Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may I have an hour after Senator DeWine?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the hour is late in the afternoon on a Saturday, and I know there are many different matters of interest, primarily sports taking place across this country at the universities and high schools across our Nation. Young people are out there, parents are out there, families are out there, but I hope there are some who had the good opportunity to listen to my friend and colleague from Ohio State who spoke so clearly and eloquently as to what the real challenge is for this institution, the Senate, in protecting the children of this Nation. The Senator laid out the kind of persuasive and irrefutable case that helped gain 78 Members of the Senate who supported the DeWine-Kennedy proposal earlier this last month, but the amendment was dropped, as the Senator from Ohio pointed out, in the course of the consideration of the underlying legislation. There are public leaders who are talking about children all over this country. They talk about children being our future. They are our future. As the Senator from Ohio points out, we have missed the golden opportunity to make an extraordinary difference in the lives of their children and families. We hear a great deal, as we should, about family values. This legislation is as much a part of family values as we could have, to the extent that legislation is bound in family values. We know that basically family values start with parents, work through their children's relationship with each other and their parents, and their own common sense about their responsibilities as young people for themselves and for their families and for others. Family values involves caring about what happens not only to our children and our immediate families but also to children whose lives we can impact. This legislation which was supported by the overwhelming majority of this Senate, could make such an extraordinary difference to children today, tomorrow, and to the future. As has been pointed out, we have missed that extraordinary opportunity. For that reason and for other reasons which I will outline briefly in a few moments, I intend to vote no on the conference report and no on cloture. This country has had a very full education about the dangers of smoking. I can remember the 1964 Surgeon General's report that talked about the dangers of smoking and youth. That was a wake-up call to parents all across this country. Then we had Surgeon General Koop, who was an extraordinary Surgeon General. Last night the President of the United States was asked about any mistakes he might have made in public life, and we did not hear any. I freely admit one of the important mistakes I made was voting against Everett Koop to be Surgeon General because we saw through his life and through his commitment not only as the Surgeon General but afterwards, as well, that once he made that judgment that cigarettes were addictive and cancerous, he spent a great part of his life educating families all across this country. This Nation owes a great deal to his work and his commitment and his education to families. That was a wake-up call for America. We went on through the period of the 1980s when we had Dr. Kessler, head of the FDA, who drafted the regulations which were circumvented by the tobacco industry, and put aside those regulations that were the result of hours and hours and hours and hours and weeks and weeks and weeks, and days and days and days and months and months and months of careful, scientific testimony, those for and against it. Nonetheless, he came through with outstanding recommendations. We incorporated those recommendations as a point of reference to put them into effect because they have been tried and tested and they should have been put into effect to provide the protections for the young children of this country. Then we had--I can remember, and I bet most families can remember-- that extraordinary day when we had the presidents of all the important tobacco companies who testified in front of my friend and an extraordinary Congressman, Henry Waxman, who all raised their hands and swore--swore--to the Lord on high that they, as the chief executives of the tobacco companies, did not believe cigarettes were addictive and did not believe they were dangerous to your health, in complete conflict with all the evidentiary science at that time. Well, we heard so many of them recant that testimony later. It has all been part of a parade, a parade of distortion and misrepresentation by the tobacco companies and their representatives to not the older members of our society but to the children in our society in order to bring them in and start them smoking and get them on the path to addiction. I have been fortunate to be the chairman of the Health Committee in the Senate. I am ranking member now. How many days, how many weeks, how many months of hearings we have had about the problems young people have with their addiction, their attachment to dangerous drugs. Cigarettes are right up there. As the science would say, they are as addictive as heroin and cocaine. That is the science. That is not just an opinion of the Senator from Massachusetts, that is the science. It is as addictive as cocaine and heroin, yet we allow that to take place. Then we had the comprehensive legislation in 1998 to try to deal with a range of different tobacco issues. The basic core part of the DeWine- Kennedy legislation on FDA was here before the Senate essentially at that time for 6 weeks and no one contested its importance. Go back and read the record. No one really questioned that if we were going to have a comprehensive tobacco bill at that time that particular provision deserved at least support. There were no amendments on that, none. All these voices now: Oh, well, we can't have the FDA, absolutely not. We don't need more regulation--we did not have a single amendment on that, none; no amendments. I had the good opportunity to effectively reintroduce that legislation with the majority leader, Senator Frist, who did so much in the drafting of the original legislation, one of the important leaders in this body on health care policy. This provision is basically very mainstream, if that gives assurance to some people. It is a very mainstream proposal, but it does the job in terms of protection. So we had this proposal that was considered in the Senate, and was accepted, that would make such an extraordinary difference. As I was mentioning, the very simple fact is, this product, which is so addictive, so dangerous to the children of this country, not only to the children themselves but also to their families, is something that we should have addressed. But this administration and, quite frankly, the leadership on that Ways and Means Committee, our Republican leadership, said: Absolutely not. We are not going to tolerate it. We are not going to accept it. We will not let it happen. And it did not. I pay respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle because the progress that we made has not been just a partisan effort. The good Senator from Ohio has been a leader. There have been many. The Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith; the Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe; John McCain from Arizona; Orrin Hatch from Utah; Senator Chafee from Rhode Island; and many others have been willing to stand on this issue. This has not been a Republican or Democratic issue. But this administration has made a different judgment than those good Republicans who supported this effort in here and also a number of them supported us in the conference. There has to be responsibility. There should be some accountability around here somewhere. We are elected as officials. We make judgments, we make choices, and we ought be held accountable for them. That was a decision that was made by the administration not to include it. If this administration said to include it, it would be in that bill tomorrow when we vote on it on the floor of the Senate. We had the support of some of the tobacco industries, with the Philip Morris industry. Tomorrow, when the Senate addresses the underlying legislation, we are also going to voice vote and send back to the House of Representatives the DeWine-Kennedy FDA legislation. The Senate will pass that. We will send it back to the House. We have not given up hope. Senator DeWine and I have not given up hope that perhaps in some lameduck Congress, perhaps when the glare of the campaign in the last 4 weeks of the campaign--I would have thought it would have been a pretty good issue because people, parents, care about this, to indicate support for it. But, in any event, perhaps after the glare of the campaign is over, in a postcampaign time, when we meet, perhaps we can get a different reaction. So we take some hope and we want to give the assurance to those who have given us strong support that we are not giving up and we are not giving in. Mr. President, I have a few letters that I will mention, and then there are a few final items I want to talk about. We have a detailed presentation on exactly what this legislation does. I want to make sure that is in this part of the Record. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, here is a letter from Lorraine T. from Ipswich, MA. I will include the whole letter, but I will just read parts of it: My mother smoked until she got diagnosed with lung cancer in 1994, which is also the year her only grandchild was born. They removed part of her lung, and since she believed she had ``beat'' the cancer, she began smoking again. Five years and five CT scans later, they found another tumor in her lung, this time inoperable and supposedly untreatable. The doctors gave her six to ten months to live. Knowing how short her time was, 1999 turned out to be an extremely painful year for all of us. Over the next four years, my mother suffered terribly, often unable to eat and using a stomach tube, constantly taking medication and losing lucidity, often too tired and too weak to be with her little granddaughter, whom she completely adored. We watched her waste away to 80 pounds, the cancer having invaded her bones, causing her to fall, taking away her independence, which she always valued highly. She died April 21, 2003, the day after Easter, at only 67 years old. She was my best friend, and my daughter's, too. . . . My 9 year-old daughter has seen what horror cigarettes can cause; I doubt that she will ever forget that cigarettes took her ``Nonni'' away from her, but she is coming to the age where social pressures will be on her to conform to the ``crowd.'' I hope she will be strong, and that there will be enough education in her school to help her to learn how to deal with people who try to coerce her into using this drug, among others. . . . Lorraine T., Ipswich MA. Here is another letter from Donna M., from Melrose, MA, of this year: My father never liked to dance much. Yet, as we stood hugging, watching my best friend dance with her father at a wedding, Dad promised to dance with me at my wedding. At age 39, he had a stroke that left him paralyzed on his left side. He was unable to regain most of the use of his limbs through years of hard work. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to quit his addiction to cigarettes. One month before his 50th birthday, my Dad died from a tobacco related heart attack. He didn't live to fulfill his promise to dance with me at my wedding. Here is a letter from Linda F., of Middleboro, MA: Today is like every other day. I miss my mom so much. I look at my kids and realize ``nanny'' is not here to see how cute they have become. I am an only child and lost my mom 3 years ago to lung cancer. I can remember the moment the doctor told me she was going to die, and in the same breath she said ``I truly believe what the tobacco companies are getting away with is criminal.'' I have from that day on not been able to understand why they are allowed to sell something that has killed so many, and is going to kill so many more. Then the letter continues. This is from Sarah Z. from South Easton, MA, October 4, 2004: In November 2002 we learned that my mother, Gloria, had stage four lung cancer. Mom fought for a year. She fought to the end. She died last October with one regret. That she would not live to see her new granddaughter. Her granddaughter was born 8 months and 23 days after Mom passed away. She is now 4 weeks old (today!) and it is my hope that she will never breathe someone's secondhand smoke. That she will never have a friend who takes up smoking. And that she will never have to watch someone she loves die from such a horrible, preventable thing as lung cancer. And Tori H, South Boston: I have now been a smoker for 8 years. I am only 24 years old. I already have a severe smoker's cough. It only gets worse with cold weather. I live in New England. I sometimes read the side of the packs with the Surgeon General's warnings. They say smoking can cause babies to be low birth weight . . . I did not smoke all the time when I was pregnant but I guess you could have called me a smoker . . . My daughter was 8 pounds; she was definitely not under-weight. Now don't get me wrong--I am not saying this to be proud. Every time I look at her I wonder if I did any other damage to her. I am so ashamed of myself. Yet right now I am dying for a smoke. This is such an addiction. I don't think I will ever overcome it. I want to and God knows how I have tried. I want to be around when my daughter grows up, to see her get married and to see any future grandchildren I might have. If I keep up this way I am not going to see any of it; it is so depressing. The letters go on, and they make the case. If there are any who think this is a partisan issue, look at what the Bush administration's Department of Justice filed in the final proposed findings of fact of the United States in the tobacco litigation brought by the Federal Government against tobacco companies. This is the current administration's finding, page 21: Cigarette smoking, particularly that begun by young people, continues to be the leading cause of preventable disease and premature mortality in the United States. For children and adolescents, one out of three will die of smoking-related disease. As part of a scheme to defraud, defendants have intentionally marketed cigarettes to youth under the legal smoking age and falsely denied that they have done so. We could go on. I have their brief notes right here about what is happening. These are the statistics in terms of the young people who get started smoking. It begins early. When adults who are daily smokers began smoking: 89 percent by the age of 18; 62 percent by the age of 16; 37 percent by the age of 14; and 16 percent by the age of 12. You can ask why. Well, just look at this chart. This is advertising in billions of dollars. These are billions of dollars of advertising and how this has gone up and has continued in 2003 and 2004. That is targeted, as these various ads demonstrate: Winston, three young people out in the surf with a surfboard. The sun is setting. Additive free. Naturally smooth. Leave the bull behind, just pick up a Winston. This is from Elle magazine, all targeted toward young people: Camel, Turkish blends. And there you see the advertisement, all focused on the youth. Here is Rolling Stone: Stir the senses, Salem. All to appeal to the young people. And it has great success because, like any narcotic, you get them hooked at that age, and it is very difficult to stop. My friend from Ohio mentioned the costs for the taxpayers as well. We are motivated because of our concern for the children and children's health and the family's health. But if that doesn't move you, just look at the annual cost in the United States: the Medicaid payments, $23 billion; $20 billion in Medicare payments; other Federal payments, $8 billion; smoking during pregnancy, $4 billion; total health cost, $75 billion. And if you add lost productivity to that, you are talking over $150 billion a year in direct costs to the American taxpayer. This makes sense, obviously, and is the most important for the children so they aren't going to be addicted and their health is going to be protected. It is for the other members of the families as well so that those young people who are eventually going to be parents are going to be protected. But if that doesn't get you and the pocketbook issues don't get you, you can see that you are paying billions and billions of dollars. These are the conclusions about the activities of tobacco companies even by this Justice Department. This is why this is so important and an opportunity missed. Let me conclude on this subject by referring to the letters of support we received from some groups: Dear Senator Kennedy, Congress has an historic opportunity to embrace responsible legislation that will help to reduce suffering and death caused by the tobacco. The House-Senate conferees should include the DeWine-Kennedy language. On July 15, the U.S. Senate took an unprecedented step towards granting the Food and Drug Administration effective authority. The Senate passed the DeWine amendment. The overwhelmingly bipartisan amendment linked the FDA with the tobacco buyout. Our organizations view this approach as critical to accomplishing our goal, securing FDA authority over tobacco products. Tobacco use kills more than 400,000 Americans each year. Across our Nation, more than $75 billion in health costs and, according to the Centers for Disease Control, tobacco use by pregnant women alone costs $400 million to $500 million. And every day another 2,000 children become regular smokers. A third will die prematurely as a result. Now we have an opportunity to do something about it. Yet tobacco products are virtually unregulated. For decades the tobacco companies have marketed to our children, deceived consumers about the harm their products caused, and failed to take any meaningful steps to make their products less harmful. The DeWine-Kennedy language would finally end the special protection enjoyed by the tobacco industry to protect our children and the Nation's health. This legislation meets the standards long established by the public health community for a strong FDA regulation bill that protects the public health. It would give the FDA the necessary tools and resources to effectively regulate the manufacture, marketing, labeling, distribution and sale of tobacco products. Then it continues: The public health community worked in good faith to achieve this much-needed bipartisan legislation that protects the public health and can be enacted in this session. We remain concerned that opponents of an effective FDA will seek to weaken the provision prior to final passage. Our organization will work. Please support. Those include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Cardiology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, the Medical Association, American Women's Medical Association, the Public Health Association, the School Health Association, the Children's Defense Fund, and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. I thank them in particular. The FSC conference report that we are being asked to consider ignores fundamental issues that broad bipartisan majorities of the Senate have strongly supported. On vital matters concerning the protection of children's health, preserving the overtime rights of workers, and defending American jobs from outsourcing to foreign lands, the cynical actions of a few have blocked the will of the majority. The House conferees were more interested in protecting big tobacco companies' profits than they were in protecting children. They would rather create tax incentives for multinational corporations to move millions of American jobs overseas than save millions of our kids from a lifetime of addiction and premature death. We were not the ones who chose to link tobacco issues to this tax bill. That was a decision made by the House Republican leadership. But it is absolutely irresponsible to address a quota buyout for tobacco farmers, as this conference report does, while ignoring the urgent need for FDA authority to prevent cigarette companies from entrapping our kids. The conferees have left us no choice but to oppose passage of this conference report. The importance to our children of authorizing the FDA to regulate tobacco products cannot be overstated. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America. It kills well over 400,000 Americans each year, and nearly all of them started smoking as children. They are seduced by the tobacco companies before they are mature enough to recognize the enormous health risks of smoking, and become addicted while still teenagers. We feel so strongly about this issue because FDA authority is the most important legislation Congress can pass to protect our children from the number one preventable cause of death in America--smoking. We cannot in good conscience allow the Federal agency most responsible for protecting the public health to remain powerless to deal with the enormous health risks of cigarettes. The stakes are vast. Each day, 5,000 children try their first cigarette. Two thousand of them will become daily smokers, and nearly a thousand will die prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases. The fact is that more than 90 percent of adult smokers began smoking as teenagers. Smoking can cause lifelong dreams to go up in smoke. Smoking can mean your hopes for an active life--of hikes with your children, and bike riding and long walks--are beyond your reach. You simply don't have the lung capacity and the stamina to do what you wish you could do. It can mean that your hope of enjoying your grandchildren and appreciating your retirement are gone, as you suffer from tobacco-induced disease and an early death. The most recent studies document the fact that smokers, on average, die 10 years earlier than non-smokers. That is what can happen to your lifestyle when you start smoking as a teenager. How many addicted smokers today are glad to be smoking? How many Americans with smoking-induced lung cancer or emphysema are glad to be smokers? How many addicted smokers can look their children and grandchildren in the eyes and say they are proud to smoke cigarettes. How many wish they could easily put out that last cigarette, and never look back? I think we all know the answers to these questions. That is why this issue is so important. The Senate amendment which passed with the support of 78 Members set forth a fair and balanced approach to FDA regulation. It created a new section in FDA jurisdiction for the regulation of tobacco products, with standards that allow for consideration of the unique issues raised by tobacco use. It was sensitive to the concerns of tobacco farmers, small businesses, and nicotine-dependent smokers. But, it clearly gave FDA the authority it needs in order to prevent youth smoking and to reduce addiction to this highly lethal product. The Senate amendment also provided financial relief for hard-pressed tobacco farmers, much more generous relief than is contained in the conference report. It incorporated bipartisan legislation introduced by thirteen tobacco-state Senators led by Senator McConnell, to buy back tobacco quota from farmers. It would have provided $12 billion to financially vulnerable tobacco farmers and tobacco communities. The money to fund the buyout would come from an assessment on tobacco companies. This proposal was a legitimate buyout plan designed by tobacco-state members for the benefit of their tobacco farming constituents. Instead, the House designed proposal in the conference report forces tobacco farmers to settle for more than $2 billion less than they would have received if the Senate proposal had been accepted. For example, it will pay North Carolina farmers $800 million less than the Senate amendment. It will pay Kentucky farmers $500 million less. That is a very substantial difference. For small farmers who actually tend the land themselves, it is a 25 percent cut in what they will receive. So in reality, the farmers are losers too. Only the tobacco companies who will pay billions less are winners. The heart of the Senate amendment was the FDA provision--which would lead to fewer children starting to smoke, and to fewer adults suffering with tobacco-induced disease and now that provision is gone. Public health groups told us it was the most important legislation we could pass to deal with the nation's number one health hazard. We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The tobacco industry currently spends over eleven billion dollars a year to promote its products. The amount has actually grown dramatically since the Master Settlement Agreement was signed. Much of that money is spent in ways designed to tempt children to start smoking, before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity of the health risk. The industry knows that 90 percent of smokers begin as children and are addicted by the time they reach adulthood. Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies' own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children into dependency on their deadly product. Recent studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the substantial role of industry advertising in decisions by young people to use tobacco products. If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, FDA must have the power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children. The Senate-passed legislation would give FDA the ability to stop tobacco advertising which glamorizes smoking from appearing where it will be seen by significant numbers of children. It grants FDA full authority to regulate tobacco advertising ``consistent with and to the full extent permitted by the First Amendment.'' FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. Nearly every State makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 18, but surveys show that those laws are rarely enforced and frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self- service displays and vending machine sales, except in adult-only facilities. There must also be serious enforcement efforts with real penalties for those caught selling tobacco products to children. This is the only way to ensure that children under 18 are not able to buy cigarettes. The FDA conducted the longest rulemaking proceeding in its history, studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its proceeding, the Agency promulgated rules on the manner in which cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new multi- year rulemaking process on the same issues. The Senate legislation would give the youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by FDA the immediate force of law, as if they had been issued under the new statute. The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These warnings will be more explicit in their description of the medical problems which can result from tobacco use. The FDA is given the authority to change the text of these warning labels periodically, to keep their impact strong. Nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say that it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco companies have vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products. No one can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under oath before Congress that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through the discovery process proves that the companies not only knew of this addictiveness for decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even more addictive. The tobacco industry has a long, dishonorable history of providing misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end. Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the FDA have the authority to effectively regulate them for the protection of the public health. Over 40 million Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. No responsible public health official believes that cigarettes should be banned. A ban would leave forty million people without a way to satisfy their drug dependency. FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers overcome their addiction, and to make the product less toxic for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA must have the authority to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, to the extent that it becomes scientifically feasible. The inherent risk in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded. Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes. The Senate legislation would require manufacturers to submit such ``reduced risk'' products to the FDA for analysis before they can be marketed. No health-related claims would be permitted until they have been verified to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential to prevent deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the public into a false sense of health safety. Tobacco use kills more Americans every year than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides and fires combined. Nearly 90 percent of lung cancer cases, nearly 1 in 3 cancer deaths, and 1 in 5 deaths from heart disease are tobacco-related. Tobacco use results in $75 billion in annual health care costs and $157 billion in total cost. Unfortunately, smoking will remain the number one preventable cause of death in America until Congress is willing to do what it takes to bring this health crisis under control. Congress must vest FDA not only with the responsibility for regulating tobacco products, but with full authority to do the job effectively. The Senate legislation would give the FDA the legal authority it needs--to reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which targets children--to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors--to help smokers overcome their addiction--to make tobacco products less toxic for those who continue to use them--and to prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking. If the conference report is approved in its current form, we will have lost a golden opportunity to address this critical health issue. Congress will have put the well-being of our children last, behind a long parade of special interests clamoring for their tax breaks. It is not enough to just pay lip service to what is right for our children. You have got to be willing to fight for their health and their future. You have to make it a top priority. While we are extremely disappointed that FDA authority over tobacco products is not in the conference report, this legislation will, I am confident, become law in the not too distant future. It is clearly an idea whose time has come. It passed the Senate on a strong bipartisan vote last summer. I am very pleased that the Senate has agreed to pass a freestanding FDA bill this weekend and send it to the House as a reaffirmation of our support. It is a powerful statement of this body's commitment to protecting the health of our children, and seeing this legislation through to enactment. The battle goes on, and we will prevail. They have been spectacular spokespersons for children and children's health and we are indebted to that organization. The list goes on. There are 68 March of Dimes organizations. Every organization in public health is behind this proposal. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Ohio. I join him in letting families know we are not going to let up, give up, or give in. This was a very reasonable measure, a reasonable response. As he has pointed out, it is the most important public health legislation this Congress, or any recent Congress up to the Congress of 7 years ago, when we passed the CHIP program, with the difference this would make in terms of children and children's health. We missed this opportunity. We are not giving up and we are not giving in. We want to let those who are opposed to us know we are coming at them and we are going to keep after this until we get the job done.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, another provision was included in the bill that passed the Senate and was dropped by the conference as well. We had the dropping of the FDA provisions--which I believe in and of itself is enough to oppose this legislation--but we also know there was another provision that related to how we were going to treat American workers that was dropped. Since this legislation initially was drafted, in order to respond to the World Trade Organization which found some tax provisions worked in such a way as to violate various international agreements, it was about a $5 billion fix that was needed. Instead, we have a $140 billion solution for a $5 billion fix. Do you hear me? The rest of those are tax goodies for special interests. So since this was allegedly a jobs bill, we thought we would add an amendment to it. The principal sponsor was my friend and colleague Senator Harkin, who provided such extraordinary leadership on this overtime issue. We added this provision that would effectively declare the proposal of the administration that dealt with denying workers overtime who worked more than 40 hours a week, that we would effectively vitiate the administration's proposal. Since the underlying legislation dealt with workers and the impact on manufacturing and jobs, this was a related matter. It is useful to remind ourselves how often this institution has addressed the question of the proposal by this President in terms of overtime. We have voted three times in the Senate to reject the administration's proposal to deny overtime. We rejected it on September 10, 54-45; it was a bipartisan effort. On May 4, 52-47. Also on May 4, 99-0. So we acted on that and we added to it. You can say, well, the House of Representatives has not faced this issue. Our answer to that is the House has faced this issue. They voted October 2, 2003, 221-203, effectively to vitiate the Bush overtime proposal. They voted September 9, 223-193. So that is two times in the House and three times in the Senate. We had it in the conference and, nonetheless, this administration said no. The administration has said no to an increase in the minimum wage for 7 million Americans who are working at minimum wage. They said no to an extension of unemployment compensation for workers who paid into the unemployment compensation fund. And they have said no to eliminating the ban on the elimination of overtime. I watched the debate, like many other Americans, last night, and I listened to one of the questions that my friend and colleague, the next President of the United States, answered in talking about the lost number of jobs. He indicated that under this administration they had lost 1.6 million jobs. Lo and behold, today, with all the fact-checkers all over the country, they said that is not right; John Kerry should have said they only lost 800,000 jobs. Do you want to know why? The other 800,000 have been added in the public sector. I thought this administration was adding jobs in the private sector. They have failed in the private sector. They are trying to sharpshoot on that issue, and it doesn't go. Let's look at where we are now in the last month with the administration's economy. They had announcements yesterday that 96,000 jobs had been created last month. It is interesting to note that a third of those jobs are temporary. What does that mean? Temporary jobs pay 40 percent, on average, less than regular jobs. Yes. What else? Temporary jobs don't give you benefits. Very few, if any, give you health insurance, let alone pensions. We have a third temporary jobs, and a third government jobs, and a third private jobs out of the 96,000. So it is not a good time in terms of the American economy. I want to point this out again and come back to the issue of overtime. As I mentioned, we had passed those provisions in the House and in the Senate. Now the administration continues to want to implement them. Who are the people affected most by overtime? The people who are affected the most by overtime are interesting: Nurses are affected by overtime; nursery school teachers, the ones who are going to work with the children in nursery schools and programs in the Head Start Programs; clerical workers; computer programers, et cetera. These are the ones. Nurses, of course, are first responders. It is almost as though this administration doesn't understand how hard American families are working in the United States of America. This is an extraordinary chart. This chart demonstrates that Americans' work hours have increased more than in any other industrialized country from 1970 to 2002. It is effectively up 20 percent. The next nearest country is Canada, up 16, and Australia is up 3.2 percent. Americans are working harder and harder, and they are having an enormous difficulty in keeping pace. They cannot even keep economic pace, in terms of what they have to buy. One of the few benefits, of course, is the question of overtime. What happens when you eliminate overtime? Let's remind the workers who are out there who may be watching; let's remind them of something they know all too well. If you have overtime protections, your chances of working more than 40 hours a week are only 19 percent. But if you don't have overtime protections, your chances of working more than 40 hours a week are 44 percent. That is for 40 hours a week. If it is 50 hours a week, your chances of working are three times more if you don't have the overtime protections than if you do. Make no mistake on what this is about. This is about exploiting American workers, treating them on the cheap. That is what this is about. Well, Senator Kennedy, how can you say that? Let me give a couple of examples why we can say it. When the Bush rule was in the making, the Department of Labor asked for comment on the proposed regulation. In looking through the records, this is what we find out: Here is when the rule to eliminate overtime was being considered. The administration solicited the views of a number of different groups and industries. Now we have the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies supports the section: . . . of the proposed regulations that provides that claims adjustors, including those working for insurance companies, satisfy the FLSAs administrative exemption. . . . That is from the National Association of Mutual Insurance, June 25, 2003. On April 23, 2004: Insurance claims adjustors generally meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption, whether they work for an insurance company or the other type of company. . . . There is the industry's interest. There is the administration's answer. Here is another group that got exemption. Here is the overtime for funeral directors and embalmers: [T]he National Funeral Directors' Association believes that funeral directors and embalmers who have successfully completed a course of study . . . licensed by the state in which they practice are professional employees. Then we have: Licensed funeral directors and embalmers . . . It is almost the same direct language for industry after industry, right down the line. This was not an issue for simplification. This was looking out for special interests. And who is paying the piper? It is going to be the workers, working longer and harder for less. As a result, this is what happens in this country: In the last 3 years, we have seen 800,000 more children who are living in poverty. The total percent of those living in poverty in the United States has grown, but the number of children is 800,000 more living in poverty; 12 million children hungry or on the verge of hunger; 8 million Americans unemployed. Nearly 3 million have lost unemployment benefits since the Republicans ended the program. Seven million low-wage workers waiting 7 years for a minimum-wage increase. These are men and women of dignity. They work hard, play by the rules. They are primarily women. The income of low-income single mothers has gone down by three percent every year in the Bush economy. There are 7 million who have been waiting for an increase in the minimum wage. Bush 1 supported an increase in the minimum wage. This did not use to be a partisan issue. It was so interesting in the course of this session, when I offered the increase in the minimum wage, when we had what they call the welfare reform proposal, the TANF proposal. What did the Republican leadership do? They pulled the bill so we could not even get a vote on it. Imagine that. They would not even let the Senate of the United States vote on it. I offered it again on the State Department reauthorization bill because the Republican leadership would not give us an opportunity to vote on the minimum wage. What did they do? They pulled that bill, too. They do not even let us get a vote in the Senate on the issue of increasing the minimum wage. Sixty percent of those who receive the minimum wage are women. One- third of those have children. This is a civil rights issue, a children's issue, a fairness issue. Americans understand if someone is going to work 52 weeks of the year, 40 hours a week, they should not have to live in poverty. But do my colleagues think we have an opportunity to do something about it? No. Still, we are taking away the--we have 4.3 million more Americans in poverty than when the President took office and we have 2.6 million fewer Americans who have a pension under Bush's watch. On the issue of overtime, I will take a moment of the Senate's time to relate the concerns of one worker who will be affected by the new regulation. He says: My name is Randy Flemming. I live in Haysville, KS--outside Wichita--and I work as an Engineering Technician in Boeing's Metrology Lab. I'm also proud to say that I'm a military veteran. I served in the U.S. Air Force from August 1973 until February 1979. I've worked for Boeing for 23 years. During that time, I've been able to build a good, solid life for my family and I've raised a son who now has a good career and children of his own. There are two things that helped make that possible. First, the training I received in the Air Force made me qualified for a good civilian job. That was one of the main attractions when I enlisted as a young man back in Iowa. I think it's still one of the main reasons young people today decide to enlist. Military training opens up better job opportunities--and if you don't believe me, just look at the recruiting ads on TV. The second thing is overtime pay. That's how I was able to give my son the college education that has opened doors for him. Some years, when the company was busy and I had those college bills to pay, overtime pay was probably 10 percent or more of my income. My daughter is next. Danielle is only 8, but we'll be counting on my overtime to help get her a college degree, too, when that time comes. For my family overtime pay has made all the difference. That's where I'm coming from. Why did I come to Washington? I came to talk about an issue that is very important back home and to me personally as a working man, a family man and a veteran. The issue is overtime rights. The changes that this administration is trying to make in the overtime regulations would break the government's bargain with the men and women in the military and would close down opportunities that working vets and their families thought that they could count on. When I signed up back in 1973, the Air Force and I made a deal that I thought was fair. They got a good chunk of my time and I got training to help me build the rest of my life. There was no part of that deal that said I would have to give up my right to overtime pay. This was the threat that was going to be under the initial regulations and rules by the Department of Labor that said the training in the military would count as professional training for the first time in the history, if you got the training in the military. Then they pulled those regulations back and they changed the language around. Interestingly, all they had to do was just say, for veterans it did not count. But the Department of Labor would not do that, and many of the veterans groups still feel that they are threatened by the existing rules and regulations. And then he continues: You've heard of the marriage penalty? Well, I think that what these new rules do is create a military penalty. If you got your training in the military, no matter what your white collar profession is, your employer can make you work as many hours as they want and not pay you a dime extra. If that's not bait and switch, I don't know what it is. . . . I'm luckier than some other veterans because I have a union contract that will protect my rights for a while anyway. But we know the pressure will be on, because my employer is one that pushed for these new rules and they've been trying hard to get rid of our union. And for all those who want to let these military penalty rules go through, I have a deal I'd like to propose. If you think it's okay for the government to renege on its deal, I think it should be your job to tell our military men and women in Iraq that when they come home, their service to their country will be used as a way to cut their overtime pay. I am still very concerned about those provisions. The administration says it has addressed it. It did not address it the way the veterans want. We should not be about cutting off overtime when we are having the economic challenges we are facing in this country today. It is the wrong economic policy. It is unfair and it was wrong for the administration to cut this out. There is one final point I want to make on the proposal we have before us. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is one other provision of this underlying conference report I want to address. A top worry of many Americans is that their jobs may be shipped overseas. We have heard for years about manufacturing jobs being sent to other countries. Today, millions of Americans with other types of jobs face that risk, too. Every day we hear new stories about jobs in health care, financial services, information technologies going overseas in this high-tech age. Yet, the Bush administration says shipping jobs overseas is a good thing. It was in the President's own annual economic report: When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to make it or provide it domestically. The President's chief economic adviser Gregory Mankiw has even said that shipping jobs to other countries is ``probably a plus for the economy in the long run.'' Treasury Secretary Snow has also defended corporations sending jobs overseas, saying they need to do what they need to do. He said anything that makes a company more competitive, including offshoring jobs, is good for corporate shareholders, it is good for their consumers, and it is good for their employees. As recently as July, John Marburger, the President's science adviser, said that shipping jobs overseas is not necessarily a bad thing. American workers deserve better than this. They deserve better than to have their jobs exported with the President as the cheerleader in chief waving goodbye. Shipping jobs overseas is a problem that is only going to grow. Experts project 3.4 million jobs, with total wages worth more than $150 billion, could be sent overseas in the next 11 years, including more than a half-million computer jobs and more than 600,000 business and management jobs. Lou Dobbs on CNN is keeping a running tally of companies that have sent jobs overseas. He is now at almost a thousand companies. Many jobs that have already gone overseas have been in manufacturing. This is a loss that has taken a heavy toll on our economy. We have lost nearly 2.7 million manufacturing jobs since this Bush administration took office. It is a nationwide problem affecting almost every State in the Union. Forty-seven of the 50 States have lost manufacturing jobs under this President. For example, Ohio has lost 165,000 manufacturing jobs; Pennsylvania has lost 150,000 jobs; Massachusetts, my home State, has lost 84,000 jobs; Texas, the President's home State, has lost 170,000 manufacturing jobs. The loss of these manufacturing jobs is especially serious because they pay good wages and benefits, and each manufacturing job creates close to three other jobs in other sectors of the economy. As this chart indicates, for every 100 jobs in retail, they create 88 more jobs; for every 100 jobs in business services, they create 154 jobs; for every 100 jobs in manufacturing, 291. The Bush administration wants to ignore this serious problem, too. They have suggested cooking the books to create the appearance of job growth in the manufacturing sector. They want to count flipping hamburgers and other fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs to make up for the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs under President Bush's watch. Providing more tax breaks for multinational corporations is the wrong thing to do, and that is exactly what this bill does. For any of those Members who are interested in the particular details, they ought to just read Senator Bob Graham's excellent presentation on this very point. He has addressed the Senate frequently on it, and has identified it. I have not the time this afternoon to go into it, but I want to give assurance to the Members on this, that we are providing in this legislation tax breaks for multinational corporations. It is more than the loss of the $40 billion in tax revenue which has been added in this jobs bill that could be used for many better purposes that is troubling. What is most disturbing is the fact that many of these international provisions will actually encourage companies to shift even more American jobs to low-wage countries. The international provisions should have been removed from the bill and the tax dollars saved should be used to increase the tax benefits for domestic manufacturing. It makes no sense to expand the value of the foreign tax credits which multinational corporations receive. Under the legislation, these companies would pay even less in U.S. taxes on the profits they earn from their business abroad than they do today--$40 billion less. This will create further incentives for them to move jobs abroad, undermining the intent of the legislation. From the perspective of preserving American jobs, one of the worst features of this corporate tax law is a special tax subsidy for multinationals known as deferral. If a U.S. company moves its operation abroad, it can defer paying U.S. taxes on the profits it makes overseas until the companies choose to send those profits back to America. In essence, it allows the corporation to decide when it will pay the taxes it owes the U.S. Government. That is a luxury that companies making products and providing services here at home do not have. This is an enormous competitive advantage which the Tax Code gives to companies doing the wrong thing, eliminating American jobs, over companies doing the right thing, preserving the jobs in the United States. That feature alone ought to be enough to have Members of this body vote no at the time of the consideration of the conference report. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair. I will reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. President. I make a few points regarding the FDA issue and the regulation of tobacco. I voted for the FDA provision in this bill. I voted in conference to include FDA regulation of tobacco. But the House refused to accept it. I voted for this, despite the growing problems that are coming to light about the FDA falling down on its current responsibilities. Just in the last few months, the FDA has come under investigation, including from my own committee, regarding the way its failed regarding drugs causing suicide in children. And where was the FDA regarding the recent Vioxx catastrophy and how it causes heart attacks? Just yesterday, it was revealed by my Finance Committee that it looks like the FDA pressured employees to suppress negative findings regarding Vioxx. And, in today's paper, we read about what looks like the FDA falling down on the job in regard to the Flu vaccine crisis. So, I hope some around here aren't trying to mislead the American people into thinking that FDA regulation is some kind of panacea for smoking. I heard one Senator from the other side say that we sided with the tobacco companies when the FDA provision failed. Well that's interesting. That's surely what opponents would like you to think. But, there's a dirty little secret involved here. Or, at least it's a secret vis a vis the public. The fact is, the tobacco companies are divided on whether there should be FDA regulation. In fact, the largest tobacco company actually supports FDA regulation, and has been lobbying heavily and pouring money into the effort to get it. Why? Well, for one thing, a great deal of its business is overseas, and it will therefore be immune from FDA regulation. This will give it a competitive edge against its competitors. So, the tobacco companies, or at least the biggest one, is much more in favor of FDA regulation than against it. Therefore, anybody trying to frame this as tobacco vesus kids, or tobacco versus health groups, is just flatly misleading the public. But, even for those of us who pushed for FDA oversight, our legs were cut right out from under us during the negotiations. And guess who cut the legs right out from under us? The leadership of the Democratic party cut the legs right out from under us. That's who. The leader of the Democratic party, Senator Kerry, went down to North Carolina to talk to tobacco farmers. Guess what he said? He said he'd support a tobacco buyout with or without FDA regulation. So, it looks to me like the senior Senator from Massachusetts didn't communicate very well with the junior Senator from Massachusetts--or vice-versa. Moreover, we had the democratic Senate campaign chairman saying the same thing last week. He said he didn't need FDA regulation with a tobacco buyout. And, he even had his candidate for the North Carolina Senate seat up here lobbying right over in the conference committee room to get this buyout through, with or without FDA. Can you believe that? And, to add insult to injury to the Democratic Senators from Massachusetts, and Iowa, the Senate Democratic leader even signed the conference report. So, obviously, when the House leadership knew the votes were there in the Senate for a buyout without FDA, they weren't about to agree to it in conference, and there's no way we could have successfully pushed it. Now, what more does it take from their own leaders to undermine what the Democratic Senators from Iowa and Massachusetts wanted to do? Seems to me the need to get their own house in order before criticizing others.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Point of order, Mr. President. Parliamentary inquiry: As I understood it, the Senator from Arizona yielded for points of discussion. I ask the Chair if he would not rule. I ask if he asked consent if he would be able to yield, for the point of discussion, to other Members here? As I understand it now, the Senator is offering an amendment. That is not discussion. I make a point of order.

Mr. KENNEDY. And not for discussion only?

Mr. KENNEDY. What is the request now that is before the Chair? Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the request?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my friends and colleagues from Iowa, Florida, and Louisiana have outlined very briefly some of their concerns about how they felt the minority had been treated in an arbitrary way in the conference committee. I want to remind the Senate that we had a 78-to-15 vote in the Senate to tie the tobacco buyout with the FDA regulations, and that particular proposal came back. We had not asked that the tobacco buyout be in the tax bill. But, nonetheless, the House decided to put it in the bill. Then when it came back here, the decision of that conference was made to take care of the tobacco companies and give short shrift to the children of this country. I think it is going to be appropriate that many of us talk about that and make sure the American people understand that. Finally, we have also had the issue on overtime. Three times we saw the decision made in the Senate to repeal the administration's overtime--twice in the House of Representatives. This was given 6 minutes in the conference committee. I think the working families of this country have a right to understand and know what is in that FSC bill. I for one intend to use my time to make sure that they do. I thank the Senator from Arizona for yielding.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am in strong support.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator agree with me that even though I might strongly support what the Senator from New Hampshire has stated, I would like to defer action because my friend and colleague Senator Harkin is not here at the moment. He may or may not object. He objected to it earlier. I hope the Senator will address this later on in the afternoon or evening.

Mr. KENNEDY. It is a privilege to join Senator Craig today in urging the Senate to pass this important jobs bill for immigrants in agriculture. We have been struggling for decades to find a solution to the heart-wrenching problems facing so many farm workers for so long. The Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act-- AgJOBS--is an opportunity to correct these long-festering problems. In a landmark agreement, both the United Farm Workers and the agricultural industry support this solution. It gives farm workers and their families the dignity and opportunity they deserve, and it gives farm owners a legal workforce. The bill is a compromise, and it has 63 Senate sponsors, with almost equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. More than 400 organizations across the country support it. They include advocates for farm workers, such as the United Farm Workers, the Farm Labor Organizing Community, and the Farm Worker Justice Fund. They include business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Council of Agricultural Employers, the American Nursery and Landscape Association, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. They include civil rights groups such as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Latino organizations such as the National Council of LaRaza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the League of United Latin American Citizens. It is a bill whose time has come. In fact, we should have passed it long before now, because the need is so great, and the current situation is so untenable. For economic, security, and humanitarian reasons, Congress ought to complete action on this legislation before we adjourn for the year. The AgJOBS bill is good for both business and labor. The Nation can no longer ignore the fact that more than half of our agricultural workers are undocumented immigrants. Growers need a reliable and legal workforce. Workers need legal status to improve their wages and working conditions. Everyone is harmed when crops rot in the field because of the lack of an adequate labor force. The AgJOBS bill provides a fair and reasonable process for these agricultural workers to earn legal status. It reforms the current visa program, so that employers unable to obtain American workers can hire the foreign workers they need. Undocumented farm workers are easily and unfairly exploited by unscrupulous contractors and growers. Their illegal status deprives them of bargaining power and depresses the wages of all farm workers. Our bill provides fair solutions for undocumented workers who have been toiling in our fields, harvesting our fruits and vegetables. The bill is not an amnesty. To earn the right to remain in this country, workers have to demonstrate past work contributions to the U.S. economy, and also make a substantial future work commitment. These men and women will finally be able to come out of the shadows, identify themselves, and provide evidence that they have worked in agriculture, so that they can continue to work hard and play by the rules. Hard-working migrant farm workers are essential to American agriculture. We need an honest agriculture policy that recognizes the contributions of these workers and respects and rewards their work. The legislation will also modify the current temporary foreign agricultural worker program, and it does so in a way that preserves and enhances key labor protections. It strikes a fair balance. It also benefits employers, by streamlining the visa application process and reducing paperwork for employers. This legislation will also unify families. When temporary residence is granted, a farm worker's spouse and minor children will be allowed to remain legally in the United States, but they will not be authorized to work. When the worker becomes a permanent resident, the spouse and minor children will also be granted that status. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, we can no longer accept policies that fail to protect our borders. Congress has periodically invested millions of dollars to increase the number of immigration border patrol agents, improve surveillance technology, and install other controls to strengthen border enforcement, especially along our southwest border. Yet, almost everyone agrees that these steps have failed to stop illegal immigration. The proof is in the numbers--several hundred thousand people a year continue to enter the United States illegally, and a significant part of the workforce in many sectors of the economy, especially agriculture, is undocumented. One major unintended effect of our border enforcement strategy has been to shift illegal border crossings to the harsh desert and mountain terrains along the border, causing significant increases in deaths. According to the U.S. Border Patrol, since 1998 nearly 2000 people have died attempting to make the difficult journey across that border. Desperate migrants are being drawn into criminal smuggling syndicates, which increase the danger of violence to border patrol officers, border communities, and the workers themselves. As Stephen Flynn, an expert on terrorism, noted at a recent Congressional hearing, these ``draconian measures'' have produced chaos at our borders, which ``makes it ideal for exploitation by criminals and terrorists.'' The AgJOBS bill will make legality the norm and reduce illegal immigration. It provides reasonable rules that are realistic and enforceable. It replaces the chaotic, deadly, and illegal flows at our borders with orderly, safe, and legal avenues for these farm workers and their families. A workable and legal program for foreign workers crossing our borders will strengthen our security, substantially reduce crime and enable immigration enforcement authorities to focus their resources on terrorists and criminals trying to enter the country illegally. We need laws that recognize reality, so that legality is the rule, not the exception. In this post-9/11 world, we cannot afford to ignore the fact any longer that so much of today's agricultural workforce is undocumented. The AgJOBS bill enhances our national security and makes out communities safer. It brings undocumented farm workers and their families out of the shadows and makes it possible for them to pass thorough security checks. It shrinks the pool of law enforcement targets and enables law enforcement officers to give priority to terrorists and criminals. It will make our communities safer, because once immigrants become legal, they will no longer fear deportation if they report crimes to law enforcement officers. Reducing the size of the undocumented population also reduces the ability of suspected terrorists to hide. The half million or more undocumented farm workers eligible for this program will undergo rigorous security checks when they apply for legal status. Future temporary workers will be carefully screened to meet security concerns. Law enforcement resources will be more effectively focused on the highest risks. Opponents of this legislation offer no workable solutions to the serious problems of current law. Yet they have blocked our efforts for a genuine debate on the issue. We cannot be complacent any longer. I urge my colleagues to support this needed legislation. It is long past time to end these dangerous conditions, and to do it in a way that not only improves the lives and working conditions of all farm workers, but also enhances the security of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation, and I look forward to its enactment into law as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, while my good friend the Senator from Louisiana is in the Chamber, I commend her for the enormously persuasive case she has made and say I agree with her 100 percent and will certainly do everything I can to support her. The point is, we passed this underlying bill in June, and the conferees were appointed in July by the Senate of the United States. The House of Representatives did not even appoint their conferees until the end of last week, and did not have their first meeting until Monday of this week, and we are trying to jam this legislation through the Senate late in the afternoon on a Friday, and the cloture motion was filed the first thing this morning before there was 1 minute of debate on it.

Mr. KENNEDY. I say that both in terms of the substance, which is so powerful, and the process and the procedure in standing for the Guard and Reserve, I commend the leader. There is an arrogance among the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Republican leadership that ends up and results in this kind of a situation where they say: Well, there won't be people over there who will stand for the Guard and Reserve. We will send it over there late either last night, which they would have done if they had been able to get these printed up, or we will have it over there on Friday morning, and they will all want to take off on Friday, so they will go ahead and pass it. That is the view. I commend the Senator from Louisiana for the substance and commend her for the process as well. And I will take the time not just at this moment but also to comment about the same legislation, how Chairman Thomas and the Republican leadership are prepared to take care of the tobacco companies but not take care of America's children. That was the choice. You could have done both. I would have supported looking out after tobacco farmers who are having difficulties on that. I would have supported having the tobacco companies pay for that particular bailout. But it should have included the protection of America's children, and the Republican leadership refused to do that. It refused to look out after American workers. We have passed--three times in the Senate, twice in the House of Representatives--a prohibition against this administration's repeal of the overtime provisions that affect 6 million of our fellow workers, primarily the first responders. Police and firefighters and nurses: They are three of the largest groups that were going to be affected. We passed that three times. The House of Representatives passed it twice. We had 5 minutes of discussion on it from the proponents of it in the same conference. I was there. So that is certainly one of the reasons that we speak and we are so concerned about those provisions. We will have a chance to address those matters. But I do want to speak to the Senate on two other matters briefly this afternoon. Afghan Elections Madam President, one is the greatest intelligence failures in our history occurred on 9/11, and the seeds of that disaster were planted long ago in Afghanistan, whose people will participate tomorrow in the historic election to select their next President. I know my colleagues share my deep respect for the Afghan people and the many others who worked so hard in recent months to make these elections possible. The elections already have been postponed three times, and the parliamentary elections that were to be held this weekend have now been delayed until next year. President Karzai has shown tremendous courage and determination in the face of multiple assassination attempts. He and the vast majority of the Afghan people have demonstrated an impressive commitment to a free and democratic Afghanistan. Yet Afghanistan still faces fundamental threats to the casting of ballots on Saturday, let alone its long-term stability and prosperity. Elections are vitally important to the process of rebuilding a free country, but they are not a panacea for the myriad of problems that face the people in Afghanistan. Those problems will still be there the day after the elections, and the Bush administration, Congress, and the American people cannot afford to be distracted from the ongoing efforts that will be required to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. We made that mistake once before in Afghanistan, in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, and the result was a failed nation that became the breeding ground for the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001. We cannot afford to allow Afghanistan to fall into chaos once again. Unfortunately, because of its misguided war in Iraq, the Bush administration may bring us perilously close to doing just that. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, President Bush rightly spoke about the need to put Afghanistan on the right course. He welcomed then-Chairman of the Afghan Interim Authority Hamid Karzai to the White House in January 2002, and said: The United States is committed to building a lasting partnership with Afghanistan. We will help the new Afghan government provide the security that is the foundation for peace. Instead of finishing the job, however, President Bush foolishly and recklessly diverted America's attention from the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan by rushing to war in Iraq, a country that had no operational links to al-Qaida terrorists. We now know that President Bush began planning the invasion of Iraq from the earliest days of his administration. Finding a rationale to get rid of Saddam Hussein was on the agenda from day one of this administration. Barely 3 months after the most vicious terrorist attack on America, the President already began concentrating on Iraq, not Afghanistan. On November 26, 2001, he said: Afghanistan is still just the beginning. And 3 days later, even before Hamid Karzai had been approved as interim Afghan President, Vice President Cheney publicly began to send signals about attacking Iraq. On November 29, he said: I don't think it takes a genius to figure out this guy [Saddam Hussein] is clearly . . . a significant potential problem for the region, for the United States, for everybody with interests in the area. The shift was all but sealed by the time of President Bush's State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002. Karl Rove had told the Republican National Committee that terrorism could be used politically. Remember that speech, that terrorism could be used politically? That is Karl Rove in 2002: Republicans could ``go to the country on this issue.'' In the State of the Union Address, President Bush unveiled his ``Axis of Evil''--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Those three words forged the lockstep linkage between the Bush administration's top political advisers and the Big Three: Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. What did President Bush say about bin Laden in the State of the Union Address that day? Nothing. What did he say about al-Qaida? One fleeting mention. What did he say about the Taliban? Nothing. Nothing about bin Laden, a fleeting mention of al-Qaida, nothing about the Taliban in that State of the Union Address. With those words, we lost our clear focus on the most imminent threat to our national security--Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The President had checked the box on Afghanistan and was poised to use the 9/11 attacks to advance his Iraq war agenda of a war on Iraq. The consequences of that decision have been severe for the security of Afghanistan and for the security of the American people. Without a doubt, the war with Iraq has distracted us from the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The administration botched the battle at Tora Bora in December 2001. By outsourcing the job to warlords in Afghanistan, he let Osama bin Laden escape. Instead of sticking with the job of capturing bin Laden, the administration launched a war with Iraq. Reports indicate that the Bush administration shifted special operations soldiers and Arab language specialists from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq. And it recently pulled the State Department's extraordinarily talented assistance coordinator for Afghanistan, William Taylor, out of Afghanistan and sent him to Iraq. Saddam Hussein is behind bars, but he did not attack America. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is probably hiding somewhere in the ungovernable tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan planning another attack on America. Security outside of Kabul is tenuous because we and our allies are overstretched in Iraq and cannot commit sufficient troops in Afghanistan. We have 140,000 troops in Iraq and our allies, another 20,000. It was al-Qaida operatives who trained in Afghanistan who attacked America. Yet America has seven times more troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan. We obviously do not have enough soldiers to secure Afghanistan. It was the lowest troop-to-population ratio of any postconflict country during the past 60 years. President Karzai asked for 20,000 new troops for election security at the NATO summit last June. The U.N. reportedly estimated this summer that it would take somewhere between 5,000 and 15,000 additional troops to secure this Saturday's election. Sadly, what NATO and the United States eventually provided fell far short of that requirement--3,000 troops total. Spain agreed to send a battalion to Afghanistan for election security only after the Government pulled its troops out of Iraq. Our allies can't meet NATO requests for a minimal increase in troops for Afghanistan because they too are bogged down in Iraq. This administration's lack of credibility with the international community has made it almost impossible to obtain the necessary troop commitments to win peace in Afghanistan. Because the international community is unable to provide adequate security in Afghanistan, the forces of the Taliban and al-Qaida continue to strike regularly. Most experts believe that elements of the Pakistani security services continue to support the Taliban and that Taliban forces are able to move freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan and can launch attacks on American and Afghan forces before retreating to their sanctuaries in Pakistan. The Bush administration's Ambassador to Afghanistan admits what has become the obvious truth on the ground: The Taliban ranks are growing in Afghanistan. Our Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad told reporters in September: With regard to Taliban, I have to say that there may have been some growth in the numbers of their people that are active. There has been some effort, obviously, at recruitment, increased effort at recruitment in the refugee camps and in the madrasas. Ambassador Khalizad also tells us that he still sees a ``strong link'' between al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Three years after our invasion of Afghanistan to deny al-Qaida its sanctuary under Taliban protection, the Taliban and al-Qaida still retain a strong relationship in Afghanistan. How did the Bush administration ignore the fact that America cannot be safe until Afghanistan is stable and al- Qaida no longer has a haven there? As a result of the poor security, President Karzai still does not have full control over his country and is forced to negotiate with warlords who control private militias with forces numbering in the tens of thousands. A recent report by Human Rights Watch summarized the issue well: Political repression by the local strongmen is the principal problem. Through the country, militarized political factions . . . continue to cement their hold on political power at the local level, using force, threats, and corruption to stifle more legitimate political activity and dominate the election process. Our inability to secure Afghanistan means that opium production is at record levels. Funds from the drug trade are being used to finance attacks against our troops and against the Afghan people. They are being used to operate the private armies of the warlords and rebuild the ranks of the Taliban. They are pouring fuel on the fire of instability and terrorism. Yet the administration failed to give a priority to shutting off the drug trade in Afghanistan, and the result has been predictably destructive. Two weeks ago, Robert Charles, our Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, painted an ominous picture in his testimony in the House International Relations Committee. He said: On the narcotics front, tied like a ball and chain to security, justice and economic development, we stand in the darkness of a long shadow . . . President Karzai and other Afghan officials have said that drug trafficking and the corruption it breeds may be the biggest threat right now to Afghan's long-term security and democratic future. The CIA and the United Nations estimate that the crop of poppies for 2004 will be 20 to 40 percent greater than last year. That means 500 tons of heroin. No wonder Afghanistan now accounts for 75 percent of the worldwide production of opium. The long shadow that Robert Charles described is the shadow of our misguided war in Iraq. The forces and resources we are pouring into Iraq could have been used and should have been used to end the drug trade in Afghanistan, regain control of the country from the warlords, and dismantle their militias. Last month, LTG Walter Sharp of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the House International Relations Committee that less than half of the approximately 40,000 people targeted in Afghanistan for disarmament had actually been disarmed. The operations manager of the U.N. disarmament program on the ground in Afghanistan told the Financial Times that fewer than 10,000 of the targeted individuals had been disarmed. Clearly, the effort to dismantle the private militias has fallen drastically short with dangerous consequences for Afghan stability. In June, local militias killed five aid workers from Doctors Without Borders in a brutal attack. In July, that distinguished nongovernmental organization pulled out of Afghanistan after 24 years of helping the Afghan people. Their loss is a sad commentary on the continuing violence and the Bush administration's misguided handling of Afghanistan. The failure to crack down on the narcotics trade, the continuing domination of much of the countryside by warlords, and the inability of this administration to provide sufficient troops to stabilize the country are major setbacks to the war on terrorism. Clearly some progress has been made. I hope the elections tomorrow will proceed without incident. But if we had not rushed to war with Iraq, much greater progress could have been made and certainly would have been made in Afghanistan, and America would be safer today. Yet President Bush continues to deny this obvious reality. Incredibly, he told a campaign rally in Ohio last week that as a result of the U.S. military, the Taliban no longer is in existence. Representative Ron Paul, a Republican Congressman from Texas, does not agree. As he said on September 23: A picture of Afghanistan has been painted, I think, overly optimistic. You read the newspapers, what you're talking about doesn't even exist from the reports that I have read about what's really going on. And when you hear about the Doctors Without Borders leaving, after having been there through the Russian occupation. The U.N. wants to leave. Protection of the president is very precarious. We don't know what will come of that. The airport's getting bombed. There's estimates that 90 percent of the country, at least a very large percent of the country, is under the occupation of the Taliban and the warlords. We have a serious disconnect here and we have to be--as Americans and as members of Congress, we have to be realistic and not hide from the realities of what is happening. That is from a Republican Congressman from Texas. I couldn't agree more. In the aftermath of 9/11, it was clear that America had to deal effectively with Afghanistan as the highest priority for our national security. It was clear that America could not be safe if Afghanistan remained unstable. Instead of finishing the job, we rushed off to fight a different war, the war in Iraq. We squandered the tremendous worldwide good will that flowed to America after 9/11. We alienated longtime friends and leaders in other nations on whom we heavily depend for intelligence for support in the ongoing war against terrorism. Distrust of America has soared throughout the world. We are especially hated in the Muslim world. The past 2 years have seen the steepest and deepest fall from grace our country has ever suffered in the eyes of the world community in all our history. All this is the heavy price our country has paid because of the war in Iraq that America never should have fought. We cannot afford to continue down this dangerous path of incompetence in foreign policy. We know that America has to do better. As I have said before, the only thing we have to fear is 4 more years of George Bush. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, earlier today, the Department of Labor issued its report on the state of unemployment in the country. I want to just comment on this. It is official now that President Bush will be the first President since the days of Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression--over 70 years ago--to preside over a net loss of jobs during his Presidency. Today's job numbers show that only 96,000 were created last month, which is even lower than economists had predicted in order to keep up with population growth. Even worse, a third of the jobs created were in temporary positions. Another third were government jobs, which means the private sector job creation is far from recovering. The official unemployment rate is 5.4 percent, but the real rate of unemployment and underemployment is 9.4 percent. More than 400,000 workers have stopped looking for work because they are so discouraged. They are no longer counted in the official rate. Another 4.5 million are working part time because they cannot find full-time jobs. Part-time workers and temporary workers earn less money than full- time permanent employees and often do not even receive benefits. America's workers have been out of work for months. They have finally found a job, but it is part time or temporary, so they take a huge cut and have no health insurance. Temporary workers earn about 40 percent less a week than the rest of the workforce. Of the 8 million unemployed workers, nearly 22 percent are long-term unemployed; they have been out of a job for more than 6 months. This long-term unemployment rate has been over the 20-percent mark each month since October 2002, 2 consecutive years, which is the longest streak since this data has ever been collected. Despite these record highs in long-term unemployment, President Bush allowed the unemployment insurance program to expire last December. These workers have worked hard, played by the rules, and paid into the unemployment trust fund, which now has $20 billion in it. But the President had said no to extending unemployment benefits for these workers. Do we understand that, Madam President? You don't get unemployment compensation; you are not eligible unless you have worked and contributed to the fund. The reason the fund was set up was for just this kind of condition, where workers have been working, want to work, and need to work, but the economy slows down, so they receive unemployment compensation for a period of time, generally 26 weeks. It has been extended 13 weeks in particularly high unemployment areas. It is just enough to cover the mortgage and put some food on the table and put gas in the automobile. It is interesting that Bush No. 1 extended the unemployment compensation three times, when we never had the economic and adverse economic conditions we have at this time. But this President will not extend it to help these workers. The job situation is even worse for people of color. The unemployment rate for African Americans is more than 10 percent--almost double the national average--and for Hispanics, it is 7 percent. And women are not faring well in this economy. The income of low-income single mothers has gone down by 3 percent every year in the Bush economy--3 percent constantly down. But President Bush and the Republican Congress refused to raise the minimum wage, which would benefit primarily women--7 million of our fellow citizens, men and women of dignity, who work hard, clean out the great buildings where American industry is housed, help as assistant teachers, work in nursing homes--primarily women; and many of them have children, so it is a women and children's issue, a family issue. It is also a civil rights issue because so many of those who earn minimum wage are men and women of color. It is a civil rights, family, women and children, and a fairness issue. Americans believe if you work hard 52 weeks in the year, you should not have to live in poverty. Why is it that the Republican leadership has refused to let us have a vote on increasing the minimum wage? I offered to increase the minimum wage on the TANF bill. What did the leadership do? They pulled the bill. I offered it on the State Department reauthorization bill. They pulled the bill so the Senate could not vote. Here you see the results of that: no long-term unemployment compensation, no increase in the minimum wage. Now we hear, as I heard on the Joint Economic Committee, about how the hurricanes have really impacted things. We heard other testimony that because of the hurricanes more people are working to try to deal with the problems. All of this is against a background where those workers are facing the perfect storm: the lack of an increase in the minimum wage, lack of unemployment compensation, and the fact that this administration has put in the regulations to deny overtime for up to 6 million American workers. So they are going to work longer and harder-- because that is the record if you don't have that protection--and they will make less. You have those three coming at you and, at the same time, you have college tuition going up 38 percent. Health care premiums are up 59 percent. Gas, 40 percent. If you can believe it, milk, in Cape Cod, MA, last week was $4.05 a gallon. It is a little less in other parts of Massachusetts, maybe a little over $3. But it is $4.05 a gallon there, and we cannot get an increase in the minimum wage. So American families are working and working long and hard. What happens after all this? We have a proposal on the floor of the Senate called the JOBS bill--how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. The JOBS bill was meant to initially deal with the $4.5 billion problem at the World Trade Organization. What has happened is the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives sent over a $143 billion program that benefited the tobacco companies at the expense of the children, and also increased financial incentives to drive more American jobs out of the country, rather than bring them home--outsourcing. My friend, the Senator from Florida, Bob Graham, will address this issue during the course of this debate. We see how this legislation disserves American workers even more. This is a fierce record and everybody on Main Street knows it. This economy is working fine for Wall Street. It works well for the elites, the elite corporations and the elite individuals. In this economy, we have had four tax breaks--at a time when we are fighting two wars--for the elite corporations and elite individuals. But for the working families on Main Street, they are suffering. Hopefully, they will have an opportunity to express themselves on election day. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Jack Reed in introducing the ``Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004.'' I commend him for his leadership on this important issue. I also commend our colleagues, Senator Bayh and Senator Craig, for their thoughtful proposal. The Emergency Flu Response Act gives the nation's health agencies the tools they need to respond to the current shortage of flu vaccine, to protect the public health from the danger of influenza and to maximize the value of our reduced vaccine stocks. During last year's flu season, we experienced unprecedented public demand for the flu vaccine. Fears that last year's flu strain was more virulent than those of previous years fueled the public's demand and resulted in the administration of all 87 million doses produced. Anticipating a similar demand for this upcoming flu season, the two companies that manufacture the flu vaccine planned to produce 100 million doses for the United States. On Tuesday, one of those companies lost its license due to manufacturing concerns and is unable to ship approximately 48 million doses. In one day, America lost about half the country's supply of the flu vaccine--and fifteen States have lost their entire supply of influenza vaccine for adults. Clearly, Congress should take action to strengthen the Nation's supply of flu vaccine. My colleagues, Senator Bayh and Senator Craig, have offered thoughtful proposals on strengthening the flu vaccine supply in future years, and these proposals merit careful consideration by Congress. Many members of our Health committee have also shown great leadership on vaccine issues. Due to the long period of time necessary to produce more vaccine, however, measures to increase the supply of new vaccine will have little effect on the current shortage. We must make every effort to see whether additional flu vaccine can be found. The bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to seek to purchase additional vaccines available in Europe, Canada or Japan, and directs the FDA to review those vaccines using the flexible and expedited review process provided under the Project BioShield legislation. We should also provide NIH with the resources and the clear direction to determine whether existing flu vaccine stocks can be diluted and still retain their effectiveness. NIH provided a valuable service to the nation by conducting similar studies with smallpox vaccine. These measures may increase the effective supply of vaccine available to the nation, but even these measures may not be sufficient to meet the nation's needs. With flu season imminent, Congress must take steps immediately to give our health agencies the resources and authority they need to make best use of the supply currently available. Our health professionals should make sure that those most at risk for complications from flu get vaccinated first. We must learn from the lessons from last year's flu season and use that knowledge to ensure that at Americans at highest risk have priority access to the flu shot. We must act quickly. We know that there are 54 million doses available and we need to ensure that every one of them reaches those at highest risk of complications from flu. The bill provides funding for states to develop plans to effectively distribute vaccines to high priority groups. It also requires the tracking of available vaccines, so that doses can be directed to those who need it most. Many employers contract directly with vaccine manufacturers to provide a supply of vaccines for their workforce. Our bill establishes a vaccine clearinghouse to facilitate the voluntary donation of vaccine from individuals or companies with employees at low risk of infection to individuals at high risk. Further, this bill gives HHS the ability to purchase vaccine back from employers and wholesalers for redistribution. The Federal government should set an example of good vaccination practices. Our bill requires Federal Departments and the Attending Physician of the Capitol to abide by CDC recommendations on who should receive vaccine. If Members of Congress and their staffs cannot reserve flu vaccine for those most in need, how can we ask the American public to do so? We must also learn from Canada's experience with the SARS outbreak in Toronto last year. During that outbreak, many people were forced to remain home from work to prevent the spread of SARS. Some lost their wages during that time, and some even lost their jobs. Even more worrisome is that some people ignored the quarantine orders out of fear of repercussions at work. Our bill will assure that those who lose wages in complying with a Federal or State quarantine order will be fully compensated, and will be protected from losing their employment or related benefits. Finally, we must recognize that voluntary measures may not be enough to avert a crisis. For this reason, the legislation gives HHS emergency authority to require that vaccine supplies be administered to those in highest need if it determines that voluntary measures have failed, and that to do otherwise would pose a significant danger to the public health. Let's not let history repeat itself. We need to be prepared for flu vaccine shortages and influenza pandemics in the future, and we need to respond effectively to the current shortage. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004.'' We face a crisis, and Congress should not delay in enacting this needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Jack Reed in introducing the ``Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004.'' I commend him for his leadership on this important issue. I also commend our colleagues, Senator Bayh and Senator Craig, for their thoughtful proposal. The Emergency Flu Response Act gives the nation's health agencies the tools they need to respond to the current shortage of flu vaccine, to protect the public health from the danger of influenza and to maximize the value of our reduced vaccine stocks. During last year's flu season, we experienced unprecedented public demand for the flu vaccine. Fears that last year's flu strain was more virulent than those of previous years fueled the public's demand and resulted in the administration of all 87 million doses produced. Anticipating a similar demand for this upcoming flu season, the two companies that manufacture the flu vaccine planned to produce 100 million doses for the United States. On Tuesday, one of those companies lost its license due to manufacturing concerns and is unable to ship approximately 48 million doses. In one day, America lost about half the country's supply of the flu vaccine--and fifteen States have lost their entire supply of influenza vaccine for adults. Clearly, Congress should take action to strengthen the Nation's supply of flu vaccine. My colleagues, Senator Bayh and Senator Craig, have offered thoughtful proposals on strengthening the flu vaccine supply in future years, and these proposals merit careful consideration by Congress. Many members of our Health committee have also shown great leadership on vaccine issues. Due to the long period of time necessary to produce more vaccine, however, measures to increase the supply of new vaccine will have little effect on the current shortage. We must make every effort to see whether additional flu vaccine can be found. The bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to seek to purchase additional vaccines available in Europe, Canada or Japan, and directs the FDA to review those vaccines using the flexible and expedited review process provided under the Project BioShield legislation. We should also provide NIH with the resources and the clear direction to determine whether existing flu vaccine stocks can be diluted and still retain their effectiveness. NIH provided a valuable service to the nation by conducting similar studies with smallpox vaccine. These measures may increase the effective supply of vaccine available to the nation, but even these measures may not be sufficient to meet the nation's needs. With flu season imminent, Congress must take steps immediately to give our health agencies the resources and authority they need to make best use of the supply currently available. Our health professionals should make sure that those most at risk for complications from flu get vaccinated first. We must learn from the lessons from last year's flu season and use that knowledge to ensure that at Americans at highest risk have priority access to the flu shot. We must act quickly. We know that there are 54 million doses available and we need to ensure that every one of them reaches those at highest risk of complications from flu. The bill provides funding for states to develop plans to effectively distribute vaccines to high priority groups. It also requires the tracking of available vaccines, so that doses can be directed to those who need it most. Many employers contract directly with vaccine manufacturers to provide a supply of vaccines for their workforce. Our bill establishes a vaccine clearinghouse to facilitate the voluntary donation of vaccine from individuals or companies with employees at low risk of infection to individuals at high risk. Further, this bill gives HHS the ability to purchase vaccine back from employers and wholesalers for redistribution. The Federal government should set an example of good vaccination practices. Our bill requires Federal Departments and the Attending Physician of the Capitol to abide by CDC recommendations on who should receive vaccine. If Members of Congress and their staffs cannot reserve flu vaccine for those most in need, how can we ask the American public to do so? We must also learn from Canada's experience with the SARS outbreak in Toronto last year. During that outbreak, many people were forced to remain home from work to prevent the spread of SARS. Some lost their wages during that time, and some even lost their jobs. Even more worrisome is that some people ignored the quarantine orders out of fear of repercussions at work. Our bill will assure that those who lose wages in complying with a Federal or State quarantine order will be fully compensated, and will be protected from losing their employment or related benefits. Finally, we must recognize that voluntary measures may not be enough to avert a crisis. For this reason, the legislation gives HHS emergency authority to require that vaccine supplies be administered to those in highest need if it determines that voluntary measures have failed, and that to do otherwise would pose a significant danger to the public health. Let's not let history repeat itself. We need to be prepared for flu vaccine shortages and influenza pandemics in the future, and we need to respond effectively to the current shortage. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004.'' We face a crisis, and Congress should not delay in enacting this needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it was a Presidential election campaign 24 years ago when Ronald Reagan posed the defining question to the American people in that election when he asked, Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? That basic question has greater relevance now than when Ronald Reagan asked it. The defining issue today is our national security. Especially in this post-September 11 world, people have the right to ask Ronald Reagan's question in a very specific and all-important way: Are we safer today because of the policies of President Bush? Any honest assessment can lead to only one answer and that answer is an emphatic no. President Bush is dead wrong and John Kerry is absolutely right: We are not safer today. The reason we are not safer is because of President Bush's misguided war in Iraq. The President's handling of the war has been a toxic mix of ignorance, arrogance, and stubborn ideology. No amount of Presidential rhetoric or preposterous campaign spin can conceal the truth about the steady downward spiral in our national security since President Bush made the decision to go to war in Iraq. President Bush keeps saying that America and the world are safer and better off today because Saddam Hussein is gone. No matter how many rhetorical, double-twisting back flips President Bush performs, his disingenuous claim that the war has made America safer is wrong--and may be catastrophically wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Across the country we see the newspapers with headlines like this morning's Washington Post headline: ``U.S. `Almost All Wrong' on Weapons.'' There were no weapons. Here it is in the New York Times this morning: ``U.S. Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms in 90's.'' ``Weapons Capability Had Eroded Before War, Inspector Says.'' Here is the recent report, just released yesterday, by the inspector general, who is over there, Charles Duelfer, who followed Dr. Kay. Very professional individuals with strong teams have spent up to $900 million. This is the central conclusion on page 7: Iraq did not possess a nuclear device, nor had it tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991. Again, in a New York Times editorial this morning entitled ``The Verdict Is In'': Since any objective observer should by now have digested the idea that Iraq posed no immediate threat to anyone, let alone the United States, it was disturbing to hear President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney continue to try to justify the invasion this week on the grounds that after Sept. 11, 2001, Iraq was clearly the most likely place for terrorists to get illicit weapons. Even if Mr. Hussein had wanted to arm groups he could not control--a very dubious notion--he had nothing to give them. Those are the facts, Mr. President. And it is important for the administration to finally admit them. Saddam had no nuclear program. He had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq Survey Group basically nailed the door shut on the administration's justification for the war. But the President won't hear it. He stubbornly clings to his fiction that ``there was a real risk that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks.'' President Bush says John Kerry ``would weaken America and make the world more dangerous.'' In fact, it is President Bush who has weakened America and made the world more dangerous. Let's count the ways George Bush's war has not made America safer. No. 1, Iraq has been a constant perilous distraction from the real war on terrorism. There was no persuasive link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan, finished the job on al-Qaida, and finished the job on Osama bin Laden. No. 2, the mismanagement of the war in Iraq has created a fertile, new, and very dangerous breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq and a powerful recruiting tool for al-Qaida that did not exist before the war. We cannot go a day now without hearing of attacks in Iraq by insurgents and al-Qaida terrorists, and our troops are in far greater danger because of it. Only this week, Ambassador Paul Bremer specifically stated that the Bush administration erred in not deploying enough troops in Iraq and not containing the violence and looting immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein. About the looting, he said: We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. He said: We never had enough troops on the ground. No. 3, Saddam may be behind bars, and that is a plus for America and the world, as President Bush says. But the war in Iraq has clearly distracted us from putting Osama bin Laden behind bars, and that is a huge minus. No. 4, because of the war in Iraq, the danger of terrorist attacks against America itself has become far greater. Our preoccupation with Iraq has given al-Qaida more than 2 full years to regroup and plan murderous new assaults against us. And we know that al-Qaida will try to attack America again and again here at home, if it possibly can. Yet instead of staying focused on the real war on terror, President Bush rushed headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq. No. 5, and most ominously, the Bush administration's focus on Iraq has left us needlessly more vulnerable to an al-Qaida attack with a nuclear weapon. The greatest threat of all to our homeland is a nuclear attack. A mushroom cloud over any American city is the ultimate nightmare, and the risk is all too great. Osama bin Laden calls the acquisition of a nuclear device a ``religious duty.'' Documents captured from a key al-Qaida aide 3 years ago revealed plans even then to smuggle high-grade radioactive materials into the United States in shipping containers. No. 6, the war in Iraq has provided a powerful new worldwide recruiting tool for al-Qaida. We know al-Qaida is getting stronger, because its attacks in other parts of the world are increasing. No. 7, because of the war, Afghanistan itself is still unstable. Taliban and al-Qaida elements continue to attack our forces regularly. President Hamid Karzai is frequently forced to negotiate with warlords who control private armies in the tens of thousands. Opium production is at a record level, and is being used to finance terrorism and fund private militias. Our troops there are in greater danger. No. 8, we have alienated long-time friends and leaders in other nations we heavily depend on for intelligence, for apprehending terrorists, for shutting off funds to al-Qaida, and for many other types of support in the ongoing war against international terrorism. Mistrust of America has soared throughout the world. We are especially hated in the Muslim world. In parts of it, the bottom has fallen out. Sadly, we remember the goodwill that flowed to America in the aftermath of September 11, and we know we should never have squandered it. No. 9, our overall military forces are stretched to the breaking point because of the war in Iraq. As the Defense Science Board recently told Secretary Rumsfeld: Current and projected force structure will not sustain our current and projected global stabilization commitments. LTG John Riggs said it clearly: I have been in the Army 39 years, and I've never seen the Army as stretched in that 39 years as I have today. And as our colleague Senator McCain warned last month, if we have a problem in some other flash point in the world: It's clear, at least to most observers, that we don't have sufficient personnel. No. 10, the war in Iraq has undermined the basic rule of international law that protects captured Americans. The Geneva Conventions are supposed to protect our forces, but the brutal interrogation techniques used at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have lowered the bar for treatment of POWs and endangered our soldiers throughout the world. No. 11, while President Bush has been preoccupied with Iraq, not just one but two serious nuclear threats have been rising: North Korea and Iran. Four years ago, North Korea's plutonium program was inactive. Its nuclear rods were under seal. Two years ago, as the Iraq debate became intense, North Korea expelled the international inspectors and began turning its fuel rods into nuclear weapons. At the beginning of the Bush administration, North Korea was already thought to have two such weapons. Now they may have eight, and the danger is greater. Iran too is now on a faster track that could produce nuclear weapons. The international community might be more willing to act if President Bush had not abused the U.N. resolution on Iraq 2 years ago, when he took the words ``serious consequences'' as a license for launching his unilateral war in Iraq. No. 12, while we focused on the nonexistent nuclear threat from Saddam, we have not done enough to safeguard the vast amounts of unsecured nuclear materials elsewhere in the world. According to a joint report by the Nuclear Threat Initiative and Harvard's Managing the Atom Project, ``scores of nuclear terrorist opportunities lie in wait in countries all around the world,'' especially at sites in the former Soviet Union. How loudly does the alarm bell have to ring before President Bush wakes up? No. 13, the neglect of the Bush administration on all aspects of homeland security because of the war is frightening. We are pouring nearly $5 billion a month into Iraq, yet we are grossly shortchanging the urgent needs to strengthen our ability to prevent terrorist attacks here at home and to strengthen our preparedness should they occur. As former Republican Senator Warren Rudman, chairman of the Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders, said recently: Homeland security is terribly under-funded, and we cannot allow that to continue. You cannot pack all these reasons why America is not safer into a 30- second television response ad or a news story or an editorial. But as anyone who cares about the issue can quickly learn, our President has utterly no credibility when he keeps telling us that America and the world are safer because he went to war in Iraq and rid us of Saddam. President Bush's record on Iraq is clearly costing American lives and endangering America and the world. Our President will not change or even admit how wrong he has been and still is. Despite the long line of mistakes and blunders and outright deception, there has been no accountability. As election day grows closer, the buck is circling more and more closely over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Only a new President can right the extraordinary wrongs of the Bush administration on our foreign policy and national security. On November 2, when we ask ourselves the fundamental question whether President Bush has made us safer, there can be only one answer: No, he has not. That is why America needs new leadership. We could have been, and should have been, much safer than we are today. We cannot afford to stay this very dangerous course. As I have said before, the only thing America has to fear is 4 more years of George Bush. I withhold the remainder of the time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. I have great affection and respect for the chairman of the Finance Committee, but I just listened to distortion and misrepresentations on the legislation that I cosponsored with my good friend from Florida. The fact is, every senior group in the United States of America supported our proposal, and they cannot say the same about the Republican proposal. Why in the world would all the senior groups support our proposal? Because we build on the solemn commitment that was made to the seniors in this country in 1964 and 1965. Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare bill in 1965, where we guaranteed to every senior citizen good quality health care for the rest of their lives if they paid into the system and played by the rules. We guaranteed hospital care and care by physicians, but we never did it for prescription drugs. That was the commitment that was made by this Government to the seniors of this Nation. This was a downpayment to meet the commitment Lyndon Johnson made and that every one of us who supported the Medicare Program believes in. Every day that we fail to provide a real prescription drug program to the seniors is a violation of that commitment. The other side ought to be telling us how we are going to finish that commitment and close the gap for our senior citizens, rather than fly-specking other legislation that has been introduced, which did not have massive giveaways to the HMOs and massive giveaways to the drug companies. President Bush's Medicare bill is a travesty. That is why it is not being endorsed by the senior citizens of this country. It is astounding that Republicans think they can defend President Bush's good-for-nothing Medicare bill by attacking the Graham-Miller- Kennedy bill offered more than two years ago. Is especially astounding because that bill--which received a majority of votes in the United States Senate but was blocked by the Republican minority--was so much better than the Bush bill that Republicans passed last year. Let's look at the record. Our bill provided $600 billion for prescription drugs for senior citizens, not the $400 billion in the Bush bill. The Bush priorities are tax cuts for the wealthy. Our priorities are health care for senior citizens. Under our bill, every dime of the $600 billion went for prescription drugs. Under the Bush bill, $139 billion is squandered on windfall profits for the drug companies and $46 billion on giveaways to HMOs. Under our bill, senior citizens got a real benefit, not one as full of holes as a Swiss cheese. Under our bill, senior citizens started receiving benefits on the first prescription they fill. Under the Bush bill, seniors have to pay a $250 deductible before they see a dime's worth of benefits. Under our bill, seniors citizens had complete coverage. No doughnut holes. No big coverage gaps where seniors must pay the full cost of the drugs they need--or go without. Their bill has a huge coverage gap of almost $3,000. Once a senior has purchased $2,250 worth of drugs, they get no benefits until they spend an additional $2,850. What kind of insurance is that! Under our bill, senior citizens paid a $25 a month premium for their coverage--and it was guaranteed. Under the Bush bill, the average premium senior citizens would have to pay was estimated at $35--but if insurance companies decided to charge more, it could be $40 or $50 or $60 or $90. There was no guarantee and no limits. Under our bill, seniors were guaranteed access to any drug they needed--even if it was not on the formulary. Under the Bush bill, if an insurance company decides not to cover a drug the senior citizens needs, the senior citizen is out of luck. The bottom line is that under the Bush bill, 15 million senior citizens actually will pay more for the drugs they need than they do today. Six million of the poorest of the poor on Medicaid will be forced to pay more out of pocket. Six million more senior citizens will pay more in premiums than they will get in benefits. Three million seniors will lose the good retirement coverage they now enjoy from a former employer and be forced into the inadequate government program the bill creates. Under the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill, every senior citizen is better off. That is one key reason why every legitimate organization of senior citizens endorsed the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill, and why the vast majority of senior citizen organizations opposed the Bush bill. President Bush says in every stump speech that we have a ``moral obligation to honor our senior citizens.'' He is right about that, but it is typical Bush. Right words, wrong deeds. It is wrong to make 15 million senior citizens worse off with his good-for-nothing Medicare bill. It is wrong to impose the highest premium increase in Medicare's entire history on senior citizens. It is wrong to escalate premiums a whopping 72 percent in just 2 years, so that the average senior--with an income of just $15,000--has to pay almost $1,000 in Medicare premiums. It is wrong to tolerate a situation under which, according to the Bush Administration's own estimates, the average 85-year-old will spend more than 40 percent of her Social Security benefits on Medicare premiums and cost-sharing by 2006. It is wrong to give away money to drug companies and HMOs that belongs to senior citizens. It is wrong to try to privatize Medicare and force senior citizens to join HMOs. George Bush has had 4 years to help senior citizens get the affordable health care Medicare promises. He has failed. Now he wants another chance. He doesn't deserve it. John Kerry and Democrats in Congress have a better approach. We will repeal and replace the good-for-nothing Bush Medicare bill. We will fight for senior citizens. We will put their interests first, not the interests of big drug companies and HMOs. We will honor our senior citizens with deeds, not just words. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold that.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. I am a cosponsor of the Chambliss amendment, so I would appreciate it if I could have maybe 6 or 7 minutes prior to the time we vote. I, too, want to cooperate with the managers, and particularly the chairman, to make sure he is able to work his program. If the leader could ensure that.