Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues Senators Leahy, Dodd, Bingaman, Kerry, Harkin, Mikulski, Akaka, Boxer, Feingold, Murray, Durbin, Schumer, Cantwell, Clinton, Lautenberg, Obama, Menendez, Cardin, and Brown in introducing the Civil Rights Act of 2008. This legislation is vital to realizing the full promise of our civil rights laws and labor laws to protect all of America's people. Civil rights is still the unfinished business of America. Prejudice, discrimination, and outright bigotry continue to limit the lives of large numbers of our people. Unfortunately, in recent years, the Supreme Court has rolled back some of the core statutory protections for civil rights and workers' rights. The Civil Rights Act of 2008 will strengthen existing civil rights protections and restore the bedrock principle that individuals may challenge all forms of discrimination in public services. It has long been clear that effective enforcement of civil rights and fair labor practices is possible only if individuals themselves are able to seek relief in court. Our legislation will strengthen existing protections in cases where the courts have let us down by narrowing individuals' right to demand accountability for discrimination. Key elements of our proposals will make it easier for working women to enforce their right to equal pay for equal work. Our bill enhances protections against discrimination in federally funded services, and enacts needed safeguards for students who are harassed because of their national origin, gender, race, or disability. We make sure that victims of discrimination and unfair labor practices can receive meaningful damages where appropriate. Our legislation will also enable members of our Armed Forces to enforce their Federal right to be free from discrimination by States because of their military status. In addition, our legislation will ensure that older workers who suffer age discrimination are not denied the chance to seek relief because they work for a State government. It will also prevent employers from requiring workers to sign away their right to bring discrimination claims and fair labor claims in court, in order to obtain a job or keep a job. This bill is a needed step in restoring the effective remedies that our civil rights laws and fair labor laws must have in order to ensure accountability for discrimination. America will never be America until we do.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues Senators Leahy, Dodd, Bingaman, Kerry, Harkin, Mikulski, Akaka, Boxer, Feingold, Murray, Durbin, Schumer, Cantwell, Clinton, Lautenberg, Obama, Menendez, Cardin, and Brown in introducing the Civil Rights Act of 2008. This legislation is vital to realizing the full promise of our civil rights laws and labor laws to protect all of America's people. Civil rights is still the unfinished business of America. Prejudice, discrimination, and outright bigotry continue to limit the lives of large numbers of our people. Unfortunately, in recent years, the Supreme Court has rolled back some of the core statutory protections for civil rights and workers' rights. The Civil Rights Act of 2008 will strengthen existing civil rights protections and restore the bedrock principle that individuals may challenge all forms of discrimination in public services. It has long been clear that effective enforcement of civil rights and fair labor practices is possible only if individuals themselves are able to seek relief in court. Our legislation will strengthen existing protections in cases where the courts have let us down by narrowing individuals' right to demand accountability for discrimination. Key elements of our proposals will make it easier for working women to enforce their right to equal pay for equal work. Our bill enhances protections against discrimination in federally funded services, and enacts needed safeguards for students who are harassed because of their national origin, gender, race, or disability. We make sure that victims of discrimination and unfair labor practices can receive meaningful damages where appropriate. Our legislation will also enable members of our Armed Forces to enforce their Federal right to be free from discrimination by States because of their military status. In addition, our legislation will ensure that older workers who suffer age discrimination are not denied the chance to seek relief because they work for a State government. It will also prevent employers from requiring workers to sign away their right to bring discrimination claims and fair labor claims in court, in order to obtain a job or keep a job. This bill is a needed step in restoring the effective remedies that our civil rights laws and fair labor laws must have in order to ensure accountability for discrimination. America will never be America until we do.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on January 3, 2008, MAJ Andrew Olmsted of Northborough, MA, was killed in Iraq. He was the first American servicemember to die in Iraq this year. During his service there, he wrote a number of essays about his service that he posted on the Internet. His final essay, written in anticipation of his possible death, is an eloquent farewell that I believe will be of interest to all of us in Congress, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday, Senator Specter and I introduced the State Secrets Protection Act. I have been working on this bill with Senator Specter for several months, and I thank him for his commitment and leadership on this very important issue. I hope that our collaboration on this legislation will demonstrate that even the most sensitive problems can be addressed through bipartisan cooperation if we keep the interests of the Nation front-and-center and roll up our sleeves to do the work of seeking a realistic and workable solution. The State Secrets Protection Act is an essential response to a pressing need. For years, there has been growing concern about the state secrets privilege. It is a common law privilege that lets the Government protect sensitive national security information from being disclosed as evidence in litigation. The problem is that sometimes plaintiffs may need that information to show that their rights were violated. If the privilege is not applied carefully, the Government can use it as a tool for cover up by withholding evidence that is not actually sensitive. The state secrets privilege is important, but there is a risk it will be overused and abused. The privilege was first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1953, and it has been asserted since then by every administration, Republican and Democratic. Under the Bush administration, however, use of the state secrets privilege has dramatically increased and the harmful consequences of its irregular application by courts have become painfully clear. Injured plaintiffs have been denied justice, courts have failed to address fundamental questions of constitutional rights and separation of powers, and confusion pervades this area of law. The Senate debate on reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has become far more difficult than it ought to be because many believe that if courts hear lawsuits against telecommunications companies, the courts will be unable to deal fairly and effectively with the Government's invocation of the privilege. Studies show that the Bush administration has raised the privilege in over 25 percent more cases per year than previous administrations and has sought dismissal in over 90 percent more cases. As one scholar recently noted, this administration has used the privilege to ``seek blanket dismissal of every case challenging the constitutionality of specific, ongoing government programs'' related to its war on terrorism, and as a result, the privilege is impairing the ability of Congress and the judiciary to perform their constitutional duty to check executive power. Another leading scholar recently found that ``in practical terms, the state secrets privilege never fails.'' Like other commentators, he concluded that ``the state secrets privilege is the most powerful secrecy privilege available to the president,'' and ``the people of the United States have suffered needlessly because the law is now a servant to executive claims of national security.'' In 1980, Congress enacted the Classified Information Procedures Act-- known as CIPA--to provide Federal courts with clear statutory guidance on handling secret evidence in criminal cases. For almost 30 years, courts have effectively applied that law to make criminal trials fairer and safer. During that period, Congress has also regulated judicial review of national security materials under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Freedom of Information Act. Because of these laws, Federal judges regularly review and handle highly classified evidence in many types of cases. Yet, in civil cases, litigants have been left behind. Congress has failed to provide clear rules or standards for determining whether evidence is protected by the state secrets privilege. We have failed to develop procedures that will protect injured parties and also prevent the disclosure of sensitive information. Because use of the state secrets privilege has escalated in recent years, there is an increasing need for the judiciary and the executive to have clear, fair, and safe rules. Many have recognized the need for congressional guidance on this issue. The American Bar Association recently issued a report ``urg[ing] Congress to enact legislation governing Federal civil cases implicating the state secrets privilege.'' The bipartisan Constitution Project found that ``legislative action [on the privilege] is essential to restore and strengthen the basic rights and liberties provided by our constitutional system of government.'' Leading constitutional scholars sent a letter to Congress emphasizing that there ``is a need for new rules designed to protect the system of checks and balances, individual rights, national security, fairness in the courtroom, and the adversary process.'' The State Secrets Protection Act we are introducing responds to this need by creating a civil version of CIPA. The act provides guidance to the Federal courts in handling assertions of the privilege in civil cases, and it restores checks and balances to this crucial area of law by placing constraints on the application of state secrets doctrine. The act will strengthen our national security by requiring judges to protect all state secrets from disclosure, and it will strengthen the rule of law by preventing misuse of the privilege and enabling more litigants to achieve justice in court. Recognizing that state secrets must be protected, the Act enables the executive branch to avoid publicly revealing evidence if doing so might disclose a state secret. If a court finds that an item of evidence contains a state secret, or cannot be effectively separated from other evidence that contains a state secret, then the evidence is privileged and may not be released for any reason. Secure judicial proceedings and other safeguards that have proven effective under CIPA and the Freedom of Information Act will ensure that the litigation does not reveal sensitive information. At the same time, the State Secrets Protection Act will prevent the executive branch from using the privilege to deny parties their day in court or shield illegal activity that is not actually sensitive. A recently declassified report shows that the executive branch abused the state secrets privilege in the very Supreme Court case, United States v. Reynolds (1953), that serves as the basis for the privilege today. In Reynolds, an accident report was kept out of court due to the government's claim that it would disclose state secrets. The court never even looked at the report. Now that the report has been made public, we've learned that in fact it contained no state secrets whatever but it did contain embarrassing information revealing government negligence. In recent years, Federal courts have applied the Reynolds precedent to dismiss numerous cases--on issues ranging from torture, to extraordinary rendition, to warrantless wiretapping--without ever reviewing the evidence. Some courts have even upheld the executive's claims of state secrets when the purported secrets were publicly available, as in the case of El-Masri v. Tenet. In that case, there was extensive evidence in the public record that the plaintiff was kidnapped and tortured by the CIA on the basis of mistaken identity, but the court simply accepted at face value the Government's claim that litigation would require disclosure of state secrets. The court dismissed Mr. El-Masri's case without even evaluating the evidence or considering whether the case could be litigated on other evidence. When Federal courts accept the executive branch's state secrets claims as absolute, our system of checks and balances breaks down. By refusing to consider key pieces of evidence, or by dismissing lawsuits outright without considering any evidence at all, courts give the executive branch the ability to violate American laws and constitutional rights without any accountability or oversight, and innocent victims are left unable to obtain justice. The kind of abuse that occurred in Reynolds will no longer be possible under the State Secrets Protection Act. The act requires courts to examine the evidence for which the privilege is claimed, in order to determine whether the executive branch has validly invoked the privilege. The court must look at the actual evidence, not just Government affidavits about the evidence, and make its own assessment of whether information is covered by the privilege. Only after a court has considered the evidence and found that it provides a valid legal defense can it dismiss a claim on state secrets grounds. The act also gives parties an opportunity to make a preliminary case with their own evidence, and it allows courts to develop solutions to let lawsuits proceed, such as by directing the Government to produce unclassified substitutes for secret evidence. Many of these powers are already available to courts, but they often go unused. In addition, the act draws on CIPA to include provisions for congressional reporting that will ensure an additional layer of oversight. I am pleased that the senior Senator from Pennsylvania and I have been able to work together to produce this bill. We expect to have a hearing soon on the state secrets privilege in the Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Chairman Leahy, who is a cosponsor of the bill and a strong supporter of state secrets reform. I look forward to a full airing of the issues and the important feedback that will come from the committee's thoughtful consideration of the legislation. In particular, as the bill moves forward, we intend to continue to explore the possibilities for providing relief to plaintiffs who have a winning case but cannot get a trial because every piece of evidence they need is privileged. This is an extremely difficult subject, which Congress should address if we can find a fair way to do so that will also protect legitimate secrets. We will also explore other measures to make the bill stronger, such as providing expedited security clearance reviews for attorneys. Under the State Secrets Protection Act, the Nation will be able to preserve its commitment to individual rights and the rule of law, without compromising its national defense or foreign policy. Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate the rules of procedure and evidence for the Federal courts, and it is long past time for us to exercise this authority on such an important issue. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this needed legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is clear that our economy is going from bad to worse. Every day the headlines bring more bad news. Fuel prices are going through the roof. Millions of families are at risk of losing their homes. Bankruptcies have risen by 40 percent in the last year alone. Most alarming, we are seeing a drastic rise in the number of Americans out of work. In December, half a million more Americans were unemployed than the month before. Today nearly 8 million Americans are looking for a job and can't find one. The national unemployment rate has shot up to 5 percent--the biggest increase since the last recession. Experts say this number will rise well above 6 percent in 2009. Vulnerable parts of our population have been hit even harder-- last month, 9 percent of African-American workers were unemployed, up sharply from 8.4 percent in November. Latino workers now have an unemployment rate of 6 percent. What's more, we are seeing a large number of out-of-work Americans who still can't find a new job months later. Nearly one out of five Americans who is looking for work has been out of a job for over 6 months--compared with roughly one out of ten in 2001, before the last recession. With only 4 million job openings and nearly 8 million unemployed Americans, there are two workers for every job. As unemployment rises, there will be even more workers competing for each job. As highlighted in yesterday's front-page article in the Washington Post, this problem is affecting workers across our economy--even those with college educations and years of experience can't find work. These aren't just statistics. These numbers are coworkers, our relatives, our neighbors. For each and every one of those families, a pink slip can spell economic disaster. Losing a job isn't just losing a paycheck--it can mean losing the results of years of hard work and sacrifice. For too many families, losing a job means losing health insurance. Without insurance, an unexpected hospital stay--from a broken leg or a cancer diagnosis--means certain financial disaster. Mr. President, 77 percent of middle class Americans do not have enough assets to pay essential expenses for 3 months. Without a paycheck, the rising price of daily necessities--housing, gasoline, and even groceries--becomes impossible to afford. Our unemployment insurance program is intended to help workers weather a job loss. Workers pay into the program throughout their careers. If they lose their jobs, they can collect a benefit while they look for work. The amounts are modest--typically less than half of a worker's regular wages--but they help families to pay their rent, keep the house warm, and put food on the table. In good economic times, such benefits are enough to tide workers and their families over for the few weeks it takes to find a job. But these are not good times. It is taking longer and longer for unemployed Americans to find new work. Over 1.3 million Americans have been looking for a job for 6 months or more. As a result, an increasing number of workers have not found a new job by the time their unemployment benefits run out. Over the past year, over 2.6 million Americans--or 35 percent of all unemployed workers--have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Unless we respond soon, these and other families will be left in the cold. So we must act, and we must act now, to help these workers before financial disaster strikes. That is why I am introducing legislation today to give workers the help they need and have earned. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act will ensure that Americans who keep looking for work but can't find a job after 6 months will be eligible for up to 20 weeks of additional benefits. In very high- unemployment States, workers could also receive up to 13 more weeks of benefits. Because out-of-work families are facing skyrocketing costs of gas, home heating, food, and housing, long-term unemployed workers will temporarily receive $50 extra each week to help pay their bills. Providing this extension is a matter of fairness. We owe it to all workers who have lost their jobs in this struggling economy to provide help while they look for new jobs. Out-of-work Americans have worked hard all their lives. They have paid into the unemployment insurance system with the promise they would receive its protection when our economy is in crisis. Part of the American Dream is the opportunity to work hard, provide for your family, put your children through school, and save for retirement. When the economy isn't working the way it should and the jobs simply aren't there, we must stick together. We must take care of those who can't find a job. But there's another major reason to act. Economists agree that extending unemployment benefits is a powerful, cost-effective way to deliver a boost to the economy. The extension of benefits puts money into the hands of those who need assistance the most and are most likely to spend it immediately on basic essentials. This means money is flowing immediately to local businesses, which will in turn provide a further economic boost. Indeed, according to a report by Mark Zandi of Moody's, each dollar invested in benefits to out-of-work Americans leads to a $1.73 increase in growth--the most of any measure tested. That compares with only pennies on the dollar for cuts in income tax rates or cuts in taxes on investments. The Congressional Budget Office agrees. Its report last week on short-term economic stimulus found that extending unemployment benefits is among the most cost-effective, potent, temporary steps that Congress can take to jump-start our economy. This is a tried and true approach to helping working families in economic downturns. In each recession since the late 1950s, Congress has extended unemployment benefits to those who have exhausted their benefits and can't find work. It has often done so by overwhelming, bipartisan votes. Layoffs don't discriminate by party. Extending unemployment benefits is the right thing to do for the economy and the fair thing to do for workers. I urge my colleagues to join me in helping out-of-work Americans and putting our economy back on track.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I wish to commend my friend and colleague from Ohio for addressing this issue on the challenges we are facing in terms of our economic situation here in the United States. The world is aware of this, as is anyone who watches the early morning programs. But most of all, we have been seeing this develop over a period of time, as the Senator has pointed out, and it is really shocking to me that it has really taken this long for the administration to come up and develop its own program. I join with him in urging early action. We cannot delay. We cannot wait. The time is now on this issue. And I just thank him for telling us how it was out in the State of Ohio because the conditions he has described out in his State are very similar to the conditions in my State of Massachusetts. We will hear from many of our colleagues that they are feeling this as well. So we look forward to working with him and others here in the Senate and helping to fashion this program that is absolutely essential for the well-being of working families in this country. I am always reminded, as the Senator is, that the American people who are so adversely affected did not do anything wrong. They have been working hard, playing by the rules, and trying to provide for their families. The responsibility to do something about it is right here with the administration and with the Congress. So many Americans' lives have been turned upside down, in many respects shattered. It adds a very special responsibility for all of us. So I thank him for his very useful and important contribution. In recent weeks, the headlines have been filled with bad economic news. Two weeks ago, it was an alarming increase in the unemployment rate. Last week, it was rising prices for basic essentials such as food and gasoline. Week after week, there is more bad housing news. Foreclosures are skyrocketing. Bankruptcies are rising. Yesterday, the Washington Post discussed challenges facing the more than 1.3 million Americans who have been actively looking for a job for more than 6 months--for more than 6 months without success. It is a tragic tale. College-educated professionals and people who have worked for decades are now forced to drain their retirement accounts and rely on charity to make ends meet. It seems that every day there is new information showing that the economy is headed in the wrong direction, that no one will be spared. These are not statistical trends or indicators. Every bad number reflects a real hardship in real people's lives. When food prices increase by 5 percent, that means average families will pay over $400 more next year to put meals on the table. When the unemployment rate rises 1.5 percent, it pushes a typical family's wages down $2,400. Each higher cost or lower paycheck adds up to big problems for working Americans. Parents are giving up time with their families to work longer hours or take a second job. Employees are struggling with credit card debt and skyrocketing interest rates. Young couples are losing their first homes because they cannot pay the mortgage, and parents are pulling their children out of college because they cannot pay the bills. For these families, a recession is not just part of the business cycle; it is a life-changing event from which they may never fully recover. I have heard from many in Massachusetts who are struggling in these tough times. There is Teresa in Everett. She is a single mom with three children aged 10, 6, and 3. She is proud that she has worked her way out of welfare, but her life as a working mother is increasingly hard. Her bills are out of control, and each day she is faced with impossible decisions: Do I feed myself or feed my children? Can I turn on the heat or just put on an extra layer of clothing and try to get by? In Teresa's household, a $4 gallon of milk has become a luxury she cannot afford. Teresa's family is not alone. A looming crisis is now facing tens of millions of American families. Economists across the spectrum, from former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and even President Bush himself, all agree that we are facing tough times to come and the Government must act. But even more importantly than advice from these noted scholars is the clear message of the American people. They are struggling. They need our help now. They elected us to make their lives and their children's lives better, and now is the time. We need a simple, effective plan to stimulate the economy and also put back in workers' pockets resources and money to give them the support they need to weather the storm. This plan should be built on one fundamental principle: People do not work for the economy; the economy should work for the people. If we want an economic recovery that works, if we want real opportunities and sustainable growth, that effort must start and end with working families. Putting people first means targeting our stimulus efforts to meet three essential goals. First, we must act quickly to provide immediate help for those in crisis. The declining economy may be a current issue in the newspapers, but working families have been suffering for some time; 7.7 million Americans are already unemployed. There have been almost 2 million foreclosure filings in the last year alone, including 225,000 last month. The number of families facing bankruptcy has risen by 40 percent in the past year. For these Americans, the recession is already here, and they need help now to get back on their feet. Second, we must do the most for those who need help the most. Targeting families at the very bottom of the economic ladder is essential because it also provides the biggest economic boost. Every dollar a low-income household receives is spent on basic needs, putting money back into the local economy right away. In regions with many struggling families, such spending is critical to help keep entire communities afloat. Finally, we must find solutions that will make a real difference in people's lives. It is not enough just to tinker at the margins. Our economic problems are getting worse every day, and we need a strong medicine to make things right. There are a number of short-term steps we can take to achieve these goals and restore hope and opportunity to families across the country. They are simple. They build on existing programs. They are effective. We should pass them, and we should pass them now. For workers who are struggling to find a job, we must support them in the difficult process of finding work. It becomes harder and harder to find a good job in today's economy. The Nation is enduring profound changes as we adapt to the global economy. Entire industries are disappearing, leaving workers and communities devastated in their wake. Madam President, 1.3 million workers have been getting up early every morning, day in and day out, looking for a job for more than 6 months. That number will only rise as the recession deepens. Just last week, Goldman Sachs economists predicted that the unemployment rate would reach 6.5 percent by the beginning of 2009 compared to 5 percent today. This is a dual challenge. We now have projections about what we are going to have in terms of unemployment. No matter what we do in terms of stimulating the economy--we have to stimulate the economy--we also have to be mindful that we are going to have significant unemployment even in the outyear of 2009 as Goldman Sachs has predicted. We have both challenges, the economy and the fact that people are going to be unemployed. To help these unemployed men and women weather the storm we need to extend unemployment benefits and expand access to benefits. As workers, they have paid into the system and they deserve help when they need it. We should also provide transitional health care assistance. People who receive unemployment compensation have paid into the fund. The problem now is many of them, even though they paid into the fund, are unable to benefit from it. That is wrong. We should address that. We have legislation to do so. It passed the House of Representatives, and we should pass it as part of a stimulus program at the present time. Most importantly, we should do more to help unemployed workers find good jobs they are seeking. We have open jobs, 93,000 in Massachusetts alone. We certainly have jobs that are available, and we have more than 178,000 unemployed workers. So we have the jobs that are available, and we have the unemployed workers. What is missing? Training programs. How many applicants do we have for every training program? We have 21 applicants for every training program. We have good jobs with good benefits, and we have the people who want them. The only ingredient missing is training, and these workers want the training. They will sacrifice for training. But they haven't got it because we have cut back on training programs in recent years. We ought to be able to address those issues, and we ought to do it now. It is not just those who have lost their jobs and are facing a crisis. Millions more families are living on the brink of disaster because they are struggling to pay bills. Since President Bush took office, the cost of health insurance has risen 38 percent. Housing prices are up 39 percent. A tank of gas is up 78 percent; tuition, 43 percent; and wages are stagnant, up 6 percent. This is the pressure families are feeling today, a sense of insecurity. Security is an issue that is of major importance and consequence to families. They are concerned about security overseas. They are concerned about homeland security. But they are also concerned about job security and health security and education security. They are also concerned about energy security. They are concerned about their long- term security, what is going to happen to pensions, as they see the safety net for pensions increasingly fragmented. They are concerned about unemployment insurance security as they have seen that safety net fragment. They are deeply concerned. They are all worried deeply about it. It is interesting. I don't know how many times during the course of the debate on the stimulus that we will take a moment and think of what is the cost of the anxiety that these families have, when they are worried primarily about their children or grandparents. That doesn't appear on the bottom line of any sheet we will have on the floor of the Senate, but it is out there and being felt now, and it is very real. We ought to understand that--real anxiety, real frustration, real suffering, real worry every day, every night, primarily by parents as they are concerned about their children. They worry about their loved ones and their families, immediate family, and less about themselves. They worry about others. We have the ability to deal with that, and we must. We need a boost in basic support programs to help working families cope with the relentless pressure of everyday life during this time. This means expanding home heating assistance. A typical household may have to spend as much as $3,000 on heating oil this winter, probably closer to $4,000 in Massachusetts. Fuel assistance will cover less than a third of these costs. Of the 35 million households eligible for fuel assistance nationwide, only 5 million receive such benefits. Six of seven families in need receive no help at all because the States run out of funds. Last week, the White House released $450 million in emergency assistance to States across the Nation, including $27 million for Massachusetts. The reality is, when oil prices are surging past $3.30 per gallon, and households will need at least 800 gallons of heating oil this winter, it is just not enough. Bob Coard of Action for Boston Community Development, one of the largest community action agencies in the Northeast, says the emergency funds will barely cover enough to make a 100-gallon delivery to ABCD clients, and the 100-gallon delivery will cost about $300 and will provide a family with heat for about 2 to 3 weeks. Talk about something that will have a direct impact. A week ago Massachusetts was notified that it was going to receive approximately $30 million, and they were, within a 2-week period, able to get the oil tankers up to find those who are eligible for that program to deliver 100 gallons of fuel oil to needy families. That will only last 2 weeks. It is out there. We know what the need is. We know what these individuals suffer. So we can do things that can have an immediate impact. Certainly this is something to which we should be attentive. The people who are receiving this fuel assistance are in danger of this perfect storm that we refer to in New England where they have extraordinary increases in prices generally. One part of the storm is an increase in the cost of fuel oil to heat their homes. A second part is their ability to afford to pay their mortgage. If they cannot pay the mortgage, this is what happens. They make a judgment about whether they are going to pay the fuel or pay the mortgage. With children in the picture, they pay their fuel and they end up losing their home. So the fact that they don't get maybe 100 gallons, 200 gallons, 300 gallons of oil means they lose their home. The cost in Massachusetts of providing services to a homeless family can be thousands of dollars a year. You can provide the oil for a fraction of that and keep people in their homes. These are the kinds of things that make a difference. We should give focus and attention to them. In our hearing this last week, I heard from Margaret Gilliam who takes care of her grandchildren in Dorchester and has already spent more on heating oil this heating season than she did all of last year. We still have many weeks of cold weather ahead, and she wonders what is going to happen to her grandchildren and to her home. Diane Colby, a single mother of two in Lynn, MA, keeps the thermostat at only 62 degrees to stretch out the heating oil as long as possible. She has to sit down and decide which bills get paid and which don't. Otherwise she can't afford to keep the heat on. We must ensure that these families have the help they need through the winter. This is part of the challenge we are facing. In the proposals we have had from the President, we find that he proposes a tax break and a stimulus program that would completely leave out the poorest Americans. That is bad policy. Not only are low-income families the ones who suffer most in a recession, helping them is the best way to be certain that any stimulus goes directly into the economy and benefits our country the most. We can't keep repeating the mistakes of the past. Any tax rebate we pass now should be for everyone so that everyone can get back on their feet. The President's tax cuts for business are ill-advised. Past experience shows that such corporate tax breaks do not provide an effective stimulus. The problem with our economy today is a lack of demand, not of capacity. Businesses will not produce more until they know that customers are ready to buy. That is extremely important. We heard at our Joint Economic Committee hearing economists talk about the lack of demand, not a lack of capacity. Since there is a lack of demand, it doesn't make a lot of sense to increase capacity if there is not demand for it. Yet that is what the administration is attempting to do. Personal tax cuts targeting middle- and low-income families and funding boosts for programs such as unemployment insurance and food stamps are a better stimulus than business tax cuts because they encourage consumers to start spending. The economy is at a crossroads, and we must act carefully to choose the right path for the future. I am confident we can do that. I am certain we must do it to get America back on track. Finally, I want to review a few of the charts I have that spell out exactly where we are globally on this issue. Americans are deeply anxious about the economy. In a survey from just two weeks ago, Madam President, 61 percent of Americans say the condition of the economy is bad; one in five think things are very bad. This is an indication of the attitude of the American people. Here is one of the reasons. We see a significant increase in the unemployment rate in December, going to 5 percent. Among unemployed workers, 17.5 percent are long- term unemployed. If you look at 2001 as we approached the last recession, it was only 11 percent. Now it is 17.5 percent, up 55 percent. These are individuals who are out there, workers who want a job and have been spending month after month after month looking for one, unable to get a job. That has a devastating impact, particularly when you terminate the unemployment compensation for them which these individuals should be eligible to receive and which they have paid into. This shows the prediction from economists that unemployment will skyrocket next year. We heard this in testimony in the Joint Economic Committee hearing last week. Assuming we have a stimulus program, they say the economy can improve, but even with the economy improving, we are going to have a continued increase in the numbers of unemployed. That is something we have to be aware of. We still have job openings that are here, but nearly 8 million unemployed workers competing for 4 million jobs. It is a real problem. Not being able to get these jobs is a result of administration cuts to training programs all of these years. This is a pretty good indicator of what happens with the limitations. Americans cannot access job training programs. Opportunities are limited for workers to improve their skills. In Massachusetts alone, as I mentioned, for every available slot in a job training program, there are 21 workers on a waiting list. I have in the Chamber a picture of workers waiting on a waiting list. These people want to work. They want to provide for their families. They have the skills, the training programs to be able to get the job done, but they cannot afford that. We have had training programs, the kind the administration has cut back. Last year, it was close to half a billion dollars. This chart shows what has been happening with the unemployment rate. It has been going steadily up. High unemployment drives down wages. A 1.5-percent increase in the unemployment rate would decrease the average family's income by $2,400 because of the downward pressure it puts on wages. So for every family--we know from Goldman Sachs; this is not our estimate, we have it from financial institutions--economic indicators indicate we are still going to have high unemployment. What that means is a real reduction for average working families in their purchasing power by $2,400. That is what is going on. We have seen what is happening as to the kinds of products that families are used to purchasing. The price of food is rising far faster than the rate of inflation. We have milk going up 16 percent, eggs going up 78 percent, and beef going up some 13 percent. In our part of the country, still, about 75 percent of all the homes are heated with home heating oil. Look what has happened. There has been a 40-percent increase in the cost of home heating oil since last year. And a great many of our people in my part of the country who own their homes are living on fixed incomes. They are getting this kind of increase. Social Security, for the average person, went up only 2.3 percent from last year. But here we have a 40-percent increase in the cost of home heating oil, and it has been a cold winter. So these charts indicate, in different ways, how the average family is facing more and more difficulties. Too many middle-class families could not pay the essential expenses in the event of a job loss or other financial hardship. Seventy-seven percent of middle-class families do not have enough assets to pay the essential expenses for 3 months. What is happening is many people are relying on their credit cards to do it, and then they are unable to meet their ends with their credit cards. That directly affects their credit standing for the rest of their lives--under the last bankruptcy bill we passed here, which was such an unfortunate action that we took in the Senate. We find out parents are listing credit cards in the names of their children--young children--in order to be able to heat their homes. It is affecting so many hard-working Americans who are facing that whammy--the fact they are in danger of losing their homes because of the mortgage challenge. They cannot afford heating oil, and then they find out, when they resort to using credit cards, they lose all of their potential for credit for years to come. This chart is a reflection of what is happening with people losing their homes. Foreclosures have gone up 181 percent from 2005. Millions of American families face losing their homes. Make no mistake about it, many who lose their homes have in the past paid their mortgages each month, and yet now they lose their home. We have to ask: What are we going to do about it? Just a final two points I will make. There has been a 40-percent increase in bankruptcies. This is a result of the kind of economic squeeze these families have been under. There has been a 40-percent increase in bankruptcies. With the way that last bankruptcy act was enacted, they will find out, once the hooks get into these families, they will never get free from them. Families are going to be indebted for a very considerable period of time. That is now happening to working Americans. The final chart I will put up is that in looking at the stimulus program we ought to look at what gets the biggest bang for the buck. Targeted stimulus programs deliver far more bang for the buck. As to unemployment benefits, for every $1 we invest, there is $1.73 in economic growth; for aid to the States, $1.24; for income taxes, it is only 59 cents. These are the areas the administration is talking about: business write-offs, 24 cents; capital gains tax cuts, 9 cents. If we are going to pass a stimulus package--which we should do--let's look at the areas that will have the greatest impact, the greatest stimulus that will help the working families of this country in the most meaningful way. That is what we should do. That is what should be the first order of business in the Senate. I hope we will get about the business of helping working families in America. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is clear that our economy is going from bad to worse. Every day the headlines bring more bad news. Fuel prices are going through the roof. Millions of families are at risk of losing their homes. Bankruptcies have risen by 40 percent in the last year alone. Most alarming, we are seeing a drastic rise in the number of Americans out of work. In December, half a million more Americans were unemployed than the month before. Today nearly 8 million Americans are looking for a job and can't find one. The national unemployment rate has shot up to 5 percent--the biggest increase since the last recession. Experts say this number will rise well above 6 percent in 2009. Vulnerable parts of our population have been hit even harder-- last month, 9 percent of African-American workers were unemployed, up sharply from 8.4 percent in November. Latino workers now have an unemployment rate of 6 percent. What's more, we are seeing a large number of out-of-work Americans who still can't find a new job months later. Nearly one out of five Americans who is looking for work has been out of a job for over 6 months--compared with roughly one out of ten in 2001, before the last recession. With only 4 million job openings and nearly 8 million unemployed Americans, there are two workers for every job. As unemployment rises, there will be even more workers competing for each job. As highlighted in yesterday's front-page article in the Washington Post, this problem is affecting workers across our economy--even those with college educations and years of experience can't find work. These aren't just statistics. These numbers are coworkers, our relatives, our neighbors. For each and every one of those families, a pink slip can spell economic disaster. Losing a job isn't just losing a paycheck--it can mean losing the results of years of hard work and sacrifice. For too many families, losing a job means losing health insurance. Without insurance, an unexpected hospital stay--from a broken leg or a cancer diagnosis--means certain financial disaster. Mr. President, 77 percent of middle class Americans do not have enough assets to pay essential expenses for 3 months. Without a paycheck, the rising price of daily necessities--housing, gasoline, and even groceries--becomes impossible to afford. Our unemployment insurance program is intended to help workers weather a job loss. Workers pay into the program throughout their careers. If they lose their jobs, they can collect a benefit while they look for work. The amounts are modest--typically less than half of a worker's regular wages--but they help families to pay their rent, keep the house warm, and put food on the table. In good economic times, such benefits are enough to tide workers and their families over for the few weeks it takes to find a job. But these are not good times. It is taking longer and longer for unemployed Americans to find new work. Over 1.3 million Americans have been looking for a job for 6 months or more. As a result, an increasing number of workers have not found a new job by the time their unemployment benefits run out. Over the past year, over 2.6 million Americans--or 35 percent of all unemployed workers--have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Unless we respond soon, these and other families will be left in the cold. So we must act, and we must act now, to help these workers before financial disaster strikes. That is why I am introducing legislation today to give workers the help they need and have earned. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act will ensure that Americans who keep looking for work but can't find a job after 6 months will be eligible for up to 20 weeks of additional benefits. In very high- unemployment States, workers could also receive up to 13 more weeks of benefits. Because out-of-work families are facing skyrocketing costs of gas, home heating, food, and housing, long-term unemployed workers will temporarily receive $50 extra each week to help pay their bills. Providing this extension is a matter of fairness. We owe it to all workers who have lost their jobs in this struggling economy to provide help while they look for new jobs. Out-of-work Americans have worked hard all their lives. They have paid into the unemployment insurance system with the promise they would receive its protection when our economy is in crisis. Part of the American Dream is the opportunity to work hard, provide for your family, put your children through school, and save for retirement. When the economy isn't working the way it should and the jobs simply aren't there, we must stick together. We must take care of those who can't find a job. But there's another major reason to act. Economists agree that extending unemployment benefits is a powerful, cost-effective way to deliver a boost to the economy. The extension of benefits puts money into the hands of those who need assistance the most and are most likely to spend it immediately on basic essentials. This means money is flowing immediately to local businesses, which will in turn provide a further economic boost. Indeed, according to a report by Mark Zandi of Moody's, each dollar invested in benefits to out-of-work Americans leads to a $1.73 increase in growth--the most of any measure tested. That compares with only pennies on the dollar for cuts in income tax rates or cuts in taxes on investments. The Congressional Budget Office agrees. Its report last week on short-term economic stimulus found that extending unemployment benefits is among the most cost-effective, potent, temporary steps that Congress can take to jump-start our economy. This is a tried and true approach to helping working families in economic downturns. In each recession since the late 1950s, Congress has extended unemployment benefits to those who have exhausted their benefits and can't find work. It has often done so by overwhelming, bipartisan votes. Layoffs don't discriminate by party. Extending unemployment benefits is the right thing to do for the economy and the fair thing to do for workers. I urge my colleagues to join me in helping out-of-work Americans and putting our economy back on track.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since January, safety net clinics that provide basic health care services to women have been in a financial crisis. This happened because a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 has inadvertently prohibited drug companies from providing the deep discounts to them on contraceptives. All year, hundreds of family planning clinics, university health centers and other safety net clinics have been unable to provide affordable contraception to their low-income constituency. Prices have skyrocketed in some instances from $5 a pack to $50 a pack. Already some colleges, including those in my home State of Massachusetts, have had to stop offering contraceptives. This crisis affects an estimated 3 million college women, and hundreds of thousands of low-income women who are finding birth control priced out of reach. The Prevention Through Affordable Access Act is a no-cost, technical fix that will restore nominal prices to these entities, and in turn ensure that university students and low-income women once again have access to affordable birth control. It will not cost the Federal Government a dime--but it will be invaluable to women's health. Thirty Senators have demonstrated their support for this fix S. 2347. Congress must act now to ensure that this problem is fixed this year and a continuing crisis is averted. Women have waited long enough. I urge passage of this important bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains on this amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself the 6\1/2\ minutes. I ask if the Chair will let me know when 1 minute remains.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support this amendment, and I commend my friend and colleague Senator Feingold. It is wrong, basically and fundamentally, to give another blank check to President Bush for his failed Iraq policy. I support our troops, but I oppose our war. We have heard here in the last few minutes and in the last few hours the rather rosy picture about what is happening over in Iraq. I think everybody in this Chamber salutes the brave men and women for their courage, bravery, and valor over the last 5 years. This war has been going on for 5 years. We do know there has been some progress made in recent times on the military aspect. But as every member of the Armed Services Committee understands, everyone who has had a responsibility in Iraq who appeared before the committee has said there are two dimensions for finally getting peace in Iraq: One is military, and one is political reconciliation. That has not taken place. Day after day after day after day, our men and women are on the streets of Baghdad and around Iraq, and more American servicemen have lost their lives this year than in any other year of the Iraq war, make no mistake about it. As we can see, these brave men and women in Baghdad, and all over, are still being targeted in Iraq. They are basically being held hostage by the Iraqi political establishment. American military personnel, American service men and women are being held hostage by Iraq's political leadership, which refuses to come together and reconcile their differences and form a government. Every day that goes on, the American taxpayers' money is being poured into the sands of Iraq, because Iraqi politicians refuse reconciliation and political judgments in Iraq. That is what is going on over there today. That was going on yesterday, and it has been going on for 5 years. What the other side says is let's give this administration and this President a blank check to continue it. How long do they want it for? When is enough enough? That is what they are asking for. That is what they are asking for. For 5 long years, these brave men and women in the Armed Services have done what they have been asked to do, and the best way you can honor them is to get the policy right, get the policy correct. That is what the Feingold amendment does. How? Very simple. It says: OK, Mr. Iraqi politician, you have had your chance, your day; now you have to take responsibility for your own country. The way you are going to do that is that we are going to start bringing American service men and women home. They have been unwilling to take the political decisions up until now. The other side says pour more money in here and lose more American lives. The Feingold amendment is a changed policy. It says we believe that with the judgment and decision we are going to take to American servicemen, then they will make the judgment and decision that is in the interest of this country. Their way hasn't worked. This way will. Why not give it a try and a chance? What are some of the American military personnel saying over there? BG John Campbell, deputy commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq, spoke bluntly about the faults of Iraq's political leaders. He said: The ministers, they don't get out . . . They don't know what the hell is going on on the ground. This is the brigadier general, the deputy commander, talking about the Iraqi political leaders, and you want to give them a blank check? Well, those of us who support the Feingold amendment say no. Army LTC Mark Fetter put it this way: ``It is very painful, very painful'' to deal with the obstructionism of Iraqi officials. There it is. How much clearer does it have to get? How much more of a blank check do you need? How many more billions of dollars do you have to spend--let alone that we will never recover the 81 brave men and women from Massachusetts who lost their lives. That cannot be recovered. Think of this: For every month that goes on in that battle over in Iraq, we could have 250,000 more schoolteachers who are experts in math and science teaching our young people. For every month that goes on, just think that every child who needs after school help and assistance would be able to receive it in the United States of America. Just think, for every month this goes on, we could provide Head Start for every young person who needs it. Just think of this: If we could have the resources for 2 years, we could rebuild and repair every public school in this country that is in need. Doesn't that matter? Well, it matters to this Senator, and it matters to those who are supporting the Feingold amendment. It is wrong to neglect priorities such as these at home and pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the black hole that the Iraq war has become. It is wrong to give the President another huge blank check for the war in Iraq. Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to take a strong stand and vote against this gigantic blank check for more war.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following resolution from the HELP Committee to be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge the retirement from the Senate of a person of great skill and accomplishment, Patricia Knight. She will be greatly missed. Trish has devoted more than a quarter century of her life to public service, the last nine years as chief of staff to my good friend and colleague, Senator Orrin Hatch. Her leadership on so many issues over that time has improved the lives of millions of Americans in so many ways. Over the years, Trish has brought her skills and energy to bear on a range of important issues from energy policy to foreign policy and so much more. She served in the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration as a key adviser on health legislation. She has been an aide on the Appropriations Committee covering bills as vast as funding for the Commerce Department and our foreign aid programs. In no area has her able hand been more evident than health care. Before her appointment as chief of staff, Trish served as chief health adviser to Senator Hatch. In that capacity, she was his lead staffer in the creation of the Children's Health Insurance Program which today provides health coverage to more than 6 million poor children. She was a leader, too, in improving the work of the Food and Drug Administration in enhancing the safety and efficacy of prescription drugs and food. The Public Health Service is a stronger agency because of Trish's able work. Most of all, she has been a trusted adviser and friend to so many of us. It was always clear where Trish stood on a question, and she always had clear reasons for her views. Everyone who worked with her respected her for her wisdom, judgment and determination to succeed. Her subtle humor and great spirit got us through many very difficult negotiations. Trish, we love you and we will miss you and wish you well in the next adventure.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am troubled by the FISA bill that has come to the Senate floor. Since I introduced the original FISA legislation over 30 years ago, I have worked to amend the FISA law many times, and I believe that this bill is not faithful to the traditional balance that FISA has struck. This bill gives the executive branch vast new authorities to spy on Americans, without adequate guidance or oversight. Americans deserve better. I voted ``yes'' on the motion to proceed to consideration of this bill because I believe this legislation is too important to hold up any longer. The House has already passed a new FISA bill, and the Senate needs to do the same. But let me be clear, the Senate should reject the bill that we have before us. We need to pass the Judiciary Committee version instead. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is one of our landmark statutes. For nearly three decades, it has regulated Government surveillance in a way that protects both our national security and our civil liberties and prevents the Government from abusing its powers. It is because FISA enhances both security and liberty that it has won such broad support over the years from Presidents, Members of Congress, and the public alike. It is important to remember that before this administration, no administration had ever resisted FISA, much less systematically violated it. When the administration finally came to Congress to amend FISA after its warrantless wiretapping program was exposed, it did so not in the spirit of partnership, but to bully us into obeying its wishes. The Protect America Act was negotiated in secret at the last minute. The administration issued dire threats that failure to enact a bill before the August recess could lead to disaster. Few, if any, knew what the language would actually do. The result of this flawed process was flawed legislation, which virtually everyone now acknowledges must be substantially revised. I commend the members of the Intelligence Committee for their diligent efforts to put together a new bill. They have taken their duties seriously, and they have made some notable improvements over the Protect America Act. But their bill is deeply flawed, and I am strongly opposed to enacting it in its current form. This bill fails to protect Americans' constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms. There are many problems with the bill. It redefines ``electronic surveillance,'' a key term in FISA, in a way that is unnecessary and may have unintended consequences. Court review occurs only after the fact, with no consequences if the court rejects the Government's targeting or minimization procedures. It is not as clear as it should be that FISA and the criminal wiretap law are the sole legal means by which the Government may conduct electronic surveillance. Its sunset provision is December 31, 2013. For legislation as complicated, important, and controversial as this, Congress should reevaluate it much sooner. The bill purports to eliminate the ``reverse targeting'' of Americans, but does not actually contain language to do so. For instance, it has nothing analogous to the House bill's provision on reverse targeting, which prohibits use of the authorities if ``a significant purpose'' is targeting someone in the United States. It does not fully close the loophole left open by the Protect America Act, allowing warrantless interception of purely domestic communications. It does not require an independent review and report on the administration's warrantless eavesdropping program. Only through such a process will we ever learn what happened and achieve accountability and closure on this episode. Add it all up, and the takeaway is clear: This bill is inconsistent with the way FISA was meant to work, and it is inconsistent with the way FISA has always worked. The Judiciary Committee's FISA bill shows that there is a better way. The Judiciary Committee's version is faithful to the traditional FISA balance. It shares the same basic structure, but it addresses all of the problems I listed above. The Judiciary bill was negotiated in public, which allowed outside groups and experts to give critical feedback. It was also negotiated later in time than the Intelligence bill, meaning we had the benefit of reviewing their work. Like the Intelligence Committee's bill, the Judiciary Committee's version also gives the executive branch greater authority to conduct electronic surveillance than it has ever had before. Make no mistake, it too is a major grant of power to the intelligence community. But unlike the Intelligence Committee's bill, the Judiciary Committee's version sets some reasonable limits that protect innocent Americans from being spied on by their Government without any justification whatever. No one should lose sight of how important title I of FISA is. The rules governing electronic surveillance affect every American. They are the only thing that stands between the freedom of Americans to make a phone call, send an e-mail, and search the Internet, and the ability of the Government to listen in on that call, read that e-mail, review that Google search. In our ``information age,'' title I of FISA provides Americans a fundamental bulwark against Government tyranny and abuse. If we enact the title I that is now before us, we will undermine that bulwark. Unfortunately, the exact same thing would be true if we enact the Intelligence Committee's title II. The Nation was shocked to learn earlier this month that the CIA had destroyed videotapes showing employees using severe interrogation techniques. The willful destruction of these tapes by the CIA obviously raises serious questions involving obstruction of justice. But this is not the only coverup that the administration has been involved in lately. President Bush has been demanding that Congress grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the administration's illegal surveillance program. He wants us to pretend that this whole episode never happened. I oppose granting any form of retroactive immunity to these companies, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike title II from the FISA bill. Amnesty for telecommunication companies may help the administration conceal its illegal spying, but it will not serve our national security, and it will further undermine the rule of law. Let's not forget why we are even talking about this issue. At some point in 2001, the Bush administration began a massive program of warrantless spying. New reports suggest that the administration began its warrantless spying even before 9/11. The administration never told Congress what it was doing. In clear violation of the FISA law and in complete disdain for the fourth amendment, it also never told the FISA Court what it was doing. Because the Bush administration secretly ignored the law, we still do not know how deeply this program invaded the privacy of millions of innocent Americans. The push for immunity by this administration is a push to avoid all accountability for a wiretapping program that was a massive violation of the law. FISA has been in force for 29 years. It was designed from the beginning to allow flexibility in pursuing our enemies. It was enacted with strong bipartisan support in 1978, and it has been amended on a bipartisan basis some 30 times since then. It has enhanced Americans' security and safeguarded our liberty. Every previous administration has complied with FISA. But the Bush administration apparently decided that FISA was an inconvenience. With the help of certain phone companies, it secretly spied on Americans for years, without any court orders or oversight. There is still a great deal we don't know about this secret spying, but what we do know is alarming. Numerous reports indicate that it covered not only international communications, but also Americans' purely local calls with their friends, neighbors, and loved ones. A lawsuit in California has produced evidence that at the Government's request, AT&T installed a supercomputer in a San Francisco facility that copied every communication by its customers, and turned them over to the National Security Agency. Think about that. The National Security Agency of the Bush administration may have been intercepting the phone calls and e-mails of millions of ordinary Americans for years. The surveillance was so flagrantly illegal that even lawyers in the administration tried to fight it. Nearly 30 Justice Department employees threatened to resign over it. The head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, testified that it was ``the biggest legal mess I had ever encountered.'' Mr. Goldsmith himself acknowledged that ``top officials in the administration dealt with FISA the way they dealt with other laws they didn't like: they blew through them in secret based on flimsy legal opinions that they guarded closely so no one could question the legal basis of the operations.'' Think about that as well. The President's own head of the Office of . Legal Counsel states that the administration's policy has been to ``blow through'' laws it doesn't like, in secret, so that its actions cannot be challenged. The Bush White House has repeatedly failed to understand that our Government is a government of laws, and not of men. The administration's secret spying program has taken a heavy toll on our country. Its failure to follow the law has made it more difficult for prosecutors to put terrorists behind bars; for intelligence professionals to avoid civil and criminal lawsuits; and for the public to trust its Government. In the name of making us safer, the administration's reckless disregard for the law has made us less safe, and countless Americans fear their rights have been endangered. That sorry record demands accountability, not immunity. Here is another fact that no one should lose sight of. From the very beginning, telecommunications companies have always had immunity under FISA when they comply with lawful surveillance requests. In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee worked closely with AT&T, and the company played a major role in drafting FISA's immunity provisions in the 1970s. To be completely protected from any liability whatever, all a company needs under FISA is a court order or an appropriate certification from the Attorney General. That is it. Just get one of those two documents, and you are off the hook. So in this debate, let us be clear that we are not talking about protecting companies that complied with lawful surveillance requests. We are talking about protecting companies that complied with surveillance requests that they knew were illegal. Immunity for the phone companies would be bad policy on many levels. First, it is premature even to be talking about this subject. Even though the President is demanding immunity for companies that may have broken the law, he will not tell all Members of Congress which companies broke the law, how they broke the law, or why they broke the law. He is asking us to legislate in the dark. Immunity for the telecoms for warrantless wiretapping violates the basic structure and purpose of FISA. The industry helped draft FISA, and they perform a major role under it. Here is how this system was explained in the House Intelligence Committee report on the original legislation: Requiring the court order or certification to be presented [to the carrier] before the assistance is rendered serves two purposes. It places an additional obstacle in the path of unauthorized surveillance activity, and, coupled with the provision relieving the third party from liability if the order or certification is complied with, it provides full protection to such third parties. If phone companies can ignore these requirements, this system of checks and balances collapses. That is exactly what happened here. The telecoms are supposed to provide an essential safeguard for protecting Americans' private information. Because Congress and the courts usually don't know about wiretapping activities, this role of the telecoms is crucial. Immunity for the telecoms undermines the basic design of our surveillance laws. Instead of undermining those laws, we should apply them in a court of law to discover and punish illegal activities. The administration has used the scare tactic of claiming that lawsuits will jeopardize national security by leaking sensitive information. That argument ignores the fact that the media have already exposed the existence of its warrantless surveillance program and the role of some telecoms in assisting this program. In addition, it would be foolish to assume that the terrorists don't already know that we are trying to intercept their phone calls and e-mails. The administration's argument also ignores the numerous safeguards used by courts to protect sensitive information. No one is advocating that the NSA disclose its specific methods or targets in open court. Even if someone did seek such disclosure, the Federal courts have procedures that have protected Government secrets for generations. The administration has also suggested that allowing these lawsuits to proceed might jeopardize national security by deterring phone companies from future cooperation with surveillance requests. This too is sheer nonsense. Under FISA, companies already have absolute immunity for any lawful cooperation. Future companies will be deterred only from cooperating with illegal surveillance requests, which is the whole point of the law. We do not want this shameful episode to happen again. The phone companies will suffer only the same harm that befalls any company that violates the law. The administration contends that the telecoms may be bankrupted if the lawsuits continue. In other words, the administration is telling us these companies may have engaged in lawbreaking on a scale so massive they could not afford the penalty if they are brought to justice. But massive law breaking is an argument against immunity, not for it. If the concern is the companies' financial health, the answer is not to throw out the rule of law but to legislate reasonable remedies, such as damage caps. Immunity for the telecoms would also violate basic principles of fairness and justice. The administration repeatedly claims immunity is ``a matter of basic fairness'' because the companies were doing their patriotic duty. That is a strange conception of fairness. Telecom companies have clear duties under the law. They also have highly sophisticated lawyers who deal with these issues all the time. If a company violated its clear duties and conducted illegal spying, fairness demands it face the consequences. It is precisely because fairness and justice are so important to the American system of government that we ask an independent branch--the judiciary--to resolve such legal disputes. There is nothing fair or just about Congress stepping into ongoing lawsuits to decree victory for one side and deny injured parties their day in court. Frankly--frankly--the whole ``patriotic duty'' argument we have been hearing from the White House is hard to take seriously. If the allegations against the telecoms are true, then we are not talking about ambiguous points of law. As a Federal judge remarked in one of the leading cases: AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal. We are not talking about what happened in the frantic weeks and months immediately following 9/11. We are talking about alleged violations of Americans' rights that went on for 5 years--5 years--in total secrecy, on a scale that has never been approached in our history. If the telecoms had followed the law instead of the Bush administration, the administration could have come to Congress and obtained any needed changes in the law. In a democracy, it is the job of the legislature to amend laws to fit new circumstances. It is not the job of the legislature to rubberstamp illegal conduct by the Executive. Some of the telecoms might have been doing what they thought was good for the country. Some of them might simply have been doing what they thought would preserve their lucrative Government contracts. We simply do not know. But either way, it is not the role of the telecommunications companies to decide which laws to follow and which to ignore. FISA is a law that was carefully developed over many years to give the executive branch the flexibility it needs, while protecting the rights of Americans. It is the companies' legal duty--and their patriotic duty--to follow that law. Nothing could be more dangerous for Americans' privacy and liberty than to weaken that law, which is precisely what retroactive immunity is meant to do. Yesterday's newspapers disclosed that in December of 2000, the National Security Agency sent the Bush administration a report asserting that the Agency must become a ``powerful, permanent presence'' on America's communications network--a ``powerful, permanent presence'' on America's communications network. Under this administration, that is exactly what the NSA has become. If the phone companies simply do the NSA's bidding in violation of the law, they create a world in which Americans can never feel confident that their e-mails and phone calls are not being tapped by the Government. Finally, amnesty would stamp a congressional seal of approval on the administration's warrantless spying. If Congress immunizes the telecoms for past violations of the law, it will send the message Congress approves what the administration did. We would be aiding and abetting the President in his illegal actions, his contempt for the rule of law, and his attempt to hide his lawbreaking from the American people. Voting for amnesty would be a vote for silence, secrecy, and illegality. There would be no accountability, no justice, no lessons learned. The damage will not stop there. The telecommunications companies are not the only private entity enlisted by this administration in its lawbreaking. Think about Blackwater and its brutal actions in Iraq, or the airlines that have flown CIA captives to be tortured in foreign countries. These companies may also be summoned to court one day to justify their actions. When that day comes, the administration may call yet again for retroactive immunity, claiming the companies were only doing their patriotic duty as ``partners'' in fighting terrorism. The debate we are having now about telecom amnesty is not likely to be the last round in the administration's attempt to immunize its private partners. It is only the opening round. In America, we should be striving to make more entities subject to the rule of law, not fewer. Giving in to the administration now will start us down a path to a very dark place. Think about what we have been hearing from the White House in this debate. The President has said American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity--no immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he is willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies. The President's insistence on immunity as a precondition for any FISA reform is yet another example of disrespect for honest dialog and the rule of law. It is painfully clear what the President's request for retroactive immunity is about. It is a self-serving attempt to avoid legal and political accountability and keep the American people in the dark about this whole shameful episode. Similar to the CIA's destruction of videotapes showing potentially criminal conduct, it is a desperate attempt to erase the past. The Senate should see this request for what it is and reject it. We should pass this amendment to strike title II from the FISA bill. Our focus should be on protecting national security, our fundamental liberties, and the rule of law, not protecting phone companies that knew they were breaking the law. I am second to no one in wanting to make sure our intelligence agencies have all the flexibility and authority they need to pursue the terrorists. We need to pass a FISA bill that will keep America strong and protect our liberty. The bill reported by the Judiciary Committee will do that.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. I agree it never had to be this way. I can remember back in 1976 President Ford was President of the United States. He had Edward Levi as Attorney General, who was a distinguished Attorney General. This was in the wake of a good deal of abuse we had seen during President Nixon's period of wiretap abuse taking place in this country, which shocked the Nation. At that time, the Attorney General insisted that we work together, that Congress work together. He called members of the Judiciary Committee down to the Justice Department and took their views into consideration. There was a variety of very sensitive issues about activities involving the Soviet Union and a good deal in terms of embassies in Washington, DC. There was very sensitive information. All of that was worked out with the Republicans and Democrats in the Judiciary Committee, and they passed the FISA bill. There was only one dissenting vote in the Senate--only one dissenting vote--on this proposal. I must say many of us were enormously disappointed at the beginning of this whole pathway when Attorney General Gonzales came up before the committee and indicated: No, there was not any role to try to work in a constructive way and on a constructive path on this mission. No, there was no place for anyone to get adequately briefed. No, there was no sharing of information. No, there was going to be no--they understood what was going to happen. They understood what was going on. They had all the authority and the power under the executive branch. No, there was not going to be any activity whatsoever in trying to work together. I have mentioned a variety of different points. But one of those we ought to keep in mind is that with the abuses that have taken place, we are endangering the prosecution of many of these terrorists. This is a real danger. Rather than trying to work that out through a process, with give-and-take, with Republicans and Democrats, in a bipartisan way, working with the Judiciary Committee--the Intelligence Committee obviously has enormous interest and experience; I see my friend and someone we all have such a high regard for, Senator Rockefeller, who has done such a commendable job in this whole area--but not working it out and running off on this pathway, which is gradually being revealed through the national media and the press and through other activities, I think, rather than enhancing our national security, has indeed threatened it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. In the committee, we had some of the members of the FISA Courts testify. They indicated before the committee similar kinds of cooperation they have had in reviewing this, making the Senator's point even stronger. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. There may have been others, but I did notice him to be the first one in the Senate who spoke up on this issue when it first came up, and he has been a very strong protector of our national security and our liberty, and we have all benefited from his comments and his leadership in this area. I thank him for all of his good work. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to echo the comments of my friends from Maryland and Oregon. The original Iraq Refugee Crisis Act included language similar to the conference report and the Cardin amendment to the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill. As the original author of the legislation, I can assure you it was my intention to provide Iraqi SIV recipients with the full array of benefits available to refugees. Moreover, SIV recipients are not to be counted against immigrant caps, nor are they counted against U.S. Refugee Admissions Program caps.

Mr. KENNEDY. I do. SIVs are not to be counted against immigrant or U.S. Refugee Admissions Program caps set by the administration through consultations with Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I commend the conferees for including the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act as part of this conference agreement. I am grateful to the chairman and ranking member for supporting this needed provision, and I also appreciate the support of Senators Smith, Hagel, Biden, Brownback, Lieberman, Leahy, Snowe, Voinovich, Feinstein, Collins, Obama, Dole, Menendez, Mikulski, and Clinton, who joined in sponsoring the original amendment when it was adopted by the Senate by voice vote during our debate on this bill. The Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act requires the Secretary of State to establish a refugee processing program in Iraq for Iraqis threatened because of their association with the United States. Applicants must demonstrate they have a well-founded fear of persecution. Iraqis who will now be able to apply directly to the United States rather than going through the United Nations referral system,--include: Iraqis who were or are employed by or worked for the United States Government in Iraq; Iraqis who were or are employed in Iraq by a media or nongovernmental organization headquartered in the United States, or by an organization that is closely associated with the United States mission in Iraq and that has received U.S. Government funding through an official documented contract, award, grant, or cooperative agreement; and Iraqis who are members of a religious or minority community with close family members in the United States. The act allows the Secretary to suspend in-country processing for periods of 90 days, with a report to Congress on the reasons for any suspension. In addition, the act makes available 5,000 special immigrant visas each year for the next 5 years for Iraqis who have worked for the U.S. Government in Iraq and are endangered as a result. Applicants must have a positive recommendation or evaluation from a senior supervisor and be approved by the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq or his designee. The provision sunsets after 5 years. These visas, because of their special status, are not counted against immigrant caps nor are they counted against U.S. Refugee Admissions Program caps. Under the act, Iraqis granted special immigrant visa status are eligible for 8 months for the full array of benefits traditionally provided to refugees by the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration and the Health and Human Services Department's Office of Refugee Resettlement. The provisions under the act would defray the cost of transportation and provide prearrival admissions assistance and up to 8 months of postarrival resettlement assistance to those Iraqis who come to the U.S. on special immigrant visas. Senators Cardin and Levin are the primary authors of this provision and, have spoken eloquently for it. The act also allows reapplication by Iraqis in the United States who have been denied asylum, in part, because conditions in Iraq changed after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government. In addition, the act directs the Secretary of State to designate a high-level special coordinator at the Embassy in Baghdad to handle issues related to Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons. The coordinator will be responsible for overseeing in-country processing of refugees and special immigrant visa applicants, and will have authority to refer persons directly to the U.S. refugee resettlement program. Similar positions would be designated in the American embassies in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. The act also requires the Secretary of State to consult with other countries about resettlement of refugee populations and to develop mechanisms in countries with significant populations of displaced Iraqis to ensure the refugees' well-being and safety. U.S. financial assistance would be provided in such cases to help meet the cost of caring for the refugees and protecting them. These measures are urgently needed to address the immense human costs of the war in Iraq and its tragic effect on the millions of Iraqis-- men, woman, and children--who have fled their homes and often their country to escape the violence. A significant number of courageous Iraqis have worked with the American military, the staff of our Embassy, or with American organizations to support our mission in Iraq. Their support and loyalty have cost too many lives already, and their families have often been forced to flee their communities or even their country because of the danger. The target of the assassin's bullet is on their back, and we owe them enormous gratitude. But instead of giving them needed help and protection, we have too often offered only bureaucracy and dubious hopes. Regardless of where we stand on the war, Congress is united in believing that America has a fundamental obligation to assist Iraqis who have courageously supported our forces and our efforts in Iraq and whose lives are in peril as a result. The provisions in the agreement are a long-needed attempt to fulfill our commitment to them. Despite the clear and present danger faced by many Iraqis because of their ties to the United States, their religious affiliation, or their work with media, nongovernmental or humanitarian organizations, the vast majority of Iraqi refugees must go through a long and complicated referral process of approximately 8 to 10 months, in which the United Nations serves as an intermediary outside Iraq. This act cuts through much of that redtape. Obviously, we cannot resettle all of Iraq's refugees in the United States. But we need to keep faith with the Iraqis who have worked so bravely with us and for us and supported our mission in Iraq, and whose lives are in serious danger now because of it. A few months ago, I had the honor of meeting SGT Joe Seemiller, a young man who is haunted by the military motto, ``Leave No Man Behind.'' Sergeant Seemiller is dedicated to helping the translator he was forced to leave behind in Iraq. On countless occasions, his translator helped to avoid serious American and Iraqi casualties. He braved innumerable death threats and the horrific murder of his brother. Finally, he had to flee to Syria, where he waited more than 2 years for the opportunity to be resettled in the United States. The Refugee Crisis Act, makes clear that America has a fundamental obligation to assist Iraqis whose lives are in danger because of their close ties to our Nation. I look forward to working with the administration in the months ahead to implement this important humanitarian legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the conference agreement.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment that the Congress is taking up the conference report on the Defense bill without the hate crimes provision. I commend Chairman Levin for his strong leadership in our efforts to have it included as part of this measure. Despite his efforts, and the strong support of Majority Leader Harry Reid, it is an extraordinary missed opportunity that we are not able to send the hate crimes bill to the President before the end of the year. The inclusion of the hate crimes provision in the Defense bill was appropriate. Our military stands for America's ideals and fights for America's ideals. At a time when our ideals are under attack by terrorists in other lands, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that we practice what we preach, and that we are doing all we can to root out the bigotry and prejudice in our own country that leads to similar violence here at home. In Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are fighting for freedom and liberty. They are on the front line fighting against evil and hate. We are united in our effort to root out the cells of hatred around the world. We should not turn a blind eye to acts of hatred and terrorism here at home. We owe it to our troops to uphold those same principles here at home. We should not shrink now from our role as the beacon of liberty to the rest of the world. If America is to live up to its founding ideals of liberty and justice for all, combating hate crimes must be a national priority. The hate crimes bill would have advanced those values and goals, and we are committed to getting it enacted. It is long past time for this measure to become law. We are now facing a time when the FBI reports that hate crimes are on the rise, and there has been a sharp increase in the number of hate crimes reported against Hispanics--at the highest levels since the reports were first mandated by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, demonstrating the real societal impact of anti-immigrant campaigns. The Southern Poverty Law Center also reports that hate groups are on the rise. Since September of this year, when thousands of Americans marched for civil rights in Jena, LA, there have been more than 50 noose incidents across the country. Just a few weeks ago, the New York Times included a chart reflecting the ``Geography of Hate'' across America. Over the last 2 years, it shows that nooses have been sighted in many different States. This terrifying symbol of racism and prejudice has even appeared recently on schoolyards and college campuses, creating fear in their whole communities. Apparently, we have not succeeded in adequately teaching the lessons of America's long history of discrimination. Education is an important part of prevention, but we also need strong national legislation to punish those who engage in hate-motivated violence and to expand Federal resources available to investigate and prevent these vicious crimes. As my colleagues here in the Senate know, Senator Gordon Smith and I have been fighting this battle for a long time. Just a few months ago, the hate crimes provision was adopted by the Senate with a vote of 60- 39 as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. It's not the first time that the Senate voted to pass this bill. In 2000 and 2002, a majority of Senators voted to pass this legislation. In 2004, we had 65 votes for the bill and it was adopted as part of the Defense authorization bill. But that time, like this time, it was stripped out in conference. Twice in the last 2 years, Chairman Conyers has succeeded in getting the House to vote to pass this legislation-- but, once again, the House and Senate have not come together to get this bill done. We have been in this battle for nearly a decade, and we will continue to press ahead. It is long past time to stand up for the victims of these senseless acts of violence--victims like Matthew Shepard, for whom this bill is named, and who died a horrible a death in 1998 at the hands of two men who singled him out because of his sexual orientation. Nine years after Matthew's death--9 years--we still haven't gotten it done. How long are we going to wait? This year, with Matthew Shepard's mother Judy at our side, we were filled with hope that finally this would be the year that we would get this bill to the President's desk. A broad and growing coalition of 210 law enforcement, civic, disability, religious and civil rights groups support the bill, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Anti-Defamation League, the Interfaith Alliance, the National Sheriff's Association, the Human Rights Campaign, the National District Attorneys Association and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Over 1,400--1,400--clergy from a broad spectrum of religious traditions from across the country have come together to support the Matthew Shepard Act. These leaders of America's religious communities have called on Congress to stand united against one of the worst forms of oppression: violence based on personal characteristics and identity. Together, we must work together to create a society in which diverse people are safe as well as free. We will continue to fight to protect the rights of our fellow citizens, and not let a veto threat stop us from doing the right thing. We are not giving up. We will continue to push to get the bill through the Congress next year. I remain hopeful that the President will hear our call and that he too will finally support this much-needed measure. Hate crimes are an appalling form of domestic terrorism that cannot and must not be tolerated anywhere in our country. We have made progress over the years, and our focus now should be to strengthen protections for hate crimes so that all Americans will be protected under the law. No Americans should feel that they are second class citizens because Congress refuses to protect them against hate crimes. I am looking forward to voting for this conference report. At the outset I want to express a view that I know all of the members of the Armed Services Committee feel, and that is great respect for our chairman, Senator Levin, and Senator Warner, who has been past chairman of the Armed Services Committee and has a lifetime of commitment in terms of the security of our Nation and to the betterment of our Armed Forces. We are grateful for their leadership, and the country should be. I am also very grateful for their help and assistance, along with my colleague and friend Gordon Smith, for a provision that was included in the Defense authorization bill but which has been subsequently dropped, and that is the hate crime legislation we had added which had been included at other times as well in the Defense authorization bill. It was included in the year 2000, in 2002, and now, by a vote of 60 to 39, was included in this legislation. This legislation is to make sure our troops are going to be the best trained, the best led, and the best equipped. Also, the very serious efforts that have been made in terms of the health care that has been pointed out by the Senator from Washington and other various provisions of enormous importance. What we are interested in doing is giving the support to our frontline troops. We ask ourselves: What are they doing? What is their task? Their task is fighting terrorism and fighting evil overseas-- fighting terrorism and fighting evil overseas so that we are going to be safe and secure. It does seem to me if they are fighting against terrorism and evil overseas and they are fighting for American values overseas, they ought to also be fighting for American values here at home. The values here at home are to fight the terrorism and evil that exist here at home in terms of hate crimes--hate crimes--the types of crimes that are devoted and focused on individuals because of who they are. The kind of crimes that hurt not just the individuals but communities; the kind of crimes that have expanded significantly over the period of recent years. America is a better America by not tolerating hate crimes. America is a better America when we are fighting hate crimes in the best way and with all of the tools we possibly can. We had that legislation. It was included. We had good debate on the floor of the Senate. We had bipartisan support for the hate crimes legislation. That same concept had been passed as an individual bill in the House of Representatives. The same concept was included in instructions from the House of Representatives 3 years ago that we should accept it. But this time, the House of Representatives refused to address it and we have seen that provision withdrawn. I think it was a significant and important mistake. I wish to give to those who are committed to that program, that effort to try and deal with the problems of violence in America. We have all seen the challenges of violence in these past weeks. As the Southern Poverty Law Center reports, it is taking place in schoolyards and communities all over our Nation. This is violence caused by hatred, by people that are targeting individuals of different color skin, different races, different ethnic backgrounds, different sexual orientation. So at another time we will bring this issue back to the floor of the Senate. We want to give the assurances of those who have been a part of this whole march which has taken place over the period of years since 1968 with the killing of Dr. King--this has been a continuing march. We haven't stopped. We will not yield. We will not give in. I am grateful to the Senator from Virginia for yielding me this time. We will ultimately prevail. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, food safety is very much on the minds of many Americans today, and the reason is as obvious as the newspaper headlines in recent months. From the Washington Post on November 29th: ``Bad Pet Food May Have Killed Nearly 350.'' From the October 31 New York Times: ``Chinese Chemicals Flow Unchecked to Market.'' From The Associated Press on September 27: ``Hamburgers may be tainted with E. Coli.'' Suddenly, there is a danger that E. coli is present in many typical foods. An E. coli outbreak in spinach last summer killed 3 people and sickened more than 200 others. In recent months, E. coli has lead to the recall of over 20 million pounds of ground meat. We have also had salmonella in peanut butter and snack food and botulism in a chili product. Even unlabeled allergens can routinely lead to the recall of food. These examples, and the sharp decline of consumer confidence in food safety, make clear that Congress must act quickly to deal with the problem. The FDA Science Board issued an alarming report last month, concluding that the ``FDA does not have the capacity to ensure the safety of food for the nation.'' In his years in both the House and now the Senate, Senator Durbin has been a leader in efforts to improve food safety--from his Safe Food Act to the Human and Pet Food Safety Act. He offered a food safety amendment on the FDA bill last May that we accepted 94 to 0, and it was included in the final bill approved by Congress and signed by the President in September. I commend his working with us to produce an amendment to the farm bill to address the issue now with the new urgency it requires. Because of the work of Senator Durbin, the farm bill includes a commission to investigate food safety and make recommendations to the President and Congress, including specific legislative proposals and budget estimates. The amendment we have offered builds on the work of the commission. It requires the President to submit a legislative proposal in response to the commission's recommendations, with Congress following up with appropriate action. It also includes a sense-of-the- Senate provision that the Congress must approve more resources for food safety, must work for a comprehensive response on the issue, and that the Federal Government must work cooperatively with foreign governments to improve the safety of imported food. I agree with Senator Durbin that we need make more effective progress on food safety. Both the European Union and Japan have stronger food safety programs than we do. Most significantly, they have much stronger programs on imported food, combining inspections in the country of origin and the testing of imported foods. We should be able to do at least as well. Federal food safety agencies need power to identify food safety problems more quickly and respond more effectively, especially to prevent outbreaks in food. Every aspect of the food industry must have an effective plan in place to prevent hazards in the food it grows, prepares, or markets. A hearing in the HELP Committee earlier this month began this process. I am committed to achieving a comprehensive response to food safety, and I look forward to working with Senator Enzi, Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, and my other colleagues on the committee to develop that proposal early in the new year. Our amendment to the farm bill will require the President to follow up in 2009 or early 2010 with a further legislative proposal if additional efforts are needed to improve the safety of our food supply. Every day, parents across the Nation prepare breakfast, lunch, and dinner for their children. They expect these meals to nourish their children, not sicken them. Action by Congress is essential to avoid the risk that a fruit served for breakfast is contaminated with salmonella or that the meat or cheese added to a lunch sandwich is contaminated with listeria or that fish served for dinner contains antibiotic residues or that the lettuce and other fresh produce in a salad is contaminated with E. coli. We all must act together, and I am grateful to Senator Durbin and the managers of the farm bill, Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss, for working with us to make this amendment possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my colleagues for their support of this legislation. I also thank Senators Mikulski and Harkin, who were other original cosponsors of this legislation. I will speak at a later time on the extraordinary difference that my sister, Eunice, has made in the lives of millions of Americans, but for now, I wish to comment on an aspect of the legislation before us. As we enact this legislation, I did want to make clear, that it is my understanding that nothing in this bill changes any authorities that we provided NIH and its director in the NIH Reform Act that we passed last Congress. Specifically, this does not change any of the authorities of the Scientific Management Review Board or any other provisions provided in section 401 of that act. Is that the intent and understanding of my colleagues as well?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I want to, first of all, thank our majority leader for his comments. Just before the request is agreed to, I want to remind the Members of the Senate that private workers have the opportunity under the labor laws to get the kinds of protections and rights we are talking about; public workers do not. The public workers, who have been on the front lines of so many of the challenges we are facing in our society, deserve these rights. Public safety workers put their lives on the line every day they go to work. They are on the frontlines of our effort to keep America safe. We ask much from them. When the California wildfires threatened lives and property, we asked that they battle those blazes. When natural disasters strike, we expect them to be the first on the scene. And on September 11th, they were the heroes that restored our hope. These heroic men and women have earned our thanks and respect. All they asked of this body was the right to enjoy the same basic rights that private sector workers enjoy. The right to have a voice at the table when decisions are made that are critical to their safety and their livelihood. The bipartisan amendment that we offered would have guaranteed every first responder the right to collective bargaining. Many of our first responders already have this fundamental right. This amendment would have provided these basic rights for those who don't and it would have done so in a reasonable manner. For States that currently accord public safety officers these rights, the amendment would have no affect. For States that don't currently provide these rights, the amendment would not trample on their rights. They would have ample opportunity to establish their own collective bargaining systems, or ask the Federal Labor Relations Authority for help. The choice would belong to the state. The public safety officers came to us with a modest request. Tonight, a minority of the Senate said no to their request. Despite the broad bipartisan support we had for this amendment, we could not get past the obstructions of those who were determined to deny our Nation's first responders their basic rights. This fight is not over. I pledge to our Nation's brave firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians, that we will bring this legislation back to the Senate again and again until the Senate says ``yes'' to them. Each day they face hazards that put their lives at risk, and as we enjoy the security that their sacrifice provides, they should know that they have allies in the Senate that will keep fighting for them. While we may not have succeeded today, we will bring this legislation back to the floor of the U.S. Senate soon and we will pass it. Our public safety officers deserve no less. I thank the leader for all of his strong support for this legislation, and I indicate that I, for one--and there are many others--will come back and revisit this issue at an early time. So I don't object to the request, but I do want to state that this issue is going to be front and center before the Senate in the near future.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, more than 1.5 million of our servicemen and women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other nations. We have mobilized more than 630,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves, including 92,000 who are on active duty right now. These service men and women have courageously defended our country overseas, but tens of thousands of them have come home to find that they have lost their employment benefits or even their jobs, and the Government has failed to defend their rights. Today, Senator Daniel Akaka and I are introducing legislation to guarantee that veterans won't have to wait years for the Government to act to restore their benefits or return to work. Thirteen years ago, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, specifically to protect our servicemembers when they return home. We understood that, to maintain strong focus and a strong National Guard and Reserves, servicemembers needed confidence that they could return to their civilian jobs when they came home from their tours of duty. That legislation was a clear promise that the Federal Government would step in and defend servicemembers who were wrongly denied their jobs or benefits. We pledged that the Department of Labor would investigate violations of the act, and that if employers refused to follow the law, the Attorney General would take employers to court to protect our servicemembers' rights. Today, however, the administration has clearly broken that promise to enforce the law and get our veterans back to work. Last month, during a Senate Committee hearing, I released a Department of Defense survey showing that for tens of thousands of veterans, their service to our country has cost them the salary they deserve, their health care, their pensions, or even their jobs. Among members of the Reserves and National Guard, nearly 11,000 were denied prompt reemployment. More than 22,000 lost seniority and rightful pay. Nearly 20,000 had their pensions reduced. More than 15,000 did not receive the training they needed to resume their former jobs. Nearly 11,000 did not get their health insurance back. The problem is that employers aren't following the law, and Federal agencies aren't effectively enforcing it. Mr. President, 38 percent of servicemembers who asked the Department of Labor to defend their rights did not receive a prompt response. Servicemembers are forced to wait months or years even to find out whether the Government will agree to represent them and defend their rights. One veteran waited 7 years before the Department of Labor told him whether it would take his case to court. No veteran can afford to wait seven months to return to work or have his health insurance reinstated, let alone wait 7 years. With these unbelievable delays, it is not surprising that 44 percent of servicemembers who asked the Department of Labor for help said that they were dissatisfied with the assistance they received. When servicemen and women hear about these delays, they ask themselves, ``Why should I even bother to ask for help.'' In fact, the Pentagon tells us that 77 percent of servicemembers whose rights are violated don't contact anyone to defend their rights. They simply give up. Nearly half of them say that they have no confidence that the Government will resolve their problems, or that it is just not worth the effort. Even worse, a quarter of them don't even know where they can go for help. It is beyond dispute that the administration has broken its promise to help them. Our veterans deserve better than this. They deserve to know that their Government is working as quickly as possible to get them back to work and restore their benefits. The current law needs reform as well. It makes no sense to have four different agencies tracking the problems of our servicemembers in four different ways. We also need to know whether disabled veterans are being properly assisted in making their own difficult transition back to work. It is time for the administration to keep its promise, and end the long delays for veterans who need help in defending their rights. The bill that Senator Akaka and I are introducing imposes timely and reasonable deadlines on Federal agencies to investigate complaints, to attempt to resolve them, and, if necessary, to refer them for litigation. The legislation also makes the Federal enforcement of the law more transparent and responsive to the needs of veterans. It assures veterans that they won't have to wait years for an answer about whether they will receive the help they deserve. By imposing timely deadlines on the Federal agencies, we are also stepping up the pressure on employers that violate the rights of our brave soldiers. With these new deadlines, employers won't be able to drag their heels as the Department of Labor spends months or years investigating violations. They will know that they have to settle each veteran's case quickly and fairly, or else face the U.S. Government in court. The legislation also implements a number of reforms recommended by the Government Accountability Office--reforms that have received bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. In particular, our bill requires agencies to gather and report information on these cases in a uniform manner, so that we can understand trends and better address the needs of each servicemember. Agencies will also be required to report on cases involving veterans with disabilities, so that we have accurate information on the reemployment problems of our wounded soldiers. Enacting this legislation alone obviously won't end the job discrimination that too many servicemembers face when they come home. But it will certainly improve the assistance they receive in obtaining the help they have earned and deserve. Our legislation has the support of the Nation's largest veterans' organization, the American Legion, which emphasizes that the ``enforcement of veterans' employment and reemployment rights . . . can only be achieved through aggressive oversight and timely investigation.'' This legislation, the American Legion says, will ``strengthen veterans' employment and reemployment rights'' by imposing ``timely, realistic deadlines on Federal agencies to process'' their claims. We are proud to have the American Legion's support for this legislation. We know we can never truly repay our veterans for their immense sacrifices. They have fought hard for our country, and it is up to us to fight just as hard for them when they return home to the heroes' welcome they so justly deserve. An important part of that welcome is keeping the promise that we made to them to protect their employment rights when they return. That is what this legislation seeks to do, and I urge my colleagues to enact it as soon as possible.