Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Washington for her attention to this issue that can make a major difference to many families with special needs children, recognizing the increased mobility of our population, and, most particularly, the needs of those in the military who are moving through the school systems in different parts of our Nation in increasing numbers, and also giving special focus and attention to the too many Americans and American families who are homeless and have some special needs. So I rise in support of this amendment because it will ensure that the disabled children who change schools will continue to get the services they need. America is increasingly a mobile society. The demands of our economy and shifts in our culture mean Americans will move to new communities during their lives. Today, it is unlikely that a child will stay in the same school district or even the State, for that matter, throughout their school years. Families and schools do all they can to make the transition easier for children when they move from place to place, but many children still have a difficult adjustment to make in their new home and school. This is especially true for students with disabilities. Disabled children are extremely likely to have problems when they leave one school for another. Sometimes they have difficulty with change because of their disability, but more often it is because their new school does not provide them with the services they need. Because each State and school district does things differently, disabled students who move often wait months for their new school to provide them with special education. In the life of a disabled child--in the life of any child--missing a few days, let alone a few months, of instruction is a huge loss. Many disabled children actually lose skills they have already gained when they go without the services they need for any length of time. These children are already struggling in school and fall further and further behind. Imagine what it is like, then, for a disabled child with a parent serving in the military. Imagine what it is like for a disabled child who is homeless or in foster care. It is one step forward and two steps back every time they change schools. The amendment offered by the Senator from Washington will help solve this problem by guaranteeing that disabled students who move do not have to wait. It guarantees that disabled students do not go without special education during the time it takes for the school and the parents to decide how best to meet the child's needs. Will this be difficult for some schools to do? Certainly. Every school does it differently, and the flexibility in this amendment recognizes this fact. There will be times that a student moves to a district that is not ready to provide all of the services he or she needs. But a disabled child's education--a disabled child's future-- should not suffer because the school needs time to get prepared. As the Senator from Washington has explained, this amendment also makes numerous changes to the IDEA that will improve special education for disabled children who are homeless or in foster care. Although children who are homeless are four times more likely to have delayed development than other children, they have a more difficult time accessing special education. These children are truly more vulnerable. They are the vulnerable of the vulnerable. I applaud the Senator for her tireless efforts on their behalf. This amendment will make it easier for schools to provide disabled homeless and foster children with the services they need, and will smooth the transition for all disabled children who move to new schools. Mr. President, this recognizes the reality; that is, we are in a mobile society. Children are moving. Families are moving. In a bill that is dealing with special needs children, not to recognize that issue would be an omission. I think the Senator has made some excellent recommendations. We still have some work to do in terms of working through this issue, but it does seem to me that she has identified an extremely important area of need, and one to which we should attend. So I thank her for bringing it to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague from Iowa, who will be offering an extremely important amendment dealing with the funding issue for the special needs education program. As he is gathering his papers, I want to say to our colleagues in the Senate that this legislation represents the best effort of our committee, which is truly bipartisan. I pay tribute to Senator Gregg, our chairman, for his leadership in helping bring all of the members together on this legislation. We virtually have a unanimous committee recommendation. We have a few public policy issues, which appropriately the Senate will address, and then we will move ahead. Many times around this institution we wonder how it functions and works. I think recognizing the extraordinary challenges that so many of these children are facing has sort of brought out the best of our Members. I thank our chairman, and I thank all of my colleagues on my side who took great interest and great involvement in this issue. I will go into greater detail as we go through the process. I always pay tribute to my friend and colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who has had a special leadership role in issues involving the disabled and handicapped since the time he has been in the Senate. I always thank him, as well as the rest of our colleagues. As we move through the course of the morning, we will have a more detailed description of what is in the legislation and the importance of the support of this institution.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield at least 7 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, my friend and colleague who has spent a great part of his life and career in the Senate on educational issues, and especially on this particular issue. It is important that we hear his voice. I yield 7 minutes--more time if he so desires.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have a number of other speakers. I yield myself 6 minutes. First of all, I congratulate the Senator from Iowa for his perseverance in ensuring that this issue would be brought to the floor of the Senate so the Senate can have an opportunity to vote on this very important question that makes an enormous difference to hundreds of thousands--millions--of our fellow citizens, primarily the parents but certainly the children who will also be affected. I commend him for his doggedness and perseverance in pursuing what is basically a fundamental civil right. The holdings by the courts of this country have said under the equal protection laws that these children need to have the kind of necessary and reasonable accommodation they are entitled to under our Federal Constitution; therefore, we have the responsibility to make sure they are going to be protected and they are going to receive these kinds of educational opportunities. As my good friend from Vermont pointed out, he has made special education one of his real priorities in this institution. Over the course of his very distinguished career, he has added immeasurably to the scope and understanding of the realization of the education for needy children with special needs in this country. But he remembers, as I do, when we were trying to provide--going back to 1965 when we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--some funding for special needs children. Over a period of years, we enhanced that funding to try to provide some help for special needs children. But all of that changed dramatically after we had the court decisions that interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to ensure that we were going to have to make sure children with special needs were going to be able to have educational opportunities. We passed the IDEA bill. What was the rational here in the U.S. Congress? What was the rational with the President at that particular time? It was a general recognition that to educate a special needs child, it was going to cost effectively double what it costs to normally educate a child in this country. It is going to cost double that--double of that in my State of Massachusetts. It varies slightly from different States, but, nonetheless, we recognized that it was going to be effectively doubled. That was the best estimate. That was the testimony cited. It was the judgment and the decision that the Congress was going to help and assist the States and local communities. We ensure over 80 percent of the funds provided in this program go to the local community. There is some money that can be retained at the State level in terms of training programs and coordination of various services, but this program was driven to the local level to help offset the additional burdens that taxpayers would have in local communities. As we all know, one of the extraordinary demands we have seen in small and large communities is when a family has a special needs child who takes the extra services. They go to those town meetings and we find out who is going to end up paying for those needs. In my own State, even with the IDEA, it only offsets 8 percent of the education program. We will come back to that later. However, it is only 8 percent. The greatest percent, 50 percent, is raised at the local level in local taxes. So we have services that will be necessary for special needs children, causing particular hardships on small communities because of these additional expenditures. When we fail in the Senate to provide that 40 percent, so often, particularly now when we have scarce resources, we see the kind of tension that is taking place between parents who have children who do not have disabilities and want to see the educational opportunities enhanced and those who have special needs and want to make sure their children are going to be covered. It brings enormous tension in local communities, neighbors struggling against neighbors. We made the judgment and decision in 1979 when we passed the first IDEA act. At that time, we were only covering 2 million of the disabled children. Generally, it was considered to be 4.5 million children. The States were covering 2 million children. There were 37 States that had IDEA-type legislation, but by and large, we were not providing help and assistance to these children, even though too often we saw the situation where these children were effectively being warehoused, pushed off into basements, pushed off into attics, pushed off into remote areas. The idea they were getting a benefit of any education defied the imagination. We decided we were going to encourage the States, and the way to encourage the States was to indicate that we at the national level were going to be in partnership with the States, and most importantly, in partnership with local communities. That is where this commitment lies, with the local communities, the local towns. They pay the greatest percent of this burden. We were going to work with those local communities to help offset the expenditures. We made a commitment that it was going to be 40 percent of that additional cost. That is the basis of the argument for the 40 percent-- why it is 40 percent and not 50 percent, why it was not 100 percent. We wanted to be a partner. This is what the decision was. That was a decision and a judgment relied on by States and by local communities all across this country. That is a commitment and pledge that has not been kept. As result of the fact we have not kept that commitment, local communities have been making up the difference and seeing their taxes rise to try to offset the challenges that local communities will face when they have special needs children. That is the issue we are trying to address today. Today, we know we are fulfilling 19 percent of the challenge. The Congressional Research Service says, under the President's program, the way the administration is going, it would never be reached with increases of $1 billion a year. It will never be reached. Senator Harkin and Senator Hagel have said we have committed ourselves to doing this. We ought to meet our responsibilities and provide these resources which are so necessary and can make such an important difference. With the legislation before the Senate, with all of the changes--and I will wait to go over those various changes made in the legislation, that we now will support and the contrast from 1997--we have brought this legislation up to where it can make an extraordinary difference, will make an extraordinary difference for those special needs children. Now, people can ask, Where are you going to get the resources and where are you going to get the money given the kinds of challenges we are facing? I just saw on the business page of the Washington Post, on Tuesday, May 4, ``The Federal Deficit Likely to Narrow by $100 Billion.'' That is this year alone. The Harkin amendment would take $2.2 billion out of that $100 billion that they expect this year over the other predictions. That is the responsible way. I will not take the time now to go through the favorable comments that those in the Treasury and the Budget Committee have made in terms of what they are expecting regarding the windfall. It is a matter of priority. It seems to me, if we will have a $100 billion windfall that will come over the course of the summer, we ought to be able to afford $2.2 billion to meet our responsibilities to local communities all across this country that are trying to meet their responsibilities to educate children who have special needs. That is the issue. I have great respect for my colleague and friend, the chairman of our committee. I am going to vote in favor of his amendment that will increase the authorization. If we increase the authorization, we are able to get the funding for that program, we would get to that 40 percent over a 7-year period, but, unfortunately, in terms of the authorization with the No Child Left Behind Act, we have seen what is actually appropriated and what is authorized are going in different directions. It seems to me, if we are serious in trying to meet the needs of special needs children, we have the ability with this legislation, which will make the greatest difference in the world to special needs children in this country, that understands the importance of early intervention, understands the importance of transition, has brought into place changes in terms of the discipline, brings in other kinds of agencies so they will involve themselves. It involves the local school community to a greater extent, with greater flexibility, but still has strong accountability. We have a very important piece of legislation. This can make an extraordinary difference. I hope our colleagues and friends will pay heed to the opportunities we have with the Harkin-Hagel amendment. It can make a very important difference. This is an obligation we have. We ought to meet the obligations we have made to families across this country. They are being hard pressed and particularly hard pressed now when many of the States are cutting back their support in terms of education funds. The burden is falling increasingly on these families. We have an opportunity. With this positive news that is coming, we ought to make sure we support the Harkin-Hagel amendment and meet our responsibilities to special needs children. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time is on the other side?

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take a moment to thank the Senator from New York for offering this amendment. She is quite right. This longitudinal study that will be done with regard to children's health will be the most important work outside the Academy of Sciences' work that will be done on the development of children's brains and what early intervention means, in terms of their educational capabilities. There are a lot of different factors such as bus fumes, asbestos in the schools, lead paint in the playgrounds, let alone lead paint in the walls. There are a series of different issues regarding mental health and a wide range of different areas affecting children and children's health. The fact the Department of Education was not included was a major oversight. The amendment of the Senator from New York addresses that. It is very welcome. It will make that study a much more comprehensive and accurate reflection of where children are in our society. I thank her for offering it. We all know that what happens during a child's early years can mean the difference between lifelong success and lifelong struggle. Good nutrition, a nurturing home, a healthy and safe neighborhood, and countless other factors provide children with the foundation from which they grow into a productive adulthood. But for too many children, the basic elements of a healthy start are missing. Children whose environments are lacking or even dangerous are at much higher risk of developing disabilities--disabilities that can be prevented if we understand more about the factors at play. That is why the Children's Health Act of 2000, and its study on child development, is so important. But, as the Senator from New York has pointed out, the study has a major flaw. It is incomplete because the Department of Education is not included as a partner and school experiences are not examined. This study cannot put together the puzzle of child development when this crucial piece of every child's life is missing. The Senator from New York's amendment puts the final piece into place. Including the Department of Education in this study is just common sense. School is a child's primary environment outside the home. From early childhood through adolescence, children spend a majority of their day in a classroom. In fact, the school environment may be even more important for children with disabilities. Most disabilities are diagnosed in school, and most special education services are provided there. What happens for disabled children in schools has a tremendous lasting effect. The Department of Education has data to share with the study's other partners that is critical to capturing every aspect of disabled children's development. When this data is being shared, the amendment is careful to protect children's educational privacy rights. The more we know about how a child's environment impacts developmental disorders, the more we can do to prevent them and ensure that all children grow to be healthy adults. This study, and the Department of Education's participation in it, will provide us with important information for years to come. I applaud the Senator from New York for her advocacy on this issue and on so many other issues concerning the health of our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeremy Buzzell and Sandra Licon, detailees on my staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on S. 1248, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in Senator Reed's office, Erica Swanson, be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on S. 1248.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us are pleased by Department of Labor reports showing that the economy has finally had two months of good job growth. It is welcome news. However, that news must be viewed as part of the overall economic picture. Job growth is still far behind what President Bush predicted when his tax cuts were enacted last summer--two million jobs behind. Employment in the manufacturing sector is still anemic. The pace at which American jobs are being shifted overseas is still accelerating. Working men and women in America are facing an economic crisis which threatens their job security and their families' well-being. Since the beginning of 2001, there has been a net loss of nearly two and a half million private sector jobs. In prior economic downturns, most of the job loss was the result of temporary layoffs. As the economy picked up, workers returned to their old jobs. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Economists tell us that most of the millions of jobs lost in the last three years are gone for good. With each job lost, a family is placed in jeopardy. We must look behind the statistics to the people who, through no fault of their own, are now facing hardship and uncertainty. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's response to these people has been weak and ineffective. Huge tax cuts heavily skewed to the wealthy, and rosy predictions that have consistently proven false. Long term unemployment has nearly tripled under President Bush. Unemployed workers remain without jobs longer than at any time in the last 20 years. Nor is there any basis to conclude that the hemorrhaging of jobs in the manufacturing sector is at an end. And the relatively small number of new jobs that are being created pay, on average, 21 percent less than the jobs that have been lost. The Republican strategy of tax breaks for the rich and platitudes for the public will not solve the ongoing economic crisis. We need new leaders who will give us a new economic plan. The so-called JOBS bill which the Senate is finally considering does not provide that new economic plan. Rather, it is a hodge-podge of unrelated and sometimes inconsistent provisions. Some of them-- principally the new deduction for domestic manufacturing and the extension of the research and development tax credit--will help to create jobs. However, there are many other provisions in the bill which could actually make the job loss worse. This legislation is really schizophrenic. On the one hand, it creates over $65 billion in new tax benefits for domestic manufacturers to help them maintain, and hopefully add, jobs here at home. On the other hand, it provides nearly $40 billion in new and expanded tax breaks for companies doing business abroad. Many of these international provisions will actually make the exporting of American jobs more financially attractive to multinational corporations. Providing assistance to domestic manufacturers is the right thing to do. We have lost more manufacturing jobs in the last three years than in the preceding twenty years--a net loss of nearly 3 million jobs since 2000. This is a genuine crisis for working families across America. They are looking to us for help, and we owe them a strong, unambiguous response. Unfortunately, the legislation as reported from the Finance Committee does not provide that strong, unambiguous response that American workers are looking for. It contains deep internal contradictions which will seriously hamper its effectiveness in preserving domestic manufacturing jobs. Providing more tax breaks for multinational corporations is the wrong thing to do. It's more than the loss of $40 billion in tax revenue that could be used for many better purposes that is troubling. What is most disturbing is the fact that many of these international provisions will actually encourage companies to shift even more American jobs to low wage countries. The international provisions should be removed from the bill, and the tax dollars saved should be used to increase the tax benefits for domestic manufacturing. It is outrageous that this bill proposes to expand the value of the foreign tax credits which multinational corporations receive. Under the legislation, these companies would pay even less in U.S. taxes on the profits they earn from their business abroad than they do today--$40 billion less. This will create further incentives for them to move jobs abroad, undermining the intent of the legislation. From the perspective of preserving American jobs, one of the worst features of corporate tax law is a special tax subsidy for multinationals known as ``deferral.'' If a U.S. company moves its operations abroad, it can defer paying U.S. taxes on the profits it makes overseas until the company chooses to send those profits back to America. In essence, it allows the corporation to decide when it will pay the taxes it owes to the U.S. Government. That is a luxury that companies making products and providing services here at home do not have. This is an enormous competitive advantage which the tax code gives to companies doing the wrong thing--eliminating American jobs--over companies doing the right thing--preserving jobs in the United States. We should be eliminating this special tax break for multinationals. Instead, this bill proposes to expand it. It makes changes in the deferral rules which will actually encourage companies to keep profits earned on foreign transactions abroad longer. As a result, the return of working capital to the U.S. will be delayed even further, and the payment of corporate taxes owed to the public Treasury will be postponed even longer. This legislation would extend from 5 years to 20 years the amount of time which a foreign tax credit can be carried forward. Often it is concern about losing foreign tax credits which leads a corporation to return foreign earned profits to the United States. By extending the carry forward period to 20 years, corporations will lose one of the strongest incentives to bring the money home. The bill also narrows what is known as Subpart F, which currently prevents the deferral of American taxation on the profits from certain types of passive investment income. It would change Subpart F to allow deferral of income from investment activities, such as commodity hedging transactions and aircraft and vessel leasing. The location of these activities can be easily manipulated for tax avoidance purposes. The bill also removes limitations on the use of foreign tax credits against the corporate alternative minimum tax, and allows companies to take advantage of foreign interest payments to make their foreign tax credits even larger. All of these provisions move the tax code further in the wrong direction, increasing the profitability of shifting jobs abroad. If enacted, these provisions greatly enhancing the value of foreign tax credits will inevitably lead to the export of more American jobs. That is not just my opinion. Let me cite a statement from the Finance Committee Democratic staff's analysis of the bill: [A] dollar of taxes paid today is more costly than a dollar paid next year. Thus, on a present value basis, deferral represents significant tax savings--and the savings are greater the longer taxes are deferred. Accordingly, as a general matter, the tax burden on investment abroad is lower than on identical investment in the United States in any case where the tax rate imposed by the foreign host government is lower than the U.S. tax rate on identical investment. As a consequence, deferral poses an incentive for U.S. firms to invest abroad in low-tax countries. Creating ``an incentive for U.S. firms to invest abroad in low-tax countries''--worth billions of dollars--just what we should not be doing, making an already bad situation for American workers worse! Not surprisingly, the proponents of this legislation all want to talk about the tax benefits it will provide for domestic manufacturers, helping them pressure American jobs. However, the multi-national tax breaks in Title II will seriously undercut that goal. They will cost jobs, reducing the net benefit that American workers receive from this bill. Our corporate tax laws should be rewritten to increase the cost of exporting jobs and decrease the cost of maintaining jobs in America. Title II does the opposite. These international provisions should be removed from the bill, and the tax dollars saved should be used to make the tax benefits for domestic manufacturing more robust. That would truly make this legislation a JOBS bill we could all be proud of.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the official dedication of the world War II Memorial approaches, I welcome this opportunity to honor the sacrifice of the courageous men who lost their lives close to home in a tragic accident in 1944, fourteen miles off the coast of Massachusetts during the war. Sixty years ago today, the 9-member crew of the Navy ship USS YF-415 and 21 men from the Hingham Ammunition Depot were disposing of condemned ammunition and explosives off the coast. Tragically, while performing their mission, the ordnance on the ship caught fire, setting off the ammunition for nearly 40 minutes. The ship and 17 lives were lost. The vessel lay on the ocean floor until the summer of 2003, when amateur divers discovered its remnants. They informed the Navy of the location, but too many years has passed, and the Navy salvage team was unable to find any trace of the missing men. Now as the Nation prepares to honor all who served our country so bravely during World War II, it is fitting on this day to remember the men who lost their lives in that tragedy 60 years ago. I express my deepest condolences to the family members who have suffered so long because of that tragedy so close to home and to all of us in Massachusetts. I would like to add the names of these men to the Record so that all may recognize their sacrifice: William J. Bradley, Adell Braxton, Joseph F. Burke, Raymond N. Carr, Truman S. Chittick, George M. Cook, James Cox, Jr., Freddie Edwards, Jr., F. E. Federle, James S. Griffin, Charles R. Harris, Raymond L. Henry, Julian Jackson, Yee M. Jin, Mike Peschunka, Vernon Smith, and James B. Turner.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to comment about the resolution that will be before the Senate. We will vote on it in a very short time. I support the resolution. The torture and other sadistic abuses of prisoners in Iraq have done immense damage already to America's reputation in the world, and the worst may be yet to come. Protection of the Iraqi people from the cruelty of Saddam had become one of the administration's last remaining rationalizations for going to war. All of the other trumped-up rationalizations have collapsed. Saddam was not on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. He had no persuasive link to Al-Qaida. He had nothing to do with 9/11. We have found no weapons of mass destruction. So it is human rights that the administration turned to in order to justify its decision to go to war. On December 24, 2003--the day Saddam was captured--President Bush said, ``For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.'' On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked: ``Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?'' Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management--U.S. management. Every day brings new photos, new horrors from the same prison and the same torture rooms that Saddam used to commit crimes against humanity. Today, it's the photo of a naked Iraqi man, his hands clasped behind his head in terror, facing snarling German shepherd dogs held on leashes by American soldiers. According to the New Yorker magazine, subsequent photos show the Iraqi man lying on the ground, writhing in pain, blood flowing from wounds on both his legs. President Bush has presided over America's steepest and deepest fall from grace in the history of our country. The tragedy unfolding in Iraq is the direct result of a colossal failure of leadership. We all agree that the guards and interrogators who committed these abuses at Abu Ghraib prison should be held accountable. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But the responsibility for these abuses does not lie with them alone. On Friday, the Armed Services Committee held its first public hearing on the abuses. Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers came to the hearing to tell us what had happened at the prison, but in several instances their answers were incomplete or misleading. Secretary Rumsfeld testified that the guards at the prison had received training on detention procedures and had been instructed to abide by the Geneva Conventions. Yet in the report on his investigation of such abuses last winter, General Taguba found that the soldiers involved were poorly trained to manage such operations. He found that neither the prison camp rules nor the provisions of the Geneva Conventions were posted in English or in the language of the detainees. Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers testified that the abuses at the prison lasted from October to December 2003. They said that the military leadership's first indication of trouble was when a low- ranking soldier came forward in January 2004. Yet, since the beginning of the war, the International Committee for the Red Cross had provided Pentagon officials with repeated reports of abuses at the prison. Some of these abuses, the Red Cross reported, were ``tantamount to torture.'' As early as May 2003, the Red Cross had sent Pentagon officials a memorandum describing more than 200 allegations of mistreatment during the capture and interrogation of Iraqi prisoners. In October 2003, the Red Cross inspected the Abu Ghraib prison, including the unit where the worse abuses at the prison occurred. They saw prisoners being held naked in cells and forced to wear women's underwear. They saw evidence of burns, bruises, and other injuries consistent with the serious abuses that the prisoners had alleged. After this October 2003 inspection, the Red Cross put officials at Abu Ghraib prison and at Central Command on notice that they were violating international humanitarian law. Yet October 2003 is when the military now says that the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison began, and that they didn't know anything was wrong until 3 months later. Clearly, the military leadership failed to respond properly to the reports and recommendations of the Red Cross. During 2003, both the State Department and the Coalition Provision Authority repeatedly appealed to top military officials to stop the mistreatment of military detainees. Secretary Powell himself raised this issue at cabinet meetings and elsewhere, pleading for proper care and treatment of detainees, but the Defense Department failed to act. The military leadership is also responsible for putting troops in charge of the prison who were not trained to do the job. They assigned too few soldiers to the prison than were required to do the job right. They relied on civilian contractors to perform military duties, including the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners. The military leadership failed to respond in a systemic way even after it had initiated 35 criminal investigators into the alleged mistreatment of detainees in both Iraq and Afghanistan; 25 of these investigations involved deaths. In December 2002, military doctors at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan ruled that two Afghan men in U.S. custody had died from ``blunt force injuries.'' No one in the military has been held accountable for these homicides. Since 9/11, top officials in the administration have shown an arrogant disregard for the protections of the Geneva Conventions in dealing with detainees. In January 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld was asked why he believes the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the detainees at Guantanamo. He replied that he did not have ``the slightest concern'' about their treatment in light of what had occurred on 9/11. In other words, they are terrorists, and torture is too good for them. The British magazine The Economist called his remarks ``unworthy of a nation which has cherished the rule of law from its very birth.'' It is clear that it is not enough for us merely to pass a resolution condemning the abuses. We need a full and independent investigation and fully accountability, including a comprehensive review of all detention and interrogation policies used by military and intelligence officials abroad, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and elsewhere. The American people and the Iraqi people deserve answers, and they deserve them quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for many of us, this is ``cover the uninsured week,'' but, for the administration, a better title would be ``ignore the uninsured week.'' Since the day it took office, this administration has ignored the worsening health care crisis that jeopardizes more and more families. Costs are out of control. The number of the uninsured is soaring. No family can be sure that the insurance that protects them today will be there for them tomorrow. And the Bush administration remains frozen in the ice of its own indifference. The number of people without insurance has grown by four million since President Bush took office--and he has done nothing. Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed by 43 percent--and he has done nothing. Prescription drug costs have exploded by 45 percent--and he has done nothing. Every day, employers shift more costs to employers or cancel coverage altogether. Every day more families are forced into bankruptcy because of high medical bills. And President Bush does nothing. Soaring health costs and declining insurance coverage harms the poor, but they are protected to some extent by Medicaid. It is the hardworking middle class who are victimized the most. More than 80 percent of the uninsured are in working families. Fourteen million have incomes of more than $50,000 a year. Seven million have incomes of more than $75,000 a year. No family is more than one pink slip or one employer decision away from being uninsured. That is wrong. You and I know it is wrong. And the American people know it is wrong. But President Bush refuses to do anything about it. The President has read the polls showing that the American people are concerned about health care, so he pretends that he cares. As in so many areas, he talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. He has done nothing. The steps he has proposed don't even deserve to be called tokenism. They actually take us in the wrong direction. They would be laughable, except that the health care crisis is no laughing matter for millions of American families. The President touts new tax breaks for the healthy and wealthy--as if the wealthy haven't already benefitted far too much from this administration's policies. The administration calls for health savings accounts--but for millions of Americans who need health care the most, the result will be thousands of dollars in higher premiums, not savings. The administration claims to offer refundable tax credits to help the low-income uninsured buy insurance. But those credits are inadequate to buy real coverage. Far from helping the uninsured, they would actually cause millions more to lose the good employer coverage they now enjoy. They are such a low priority for the President that he didn't even provide money to fund them in his own budget. The administration is proposing association health plans to lower costs for small business. But these plans are nothing more than a giveaway to trade associations that support the President, and they will raise premiums for more than 20 million workers according to CBO. The administration proposes a Federal cap on medical malpractice awards, and calls it cost control. But the idea that you can cut health care costs by denying fair compensation to severely injured patients is a cruel hoax. Some premiums are $100,000. When it comes to affordable health care for the American people, this administration is all talk and no action. It is compassionate conservatism without the compassion. President Bush and the Republican Congress won't make the tough decisions to bring costs down. They won't stand up to the drug companies that profit enormously from the status quo. They won't put the need for health care for American families ahead of the greed of wealthy campaign contributors. It's time for a change. Our colleague Senator John Kerry is proposing a plan to give health care the top priority it deserves. He believes that secure, affordable health care for hard-working families is more important than tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. His plan will provide health insurance coverage for 27 million people nearly two-thirds of the uninsured. He will cut costs for every family that pays an insurance premium. He will take on the drug companies, so that Americans can enjoy the same fair prices paid by Canadians and Europeans. He will give every American--every American--access to the same health care enjoyed by members of Congress at the same fair price they pay. He will be a health care President--and that is just what the doctor ordered for every family that needs and deserves quality, affordable health care. Every senior citizen now has health insurance through Medicare. But Medicare's guarantee of affordable health care remains unfulfilled, because Medicare does not cover the high cost of prescription drugs. Congress had a chance to provide a decent downpayment on prescription drug coverage last year, but President Bush and the Republican leadership hijacked that program. The Bush Medicare bill needs to be scrapped and replaced. It is a raw deal for senior citizens and a sweetheart deal for the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry. It is a triumph of right-wing ideology pretending to be positive reform. It is based on a flagrant deception reaching all the way to the top of the White House. The sorry story of this legislation is a prime example of the need for new and more effective leadership in the White House. The Republican Medicare bill lavishes Medicare money on subsidies to HMOs and other private insurance plans--$46 billion, according to the Medicare actuary. The goal is to undermine Medicare, make it no- competitive, and force senior citizens to join HMOs. The administration's bill was designed to benefit drug companies and insurance companies, not senior citizens. It is not a serious solution to the high cost of prescription drugs. Because of high premiums and high deductibles, 6 million senior citizens will actually pay more in premiums for the drug program than they will receive in benefits. Another 6 million--the poorest of the poor on Medicaid--will actually be forced to pay more for the drugs they need. Three million more retirees will lose the good private retirement coverage they now have, and will be forced into the inadequate new program. That is 15 million senior citizens who will actually pay more for prescription drugs under this bill than they would pay if the bill had never been enacted. Let me repeat that. Fifteen million senior citizens will actually pay more for prescription drugs than if this bill had never been enacted. Even for those who do benefit from the bill, the benefits are meager. Once your spending for drugs reaches $2,250, you fall into a hole where you receive no benefits at all until you spend $2,800 of your own funds. If you spend $500 a year today, you will pay more in premiums than you get back in benefits. If you spend $1,000, you will still pay 86 percent of the cost. If you spend $5,000, you will pay 78 percent of the costs. The bottom line is that in paying for the drugs you need, you will be better off on a bus to Canada than you will be under the Bush bill. A key reason the drug benefits are so inadequate under the Bush bill is that it fails to do anything to control the explosive growth in the cost of prescription drugs. Drug companies will reap at least $139 billion in windfall profits over the next 8 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, drug prices will actually rise faster, not more slowly, as a result of this bill. The Bush bill shouldn't be called the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement Act. It should be called the ``Profits for Drug Companies Improvement Act.'' The more senior citizens learn about the Medicare bill, the less they like it. The Bush administration has already squandered more than $20 million of senior citizens' own Medicare money on thinly disguised political advertisements for the Bush reelection campaign. These misleading and dishonest advertisements are intended to persuade the elderly that this lemon of a bill is actually lemonade. But senior citizens aren't accepting those ads, because they don't trust them. Now, the Bush administration is trying yet another disinformation campaign. Our part of the Medicare bill is a provision to license private companies to use the Medicare seal of approval to peddle discount cards to senior citizens. The administration is attempting to hype these discount cards to try to rehabilitate their failed Medicare bill. But senior citizens understand that these Medicare discount cards are a phony and ineffective solution to high drug prices--and every day brings a new embarrassment. The $18 million of senior citizens' own money that the Bush administration is spending to promote this program isn't persuading anyone. The administration set up a Web site to help senior citizens choose the cards that offer the biggest discounts in its ridiculously complicated program. But it turns out that many of the prices posted on the Web site are just plain wrong. The card companies blame the Bush administration, the administration blames the card companies, and senior citizens are left holding the bag. Studies by Families USA and the House Government Reform Committee prove what most analysts had said. The cards offer little or no savings compared to discount programs already available to senior citizens. Senior citizens will still be paying 50 percent more than Canadians pay and 50 percent more than the Government negotiates for the Veteran's administration and other Federal programs. The Bush administration tried to rescue their program with yet another study claiming to show that the cards really were a good deal. They claimed that the earlier study had not made a fair comparison in prices. So they prepared a new table and claimed savings ranging from 4 to 10 percent. But once again, the administration played fast and loose with the facts. The discount cards don't allow purchase of a 30-day supply of drugs. So the administration took the cost of a 90-day supply, divided it by 3 and compared the cost to a 30-day supply already available on the Internet. Once postage and handling costs for three orders are also included, one discount card offers essentially the same discount, one card is 22 percent more expensive, and two cards offer minimal savings of 4 percent and 6 percent, not counting the enrollment fee. Everyone understands that the real issue isn't small discounts from already inflated prices. The real issue is the Bush administration's unwillingness to take on the drug companies. It won't allow Americans to buy drugs at the much lower prices paid by foreigners. It refuses to allow the Government to use the purchasing power of 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate a fairer price. When the Bush administration first put out its flawed study, they inadvertently let the cat out of the bag. They included Canadian prices and the Federal Supply Schedule prices of the drugs. A few hours later, they released a ``corrected version'' that omitted the comparison, but the damage was obvious. Whether the issue is the real cost of their Medicare plan or the savings from their drug cards, the Bush administration has made deception a tactic and distortion a habit. The administration's hype won't fool senior citizens or the American people. It isn't fair for Americans to pay twice as much as foreigners pay for drugs made in America by American pharmaceutical companies. It is not right that the Bush administration is fighting to protect drug company profits instead of fighting for patients. It doesn't reflect American values that legislation designed to protect senior citizens should be turned into a bonanza for powerful Republican campaign contributors. It is wrong for this administration to continually distort the facts and deceive senior citizens. We need a president and a Congress who will stand up to the drug companies and insurance companies and stand up for senior citizens.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are in a period of what we call morning business. But we know when we go back to what is referred to as the JOBS bill we will be on the Cantwell amendment which is to extend unemployment compensation to workers who have worked hard over the course of their lives and contributed into the unemployment compensation fund, the fund that today is approximately $14 billion in surplus. The Cantwell amendment is about $5 billion and, if passed, would certainly ensure the funds would be retained in a very robust financial situation. It would help us address the fact there are 85,000 workers every single week who are losing their unemployment compensation funds. As a result of losing their compensation funds, they are hard pressed to pay for their mortgage, to continue to put food on the table, to pay for their utilities, the downpayment on their automobiles, and to continue to try to even be able to survive. Real Americans are hurting in many parts of the country, and it doesn't have to be this way. The Senator from Washington has tried to have this issue addressed in the Senate some 14 times over the period of the last 18 months. She was only once successful, and that was in February of this last year when a vote that was taken in the Senate showed 58 Members of the Senate agreed with the Senator's position. We have a lot of close votes around here; some are 50-49, and some are 51- 49. But when we have a vote that is 58-39, that demonstrates a strong bipartisan desire by the Members of this body to try to address the situation. It isn't only the Members of this body. There was another vote in the House of Representatives which was 227-179 for a similar proposal to provide help and assistance to those who are unemployed, who have worked hard and paid into the fund. When the unemployment compensation fund was established, the very purpose of the unemployment compensation fund was to provide in these kinds of circumstances. There are those who say we have seen and are seeing some significant changes in our economy and, therefore, this legislation is not necessary. Let me come back one more moment to address our procedural issue. Last week, on Thursday evening, when it finally became possible after the long week for the Senate to consider the Cantwell amendment on the unemployment compensation fund, we finally had that matter before the Senate. Our Republican leadership rushed to move off the JOBS bill and move into morning business where we have been for the last several days because they didn't want to address the issue of unemployment compensation. Then we find the situation where the majority leader files cloture because the Republican leadership does not want to permit the Senate to vote on this kind of help and assistance for workers-- basically middle-income families--to provide for themselves and their families, even though a broad majority of Republicans and Democrats favor it. They so fear, evidently, taking a vote on the issue of unemployment compensation that they say let us close out this amendment, prohibit Senator Cantwell from getting a vote, prohibit the Senate from voting up or down, let's end all debate on the underlying bill and cut off any future amendments as well, because under the order they will have to follow the cloture provisions because we do not want to risk having the Members of this body vote yea or nay on the issue of unemployment compensation. We are getting used to that by the leadership here. We see that similar technique followed when it comes to overtime, although with the persistence of my friend and colleague Senator Harkin, we were able to get an overtime vote. We saw an overwhelming majority of the Members of this body send a very clear message to the Bush administration to keep their hands off overtime payments for American workers. We have been trying to get an increase in the minimum wage for some 7 years, and we have been denied the opportunity to get an up-or-down vote and let the Senate speak its will. Clearly, there is a majority in this body who understand it has been 7 years since we provided an increase in the minimum wage. And certainly now is the time when so many of those proud men and women are working on the bottom rung, but, nonetheless, working and working hard--men and women, primarily women, women who have children, and men and women of color who want to be able to provide for their families, and this institution denies them an opportunity to get an up-or-down vote on minimum wage. They tried to ensure that we would not have to vote on unemployment compensation, then deny the Senate the opportunity to get a vote on the increase in the minimum wage, try to avoid a vote on overtime--all the issues that affect the economic conditions for working families and middle-income families in this country. As I have said many times, I don't know what these families have done to this administration or to the Republican Party that they should declare war upon them, but that is the result of their policies. I thought I would take a few moments of this time to review where we are in terms of the state of our economy because there may be those who believe because there has been an increase in the total number of jobs created, even though 40 percent of those created in the last report period of last week are basically low-income jobs. In the group announced in the earlier quarter, there was virtually no manufacturing jobs. These was the increase in low-wage jobs and the increase in the part-time jobs but not the kind of real growth which this country is familiar with when we come out of a recovery, which means good jobs, good benefits, good hope for the future, and a sense of hope for those workers and workers' families. These are April figures and do not include the latest of the May figures. In January of 2001, we had 6 million Americans who were unemployed. Now we have 8.2 million, 2.2 million more that were unemployed than we had 2 years ago. This is one of the most important charts because this shows the long- term employment is nearly triple. Those are the number of workers who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. These are record numbers from recent history of 20 years; 20 years since we have had this number of unemployed workers looking for jobs for longer than 26 weeks. Therefore, it reflects the fact we have many workers out there looking for jobs; they want to work and they are not able to find the jobs. That is understandable when we have 8.2 million unemployed Americans yet we have only 2.9 million job openings, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We have all these Americans looking for these jobs. I ask consent that I be allowed to speak as long as I desire to speak.

Mr. KENNEDY. So we have 8.2 million unemployed Americans looking for these job openings. Clearly, they are not going to be able to squeeze into that funnel. It will mean many millions are going to continue to be unemployed. That is what the Cantwell amendment addresses, those unemployed Americans who paid into that fund are losing their unemployment insurance, at the rate of over 85,000 a week. The next chart is interesting because it shows the growth in the last 3 years. This represents March of this year, and it goes back to March of 2001 where we had 3.3 million Americans with part-time jobs who were looking for full-time employment. That was in March of 2001 at the start of this administration. Now that is up to 4.6 million Americans in part-time jobs who want to have a full-time job. That is a great leap in terms of the unemployment numbers recently, the great numbers of those have been in the part-time jobs. As we know with part-time jobs, more often than not they do not get the health insurance, they are not given the overtime pay. Obviously, they are denied pensions and they are denied other protections which many full- time workers receive. Americans want to work, they will work, but they are not given the opportunity to work in our economy, which gets back again to the Cantwell amendment. If that is the circumstance, why aren't we willing to extend the unemployment compensation fund when we know the unemployment compensation fund is in surplus? The next chart indicates clearly that 40 percent of the jobs that are being created are in the low-wage and low-paying industries. This is what has happened in recent times. Even with the increase in the total numbers of jobs, these are basically low-paying jobs and part-time jobs. Only a handful of those in the last employment figures would be manufacturing. The next chart shows 43 States still have higher unemployment than when the recession began. With the exception of the 6 States in yellow, 43 States still have higher unemployment than when the recession began, which comes back to the basic rationale for the Cantwell amendment. We still have significant unemployment in great parts of this country of ours. People just cannot find other work. If that is the condition-- and it is the condition because this is the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures--then we have to ask ourselves, Why are we cutting off and have ended effectively providing help and assistance with unemployment compensation? It does not have to be this way. This chart is very instructive because it shows what a different administration did when we had economic challenges. This is in the early 1990s, coming out of the recession of the early 1990s. Under President Clinton, we saw the spiking of 2.9 million jobs. It took the spiking of up to 2.9 million before the administration terminated the extended unemployment compensation funds. They were facing significant unemployment. With Presidential leadership and with the support of a Democrat House and Senate--that is true; because we did not get a single Republican vote in the Senate or in the House of Representatives--President Clinton put that into effect. We had the longest period of economic growth, price stability and job expansion than we have had in the last century. Finally, they cut off the unemployment compensation after it reached 2.9 million. We have 2 million still unemployed and this administration has said, No way, to those workers and denied them unemployment compensation. This chart rebuts modern thinking about who is now suffering from the unemployment and who is not. The green line represents less than a high school degree and the red line signifies college graduate. It has been the belief that with more education, there is a greater and greater opportunity to get a job. Right? Wrong. It does not necessarily follow. It can follow but it does not necessarily follow. Over the period of the last year, we find those with college degrees are increasingly those who are affected with unemployment, even more so than those with less than a high school degree which, effectively, remains flat. What is happening is higher unemployment is moving into the middle income. This is going to college graduates--not those who just completed 1 year but those who completed college. The red line on the chart indicates they are the ones now who have college degrees. Yet they are increasingly unemployed. I bring back to the Senate this very important chart because it very clearly shows what is happening out there in Main Street America to the middle-income working families in this country. Over the period of the last 5 years, what we have seen--and we are looking now from 2000 to 2004--in the purchasing power of middle-income families is their income has gone down 2 percent. But the prices for their homes or rentals have gone up 17.8 percent; health care, 50 percent; tuition for their children, 35 percent; and utilities, 15 percent. You talk about the middle income having challenges holding on to their economic security, this is what is happening to them. Their income, in terms of purchasing power, has effectively been stable, but the costs which they have had to pay in health insurance, tuition, utilities, and home prices, let alone what has been happening in terms of their local taxes, have been going up, and they have been feeling the squeeze. Can you imagine families with these kinds of obligations and suddenly they do not have any income at all. The only lifeline they have is the unemployment compensation. They have paid into it, and they wonder if they are going to get it. The unemployment fund is in surplus, and the Republican leadership says: No, we are not going to let you have a vote. Finally, we should understand this very clearly about what has been happening on Wall Street. With the Wall Street recovery, the corporate profits have gone up in the last 3 years by some 37.5 percent. Yet the change in workers' wages, as this chart shows, is 1.5 percent; basically the same figures we had before. So this is what is happening. There are those who are doing very well, and there are those who are able to go through this period of time and have a great deal of financial security. But not middle-income working families; they have not been able to do so. And this institution is not helping them. We are not helping them with any kind of increase in the minimum wage. We do not help them with the unemployment compensation. We do not help them, although we did have a positive vote. The administration certainly did not help them on the issue of overtime. We have left out 9 million Americans when it comes to pensions, which leads me into another issue in terms of health care coverage, which is another issue for us to consider. What the Senator from Washington is attempting to do is to provide at least some temporary relief until the economy gets strong for those millions of Americans who are trying to make it, who worked hard and paid into the unemployment compensation fund so they will be able to meet the most basic and fundamental needs of their families. Without this relief, 85,000 American workers a week are losing their unemployment compensation. Surely we can do something about it. We have a surplus fund of in excess of $15 billion. So I would hope we would cease the obstruction of the Cantwell amendment and permit us to have a vote on the Cantwell amendment. We have had a clear majority of this body that wants to vote in favor of it. Yet we are being obstructed from being able to do that, as we have been obstructed by the Republican majority on the issue of the increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the American Lung Association as it prepares to celebrate its centennial anniversary on May 22. It is a remarkable milestone and the leaders and members of this impressive organization, past and present, deserve great credit for their continuing successful commitment to fight lung disease for the past 100 years. From its inception as a community-based organization formed to eradicate tuberculosis to its current initiatives to reduce smoking, improve environmental health, reduce asthma incidence, and support research on preventing and treating lung disease, the Association has been an extraordinary leader in public education and public advocacy. The American Lung Association early mission was to combat the growing public health threat of tuberculosis a century ago. Even in 1904, the association had the creativity and visionary thinking to develop the nation's first health campaign to deal with this threat. The association developed new ways to diagnose and treat the disease and prevent its spread. Through public outreach efforts, it brought the best available technology to communities throughout the United States. In fact, the association funded the research that led to the discovery of isoniazid in 1952, which was the first drug for children with the disease and is still widely used today. The American Lung Association has long had an indispensable role in controlling the spread of tuberculosis and preventing epidemics of this disease. The Nation is very grateful for its immense contributions to public health. In its long and distinguished history, the association has risen to the challenge of many other health threats. In 1960, the board of directors issued a policy statement warning that ``Cigarette smoking is a major cause of lung cancer.'' The statement came 4 years before the landmark ``Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health,'' and the association became an effective leader in the battle we are still waging to this day against smoking. The association had the skill and foresight to develop needed smoking cessation programs and youth smoking prevention programs, and it did so decades before the public and the Federal Government called for them. An additional high priority of the association today is reducing the heavy burden of asthma in our society. Based on its outstanding successes with tuberculosis and smoking cessation, I have no doubt that it will lead the way to make our environments safer for asthma sufferers. On this special anniversary, I commend the American Lung Association for a century of leadership in improving the health of millions of Americans every year, and I wish them great success in their important mission in the years ahead. Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, it is my tremendous honor to rise today to recognize a very special birthday. Over the last 100 years, the American Lung Association has distinguished itself in numerous and meaningful ways. It has made significant contributions to modern health science and has been a force for successful political action. Most importantly, the American Lung Association is responsible for saving millions of lives through its constant and dedicated efforts to educate the public to the dangers of lung disease and to promote both preventive care and treatment for this terrible illness. The American Lung Association has been especially active over the past 40 years in bringing the health concerns of smoking to the national policy agenda and aggressively promoting the principles behind the Clean Air Act in relation to pollution's effect on the human body and to those individuals with existing lung illnesses. Its work in the field of asthma is equally exemplary. The American Lung Association has pioneered research efforts to determine the causes and treatment of childhood and adult asthma, calling for needed funding and government support. It has also spearheaded efforts to teach children with asthma how to better manage their disease so as to reduce complications, hospitalizations, and in some cases, deaths. With the knowledge that lung disease is responsible for one in seven deaths annually, there is no doubt of the critical nature of the efforts of the American Lung Association. It is certainly appropriate that this body recognize this dedicated organization for a century of remarkable efforts to improve the health and lives of all Americans, and wish its members many more years of continued success. When they succeed, we all do indeed breathe easier.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Fitzgerald in introducing the Healthy Lifestyles Act. This important bill will give families greater access to practical information on nutrition and physical activity and enable Americans of all ages, especially the young, to live healthier, fitter, and longer lives. Two-thirds of our citizens are overweight. The cost of diseases associated with obesity has been estimated at $117 billion each year. Physical inactivity and unhealthy eating, the two primary causes, are responsible for at least 300,000 preventable deaths each year in the United States, and they increase the risk of many chronic diseases, including cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Environments that promote poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles are major causes of this public health epidemic. The numerous messages and advertisements from various sources about what and how much to eat have produced serious public confusion about good nutrition. Many citizens would like to be more active but live in ways that discourage exercise and vigorous lifestyles that involve walking, bicycling, or other similar activities. The Healthy Lifestyles Act is a major step in addressing these challenges. It establishes a partnership between the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institute of Medicine to conduct a comprehensive assessment of what is being done by whom on nutrition guidelines and education. The Institute of Medicine is eminently respected for its scientifically sound opinions on health issues. Its study will provide indispensable oversight for the development and dissemination of national nutrition guidelines, and an independent impartial source of nutrition information for the public. The legislation also supports community outreach programs to support healthy nutrition and physical activity. Communities will be able to conduct campaigns encouraging consumption of healthy foods, and after- school programs will be available to encourage exercise and good nutrition for children. Support will be available for each state for obesity prevention and control programs, to encourage coordinated ongoing efforts to enhance awareness of guidelines for healthy eating and activity. Finally, the legislation assures that the information will be widely available to the public and to health professionals. State-of-the-art curricula will be developed to educate and train professionals about nutrition education and counseling. The Healthy Lifestyles Act is only a first step in preventing unhealthy nutrition environments by ensuring consistency and high quality in dietary information, and improving physical activity in our communities. Working together we can halt this worsening public health epidemic. I commend Senator Fitzgerald for his leadership, and I urge our colleagues in Congress to support the Healthy Lifestyles Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Fitzgerald in introducing the Healthy Lifestyles Act. This important bill will give families greater access to practical information on nutrition and physical activity and enable Americans of all ages, especially the young, to live healthier, fitter, and longer lives. Two-thirds of our citizens are overweight. The cost of diseases associated with obesity has been estimated at $117 billion each year. Physical inactivity and unhealthy eating, the two primary causes, are responsible for at least 300,000 preventable deaths each year in the United States, and they increase the risk of many chronic diseases, including cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Environments that promote poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles are major causes of this public health epidemic. The numerous messages and advertisements from various sources about what and how much to eat have produced serious public confusion about good nutrition. Many citizens would like to be more active but live in ways that discourage exercise and vigorous lifestyles that involve walking, bicycling, or other similar activities. The Healthy Lifestyles Act is a major step in addressing these challenges. It establishes a partnership between the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institute of Medicine to conduct a comprehensive assessment of what is being done by whom on nutrition guidelines and education. The Institute of Medicine is eminently respected for its scientifically sound opinions on health issues. Its study will provide indispensable oversight for the development and dissemination of national nutrition guidelines, and an independent impartial source of nutrition information for the public. The legislation also supports community outreach programs to support healthy nutrition and physical activity. Communities will be able to conduct campaigns encouraging consumption of healthy foods, and after- school programs will be available to encourage exercise and good nutrition for children. Support will be available for each state for obesity prevention and control programs, to encourage coordinated ongoing efforts to enhance awareness of guidelines for healthy eating and activity. Finally, the legislation assures that the information will be widely available to the public and to health professionals. State-of-the-art curricula will be developed to educate and train professionals about nutrition education and counseling. The Healthy Lifestyles Act is only a first step in preventing unhealthy nutrition environments by ensuring consistency and high quality in dietary information, and improving physical activity in our communities. Working together we can halt this worsening public health epidemic. I commend Senator Fitzgerald for his leadership, and I urge our colleagues in Congress to support the Healthy Lifestyles Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Feingold and Senator Brownback and our colleagues for raising this issue not just on the floor of the Senate but also across our Nation, because it is an issue of enormous importance and consequence, as it should be for all Americans and for people all over the world. It has been 10 years since the Rwanda genocide. A decade ago, 8,000 Rwandans were being killed every day. Yet the international community was silent. We did not stop the deaths of 800,000 Tutsis and politically moderate Hutu, in spite of our commitment that genocide must never again darken the annals of human history. Sadly, we may now be repeating the same mistake in Sudan. Over the past few weeks, reports of severe ethnic violence have come from Darfur, a region of western Sudan. We have heard accounts of thousands or even tens of thousands of people murdered, of widespread rape, and of people's homes burned to the ground. The Sudanese government has refused to allow full access to western Sudan. International monitors and humanitarian workers have been prevented from reaching the area. We need immediate access to gather more information on what is happening and to provide urgent humanitarian relief to the one million people the United Nations reports have been displaced internally in Sudan or across the border to Chad. Many of us hoped that the humanitarian ceasefire and agreement earlier this month between the Sudanese government and rebel forces in western Sudan would end the many months of violence against entire communities. It has not. The burning of homes and crops of desperately poor villagers has left in its ashes a humanitarian disaster. Without immediate relief, experts predict deaths in the hundreds of thousands. The cruelty of the Government of Sudan and its paramilitary allies against other ethnic groups raises the very real specter of genocide. The United States and the international community need to act now, to stop this brutality, to save lives. If we fail to act--and to act now-- the consequences will be dire. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was eloquent in his statement at the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide. He said that he would not permit Darfur to become the first genocide of the 21st century. There will be discussion in Washington and around the world about whether the ethnic violence in Darfur is, in fact, genocide, but we cannot allow the debate over definitions obstruct our ability to act as soon as possible. It is a matter of the highest moral responsibility for each of us individually, for Congress, for the United States, and for the global community to do all we can to stop the violence against innocents in Darfur. We must act, because thousands of people's lives will be lost if we do not. I yield the floor.