cuts Medicaid-- despite consensus in both the House and Senate against cuts--its cuts to the program are almost as deep as those we voted down in March. The Senate rejected the $15 billion in cuts to the Finance Committee. Yet this budget report that was drafted in the dark of night behind closed doors forces the Finance Committee to cut $10 billion. If these cuts were not bad enough, the bipartisan Medicaid Commission has turned into a partisan commission that the administration can stack with members they know will recommend the cuts they have determined. Instead of a real examination of the Medicaid Program so that we can modernize the program with needed reforms, we will have a commission whose agenda will be to recommend cuts. It is not just Medicaid that is at risk. What does it say about Republican priorities if this Republican budget cuts a program that provides health care for 53 million low-income Americans--children, parents, the elderly, and the disabled--in order to provide large, new tax cuts for the wealthy? Republicans say they are for a culture of life, but Medicaid sustains that life. One-third of all the births in America are covered by Medicaid. Medicaid sustains life for a third of our mothers and our babies. But this budget says the lives of poor mothers and poor children are not that important after all. Under this budget, tax breaks for the rich are more important than life itself. I want to show you what has happened with regard to low-income children. Since 1997, 23 percent of children in America were not covered. Now we have reduced that to 15 percent. We are making very important progress in terms of providing some insurance for children. But now with this budget, we are going to see this line go back up because of the following. If you look at this chart, you will see what is happening to children and also to low-income parents. The total number of low-income children has increased by 6.7 percent and 5.5 percent in terms of low-income parents who have lost their health insurance. We have seen a 1.7- percent growth in the Medicaid Program and an increase of 8 percent to cover low-income children. So we are making some progress, but not with this budget. This budget takes away those gains for children. Take them away from the elderly. Take them away from the services for expectant mothers who are delivering. That is what this budget does, and that is what is so incredibly wrong in terms of this budget. We know the harmful consequences of the lack of access to health care. In the early 1960s, President Kennedy commissioned a study to find out why half of our young military draftees were rejected for service. The study, which was released in 1964 and provided the basis for Medicaid coverage policy for children, found these young men had physical and mental developmental problems that were highly treatable if they had had access to health care as children. As a result, the Medicaid program was set up. That is the basis for it. And we have made enormous progress. Now we are going to see the undermining of that program. Finally, Mr. President, the budget also includes a reserve fund for the Grassley-Kennedy bill to provide health coverage for families with disabled children. The bill is titled the ``Family Opportunity Act.'' For the last 5 years, Senator Grassley and I have been fighting to get this legislation passed. The Family Opportunity Act allows families of children with severe disabilities to buy health care coverage under the Medicaid program, without becoming poor, staying poor, or giving up custody of your child. It is legislation cosponsored by more than half of the United States Senate and over 200 disability, health care and other organizations. Almost one in ten children in America has significant disabilities. But many do not have access to even the most basic health services they need because the private health insurance won't cover them. In every one of these plans you read numerous exclusions that hurt children with disabilities--no coverage for hearing aids, for special health needs, for assistive technology, for services at school, and on and on and on. These families aren't looking for a hand-out--just a helping hand. All they want is the opportunity to buy affordable coverage, because the private health insurance market won't offer it to them. More than any other investment we can make in this budget, we should secure funding for these families who struggle everyday to afford the health care their children need to live healthy and successful lives. I hope that we can finally see this profamily bill enacted into law this year. The budget sets up a reserve fund for Senate action to bring the benefits of information technology to our inefficient health care system. Unfortunately, a similar reserve fund is not available for House action. Information technology has revolutionized virtually every industry in America--only health care lags behind. IT is critical to our efforts to bring costs down and improve quality. It can provide for more efficient delivery of care, and it can reduce errors and increase quality. HHS estimates that widespread use of IT can save as much as $140 billion a year. The VA has implemented the most advanced IT system in the country over the past few years. The results have been remarkable. Since 1996, VA costs per patient have actually decreased 7 percent, while private sector costs per patient have increased by 62 percent. During this period, the VA has been widely recognized for improving its quality of care. Obviously, not all of these successes have been due to information technology--but the VA system thinks that much of it has. We have a tremendous opportunity to improve the ability of IT to make a real difference in the quality and efficiency of health care--but we have to act now. I commend Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad for working with the chairman of our Health Committee, Senator Enzi, and me as well as Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus on the Finance Committee--to include this fund in the budget. The fund is a small step in the right direction, but it will be a wasted step unless Congress enacts legislation to improve the use of health IT in America. The two key components of any legislation, in my view are incentives for hospitals and health care providers to use IT to improve quality and in acquiring IT. Part of this effort is developing technical standards in partnership with the private sector to ensure that the money is spent on systems that really enhance quality. Our economic competitors in Europe and elsewhere are making the investments needed to improve their health IT systems. The British are investing over $15 billion, yet we in this country continue to delay. IT can cut costs in many ways. Our fragmented and uncoordinated health care system imposes high costs in duplication and waste. Patients with multiple chronic illnesses see as many as fourteen doctors a year. Doctors repeat tests that have already been performed. Residents take histories that have already been taken. Patients show up for doctors' appointments that are essentially a waste of time because tests have been performed but the results have not been delivered. It has been estimated that one in seven hospitalizations could be avoided if complete medical records were available for the patient. One out of five laboratory tests are duplicative of ones that have already been performed. This adds up to immense amounts of money. IT can reduce this needless duplication. We as a nation cannot afford to miss this opportunity to make the investments needed to improve health care and cut costs. My time is about up, but I must comment on how this budget resolution also attacks our defined benefits system. Pensions are more important than ever. We know of the assault that is on the very nature Social Security. Separate from Social Security, the number of secured, defined benefit plans is going down. This particular budget increases the premium tax on employers with a heavy burden on manufacturing companies. It will hurt small businesses. These premium increases will obviously hurt many workers and retirees, and it will also jeopardize long-term retirement stability. Pensions are important. They are a part of the quality of life for working American families. This budget does a disservice for them as well. I hope this budget will be rejected.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, on Workers' Memorial Day, we remember and honor the working men and women here at home who have died or been injured on the job in the past year. We also think of their families and the losses they have suffered. And we pledge to do more to end the unsafe and unhealthy conditions that still plague so many workplaces across America. Thirty-five years have now passed since the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and that basic law has made an immense difference in the safety of our Nation's workers. The rate of fatalities, injuries, and illnesses dropped year after year--a 78 percent reduction in the rate of workplace deaths and a 52 percent reduction in the rate of workplace-related injuries and illnesses since the law was passed, and the reductions have been even greater in industries that OSHA has targeted in its standards and enforcement activities. But we still have a long way to go. There are still too many workers being hurt on the job. An average of 15 workers are killed and 12,000 more are injured every single day. That's over 5,500 worker deaths and 4.4 million worker injuries a year. In Massachusetts, 72 workers died from traumatic injuries on the job in 2004 and over 600 died from occupational disease. These numbers represent real workers and their families. They represent fathers like Jeff Walters. His son Patrick was killed when a trench in Ohio caved in three years ago--at a company with a history of safety violations. They include people like Ron Hayes, who also lost his son in a workplace accident. Since then, he and his wife Dot have made safety their cause and done a great deal to help families whose lives have been hurt by these deaths--including deaths that in many cases could, and should have been prevented. Ron and Jeff asked us to prevent this from happening to other families. That's why I am introducing this bill--to fight for families like the Walters and the Hayes, and to do everything we can to see that other families don't have to suffer the same grief. Many companies are doing too little to deal with this challenge. They blatantly ignore the law, but they are rarely held accountable, even when their actions or neglect kill loyal employees who work for them. Offenders never go to jail. Criminal penalties are so low that prosecutors don't pursue these cases. Employers who violate safety laws again and again pay only minimal fines--they treat them as just another cost of doing business. We cannot allow these shameful practices to continue. These companies are putting millions of workers at risk in factories, construction sites, nursing homes, and many other workplaces every day. We also need to hold this Administration accountable for improving worker safety and enforcing the safety laws. We should require OSHA to do more to stop serious safety violations before they can hurt or kill workers, instead of sweeping them under the rug. We also need to protect workers with the courage to speak out against health and safety violations in the workplace. The most glaring flaw in current law is that too many workers are left uncovered. The Protecting America's Workers Act will extend the scope of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to cover 8 million public employees and millions of transportation and other workers. In addition, the bill imposes jail time--up to ten years, instead of only six months under current law--on those whose blatant violation of safety laws leads to a worker's death. Incredibly, under current law, it is only a misdemeanor--punishable by 6 months in jail--for an employer to cause a worker's death through willfully violating our safety and health laws. In fact, we impose sentences twice that long for acts like harassing a wild burro on federal lands. Our laws should reflect our serious commitment to protecting workers' safety, instead of letting violators off with a slap on the wrist. We also increase civil penalties, to provide additional deterrence against employers. We require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to investigate more cases. We give workers and their families more rights in the investigation, and provide stronger protections for workers who report health or safety violations. I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting for safe workplaces for all of America's workers. The promise of OSHA is waiting to be fulfilled. The best way for Congress to honor the Nation's dedicated working men and women on this Worker's Memorial Day is to end our complacency and see that the full promise of OSHA becomes a genuine reality for every working family in every community in America.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, on Workers' Memorial Day, we remember and honor the working men and women here at home who have died or been injured on the job in the past year. We also think of their families and the losses they have suffered. And we pledge to do more to end the unsafe and unhealthy conditions that still plague so many workplaces across America. Thirty-five years have now passed since the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and that basic law has made an immense difference in the safety of our Nation's workers. The rate of fatalities, injuries, and illnesses dropped year after year--a 78 percent reduction in the rate of workplace deaths and a 52 percent reduction in the rate of workplace-related injuries and illnesses since the law was passed, and the reductions have been even greater in industries that OSHA has targeted in its standards and enforcement activities. But we still have a long way to go. There are still too many workers being hurt on the job. An average of 15 workers are killed and 12,000 more are injured every single day. That's over 5,500 worker deaths and 4.4 million worker injuries a year. In Massachusetts, 72 workers died from traumatic injuries on the job in 2004 and over 600 died from occupational disease. These numbers represent real workers and their families. They represent fathers like Jeff Walters. His son Patrick was killed when a trench in Ohio caved in three years ago--at a company with a history of safety violations. They include people like Ron Hayes, who also lost his son in a workplace accident. Since then, he and his wife Dot have made safety their cause and done a great deal to help families whose lives have been hurt by these deaths--including deaths that in many cases could, and should have been prevented. Ron and Jeff asked us to prevent this from happening to other families. That's why I am introducing this bill--to fight for families like the Walters and the Hayes, and to do everything we can to see that other families don't have to suffer the same grief. Many companies are doing too little to deal with this challenge. They blatantly ignore the law, but they are rarely held accountable, even when their actions or neglect kill loyal employees who work for them. Offenders never go to jail. Criminal penalties are so low that prosecutors don't pursue these cases. Employers who violate safety laws again and again pay only minimal fines--they treat them as just another cost of doing business. We cannot allow these shameful practices to continue. These companies are putting millions of workers at risk in factories, construction sites, nursing homes, and many other workplaces every day. We also need to hold this Administration accountable for improving worker safety and enforcing the safety laws. We should require OSHA to do more to stop serious safety violations before they can hurt or kill workers, instead of sweeping them under the rug. We also need to protect workers with the courage to speak out against health and safety violations in the workplace. The most glaring flaw in current law is that too many workers are left uncovered. The Protecting America's Workers Act will extend the scope of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to cover 8 million public employees and millions of transportation and other workers. In addition, the bill imposes jail time--up to ten years, instead of only six months under current law--on those whose blatant violation of safety laws leads to a worker's death. Incredibly, under current law, it is only a misdemeanor--punishable by 6 months in jail--for an employer to cause a worker's death through willfully violating our safety and health laws. In fact, we impose sentences twice that long for acts like harassing a wild burro on federal lands. Our laws should reflect our serious commitment to protecting workers' safety, instead of letting violators off with a slap on the wrist. We also increase civil penalties, to provide additional deterrence against employers. We require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to investigate more cases. We give workers and their families more rights in the investigation, and provide stronger protections for workers who report health or safety violations. I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting for safe workplaces for all of America's workers. The promise of OSHA is waiting to be fulfilled. The best way for Congress to honor the Nation's dedicated working men and women on this Worker's Memorial Day is to end our complacency and see that the full promise of OSHA becomes a genuine reality for every working family in every community in America.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the ability of American families to live the American dream is becoming harder and harder. With each passing month, it's more difficult for families to earn a living--to pay the mortgage and the doctor bills, and send their sons and daughters to college. In the Bush economy, families are worried about their job security, their income, and the cost of living. They're working longer and harder and finding it more and more difficult to balance their work and their family responsibilities. Most Americans assume that paid sick days are a right. They're not. Half of all American workers are not guaranteed the right to time off when they're ill, without losing their pay, or even their job. In 1993, Congress and the administration guaranteed unpaid leave for millions of working men and women to deal with serious medical problems. It's time to build on this success, and ensure that millions of workers can also take time off when they need an annual check-up, when their children are sick with a cold, and when their ailing elderly parents need to be taken to the doctor. Hard-working men and women deserve better. That's why Congresswoman DeLauro and I are introducing legislation to guarantee workers 7 days of paid sick leave a year to care for their own medical needs and those of their family members. This proposal covers workers at all businesses, except small businesses with fewer than 15 employees. This is a family issue. When my son was diagnosed with cancer in his leg as a child, and had to undergo surgery, I was able to take the time I needed to be there for him. But year after year, countless employees have to choose between the job they need and the family they love. Families deserve the flexibility to care for each other when they get sick. It's an economic issue. Paid sick days actually save businesses money through reduced turnover and increased productivity. A recent study by Cornell University examined the problem of employees coming to work despite medical problems. They found it costs business $180 billion annually in lost productivity. It's also a public health issue. Too often, employees come to work sick and co-workers and many others can easily be infected. Recently, a court ruled that because of the lack of paid sick leave, a stomach virus in one worker infected 600 guests and 300 employees at the Reno Hilton Hotel in Nevada. Paid sick days will help prevent the spread of illnesses like that. Taking time off to treat illnesses and injuries will save health costs in the long run. It will make an important difference for insurers, for hospitals, and for the health of millions of Americans. It's long past time to provide paid sick days for workers. This bill is a first step to guarantee that every worker who needs sick leave has it and can afford to take it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the ability of American families to live the American dream is becoming harder and harder. With each passing month, it's more difficult for families to earn a living--to pay the mortgage and the doctor bills, and send their sons and daughters to college. In the Bush economy, families are worried about their job security, their income, and the cost of living. They're working longer and harder and finding it more and more difficult to balance their work and their family responsibilities. Most Americans assume that paid sick days are a right. They're not. Half of all American workers are not guaranteed the right to time off when they're ill, without losing their pay, or even their job. In 1993, Congress and the administration guaranteed unpaid leave for millions of working men and women to deal with serious medical problems. It's time to build on this success, and ensure that millions of workers can also take time off when they need an annual check-up, when their children are sick with a cold, and when their ailing elderly parents need to be taken to the doctor. Hard-working men and women deserve better. That's why Congresswoman DeLauro and I are introducing legislation to guarantee workers 7 days of paid sick leave a year to care for their own medical needs and those of their family members. This proposal covers workers at all businesses, except small businesses with fewer than 15 employees. This is a family issue. When my son was diagnosed with cancer in his leg as a child, and had to undergo surgery, I was able to take the time I needed to be there for him. But year after year, countless employees have to choose between the job they need and the family they love. Families deserve the flexibility to care for each other when they get sick. It's an economic issue. Paid sick days actually save businesses money through reduced turnover and increased productivity. A recent study by Cornell University examined the problem of employees coming to work despite medical problems. They found it costs business $180 billion annually in lost productivity. It's also a public health issue. Too often, employees come to work sick and co-workers and many others can easily be infected. Recently, a court ruled that because of the lack of paid sick leave, a stomach virus in one worker infected 600 guests and 300 employees at the Reno Hilton Hotel in Nevada. Paid sick days will help prevent the spread of illnesses like that. Taking time off to treat illnesses and injuries will save health costs in the long run. It will make an important difference for insurers, for hospitals, and for the health of millions of Americans. It's long past time to provide paid sick days for workers. This bill is a first step to guarantee that every worker who needs sick leave has it and can afford to take it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I would like to make very brief comments on the Transportation bill, but I would also like to address the Senate on another subject matter. If there were Senators here who would like to talk on the highway bill, I would withhold. If there were not other Senators here on that legislation, I would hope to be able to address the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Twenty minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would be glad to yield the floor for the purpose of a Senator offering an amendment, if I could retain the floor just to finish my remarks, but I would be glad to let the person offer their amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Mr. President, first of all, I think all of us understand this Transportation bill is the No. 1 jobs bill the Senate will debate this year. Mr. President, 47,000 jobs are created for every $1 billion in this legislation. This bill would create 140,000 jobs in my own State of Massachusetts. But this bill has $34 billion less than last year's Senate bill, and, incredibly, a $1.7 billion cut in public transit. So the Senate must find a way to restore these cuts. In my own State, we have a crucial need for this kind of help and assistance in terms of our roads and our bridges and also in terms of mass transit. It is one of the most important pieces of legislation. It is fundamental in terms of our economy. We are very conscious that there are many growth areas across this country. Those growth areas require additional kinds of investment in terms of the highway system. But there are also other older areas where the roads are heavily used, and used much more than just by the people who inhabit that particular State. Generally, consideration is not given as to the amount of usage of many of these roads. So in many of the older States, in New England, for example, and the eastern seaboard, many of these roads are heavily used not only by those who live in those particular States but others as well. There is a very important need to make sure those roads are going to be safe for those who travel on the roads and also be safe and secure in order to add an additional dimension to our national economy. So I am going to support this legislation. I do hope we will be able to find additional resources. I know those resources can make a major difference and be put to work effectively, in terms of strengthening and improving not only our interstate system but also the transportation systems in our States. It is a very solid investment that is paid back many times over by the returns in our economy. Anniversary of the Abu Ghraib Scandal Mr. President, the sad anniversary of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal is now upon us. It is an appropriate time to reflect on how well we have responded as a nation. The images of cruelty and perversion are still difficult to look at a year later: an Iraqi prisoner in a dark hood and cape, standing on a cardboard box with electrodes attached to his body; naked men forced to simulate sex acts on each other; a corpse of a man who had been beaten to death lying in ice next to soldiers smiling and giving a thumbs-up sign; a pool of blood from the wounds of a naked, defenseless prisoner attacked by a military dog. These images are seared in our collective memory. The reports of widespread abuse by U.S. personnel were initially met with disbelief and then incomprehension. They stand in sharp contrast to the values America has always stood for, our belief in the dignity and worth of all people, our unequivocal stance against torture and abuse, our commitment to the rule of law. The images horrified us and severely damaged our reputation in the Middle East and around the world. On December 4, 2003, President Bush had proclaimed to the world the capture of Saddam Hussein brought further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever. The photos of Abu Ghraib made all too clear that torture continued in occupied Iraq. Where are we a year later? Has this problem been resolved? Has the moral authority of the United States been restored? Have we recovered from what is perhaps the steepest and deepest fall from grace in our history? Sadly the answer is no. Because at every opportunity, the administration has tried to minimize the problem and avoid responsibility for it. The tone was set at the very start. Senior level military commanders knew about the problems much earlier. They knew about Abu Ghraib photos as early as January 2004. General Taguba submitted his scathing report on February 26. Yet rather than deal with the problem honestly, Pentagon officials persuaded CBS News to delay its report while they developed a damage control plan. The plan included an effort to minimize the abuse as the work of a few bad apples, all conveniently lower rank soldiers, in a desperate effort to emphasize the role of senior military officials in exposing the scandal and insulate the civilian leadership from responsibility. It was clear from the start that further investigation of the abuse was needed. The American people deserved a thorough review of all detention and interrogation policies used by military and intelligence personnel abroad and a full accounting of all officials responsible for the policies that allowed the abuses to take place. What we got instead were nine incomplete and self-serving internal investigations by the Pentagon. None of the assigned investigators were given the authority to challenge the conduct of the civilian command. For example, the Schlesinger panel's report found that abuses were widespread and there was both institutional and personal responsibility at a higher level. But Secretary Rumsfeld did not authorize the panel to address matters of personal accountability. The assigned investigators were also denied the cooperation of the CIA which had a central role in the torture scandal. General Fay found that CIA practices led to ``a loss of accountability, abuse'' and ``poisoned the atmosphere at Abu Ghraib.'' His efforts to fully uncover the agency's role, however, were stymied by their refusal to respond to his requests for information. Indeed, no investigation, congressional or otherwise, has gotten full cooperation from the CIA. With respect to matters under the Defense Department's control, the answers we received have been inconsistent and incomplete. In May 2004, General Sanchez categorically denied to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had approved the use of sleep deprivation, excessive noise, and intimidation by guard dogs as interrogation techniques in Iraq. A memorandum uncovered last month by the ACLU, however, showed he had, in fact, approved the use of these techniques. Secretary Rumsfeld told the committee the military received its first indication of trouble at Abu Ghraib when a low-ranking soldier came forward in January 2004. Only later did we learn from press reports that throughout 2003, the Red Cross had provided the military with detailed reports about torture and other abuses at the prison and elsewhere in Iraq. The State Department and the Coalition Provisional Authority also appealed to top military officials to stop the abuse during 2003. The Church report, released last month, rejected any connection between the official interrogation policies in Iraq and the abuses that occurred. The Fay report, by contrast, blamed the abuses at Abu Ghraib on a number of ``systemic problems'' that included ``inadequate interrogation doctrine and training'' and ``the lack of clear interrogation policy for the Iraq Campaign.'' Other parts of the Church report, including those on the role of general counsel William Haynes in adopting the radical legal reasoning of the Justice Department's Bybee memoranda over the vigorous objections of experienced JAG officers, have been wrongly classified. In fact, the Defense Department has repeatedly abused its classification procedures to hide critical information from Congress and the public. Similarly, the Justice Department has gone to extremes to withhold from public scrutiny legal memos it considers too embarrassing to reveal. Even Congress has been remiss in its responsibilities to oversee the scandal. As Senator Rockefeller, the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said: More disturbingly, the Senate Intelligence Committee--the Committee charged with overseeing intelligence programs and the only one with the jurisdiction to investigate all aspects of this issue--is sitting on the sidelines and effectively abdicating its oversight responsibility to media investigative reporters. A year after Abu Ghraib, new revelations about the abuse committed by United States personnel are still being reported frequently. The military has confirmed 28 acts of homicide committed against detainees in United States custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. Only one of these deaths took place at Abu Ghraib. The Red Cross has documented scores of abuses at United States facilities across Iraq, Afghanistan, and at the naval base at Guantanamo. FBI agents have reported ``torture techniques'' at Guantanamo, including techniques that senior Pentagon officials had specifically denied were being used. Top officials in the administration have endorsed interrogation methods we have condemned in other countries, including binding prisoners in painful stress positions, threatening them with dogs, extended sleep deprivation, and simulated drownings. The administration has also increased the practice of rendering detainees to countries such as Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, countries the State Department condemned in its most recent human rights reports because of their use of torture. The practice of rendition--described by a former CIA official as ``finding someone else to do your dirty work''--is a clear violation of our treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture. We know many of these harsh techniques are no more effective at obtaining reliable information than traditional law enforcement techniques. After considerable debate with the FBI, the military acknowledged its methods were no more successful during interrogations at Guantanamo Bay than the FBI's methods. General Miller, former commander at Guantanamo, testified the Army Field Manual provided sufficient tools for intelligence gathering. As Ambassador Negroponte, our Nation's new intelligence czar, said: Not only is torture illegal and reprehensible, but even if it were not so, I don't think it's an effective way of producing useful information. Stripped to its essence, torturing prisoners is morally wrong and unproductive. Yet political leaders made a deliberate decision to throw out the well-established legal framework that has long made America the gold standard for human rights throughout the world. The administration left our soldiers, case officers, and intelligence agents in a fog of ambiguity. They were told to take the gloves off without knowing what the limits were. In a series of secret memos and correspondence, some of which have still not been provided to Congress, top level lawyers engaged in a wholesale rewriting of human rights laws. In rewriting our human rights laws, the administration consistently overruled the objection of experienced military personnel and diplomats. As Secretary of State Colin Powell warned the White House: It will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops. Senior Defense officials were warned that changing the rules could lead to so-called ``force drift,'' in which, without clearer guidance, the level of force applied to an uncooperative detainee might well result in torture. When leaders didn't like what they heard, they cut off the criticism. When Secretary Powell raised concerns about the decision not to apply the Geneva Conventions to the conflict in Afghanistan, White House Counsel Gonzales cut him out of the process. When lawyers objected to the radical views in the Bybee Torture Memorandum, Defense Department General Counsel Haynes cut them out of the process and made the memo official policy for the entire military. What happened here was not a reasoned response to 9/11--an objective reassessment of our rules and policies to account for the rise in terrorism. Instead, the leaders used 9/11 to undermine any constraints on the power of the President, and the country has been paying a high price for their arrogance ever since. Dozens of administration memoranda involving post-9/11 detention and interrogation have come to light in the past year. Yet, in not one of these memos is there an appreciation of how well the existing rules served the Nation in past conflicts. Not one of them explains why the Army's interrogation manual, which discusses dozens of effective techniques that comply with domestic and international law, no longer serves America's interests. Not one of them comments on how compliance with the Geneva Conventions protects U.S. soldiers. Clearly, the civilian lawyers in the Defense Department, the Justice Department, and the White House Counsel's office have been on an ideological mission. Their goal was not to reassess the current rules on detention and interrogation in light of the 9/11 attacks; their goal was to destroy them and, to a large extent, they succeeded. The military was set adrift from its longstanding rules and traditions. The Bybee torture memorandum was eventually repudiated by the Justice Department, but the Pentagon's Working Group Report of April 2003, which incorporated the Bybee memorandum nearly verbatim, has still not been explicitly superseded, and no new guidance has gone to the field. Our men and women in the military are still not clear whether and to what extent they should consider themselves bound by the Convention Against Torture, the Federal law prohibiting torture, or even the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibit torture and cruel treatment. The basic validity of the military's ``golden rule''--treat captured enemy forces as we would want our own prisoners of war to be treated--is in doubt. The President has directed the military to treat detainees ``humanely,'' but this directive has not provided adequate guidance to our troops. General Counsel Haynes himself advised Secretary Rumsfeld that simulated drowning, forced nudity, the use of dogs to create stress, threats to kill a detainee's family, and other extreme tactics all qualified as ``humane.'' When the Pentagon's top civilian lawyer shows so little respect for human dignity, how can we expect more from our soldiers serving in the field? As for the CIA, it was conspicuously excluded from the President's directive on humane treatment. More recently, we have learned that the administration does not believe that the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment applies to foreigners held by our government agencies abroad. The CIA concealed detainees from the Army and the Red Cross. It continues to send dozens of detainees to countries known to practice torture. It says it's conducting its own investigation into the abuses, but it refuses to provide a timetable or any preliminary findings. No agency should be above the law. The CIA must answer for its activities. Accountability for the torture scandal continues to be lacking. We know about the prosecutions of the low-level, ``bad apple'' soldiers involved in the abuse at Abu Ghraib. But prosecutions have been declined for other soldiers, including 17 implicated in the deaths of three prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not a single CIA official has been charged, although one private contractor is awaiting trial for the killing of a detainee in Afghanistan. Even more disturbing, no action--criminal, administrative, or otherwise--has been taken against the high civilian officials responsible for the authorization of torture and mistreatment by U.S. officials in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and elsewhere. We know about the actions that have been taken against Charles Graner and Lynndie England. But what about William Haynes, Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, David Addington, Douglas Feith? These officials were warned of the consequences of undoing the rules before they changed them. They were informed of the objections to use of these harsh techniques. The FBI, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and the British all refused to participate in interrogations because they had such grave concerns about the brutal methods. Finally, one brave soldier, Joseph Darby, acknowledged that what was happening was wrong. Far from being held accountable, some of these officials have been promoted. Bybee, who signed the notorious Justice Department memorandum redefining torture, was confirmed to a lifetime judgeship on a Federal appellate court. Haynes, the general counsel who made the Bybee memorandum official policy for the military, has been re-nominated for another appellate judgeship. Gonzales now serves as the Nation's Attorney General. Last weekend, the Army's Inspector General revealed he had exonerated almost all of its top officers of any responsibility for abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib, even though one of them, Lieutenant General Sanchez, explicitly approved the use of severe interrogation practices, and even though a review by former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger found that General Sanchez and his deputy ``failed to ensure proper staff oversight of'' the operations at Abu Ghraib. What signal does this pattern of prosecutions for low-ranking soldiers, exonerations for generals, and promotion for civilians send to our men and women in the Armed Services, and to our veterans? The torture scandal is not going away on its own. Our Nation will continue to be harmed by the reports of abuse of detainees in U.S. custody, the failure by top officials to take action, and the abandonment of our basic rules and traditions on human rights. The scandal directly endangers U.S. soldiers and U.S. civilians abroad. We no longer demand that those we capture in the war on terrorism be treated as we treat prisoners of other wars. What will we say to a country that justifies its torture of a U.S. soldier by citing our support for such treatment? How can we hold other nations accountable for their own human rights violations, when we continue to hold prisoners for years, without charging them or convicting them of anything? The Nation's standing as a leader on human rights and respect for the rule of law has been severely undermined. We cannot simply answer, as some have done, that the behavior is acceptable because terrorists do worse. By lowering our standards, we have reduced our moral authority in the world. The torture scandal has clearly set back our effort in the war on terrorism. It is fueling the current insurgency in Iraq. Even our closest allies, such as Great Britain, have raised objections to our treatment and rendition of detainees. Al-Qaida is still the gravest threat we face. The widespread perception that the U.S. condones torture only strengthens the ability of al-Qaida and others to create a backlash of hatred against America around the world. If we do not act to locate official responsibility for Abu Ghraib, we will condone a new status quo in which our policy toward torture is technically one of zero tolerance, while de facto our officials tolerate and commit torture daily. Many of us were struck by the rhetoric in President Bush's Inaugural Address. ``From the day of our founding,'' he said, ``we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth.'' Many of us would like to work with the President to develop a foreign policy that advances these important values. But rarely has the gulf between a President's rhetoric and his administration's actions been so wide. It is simply not possible to reconcile his claim that ``America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies'' with the barbaric acts that have been committed in America's name. We must not allow inaction to undermine two bedrock principles of human rights law that we worked hard to establish at Nuremberg: that higher officials cannot escape command responsibility and lower officials cannot excuse their actions by claiming that they were ``just following orders.'' It is time to come to terms with the continuing costs of the torture scandal, and respond effectively. We need to fully restore the Nation's credibility and moral standing, so that we can more effectively pursue the Nation's interests in the future. First, we must acknowledge that the rule of law is not a luxury to be abandoned in time of war, or bent or circumvented at the whim and convenience of the White House. It is a fundamental safeguard in our democracy and a continuing source of our country's strength throughout the world. Sadly, a recent National Defense Strategy policy contained this remarkable statement: ``Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.'' Who could have imagined that our Government would ever describe ``judicial processes'' as a challenge to our national security--much less mention it in the same breath as terrorism? Such statements do not reflect traditional conservative values, and they are clearly inconsistent with the ideals that America has always stood for here and around the world. Second, we must acknowledge and apply the broad consensus that exists against torture and inhumane treatment. Never before has torture been a Republican versus Democrat issue. Instead, it's always been an issue of broad consensus and ideals, reflecting the fundamental values of the Nation, and the ideals of the world. President Reagan signed the Convention Against Torture in 1988. The first President Bush and President Clinton supported its ratification. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led by Senator Jesse Helms, voted 10-0 in 1994 to recommend that the full Senate approve it. The Clinton administration adopted a ``zero tolerance'' policy on torture. Torture became something that Americans of all political affiliations agreed never to do. And 9/11 didn't nullify this consensus. We did not resolve as a Nation to set aside our values and the Constitution after those vicious attacks. We did not decide as a Nation to stoop to the level of the terrorists, and those who did deserve to be held fully accountable. Americans continue to be united in the belief that an essential part of winning the war on terrorism and protecting the country for the future is safeguarding the ideals and values that America stands for at home and around the world. That includes the belief that torture is still beyond the pale. The vast majority of Americans strongly reject the cruel interrogation tactics used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo--including the use of painful stress positions, sexual humiliation, threatening prisoners with dogs, and shipping detainees to countries that practice torture. The American people hold fast to our most fundamental values. It is time for all branches of the Government to uphold those values as well. It is clear beyond a doubt that we cannot trust this Republican Congress or this Republican administration to conduct the full investigation that should have been conducted long before now. We have had enough whitewashes by the administration and Congressional committees. Finally, to implement these values, we need a full and independent investigation of our current detention, rendition, and interrogation policies, including an honest assessment of what went wrong in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. The investigation will require genuine candor and cooperation by all officials and agencies in the Bush administration, full accountability, a clear statement of respect for human rights, and a plan for protecting those rights throughout the Government. Only a truly independent and thorough investigation can restore America's reputation and put us back on the right path to the future. The challenges we face in the post-9/11 world are obvious, and the stakes are very high. Working together, we have met such challenges before, and I am confident we can do so again. I urge all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to join to protect the rule of law, protect our soldiers serving abroad, and restore America's standing in the world. Mr. President, this has never been a partisan issue. We have a number of conventions on torture and other commitments that this Nation has made under Republican Presidents and Republican leaders in the important committees of the Congress. We have had very clear leadership by Republicans and Democrats at other times in our history in terms of adhering to what they call the ``golden rule.'' The golden rule is based on a very fundamental and important concept, which is we do not want others to treat our soldiers harshly and, therefore, we will not treat other soldiers harshly. The principal point underneath that is, even if we treated people harshly and went through the process of torture, the information that you gain as a result of torture is rarely as good as what interrogators who are using and conforming to the Geneva Conventions get. It is time for the United States to return to its better hours on this issue, and it is time that we not hold the privates and corporals accountable. But after 9 investigations by the Defense Department without a single prosecution, after we have more than 20 individuals who have actually been beaten or tortured to death and a determination by the administration that not a single person is going to face discipline, it is time that we take action. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the Federal refusal clause. The Republican leadership was wrong to include such a broad refusal clause in the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill. The clause was never voted on by the Senate Appropriations Committee; it was inserted into the bill behind closed doors. The clause would allow health care firms to refuse to comply with existing Federal, State, and local laws and regulations that pertain to abortion services, counseling, and referrals. Supporters of the clause claim it simply clarifies existing law. But far from clarifying it, sweeping new changes would be enacted that would be devastating to women's health. The reality is that no Federal law forces individuals to provide abortion care. The Church amendment, adopted in 1973, enacted a new refusal clause. It explicitly protects individuals who object to providing abortion because of their religious beliefs or moral convictions. Broader refusal clauses, such as the Federal refusal clause, exempt a wide range of organizations, including health plans and hospitals, most of which not only have a secular purpose but also employ and serve individuals who do not share those organizations' religious beliefs. The Federal refusal clause also discourages States from enforcing its own policies, laws and regulations to protect access to abortion services and information. Republicans continually attack Democrats as proponents of big government who undermine State rights. Yet that is exactly what the Federal refusal clause does. Forty-six States, including Massachusetts, already have laws that permit certain medical personnel, health facilities, and institutions to refuse to participate in abortion because of their moral or religious beliefs. We don't need the Federal refusal clause to protect individuals and health care organizations that oppose abortion, we already have that. It exists in both Federal and State laws. Proponents want the Federal refusal clause for one reason--to deny access and information to as many women as possible. Health care corporations now have the right to gag their doctors and other health care providers. The clause defines ``discrimination'' as any requirement that a medical service provider inform a woman about her option to seek an abortion--or even refer her to another plan for that information. It's ridiculous to say that giving a woman full information about her medical options is discrimination. The Federal refusal clause also restricts low-income women's access to abortion services, including information about abortion. It could prohibit the Federal Government from enforcing the requirement that Title X funded family planning clinics provide a woman facing an unintended pregnancy with an abortion referral when she requests one. We will be taking a giant step backward if we don't repeal this refusal clause. In addition, under the ``Hyde Amendment,'' States are required to provide Medicaid coverage for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or where pregnancy endangers a women's life. The Federal refusal clause, however, could prevent states from requiring that Medicaid HMOs provide or pay for these abortions. Current law states that low-income women should not be denied critical medical care. Why do we want to change that? What kind of signal are we sending? Women who have suffered through the trauma of rape or incest deserve our help, not an extra burden. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act guarantees that a woman who needs an emergency abortion procedure to save her life won't be turned away. Yet the Federal refusal clause could allow hospitals to turn away women in these dire circumstances. For a woman in a rural area, with only one hospital, her life itself may be in danger if the hospital refuses to admit her. It is wrong to deny women access to necessary and urgently needed medical procedures. The Federal refusal clause should never have been included in the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill, and I commend Senator Boxer for speaking against this provision.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, from April of this year, 2005, the GAO report. There are two primary causes for the shortages of up-armored vehicles and add-on armor kits: First, a decision was made to pace production rather than use the maximum available capacity; two, funding allocations did not keep up with rapidly increasing requirements. Army officials have not identified any long-term effort to improve the availability of up-armored Humvees or add-on armor kits. The Department of the Army itself says now we are currently producing the 550, they will continue through June 2005, at which the production rates decline. To sustain production at the maximum capacity, the Army would need funding at 213. That is exactly what ours does. If we did not include that, we see the dramatic production in the capacity and in the development of that. Why are we doing that? Nine times the Army appeared before the Armed Services Committee; nine times they underestimated the needs. A third of the 35 of the young men from my State of Massachusetts have lost their lives because of the lack of up-armor. All we are asking, take it to the conference, 230. The House of Representatives saw that. Why doesn't the Senate of the United States? I hope we would have support for that amendment and let them work it out in the conference. Let's make sure we are going to do what needs to be done. We have seen the mistakes of the past. Let's not make another one today.

Mr. KENNEDY. I don't know how the time is allocated, but I will take 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do I understand currently there are 2 minutes to be equally divided, and now the Senator from Virginia has asked for 10 minutes for one side on this debate? I have no objection, obviously, to whatever time the Senator from Alaska wants. I object unless those of us who have a differing view have an opportunity to express ourselves.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be equally divided.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, point No. 1, this is additional money. Point No. 2, the House of Representatives added $233 million. Why? For the very reason that was in this letter from the Department of the Army that says ``to sustain production at the maximum capacity through the end of fiscal year 2005, the Army would need the additional funding of approximately $213 million.'' That is what the Department of Defense says it needs. That is what the House has done. With all respect to the estimates that have been made, under the current request, the Department of Defense has testified nine times at the Armed Services Committee in terms of the needs of uparmored humvees. Every time they have been wrong. That is not just me talking. That is the GAO. This April, a GAO report says there are two primary causes for the shortages--shortages, that is the GAO, shortages--of the uparmored vehicles and add-on kits. One, a decision was made to pace production rather than use the maximum available capacity and, secondly, funding allocations did not keep up rapidly with increasing requirements. That is the GAO in April of this year. ``Army officials have not identified any long-term efforts to improve the availability of uparmored humvees.'' That is the GAO. The House took it. The GAO says it is necessary. The Department of Defense says so, too. Let us just include that and not leave the men and women who need the uparmored Humvees at risk in dangerous places around the world.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time is remaining? I believe I have used my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is a good question. I think I can think back and maybe find one. I will think back and find one. Saint Patrick's Day address.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. It is a privilege to join Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein, Senator Specter and Senator Harkin in sponsoring the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005. This bipartisan proposal will outlaw human cloning and open the way to proper, ethical cures for our most feared diseases. Using cloning to reproduce a child is improper and immoral--and our legislation will make it illegal. Medicine must advance hand in hand with ethics, and the legislation we introduce today will make certain that American research sets the gold standard for ethical oversight. But it is wrong to deny the great potential of medical research using the remarkable new techniques of stem cell research, which can save lives by preventing, treating, and curing a wide range of severe diseases and disabilities. We see the benefits of investment in biotechnology all around us. Fifty years ago last week, Jonas Salk announced the first polio vaccine. Imagine a world without that extraordinary discovery--where peoples everywhere lived in fear of the polio virus and the devastation it brings. Thirty years ago, Congress was considering whether to ban research on recombinant DNA--the very foundation of biotechnology. Time after time, we heard of the medical advances that this new field of research would bring. Then--as now--some dismissed this promise as a pipe dream and urged Congress to forbid it. We chose instead to vote for new hope and new cures. Today, countless Americans and persons throughout the world are already benefiting from the new treatments that biotechnology has brought. Why call a halt? In the 1980s Congress made the right choice, again, by rejecting attempts to outlaw in vitro fertilization, a technique that has fulfilled the hopes and dreams of thousands of parents who would never have been able to have a child. Our debate today is no different and Congress should do all it can to support lifesaving research, not prohibit it. Other nations are more than willing to leave us behind. The potential of this research is so immense that some of our best scientists are already leaving America to pursue their dreams in research laboratories in other countries. We need to stop that exodus before it becomes a nightmare. Do we really want to wake up 10 years from now and hear that a former American scientist in another land has won the Nobel Prize in medicine for a landmark discovery in stem cell research? The misguided fears of today can't be allowed to deny the cures of tomorrow. I commend my colleagues for their leadership on this important legislation, and I hope the Senate will act quickly to approve this urgently needed bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. It is a privilege to join Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein, Senator Specter and Senator Harkin in sponsoring the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005. This bipartisan proposal will outlaw human cloning and open the way to proper, ethical cures for our most feared diseases. Using cloning to reproduce a child is improper and immoral--and our legislation will make it illegal. Medicine must advance hand in hand with ethics, and the legislation we introduce today will make certain that American research sets the gold standard for ethical oversight. But it is wrong to deny the great potential of medical research using the remarkable new techniques of stem cell research, which can save lives by preventing, treating, and curing a wide range of severe diseases and disabilities. We see the benefits of investment in biotechnology all around us. Fifty years ago last week, Jonas Salk announced the first polio vaccine. Imagine a world without that extraordinary discovery--where peoples everywhere lived in fear of the polio virus and the devastation it brings. Thirty years ago, Congress was considering whether to ban research on recombinant DNA--the very foundation of biotechnology. Time after time, we heard of the medical advances that this new field of research would bring. Then--as now--some dismissed this promise as a pipe dream and urged Congress to forbid it. We chose instead to vote for new hope and new cures. Today, countless Americans and persons throughout the world are already benefiting from the new treatments that biotechnology has brought. Why call a halt? In the 1980s Congress made the right choice, again, by rejecting attempts to outlaw in vitro fertilization, a technique that has fulfilled the hopes and dreams of thousands of parents who would never have been able to have a child. Our debate today is no different and Congress should do all it can to support lifesaving research, not prohibit it. Other nations are more than willing to leave us behind. The potential of this research is so immense that some of our best scientists are already leaving America to pursue their dreams in research laboratories in other countries. We need to stop that exodus before it becomes a nightmare. Do we really want to wake up 10 years from now and hear that a former American scientist in another land has won the Nobel Prize in medicine for a landmark discovery in stem cell research? The misguided fears of today can't be allowed to deny the cures of tomorrow. I commend my colleagues for their leadership on this important legislation, and I hope the Senate will act quickly to approve this urgently needed bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The House of Representatives added 232. This amendment is to do what the Department of Defense says is necessary to keep the production line going. I hope it will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object, but I thought we had a brief time for discussion of this amendment. That is what I heard the unanimous consent agreement was, for 15 minutes. That is what I thought we were going to debate and vote on at a quarter of. That is the only reason I raise this objection because there was a unanimous consent. If the Senator wants to complete a brief unanimous consent request, I will not object, but I hope if there are arguments against this amendment, we will be able to hear them. We are prepared to put some more arguments out there on the table.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have no objection. Amendment No. 564

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. In December, just a few months ago, the Secretary of Defense on a visit to Iraq was asked by a soldier why our troops were sent into battle with unarmored vehicles. It was a question on the minds of many Americans--especially those with sons, daughters, husbands, wives, friends, and neighbors who had answered their country's call and whose lives are on the line every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American people are appalled that our troops have had to fend for themselves by strapping plywood and scrap metal onto their vehicles. Our troops call them ``cardboard coffins.'' As one soldier who served in Iraq said, ``I would feel safer in a Volvo than I would in one of these (unarmored) Humvees.'' But month after month, the Pentagon has failed to provide enough armored Humvees to meet the urgent security needs of our troops on dangerous patrols in Iraq. On nine different occasions, we have asked the Pentagon for their requirements for armored Humvees, and nine times they have been wrong. An now the Pentagon actually wants to decrease the production of armored Humvees. Tell that to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and they'll let you know how irresponsible that is--just as they told Secretary Rumsfeld on his trip to Iraq in December. Tell that to the family of James Sherill, a Kentucky National Guardsman who was killed in an unarmored vehicle just this month. Tell that to the families in Massachusetts who have lost loved ones in Iraq. Tell that to the tens of thousands of dedicated men and women in uniform about to serve their second and third tours there. Tell them they may have to ride into the danger zone yet again without enough armor. We know that American companies can produce more. Armor Holdings--the company that puts the armor on the armored Humvee--told my office this morning that its current contract with the Army will mean sharp reductions in production. Right now, they provide 550 armored Humvees a month. Their current Army contract calls for only 239 in June, zero in July, 40 in August, and 71 in September. The company is negotiating with the Army for slightly higher levels of production for June, July, and August, but it still expects to decrease production to 71 by September.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will take another minute. We cannot let the Department of Defense get it wrong for the tenth time. For the sake of our troops we need to get it right. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Department of Defense to Senator Inouye that says: To sustain production at the maximum capacity through the end of FY05, the Army would need an additional funding of approximately $213 million.