Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, America is facing a major public health problem because of the epidemic of obesity in the nation's children. Nine million children today are obese. Over the past three decades, the rate of obesity has more than doubled in preschool children and adolescents, and tripled among all school-age children. The health risks are immense. If the current rates do not decrease, 30 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls born in 2000 will develop diabetes, which can lead to kidney failure, blindness, heart disease and stroke. Obese children are 80 percent likely to become obese adults, with significantly greater risk for not only diabetes, but heart disease, arthritis and certain types of cancer. The economic impact of obesity- related health expenditures in 2004 reached $129 billion, a clear sign of the lower quality of life likely to be faced by the growing number of the nation's youth. Childhood obesity is the obvious result of too much food and too little exercise. Children are especially susceptible because of the dramatic social changes that have been taking place for many years. Children are exposed to 40,000 food advertisements a year one food commercial every minute--urging them to eat candy, snacks, and fast food. Vending machines are now in 43 percent of elementary schools and 97 percent of high schools, offering young students easy access to soft drinks and snacks that can double their risk of obesity. Many schools have eliminated physical education classes, leaving children less active throughout the school day. More communities are built without sidewalks, safe parks, or bike trails. Parents, who worry about the safety of their children in outside play, encourage them to sit and watch television. Fast food stores are nearby, grocery stores and farmers markets with fresh fruits and vegetables are not. According to the Institute of Medicine, prevention of obesity in children and youth requires public health action at its broadest and most inclusive level, with coordination between federal and state governments, within schools and communities, and involving industry and media, so that children can make food and activity choices that lead to healthy weights. The Prevention of Childhood Obesity Act makes the current epidemic a national public health priority. It appoints a federal commission on food policies to promote good nutrition. Guidelines for food and physical activity advertisements will be established by a summit conference of representatives from education, industry, and health care. Grants are provided to states to implement anti-obesity plans, including curricula and training for educators, for obesity prevention activities in preschool, school and after-school programs, and for sidewalks, bike trails, and parks where children can play and be both healthy and safe. Prevention is the cornerstone of good health and long, productive lives for all Americans. Childhood obesity is preventable, but we have to work together to stop this worsening epidemic and protect our children's future. Congress must to do its part and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, America is facing a major public health problem because of the epidemic of obesity in the nation's children. Nine million children today are obese. Over the past three decades, the rate of obesity has more than doubled in preschool children and adolescents, and tripled among all school-age children. The health risks are immense. If the current rates do not decrease, 30 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls born in 2000 will develop diabetes, which can lead to kidney failure, blindness, heart disease and stroke. Obese children are 80 percent likely to become obese adults, with significantly greater risk for not only diabetes, but heart disease, arthritis and certain types of cancer. The economic impact of obesity- related health expenditures in 2004 reached $129 billion, a clear sign of the lower quality of life likely to be faced by the growing number of the nation's youth. Childhood obesity is the obvious result of too much food and too little exercise. Children are especially susceptible because of the dramatic social changes that have been taking place for many years. Children are exposed to 40,000 food advertisements a year one food commercial every minute--urging them to eat candy, snacks, and fast food. Vending machines are now in 43 percent of elementary schools and 97 percent of high schools, offering young students easy access to soft drinks and snacks that can double their risk of obesity. Many schools have eliminated physical education classes, leaving children less active throughout the school day. More communities are built without sidewalks, safe parks, or bike trails. Parents, who worry about the safety of their children in outside play, encourage them to sit and watch television. Fast food stores are nearby, grocery stores and farmers markets with fresh fruits and vegetables are not. According to the Institute of Medicine, prevention of obesity in children and youth requires public health action at its broadest and most inclusive level, with coordination between federal and state governments, within schools and communities, and involving industry and media, so that children can make food and activity choices that lead to healthy weights. The Prevention of Childhood Obesity Act makes the current epidemic a national public health priority. It appoints a federal commission on food policies to promote good nutrition. Guidelines for food and physical activity advertisements will be established by a summit conference of representatives from education, industry, and health care. Grants are provided to states to implement anti-obesity plans, including curricula and training for educators, for obesity prevention activities in preschool, school and after-school programs, and for sidewalks, bike trails, and parks where children can play and be both healthy and safe. Prevention is the cornerstone of good health and long, productive lives for all Americans. Childhood obesity is preventable, but we have to work together to stop this worsening epidemic and protect our children's future. Congress must to do its part and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague in sponsoring these amendments, which will increase the death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 for all service members killed on active duty, and allow their dependents to continue receiving the basic housing allowance for a full year instead of the 180 days in current law. All of us support our troops. We obviously want to do all we can to see that they have proper equipment, vehicles, and everything else they need to protect their lives as they carry out their missions. But we also need care for the families of these courageous men and women who make the ultimate sacrifice. Any service member's death is tragic, whether in combat overseas or a training accident here in the United States. They are heroes, not victims. These brave men and women came forward to serve our country knowing what the dangers were and knowing the possibilities. They stood tall when the country needed them. Their case is a tragedy, and so is the void left behind for their loved ones. We know what happens when a family is notified of a death. There is a knock on the door. They open the door and a military officer is standing there to give them the most dreaded news they will ever receive. Details are few and typically only include the time and place of the death, and perhaps some brief words on how it happened. A few days later, he provides them a death gratuity check for $12,000 and helps them through the process of making the funeral arrangements while the flag draped coffin is on the way home. After the burial, the conversation turns to additional funds and benefits. The topic often has to be pressed by the officer, because the families, so burdened, seldom think in terms of what their benefits might be. They slowly realize that instead of having a constant breadwinner for many years, they receive only a modest monthly sum. The burden of combat deaths falls most often on the junior enlisted personnel, whose average yearly wages can be as low as $17,000. The actual benefit depends on number of children and other specific circumstances, and decreases over time because of age or a child's status as a student. The current Senate bill uses the administration's formula to achieve a $500,000 threshold, and includes some noncombat deaths, but not all of them. The bill, for example, provides a $100,000 gratuity to survivors of those killed in training accidents. But it retains the current $12,000 gratuity for other types of deaths, such as those who collapse during strenuous exercise or are killed in an accident driving to work. It is distinction without a difference for the family of the service member who died. They know only that their loved one went to work to help prepare their fellow soldiers, marines, sailors or airmen for battle and will never return. In today's military, all jobs and stations are equally important. Our amendment eliminates any distinction between combat and non- combat deaths and provides a death gratuity of $100,000, regardless of where or how a service member dies. Along with other provisions of the bill, the amendment would increase the total death benefit to $500,000, depending on the amount of military life insurance a person carries. No one can ever put a price on a human life, but there is no doubt that current levels are unacceptably low. It's also very important to extend the length of time for surviving widows and children to remain in military housing to a full year, either on base or with housing assistance. Currently, surviving spouses and dependents of military personnel killed on active duty may continue in their military housing or receive their military housing allowances for up to 180 days after the death of their loved one. Their loss is traumatic enough without the immediate pressure of having to find a place to live, moving, and disrupting their life all over again. Extending the length of time for survivors to stay in military housing gives them greater flexibility as they struggle to deal with what has happened. Children will be able to finish the school year among friends and in familiar surroundings. We know we can do much more to take care of military families after the loss of a loved one. We have been complacent for too long, and I urge my colleagues to support us in providing this much needed and well-deserved relief to these courageous and suffering families.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. I, first, commend Senator Mikulski, and I see the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and others who have been interested in this issue. Am I right that the earlier numbers by and large have been taken up primarily by winter tourism? The time for application comes at the time of the year when great numbers are taken up for the winter tourism, which has happened historically, and what we are trying to do with the Senator's amendment is to treat the summer tourism and the summer needs on an even playing field, as they are in my own State, which are primarily smaller mom-and-pop stores and some very small hotels that need that. So this basically creates a more even playing field, as I understand, between those who would be taken in the wintertime and those who need the help in the summer, No. 1; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Am I correct this is a rather modest increase in terms of the demand? In my own State, the numbers are approximately 6,000 for the summertime. The numbers the Senator has are going to be nationwide, so this is very modest based upon the need. The final point which the Senator has emphasized, but I think it is very important to underline, is these are people who have been here before, who have gone home and came back and therefore have demonstrated over the course of their life that they return back home and are in conformity with both the immigration and labor laws that exist today.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for her response and urge my colleagues to give strong support for her amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as many are well aware, the cap in current law on the number of H-2B visas is too restrictive, and it's imposing needless hardships on many businesses that rely on seasonal workers to meet the heavy demands of the tourism industry. Once again, these small industries are facing a crisis this summer if the number of visas isn't increased immediately. Senator Mikulski's timely amendment will provide the much-needed relief they deserve, and I urge the Senate to support it. For several years in a row, the cap has created a crisis for the tourism industry in Massachusetts and nationwide. Countless small, family-run businesses depend on the ability to hire more workers for the summer season, and they can't possibly find enough U.S. workers to fill the need. Without this amendment, many of these firms can't survive because the seasonal business is the heart of their operation. This fiscal year's allocation of 66,000 visas was exhausted just a few months on into the year. Senator Mikulski will make about 30,000 additional visas available, and it should be enacted as soon as possible, so that these firms can make their plans for the coming months. Obviously, this amendment is only temporary relief. It should be achieved through comprehensive immigration reform. We all know our immigration system is broken, and many other reforms are needed as well. The Nation needs a new immigration policy that reflects current economic realities, respects family unity and fundamental fairness, and upholds our enduring tradition as a Nation of immigrants. Enacting these other reforms will take time--time we don't have if we want to rescue countless seasonal employers around the country. Senator Mikulski's proposal provides the immediate relief needed to enable employers counting on H-2B workers to keep their doors open this summer, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my distinguished colleagues, in proposing The Preservation of Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 2005. Our goal in this important initiative is to take needed action to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics in treating diseases. These drugs are truly a modem medical miracle. During World War II, the newly developed ``wonder drug'' penicillin revolutionized the care for our soldiers wounded in battle. Since then, they have become indispensable in modem medicine, protecting all of us from deadly infections. They are even more valuable today, safeguarding the nation from the threat of bioterrorism. Unfortunately, over the past years, we have done too little to prevent the emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria and other germs, and many of our most powerful drugs are no longer effective. Partly, the resistance is the result of the overprescribing of such drugs in routine medical care. But, mounting evidence also shows at the indiscriminate use of critical drugs in animal feed is also a major factor in the development of antibiotic resistant germs. Obviously, if animals are sick, whether as pets or livestock, they should be treated with the best veterinary medications available. That is not a problem. The problem is the widespread practice of using antibiotics to promote growth and fatten healthy livestock. This nontherapeutic use clearly undermines the effectiveness of these important drugs because it leads to greater development of antibiotic- resistant bacteria that can make infections in humans difficult or impossible to treat. In 1998--7 years ago--a report prepared at the request of the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, by the National Academy of Sciences, concluded ``there is a link between the use of antibiotics in food animals, the development of bacterial resistance to these drugs, and human disease.'' The World Health Organization has specifically recommended that antibiotics used to treat humans should not be used to promote animal growth, although they could still be used to treat sick animals. In 2001, Federal interagency task force on antibiotic resistance concluded that ``drug-resistant pathogens are a growing menace to all people, regardless of age, gender, or socio-economic background. If we do not act to address the problem . . . [d]rug choices for the treatment of common infections will become increasingly limited and expensive-and, in some cases, nonexistent.'' The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70 percent of all U.S. antibiotics are used nontherapeutically in animal agriculture-- eight times more than in are used in all of human medicine. This indiscriminate use clearly reduces their potency. Major medical associations have been increasingly concerned and taken strong stands against antibiotic use in animal agriculture. In June 2001, the American Medical Association adopted a resolution opposing nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in animals. Other professional medical organizations that have taken a similar stands include the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Public Health Association, and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. The legislation we are offering has been strongly endorsed by the American Public Health Association and numerous other groups and independent experts in the field. Ending this detrimental practice is feasible and cost-effective. In fact, most of the developed countries in the world, except for the United States and Canada, already restrict the use of antibiotics to promote growth in raising livestock. In 1999, the European Union banned such use and money saved on drugs has been invested in improving hygiene and animal husbandry practices. Researchers in Denmark found a dramatic decline in the number of drug-resistant organisms in animals-- and no significant increase in animal diseases or in consumer prices. These results have encouraged clinicians and researchers to call for a similar ban in the United States. The title of an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine 4 years ago said it all: ``Antimicrobial Use in Animal Feed--Time to Stop.'' On Thursday, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, Environmental Defense, the Food Animal Concerns Trust, and the Union of Concerned Scientists joined together in filing a formal petition with FDA calling for the withdrawal of certain classes of drugs from animal feed. Earlier last week, Acting FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford emphasized his own concern that the use of such drugs in food-producing animals has an adverse health impact on humans. He stated that the FDA agrees with the GAO recommendation to review approved animal drugs that are critical to human health, and described FDA's progress in doing so. He stated, however, that the review process is extremely slow and labor intensive, and that even when safety issues are identified, the FDA can do little more than hope that the animal pharmaceutical companies will cooperate in addressing the issue. There is no question that the Nation stands at risk of an epidemic outbreak of food poisoning caused by drug-resistant bacteria or other germs. It is time to put public safety first and stop the abuse of drugs critical to human health. The bill we propose will phase out the nontherapeutic use in livestock of medically important antibiotics, unless manufacturers can show such use is no danger to public health. The act requires applying this same strict standard to applications for approval of new animal antibiotics. Treatment is not restricted if the animals are sick or are pets or other animals not used for food. In addition, FDA is given the authority to restrict the use of important drugs in animals, if the risk to humans is in question. According to the National Academy of Sciences, eliminating the use of antibiotics as feed additives in agriculture would cost each American consumer not more than five to ten dollars a year. The legislation recognizes, however, economic costs to farmers in making the transition to antibiotic-free practices may be substantial. In such cases, the Act provides for federal payments to defray the cost of shifting to antibiotic-free practices, with preference for family farms. Antibiotics are among the greatest miracles of modern medicine, yet we are destroying them faster than the pharmaceutical industry can create replacements. If doctors lose these critical remedies, the most vulnerable among us will suffer the most--children, the elderly, persons with HIV/AIDS, who are most in danger of resistant infections. I urge my colleagues to support this clearly needed legislation to protect the health of all Americans from this reckless and unjustified use of antibiotics.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Could we ask then that the Senator from Indiana be recognized after 15 minutes to take whatever action is necessary?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator from New Jersey be kind enough to yield for a brief observation and question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey is addressing the Senate on a very important issue, the independence of the judiciary. I think this is an important statement. Many of us have been deeply concerned by statements that have been made recently by Congressman Tom DeLay, who used the words, ``The time will come for men responsible for this to answer for their behavior,'' in relationship to the decision of the courts in the Schiavo case. The Senator from Texas has also mentioned and talked about the judiciary in a similar vein this week.. I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times editorial, regarding these statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I draw to the attention of the Senate that today the Judicial Conference has asked the White House and the Senate for $12 million to help protect judges from violence. When we see leaders in Congress making statements which clearly have incited, or threaten to incite, violence against judges, the same judges, honorable men and women appointed to uphold America's laws and ideals, who are living in fear of violence, we must be concerned. The Judicial Conference is requesting $12 million to provide protection for the American judiciary. What in the world is this Congress and this Senate coming to? I think it is appropriate for the leaders and other members in this body and the House to tone down their rhetoric, and avoid the threats to the American judiciary. I think that is absolutely unconscionable. When you have the Judicial Conference asking for this, that indicates where the judges themselves--made up of Republicans and Democrats--are coming from. I intend to offer an amendment on the supplemental to positively respond to their request and to get the $12 million. I am interested if my friend from New Jersey would cosponsor that.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, around the world as we honor the passing of the Holy Father, we are filled with his spirit and we are inspired by his legacy of peace and compassion. We pray for him and we pray for one another sduring this time of grief and reflection. I first saw the Holy Father in Boston in 1979 as he touched American soil for the first time as Pope and reached out to the American people with his holy strength. Several hundred thousand rain-soaked men, women, and children gathered on the Boston Common to hear his homily that began with his extraordinary welcome, ``America the Beautiful, even if it rains!'' And through his eyes that was what we were: beautiful, free, and open to all possibilities. He greeted my family warmly on many occasions and blessed us for all our endeavors. On our visit to the Vatican in the 1980s, he welcomed my sister Jean's Very Special Arts program for the disabled in the arts and participated in a festival for 7,000 Italian children who were challenged physically. He told us that in God's eyes, we were all created equally, we all had creative gifts, and all of our talents were enlightened by God. On that occasion I presented him with a bust of President Kennedy, whom he spoke graciously about. In countless ways during his years as Pope, the Holy Father inspired people throughout the world and brought them together in peace and reconciliation. In his travels to distant lands, citizens of many different faiths were deeply moved by his appeals to the common humanity of all people under God. And in his final days, he inspired us all again with the surpassing grace and dignity with which he left us. I am struck by the words of one of the Pope's favorite passages that was read to him in his final hours, from Psalm 119: Remember your word to your servant, for you have given me hope. My comfort in my suffering is this: Your promise preserves my life. Pope John Paul II lives on in the hearts of all of us who were touched so deeply by his life. May his example continue to guide us and people everywhere in all the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senator DeWine and I are introducing legislation to give the Food and Drug Administration broad authority to regulate tobacco products for the protection of the public health. We cannot in good conscience allow the fuderal agency most responsible for protecting the public health to remain powerless to deal with the enormous risks of tobacco, the most deadly of all consumer products. Last year, a large bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to grant the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. It was a major step forward in the long-term effort to enact this legislation, which health experts believe is the most important action Congress could take to protect children from this deadly addiction. Unfortunately, the legislation was blocked by a small group of House conferees. We are reintroducing our bill today and we are hopeful that 2005 will be the year when Congress takes the final steps to enact this extraordinarily important health legislation. This bill has majority support in the Senate and strong support amongst rank and file members in the House. Now is the time to make it the law of the land. The stakes are vast. Five thousand children have their first cigarette every day, and two thousand of them become daily smokers. Nearly a thousand of them will die prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in the nation today. Cigarettes kill well over four hundred thousand Americans each year. That is more lives lost than from automobile accidents, alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, AIDS, murder, suicide, and fires combined. Our response to a public health problem of this magnitude must consist of more than half-way measures. We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The tobacco industry currently spends over eleven billion dollars a year to promote its products. Much of that money is spent in ways designed to tempt children to start smoking, before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity of the health risk. The industry knows that more than 90 percent of smokers begin as children and are addicted by the time they reach adulthood. Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies' own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children into dependency on their deadly product. Recent studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the substantial role of industry advertising in decisions by young people to use tobacco products. If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, FDA must have the power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children. This legislation will give FDA the ability to stop tobacco advertising which glamorizes smoking from appearing where it will be seen by significant numbers of children. It grants FDA full authority to regulate tobacco advertising ``consistent with and to the full extent permitted by the First Amendment.'' FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. Nearly every state makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 18, but surveys show that those laws are rarely enforced and frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self- service displays and vending machine sales. There must also be serious enforcement efforts with real penalties for those caught selling tobacco products to children. This is the only way to ensure that children under 18 are not able to buy cigarettes. The FDA conducted the longest rule-making proceeding in its history, studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its proceeding, the Agency promulgated rules on the manner in which cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new multi- year rulemaking process on the same issues. This legislation will give the youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by FDA the immediate force of law, as if they had been issued under the new statute. The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These warnings will be more explicit in their description of the medical problems which can result from tobacco use. The FDA is given the authority to change the text of these warning labels periodically, to keep their impact strong. Nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say that it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco companies have vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products. No one can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under oath before Congress that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through the discovery process proves that the companies not only knew of this addictiveness for decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even more addictive. The tobacco industry has a long, dishonorable history of providing misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end. Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the FDA regulate them for the protection of the public health. Over forty million Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. No responsible public health official believes that cigarettes should be banned. A ban would leave forty million people without a way to satisfy their drug dependency. FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers overcome their addiction, and to make the product less toxic for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA must have the authority to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, to the extent that it becomes scientifically feasible. The inherent risk in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded. Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes. This legislation will require manufacturers to submit such ``reduced risk'' products to the FDA for analysis before they can be marketed. No health-related claims will be permitted until they have been verified to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential to prevent deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the public into a false sense of health safety. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America. Congress must vest FDA not only with the responsibility for regulating tobacco products, but with full authority to do the job effectively. This legislation will give the FDA the legal authority it needs--to reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which targets children--to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors--to help smokers overcome their addiction--to make tobacco products less toxic for those who continue to use them--and to prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking. Enacting this bill this year is the right thing to do for America's children.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mindy Lanie, a sign language interpreter from congressional support services, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of the budget resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge all our colleagues to support Senator Byrd's amendment, because our Nation's interstates, roads, and subways are at the breaking point, and our future economic health is at stake. This shouldn't be a hard vote, because we did it before. Just last year, the Senate voted 76-21 to support the funding levels called for by the Byrd amendment. Senators Bond, Baucus, Inhofe, Jeffords, Shelby, and Sarbanes have worked hard to construct a transportation bill under the constraints they have been placed, but the fact is they don't have enough money. The White House has issued an edict: $284 billion or nothing. Let's do what we know is right for our States, for our economy, for our Nation's future. The U.S. DOT says that each $1 billion of transportation investment supports and sustains 47,000 jobs. Let's pass the Byrd amendment, and reaffirm our commitment to a strong U.S. economy and good-paying American jobs.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee for working with me, and with the chairman of the HELP Committee, as well as with the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee to include within the budget resolution a reserve fund to provide incentives for adoption of modern information technology to improve quality in health care and for performance-based payments that are based on accepted clinical performance measures that improve the quality of health care. The goal of this fund is to allow for legislation to create a program through which incentives would be provided in the initial years of the program to encourage health care providers to enhance their use of information technology and improve quality. The fund would achieve deficit neutrality through the savings that will accrue to public programs through better use of information technology and higher quality care. The reserve fund thus requires deficit neutrality over the 5 years of the budget resolution. It was the intent of all those Members who worked on this proposal to require the program to achieve deficit neutrality over the 5 years of the budget resolution, but not to require deficit neutrality in the initial year of the program or, on a year-by-year basis, in subsequent years. I ask the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee whether what I have just described reflects their understanding of the intent of the program to be established in accordance with this reserve fund.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this budget does not adequately protect children. That is why I filed an amendment to help lift millions of children out of poverty. I will plan to offer this amendment at the next appropriate time. In the last 4 years, over 4 million of our fellow citizens have fallen into poverty. Nearly 36 million Americans live below the poverty line; 3 million more Americans live in hunger or on the verge of hunger today than in the year 2000. Today, nearly 13 million children live in poverty in the United States. It is shameful that in the richest and most powerful nation on Earth, nearly a fifth of all children go to bed hungry at night. Poverty is a moral issue, and we have a moral obligation to address it. Current policies are failing, and it is time to take a stronger stand. We should set a national goal of reducing child poverty by 50 percent within a decade and to eliminate it entirely as soon as possible after that. To help meet this commitment, we should enact a one percent surtax for income over $1 million. This surtax, paid by our wealthiest citizens, will raise $3.5 billion this year, and more in subsequent years, to meet the needs of our most vulnerable citizens. The amendment will create a child poverty elimination fund with a board to oversee the fund, and design the child poverty elimination plan. We know how to achieve this goal. All it requires is the will, and the leadership, to do it. Prime Minister Tony Blair made a commitment to do so in Britain, and they have begun to reach the goal. Their approach is to support both parents and children. They have pledged to increase employment opportunities, raise incomes for those who work, increase support for those who cannot work, and improve public services for children and families. It is time for America to make a similar commitment, and give real hope, real opportunity and real fairness to children and families mired in poverty in communities in all parts of our country. We cannot continue to look the other way while millions of our fellow citizens work hard, play by the rules, and still cannot escape a lifetime in poverty. Everywhere we look, the current budget is a nightmare for those who need our help the most. It cuts the Women, Infants, and Children Program, which provides health information and nutritious meals to low income pregnant women and their children. It cuts food stamps. It cuts Medicaid. It cuts low-income housing. It cuts low-income education. That is unacceptable. And yet the White House pretends it has an anti- poverty agenda. Nonsense. This budget is not antipoverty, it is anti- poor. As the wealthiest country on Earth, we are blessed with great abundance. In the powerful words of the Gospel, ``To whom much is given, much is required.'' That should be our national commitment to every American living in poverty today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the entire world continues to wait for signs that the administration takes seriously its moral and legal responsibilities to eliminate torture and abuse. It is long past time for the administration to give the American people and the world an ironclad assurance that these shameful tactics are no longer being used in any prison or detention facility under American control and that we are not outsourcing our torture to regimes well known for using them. I strongly support the legislation that Senator Leahy has introduced to deal with this urgent problem and to see that our Nation is not farming out abusive interrogations to other countries. The bill makes crystal clear that we can't torture by proxy. Abhorrence to torture is a fundamental value. Our attitude toward torture speaks volumes about our national conscience, our dedication to the rule of law, and our essential ideals. 9/11 is no excuse for abandoning our ideals. The line separating right from wrong must clearly exclude the reprehensible practice called extraordinary rendition, the ridiculous code word for torture by proxy. Article 3 of the Treaty Against Torture, which the United States has ratified, provides: ``No State Party shall expel, return, or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'' The secretive U.S. practice of rendition is a violation of international law because it involves detaining prisoners without a shred of due process and delivering them for interrogation into the hands of countries known to commit torture. As one commentator noted: ``In terms of bad behavior, it stands side by side with contract killings.'' Ask Maher Arar. In the fall of 2002, Arar, a Canadian citizen, was returning to Montreal from a family visit in Tunisia and he made a stopover at Kennedy Airport in New York City. Acting in part on flawed intelligence from Canadian officials, U.S. Immigration officials seized Mr. Arar at the airport. He was not charged with a crime, or given a chance to talk with a lawyer. Instead, he was held in Brooklyn and interrogated for days by U.S. law enforcement authorities. When the interrogation failed to produce incriminating information, Mr. Arar was flown to Jordan and handed over to Jordanian authorities. He was chained, blindfolded, and beaten in a van that transported him to the Syrian border. In Syria, he was placed in a small, dark cell-- three feet by six feet, like a grave--and was held there for almost a year. He was slapped, beaten, and whipped on his palms, wrists, and back with an electric cable. He begged them to stop. He heard other prisoners screaming as they were tortured. He signed any confessions he was told to sign. Mr. Arar was released in October 2003. Syrian officials told reporters that their investigators found no link between Mr. Arar and al-Qaida. His confession turned out to be worthless and his suffering was pointless. Mr. Arar is now home in Canada. How can any of us stand idly by knowing that this country condoned and facilitated such brutality? Tragically, Mr. Arar is not the only victim. On March 6, 60 Minutes aired a report on rendition. On the program, Michael Scheuer, a recently retired CIA official who created its rendition program, admitted that he would ``have to assume'' that suspects the U.S. sends to Egypt are tortured. ``It's very convenient,'' he said. ``It's finding someone else to do your dirty work.'' The Defense Department has attempted to justify this tactic. On June 25, 2003, Defense Department General Counsel William Haynes wrote to Senator Leahy, stating that whenever the U.S. transfers an individual to another country, ``United States policy is to obtain specific assurances from the receiving country that it will not torture the individual being transferred to that country. We can assure you that the United States would take steps to investigate credible allegations of torture and take appropriate action if there were reason to believe that those assurances were not being honored.'' Mr. Haynes' ``assurances,'' are difficult to accept. The State Department's annual human rights report, released last month, criticized numerous countries for a range of interrogation practices it labeled as torture. The State Department identified Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, among others, as countries practicing torture. Press reports make clear that since 9/11, the U.S. has flown 100-150 suspects to countries such as these. The State Department condemns Syria for torturing its prisoners, but Mr. Haynes blindly relies on Syria's promise that the prisoners we send there will be treated humanely. Recent press reports also suggest that the assurances of humane treatment sought by the CIA are worth very little. According to today's Washington Post, ``one government official who visited several foreign prisons where suspects were rendered by the CIA said . . . `It's widely understood that the interrogation practices that would be illegal in the U.S. are being used.' '' The official also said, ``they say they are not abusing them . . . but we all know they do.'' According to the Post, an Arab diplomat, whose country is actively engaged in counterterrorism alongside the CIA said it was unrealistic to believe the CIA really wants to follow up on assurances. He said: ``It would be stupid to keep track of them because then you would know what's going on.'' He said, ``it's like don't ask don't tell.'' So, it seems that we are not fooling anybody but the American public. We are a Nation of laws, not hypocrites. Our country is strong and our constitutional system has endured because it permits us to do great things and still ensure that we treat people fairly and humanely. We are not supposed to ``disappear'' people here. Yet, that is exactly what rendition and the related tactic of ``ghost detainees'' amounts to, making people vanish into a shadowy world of secret abuse. In his report on the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, MG. Antonio Taguba wrote that prisoners had not been registered as required by Army regulations and they were being moved around to avoid detection by the Red Cross. General Taguba called the practice ``deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law.'' Last September, Army investigators told the Senate Armed Services Committee that as many as 100 detainees at Abu Ghraib had been hidden from the Red Cross at the CIA's direction. Last month, the Associated Press reported that one of the ``ghost detainees'' held at Abu Ghraib, Manadel al-Jamadi, died in November 2003 under CIA interrogation. He had been suspended by his wrists, with his hands cuffed behind his back. According to an Army guard who was asked by the interrogator to adjust al-Jamadi's position, blood gushed from his mouth ``as if a faucet had been turned on'' after he was released from his shackles. Behavior like that forces us all to ask, ``what has America become?'' The issue shows no signs of abating. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that transfers of detainees from occupied territory to any other country ``are prohibited, regardless of their motive.'' Violations of the Article constitute ``grave breaches'' of the Treaty and qualify as ``war crimes'' under Federal law. Nevertheless, a Justice Department memorandum in March, 2004 re-interpreted the Treaty to allow the CIA to remove prisoners from Iraq for the purpose of ``facilitating interrogation.'' According to press reports, the CIA used this ``Goldsmith Memorandum'' as justification to transport ``as many as a dozen detainees'' out of Iraq. The legal analysis in the memorandum is an embarrassment. Yet it appears to have provided the legal justification for the CIA to commit war crimes. The New York Times recently reported that the U.S. plans to transfer as many as half the 550 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to prisons in other countries. This week, a Federal judge blocked the government from transferring 13 citizens of Yemen until a hearing can be held on the propriety of the move. Lawyers for the detainees expressed concern that the prisoners would be delivered into the hands of torture. Even worse, last week Attorney General Gonzales defended the practice of rendition, despite admitting that he ``can't fully control'' what other nations do and that he doesn't know whether countries have always complied with their promises. Congress can't allow these shameful tactics to continue. Senator Leahy's bill is designed to prevent them. It states that no person in the custody or control of the United States can be sent to another country on the State Department list of countries that commit torture. Nor, may any person be sent to a country, even if it is not on the State Department list, where there are grounds to believe the person would be in danger of being tortured. The bill states that mere diplomatic assurances that detainees will be treated humanely are not sufficient to permit a detainee's transfer. Instead, in certain circumstances, the act permits delivery of the detainee where there is an actual mechanism to verify that the person will not be tortured, such as by allowing unfettered access to the detainee by humanitarian organizations. The Bush administration's has clearly condoned the use of torture and abuse by our own government, as well as handing prisoners over to other countries for the same purpose. Officials have approved and used interrogation techniques that include feigning suffocation, feigning drowning, ``stress positions,'' sleep deprivation, and the use of unmuzzled dogs. According to one report, ``The methods employed by the CIA are so severe that senior officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have directed its agents to stay out of many of the interviews of the high-level detainees . . . ``because the FBI fears that the techniques could subject their agents to criminal lawsuits. The anti-rendition bill offered today is a way to start addressing the problem. It deserves to pass as soon as possible. Torture and other abuses of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo have done immense damage to America's standing in the world and has clearly made the war on terrorism harder to win. We need to repair that damage and re-claim our national commitment to fairness and decency. As Edmund Burke said, ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' We in Congress have it in our power to prevent the triumph of an evil practice. Knowing what we now know, the Senate cannot simply look away and do nothing. I urge my colleagues to support us in ending these despicable abuses.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the entire world continues to wait for signs that the administration takes seriously its moral and legal responsibilities to eliminate torture and abuse. It is long past time for the administration to give the American people and the world an ironclad assurance that these shameful tactics are no longer being used in any prison or detention facility under American control and that we are not outsourcing our torture to regimes well known for using them. I strongly support the legislation that Senator Leahy has introduced to deal with this urgent problem and to see that our Nation is not farming out abusive interrogations to other countries. The bill makes crystal clear that we can't torture by proxy. Abhorrence to torture is a fundamental value. Our attitude toward torture speaks volumes about our national conscience, our dedication to the rule of law, and our essential ideals. 9/11 is no excuse for abandoning our ideals. The line separating right from wrong must clearly exclude the reprehensible practice called extraordinary rendition, the ridiculous code word for torture by proxy. Article 3 of the Treaty Against Torture, which the United States has ratified, provides: ``No State Party shall expel, return, or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'' The secretive U.S. practice of rendition is a violation of international law because it involves detaining prisoners without a shred of due process and delivering them for interrogation into the hands of countries known to commit torture. As one commentator noted: ``In terms of bad behavior, it stands side by side with contract killings.'' Ask Maher Arar. In the fall of 2002, Arar, a Canadian citizen, was returning to Montreal from a family visit in Tunisia and he made a stopover at Kennedy Airport in New York City. Acting in part on flawed intelligence from Canadian officials, U.S. Immigration officials seized Mr. Arar at the airport. He was not charged with a crime, or given a chance to talk with a lawyer. Instead, he was held in Brooklyn and interrogated for days by U.S. law enforcement authorities. When the interrogation failed to produce incriminating information, Mr. Arar was flown to Jordan and handed over to Jordanian authorities. He was chained, blindfolded, and beaten in a van that transported him to the Syrian border. In Syria, he was placed in a small, dark cell-- three feet by six feet, like a grave--and was held there for almost a year. He was slapped, beaten, and whipped on his palms, wrists, and back with an electric cable. He begged them to stop. He heard other prisoners screaming as they were tortured. He signed any confessions he was told to sign. Mr. Arar was released in October 2003. Syrian officials told reporters that their investigators found no link between Mr. Arar and al-Qaida. His confession turned out to be worthless and his suffering was pointless. Mr. Arar is now home in Canada. How can any of us stand idly by knowing that this country condoned and facilitated such brutality? Tragically, Mr. Arar is not the only victim. On March 6, 60 Minutes aired a report on rendition. On the program, Michael Scheuer, a recently retired CIA official who created its rendition program, admitted that he would ``have to assume'' that suspects the U.S. sends to Egypt are tortured. ``It's very convenient,'' he said. ``It's finding someone else to do your dirty work.'' The Defense Department has attempted to justify this tactic. On June 25, 2003, Defense Department General Counsel William Haynes wrote to Senator Leahy, stating that whenever the U.S. transfers an individual to another country, ``United States policy is to obtain specific assurances from the receiving country that it will not torture the individual being transferred to that country. We can assure you that the United States would take steps to investigate credible allegations of torture and take appropriate action if there were reason to believe that those assurances were not being honored.'' Mr. Haynes' ``assurances,'' are difficult to accept. The State Department's annual human rights report, released last month, criticized numerous countries for a range of interrogation practices it labeled as torture. The State Department identified Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, among others, as countries practicing torture. Press reports make clear that since 9/11, the U.S. has flown 100-150 suspects to countries such as these. The State Department condemns Syria for torturing its prisoners, but Mr. Haynes blindly relies on Syria's promise that the prisoners we send there will be treated humanely. Recent press reports also suggest that the assurances of humane treatment sought by the CIA are worth very little. According to today's Washington Post, ``one government official who visited several foreign prisons where suspects were rendered by the CIA said . . . `It's widely understood that the interrogation practices that would be illegal in the U.S. are being used.' '' The official also said, ``they say they are not abusing them . . . but we all know they do.'' According to the Post, an Arab diplomat, whose country is actively engaged in counterterrorism alongside the CIA said it was unrealistic to believe the CIA really wants to follow up on assurances. He said: ``It would be stupid to keep track of them because then you would know what's going on.'' He said, ``it's like don't ask don't tell.'' So, it seems that we are not fooling anybody but the American public. We are a Nation of laws, not hypocrites. Our country is strong and our constitutional system has endured because it permits us to do great things and still ensure that we treat people fairly and humanely. We are not supposed to ``disappear'' people here. Yet, that is exactly what rendition and the related tactic of ``ghost detainees'' amounts to, making people vanish into a shadowy world of secret abuse. In his report on the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, MG. Antonio Taguba wrote that prisoners had not been registered as required by Army regulations and they were being moved around to avoid detection by the Red Cross. General Taguba called the practice ``deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law.'' Last September, Army investigators told the Senate Armed Services Committee that as many as 100 detainees at Abu Ghraib had been hidden from the Red Cross at the CIA's direction. Last month, the Associated Press reported that one of the ``ghost detainees'' held at Abu Ghraib, Manadel al-Jamadi, died in November 2003 under CIA interrogation. He had been suspended by his wrists, with his hands cuffed behind his back. According to an Army guard who was asked by the interrogator to adjust al-Jamadi's position, blood gushed from his mouth ``as if a faucet had been turned on'' after he was released from his shackles. Behavior like that forces us all to ask, ``what has America become?'' The issue shows no signs of abating. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that transfers of detainees from occupied territory to any other country ``are prohibited, regardless of their motive.'' Violations of the Article constitute ``grave breaches'' of the Treaty and qualify as ``war crimes'' under Federal law. Nevertheless, a Justice Department memorandum in March, 2004 re-interpreted the Treaty to allow the CIA to remove prisoners from Iraq for the purpose of ``facilitating interrogation.'' According to press reports, the CIA used this ``Goldsmith Memorandum'' as justification to transport ``as many as a dozen detainees'' out of Iraq. The legal analysis in the memorandum is an embarrassment. Yet it appears to have provided the legal justification for the CIA to commit war crimes. The New York Times recently reported that the U.S. plans to transfer as many as half the 550 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to prisons in other countries. This week, a Federal judge blocked the government from transferring 13 citizens of Yemen until a hearing can be held on the propriety of the move. Lawyers for the detainees expressed concern that the prisoners would be delivered into the hands of torture. Even worse, last week Attorney General Gonzales defended the practice of rendition, despite admitting that he ``can't fully control'' what other nations do and that he doesn't know whether countries have always complied with their promises. Congress can't allow these shameful tactics to continue. Senator Leahy's bill is designed to prevent them. It states that no person in the custody or control of the United States can be sent to another country on the State Department list of countries that commit torture. Nor, may any person be sent to a country, even if it is not on the State Department list, where there are grounds to believe the person would be in danger of being tortured. The bill states that mere diplomatic assurances that detainees will be treated humanely are not sufficient to permit a detainee's transfer. Instead, in certain circumstances, the act permits delivery of the detainee where there is an actual mechanism to verify that the person will not be tortured, such as by allowing unfettered access to the detainee by humanitarian organizations. The Bush administration's has clearly condoned the use of torture and abuse by our own government, as well as handing prisoners over to other countries for the same purpose. Officials have approved and used interrogation techniques that include feigning suffocation, feigning drowning, ``stress positions,'' sleep deprivation, and the use of unmuzzled dogs. According to one report, ``The methods employed by the CIA are so severe that senior officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have directed its agents to stay out of many of the interviews of the high-level detainees . . . ``because the FBI fears that the techniques could subject their agents to criminal lawsuits. The anti-rendition bill offered today is a way to start addressing the problem. It deserves to pass as soon as possible. Torture and other abuses of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo have done immense damage to America's standing in the world and has clearly made the war on terrorism harder to win. We need to repair that damage and re-claim our national commitment to fairness and decency. As Edmund Burke said, ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' We in Congress have it in our power to prevent the triumph of an evil practice. Knowing what we now know, the Senate cannot simply look away and do nothing. I urge my colleagues to support us in ending these despicable abuses.