Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair be kind enough to notify me when 5\1/2\ minutes is up?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senators from Kentucky and Nevada for their help in bringing us to where we are today in terms of meeting our responsibilities under the 9/11 Commission. I again congratulate the Senators from Maine and Connecticut for their outstanding leadership on the floor of the Senate. America must be heartened by the results of their effort. I join in commending all of them for the job they have done. This amendment, which my friend, the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, and I offer is virtually identical in effect to the Grassley-Baucus amendment that was just accepted. That amendment keeps many of the Customs-related functions in the Finance Committee. The amendment that Senator Chambliss and I offer keeps the immigration-related functions in the Judiciary Committee. What we are seeking is much more modest than the major exemptions written into the base bill for the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration. Our amendment does not preclude the new Homeland Security Committee from exercising jurisdiction over security issues, such as developing biometric identifiers to enhance national security, upgrading technology, including electronic interoperable data systems, compiling watch list information to screen out terrorists, and enhancing intelligence and law enforcement capabilities. That is appropriately reserved. But surely we can meet the serious terrorism dangers we are facing from terrorists without obstructing the entry of more than 500 million individuals who go across our borders every year and who legally enter the United States each year as visitors, as students, as temporary workers, crossing legally from Canada and Mexico, on a daily basis, to conduct business or to visit their families. These immigration issues are about reunifying families, protecting refugees and asylum seekers, welcoming foreign workers when we cannot find American workers to fill our jobs, opening our doors to immigrants who will be future U.S. citizens. These issues are about welcoming international students and visitors, scholars and researchers to our country, so that we can benefit from a climate of open exchange. Immigration law involves so much more than weeding out the few terrorists. The problem is, the terrorists are the danger, not just the issues of immigration. Transferring total jurisdiction to a new Homeland Security Committee would ignore all the other primary functions of our immigration laws and effectively send a message to the world that terrorists are winning and that our pride in our immigrant heritage and history has turned to fear. Immigration is a central part of our heritage and history. It is essential to who we are as Americans. Maintaining it is part of our national well-being, our identity as a nation, and our strength in today's world. In defending the Nation, we are also defending the fundamental constitutional principles that have made America strong in the past and will make us even stronger in the future. Mr. President, for all of these reasons, I believe the Judiciary Committee should retain jurisdiction over the immigration issues unrelated to terrorism. That is what the Chambliss amendment does. I hope it will be accepted by the membership. Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of the time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3995

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am pleased today to introduce the Fair Access to Clinical Trials or FACT Act. This needed legislation will improve the information available to patients and their families about the medical treatments they receive. For too long, drug companies have been able to hide damaging data that show their new wonder drug is not really the wonder they claim it to be. That practice ends on the day the FACT Act is enacted. From that day forward, consumers, doctors and researchers will have access to the results of clinical trials, so they can make informed decisions about treatment options. No patient should ever die because they didn't get the information they needed on the medications they rely on to protect their health. The legislation we introduce today is offered by a strong group of Senators and Representatives from across the nation. I commend my colleague, Senator Dodd, for his leadership in the Senate on this important measure. Senator Dodd has a strong and lasting commitment to improving the health and health care of all our citizens, and particularly for the youngest and most vulnerable. I am also pleased to join Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Tim Johnson in introducing this proposal, and I commend them for their commitment and skillful leadership in this area. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives are today introducing almost identical legislation, and I commend our colleagues, Representative Ed Markey and Representative Henry Waxman, for their tireless efforts on this important issue. As part of the FDA Modernization Act, Congress directed the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a registry of clinical trials. This provision was well timed, because it coincided with the rapid expansion of internet use. As a result, the National Library of Medicine has established a web site, clinicaltrials.gov, that is intended to contain information on all clinical trials for serious and life threatening diseases. Sadly, recent studies show that drug manufacturers are not complying with the requirement to list even basic information on the trials they conduct. A recent study showed that only 48 percent of the required cancer trials were properly submitted to the registry, and rates for other serious diseases were in the single digits. As a result of this shameful failure, patients are being denied important information on clinical trials in which they may be eligible to participate. Action is long overdue to give the NIH and the FDA better ways to see that companies and researchers properly register the trials they conduct. The FACT Act will assure that any researcher or sponsor seeking to conduct a clinical trial will be required, as a condition for approval to conduct the trial, to submit information on that trial to the clinical trial registry. This common-sense provision will see that patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials will have access to a complete set of information on the trials for which they may be eligible. No patient should be denied access to a lifesaving clinical trial because the sponsor of the trial shirked their responsibility to submit information to the national registry. Ensuring that all trials are registered is important, but registration alone is not enough to see that patients get the information they need on the treatments they receive. We must also see that the results of clinical trials are included in the registry. The FACT Act requires researchers and clinical trial sponsors to submit the results of their trials to the registry. With a complete and comprehensive set of information, patients will be better able to evaluate the treatments they receive, and physicians will have access to complete information on the treatments they prescribe. The FACT Act requires companies to list the results of trials--even when they show that a product is less effective than its manufacturers want to claim. All of us are familiar with the way that drug companies hid information on potentially harmful side effects in children of antidepressants. Many of our Republican colleagues in the House forcefully criticized the FDA for failing to release information they possessed showing that these pills sometimes cause suicidal tendencies in the children who received them. The FACT Act addresses both of these serious concerns. It requires companies to list the results of their trials, and gives FDA the authority to impose civil monetary penalties on those who fail to do so. It also gives FDA the clear legal authority to release information on the results of a clinical trial if a company fails to do so. No longer will FDA face the terrible dilemma of knowing that it possesses information crucial to assuring public health and safety, but is unable to release that information to the public because of legal constraints. The FACT Act assures that FDA has the clear authority to take the steps it needs to take to protect public health. I urge Congress to take swift action on the proposals introduced today in the House and Senate. We have little time left in this session, but the measures introduced today have broad support from medical professional, consumer organizations and the publishers of professional journals. Some companies have already taken voluntary steps to release information on clinical trials. These voluntary efforts are commendable, but they are inadequate to give the public the comprehensive information they need and deserve. Voluntary reporting efforts on the companies' own web sites will not result in a single, central database that every patient can consult. Sporadic efforts by individual companies will not elicit the comprehensive information needed on all clinical trials--not just those of the few companies that participate in the voluntary initiative. And voluntary efforts undertaken now may not be sustained in the future, when the hot glare of public attention fades from this issue. To give patients and health professionals the information they need to improve the quality of medical care, we need a strong legal requirement to list comprehensive information on clinical trials in a single publicly accessible database. Patients and their families deserve the FACT Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am pleased today to introduce the Fair Access to Clinical Trials or FACT Act. This needed legislation will improve the information available to patients and their families about the medical treatments they receive. For too long, drug companies have been able to hide damaging data that show their new wonder drug is not really the wonder they claim it to be. That practice ends on the day the FACT Act is enacted. From that day forward, consumers, doctors and researchers will have access to the results of clinical trials, so they can make informed decisions about treatment options. No patient should ever die because they didn't get the information they needed on the medications they rely on to protect their health. The legislation we introduce today is offered by a strong group of Senators and Representatives from across the nation. I commend my colleague, Senator Dodd, for his leadership in the Senate on this important measure. Senator Dodd has a strong and lasting commitment to improving the health and health care of all our citizens, and particularly for the youngest and most vulnerable. I am also pleased to join Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Tim Johnson in introducing this proposal, and I commend them for their commitment and skillful leadership in this area. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives are today introducing almost identical legislation, and I commend our colleagues, Representative Ed Markey and Representative Henry Waxman, for their tireless efforts on this important issue. As part of the FDA Modernization Act, Congress directed the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a registry of clinical trials. This provision was well timed, because it coincided with the rapid expansion of internet use. As a result, the National Library of Medicine has established a web site, clinicaltrials.gov, that is intended to contain information on all clinical trials for serious and life threatening diseases. Sadly, recent studies show that drug manufacturers are not complying with the requirement to list even basic information on the trials they conduct. A recent study showed that only 48 percent of the required cancer trials were properly submitted to the registry, and rates for other serious diseases were in the single digits. As a result of this shameful failure, patients are being denied important information on clinical trials in which they may be eligible to participate. Action is long overdue to give the NIH and the FDA better ways to see that companies and researchers properly register the trials they conduct. The FACT Act will assure that any researcher or sponsor seeking to conduct a clinical trial will be required, as a condition for approval to conduct the trial, to submit information on that trial to the clinical trial registry. This common-sense provision will see that patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials will have access to a complete set of information on the trials for which they may be eligible. No patient should be denied access to a lifesaving clinical trial because the sponsor of the trial shirked their responsibility to submit information to the national registry. Ensuring that all trials are registered is important, but registration alone is not enough to see that patients get the information they need on the treatments they receive. We must also see that the results of clinical trials are included in the registry. The FACT Act requires researchers and clinical trial sponsors to submit the results of their trials to the registry. With a complete and comprehensive set of information, patients will be better able to evaluate the treatments they receive, and physicians will have access to complete information on the treatments they prescribe. The FACT Act requires companies to list the results of trials--even when they show that a product is less effective than its manufacturers want to claim. All of us are familiar with the way that drug companies hid information on potentially harmful side effects in children of antidepressants. Many of our Republican colleagues in the House forcefully criticized the FDA for failing to release information they possessed showing that these pills sometimes cause suicidal tendencies in the children who received them. The FACT Act addresses both of these serious concerns. It requires companies to list the results of their trials, and gives FDA the authority to impose civil monetary penalties on those who fail to do so. It also gives FDA the clear legal authority to release information on the results of a clinical trial if a company fails to do so. No longer will FDA face the terrible dilemma of knowing that it possesses information crucial to assuring public health and safety, but is unable to release that information to the public because of legal constraints. The FACT Act assures that FDA has the clear authority to take the steps it needs to take to protect public health. I urge Congress to take swift action on the proposals introduced today in the House and Senate. We have little time left in this session, but the measures introduced today have broad support from medical professional, consumer organizations and the publishers of professional journals. Some companies have already taken voluntary steps to release information on clinical trials. These voluntary efforts are commendable, but they are inadequate to give the public the comprehensive information they need and deserve. Voluntary reporting efforts on the companies' own web sites will not result in a single, central database that every patient can consult. Sporadic efforts by individual companies will not elicit the comprehensive information needed on all clinical trials--not just those of the few companies that participate in the voluntary initiative. And voluntary efforts undertaken now may not be sustained in the future, when the hot glare of public attention fades from this issue. To give patients and health professionals the information they need to improve the quality of medical care, we need a strong legal requirement to list comprehensive information on clinical trials in a single publicly accessible database. Patients and their families deserve the FACT Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the Bush economy, minimum wage workers are falling farther and farther behind. But every time Democrats in Congress have tried to raise the minimum wage, the Republican leadership has refused even to allow a vote on it. Three times in the 108th Congress, the Republican leadership has brought down a bill rather than allow an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage first on the State Department bill, then on the welfare bill, and, finally, on the class action bill. Now, 562 prominent economists including four Nobel Prize winners in economics and seven past presidents of the American Economic Association have endorsed the increase to $7 an hour. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of their letter be printed in the Record, following my statement.

Mr. KENNEDY. In today's economy, corporate profits are surging, but workers' wages are stagnant. Minimum wage workers are hardest hit, because they haven't had an increase in the minimum wage for 7 long years. That is why so many of us continue to fight for the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which will raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7 in three moderate steps to $5.85 60 days after enactment; $6.45 1-year later; to $7 1-year after that. It is long past time for Congress to approve an increase in the minimum wage. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. Exhibit 1 IT'S TIME FOR A Raise Hundreds of economists support a minimum wage increase The minimum wage has been an important part of our nation's economy for 65 years. It is based on the principle of valuing work by establishing an hourly wage floor beneath which employers cannot pay their workers. In so doing, the minimum wage helps to equalize the imbalance in bargaining power that low-wage workers face in the labor market. The minimum wage is also an important tool in fighting poverty. The value of the 1997 increase in the federal minimum wage has been fully eroded. The real value of today's federal minimum wage is less than it has been in 46 out of the last 48 years. Moreover, the ratio of the minimum wage to the average hourly wage of non-supervisory workers is 33%, its lowest level in 55 years. This decline is causing hardship for low-wage workers and their families. We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed. In particular, we share the view the Council of Economic Advisers expressed in the 1999 Economic Report of the President that ``the weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect on employment.'' While controversy about the precise employment effects of the minimum wage continues, research has shown that most of the beneficiaries are adults, most are female, and the vast majority are members of low-income working families. As economists who are concerned about the problems facing low-wage workers, we believe the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2004's proposed phased-in increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.00 falls well within the range of options where the benefits to the labor market, workers, and the overall economy would be positive. Twelve states and the District of Columbia have set their minimum wages above the federal level. Additional states, including Florida, Nevada, and New York, are considering similar measures. As with a federal increase, modest increases in state minimum wages in the range of $1.00 to $2.00 can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed. Henry Aaron, The Brookings Institution; Rebecca Blank, University of Michigan; Ronald G. Ehrenberg, Cornell University; Clive Granger, University of California--San Diego; Lawrence F. Katz, Harvard University; Lawrence R. Klein, University of Pennsylvania; Frank Levy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute; Paul A. Samuelson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Robert M. Solow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 552 other economists agree Economists supporting increase in minimum wage Frank Ackerman, Global Development and Environment Institute--Tufts University; Irma Adelman, University of California--Berkeley; Randy Albelda, University of Massachusetts--Boston; Robert J. Alexander, Rutgers University; Marcus Alexis, Northwestern University; Sylvia Allegretto, Economic Policy Institute; Gar Alperovitz, University of Maryland--College Park; Teresa L. Amott, Gettysburg College; Alice Amsden, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Bernard E. Anderson, University of Pennsylvania; Robert M. Anderson, University of California--Berkeley; Eileen Appelbaum, Rutgers University; Robert K. Arnold, Institute of Regional and Urban Studies; David D. Arsen, Michigan State University; Enid Arvidson, University of Texas--Arlington; Michael Ash, University of Massachusetts; Glen Atkinson, University of Nevada--Reno; Alice Audie- Figueroa, United Automobile Workers. Robert Axtell, The Brookings Institution and Middlebury College; M.V. Lee Badgett, University of Massachusetts; Ron Baiman, University of Illinois--Chicago; Asatar Bair, City College of San Francisco; Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research; Benjamin Balak, Rollins College; Stephen E. Baldwin, KRA Corporation and George Washington University; Erol Balkan, Hamilton College; Laurence M. Ball, Johns Hopkins University; Brad Barham, University of Wisconsin-- Madison; Drucilla K. Barker, Hollins University; David Barkin, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana--Xochimilco; Christopher Barrett, Cornell University; Timothy J. Bartik, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research; Laurie J. Bassi, McBassi & Company; Bradley W. Bateman, Grinnell College; Francis M. Bator, Harvard University; Sandy Baum, Skidmore College; William J. Baumol , New York University; Steve Beckman, United Automobile Workers; Stephen H. Bell, Urban Institute; Dale L. Belman, Michigan State University; Michael H. Belzer, Wayne State University; Lourdes Beneria, Cornell University; Barbara R. Bergmann, American University and University of Maryland; Eli Berman, University of California--San Diego. Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute; Michael Best, University of Massachusetts--Lowell; Charles L. Betsey, Howard University; David M. Betson, University of Notre Dame; Carole Biewener, Simmons College; Sherrilyn Billger, Illinois State University; Melissa Binder, University of New Mexico; L. Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute; Stanley W. Black, University of North Carolina-- Chapel Hill; Margaret Blair, Vanderbilt University Law School; Robert Blecker, American University; Alan S. Blinder, Princeton University; Barry Bluestone, Northeastern University; Peter Bohmer, The Evergreen State College; Roger Bolton, Williams College; James F. Booker, Siena College; Heather Boushey, Center for Economic and Policy Research; Samuel Bowles, Santa Fe Institute; James K. Boyce, University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Ralph Bradburd, Williams College; Katharine Bradbury, Gerard Bradley, New Mexico Department of Labor; Mark D. Brenner, University of Massachusetts; Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Cornell University; Daniel W. Bromley, University of Wisconsin; Eileen L. Brooks, University of California--Santa Cruz; Annette N. Brown, BearingPoint, Inc.; Christopher Brown, Arkansas State University; Clair Brown, University of California--Berkeley; Michael Brun, Illinois State University; Neil H. Buchanan, Rutgers School of Law. Robert Buchele, Smith College; Mary A. Burke, Florida State University; Paul G. Burkett, Indiana State University; Stephen V. Burks, University of Minnesota--Morris; Joyce Burnette, Wabash College; Gary Burtless, The Brookings Institution; Dallas Burtraw, Resources for the Future; Paul D. Bush, California State University--Fresno; Antonio Callari. Franklin and Marshall College; James Campen, University of Massachusetts--Boston; Maria Cancian, University of Wisconsin--Madison; Paul Cantor, Norwalk Community College; Peter Cappelli, University of Pennsylvania; Anthony P. Carnevale, National Center on Education and the Economy; Jeffrey P. Carpenter, Middlebury College; Francoise Carre, University of Massachusetts-- Boston; Michael J. Carter, University of Massachusetts-- Lowell; Susan B. Carter, University of California--Riverside; John Carvellas, Saint Michael's College. Karl E. Case, Wellesley College; Jeff Chapman, Economic Policy Institute; John Dennis Chasse, State University of New York--Brockport; Howard Chernick, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York; Robert Cherry, Brooklyn College--City University of New York; Lawrence Chimerine, Radnor International Consulting, Inc.; Charles R. Chittle, Bowling Green State University; Kimberly Christensen, State University of New York--Purchase; Paul P. Christensen, Hofstra University; Richard D. Coe, New College of Florida; Robert M. Coen, Northwestern University; Steve Cohn, Knox College; David C. Cole, Harvard Institute for International Development; Helen Connolly, Northeastern University; John E. Connor, Villanova University; Patrick Conway, University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill; James V Cornehls, University of Texas--Arlington; David Crary, Eastern Michigan University; Vincent Crawford, University of California--San Diego; James Crotty, University of Massachusetts; Stephen Cullenberg, University of California-- Riverside. James Cypher, California State University--Fresno; Anita Dancs, National Priorities Project; Nasser Daneshvary, University of Nevada--Las Vegas; David M. Danning, Massachusetts Teachers Association; Sheldon Danziger, University of Michigan; Jane D'Arista, New School University; Paul A. David, Stanford University; Sidney Davidson, University of Chicago; John B. Davis, Marquette University and University of Amsterdam; Charles W. de Seve, American Economics Group, Inc.; Jayne Dean, Wagner College; Gregory E. DeFreitas, Hofstra University; Brad DeLong, University of California--Berkeley; James G. Devine, Loyola Marymount College; Peter Diamond , Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ranjit Dighe, State University of New York-- Oswego; Randall Dodd, Financial Policy Forum; Peter B. Doeringer, Boston University; Peter Dorman, The Evergreen State College; Robert Drago, Pennsylvania State University; Laura Dresser, University of Wisconsin--Madison; Arindrajit Dube, University of California--Berkeley; Richard B. Du Boff, Bryn Mawr College; Marie Duggan, Keene State College; Greg J. Duncan, Northwestern University; Steven Durlauf, University of Wisconsin--Madison. Donald H. Dutkowsky, Syracuse University; Amitava K. Dutt, University of Notre Dame; M. Jan Dutta, Rutgers University; Gary Dymski, University of California--Riverside; John A. Edgren, Eastern Michigan University; Barry Eichengreen, University of California--Berkeley; Bernard Elbaum, University of California--Santa Cruz; Catherine S. Elliott, New College of Florida; Zohreh Emami, Alverno College; Richard W. England, University of New Hampshire; Ernie Englander, George Washington University; Gerald Epstein, University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Sharon J. Erenburg, Eastern Michigan University; Christopher L. Erickson, University of California--Los Angeles; Timothy J. Essenburg, Bethel University; Susan L. Ettner, University of California--Los Angeles; Linda Ewing, United Automobile Workers; Colleen Fahy, Assumption College; David Fairris, University of California--Riverside. Henry S. Farber, Princeton University; Andrew Farrant, Franklin and Marshall College; Jeff Faux, Economic Policy Institute; Sasan Fayazmanesh, California State University-- Fresno; Steve Fazzari, Washington University; Rashi Fein, Harvard Medical School; Robert M. Feinberg, American University; Susan F Feiner, University of Southern Maine; David Felix, Washington University; Ronald F. Ferguson, Harvard University; William D. Ferguson, Grinnell College; Rudy Fichtenbaum, Wright State University; Deborah M. Figart, Richard Stockton College; T. Aldrich Finegan, Vanderbilt University; Lydia Fischer, United Automobile Workers; Albert Fishlow, Columbia University; John Fitzgerald, Bowdoin College; Sean Faherty, Franklin and Marshall College. Maria S. Floro, American University; Nancy Folbre, University of Massachusetts; Harold A. Forman, United Food and Commercial Workers; Mathew Forstater, University of Missouri--Kansas City; Harriet Fraad; Alan Frishman, Hobart and William Smith Colleges; Kevin Furey, Chemeketa Community College; James K. Galbraith, University of Texas--Austin; Monica Galizzi, University of Massachusetts--Lowell; Kevin P. Gallagher, Boston University; David Gallo, California State University--Chico; Irwin Garfinkel, Columbia University; Deborah L. Garvey, Santa Clara University; Jonah B. Gelbach, University of Maryland; Robley George, Center for Study of Democratic Societies; Christophre Georges, Hamilton College; Malcolm Getz, Vanderbilt University; Teresa Ghilarducci, University of Notre Dame; Lisa A. Giddings, University of Wisconsin--La Crosse; Richard J. Gilbert, University of California--Berkeley. John I. Gilderbloom, University of Louisville; Herbert Gintis, Santa Fe Institute and University of Massachusetts; Amy Glasmeier, Penn State University; Norman Glickman, Rutgers University; Robert Glover, University of Texas -- Austin; Arthur S. Goldberger, University of Wisconsin-- Madison; Lonnie Golden, Penn State University--Abington College; Debbie Goldman, Communications Workers of America; Steven M. Goldman, University of California--Berkeley; William W. Goldsmith, Cornell University; Nance Goldstein, University of Southern Maine; C.N. Gomersall, Luther College; Eban S. Goodstein, Lewis and Clark College; Robert J. Gordon, Northwestern University; Peter Gottschalk, Boston College; Elise Gould, Economic Policy Institute; Ulla Grapard, Colgate University; Daphne Greenwood, University of Colorado-- Colorado Springs; Christopher Gunn, Hobart and William Smith Colleges; Kwabena Gyimah-Brempong, University of South Florida; Joseph E. Harrington, Johns Hopkins University; Doug Harris, Florida State University; Jonathan M. Harris, Global Development and Environment Institute--Tufts University; Martin Hart-Landsberg, Lewis and Clark College. Mitchell Harwitz, State University of New York--Buffalo; Robert Haveman, University of Wisconsin--Madison; F. Gregory Hayden, University of Nebraska--Lincoln; Sue Headlee, American University; Carol E. Heim, University of Massachusetts--Amherst; James Heintz, University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Paul A. Heise, Lebanon Valley College; Suzanne Helburn, University of Colorado--Denver; Susan Helper, Case Western Reserve University; John F Henry, California State University--Sacramento; Edward Herman, University of Pennsylvania; Stephen Herzenberg, Keystone Research Center; Donald D. Hester, University of Wisconsin-- Madison; Gillian Hewitson, Franklin and Marshall College; William Hildred, Northern Arizona University; Marianne T. Hill, Center for Policy Research and Planning; Martha S. Hill, University of Michigan; Michael G. Hillard, University of Southern Maine; Albert O. Hirschman, Institute for Advanced Study; Rod Hissong, University of Texas--Arlington; Emily Hoffman, Western Michigan University. Karen C. Holden, University of Wisconsin--Madison; Harry Holzer, Georgetown University; Barbara Hopkins, Wright State University; Bobbie L. Horn, University of Tulsa; Julie Hotchkiss, Georgia State University; Candace Howes, Connecticut College; Carl E. Hunt, Richard W. Hurd, Cornell University; Saul H. Hymans, University of Michigan; Fred Inaba, Washington State University; Alan Isaac, American University; Jonathan Isham, Middlebury College; Michael Jacobs, New York City Independent Budget Office; Sanford M. Jacoby, University of California--Los Angeles; Kenneth P. Jameson, University of Utah; Russell A. Janis, University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Elizabeth J. Jensen, Hamilton College; Pascale Joassart, University of Massachusetts; Jerome Joffe, St. John's University; Lawrence D. Jones, University of British Columbia; Robert Jones, Skidmore College; Bernard Jump, Syracuse University; Fadhel Kaboub, Simon's Rock College of Bard; Alfred E. Kahn, Cornell University; Shulamit Kahn, Boston University; John Kane, State University of New York--Oswego; Thomas J. Kane, University of California--Los Angeles; J.K. Kapler, University of Massachusetts--Boston. Thomas Karier, Eastern Washington University; Victor Kasper, Buffalo State College; Sheila Kamerman, Columbia University; David E. Kaun, University of California--Santa Cruz; Wells Keddie, Rutgers University; Peter B. Kenen, Princeton University; Daphne Kenyon, D.A. Kenyon & Associates; Kwan S. Kim, University of Notre Dame; Marlene Kim, University of Massachusetts--Boston; Christopher T. King, University of Texas--Austin; Mary King, Portland State University; Lori G. Kletzer, University of California--Santa Cruz; Janet T. Knoedler, Bucknell University; Thomas A. Kochan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Tim Koechlin, Vassar College; Andrew I. Kohen, James Madison University; Krishna Kool, University of Rio Grande; Douglas Koritz, Buffalo State College; Sherrie Koss Kossoudji, University of Michigan; Nicholas N. Kozlov, Hofstra University; Catherine Krause, University of New Mexico; Alan J. Krupnick, Resources for the Future; Douglas Kruse, Rutgers University; Helen F. Ladd, Duke University; Robert M. LaJeunesse, State University of New York--New Paltz; Kevin Lang, Boston University; Glenn- Marie Lange, The Earth Institute--Columbia University; Catherine Langlois, Georgetown University. Gary A. Latanich, Arkansas State University; Robert Z. Lawrence, Harvard University; William Lazonick, University of Massachusetts--Lowell and INSEAD; Frederic S. Lee, University of Missouri--Kansas City; J. Paul Leigh, University of California--Davis; Nancey Green Leigh, Georgia Institute of Technology; Charles L. Leven, Washington University; Charles Levenstein, University of Massachusetts--Lowell; Margaret C. Levenstein, University of Michigan; Henry M. Levin, Columbia University and Stanford University; David I. Levine, University of California--Berkeley; Herbert S. Levine, University of Pennsylvania; Mark Levinson, UNITE HERE; Mark Levitan, Community Service Society of New York; Stephen Levy, Center for Continuing Study of California Economy; Arthur Lewbel, Boston College; James D. Likens, Pomona College; Edward J. Lincoln, Council on Foreign Relations; David L. Lindauer, Wellesley College; Charles Lindblom, Yale University; Victor D. Lippit, University of California-- Riverside; Mark C. Long, University of Washington; Pamela Loprest, The Urban Institute; Richard Lotspeich, Indiana State University; Michael C. Lovell, Wesleyan University. Milton D. Lower, Stephanie Luce, Labor Center--University of Massachusetts; Jens Ludwig, Georgetown University; Dan Luria, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center; Lisa M. Lynch, Tufts University; Robert Lynch, Washington College; Arthur MacEwan, University of Massachusetts--Boston; Hasan MacNeil, California State University--Chico; Craig R. MacPhee, University of Nebraska--Lincoln; Janice F. Madden, University of Pennsylvania; Mark H. Maier, Glendale Community College; Jay Mandle, Colgate University; Andrea Maneschi, Vanderbilt University; Dave E. Marcotte, University of Maryland--Baltimore County; Stephen A. Marglin, Harvard University; Robert A. Margo, Vanderbilt University; Stephen V. Marks, Pomona College; Ann R. Markusen, University of Minnesota; Ray Marshall, University of Texas--Austin; Jeffrey Martin; Patrick L. Mason, Florida State University; Julie A. Matthaei, Wellesley College; Peter H. Matthews, Middlebury College; Anne Mayhew, University of Tennessee; Alan K. McAdams, Cornell University. Elaine McCrate, University of Vermont; Richard McIntyre, University of Rhode Island; Charles W. McMillion, MBG Information Services; Martin Melkonian, Hofstra University; Seymour Melman, Columbia University; Jo Beth Mertens, Hobart and William Smith Colleges; Clarisse Messemer Lewis, and Clark College; Peter B. Meyer, University of Louisville; Thomas Michl, Colgate University; Edward Miguel, University of California--Berkeley; John A. Miller, Wheaton College; S.M. Miller, Commonwealth Institute; Jerry Miner, Syracuse University; Diane Monaco, Manchester College; Edward B. Montgomery, University of Maryland; Robert E. Moore, Georgia State University; Barbara A. Morgan, Johns Hopkins University; John R. Morris, University of Colorado--Denver; Fred Moseley, Mount Holyoke College; Leon N. Moses, Northwestern University; Philip I. Moss, University of Massachusetts--Lowell; Tracy Mott, University of Denver; Kajal Mukhopadhyay, University of Notre Dame; Alicia H. Munnell, Boston College. Richard J. Murnane, Harvard University; Michael Murray, Bates College; Peggy Musgrave, University of California-- Santa Cruz; Richard A. Musgrave, Harvard University; Ellen Mutari, Richard Stockton College; Michele Naples, The College of New Jersey; Tara Natarajan, St. Michael's College; Julie A. Nelson, Tufts University; Reynold F. Nesiba, Augustana College--Sioux Falls, SD; Egon Neuberger, State University of New York--Stony Brook; Donald A. Nichols, University of Wisconsin--Madison; Laurie Nisonoff, Hampshire College; Emily Northrop, Southwestern University; Leslie Nulty, Carol O'Cleireacain, The Brookings Institution; Seamus O'Cleireacain, State University of New York--Purchase; Stephen A. O'Connell, Swarthmore College. William P. O'Dea, State University of New York--Oneonta; Mehmet Odekon Skidmore, College; Amy O'Hara, Erik Olsen, Franklin and Marshall College; Paulette Olson Wright, State University; Paul Ong, University of California--Los Angeles; Van Doorn Ooms, Committee for Economic Development; Douglas V. Orr, Eastern Washington University; Jonathan M. Orszag, Competition Policy Associates, Inc.; Peter Orszag, The Brookings Institution; Paul Osterman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Shallanne Osterreich, Ithaca College; Rudolph A. Oswald, George Meany, Labor Studies Center; Spencer J. Pack, Connecticut College; Arnold Packer, Johns Hopkins University; Thomas Palley, US-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Dimitri B. Papadimitriou, The Levy Economic Institute of Bard College; James A. Parrott, Fiscal Policy Institute; Manuel Pastor, University of California--Santa Cruz; Eva A. Paus, Mount Holyoke College; Michael Perelman, California State University--Chico; Kenneth R. Peres, Communications Workers of America; George L. Perry, The Brookings Institution; Joseph Persky, University of Illinois--Chicago; Karen A. Pfeifer, Smith College; Ronnie J. Phillips, Colorado State University; Michael J. Piore, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Steven C. Pitts, University of California-- Berkeley; Karen R. Polenske, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Robert Pollin, University of Massachusetts-- Amherst; Marshall Pomer, Macroeconomic Policy Institute; Marilyn Power, Sarah Lawrence College; Robert E. Prasch, Middlebury College; Lee Price, Economic Policy Institute; Jean L. Pyle, University of Massachusetts--Lowell; Paddy Quick, St. Francis College; John M. Quigley, University of California--Berkeley; Willard W. Radell, Jr., Indiana University of Pennsylvania; Fredric Raines, Washington University; Steven Raphael, University of California-- Berkeley; Wendy Rayack, Wesleyan University. Robert Rebelein, Vassar College; James Rebitzer, Case Western Reserve University; Michael Reich, University of California--Berkeley; Robert B. Reich, Brandeis University; Kenneth A. Reinert, George Mason University; Trudi Renwick, Fiscal Policy Institute; Andrew Reschovsky, University of Wisconsin--Madison; James Reschovsky, Center for Studying Health System Change; Daniel Richards, Tufts University; Tom Riddell, Smith College; Ronald G. Ridker, World Bank; Alice M. Rivlin, The Brookings Institution and Georgetown University; Bruce Roberts, University of Southern Maine; John Roche St. John, Fisher College; Charles P. Rock, Rollins College; William M. Rodgers III, Rutgers University; Dani Rodrik, Harvard University; Frank Roosevelt, Sarah Lawrence College; Howard F Rosen, Trade Adjustment Assistance Coalition; Sumner Rosen, National Jobs for All Coalition and Columbia University; Joshua L. Rosenbloom, University of Kansas; William W. Ross, Fu Associates, Ltd.; Roy J. Rotheim, Skidmore College; Joydeep Roy, Economic Policy Institute; David F. Ruccio, University of Notre Dame; Lynda Rush, California State Polytechnic University--Pomona. Vernon W. Ruttan, University of Minnesota; Gregory M. Saltzman, Albion College; Sydney Saltzman, Cornell University and University of Michigan; Saskia Sassen, University of Chicago Law School; Christine Sauer, University of New Mexico; Max Sawicky, Economic Policy Institute; Peter V. Schaeffer, West Virginia University; William C. Schaniel, State University of West Georgia; F M. Scherer, Harvard University; A. Allan Schmid, Michigan State University; Stephen J. Schmidt, Union College; John Schmitt, 17th Street Economics; Juliet Schor, Boston College; Charles L. Schultze, The Brookings Institution; Elliot Sclar, Columbia University; Allen J. Scott, University of California, Los Angeles; Bruce R. Scott, Harvard Business School; Robert Scott, Economic Policy Institute; Stephanie Seguino, University of Vermont; Lawrence Seidman, University of Delaware; Jean Shackelford, Bucknell University; Harley Shaiken, University of California--Berkeley; Philip Shapira, Georgia Institute of Technology; Robert J. Shapiro, Sonecon LLC; Mohammed Sharif, University of Rhode Island; Lois B. Shaw, Institute for Women's Policy Research; Bertram Silverman, Hofstra University; Stephen J. Silvia, American University. Margaret C. Simms, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies; Michael Simmons, North Carolina A&T State University; Betty F. Slade, Courtenay Slater, Timothy M. Smeeding, Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University; Joel Sobel, University of California-San Diego; Martin C. Spechler, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis; Marcus Stanley, Case Western Reserve University; James L. Starkey, University of Rhode Island; Howard Stein, University of Michigan; Mary Huff Stevenson, University of Massachusetts-Boston; Michael Storper, University of California-Los Angeles and London School of Economics; Diana Strassmann, Rice University; Myra H. Strober, Stanford University; David M. Sturges, Colgate University; Richard Sutch, University of California-Riverside; Paul A. Swanson, William Paterson University; William Tabb, Queens College; David Terkla, University of Massachusetts-Boston; Ross D. Thomson, University of Vermont; Emanuel D. Thorne, Brooklyn College-City University of New York. Jill Tiefenthaler, Colgate University; Thomas H. Tietenberg, Colby College; Chris Tilly, University of Massachusetts-Lowell; Marc R. Tool, California State University-Sacramento; Scott Trees, Siena College; A. Dale Tussing, Syracuse University; Laura D'Andrea Tyson, London Business School; Christopher Udry, Yale University; Daniel A. Underwood, Peninsula College; Lynn Unruh, University of Central Florida; David Vail, Bowdoin College; Marjolein van der Veen, Shoreline Community College; Don Vandegrift, The College of New Jersey; Douglas Vickers, University of Massachusetts; Michael Vogt, Eastern Michigan University; Paula B. Voos, Rutgers University; Mark Votruba, Case Western Reserve University; Jeff Waddoups, University of Nevada-Las Vegas; Matt Warning, University of Puget Sound; Robert W. Wassmer, California State University- Sacramento; Sidney Weintraub, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research; Charles L. Weise, Gettysburg College; Thomas E. Weisskopf, University of Michigan; Christian E. Weller, Center for American Progress; Fred M. Westfield, Vanderbilt University; Charles J. Whalen, Perspectives on Work. Melvin I. White, Brooklyn College-City University of New York; Cathleen Whiting, Williamette University; Howard Wial, Keystone Research Center; Charles K. Wilber, University of Notre Dame; Linda Wilcox Young, Southern Oregon University; Arthur R. Williams, John Willoughby, American University; Paul Winters, American University; Barbara L. Wolfe, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Edward Wolff, New York University; Martin Wolfson, University of Notre Dame; Brenda Wyss, Wheaton College; Yavuz Yasar, University of Denver; Carol Zabin, University of California-Berkeley; June Zaccone, National Jobs for All Coalition and Hofstra University; David A. Zalewski, Providence College; Henry W. Zaretsky, Henry W Zaretsky & Associates, Inc.; Lyuba Zarsky, Global Development and Environment Institute-Tufts University; Andrew Zimbalist, Smith College. * indicates Nobel Laureates. indicates past presidents of the American Economic Association. Affiliations are provided for identification purposes only and should not be construed as the official view of any of the institutions listed.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senator Brownback and Senator Leahy, in submitting a resolution to call attention to the plight of the large number of refugees throughout the world confined to refugee camps or segregated settlements for extended periods of time. In the vast majority of cases, these refugees are being ``warehoused,'' often for years, and in violation of their basic rights under the Refugee Convention adopted over half a century ago. We know of 300,000 Angolans in Zambia, Congo-Kinshasa, and Namibia, two million Afghans in Iran and Pakistan, 100,000 Bhutanese in Nepal, and 500,000 refugees from Sudan who have lived in refugee camps in various countries for 20 years. Shamefully, of the world's nearly 12 million more than 7 million have been restricted to refugee camps or segregated settlements for a decade or even longer. These tragic statistics aren't front page news. Refugees seldom dominate the headlines. But the reality is that the troubles of our time are exacting a heavy toll on people fleeing from conflicts and oppression. Throughout the world, men, woman and children are on the move, silent witnesses to the cruelties that plague our age. Refugee camps are often created quickly, to address a crisis. But the solution sometimes creates a greater problem when temporary refugee camps turn into long-term places of detention and confinement, often under extreme conditions with little attention paid to the growing number of refugees that find themselves in endless and harmful situations. Under the Refugee Convention of 1951, refugees have rights, including the right to earn a livelihood, to engage in wage-employment or self- employment, to practice a profession, to own property, and to have freedom of movement and residence. ``Warehoused'' refugees can do none of these things. Unable to work, travel, own property or obtain an education, they live unlived lives, without the basic freedoms they are entitled to have under the Convention of 1951. Without the chance to obtain an education or earn a living, refugees becomes easy recruitment targets for terrorist groups. We can be vigilant against terrorism, and we can do so without abandoning the basic humanity of refugees and squandering their lives in squalid warehouses. The resolution we are offering denounces the practice of warehousing refugees and urges all nations to grant refugees their basic rights under the Refugee Convention. America has a proud history as a haven for refugees, especially since the end of World War II. Assistance to refugees has been a conspicuous aspect of our leadership in the world. As a leader in this area, we need to say to the world that the widespread practice of warehousing refugees violates international law. As members of the world community, we have a responsibility to ensure that refugees are able to exercise the basic rights granted to them under the Refugee Convention. Over 100 international organizations support the end of warehousing, including more than twenty U.S.-based agencies. Nobel laureates have condemned this practice, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, and worldwide support continues to grow. Last year, the United States was the largest global contributor to agencies assisting refugees. But, there is far more to do. We must strengthen our own commitment, and work with other countries to meet the worldwide challenge. To do too little will only add to the injustice endured by millions of refugees around the world, jeopardize our own national security, and ignore incalculable human potential that is being lost. I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this resolution, and help us to give new priority to ending this inhumane practice that has been festering too long in so many parts of the world. I ask unanimous consent that editorials from the New York Times and Washington Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I commend the senior Senator from Utah, as well as the senior Senator from Delaware, for their leadership on this legislation, and for working with me and the senior Senator from Illinois to address the issue of DHEA. Could the Senator explain to me how the Drug Enforcement Administration would go about scheduling DHEA?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will my good friend from Utah yield for a further question?

Mr. KENNEDY. If DHEA becomes an abuse problem by athletes or by youngsters or teenagers, and DEA fails to act, can the Senator assure me and the senior Senator from Illinois that the Judiciary Committee will act accordingly?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in calling for a presidential pardon for Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion in boxing, who was unjustly persecuted in 1913 for being famous, wealthy, powerful--and black. Jack Johnson was the son of a former slave. He grew up in Galveston in the era of segregation, harsh racial bigotry, and vicious lynching. But Johnson was tough and talented, and he saw a way up. He fought for money in ``battle royals,'' in which groups of black men fought until the last one standing was declared the winner. He turned professional and, at the age of 25, won the Negro heavyweight championship. It was 1903, and boxing was widely and closely followed throughout the Nation. White fighters didn't fight blacks professionally, but Johnson's popularity grew. He was an innovative boxer and was sometimes ridiculed for his smart and relaxed style, even though it was considered a brilliant style when it was later adopted by white boxers. With no worlds left to conquer in segregated boxing, Johnson set his sights on challenging white boxers, and sportswriters began to support his challenge. Jim Jeffries, the white heavyweight champion, retired, rather than face Johnson. The title went to Tommy Burns, and a match was finally scheduled. Johnson defeated him easily, and whites immediately began to scour the country for a ``great white hope'' to win the title. Under intense pressure, Jeffries came out of retirement to face Johnson on the Fourth of July, 1910, in a fight called the ``Battle of the Century.'' Johnson defeated him easily. Blacks in cities and towns across the country celebrated and some were attacked and even killed. Race riots erupted in some cities. In 1912, the Justice Department tried to do what no boxer could do at the time, and knock Johnson out. The Justice Department went to vindictive lengths to punish the heavyweight champion of the world because of the color of his skin. The law they chose was the Mann Act, which had been enacted by Congress in 1910, and which made it a crime to transport a woman across state lines ``for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery,'' or for ``any other immoral purpose.'' Johnson flaunted his boxing success and defined bigotry. He had money and power at a time when the vast majority of blacks were poor and powerless. He was, athletically, the king of the hill, when blacks were regarded as physically inferior to whites. Relationships between a black man and white woman were often deemed ``immoral'' in those days, but Johnson ignored such views. ``I act in my relations with people of other races as if prejudice did not exist,'' he said. Johnson's relationships with white women enraged whites, and the Justice Department searched his past for a suitable case and convicted him. Most of the charges were thrown out on appeal, but enough remained to sentence Johnson to one year in prison. At the time, the prosecutor said Johnson may have been persecuted ``as an individual'' but ``it was his misfortune to be the foremost example of the evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks.'' Johnson was the embodiment of the hopes of countless blacks, and the prosecutor admitted the conviction was meant to ``send a message.'' Johnson served his one-year sentence, was shunned by the boxing community, and died in 1946. A pardon now would also send a message--that Johnson deserves his rightful place in sports history and the Nation's history. Civil rights is still the unfinished business in America. Sadly, generations of Americans whose names we will never know suffered through whole lifetimes of bigotry because of the racism that stained our Nation for so long. Correcting such a major symbol of injustice in the past reminds us of how much we still must do in the future. I commend Senator McCain for introducing this resolution, and I urge Congress to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this evening in San Francisco, a grateful community is coming together to honor one of the Nation's most able and respected leaders in the fight against HIV and AIDS--Pat Christen. For the past 15 years, Pat has served as executive director of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. Tonight, she will end her tour of service to spend more time with her family particularly with her two young daughters, Morgan and Madison. Since 1982, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation has been at the forefront of the ongoing battle against HIV and AIDS. Pat was there in the beginning, when a mysterious and deadly disease was taking so many of the San Francisco community's young people. She manned the agency's hotline as a volunteer, serving as an outlet and a resource for those facing the disease. From this caring and compassionate beginning, Pat rose to become a courageous and visionary leader against HIV. In San Francisco, Pat saw thousands of young people in her community die needlessly because they could not obtain the proper medical care and support they needed in order to live and fight the disease. At the foundation, she helped to shape San Francisco's response to prevention and treatment of AIDS. She also took the battle to Congress and had a vital role in the development and passage of the Federal Ryan White CARE Act. In her familiar grassroots style, Pat and the foundation galvanized other like-minded organizations around the country to help develop the CARE Act, and to provide the muscle and hustle that was necessary to galvanize action in Congress. Today, the Ryan White Act provides over $2 billion a year in HIV care and treatment to those most in need. It brings new hope and the promise of a life of dignity for tens of thousands of people living with HIV in cities and communities throughout the nation. Under Pat's leadership, the foundation recently joined the global battle against HIV and AIDS. In December 2000, the Pangaea Global AIDS Foundation was launched in an effort to expand HIV antiretroviral treatment and care in the developing world. In just a few short years, Pangaea has become a key strategic resource in this international effort, particularly in Asia and Africa. In October 2003, the Government of South Africa announced an unprecedented program to provide HIV antiretroviral drugs to the 5 million people in that nation suffering from HIV and AIDS. Pat and other Pangaea staff were part of a small technical support team working intensively behind the scenes with the South African Government as it prepared its national treatment initiative. Without Pat's skillful leadership, it might never have happened. Pangaea is now helping to make similar urgently needed relief available in Uganda and China. Over the course of her career, Pat has demonstrated her willingness to speak out, to challenge others to become involved, to show compassion and understanding when others reacted with anger and vindictiveness. Above all, she had an extraordinary ability to do what others thought could not be done. To so many of us who admired her and worked with her, she became the symbol of the saying in World War II, ``the difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer.'' We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Pat for her inspiring leadership and her dedication to bring about the day when everyone everywhere with HIV will be able to live a long and productive life with dignity. Pat, thank you very, very much for all you have done so well across the years, and for the enormous difference you have made in the lives of so many persons in our own country and throughout the world.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's an honor to introduce the ``Prevention of Childhood Obesity Act''. The goal of this legislation is to deal more effectively with the growing health epidemic of obesity now faced by millions of children today. Currently, 9,000,000 children have this chronic condition, and it's putting them at high risk for diabetes, high blood pressure, and other preventable diseases. In addition, obese children frequently grow up to become obese adults, and they impose at least 11 billion dollars in medical costs on the nation each year. Childhood obesity is the direct result of too much food and too little physical activity. One of the results is the epidemic now plaguing the nation. Children watch over 40,000 food advertisements on television a year--one food commercial every minute, urging them to eat large helpings of candy, snacks, fast foods and cereal high in sugar. Young students have access to vending machines that now put high-fat or high-sugar snacks and beverages in them. Yet they have no opportunity for physical activity or instruction in physical education. They live in neighborhoods with instant access to fast foods, but no supermarket, no outdoor produce stand, or few fruits and vegetables. These same neighborhoods also have no bike paths, sidewalks, tracks for walking or running, and no parks or open spaces. The result is millions of children without nutritious foods, a safe physical environment, that allows them to be active, and healthy information. Today, only 2 percent of the nation's children meet Department of Agriculture standards for daily intake. Less than a third meet the recommended guidelines for exercise, and millions have developed obesity. According to the Centers for Disease Control, regular physical activity and healthy eating and a positive environment for such behavior are essential factors in reducing the epidemic of obesity. Our legislation focuses, therefore, on coordinating federal, state, community and school efforts to see that our children have access to a healthy environment. This bill appoints a federal commission to see that Federal food policies promote good nutrition. Guidelines for food and physical activity advertisements will be established by a summit conference of representatives from education, industry, and health care. At the State level, the bill provides grants and coordinates efforts by the states to implement and evaluate ways to prevent obesity. It offers grants for early childhood activities and school and after- school programs, and for developing curricular, training educators, and implementing policies to reduce poor foods, increase physical education, and help communities build sidewalks, bike trails, and create parks that encourage healthy activity and sports. We know that regular physical activity and healthy eating can prevent childhood obesity. We need a coordinated and focused nationwide effort to halt this health epidemic facing millions of children, and prevent the chronic diseases and unnecessary suffering that afflict millions of children today. It's time for Congress to do its part, and I urge my colleagues to support us.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's an honor to introduce the ``Prevention of Childhood Obesity Act''. The goal of this legislation is to deal more effectively with the growing health epidemic of obesity now faced by millions of children today. Currently, 9,000,000 children have this chronic condition, and it's putting them at high risk for diabetes, high blood pressure, and other preventable diseases. In addition, obese children frequently grow up to become obese adults, and they impose at least 11 billion dollars in medical costs on the nation each year. Childhood obesity is the direct result of too much food and too little physical activity. One of the results is the epidemic now plaguing the nation. Children watch over 40,000 food advertisements on television a year--one food commercial every minute, urging them to eat large helpings of candy, snacks, fast foods and cereal high in sugar. Young students have access to vending machines that now put high-fat or high-sugar snacks and beverages in them. Yet they have no opportunity for physical activity or instruction in physical education. They live in neighborhoods with instant access to fast foods, but no supermarket, no outdoor produce stand, or few fruits and vegetables. These same neighborhoods also have no bike paths, sidewalks, tracks for walking or running, and no parks or open spaces. The result is millions of children without nutritious foods, a safe physical environment, that allows them to be active, and healthy information. Today, only 2 percent of the nation's children meet Department of Agriculture standards for daily intake. Less than a third meet the recommended guidelines for exercise, and millions have developed obesity. According to the Centers for Disease Control, regular physical activity and healthy eating and a positive environment for such behavior are essential factors in reducing the epidemic of obesity. Our legislation focuses, therefore, on coordinating federal, state, community and school efforts to see that our children have access to a healthy environment. This bill appoints a federal commission to see that Federal food policies promote good nutrition. Guidelines for food and physical activity advertisements will be established by a summit conference of representatives from education, industry, and health care. At the State level, the bill provides grants and coordinates efforts by the states to implement and evaluate ways to prevent obesity. It offers grants for early childhood activities and school and after- school programs, and for developing curricular, training educators, and implementing policies to reduce poor foods, increase physical education, and help communities build sidewalks, bike trails, and create parks that encourage healthy activity and sports. We know that regular physical activity and healthy eating can prevent childhood obesity. We need a coordinated and focused nationwide effort to halt this health epidemic facing millions of children, and prevent the chronic diseases and unnecessary suffering that afflict millions of children today. It's time for Congress to do its part, and I urge my colleagues to support us.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in support of final passage of this important bill. The Assistive Technology Act of 2004 will continue and expand the Nation's effort to improve access to assistive technology for all who need it. Technology is one of the great equalizing forces in our society. A computer can provide a child with insight and access to a world of information they would otherwise never have, and make the ideal of the American dream a reality for many more. For people with disabilities of all ages, technology is especially important. It can mean the difference between being immobile in the home and becoming a mobile and contributing member of their community. It can mean the difference between being paralyzed by an inability to communicate and communicating at a level previously thought impossible. Technology breaks down barriers to education, employment, health care, community living, civic participation and countless other activities of daily life that we so often take for granted. It allows people with disabilities to reach their full potential. Since 1988, the Assistive Technology Act has funded projects in every State and territory to raise awareness about the enormous potential of such technology, give individuals an opportunity to test products, and offer low-cost options for purchasing them. Each project has a different focus, but all are providing these core services, and providing them well. In Massachusetts, the Assistive Technology Project trains individuals with disabilities to be self-advocates. They monitor implementation of State and Federal laws, and operate an Equipment Exchange Trading Post for individuals to exchange or sell assistive technology products. They deserve great credit, and so do the other projects across the Nation. The Assistive Technology Act of 2004 makes a commitment to continue these projects, in recognition of all the effective work they have done so far. It also asks them to refocus their efforts on the core objective of getting technology into the hands of people with disabilities. It asks them to perform device demonstrations, equipment loans, and device refurbishment, and to provide financing systems such as low-cost loan programs. In addition to these important activities, it asks State projects to continue their work of educating people with disabilities, agencies that serve them, and employers, about the doors of opportunity that technology can open. It asks them to train personnel who work with people with disabilities to assess whether technology is needed and then how to obtain it. It asks them to integrate technology into education, employment and other service plans, and it improves coordination between agencies that serve people with disabilities. In particular, it asks State projects to focus on a population that needs technology, but often does not get it--students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in transition from school to work or continuing education. For these students, assistive technology is vitally important. It can mean the difference between living independent and productive lives when they leave school, and being left out of their community and unable to contribute. The legislation asks State projects to better facilitate access to technology for this population. It's a big task, but one I know the projects are able to handle, and it will make a world of difference for thousands of students who make the transition every year from the schoolhouse to home, college, or the workplace. In addition to focusing the projects on new activities, we take steps to provide resources to make it happen. The act sets a minimum allotment of $410,000 for each State project. This higher minimum will give many smaller States the resources they need to expand and create quality programs. For larger States, any resources above this level will be largely dedicated to helping them meet the increased need they face. We in Congress must do everything we can to see that this legislation receives the funding we know is necessary to implement quality and effective programs State-wide. This legislation also shifts the authority for administering, monitoring and reporting on the program to the Republican Services Administration. The projects focus on people with disabilities of all ages and on their school, work and basic health and living needs. The RSA is well-equipped to provide the kind of leadership that will allow us to effectively assess their accomplishments, and is required to partner with the Office of Special Education Programs, the National Institute on Disability Research and Rehabilitation and other Federal agencies. I am confident the projects will receive the attention and focus they deserve. In this legislation, we also continue and expand the work of the protection and advocacy systems that have done so much over the years to make good on the promise of assistive technology. I commend Senators Judd Gregg and Tom Harkin and Representatives John Boehner, George Miller and Buck McKeon for their excellent bipartisan work on this legislation. I also commend Senator Jack Reed, Senator John Warner, Senator Pat Roberts and all of my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for their excellent work. Senator Reed deserves special credit for his focus on improving training of local personnel and expanding research and development on new technologies. Several staff members deserve particular thanks--Aaron Bishop with Senator Gregg, Mary Giliberti with Senator Harkin, Elyse Wasch and Erica Swanson with Senator Reed, David Cleary with Representative Boehner and Alex Nock with Representative Miller. Without their hard work and the hard work of the disability advocates and project directors and staffs in the states, this legislation would not have been possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with tonight's Presidential debate coming up, the whole Nation will be watching John Kerry and George Bush debate the all important issue of why America went to war in Iraq, when Iraq was not an imminent threat, had no nuclear weapons, no persuasive links to al-Qaida, no connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. It is now clear that from the very moment President Bush took office, Iraq was his highest priority as unfinished business from the first Bush administration. His agenda was clear: find a rationale to get rid of Saddam. Then came 9/11. In the months that followed, the war in Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden had obvious priority, because al-Qaida was clearly the greatest threat to our national security. Despite all the clear and consistent warnings about al-Qaida, President Bush treated it as a distraction from his obsession with Saddam. By the summer of 2002, President Bush was restless for war with Iraq. The war in Afghanistan was no longer in the headlines or at the center of attention. Bin Laden was hard to find, the economy was in trouble, and so was the President's approval ratings in the polls. Karl Rove had tipped his hand earlier by stating that the war on terrorism could bring political benefits as well. The President's undeniable goal was to convince the American people that war was necessary with Iraq--and necessary right away--because Saddam was a bigger threat. That conclusion was not supported by the facts or the intelligence, but they could be retrofitted to support it. Senior administration officials kept suggesting the threat from Iraq was imminent. At a roundtable discussion with European journalists last month, Secretary Rumsfeld insisted: ``I never said imminent threat.'' In fact, Secretary Rumsfeld had told the House Armed Services Committee on September 18, 2002, ``. . . Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent--that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'' In May 2003, White spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether he went to war ``because we said WMD were a direct and imminent threat to the United States.'' Fleischer responded, ``Absolutely.'' What else could National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice have been suggesting, other than an imminent threat--an extremely imminent threat--when she said on September 8, 2002, ``We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.'' President Bush himself may not have used the word ``imminent'', but he carefully chose strong and loaded words about the nature of the threat--words that the intelligence community never used--to persuade and prepare the Nation to go to war against Iraq. In the Rose Garden on October 2, 2002, as Congress was preparing to vote on authorizing the war, the President said the Iraqi regime ``is a threat of unique urgency.'' In a speech in Cincinnati on October 7 that year, President Bush echoed Condoleezza Rice's image of nuclear devastation: ``Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof--the smoking gun--that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.'' He says he did not use the word ``imminent.'' What could be more imminent than talk like that? At a political appearance in New Mexico on October 28, 2002, after Congress had voted to authorize war, and a week before the election, President Bush said Iraq was a ``real and dangerous threat.'' At a NATO summit on November 20, 2002, President Bush said Iraq posed a ``unique and urgent threat.'' In Fort Hood, TX, on January 3, 2003, President Bush called the Iraqi regime a ``grave threat.'' Nuclear weapons. Mushroom cloud. Unique and urgent threat. Real and dangerous threat. Grave threat. This was the administration's rallying cry for war. When he was Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War, Vice President Cheney said, ``We were not going to get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.'' As Senator Edwards has said, Secretary Cheney was against getting bogged down in Iraq before he was for it. Here is another quote from the New York Times in 1991, by Secretary Cheney: If you are going to go in and topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you're going to do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place. How much credibility is that government going to have if it is set up by the United States military when it is there? How long does the United States military have to protect the people that sign on for that government? What happens to it once we leave? That was Secretary Cheney, his words. He was against the war, too, before he was for it. But, it was Vice President Cheney who first laid out the trumped up argument for war with Iraq to an unsuspecting public. In a speech on August 26, 2002, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he asserted: ``. . . We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.'' As we now know, the intelligence community was far from certain. Yet the Vice President had no doubt. On September 8, 2002, Cheney was even more emphatic about Saddam. He said, ``[We] do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.'' The intelligence community was deeply divided about the aluminum tubes, but Cheney was absolutely certain. One month later, on the eve of the watershed vote by Congress to authorize the war, President Bush said it even more vividly. He said, ``Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes . . . which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed . . . Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.'' In fact, as we now know, the intelligence community was far from united on Iraq's nuclear threat. The administration attempted to conceal the disagreement from the public by classifying the information and the dissents by the intelligence community until after the war, even while making dramatic and excessive public statements about the immediacy of the danger. The second major claim in the administration's case for war was the linkage between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. The National Intelligence Estimate found no cooperative relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida. On the contrary, it stated only that such a relationship might happen if Saddam were ``sufficiently desperate''-- in other words, if America went to war. But the intelligence estimate placed ``low confidence'' that, even in desperation, Saddam would give weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaida. President Bush ignored all that. He was relentless in raising America's fears about Saddam after the devastating 9/11 tragedy. He drew a clear link--and drew it repeatedly--between al-Qaida and Saddam. In a September 25, 2002, statement at the White House, President Bush flatly declared: ``You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.'' How could any President make a preposterous statement like that? He kept piling it on. In his State of the Union Address in January 2003, President Bush said, ``Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al- Qaida.'' He said Saddam could provide ``lethal viruses'' to a ``shadowy terrorist network.'' Two weeks later, in his radio address to the Nation, a month before the war began, President Bush described the ties in detail, saying ``Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks...'' He said: ``Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaida have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb making and document-forgery experts to work with al-Qaida. Iraq has also provided al-Qaida with chemical and biological weapons training. An al- Qaida operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al-Qaida terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.'' In fact, there was no operational link and no clear and persuasive pattern of ties between the Iraq and al-Qaida. That fact should have been abundantly clear to President Bush, since Iraq and al-Qaida had diametrically opposite views of the world. Al-Qaida and its religious fanatics detested Saddam, because Saddam was a secular dictator. Yet, President Bush had more than half the country believing that Saddam and al-Qaida were in cahoots on 9/11. Secretary of State Colin Powell now agrees that there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam's regime. So does Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. A bipartisan 9/11 Commission Staff Statement put it plainly: ``Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.'' The bipartisan 9/11 Commission report stated clearly that there was no evidence of a collaborative ``operational'' connection between Saddam and al-Qaida. The report said there was no evidence ``indicating that Iraq cooperated with al-Qaida in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.'' This past July, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bipartisan report whose title was, ``Prewar Intelligence Regarding Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction and Links to Terrorism.'' The report said there was not ``an established formal relationship'' between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. But in his march to war, President Bush exaggerated the threat anyway. It was not subtle. It was not nuanced. It was pure, unadulterated fear mongering, based on a devious strategy to convince the American people that Saddam had helped commit 9/11 and had the ability to provide nuclear weapons to al-Qaida, so that immediate war was necessary. America went to war in Iraq because President Bush insisted that nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein and his ties to al-Qaida were too dangerous to ignore. None of that was true, so all that President Bush says now is that Saddam was a brutal dictator and that America and the world are better off without him. Talk about flip-flops. How dare President Bush accuse John Kerry of flip-flops on Iraq. My response is ``Physician, heal thyself.'' President Bush is the all-time world-record-holder for flip-flops. Nothing John Kerry has said remotely compares with President Bush's gigantic flip-flops on the reasons he went to war. The war in Iraq itself has not made America safer and has not made the world safer. None of the President's post war rationalizations are sufficient to justify war. Almost every week, President bush tries a new rationale for the war. He's said our goal was ``sovereignty'' for Iraq, ``dignity'' for Iraq's culture, and ``for every Iraqi citizen, the opportunity for a better life.'' On April 30, 2004, he suggested the war was about human rights, saying ``there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq.'' He's suggested the war was for freedom and democracy. He's said, ``The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region.'' He has said the war was ``a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.'' None of this rationale is an adequate justification for war, and the President did not even try to make them a justification until long after the war began and all the other plausible justifications had proven false. Saddam was not an imminent threat. The war in Iraq was a perilous distraction from the real war on terrorism--the war against al-Qaida. President Bush got it exactly wrong. To him, the war in Afghanistan was a distraction from the war he wanted against Saddam. The war on in Iraq has clearly made America more hated in the world, especially in the Islamic world, and it has made Americans more vulnerable to terrorist attacks both here at home and overseas. We'll hear much more about this issue in tonight's Presidential debate, and the debate will go in Congress and in communities across the country between now and the election. The most important decision any President ever makes is the decision on war or peace. No President who misleads the country on the need for war deserves to be reelected. Any President who does so must be held accountable, and November 2 is the chance to do it. Mr. President, we know that some defenders of the President are desperate to support him. They say any dissent is only helping the terrorists. They even claim that al-Qaida wants John Kerry to win this election. It's despicable to make charges like that. It is not unpatriotic to tell the truth to the American people about the war in Iraq. In this grave moment of our country, to use the words of Thomas Jefferson, ``Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.'' The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski.) The Senator from Oregon is now recognized for 10 minutes. Senator Kerry and Iraq

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The subject matter on which I will address the Senate is related to the substance of the bill, but it is not directly going to be on the bill itself. It is related to the substance of the bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will be glad to debate that issue if the Chair is going to make a ruling on it. I maintain that the substance on which I am speaking is related to intelligence issues. If there is going to be a point of order made on substance under the Pastore rule, I would be glad to have the Chair rule and we will let the Senate vote on it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I note that our leaders are talking. Obviously, the tradition is to recognize or permit them to address the Senate, but I would like to speak just for a few moments this morning on a matter.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the leader and the leadership. I know the matters we have before us are of great importance and urgency. So is the matter about which I will address the Senate. By any reasonable standard, our policy in Iraq is failing. We are steadily losing ground in the war. Even after 9/11, it was wrong for this President or any President to shoot first and ask questions later, to rush to war and ignore or even muzzle serious doubts by experienced military officers and experienced officials in the State Department and the CIA about the rationale and justification for the war, and the strategy for waging it. We all know that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. We have known it for more than 20 years. We are proud, very proud, of our troops for their extraordinary and swift success in removing Saddam from power. But as we also now know beyond doubt, Saddam did not pose the kind of immediate threat to our national security that could possibly justify a unilateral, preventive war without the broad support of the international community. There was no reason whatsoever to go to war when we did, in the way we did, and for the false reasons we were given. The administration's insistence that Saddam could provide nuclear material or even nuclear weapons to al-Qaida has been exposed as an empty threat. It should have never been used by President Bush to justify an ideological war that America never should have fought. Saddam had no nuclear weapons. In fact, not only were there no nuclear weapons, there were no chemical or biological weapons either, no weapons of mass destruction of any kind. Nor was there any persuasive link between al-Qaida and Saddam and the 9/11 attacks. A 9/11 Commission Staff Statement put it plainly: Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States. The 9/11 Commission Report stated clearly that there was no ``operational'' connection between Saddam and al-Qaida. Secretary of State Colin Powell now agrees that there was no correlation between 9/11 and Saddam's regime. So does Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Nevertheless, President Bush continues to cling to the fiction that there was a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida. As the President said in his familiar Bush-speak, ``The reason that I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.'' That's the same logic President Bush keeps using today in his repeated stubborn insistence that the situation is improving in Iraq, and that we and the world are safer because Saddam is gone. The President and his administration continue to paint a rosy picture of progress in Iraq. Just last Wednesday, he referred to the growing insurgency as ``a handful of people.'' Some handful. Vice President Cheney says we're ``moving in the right direction,'' despite the worsening violence. Our troops are increasingly the targets of deadly attacks. American citizens are being kidnapped and brutally beheaded. But Secretary Rumsfeld says he's ``encouraged'' by developments in Iraq. Our colleague Senator Lindsey Graham doesn't buy that, and he has said so clearly: ``We do not need to paint a rosy scenario for the American people.'' Neither does our colleague Senator Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As he stated unequivocally last week, ``I don't think we're winning . . . The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq.'' The National Intelligence Estimate in July, although not yet made public, made this point as well--and made it with such breathtaking clarity that for the good of our country, officials leaked it to the press. The New York Times said the estimate ``spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq.'' The same Times report and other reports, the National Intelligence Estimate outlines three different possibilities for Iraq through the end of next year. The worst-case scenario is that Iraq plunges into outright civil war. The best-case scenario--the best case--is that violence in Iraq continues at current levels, with tenuous political and economic stability. President Bush categorically rejected that analysis, saying the CIA was ``just guessing.'' Last week, he retreated somewhat. He said he should have used ``estimate'' instead of ``guess.'' In other words, the best case scenario between now and the end of 2005 is that our soldiers will be bogged down in a continuing quagmire with no end in sight. President Bush refused to give the time of day to advice like that by the best intelligence analysts in his administration, but the American people need to hear it. We learned in yesterday's New York Times that the President was also warned by intelligence officials before the war that the invasion could increase support for political Islam and result in a deeply divided society in Iraq, a society prone to violent internal conflict. Before the war, President Bush received a report that warned of the possible insurgency. It is listed on the front page of the New York Times. Just to mention part of the story: ``The same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July about the prospects of growing instability in Iraq warned the Bush administration about the potentially costly consequence of an American-led invasion 2 months before the war began,'' Government officials said Monday. The assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraq society prone to violent internal conflict. The assessment also said a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, at least in the short run. That is the warning this President had, but he rushed headlong into the war with no plan to win the peace. Now, despite our clear failures, the President paints a rosy picture. Look at today's national newspapers. The Washington Post, on the front page, says: Growing Pessimism on Iraq. A growing number of career professionals within the national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials. . . . ``While President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have delivered optimistic public appraisals, officials who fight the Iraqi insurgency and study it at the CIA and State Department and within the Army officer corps believe the rebellion is deeper and more widespread than is being publicly acknowledged,'' officials say. People at the CIA ``are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper. . . .'' ``Things are definitely not improving.'' When is the President going to level with the American people? In the New York Times today--these are in the last 2 days, Mr. President--on the front page it says: ``Baghdad,'' and this is a different story: Over the past 30 days, more than 2,300 attacks by insurgents have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq, in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major population center outside the Kurdish north, according to comprehensive data compiled by a private security company with access to military intelligence reports and its own network of Iraqi informants. The sweeping geographical reach of the attacks . . . suggests a more widespread resistance than the isolated pockets described by the Iraqi government officials. The outlook is bleak, and it is easy to understand why. It is because the number of insurgents has gone up. The number of their attacks on our troops has gone up. The sophistication of the attacks has gone up. The number of our soldiers killed or wounded has gone up. The number of hostages seized and even savagely executed has gone up. Our troops are under increasing fire. More than 1,000 of America's finest young men and women have been killed. More than 7,000 have been wounded. In August alone, we had 863 American casualties. Our forces were attacked an average of 70 times a day, higher than for any month since President Bush dressed up in a flight suit, flew out to the aircraft carrier, and recklessly declared, ``Mission accomplished'' a year and a half ago. The President, the Vice President, the National Security Council, Secretary Rumsfeld, and other civilian leaders in the Pentagon failed to see the insurgency that took place last year and that began to metastasize like a deadly cancer. How could they have not noticed? Perhaps because they were still celebrating their ``mission accomplished.'' For 2 years, terrorist cells in Iraq have been spreading like cancer. Any doctor who would let that happen to a patient would be guilty of malpractice. In many places in Iraq today, it is too dangerous to go out even with guards. The streets are so dangerous that some parents are apparently keeping their children home from school, afraid they will be kidnapped, or worse, along the way. The State Department does not attempt to conceal the truth about the danger, at least in its travel warnings. Its September 17 advisory states that Iraq remains very dangerous. At the end of August, a bloody 3-week battle in Najaf ended with an agreement that U.S. troops would give up the city. Fallujah and now other cities are no-go zones for our troops, presumably to avoid even greater casualties, until after the election. Those are not the only areas where we have lost control. Last Friday, Secretary Powell said: We don't have government control, or government control is inadequate, in Samarra, Ramadi, Erbil and a number of other places. We continue to use so-called precision bombing in Iraq, even though our bombs cannot tell whether it is terrorists or innocent families inside the buildings they destroy. What is helping to unite so many Iraqi people in hatred of America is this emerging sense that America is unwilling, not just unable, to rebuild their shattered country and provide for their basic needs. Far from sharing President Bush's unrealistic rosy view, they see close up that their hopes for peace and stability are receding every day. Inevitably, more and more Iraqis believe that attacks on American forces are acceptable, even if they would not resort to violence themselves. For every mistake we make, for every innocent Iraqi child we accidentally kill in another bombing raid, the ranks of the insurgents climb, and so does their fanatical determination to stop at nothing to drive us out. An Army reservist described the deteriorating situation this way: For every guerrilla we kill with a smart bomb, we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us. The Iraqi people's anger is also fueled by the persistent blackouts, the power shortages, the lack of electricity, the destroyed infrastructure, the relentless violence, the massive lack of jobs and basic necessities and services. By any reasonable standard, our policy is failing in Iraq. The President should level with the American people. He should take off his rose-colored glasses, understand the truth, and tell the truth. The American people and our soldiers in Iraq deserve answers to the questions they have about the war: Will President Bush come to the Presidential debate tomorrow prepared to answer the hard questions? Will he admit that we are on a catastrophic path in Iraq? Will he admit that we rushed to a $200 billion war with no plan to win the peace? Will he offer a concrete plan to correct our course? We are steadily losing ground in the war. No amount of campaign spin can obscure those facts. We have to do better. November 2 is our chance. This President had his chance in Iraq. We deserve a new call, and I believe we will have it on November 2. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be speaking about issues that are included in the underlying bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do I have 20 minutes?