Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Yesterday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held two hearings to consider the reports by General Fay and General Jones and the report by former Defense Secretary Schlesinger about the Abu Ghraib prison debacle. The abuses at Abu Ghraib are just one part of a much larger failure, for which our soldiers have been paying a high price since day one. Because of the Bush administration's arrogant ideological incompetence and its bizarre ``mission accomplished'' mentality, our troops and our intelligence officers and our diplomats had neither the resources nor the guidance needed to deal with the worsening conditions that steadily began to overwhelm them and continue to do so. On issue after issue in Iraq, the administration has failed the basic test of competence. Before the war, the administration mishandled the intelligence, causing great damage to U.S. respect in the world, making the war on terrorism far harder to win. It is preposterous for the administration to pretend that the war in Iraq has made America safer. No President in America's history has done more damage to our country and our security than President Bush. The American people know where the buck stops. The administration bungled prewar diplomacy on Iraq, leaving us isolated and unable to obtain real allied support. The administration failed to consider the possibility that the liberation of Iraq might not be the cakewalk they predicted. They failed to consider the possibility that their preoccupation with Iraq could undo much of our achievement in Afghanistan and give the al-Qaida terrorists time to regroup and plan murderous new assaults. Far too many of our soldiers were not adequately trained for their mission in Iraq and they did not have adequate equipment for their missions either. The administration failed to send enough troops to do the job of keeping the peace. They disbanded the Iraqi army, and they are struggling now to recreate it. The administration's failures have also put a huge strain on the Army and our Reserve Forces and imposed great hardships on the families of our soldiers. The number of insurgents in Iraq has gone up. The number of brutal attacks has gone up, and so have the casualties. When President Bush recklessly declared ``mission accomplished,'' the civilian leaders in the Department of Defense took him seriously and left our Armed Forces in Iraq underprepared, understaffed, and underled for the mission that was only just beginning. President Bush has stated that the war in Iraq was a catastrophic success. He is half right--the war has been a catastrophe. The war has been a catastrophe for our soldiers, who were foolishly sent to war with no plan--no plan--to win the peace. The war has been a catastrophe for their loved ones. The war has been a catastrophe for our Nation's standing in the world and for the war on terror. As I have said, it has distracted us from the real threat of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and elsewhere, made the war against terrorism far harder to win, and made America more hated in the world than at any other time in our history. Nothing I have said detracts from the extraordinary heroism of our soldiers. They have responded to their mission in Iraq with immense courage and dedication. But their outstanding service does not and cannot excuse the incompetence of their civilian leaders. That incompetence was on vivid display again yesterday, in the Armed Services Committee, where we heard testimony on the report by General Jones and General Fay about Iraq. Their findings were chilling. Their report states point blank that the Pentagon expected our troops, under General Sanchez, to provide stability and support for the Coalition Provisional Authority ``in a relatively nonhostile environment'' in Iraq. Those are the exact words of the report--``a relatively nonhostile environment.'' That description is no surprise. The administration had been doing its best to convince the American people that the war would be easy. In February 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld told troops that the war ``could last, you know, 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months.'' As Secretary Rumsfeld well knows, it has now been three times as long as that, with no end in sight. In March 2003, Vice President Cheney said we would ``be greeted as liberators'' and dismissed out of hand any suggestion that we would be viewed as conquerors in a long, bloody occupation. Before the war, the Pentagon flagrantly ignored the postwar planning carried out by the State Department in its ``Future of Iraq'' project. The civilian leaders at the Defense Department were dismissive of any opposing view. They were convinced that the war would be easy, cheap, and fast. They ridiculed General Shinseki, then Chief of Staff of the Army, and Larry Lindsey, formerly President Bush's top economic advisor, who said that a successful war in Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and hundreds of billions of dollars. They put their own ideology above practical military planning, and we continue to see the catastrophic results today. Simply put, the civilians at the Pentagon did not anticipate or prepare for the insurgent fighting that occurred, despite the prewar warnings from military leaders. Even after the shameful failure at Abu Ghraib came to light, the administration continued to pour out statements that were completely at odds with the facts. On May 7 this year, Secretary Rumsfeld testified before the Armed Services Committees of both Houses of Congress. He told Senators that ``a small number of the U.S. military'' had perpetuated the abuses. He told the House that ``a few members of the U.S. military were responsible.'' A week later, President Bush tried to minimize the scandal by saying it involved ``disgraceful conduct by a few American troops.'' But as we now know, it wasn't just a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib. The Fay Report found 54 military intelligence, military police, medics, and civilian contractors who had ``some degree of responsibility or complicity in the abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib. Leaders in key positions failed to properly supervise the interrogation operations at the prison.'' The Fay Report identified not just individual failures but systemic failures, including: ``inadequate interrogation doctrine and training, an acute shortage of MP and MI soldiers, the lack of clear lines of responsibility between the MP and MI chains of command, the lack of clear interrogation policy for the Iraq Campaign.'' The Schlesinger Report found that military leaders in and out of Iraq and civilian leaders in the Department of Defense ``failed in their duties and that such failures contributed directly or indirectly to detainee abuse.'' The report faults the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for failing to ``set in motion the development of a more effective alternative course of action.'' Plainly, senior leaders did not do what was necessary to prevent these abuses. Secretary Rumsfeld told the Armed Services committee that the abuses were brought to light by Specialist Joseph Darby in January 2004, and the military chain of command ``acted promptly on learning of those abuses.'' This claim, too, is false. Senior leaders had ample warning that these abuses were occurring long before January 2004. General Jones' report found that indications and warnings had surfaced at General Sanchez's level ``that additional oversight and corrective actions were needed in the handling of detainees,'' including at Abu Ghraib. The report pointed to many specific warnings from within the Army about clear problems that were ignored by the Pentagon's civilian leadership. It cited an incident in which a detainee was abused at Camp Cropper after a prison riot. It cited investigations by the Army's Criminal Investigative Division into incidents of abuse and disciplining soldiers. It cited the death of a CIA detainee at Abu Ghraib. It cited the totally inadequate filing system for tracking detainees, which consisted of a hodge-podge of computers and filing boxes. The civilian leaders at the Pentagon also had ample warnings from outside the Army, which they also ignored. The International Committee of the Red Cross reported on abuses in the prisons as early as May 2003, soon after the fall of Baghdad. During a visit to Abu Ghraib 5 months later, in October 2003, Red Cross inspectors were so upset by what they found that they halted their visit and demanded an immediate explanation from U.S. military authorities. Yet the worst abuses at the prison occurred over the next 3 months, from October to December of that year. Clearly, Secretary Rumsfeld misled the Congress and the American people when he said that the leadership had acted swiftly to address the abuses, when in fact, they allowed abuses to continue and allowed the situation to fester. They acted only when the public disclosure of the abuses in the press made it impossible for their cover-up to continue. The administration then attempted to minimize the abuses at Abu Ghraib as part of its overall strategy to bury any bad new from Iraq and hide its incompetence, or worse, from the American people. But as these reports show, the catastrophe is far too great to be wished away with political spin. The Jones-Fay report states very clearly that ``the military police and military intelligence units at Abu Ghraib were severely underresourced.'' The report says that a failure to distinguish between Iraq and other theaters of operation led to ``confusion'' about which particular interrogation techniques were authorized in Iraq. It says, ``The intelligence structure was under-manned, underequipped, and inappropriately organized for counter-insurgency operations.'' What the report is saying, put in plain language, is that the operation was botched--totally botched. We know from General Taguba's report that few, if any, of the military police assigned to Abu Ghraib were trained on how to run a prison, or even on the basic requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Yesterday, the generals told us that additional missions had overwhelmed General Sanchez's headquarters, leaving them unable to manage the growing crises at Abu Ghraib and unable to respond to the many warning signs from the Red Cross. We heard over and over again about the impossible strains imposed on General Sanchez and his headquarters, because he was suddenly forced to take on two huge missions in Iraq--supporting the Coalition Provisional Authority and beginning the reconstruction--in addition to fighting a growing insurgency. The Jones-Fay report says that General Sanchez was missing two-thirds of the personnel needed for his own command in Iraq. It says ``of the 1,400 personnel required, the [Fifth] Corps staff transitioned to only 495, or roughly a third, of the manning requirements.'' This was barely enough to fight the war, and far too few to rebuild a country or supervise the detention system. The obvious basic questions are who put our military forces in this untenable position? Who decided that the war would be short, cheap, and easy? Who decided that the war was over and that we needed to start rebuilding Iraq? Who decided to play ``Mission Accomplished?'' The problems at Abu Ghraib are just symptoms of these larger failures. We sent our troops into battle without enough life-saving body armor and armor for their humvees on patrol. Those shortages were allowed to last for over a year, while our casualties continued to mount. We had far too few troops in place to prevent the looting of Baghdad and many other parts of the country. Huge ammunition depots went unguarded, and insurgents kept getting materials and bombs to use against our troops. We disbanded the Iraqi military, at one time the fourth largest military in the world, only to begin training a new one from scratch when the blunder was finally admitted. In his report, General Jones gave us a definition of a leadership failure: where ``leaders did not take charge, failed to provide appropriate guidance'', ``failed to accept responsibility or apply good judgment''. By this standard, and on this record, President Bush and his administration are clearly guilty of leadership failure. Despite these colossal failures of leadership and this gross incompetence, no one has been held accountable. The military holds its soldiers accountable for leadership failures. A few weeks ago, the Navy fired the captain of the USS John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier for running over a small boat in the Persian Gulf. The Navy didn't hide incompetence and gloss it over. It responded decisively and plainly stated that it had ``lost confidence'' in the captain's ability to operate the carrier safely. He was the eleventh commanding officer of the Navy to be fired this year alone. The Navy fired 14 commanding officers in 2003. In February 2004, the Commanding Officer of the frigate USS Samuel B Roberts was fired for a ``loss of confidence,'' after he spent a night off the ship during a port visit to Ecuador. In October 2003, the Commanding Officer of an EA-6B Prowler Aircraft Squadron lost his job after one of his jets skidded off a runway. The Navy cited a ``loss of confidence'' when they made the decision to dismiss him. In December 2003 and January 2004, Commanding Officers of the submarine, Jimmy Carter and the frigate USS Gary were fired, both for ``loss of confidence.'' For military officers in the Navy, the message is clear--if you fail, you're fired. The message to the civilian leadership in this administration is equally clear--if you fail there will be no consequences and no accountability, even if 1,000 American lives are lost. It is time for the Department of Defense run a tighter ship at all levels of command, including the civilian leadership. The civilian leaders at the Pentagon should be held at least to the same standard of accountability that military officers in the Navy are held to. Obviously, it is different to place overall blame on our military leaders when their only fault may well be that they couldn't talk their arrogant civilian leaders out of a flawed plan for Iraq. But someone must be held accountable for the massive failures in Iraq. The buck has to stop somewhere! Civilian control of the military is one of the great cornerstones of our democracy. But what if the civilian leaders don't know what they're doing, and mindlessly order our troops into battle unprepared? Alfred Lord Tennyson said it well in those lines in his famous poem, ``Charge of the Light Brigade'': Not tho' the soldiers knew Someone had blundered. Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die. This is what the administration has done to our troops in Iraq, and if Tennyson were writing today, he might well call his poem, ``The Charge of the Bush Brigade.'' Clearly, there must be accountability for this breathtaking incompetence, which has resulted in the death of over a thousand American soldiers so far, put more in daily danger, and weakened America's national security. Yesterday, at the Armed Services Committee, former Defense Secretary Harold Brown described the key to accountability: At each level, the question is loss of confidence. And in the Navy, the loss of confidence goes with grounding your ship. At a higher level the loss of confidence has to be determined on a basis that's somewhat broader, the full performance. And I think that applies at the highest military levels. And it applies at the level of the Secretary of Defense and his staff. . . . And the electorate has to decide on the basis of its confidence at election time. This administration has had its chance--and it failed the basic test of competence. If failed to deploy adequate forces in Iraq to win the peace. It failed at Abu Ghraib. It failed in granting sweetheart deals to Halliburton. It has failed the loss of confidence test, the basic test of Presidential leadership. The President seeks re-election based on his ability to fight the war on terror. The administration has lost confidence of the so-called ``coalition of the willing.'' Country after country is withdrawing troops, leaving America responsible for 90 percent of all the troops on the ground and 90 percent of all casualties. On November 2d, the American people will decide, whether a majority of the country have lost confidence in the President's leadership because of his failures in Iraq and his failures on a wide range of immense important domestic issues as well. There can only be one answer--America needs new leadership. As I have said before, the only thing America has to fear is 4 more years of George Bush. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues Senators Gordon Smith, Chris Dodd, Mike DeWine and Jack Reed in support of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. I thank them all for their tireless efforts to see this legislation enacted. I especially thank Senator Smith for his courage in helping us understand this rising problem that for so long has been misunderstood. The legislation we are passing today is an important first step we must take--we know we must take--to help our troubled young people contemplating suicide. Youth suicide affects us all. And while we also understand that no words can heal the deep pain or replace the great loss of an anguished child we love, we know we can do better. We can work to prevent the kind of debilitating despair that leads young person to end their lives and to let them know that there are other options. There are people out there who care. You are not alone. Make no mistake, we are truly in the middle of an epidemic of teen suicide. Suicide is now the third leading cause of death among adolescents. And while the years of lost potential and productive living are never really captured in the statistics, we know the death of a young person has a devastating and long-lasting effect on family, friends, and the whole community. To the youth of America this bill has a simple message--help is on the way. We have heard your pleas for help and we are acting. And it is particularly important at a time when cash-strapped States are cutting funds for many vital services. This legislation will give grants to States to develop youth suicide prevention programs in settings ranging from schools to foster care homes to juvenile justice settings, to substance abuse and mental health treatment and prevention centers. It gives States the flexibility to target resources and set goals. It gives priority to funding entities with experience delivering these kinds of services and ensures that 85 percent of every dollar spent goes toward direct prevention efforts--toward saving lives. It is appropriate that we are passing this legislation just as millions of our young people are headed off to college for another semester. We know that college is a place where young people can expand their horizons and learn so much about themselves and the world around them. It is a time of great opportunity, but also a time of great challenge for many young people. Away from home for the first time, with new and enormous pressures to succeed, many struggle with feelings of depression, which in the most extreme cases lead to thoughts of suicide. Thanks to the efforts of Senator Dodd, this legislation will increase the presence of counseling programs on college campuses across the country. It will allow colleges to conduct education seminars, operate life-saving hotlines, train other students to recognize and counsel their struggling peers, and link colleges and universities that do not have mental health services with health care providers that can help. The program authorized under this bill recognizes that colleges and universities have a role to play in funding prevention efforts, and so does the Federal Government. For every dollar a school contributes to the health and well-being of their students, we contribute the same. It is the right thing to do, and it will save lives at campuses across the country. This legislation will also create a new national center to monitor, coordinate and assist our national suicide prevention efforts. This national coordinating mechanism is long overdue and it will make a world of difference. This bill will not solve the issue of youth suicide, but it represents real progress. We still have so much more to do to see that no child falls through the cracks, and that mental illnesses receive the same insurance coverage and quality of care as physical illnesses. But today we move forward with the Garrett Lee Smith Act, knowing that we will have made a brighter tomorrow for many of our young people.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I again congratulate my friends and colleagues, Senator Feinstein and Senator Schumer, for the strong leadership they have shown on this issue and their continued perseverance and persistence in urging the House and Senate and the President to act. Unless the President and Congress act, the current Federal ban on assault weapons will expire in 5 days. Semiautomatic weapons are killing machines with utterly no redeeming value in any sane community, and lifting this ban will put these weapons of death back in the hands of criminals and will give terrorists a new tool to attack America. We know terrorists are now exploiting the weaknesses and loopholes in our gun laws. A terrorist training manual discovered by American soldiers in Afghanistan in 2001 advised al-Qaida members to buy assault weapons in the United States and use them against us. The failure to renew the ban this year will drastically undermine the safety of our streets, our neighborhoods, and our schools, and strengthen terrorists and other criminals. It would be a tragic and senseless blow to the security of our homeland. Terrorists already here in sleeper cells or coming in from abroad will be able to buy assault weapons without background checks at gun shows and wreak terror throughout the Nation. How can we possibly allow this essential protection against crime and terrorism to expire? How can we deliberately put the security of our communities in such new and needless jeopardy? The need for Presidential leadership has never been greater. We know we have the votes for renewing the assault weapons ban in the Senate because we passed such an amendment in March by a bipartisan vote of 52 to 47. The Republican leadership in the Senate, however, refuses to bring the ban back for another vote, and the House Republican leadership refuses to act at all. In the 2000 campaign, President Bush specifically pledged to renew the ban, but now as the ban is about to expire, the silence from the White House is deafening. It is long past time for President Bush to live up to his commitment. President Bush has shown that when he wants something from this Republican Congress, he gets it. When he wanted tax breaks for the wealthy, he got it. When he wanted another round of tax breaks, he got them, too. We need that same commitment from President Bush when it comes to protecting our families and securing our communities from deadly assault weapons. President Bush, the time to act is now. Congress awaits your call.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 16 months after President Bush declared ``mission accomplished'' aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, the fighting in Iraq continues and casualties continue to mount. Yesterday we reached a mournful milestone that we never thought possible: 1,000 brave Americans have lost their lives in Iraq. Nearly 7,000 more have been injured. The youngest of America's fallen soldiers was just 18 years old. The oldest was 59. More than half had not even celebrated their 30th birthday. They hailed from nearly every State in the Nation. They are the best of America, and we are proud of each one. Although I disagree with the President about Iraq, I honor the service and sacrifice and dedication of each of these brave men and women. It was wrong for the President to rush to war for such a deeply questionable cause. We all know Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but he did not pose the kind of immediate threat to our national security to justify a unilateral and preventive war. Despite the President's claim that Iraq is central to the global war on terror, there was no persuasive pattern of ties or operational links between Iraq and al-Qaida. There were no nuclear weapons. President Bush has stated that the war in Iraq was a catastrophic success. He is right in one sense. The war has been a catastrophe. The war has been a catastrophe for our fallen soldiers, far too many of whom were sent to war with no plan to win the peace. The war has been a catastrophe for their loved ones. The war has been a catastrophe for our Nation's standing in the world and for the war on terror, for it distracted us from the real threat of al-Qaida in Afghanistan. It has made the war on terrorism far harder to win and it has made America more hated in the world than at any other time in our history. We need honest solutions that will end the terror of Osama bin Laden and destroy al-Qaida. We need honest solutions that will bring the war in Iraq to a noble end and bring our troops home with honor. This administration has had its chance and it failed the basic test of competence. It failed to deploy enough troops in Iraq to win the peace. It failed at Abu Ghraib. It failed in issuing sweetheart deals to Halliburton. It has failed the basic test of Presidential leadership. We need a new administration that will be honest with the American people on national security and propose real solutions to make us safer and stronger. How much time remains for the Democrats?

Mr. KENNEDY. Whatever time remains I yield to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Gregg, Senator Jeffords, Senator Dodd, Senator Frist, Senator Sessions, and all of the other Democratic and Republican members of our Health committee who have devoted extraordinary energy and skill to finding bipartisan consensus on the complex issue of medical errors and improving patient safety. For even one American to die from an avoidable medical error is a tragedy. That thousands die every year is a national disgrace--and an urgent call to action. More than 4 years ago, the Institute of Medicine reported that medical errors cause 98,000 deaths every year. The IOM recommended that health care professionals should be encouraged to report medical errors, without fearing that their reports will be used against them. Our legislation implements this sensible recommendation by establishing patient safety organizations to analyze medical errors and recommend ways to avoid them in future. The legislation also creates a legal privilege for material reported to these safety organizations, while seeing that original records, such as a patient's chart, remain accessible to patients. Drawing the boundaries of this privilege requires a careful balance. The legislation is designed to create a culture in which medical professionals feel secure in reporting errors without fear of punishment, and it is right to do so. But we must be careful that in doing so, we do not actually shield those who have negligently or intentionally caused harm to patients. We must also make sure not to interfere with existing State laws on reporting. The proposal that the Senate considers today has made substantial and welcome progress on these and other important issues, and I look forward to making further progress in conference with our colleagues in the House. I will do all I can to see that we continue the bipartisan cooperation that has allowed today's important action. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the House to produce a conference report that includes the best features of the Senate and House proposals. I believe that several features of the bipartisan House legislation are worth close consideration by the conference, including the strong protections against conflict of interest. I hope that this legislation is the beginning of our action on patient safety--not the conclusion. Other steps are also necessary. The Federal Government should play a leading role in the quest for improving quality and safety for patients. Indeed, the very title of one of IOM's most important reports, ``Leadership by Example,'' highlights the central role that the Federal Government must play in transforming the quality of health care. I thank all my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, who came together and put their differences aside to bring this legislation to the floor. This legislation sends a promising message that every patient in America will receive effective, high quality health care.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Alexander in introducing the American History Achievement Act. This bill is part of a continuing effort to renew the national commitment to teaching in the Nation's public schools. It lays the foundation for more effective ways of teaching children about the Nation's past. The bill contains no new requirements for schools, but it does offer a more frequent and effective analysis of how America's schoolchildren are learning American history. Our economy and our future security rely on good schools that help students develop specific skills, such as reading and math. But the strength of our democracy and our standing in the world also depend on ensuring that children have a basic understanding of the Nation's past. Helping to instill appreciation of America's past should be an important mission of public schools. Thanks to the hard work of large numbers of history teachers in classrooms throughout America, we're making progress. Results from the most recent assessment under the NAEP show that fourth and eighth graders are improving their knowledge of U.S. history. Research conducted in history classrooms shows that children are using primary sources and documents more often to explore history, and are being assigned historical and biographical readings by their teachers more frequently. But much more remains to be done to advance the understanding of American history, and to see that the teaching of history is not left behind in classrooms. A recent study by Dr. Sheldon Stern--the Chief Historian Emeritus at my brother's Presidential Library--suggests that state standards for teaching American history need improvement. His research reveals that 22 States have American history standards that are either weak or lack clear chronology, appropriate political and historical context, or sufficient information about real events and people. As many as 9 States still have no standards at all for American history. Good standards matter. They're the foundation for teaching and learning in every school. With the right resources, time, and attention, it's possible to develop creative and effective history standards in every State. Massachusetts began to work on this effort in 2000, through a joint review of history standards that involved teachers, administrators, curriculum coordinators, and university professors. After monthly meetings and 3 years of development and revision, the State released a new framework for teaching history in 2003. Today, our standards in American history and World history receive the highest marks. School budget problems at the local level are obviously a serious threat to these goals. Last week, 7,500 school districts received notice of an impending $237 million overall cut to their budgets, to take effect this fall. These cuts further exacerbate the current funding crisis under the No Child Left Behind Act. Unfortunately, courses in history or the humanities are often the first to go. Other accounts report that schools are narrowing their curriculums away from the social sciences, arts, and humanities, in favor of a more concentrated approach to the teaching of reading and math in order to meet the strict standards of the No Child Left Behind Act. Meeting high standards in reading and math is important, but it should not come at the expense of scaling back teaching in other core subjects such as history. Integrating reading and math with other subjects often gives children a better way to master literacy and number skills, even while learning in a history or geography lesson. That type of innovation deserves special attention in our schools. Making it happen requires added investments in teacher preparation and teacher mentoring, so that teachers are well prepared to use interdisciplinary methods in their lesson plans. Our bill today takes several important steps to strengthen the teaching of American history, and raise the standing of history in school curriculums. Through changes to the National Assessment for Educational Progress, schools will be better able to achieve success on this important issue. First, we propose a more frequent national assessment of children in American history under the NAEP. For years, NAEP has served as the gold standard for measuring the progress of students and reporting on that progress. Students last participated in the U.S. history NAEP in 2001, and that assessment generated encouraging results. But the preceding assessment--with which we can compare data--was administered in 1994-- too long before to be of real assistance. It makes sense to measure the knowledge and skills of children more frequently. This bill would place priority on administering the national U.S. history NAEP assessment, to generate a more timely picture of student progress. We should have an idea of children's knowledge and skills in American history more often than every 6 or 7 years, in order to address gaps in learning. The bill also proposes a leap forward to strengthen state standards in American history, through a new State-level assessment of U.S. history under NAEP. The assessment would be conducted on an experimental and pilot basis in 10 States, in grades 8 and 12. The National Assessment Governing Board would ensure that States with model history standards, as well as those that are still under development, participate in this assessment. Moving NAEP to the state level does not carry any high stakes for schools. But it will provide an additional benchmark for States to develop and improve American history standards. It's our hope that States will also be encouraged to undertake improvements in their history curricula and ensure that American history is a beneficiary and not a victim of school reform. America's past encompasses great leaders and great ideas that contributed to our heritage and to the principles of freedom, equality, justice, and opportunity for all. Today's students will be better citizens in the future if they learn more about that history. The American History Achievement Act is an important effort toward that goal, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Children's Health Improvement and Protection (CHIP) Act today, along with my fellow Senators Rockefeller, Chafee, and Snowe. This bill will ensure that children continue to receive health care coverage through the Children's Health Insurance Program, which is especially important as the Nation's economy struggles to recover and State budgets are stretched perilously thin. The Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, has shown great success in reducing the number of children without health insurance. Last year, 5.8 million children were enrolled in CHIP, children who otherwise would have limited access to critical screening and diagnostic services and needed medical care. In 2003, 125,000 children in Massachusetts participated in CHIP and other Stats had similar success. The need for CHIP has always been clear. We know that children without health insurance are more than three times less likely to have a regular source of health care than insured children. They are more than four times as likely to delay needed medical care because of cost. And they are more than twice as likely as insured children to forego needed prescription drugs and eyeglasses. Despite the clear evidence that health insurance provides children with a healthier start, continued success of the CHIP program is in jeopardy. A number of States have budget shortfalls that will short- change CHIP programs over the next several years. Last year, the Congress acted to prevent $2.7 billion in Federal funding for CHIP from reverting to the Treasury. However, this funding was a short-term solution for long-term financing problems that will persist until CHIP is reauthorized in 2007. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has projected that over 200,000 children are still at risk for losing their health coverage if additional steps are not taken. This bill will provide the needed steps to support and expand the CHIP program. The Children's Health Improvement and Protection Act of 2004 prevents $1.07 billion in Federal CHIP funds that are scheduled to expire from reverting to the Treasury. In addition, this bill reallocates some of these funds to States that most need them. Seventy percent of the expiring fiscal year 1998, 1999, and 2000 funds would be redistributed to needy States and the remaining 30 percent of the funds would be retained by the States that currently have them. States that were unable to spend all of their fiscal year 2002, 2003, and 2004 CHIP allotments after 3 years would be able to keep half of the unspent funds. The other 50 percent would be redistributed to States that have fully spent their allotments during the 3-year period they were available. Any retained or redistributed funds would be available for 2 years. After that, our bill establishes a second redistribution for unspent funds, using the same 70-30 redistribution scheme I described previously. Passage of CHIP was a great step forward in ensuring every child a healthy start in life. It would be a grave mistake and a misplaced set of priorities to weaken this program that so many of us worked to enact and that is helping so many children. It makes no sense to have funds expire and revert to the Treasury when we know that many States are still facing severe deficits that have led to waiting lists or ``freezes'' in their CHIP programs. This bill will allow States to maintain their CHIP programs and allow them to grow. The health of the Nation reflects the health of our children and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to get this very important legislation passed.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague Senator Bill Frist in introducing this bipartisan legislation to improve the prevention and treatment of cancer. The Quality of Care for Individuals with Cancer Act is a result of the combined efforts of many in the cancer community, including patients, families, cancer survivors, and health providers. Its goal is to see that as many of our fellow citizens as possible are able to obtain state-of-the-art cancer care. The Nation's continuing investment in medical research in the past decade has led to many new and innovative options in cancer treatment and prevention. We all want to believe that when a loved one or someone we know is diagnosed with cancer, they will benefit from the latest and most effective treatments. Unfortunately, that is often not the case. Many cancer patients receive the wrong care, too little care, or even too much care. Colon cancer is 85 percent curable if it is detected early through screening. Yet today less than half of all Americans who should be screened for colon cancer are actually screened. If we do not act to correct these problems, over a quarter of a million parents, sons and daughters, will die from this curable cancer in the next 5 years. Much more can be done to extend the reach of high-quality cancer care and reduce this burden of unnecessary suffering and premature death. New discoveries of science can be brought much more quickly from the research laboratory to the bedside of the patient and to the practice of medicine in all communities. Our bill will help assure that the care of cancer patients is coordinated from diagnosis through successful treatment. The quality of end of life care will be significantly improved. Needed programs will be established to meet the ongoing needs of cancer survivors and their families. Health care provider training will make the latest in cancer care available through improved education and networking. Patients will have access to providers who know how to deliver the most effective cancer treatment at the right time and in the right way. Today, the best in medical research is too often not available to treat and cure many different types of cancer, especially leukemia, breast cancer, and prostate cancer. The treatments will vary for each patient, but the standard of excellence in cancer care should be widely available to all. Enactment of this legislation will bring that day closer, and I look forward to its enactment, its implementation, and the benefits it will bring to so many of our fellow citizens in the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Alexander in introducing the American History Achievement Act. This bill is part of a continuing effort to renew the national commitment to teaching in the Nation's public schools. It lays the foundation for more effective ways of teaching children about the Nation's past. The bill contains no new requirements for schools, but it does offer a more frequent and effective analysis of how America's schoolchildren are learning American history. Our economy and our future security rely on good schools that help students develop specific skills, such as reading and math. But the strength of our democracy and our standing in the world also depend on ensuring that children have a basic understanding of the Nation's past. Helping to instill appreciation of America's past should be an important mission of public schools. Thanks to the hard work of large numbers of history teachers in classrooms throughout America, we're making progress. Results from the most recent assessment under the NAEP show that fourth and eighth graders are improving their knowledge of U.S. history. Research conducted in history classrooms shows that children are using primary sources and documents more often to explore history, and are being assigned historical and biographical readings by their teachers more frequently. But much more remains to be done to advance the understanding of American history, and to see that the teaching of history is not left behind in classrooms. A recent study by Dr. Sheldon Stern--the Chief Historian Emeritus at my brother's Presidential Library--suggests that state standards for teaching American history need improvement. His research reveals that 22 States have American history standards that are either weak or lack clear chronology, appropriate political and historical context, or sufficient information about real events and people. As many as 9 States still have no standards at all for American history. Good standards matter. They're the foundation for teaching and learning in every school. With the right resources, time, and attention, it's possible to develop creative and effective history standards in every State. Massachusetts began to work on this effort in 2000, through a joint review of history standards that involved teachers, administrators, curriculum coordinators, and university professors. After monthly meetings and 3 years of development and revision, the State released a new framework for teaching history in 2003. Today, our standards in American history and World history receive the highest marks. School budget problems at the local level are obviously a serious threat to these goals. Last week, 7,500 school districts received notice of an impending $237 million overall cut to their budgets, to take effect this fall. These cuts further exacerbate the current funding crisis under the No Child Left Behind Act. Unfortunately, courses in history or the humanities are often the first to go. Other accounts report that schools are narrowing their curriculums away from the social sciences, arts, and humanities, in favor of a more concentrated approach to the teaching of reading and math in order to meet the strict standards of the No Child Left Behind Act. Meeting high standards in reading and math is important, but it should not come at the expense of scaling back teaching in other core subjects such as history. Integrating reading and math with other subjects often gives children a better way to master literacy and number skills, even while learning in a history or geography lesson. That type of innovation deserves special attention in our schools. Making it happen requires added investments in teacher preparation and teacher mentoring, so that teachers are well prepared to use interdisciplinary methods in their lesson plans. Our bill today takes several important steps to strengthen the teaching of American history, and raise the standing of history in school curriculums. Through changes to the National Assessment for Educational Progress, schools will be better able to achieve success on this important issue. First, we propose a more frequent national assessment of children in American history under the NAEP. For years, NAEP has served as the gold standard for measuring the progress of students and reporting on that progress. Students last participated in the U.S. history NAEP in 2001, and that assessment generated encouraging results. But the preceding assessment--with which we can compare data--was administered in 1994-- too long before to be of real assistance. It makes sense to measure the knowledge and skills of children more frequently. This bill would place priority on administering the national U.S. history NAEP assessment, to generate a more timely picture of student progress. We should have an idea of children's knowledge and skills in American history more often than every 6 or 7 years, in order to address gaps in learning. The bill also proposes a leap forward to strengthen state standards in American history, through a new State-level assessment of U.S. history under NAEP. The assessment would be conducted on an experimental and pilot basis in 10 States, in grades 8 and 12. The National Assessment Governing Board would ensure that States with model history standards, as well as those that are still under development, participate in this assessment. Moving NAEP to the state level does not carry any high stakes for schools. But it will provide an additional benchmark for States to develop and improve American history standards. It's our hope that States will also be encouraged to undertake improvements in their history curricula and ensure that American history is a beneficiary and not a victim of school reform. America's past encompasses great leaders and great ideas that contributed to our heritage and to the principles of freedom, equality, justice, and opportunity for all. Today's students will be better citizens in the future if they learn more about that history. The American History Achievement Act is an important effort toward that goal, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague Senator Bill Frist in introducing this bipartisan legislation to improve the prevention and treatment of cancer. The Quality of Care for Individuals with Cancer Act is a result of the combined efforts of many in the cancer community, including patients, families, cancer survivors, and health providers. Its goal is to see that as many of our fellow citizens as possible are able to obtain state-of-the-art cancer care. The Nation's continuing investment in medical research in the past decade has led to many new and innovative options in cancer treatment and prevention. We all want to believe that when a loved one or someone we know is diagnosed with cancer, they will benefit from the latest and most effective treatments. Unfortunately, that is often not the case. Many cancer patients receive the wrong care, too little care, or even too much care. Colon cancer is 85 percent curable if it is detected early through screening. Yet today less than half of all Americans who should be screened for colon cancer are actually screened. If we do not act to correct these problems, over a quarter of a million parents, sons and daughters, will die from this curable cancer in the next 5 years. Much more can be done to extend the reach of high-quality cancer care and reduce this burden of unnecessary suffering and premature death. New discoveries of science can be brought much more quickly from the research laboratory to the bedside of the patient and to the practice of medicine in all communities. Our bill will help assure that the care of cancer patients is coordinated from diagnosis through successful treatment. The quality of end of life care will be significantly improved. Needed programs will be established to meet the ongoing needs of cancer survivors and their families. Health care provider training will make the latest in cancer care available through improved education and networking. Patients will have access to providers who know how to deliver the most effective cancer treatment at the right time and in the right way. Today, the best in medical research is too often not available to treat and cure many different types of cancer, especially leukemia, breast cancer, and prostate cancer. The treatments will vary for each patient, but the standard of excellence in cancer care should be widely available to all. Enactment of this legislation will bring that day closer, and I look forward to its enactment, its implementation, and the benefits it will bring to so many of our fellow citizens in the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to pay tribute to Newman Flanagan, a dedicated public servant from Massachusetts who is retiring after a distinguished career in law enforcement. Mr. Flanagan served as a Boston prosecutor for 32 years, with the last 14 of those years as Boston District Attorney. For the last 12 years, he has served as the Executive Director of the National District Attorneys Association, a position from which he is now retiring. I commend him on his many years of outstanding work and dedication. Newman is a son of Boston who graduated from Boston College and the New England School of Law. I had the privilege of serving under him and learning from him when I was an assistant district attorney in the office in the early 1960s, before I came to the Senate. He was elected district attorney in 1978, and was re-elected for four additional terms. During his long and impressive career, he represented the state in more than 2,500 criminal prosecutions, including 75 murder cases. Scott Harshbarger, former Attorney General of Massachusetts, described him as ``Mister District Attorney of the United States.'' Newman also deserves great credit, in his years at NDAA, for his leadership in creating the National Advocacy Center, which trains local and Federal prosecutors, and is one of the finest training centers of its kind in the country. As James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney in Minnesota and a past vice president at NDAA said, ``He will be deeply missed by all members of NDAA's Board of Directors and prosecutors throughout America. Newman Flagagan has been a timeless leader of America's prosecutors for more than three decades. We all owe him our thanks and gratitude for his efforts on our behalf.'' I know that his wife, Eileen, and his children and grandchildren are proud of all he has accomplished. Newman Flanagan has served the people of Massachusetts and our country well, and I wish him a long and happy retirement.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senators Gregg, Enzi, Dodd, Jeffords, Bingaman, Murray, Reed and Clinton in introducing the bipartisan reauthorization of the Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act. We have worked closely with leaders of the secondary and post-secondary vocational education community to make important improvements in this important program in current law. Among the key issues we addressed are the more effective integration of academic and technical education, the use of funds for secondary and post-secondary programs, the Tech Prep Programs that form the bridge between the high school and college training programs, and the need for students to have access to good information about emerging and existing job opportunities in high-wage, high-skill and high-demand careers. Since passage of the original Smith-Hughes Act in 1917, the Federal Government has recognized the importance of good preparation for technical occupations. Over the years, we have made a series of revisions in the law to reflect the growing importance of combining academic learning with technical skill learning in order to meet the changing needs of American business and industry. This bill is an example of how we can work well together when we focus on good policy. I look forward to action on this bill in our Labor Committee before the recess, and to its enactment into law this year.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senators Gregg, Enzi, Dodd, Jeffords, Bingaman, Murray, Reed and Clinton in introducing the bipartisan reauthorization of the Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act. We have worked closely with leaders of the secondary and post-secondary vocational education community to make important improvements in this important program in current law. Among the key issues we addressed are the more effective integration of academic and technical education, the use of funds for secondary and post-secondary programs, the Tech Prep Programs that form the bridge between the high school and college training programs, and the need for students to have access to good information about emerging and existing job opportunities in high-wage, high-skill and high-demand careers. Since passage of the original Smith-Hughes Act in 1917, the Federal Government has recognized the importance of good preparation for technical occupations. Over the years, we have made a series of revisions in the law to reflect the growing importance of combining academic learning with technical skill learning in order to meet the changing needs of American business and industry. This bill is an example of how we can work well together when we focus on good policy. I look forward to action on this bill in our Labor Committee before the recess, and to its enactment into law this year.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in commending my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine. Today I am joining him in presenting this amendment. We welcome obviously the workings and the contributions of Senator McConnell together with the proposal that has been described as a shotgun wedding because, on the one hand, as we have heard a very informative and eloquent statement of the history of the growth of the tobacco industry, the industry itself--not the farmers but the industry itself--by and large has resisted the ability of the Food and Drug Administration, which generally has the overall jurisdiction in dealing with health issues, to be able to deal with this issue in order to protect the children of this country. I was here in 1964 when we received the Surgeon General's report. It arrived like the crack of a whip when we read the Surgeon General's report and found for the first time the dangers of tobacco and its impact in terms of the health of the population generally, in particular with regard to children. For years, those of us who were trying to deal with the health aspects of this issue, and particularly the health aspects of these issues as they relate to children, found strong opposition by the tobacco industry. They resisted the commonsense efforts that were being made to try and provide protections for the children of this country. Now we have a working partnership with those who are interested in the tobacco farmers, which I am interested in, and those who are interested in protecting the children. We have come together to try to make a recommendation, the result of which will provide equity and fairness to tobacco farmers, paid for by the industry itself and not by the taxpayers, but also to provide the Food and Drug Administration with the kind of authority to help protect the children of this country from the No. 1 preventable health disease for people that the Federal Government can do something about. Tobacco causes one out of every three deaths from cancer, one out of five deaths from heart disease and 87 percent of lung cancer cases. We must slow down the amount of children smoking and the addiction that has taken place. We have had a considerable period of time since the 1964 Surgeon General's report. We have the efforts that were made in the 1970s and 1980s to try to provide labeling on cigarettes to give information to those who were going to start smoking, and it has not been very effective. On the contrary, it was used by the tobacco industry as an offset, saying, look, we are not responsible. There was information that was on the various tobacco products and people were acting on their own. We tried to strengthen the Office of Preventive Health. We tried to put some labeling on smokeless tobacco. We made some very modest steps forward in trying to deal with this issue. Then in 1998, when we had the great debate on the tobacco issue about compensation, there was a provision in that legislation which had a good deal of the kind of protections that are included in the DeWine-Kennedy amendment. A great deal of that was actually fashioned by our majority leader, Senator Frist, who was very much involved in helping shape that particular proposal. It is interesting, as we had this long debate on the Senate floor on tobacco, there was not a single amendment to try and alter that authority. It was generally agreed that that was a pretty good balance, going back to 1998. From that time, Senator DeWine has picked up this opportunity and has continued to press this in the committee, and a number of our colleagues have been particularly involved in this issue. I think of our colleagues from Iowa and Illinois, Senator Harkin and Senator Durbin, and a number of others who have been extremely involved in trying to make sure we were going to provide some protections. I mentioned the 1964 Surgeon General's report. I will include in the Record an appropriate part of the new Surgeon General's report that was issued on May 27, 2004. This is from the U.S. Surgeon General appointed by President Bush. He is this administration's Surgeon General, and this is what his findings are: U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today released a new comprehensive report on smoking and health, revealing for the first time that smoking causes diseases in nearly every organ of the body. Published 40 years after the surgeon general's first report on smoking--which concluded that smoking was a definitive cause of three serious diseases-- this newest report finds cigarette smoking is conclusively linked to diseases such as leukemia, cataracts, pneumonia and cancers of the cervix, kidney, pancreas and stomach. It goes on: Statistics indicate that more than 12 million Americans have died from smoking since the 1964 report. . . . Another major conclusion, consistent with recent findings of other scientific studies, is that smoking so-called low- tar low-nicotine cigarettes does not offer a health benefit over smoking regular ``full-flavor'' cigarettes. Then it continues: There is no safe cigarette, whether it is called ``light,'' ``ultra-light,'' or any other name, Dr. Carmona said. The science is clear: The only way to avoid the health hazards of smoking is to quit completely or to never start smoking. The report concludes that quitting smoking has immediate and long-term benefits. And then it illustrates these, which is very hopeful. Dr. Carmona said it is never too late to stop smoking. Quitting smoking at age 65 or older reduces a person's risk of dying from a smoking-related disease by 50 percent. This is an enormously important document. It updates the science and it demonstrates what an extraordinary challenge we are facing. Now why do Senator DeWine and I feel so strongly about giving the FDA the power to give particular focus with regard to children? This chart, ``Smoking begins early, adults who are daily smokers began smoking,'' shows that 16 percent of all of the smokers begin smoking by age 12; 37 percentage by age 14; 62 percent by age 16; and 89 percent begin smoking by age 18. This is a very clear indication of what is happening out across this country. For children, starting at the age of 12, 16 percent are smokers. Five thousand start every day, and 2,000 become regular smokers. Every single day, 5,000 children start smoking, and 2,000 continue. We have to ask ourselves, what are the circumstances? Why does DeWine-Kennedy give the FDA the power, as he has mentioned--and I will go over that shortly--why particularly about children? As we see, the children are the ones who get started, they are the ones who get addicted to cigarettes. Now we ask ourselves, why is that? This is the result of International Communications Research: Have you seen any advertising for cigarettes or spit tobacco in the last 2 weeks? Teens, 64 percent; adults, 27 percent. Do we understand that? It is 64 percent of teens, 27 percent of adults. All we have to do to understand this is to look at the various magazines that are coming out. In Rolling Stone, here it is: the large Winston cigarette, ``Leave The Bull Behind.'' Everybody is young, beautiful, and enjoying themselves. All they have to do is light up a Winston in order to reach those circumstances. Take Sports Illustrated. It is filled with the same kinds of advertising. Camels, here it is: The Roaring Twenties. Get it with a Camel. Smoke back-alley blend with a hint of bourbon. My friend talked about the new chocolate cigarettes. This is what we are seeing. The appeal is to children. The danger is to children. What we are trying to do is give the FDA the authority and the power to do something about protecting children. As the Senator from Ohio knows, we lag behind virtually every other country in the world. Our neighboring country of Canada has done something about it; Australia has done something about it; and now the European Union is doing something about this issue. Now we have the opportunity to do something about it with our particular proposal. This is a very modest program. As the Senator from Ohio has pointed out, it is a fair and balanced approach to the FDA regulation. It creates a new section in FDA for the regulation of tobacco products with standards that allow for consideration of the unique issues raised by tobacco use. It is sensitive to concerns of tobacco farmers, small businesses and nicotine-dependent smokers, but it clearly gives the FDA the authority it needs to prevent youth smoking and reduce addiction to this highly lethal product. This amendment also provides the financial relief for the hard-pressed tobacco farmers that has been outlined and commented about earlier by Senator McConnell. This proposal is a legitimate buyout plan designed by tobacco State members for the benefit of their tobacco farming constituents. It is far superior to the ill-conceived proposal in the House. The heart of this amendment is the FDA provision which will lead to fewer children starting to smoke and to fewer adults suffering with tobacco-induced disease. Public health groups tell us it is the most important legislation we can pass to deal with the Nation's No. 1 health hazard. We must deal firmly with the tobacco companies' marketing practices that target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The tobacco industry currently spends over $9 billion a year to promote its products. Much of that money is spent in ways designed to tempt children, as I pointed out, to start smoking before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity of the health risk. When you get 16 percent of children 12 and younger to start smoking, they certainly do not understand the health risks they are going to be faced with so that they can make a judgment or decision about the risk. The industry knows that more than 90 percent of smokers begin as children and are addicted by the time they reach adulthood. If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, the FDA must have the power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children. This legislation would give the FDA the ability to stop tobacco advertising which glamorizes smoking where it will be seen by significant numbers of children; it grants FDA full authority to regulate tobacco advertising ``consistent with and to the full extent permitted by the first amendment.'' The FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. Nearly every State makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to the children under 18, but the survey shows those laws are rarely enforced and frequently violated. The FDA must have the power to limit the sales of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self- service displays and vending machines. We have the chart that will show where cigarettes are being sold. It is right next to the candy in stores. This is an average store where you see the candy bars. Who eats the candy bars? The children will eat this candy. Right above it are all the advertisements for tobacco products as well as tobacco products that have the same smell, the same scent and taste as candy as well. This legislation will give youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by the FDA the immediate force of law, as if they had been issued under the new statute. There are rules that have gone through the process extensively. They are ready to be implemented. This legislation provides that. Nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. The medical experts say it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades tobacco companies have vehemently denied addictiveness of their products, and no one should forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under oath before Congress that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through the discovery process proved the companies not only knew of this addictiveness for decades but actually relied on it as the basis for their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even more addictive. Given the addictiveness of their products, it is essential the FDA have the authority to effectively regulate them for the protection of public health. Over 40 million Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. The FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers overcome their addiction and to make the product less toxic for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, the FDA must have the authority to reduce or remove the hazardous ingredients from cigarettes to the extent it becomes scientifically feasible. The inherent risks in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded. This legislation will give the FDA the legal authority it needs to reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which targets children, to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors, to help smokers overcome their addiction, to make tobacco products less toxic for those who continue to use them, and to prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking. Now is the time for the Senate to address the critical health issues. The interest of tobacco State members in passing a tobacco farmers buyout provides a golden opportunity. By joining a strong FDA bill with relief for tobacco farmers, this amendment should receive broad, bipartisan support. We can accomplish both of these worthy goals during the session. This approach is supported by the public health community and by the farmers' organizations. Most importantly, it is the right thing to do for America's children. (Disturbance in the Visitors Gallery.)

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. There was reference made by our friend, the Senator from Kentucky, about the FDA and its ability to interfere with farmers, to somehow impose their guidance or will upon farmers. I ask if the Senator from Ohio does not agree with me that we addressed this issue on page 23 of the amendment, which says: The provisions of the chapter shall not apply to tobacco leaf that is not in possession of a manufacturer of tobacco products, or to the producers of tobacco leaf, including tobacco growers, tobacco warehouses, and tobacco grower cooperatives, nor shall any employee of the FDA have any authority to enter on to a farm owned by a producer of tobacco leaf without the written consent of such producer. This issue is of concern. This was not what we were looking for. Looking at it is enormously important. Those under that view will have assurances from the Senator from Ohio. Not only our assurances but the legislative assurances that the FDA is not in any way going to have any role whatever in dealing with any of the producers themselves, the farmers.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take a moment to once again thank Senator DeWine for his strong leadership in our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on this issue. I thank our leaders for bringing us to where we are. I thank Senator McConnell for the opportunity to work with him on this issue. And I thank our colleagues for the strong support we have seen during the course of this discussion. This health issue is the most important health issue we are facing on which we can make serious progress, progress that is almost the equivalent of conquering cancer--it is that important--because we have an epidemic of smoking that is affecting the children of this Nation. It is enormously adverse to their health conditions, and it is a source of premature death to them as they grow and develop in the future, causing all kinds of health ailments. This is a children's issue, a health issue, a family issue because with this legislation, there are going to be more children who are going to be able to see their parents when they grow older and there are more children who will see their grandparents when they grow older. We have an opportunity to make a major downpayment and major progress in the quality of health for these children. I thank those who have spoken in favor of the legislation. Hopefully, we will get strong support for it when the votes are cast. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of supporters be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It has significant benefits to American manufacturers in all our States who have suffered too much in our troubled economy. In the past 4 years this vital sector has shed 2.5 million good jobs that may well take years to replace. The agreement will immediately remove all Australian tariffs on virtually all goods manufactured in the United States. In doing so, it will provide a modest competitive advantage in the Australian market for U.S. manufacturers over competing firms in Asia. In the past 4 years, the administration has done very little to combat the unfair trade practices of other nations to open their markets to more U.S. goods, and this agreement will help at least in part to redress the balance. Massachusetts companies exported $254 million in goods to Australia last year, much of which were products in modern high-tech fields. If this agreement had been in place then, 98 percent of those products would have been duty free. In addition, the fact that Australia has strong labor and environmental laws mean that this agreement will not result in a ``race to the bottom'' that drives down wages and degrades the environment. Many of us are concerned that the administration, in negotiating the agreement, was so reluctant, because of its ideology, to try to resolve some of our differences with Australia on specific labor issues, but those differences are not sufficient to cause rejection of the agreement. Good-paying jobs in the United States will not be replaced by low-wage jobs abroad in harsh and exploitive conditions. In other trade agreements, that problem can be extremely serious, and we must continue to be vigilant that trade agreements respect the need for strong protection for labor conditions and for the environment as well. A more serious problem in this agreement however, is its treatment of prescription drugs. These provisions are a blatant attempt by the administration to bypass Congress and set an irresponsible precedent for blocking the reimportation of prescription drugs. They build on similar provisions in the Singapore trade agreement. They are a statement of the priorities of the Bush administration that put profits of drug companies first and affordable drugs for patients last. The current rules on importation or reimportation of FDA-approved drugs manufactured in FDA-approved plants are indefensible. They prohibit anyone except a drug manufacturer from importing drugs into the United States. They create a shameful double standard under which Canadians, Europeans and other foreign patients can buy American drugs at affordable prices, while American drug companies charge exorbitant prices to American patients. The central issue is fairness for millions of Americans struggling to afford the soaring cost of prescription drugs. Americans understand fairness. They know it's wrong that for the same prescription drugs, U.S. patients pay 60 percent more than the British or the Swiss, two- thirds more than Canadians, 75 percent more than Germans, and twice as much as Italians. Prescription drugs often mean the difference between health and sickness--or even life and death--for millions of Americans. Drug companies are consistently the most profitable industry in the Nation, yet they overcharge countless families. It's wrong for patients to go without the drugs they need because the Bush administration won't stand up for patients against the price-gouging of the pharmaceutical industry. Senator Snowe, Senator Dorgan, Senator McCain, Senator Daschle, and I and other colleagues have proposed legislation to give American patients a fair deal at long last. Our proposal will legalize imports of safe U.S.-approved drugs manufactured in U.S.-approved plants. U.S. consumers will be able to buy FDA-approved drugs at the same fair prices as they are sold abroad. The drug industry and the Bush administration argue that imported drugs jeopardize the health of American consumers because of the possibility of counterfeiting or adulteration. Under our proposal, that argument can't pass the laugh test. Our proposal sets up iron-clad safety procedures to guarantee that every drug imported legally into the United States is the same FDA- approved drug originally manufactured in an FDA-approved plant--whether the drug is manufactured abroad and shipped to the United States, or whether it is manufactured in the United States, shipped abroad and then imported back into the United States. Compare our rigorous requirements with what happens today. Fraudulent dealers throughout the world can establish Web sites or advertise low- cost drugs in other ways and claim to be Canadian pharmacies. Individuals have no way of knowing whether they are purchasing safe or unsafe drugs or whether the seller is legitimate or not. All such sales are illegal. The only rule is let the buyer beware. The FDA has eloquently testified about the Wild West situation that American consumers face every day under the current rules. As long as it is illegal to buy safe drugs at low prices, the trade in unsafe drugs will flourish. As long as we bury our heads in the sand and fail to guarantee the availability of safe and legal imported drugs, millions of American patients will continue to risk their health on potentially unsafe, unapproved, and counterfeit drugs. Our bipartisan proposal gives patients access to drugs at prices they can afford, and it protects them against the danger of the essentially uncontrolled and uncontrollable counterfeit drugs they face today. It is because of the rigorous safeguards in our bill that Dr. David Kessler, who served under both Republican and Democratic Presidents as Commissioner of the FDA, has stated that our proposal ``provides a sound framework for assuring that imported drugs are safe and effective.'' Dr. Philip Lee, one of the Nation's leading authorities on prescription drugs, a physician who served as the Assistant Secretary of Health under two Presidents, and a former Chancellor of the University of California at San Francisco, has emphasized that our proposal ``will reduce rather than increase the likelihood of counterfeit drugs entering the U.S. supply chain from abroad and that drugs imported under the program will meet FDA standards for safety and effectiveness.'' On imported drugs, safety is the first responsibility--and it is a responsibility that our bipartisan proposal fulfills. But legalizing safe drug imports is only half the battle to bring fair prices to consumers. Legalization is meaningless unless it is backed by strong measures to prevent drug manufacturers from manipulating the market to subvert the law. Already, American drug companies are retaliating against imports from Canada by limiting the amount of drugs they sell to Canada and denying drugs to pharmacies that re-sell them to American patients. A few weeks ago, a group of senior citizens was forced to cancel a bus trip to Canada because the Canadian pharmacies they relied on for affordable drugs were effectively shut down by U.S. drug companies. Our proposal includes strict rules to close the loopholes that drug companies use to evade the law. Violations will be considered unfair trade practices, and violators will be subject to treble damages. Any proposal that does not include comparable protections is a fig leaf, not a solution. The provisions of the Australian Free Trade Agreement, however, opens a gaping hole in these protections. One way that a drug company can circumvent an importation law is by claiming that an American importer who purchases a drug from a European wholesaler has violated the patent held by the drug company. It has long been a settled feature of patent law that the first sale of a product in the domestic market exhausts the patent. If you buy a car and then resell it to a friend, the car manufacturer can't sue you for violating its patent. A recent court decision, however, stated that the rule of exhaustion through first sale does not apply to international sales. Therefore, a drug company can make a condition of its contract that a foreign buyer won't resell a drug to a United States importer. If the foreign buyer does so, the importer could be sued for a violation of the patent. Broad application of this rule to drug company sales would nullify any reimportation bill that Congress passes. That is why our legislation specifically states that reimportation of a prescription drug is not a patent infringement. The Australia Trade Agreement, however, states that it is an obligation of the United States to ``provide that the exclusive right of the patent owner to prevent importation of a patented product . . . without the consent of the patent owner shall not be limited by the sale or distribution of the product outside its territory.'' This obligation does not apply just to drugs imported from Australia, but to drugs imported from anywhere in the world. If this obligation could be enforced, it would nullify any drug importation bill passed by Congress, and guarantee that drug makers could continue gouging American consumers, no matter what the Congress does. This prohibition was not added to the agreement because the Australians wanted it. Their domestic drug industry is small, and their own laws generally do not allow reimportation to the United States. The prohibition was added because the U.S. Trade Representative insisted on it. It's there because the pharmaceutical industry wanted it as a model for future agreements. It's there because the Bush administration puts the interests of drug companies higher than the interests of American patients. Fortunately, this provision has limited practical significance. The only party with standing to enforce the agreement is the Australian Government, and it is unlikely to bring any enforcement action. But it puts our country in the awkward position of endorsing a principle against the best interests of our people, and it is an ominous indication of what the Bush administration will try to do in future agreements. I intend to vote for this agreement, because of the advantages it offers to American business and consumers. The attempts to bar drug reimportation included in the agreement are not enforceable in any meaningful way. But we must be vigilant against attempts to include any such provision in future trade agreements. Year in and year out, drug industry profits are the highest of any industry in the United States. Yet year in and year out, patients are denied life-saving drugs because those astronomical profits are possible only with astronomical prices--prices that drug companies can't charge anywhere else in the world, because no other country in the world would let them. A broad coalition of groups representing senior citizens and consumers have endorsed our bipartisan proposal. It's time to end the shameful price gouging. It's time for basic fairness in drug prices. It's time for this Congress to pass a genuine drug import bill. It's time for the U.S. Trade Representative to start standing up for the interests of the American people, not just the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the heart of this amendment is the FDA provision which will lead to fewer children starting to smoke and fewer adults suffering tobacco-induced disease. If parents want their children to grow up and grow up smoke-free, if they want to shield them from a $9 billion campaign designed to entice children into smoking, if they want to help millions of smokers kick the habit before it kills them, they will support the DeWine-McConnell-Kennedy amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am prepared to vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a new study by the Economic Policy Institute makes clear that 6 million Americans, including teachers, nurses, cooks, clerical workers, and pharmacists, will lose their overtime protections under the Bush overtime rule. President Bush is once again putting corporate profits ahead of workers and their families. Profits are already up more than 60 percent since President Bush took office, yet workers' wages have actually declined. The last thing America's struggling workers need today is a pay cut. The Bush overtime rule puts special interests above worker interests. An independent analysis by three former high ranking Department of Labor employees concluded: `` we believe that (with the exception of the change in the salary level test) the interests of U.S. workers and their families will not be advanced--indeed will be harmed--by the implementation of these new regulations.'' It is clear that the Bush administration is putting business's bottom lines first. The National Association of Manufacturing, NAM, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association, the funeral industry and many other groups lobbied hard for more relaxed overtime requirements. The final rule includes a broad exemption for workers in the financial service industry that helps the insurance and banking industries and for the retail and restaurant industries. With more than 8 million Americans out of work, and with so many other families struggling to make ends meet, cutbacks on overtime are an unfair burden that America's workers should not have to bear. Overtime pay accounts for about 25 percent of the income of workers who work overtime. Workers stripped of their overtime protection would end up working longer hours for less pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted in the 1930s to create a 40- hour workweek and requires workers to be paid fairly for any extra hours. Especially in times like these, it is an incentive for job creation, because it encourages employers to hire more workers, instead of forcing current employees to work longer hours. The overtime protection is vital to the 40-hour workweek. If employers no longer have to pay extra for overtime, they will have an incentive to demand longer hours, and workers will have less time to spend with their families. In 70 percent of American families all parents are working, either both parents, or the single parent, as compared to 1960 when 70 percent of all families had at least one parent at home full time. Workers are already struggling to balance their families' needs with their work responsibilities. Requiring workers to work more hours for less pay will add a greater burden to this struggle. In May, 99 Senators voted for the Gregg amendment that said it was wrong for the Bush administration to deny overtime to millions of workers, including police sergeants, nursery school teachers, nurses, computer programmers and others in 55 different job categories. And a bipartisan majority of 52 Senators voted against taking away overtime from any worker currently entitled to it. It would be unconscionable if this bill comes out of conference without those protections.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I bring to my colleagues' attention a thoughtful op-ed article published in the July 13 Washington Post by Mona Eltahawy, a London-based Arab journalist. The article raises an important question about a double standard on human rights between Libya and Iraq. The United States overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime because he was a brutal dictator, but we embrace Libya's Qadhafi despite the fact that he is a brutal dictator. About the double standard Ms. Eltahawy wrote: ``In the absence of weapons of mass destruction, and with images of Hussein on trial for war crimes, they have been pushing the ``removal of a brutal dictator'' excuse for the invasion. How do they square this with their astonishing rush to embrace another ruthless dictator? Qadhafi's behavior of late has been uncomfortably close to brutal.'' Libya remains, according to the CIA World Factbook, ``in fact, a military dictatorship'' under Colonel Qadhafi. His government ``continued to commit numerous, serious abuses,'' including arbitrary arrest and detention, and restrictions of ``freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion,'' according to the February 2004 State Department Human Rights Report. Violence and discrimination against women are serious problems as well. A recent visit by Amnesty International to Libya found that ``a pattern of human rights violations continues, often justified under the new rhetoric of the `war on terror.' '' Amnesty International's findings include ``laws which criminalize the peaceful exercise of freedom of expression and association, leading to the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience; prolonged detention without access to the outside world, which facilitates torture; and unfair trials, in particular before the people's court which tries political cases. Torture and ill-treatment continues to be widely reported, its main use being to extract `confessions.' '' The Qadhafi regime also continues to intrude in the affairs of other African nations, despite Secretary Powell's call in February 2004 that Libya ``cease to be destabilizing, cease to fund despotic regimes, and cease to cause trouble.'' According to Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Bill Burns, Libya was involved as recently as February in sowing instability throughout Africa. ``There have been problems . . . in Zimbabwe. There have been problems . . . in Liberia and elsewhere,'' he said. ``We continue to have concerns'' in the Central African Republic, he also said. In the Central African Republic, Libyan troops were reportedly directly involved in 2001 in halting an army revolt against the president. A year later, Libya and the Republic agreed on a 99- year treaty giving Libya the right to exploit the oil, uranium and other resources of the republic. In Zimbabwe, Libya has often assisted President Robert Mugabe, including supplies of urgently needed oil. In Liberia, Libya has been a major provider of arms and supplies to Charles Taylor. The Libyan Government is responsible for the terrorist bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Some 270 innocent people lost their lives in the bombing, including 189 Americans. Until September 11, the Pan Am bombing killed more American civilians than any other terrorist atrocity in our history. Officially, the Libyan government has accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials in the atrocity, but Qadhafi denied his nation's involvement in the bombing, according to a CNN report on December 23, 2004 summarizing an interview by its State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel with him. In taking steps to resume relations, the administration presumably believes that Libya has made a firm decision to abandon terrorism and become a responsible member of the international community. However, Qadhafi persists in the type of rhetoric he has displayed in the past. In Brussels, he recently threatened to return to the ``days of explosive belts'' if provoked by Western ``evil.'' We've recently seen allegations of a purported assassination plot hatched by Qadhafi against the crown prince of Saudi Arabia following a dispute at the Arab League summit in March. President Bush has spoken frequently about democracy and human rights. In November 2003, at the National Endowment for Democracy's 20th anniversary celebration, he said that ``sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe--because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export.'' It is surprising that the administration would so quickly strengthen relations with a dictator who is responsible for the mass murder of innocent Americans, opposes democracy, persecutes his own people, and continues to cause instability in Africa. Mona Eltahawy's important op-ed article raises many of these questions, and I ask unanimous consent that it may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stephen Kosack, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on the FSC/ETI JOBS bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it speaks volumes that the Senate Republican leadership has taken this disgraceful detour into right-wing campaign politics when so much genuine Senate business is still unfinished, and so little time is left to get it done. We can't pass a budget. We are far behind in meeting our appropriations responsibilities. So far, in fact, we have passed only 1 of the 13 appropriations bills for the next fiscal year that begins on October 1. We may not see any of these bills acted on, on or before the August recess. Even in the wake of the al-Qaida terrorist threat announced last week by Secretary Ridge, the Senate leadership refuses to proceed with debate and votes on the Homeland Security appropriations bills. We know many higher priorities should be worked on. Since President Bush took office in 2001, health insurance premiums have soared 43 percent. Tuition at public colleges has risen 28 percent. Drug costs have shot up 52 percent. Corporate profits have risen by over 50 percent. Yet private sector wages are down six-tenths of 1 percent since President Bush took office, and there are 3 million more Americans in poverty. The Senate Republican leadership has consistently failed to address these and many other urgent priorities. It has taken no action to fix America's broken health care system. It has blocked passage of the Patients' Bill of Rights. It has refused to allow a vote on raising the minimum wage. It has still not scheduled a vote on renewing the existing ban on assault weapons, which will expire September 13. Rather than deal with these urgent priorities, the leadership is engaging in the politics of mass distraction by bringing up a discriminatory marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution that a majority of Americans do not support. Conservative activist Paul Weyrich explained the partisan GOP strategy in a recent e-mail newspaper. President Bush has ``bet the farm on Iraq'' he wrote, and the best solution to his declining poll numbers is to ``change the subject'' to the Federal marriage constitutional amendment. Weyrich acknowledged that doing so might cost the President votes from gay and lesbian Republicans, but he is not troubled about it. ``Good riddance,'' he wrote. We all know what this issue is about. It is not about how to protect the sanctity of marriage or how to deal with activist judges. It is about politics. I might say, of the activist judges, of the seven judges who drew the decision in Massachusetts, six of them were appointed by Republicans. This is about politics, an attempt to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage. We have rejected that tactic before, and I am hopeful we will do so again. I am also hopeful that many of our Republican colleagues, those with whom we have worked over the years in a bipartisan effort to expand and defend the civil rights of gay and straight Americans alike, will join us in rejecting this divisive effort. There is absolutely no need to amend the Constitution on this issue. As news reports from across the country make clear, Massachusetts and other States are already dealing with the issue and doing it effectively and doing it according to the wishes of the citizens of their State. No State has been bound or will be bound by the rulings and laws on same-sex marriages in any other State. The Federal statute enacted in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act, makes the possibility of nationwide enforceability even more remote. Not a single State or Federal court has called the constitutionality of that act into question. Furthermore, not a single church, mosque, or synagogue has been required or ever will be required to recognize same-sex marriages. As the First Amendment makes clear, no court, no State, no Congress can tell any church or any religious group how to conduct its own affairs. The true threat to religious freedom is posed by the Federal marriage amendment itself, which would tell churches they cannot consecrate a same-sex marriage, even though some churches are now doing so. Given these indisputable facts, the proponents of the Federal marriage amendment have built their case upon a tower of speculation and conjecture--an attempt to conjure up a national crisis where none exists. This is a wholly insufficient basis for even considering a proposed constitutional amendment on the Senate floor, much less voting for it. If it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not to amend it. I urge my colleagues to show respect for our country's Constitution and its principles and traditions, and not play partisan campaign politics with the foundation of our democracy. I urge them to reject this discriminatory and unnecessary proposal.