Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Just for 30 seconds, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at the outset, I see my chairman, Senator Enzi, who has taken the chair of our committee. I commended him for bringing this legislation up, and I say to you, Mr. Leader, we thank you for your willingness to schedule this legislation. It is of enormous importance. We have had a good debate and discussion about all of the concerns families are faced with without this kind of protection. We thank you very much, and Senator Reid, for getting this legislation up and giving us a chance to express the Senate view on this matter.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today President Bush nominated Ambassador John Negroponte to be the new Director of National Intelligence. Rarely will a nominee so clearly go from the frying pan to the fire. Ambassador Negroponte will face enormous challenges in his new position just as he has in his current position as our Ambassador to Iraq. His experience there will serve him well, since the war with Iraq has made the country a breeding ground for terrorism that did not previously exist. His new top priority must be to keep America's intelligence community focused on the real threat to our national security--the war against al-Qaida. This will not be an easy task. The ongoing war in Iraq is sapping our military, diplomatic, and intelligence resources. It is a war that did not need to be fought. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were no persuasive links to al-Qaida. America should not have rushed to war with Iraq. We should have stayed focused on the imminent threat from al-Qaida, a threat that remains strong more than three years after the 9/11 attacks. CIA Director Porter Goss' statement yesterday that ``Al Qaeda is intent on finding ways to circumvent US security enhancements to strike Americans and the homeland'' is a timely reminder that al-Qaida is still the gravest threat to our national security, and the war in Iraq has ominously given al-Qaida new incentives and new opportunities to attack us. The warning about al-Qaida's threat was emphasized Admiral James Loy, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. He told the Intelligence Committee, ``We believe that attacking the homeland remains at the top of Al Qaeda's operational priority list. We believe that their intent remains strong for attempting another major operation here.'' The danger was also emphasized by Robert Mueller, the FBI Director, who told the Intelligence Committee, ``The threat posed by international terrorism, and in particular from Al-Qaeda and related groups, continues to be the gravest we face.'' Director Mueller said, ``Al Qaeda continues to adapt and move forward with its desire to attack the United States using any means at its disposal. Their intent to attack us at home remains and their resolve to destroy America has never faltered.'' In addition, the threat was emphasized by the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Admiral Lowell Jacoby, who said, ``The threat from terrorism has not abated. . . . The primary threat for the foreseeable future is a network of Islamic extremists hostile to the United States and our interests. The network is transnational and has a broad range of capabilities to include mass casualty attacks.'' Most ominously of all, CIA Director Porter Goss emphasized that terrorists are doing all they can to acquire nuclear materials that can be used in a nuclear attack against any American city. He spoke specifically about the materials missing from Russian nuclear facilities. He said, ``There is sufficient material unaccounted for, so that it would be possible for those with know-how to construct a nuclear weapon.'' His assessment is that ``It may be a only a matter of time before Al Qaeda or another group attempts to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons.'' Defense Intelligence Agency Director Jacoby concurred, saying, ``We judge terrorist groups, particularly Al Qaeda, remain interested in chemical, biological radiological and nuclear weapons.'' Admiral James Loy, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security warned, ``Al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups have demonstrated an operational capability to conduct dramatic, mass-casualty attacks against both hard and soft targets inside the United States and abroad . . . The most severe threats revolve around al-Qaeda and its affiliates' long- standing intent to develop, procure, or acquire chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear, weapons for mass-casualty attacks.'' CIA Director Porter Goss also said that we've created a breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq and a cause worldwide for the continuing recruitment of anti-American extremists. His assessment was clear. ``The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists . . . Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists . . . These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups, and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.'' American forces served bravely and with great honor in Iraq. But the war in Iraq has made it more likely--not less likely--that we will face terrorist attacks in American cities, and not just the streets of Baghdad. The war has clearly made us less safe, and less secure. It has significantly increased the challenges to our intelligence community. And it underscores the vital need to have a Director of National Intelligence who understands that it is al-Qaida not Iraq-- that has always been and remains the greatest threat to our national security. In my view, we have no higher priority than to do everything we possibly can to track down and secure the nuclear materials missing from Russian stockpiles or from any other source that might be available to terrorists. The nuclear clock is ticking, and we are living on borrowed time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on June 2, 1955, the Governors of six New England States recognized the importance of higher education to the region and entered into the New England Higher Education Compact to share the region's higher education resources and to cooperate in meeting the needs of the New England workforce. The original signers of the New England Higher Education Compact were Governor Abraham Ribbicoff of Connecticut, Governor Edmund Muskie of Maine, Governor Christian Herter of Massachusetts, Governor Lane Dwinell of New Hampshire, Governor Dennis J. Roberts of Rhode Island and Governor Joseph B. Johnson of Vermont. The legislatures of the six States ratified the compact and the compact was approved by the United States Congress on August 30, 1954, and the New England Board of Higher Education was created as the interstate agency to carry out the mission of the compact. In 1957, the New England Board of Higher Education established what has become its flagship program, the New England Regional Student Program, to enable New England residents to pay reduced tuition at out- of-State public colleges and universities in the region when they enroll in degree programs not offered by their home State. The six New England States agreed in the compact to provide needed, acceptable, efficient educational resources and facilities to meet the needs of the New England workforce in the fields of medicine, public health, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and other fields of professional and graduate training. Access and affordability have become the hallmark of the Regional Student Program of the New England Board of Higher Education. The New England Board of Higher Education has, over the course of the last 50 years, saved New England students and their families millions of dollars in annual tuition bills. The New England Board of Higher Education provides professional development training to prepare the region's high school teachers and college faculty to teach in the fields of math, science and technology for thousands of New England's middle, high school and college students. The Excellence Through Diversity program of the New England Board of Higher Education provides an academic support network to inspire, inform and motivate underrepresented high school students to apply to college, performs research relating to underrepresented groups enrolled in science, technology, engineering and mathematics programs in New England, and supports efforts to increase the number of minority doctoral scholars at New England colleges and universities. Connection: The Journal of the New England Board of Higher Education is America's only regional magazine on higher education and economic development that provides a key policy forum for New England educators, business leaders, and policymakers to share best practices and current views on higher education and economic development. For the past 50 years, hundreds of New England's leading citizens in government, education, and business have served as delegates to the New England Board of Higher Education to encourage regional cooperation, increase educational opportunities for residents of the region, and strengthen the relationship between higher education and the region's economy. We join to congratulate the New England Board of Higher Education on the occasion of its 50th anniversary, and commend the New England Board of Higher Education for its service to New England residents and its commitment to excellence in higher education, and in particular, its distinguished Board of Delegates led by the Honorable Louis D'Allesandro of New Hampshire and its president and CEO, Dr. Evan S. Dobelle of Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues, Senators Bond, Talent, Johnson, and Isakson, in introducing the ``Arthritis Prevention, Control, and Cure Act of 2005'', and I commend them for their commitment to this important issue. The bill is the product of extensive cooperation and input from the arthritis community, including health providers, patients, and their families. Through this legislation we hope to lessen the burden of arthritis and other rheumatic diseases on citizens across the Nation. Seventy million adults--one of every three in the nation--suffer from arthritis or related conditions, and all ages are affected. Nearly two- thirds of its victims are under the age of 65, and 300,000 are children. Arthritis accounts for 4 million days of hospital care each year, and results in 44 million outpatient visits. It costs $51 million in annual medical care, and $86 million more in lost productivity. For 8 million Americans, it is an overwhelming hardship involving serious disability. In recent years, research into the prevention and treatment of arthritis has led to measures to improve the quality of life for large numbers of persons suffering from the disease. We know that early diagnosis, treatment, and appropriate management are key to success. A National Arthritis Action Plan has been developed that could provide timely information and more effective medical care nationwide, but less than one percent of persons with arthritis are benefiting from the knowledge. With a real commitment, we can bring the highest quality of care to everyone with arthritis. Our legislation will implement strategies to carry out the National Arthritis Action Plan. That means supporting prevention and treatment programs and developing education and outreach activities. It means coordinating and increasing research for prevention and treatment, and applying the results to every age group affected by the disease. We include planning grants to support innovative research on juvenile arthritis in order to develop better care and treatment for children, and collect data on its likely causes. We support training for health providers specializing in pediatric rheumatology, so that all children will have greater access to these uniquely qualified physicians. The legislation will improve the quality of life for large numbers of adults and children. It will save lives, reduce disability, and avoid millions of dollars in medical costs. Citizens everywhere will have greater access to the latest research and medical care to prevent and treat this debilitating disease. I urge our colleagues to support this much needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues, Senators Bond, Talent, Johnson, and Isakson, in introducing the ``Arthritis Prevention, Control, and Cure Act of 2005'', and I commend them for their commitment to this important issue. The bill is the product of extensive cooperation and input from the arthritis community, including health providers, patients, and their families. Through this legislation we hope to lessen the burden of arthritis and other rheumatic diseases on citizens across the Nation. Seventy million adults--one of every three in the nation--suffer from arthritis or related conditions, and all ages are affected. Nearly two- thirds of its victims are under the age of 65, and 300,000 are children. Arthritis accounts for 4 million days of hospital care each year, and results in 44 million outpatient visits. It costs $51 million in annual medical care, and $86 million more in lost productivity. For 8 million Americans, it is an overwhelming hardship involving serious disability. In recent years, research into the prevention and treatment of arthritis has led to measures to improve the quality of life for large numbers of persons suffering from the disease. We know that early diagnosis, treatment, and appropriate management are key to success. A National Arthritis Action Plan has been developed that could provide timely information and more effective medical care nationwide, but less than one percent of persons with arthritis are benefiting from the knowledge. With a real commitment, we can bring the highest quality of care to everyone with arthritis. Our legislation will implement strategies to carry out the National Arthritis Action Plan. That means supporting prevention and treatment programs and developing education and outreach activities. It means coordinating and increasing research for prevention and treatment, and applying the results to every age group affected by the disease. We include planning grants to support innovative research on juvenile arthritis in order to develop better care and treatment for children, and collect data on its likely causes. We support training for health providers specializing in pediatric rheumatology, so that all children will have greater access to these uniquely qualified physicians. The legislation will improve the quality of life for large numbers of adults and children. It will save lives, reduce disability, and avoid millions of dollars in medical costs. Citizens everywhere will have greater access to the latest research and medical care to prevent and treat this debilitating disease. I urge our colleagues to support this much needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before going up to the 3 o'clock briefing, I heard my friend--he is a friend and colleague of mine-- Senator Cornyn make comments about our leader, Senator Reid, accusing him and Democratic Senators of obstruction in the judicial nomination process earlier today. That sort of rhetoric may be good for sound bites, but it doesn't match the reality of the Senate's tradition or the Founding Fathers' vision in creating the checks and balances of our constitutional system. In the Constitutional Convention, they considered four different times who should have the authority about naming justices. On three of those four times, it was unanimous that the Senate of the United States was named. The last important decision the Constitutional Convention made was dividing the authority between the President and the Senate of the United States. Any reading of those debates will reaffirm that. With all respect to my colleague making comments about our leader, the Senator from Nevada, he clearly has not read carefully that Constitutional Convention. It says that we have a responsibility, a constitutional responsibility to exercise our will on these matters. Historically, the record shows more than 98 percent of the President's nominees have been approved. In fairness to my friend who can speak for himself and does that very well and does not need me here, as to these attacks on Senator Reid, it is important to understand the facts and get them correct if we are going to have those interventions in the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first I commend my friend and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Enzi, for his leadership in reporting out this legislation. As he has outlined, and as I will speak to in a moment, it is a matter of enormous importance to millions of Americans. He has outlined the reasons for that. When we think back to the time Senator Snowe and others introduced this legislation a number of years ago, there was a great deal of apprehension, a great deal of concern, and a good deal of opposition to this over that period of time. Due to a good deal of very hard, diligent work by the chairman here, by our staffs, and by many others on our committees, especially Senator Jeffords and Senator Gregg, Senator Dodd, Senator Harkin, Senator Clinton, as well as Senator Olympia Snowe, we are about to successfully pass this legislation in a very strong bipartisan way, and they deserve great commendation at this time. I hope that with very strong bipartisan support it will send a good message to the House of Representatives that it is worthy to be done, necessary to be done, and has the great and overwhelming support of the American people. I hope we will see action. I also thank the majority leader for scheduling this bill and giving it priority. As all of us know, Bill Frist, a physician, knows the extraordinary potential of genetic research and its importance in improving the quality of medical care and in preventing, treating, and curing disease. I want to express our great appreciation to him for giving us the opportunity to speak this afternoon, with the completion of this bill either this evening or tomorrow. We thank him as well. Throughout our history, the Nation has moved toward a more fair and more just society, often with great difficulty. Along the way, we had setbacks, even some failures. But we have had significant triumphs, too, especially in this past half century. In 1964 the Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act to end one of the great evils of our time, discrimination against millions of our fellow citizens based on their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In 1965 we passed the Voting Rights Act to end discrimination in the right to vote. In 1967, we passed another important law prohibiting age discrimination in employment. In 1990, we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act to end discrimination against citizens with mental or physical handicaps. In 1991, we strengthened the vital protections against job discrimination established in the 1964 Act. Today we take another step in our national journey to a fairer and more just America by approving important legislation to end another insidious form of bias--discrimination based on the most personal aspect of any individuals, their unique genetic code. Four years ago, we celebrated an accomplishment that once seemed unimaginable--deciphering the entire sequence of the human DNA code. This amazing accomplishment may well affect the 21st century as profoundly as the invention of the computer or the splitting of the atom affected the 20th century. I personally believe this is the century of the life sciences with the greatest kind of hope and opportunity for progress in the life science area. To cite but one example of why this legislation is so important, it was this new knowledge that enabled scientists to decipher the DNA sequence of the SARS virus only weeks after it was first identified. The extraordinary promise of science to improve health and relieve suffering is in jeopardy, however, if our laws fail to provide adequate protections against abuse and misuse of genetic information. The bipartisan bill the Senate considers today prohibits health insurers from using genetic information to deny health coverage or raise premiums. It bars employers from using genetic information to make employment decisions. It prohibits insurers and employers from seeking genetic information, or requesting or requiring individuals to take genetic tests. It bars disclosure of genetic information by an insurer or employer, and provides effective remedies so that anyone who has suffered genetic discrimination can obtain relief. Congress took an initial step in the right direction when we passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. That landmark law established important protections to ensure that those who change their job or lose their job would not also lose their health insurance. It included also a prohibition on genetic discrimination in group health insurance. The pending bill extends that prohibition to many other types of genetic discrimination, and I commend our colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, has been a principal leader on this vital issue for many years. I also commend our distinguished chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Enzi, for his impressive commitment to enacting this needed legislation by making it one of the very first items for committee action under his leadership. Other members of our committee have given time, energy and ideas to this important issue, especially Senator Jeffords, Senator Gregg, Senator Dodd, and Senator Harkin. Our majority leader deserves great credit as well. As a physician, he knows the extraordinary potential of genetic research to improve the quality of medical care and prevent, treat, and cure disease. Hopefully, the bipartisan momentum will lead to an enactment of legislation this year. Few kinds of information are more personal or more private than a person's genetic makeup. This information should not be shared by insurers or employers, or be used in decisions about health coverage or a job. It should only be used by patients and their doctors to make the best possible decisions on diagnosis and treatment. I hope we can all agree that discrimination on the basis of a person's genetic traits is as unacceptable as discrimination on the basis of race or religion. No American should be denied health insurance or fired from a job because of a genetic test. Last fall, witnesses on a panel of the National Institutes of Health testified about their first hand accounts of genetic discrimination. Even though they will never develop the disease, Heidi Williams' children were denied health insurance coverage because they are carriers for a genetic disorder. Phil Hardt's children feared discrimination so much that they sought genetic tests in secret, paying out of their own pockets and not using their real names. During hearings in the House, Gary Avary told how his employer, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, required any employee with carpal tunnel syndrome to have a genetic test. Employees who refused were threatened with penalties, or even the loss of their jobs. Terri Seargent was discharged from her job at a private firm in North Carolina in 1999, 2 months after beginning very expensive treatment for a disease that was covered by her employer's health insurance plan. Since joining her employer in 1996, she had received positive annual performance ratings and generous annual raises. Yet she lost her job soon after the special treatment began. Fear of genetic discrimination also prevents people from having genetic tests for hereditary cancer, which would provide them with life-saving information to help them prevent the onset of cancer or increase the likelihood of early diagnosis. In a recent study, only 57 percent of women decided to undergo testing for mutations in the breast cancer genes and only 43 percent of those at risk for colon cancer chose to have genetic testing. People fear cancer, but many also fear losing their jobs or their health insurance even more. Experts in genetics are united in calling for strong protections to prevent this misuse and abuse of science. The HHS advisory panel on genetic testing--with experts in law, science, medicine and business--has recommended unambiguously that federal legislation is needed to prohibit discrimination in employment or health insurance based on genetic information. Francis Collins, the leader of the NIH project to sequence the human genome, said: Genetic information and genetic technology can be used in ways that are fundamentally unjust . . . Already, people have lost their jobs, lost their health insurance, and lost their economic well-being because of the misuse of genetic information. Genetic tests are becoming even cheaper today and more widely available. If we don't ban discrimination now, it may soon be routine for employers to use genetic tests to deny jobs to employees, based on their risk for disease. When Congress enacts clear protections against genetic discrimination in employment and health insurance, all Americans will be able to enjoy the benefits of genetic research, free from the fear that their personal genetic information will be used against them. If Congress fails to guarantee that genetic information is used only for legitimate purposes, we will squander the vast potential of genetic research to improve the nation's health. Effective enforcement of the ban will also be essential. It makes no sense to enact legislation giving the American people the promise of protection against this form of discrimination, and then deny them the reality of that protection. President Bush recognizes the seriousness of this problem, and supports a ban on genetic discrimination. As he said on June 26, 2001, ``genetic information should be an opportunity to prevent and treat disease, not an excuse for discrimination. Just as our nation addressed discrimination based on race, we must now prevent discrimination based on genetic information.'' I commend the President for his support, and I look forward to working with the administration to see that a strong bill on genetic discrimination is signed into law this year. It is time for Congress to act, and I urge the Senate to pass this bipartisan bill with the broadest possible support. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the strong statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics. They are concerned that discrimination will deny families access to health insurance for their children.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the American Cancer Society supports our legislation. The American Osteopathic Association says access to health care should not be restricted on the basis of genetic testing. The American Society for Human Genetics; the biotechnology industry--all have made very important statements in support of this legislation, along with other organizations. We suggest, for those who are following this debate, to refer to a July 2004 report titled ``Faces of Genetic Discrimination'' from the Coalition for Genetic Fairness. This is a wonderful document that I think has so much information. It lists the wide range of groups supporting this legislation, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Society for Human Genetics, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Hadassah, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the National Organizations of Rare Disorders, the National Workrights Institute, and the Society for Women's Health Research. It is a wonderful document that outlines the history and the opportunity of genetic research and technology.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes. I had mentioned earlier the great leadership that the Senator from Maine has been providing. She has been a noble soul since the very cold winter when she first introduced this legislation. Now she deserves great credit that we are at point. Just on that point, I wish to recognize Representative Slaughter in the House of Representatives. She has been a great advocate over a long period of time. I want the Senate Record to reflect that. I also want the Record to reflect the fact that President Clinton issued an Executive order banning genetic discrimination against Federal employees in the year 2000. It was limited, obviously, with his authority and power, to just Federal employees but, nonetheless, it was a significant step at that time. I also draw attention to the strong support President Bush has given to this undertaking. In a radio broadcast, actually in 2001, he stated: Genetic discrimination is unfair to workers and their families. In that same radio broadcast he also stated: To deny employment or insurance to a healthy person based only on predisposition violates our country's belief in equal treatment and individual merit. We also have the strong letter of support from the Secretary of HHS, Tommy Thompson, from last year. There is also the statement from the administration, this year, in support. I just mention one final point. Out at the National Institutes of Health, where they really do the best of the research--it is really the gold standard of research--they have important genetic research out there. In their information sheet, they have what we call the consent form. This is the consent form that any individual who wants to participate in genetic research at NIH signs. It says: We will not release any information about you or your family to your insurance company or employer without your permission. However, instances are known in which genetic information has been obtained through legal means by third parties. This may affect you or your family's ability to get health insurance and/or a job. Here is the premier workplace in the world doing the most significant, important research in genetics, which is so incredibly important, just raising this as a very real potential danger. It will not be a danger when we get this legislation passed into law. Finally, I also commend my friend, and our former leader, Senator Daschle, who had introduced important legislation in 1997 on this very subject matter. He was one of the early leaders in this battle. Mr. President, I think we have speakers who are on their way. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 gives the President and the U.S. Trade Representative the power to negotiate bilateral and multilateral trade agreements that must be given expedited consideration by Congress. The Doha Declaration was adopted by the World Trade Organization at the Fourth Ministerial Conference at Doha, Qatar, on November 14, 2001, and addresses the need for access to medicines for all and how to reconcile that need with intellectual property protections. When the Trade Act came to the floor of the Senate, Senator Feinstein and I offered an amendment to the section on the negotiating objectives of the United States in trade negotiations. Our amendment made it a principal objective of the United States to respect the Doha Declaration in all trade negotiations. Regrettably, in several trade agreements since then, administration has refused to fulfill this obligation. The basic issue was the interpretation of the so-called TRIPS agreement on intellectual property protections such as patents and copyright. The Doha Declaration specifically states that the TRIPS agreement ``does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health.'' It recognized the need to interpret and implement TRIPS in a way that supports a nation's ``right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all.'' The Doha Declaration went on to specify that ``[e]ach member country has the right to grant compulsory licenses and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such licenses are granted.'' It stated that each member nation is ``free to establish its own regime'' on whether a sale of a patented product by the patent owner or licensee exhausts the patent, so that it cannot be asserted against subsequent purchasers or users of the product. The Doha Declaration recognized a basic principle--poor people in the developing nations often cannot afford many patented drugs, even though the drugs are their only hope for surviving AIDS and other serious and life-threatening diseases. The Doha Declaration is clearly intended to prevent patents from blocking access to life-saving drugs. Developing nations obviously do not have the capacity to manufacture drugs themselves, and they must be free to purchase these drugs from another country. Our amendment to the Trade Promotion Authority Act reinforces the Doha Declaration. The Bush administration should be using it to negotiate trade agreements that allow urgently needed access to medicines. Instead, the administration has used trade agreements to promote the interests of the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of access to drugs in developing nations. Again and again, the administration has defied the Doha Declaration and imposed unjustified restrictions on the availability of patented drugs. They've done it on trade agreements with Australia, with Jordan, with Morocco, with Singapore, and other nations. In these agreements, the Bush administration has undermined the very core of the Doha Declaration. They're trying to do it now in the Central American Free Trade Agreement. They block the approval and use of generic version of drugs. They prevent new treatments for HIV/AIDS from getting to the people of the developing world. It's an outrageous policy. The administration has made it U.S. policy to block affordable, life-saving drugs for AIDS for the people of Central America, because they feel it's more important to protect the profits of brand name drug companies.. The administration is defying the statutory requirement of the Doha Declaration, that our objective in these agreements must be to guarantee access to essential drugs for the sick and the poor in the developing nations of the world. They use countless legal tactics to cause delays in the approval of generic drugs in developing countries, even when patents are invalid or are not infringed at all by the generic drug. In essence, the administration has set up a bottleneck to prevent approval of generic drugs in many countries of the developing world. That's completely at odds with the Doha Declaration. U.S. law allows a generic drug company to use a patented drug to develop a generic version of the drug before the patent has expired. It takes time to develop a drug, test it, and have it reviewed by the FDA. The theory of the law is that a generic drug company should be able to complete this approval process before the patent expires, so that developing countries can get generic versions of drugs as quickly as possible. That process is permitted by TRIPS, which means it is permitted by the trade agreements the administration has negotiated. It is not required by those agreements, however, and the administration has not tried to include it. In fact, they give brand name drug companies the opportunity to block that process in each of these developing countries. It's another example of the administration cynically protecting the interests of the brand name drug companies in violation of the law. The administration claims that its tactics are consistent with another objective of the Trade Act, which is to seek standards for intellectual property protection and enforcement in other countries. That's true, but it's in the same provision in the act as the Doha Declaration. The administration has a good track record in protecting the brand name drug industry, but it has never gotten even one provision that respects the Doha Declaration. Selectively interpreting laws to apply one provision and ignore another is unacceptable. It's no secret that the brand name drug companies want better patents and longer exclusivities in the United States. But it's wrong for the administration to side with them in trade agreements that defy the Doha Declaration. The administration has systematically blocked Congress from changing intellectual property protections except in ways that benefit brand name drug companies. It gets even worse. When brand name drug companies successfully lobby for protections under the laws of our trading partners that are greater than those under U.S. law, the industry then argues that the United States should ``harmonize'' its intellectual property protections with those of our trading partners. That's a slap in the face to Congress and the American people. They should not be forced by the Bush administration to endure even higher drug prices than they do today. The question is: What should be done to put real teeth in Doha Declaration in trade negotiations? First, the administration should follow U.S. law and respect the declaration in future negotiations, such as those about to begin with the nations of the Andes. It should immediately stop seeking intellectual property protections that prevent access to medicines for all and should start to seek those that promote greater access to medicines for all. Second, the negotiators for countries of the developed and developing world should stop every time the U.S. Trade Representative asks for an intellectual property provision, especially one directed specifically at drug patents or drug data exclusivity, and ask how that provision affects access to needed drugs. The U.S. Trade Representative should not be surprised if negotiators from developing nations refuse to accept restrictive provisions that violate the Doha Declaration. They should challenge our Trade Representative to obey the rule of law. And here in Congress, we have to do a better job of insisting that our trade agreements comply with the letter and the spirit of the Doha Declaration. It's the law of the land, and it's a matter of life and death for hundreds of millions of people in other lands. The tactics we are so shamefully using against them can only breed greater resentment and greater hatred of the United States. And we can't afford to let that happen at this critical time in our role in the world. I ask unanimous consent that a brief description of provisions in trade agreements that violate the Doha Declaration be printed in the Record as a technical appendix.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, we are in a period for morning business?

Mr. KENNEDY. Is there a time limit on statements in morning business?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Mr. Chertoff to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. He brings a wealth of experience to this position and that experience will serve him well, because the challenges facing this department in the post 9/ 11 era continue to be immense. The agency can never afford to drop its guard for a moment. From protecting our borders to managing difficult immigration issues, Mr. Chertoff will be at the heart of many of the country's most complex security issues. Just under 2 years ago, the Department of Homeland Security was created in the largest overhaul of Federal agencies in more than half a century. It merged 185,000 Federal workers and 22 agencies in order to create a more national effort to protect ourselves in the wake of September 11. It is a job that requires overseeing the development of innovative methodologies and techniques to prevent and deter terrorist attacks. It requires rapid response to threats and hazards, and it requires effective information analysis and information sharing between agencies at all levels--Federal, State and local. The Secretary's job is to strengthen and maintain the security of our airports, seaports and land borders. But, equally important is the Secretary's ability to welcome the more than 500 million citizens, permanent residents, lawful visitors, students, and temporary workers who cross our borders each year. As Secretary, Mr. Chertoff will have a major role on immigration policy. One of the most important responsibilities of his position is to see that the immigration service and enforcement functions are well- coordinated, and that the service functions are not given short shrift. Without strong leadership and the insistence on close coordination, the officials in the various immigration bureaus of the department are prone to issue conflicting policies and legal interpretations and create disarray in the department's mission. Questions have been raised about Mr. Chertoff's role in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice in developing the investigative strategy that led to the department's detention of hundreds of immigrants after 9/11. According to the report of the department's Inspector General in June 2003, there were ``significant problems in the way the detainees were handled.'' There were also problems that included a failure to distinguish detainees suspected of ties to terrorism from detainees with no such connection. The Inspector General found there was inhumane treatment of detainees at Federal detention centers, unnecessarily prolonged detention resulting from the department's ``hold until cleared'' policy, secret detentions without formal charges, interference with access to counsel, and closed hearings. I met with Judge Chertoff and raised my concerns about these detainees and his role in formulating the policy. He recognized and understood that significant problems had occurred at the Justice Department in the treatment of the detainees and indicated a willingness to re-evaluate current policies and put in place protocols to prevent these abuses from recurring. Unfortunately, the administration has not been nearly as accommodating. It has refused to provide vital documents to the two Senate Committees charged with oversight over the Department of Homeland Security, the Homeland Security and Government Accountability Committee and the Judiciary Committee. Specifically, the administration continues to play hide and seek with documents that would shed light on the issues of torture and interrogation. In doing so, the administration persists in displaying a disturbing disregard for our constitutional role in Presidential nominations. By refusing to come clean and provide necessary documents, and by discouraging responsiveness and candor from its nominees on the issue of torture, the administration is only making the crisis worse, further embarrassing the Nation in the eyes of the world, and casting greater doubt on its commitment to the rule of law. As Senator Levin has emphasized, FBI e-mails state that while Mr. Chertoff headed the Criminal Division, discussions occurred between the FBI and the Justice Department about interrogation abuses. The e-mails indicate that FBI personnel were deeply concerned about the interrogation techniques being used at Guantanamo Bay by the Department of Defense and the FBI communicated their concerns directly to certain persons in the Criminal Division. The e-mails in their public form, however, were heavily redacted to avoid disclosing who spoke to whom. Although the e-mails were never provided by the administration to the Senate, we were able to obtain the documents in the same way as the general public obtained them, by surfing the web for the redacted documents as released in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Senator Levin and Senator Lieberman asked for the unedited version of the e-mails in order to learn who in the FBI communicated the information and who in the Criminal Division received it. The request was denied, even though the information might well have been highly relevant to our consideration of Mr. Chertoff's nomination. It is beyond debate that our advice and consent function under the constitution includes inquiries into matters which may reflect on the nominee. Mr. Chertoff may have no knowledge about the e-mails or the FBI discussion, but part of our constitutional obligation is to obtain enough information to make an informed decision. The American people deserve to know whether we have done our constitutional job responsibly. Senator Levin has already spoken passionately about the stiff-arm that he and Senator Lieberman and their committee received from the Department of Justice as they sought to give meaning to the words ``advice and consent.'' From the text of the redacted version, it's obvious that Mr. Chertoff should have been asked about the torture issues in the depth that the documents would have enabled. He was head of the Criminal Division during the relevant time period. Naturally, they asked to see the unredacted version of the document prior to any vote on the nomination. But the administration flatly refused to cooperate. The White House could easily have provided the documents only to Senators and to staff with appropriate security clearances. It did not. Instead, it concealed the full text of the e-mails in what amounts to an obvious coverup. In addition, Senator Leahy and I sent a letter to the Department of Justice on February 4, asking it to provide a separate department document which reportedly advised the CIA on the legality of specific interrogation techniques at a time when Mr. Chertoff was head of the Criminal Division. Again, the administration refused to provide it, claiming that its contents were classified, even though Senators are cleared to review classified material. Our problems with the administration on this nomination, however, pale in comparison with the failure of the Senate Republican majority to carry out its own constitutional responsibilities on this nomination. Instead of insisting on adequate answers to the questions raised by the documents, they have acquiesced in the administration's coverup and abdicated their own independent constitutional responsibility to provide ``advice and consent'' on Presidential nominations. They have allowed partisanship to trump the Constitution. In effect, the Republican Senate is acting as George Bush's poodle. The Founders of our country would be appalled at what has happened in this case. Obvious questions about this nomination have gone unanswered, and the Republican leadership of the Senate, instead of meeting its constitutional responsibility to seek answers, rolls over and shirks its duty to see that the Senate's consent on this nomination is an informed consent, not a blatantly defective consent. The Founders of our country did not create a parliamentary democracy. They created a democracy based on the fundamental principle of separation of powers with the Congress and the Judiciary acting as checks and balances on the power of the President We ignore that fundamental principle at our peril. A major issue in the 2006 congressional elections will clearly be the rubberstamp Congress. The refusal by the Republican Senate majority to exercise its constitutional responsibilities on this nomination is a flagrant example of that problem. An essential part of winning the war on terrorism and protecting the country for the future is protecting the ideals and values that America stands for here at home and around the world. That means standing up against torture. It means shedding light on an administration that prefers to act in darkness. It also means living up to our oath of office as Senators to protect and defend the Constitution. The checks and balances in the Constitution are essential to our democracy and a continuing source of our country's strength. They are not obstacles or inconveniences to be jettisoned in times of crisis. We owe it to those who come after us to be vigilant. Republicans and Democrats alike must insist that our constitutional obligations and prerogatives be respected. I hope very much that this blatant abdication of our constitutional responsibility will not be repeated. Regardless of the difficulties we have faced in obtaining these important documents, I am looking forward to working closely with Mr. Chertoff. His long history of government service and dedication to the public good are impressive. He has left the security of lifetime tenure on the federal bench to accept the challenge of steering the Department of Homeland Security through difficult waters. His willingness to respond to the President's call speaks well of his character. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I submitted this resolution, S. Res. 45, paying tribute to John Hume. Throughout the long and difficult years of civil strife and turmoil, John dedicated himself to achieving a peaceful, just, and lasting settlement of the conflict in Northern Ireland. I have known John for over 30 years, and he has always been one of the people I have admired most in the world. I have consistently been impressed by his insights, his commitment to peace, and his dedication to the people of Northern Ireland. He is truly a profile in courage, and he won the Nobel Prize for it in 1998. I first contacted John in 1972, shortly after he founded the Social Democratic and Labour Party in Northern Ireland. I was planning a trip to Western Europe for a NATO meeting in Bonn. I was concerned about the violence erupting in Northern Ireland, and I was told that John Hume was the best person to see in the North. So I called him in Derry, and said: ``Mr. Hume, it's Ted Kennedy. I understand you're the person to talk to about what's going on over there.'' He didn't believe it. He said: ``Pull my other leg.'' I resisted though and told him that I would be in Bonn for the meeting of NATO. He graciously agreed to meet me there, and it was the beginning of our extraordinary friendship over the years. John has been an indispensable voice for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. His call for respect for both the Catholic and the Protestant traditions has been eloquent and historic for more than three decades. In a very real sense, it was John who, in large part, became the glue that held Northern Ireland together, halted the descent into anarchy and civil war, and produced realistic hope for peace and further progress. In 1983, largely as a result of John's efforts, the principal political parties in Ireland and the SDLP in Northern Ireland established what was called the New Ireland Forum. It developed new ideas for peace, and prepared a landmark report that laid the groundwork for an unprecedented, new initiative on the North between Britain and Ireland, culminating in 1985 with the signing of the historic Anglo-Irish Agreement by Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain and Garret FitzGerald of Ireland. That in turn led to the cease-fire by the Irish Republican Army in 1994, the famous Good Friday Agreement in 1998, and the further progress that has brought both sides so close to a permanent peace today. John has been a familiar face to many of us in the United States over the years. Perhaps his greatest achievement was educating Irish America about the conflict and the most effective way forward. The civil rights movement in the United States in the 1960s planted the seed for a comparable movement by the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. But, as the movement gained strength, it encountered intense resistance, and there was a very real feeling that violence was the only path to a better future. Much of Irish America agreed with that view, and there was a strong financial support in the United States for the IRA. John Hume changed all that. He became an apostle of nonviolence, just as Martin Luther King did at a critical time in our own civil rights movement. The violence began to ebb, and more and more citizens in Northern Ireland recognized that peaceful change could be achieved in a way that would benefit people of both communities in the North. Others had important roles as well, but at a critical time in the history of Northern Ireland, John Hume stepped up and led the way toward peace, and history will honor him forever for all he did so well. The pending resolution pays tribute to John Hume's brilliant achievements in the cause of peace for all the people of Northern Ireland, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it should be our common purpose to extend the promise of a quality education to all from birth through college. The strength, security, and future of our Nation lie in the education and character of our people. Every student with the talent, desire, and drive to go to college should be able to go to college, unstopped by inability to pay. Jobs requiring post-secondary education are expected to account for over 40 percent of total job growth over the next decade. Workers with a bachelor's degree earn $1 million more over a lifetime than workers without a degree. But only 40 percent of whites, 30 percent of African Americans, and 16 percent of Latinos age 18 to 24 attend college. Just as unsettling, is that over 40 percent of those who do attend college fail to earn a bachelor's degree within 6 years of their initial enrollment, and for minorities the percentage is far worse. We have to do more to help qualified students attend and finish college unburdened by crushing debt, and we must do more to help colleges train more and better teachers so that future college students are better prepared. Today, along with Democratic colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I am introducing the College Quality, Affordability, and Diversity Improvement, QUAD, Act of 2005 to highlight our proposals to extend college opportunity. First and foremost, our bill helps more needy and middle class students be able to attend college. It increases the maximum Pell grant by $1,000 next year in order to keep pace with tuition increases. It doubles the maximum Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, makes it available for 4 years of education instead of the current 2, and makes it refundable. Our bill helps alleviate student debt burden by eliminating origination fees on subsidized loans. It enables over 5 million borrowers with consolidated loans to refinance their loans just as they would a home mortgage to take advantage of lower interest rates. Our bill provides a new incentive to colleges to go into the Direct Loan program. The Direct Loan program saves the government and taxpayers money--11 cents on every dollar lent, according to the President's latest budget and Congressional Budget Office estimates. Under this bill, no one is forced into the Direct Loan program, but colleges in that cost-efficient program will get more funding dedicated to helping needy students. If private lenders are inspired to match or beat Direct Loan program associated benefits with their ``school as lender'' program, so be it. Either way, this proposal is a win for colleges, students and taxpayers. Our bill provides increased support for minority and first-generation college students through increased funding for successful programs such as TRIO and GEAR Up, as well as support for minority-serving institutions. It also creates a new program to help ensure poor and minority students stay in and finish college. To help meet our goal under No Child Left Behind to ensure a qualified teacher in every classroom, the bill expands and strengthens programs to recruit, train, and retain highly qualified teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, and superintendents. Because of the high costs of higher education for everyone, and because each individual's private interest in a college education is in our common interest, our bill works to help both low-income and hard- pressed middle income families send their children to college and graduate. I hope the majority will look carefully at all the proposals contained in this legislation to see where we can find common ground. We should all commit that cost will never be a barrier to a college degree. Just as Social Security is a promise to senior citizens, we should make ``education security'' a promise to every young American. If you work hard, if you finish high school, if you are admitted to a college, we will guarantee that you can afford the cost of college education. That should be a goal we can all agree on.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it should be our common purpose to extend the promise of a quality education to all from birth through college. The strength, security, and future of our Nation lie in the education and character of our people. Every student with the talent, desire, and drive to go to college should be able to go to college, unstopped by inability to pay. Jobs requiring post-secondary education are expected to account for over 40 percent of total job growth over the next decade. Workers with a bachelor's degree earn $1 million more over a lifetime than workers without a degree. But only 40 percent of whites, 30 percent of African Americans, and 16 percent of Latinos age 18 to 24 attend college. Just as unsettling, is that over 40 percent of those who do attend college fail to earn a bachelor's degree within 6 years of their initial enrollment, and for minorities the percentage is far worse. We have to do more to help qualified students attend and finish college unburdened by crushing debt, and we must do more to help colleges train more and better teachers so that future college students are better prepared. Today, along with Democratic colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I am introducing the College Quality, Affordability, and Diversity Improvement, QUAD, Act of 2005 to highlight our proposals to extend college opportunity. First and foremost, our bill helps more needy and middle class students be able to attend college. It increases the maximum Pell grant by $1,000 next year in order to keep pace with tuition increases. It doubles the maximum Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, makes it available for 4 years of education instead of the current 2, and makes it refundable. Our bill helps alleviate student debt burden by eliminating origination fees on subsidized loans. It enables over 5 million borrowers with consolidated loans to refinance their loans just as they would a home mortgage to take advantage of lower interest rates. Our bill provides a new incentive to colleges to go into the Direct Loan program. The Direct Loan program saves the government and taxpayers money--11 cents on every dollar lent, according to the President's latest budget and Congressional Budget Office estimates. Under this bill, no one is forced into the Direct Loan program, but colleges in that cost-efficient program will get more funding dedicated to helping needy students. If private lenders are inspired to match or beat Direct Loan program associated benefits with their ``school as lender'' program, so be it. Either way, this proposal is a win for colleges, students and taxpayers. Our bill provides increased support for minority and first-generation college students through increased funding for successful programs such as TRIO and GEAR Up, as well as support for minority-serving institutions. It also creates a new program to help ensure poor and minority students stay in and finish college. To help meet our goal under No Child Left Behind to ensure a qualified teacher in every classroom, the bill expands and strengthens programs to recruit, train, and retain highly qualified teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, and superintendents. Because of the high costs of higher education for everyone, and because each individual's private interest in a college education is in our common interest, our bill works to help both low-income and hard- pressed middle income families send their children to college and graduate. I hope the majority will look carefully at all the proposals contained in this legislation to see where we can find common ground. We should all commit that cost will never be a barrier to a college degree. Just as Social Security is a promise to senior citizens, we should make ``education security'' a promise to every young American. If you work hard, if you finish high school, if you are admitted to a college, we will guarantee that you can afford the cost of college education. That should be a goal we can all agree on.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senators Kerry, Clinton, Sarbanes, Corzine, Mikulski, Dodd, Levin, Reed, Lieberman, Feingold, Inouye, and Akaka in introducing the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act. Current Federal safety standards limit work hours for pilots, flight attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professionals, in order to protect the public safety. However, no similar limitation currently exists for the nation's nurses, who care for so many of our most vulnerable citizens. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act will limit mandatory overtime for nurses in order to protect patient safety and improve working conditions for nurses. Across the country, the widespread practice of mandatory overtime means that over-worked nurses are often providing care in unacceptable circumstances. A recent study from the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing found that nurses who work shifts of twelve and a half hours or more are three times more likely to commit an error than nurses who work a standard shift of eight and a half hours or less. Restrictions for mandatory overtime will help ensure that nurses are able to provide the highest quality of care to their patients. Some hospitals have already taken action to deal with this serious problem. Over the last few years in Massachusetts, Brockton Hospital and St. Vincent Hospital agreed to limit mandatory overtime as part of negotiations following successful strikes by nurses. These limits will protect patients and improve working conditions for the nurses, and will help in the recruitment and retention of nurses in the future. Job dissatisfaction and harsh overtime hours are major factors in the current shortage of nurses. Nationally, the shortfall is expected to rise to 20 percent in coming years. A major goal of the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act is to improve the quality of life for nurses, so that more persons will enter the nursing profession and remain in it. Improving conditions for nurses is an essential part of our ongoing effort to reduce medical errors, improve patient outcomes, and encourage more Americans to become and remain nurses. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act is a significant step that Congress can take to support better quality care for all Americans, and improve working conditions for our nation's nurses, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senators Kerry, Clinton, Sarbanes, Corzine, Mikulski, Dodd, Levin, Reed, Lieberman, Feingold, Inouye, and Akaka in introducing the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act. Current Federal safety standards limit work hours for pilots, flight attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professionals, in order to protect the public safety. However, no similar limitation currently exists for the nation's nurses, who care for so many of our most vulnerable citizens. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act will limit mandatory overtime for nurses in order to protect patient safety and improve working conditions for nurses. Across the country, the widespread practice of mandatory overtime means that over-worked nurses are often providing care in unacceptable circumstances. A recent study from the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing found that nurses who work shifts of twelve and a half hours or more are three times more likely to commit an error than nurses who work a standard shift of eight and a half hours or less. Restrictions for mandatory overtime will help ensure that nurses are able to provide the highest quality of care to their patients. Some hospitals have already taken action to deal with this serious problem. Over the last few years in Massachusetts, Brockton Hospital and St. Vincent Hospital agreed to limit mandatory overtime as part of negotiations following successful strikes by nurses. These limits will protect patients and improve working conditions for the nurses, and will help in the recruitment and retention of nurses in the future. Job dissatisfaction and harsh overtime hours are major factors in the current shortage of nurses. Nationally, the shortfall is expected to rise to 20 percent in coming years. A major goal of the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act is to improve the quality of life for nurses, so that more persons will enter the nursing profession and remain in it. Improving conditions for nurses is an essential part of our ongoing effort to reduce medical errors, improve patient outcomes, and encourage more Americans to become and remain nurses. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act is a significant step that Congress can take to support better quality care for all Americans, and improve working conditions for our nation's nurses, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, my intention was just to call it up. If I could have the attention of the leader? It was just to call it up, have it before the Senate. We have other Senators who want to speak. Then I will speak on it later, after my colleagues speak. Could I have the opportunity to call up my amendment and just have it before the Senate?

Mr. KENNEDY. That will be plenty.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and call up my amendment, No. 2, which is at the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, because of other Members' schedules, they want to address this and other issues at this time. I intend to come back and have a more complete statement. This is about discrimination. It is also about a worker's rights. Those were issues that were never intended to be included in this class action legislation. I will have more to say about it, but it is an extremely important amendment. I will address the Senate on this issue in a very short period of time. I thank the floor managers for their courtesies in letting us get this matter up. Hopefully, we will have a chance midafternoon to have a vote on it.